How can a person realize that a particular thing doesn't bring "happiness" without personal experience? Buddha was, if I'm not mistaken, a privileged prince with money/health/a social life who realized that none of those things make you “happy” (or even content enough).

But how can, for example, somebody who has only known poverty all his life attain a true realization that money won’t make him “happy” without firsthand experience?

Or, how is this poor person to realize that money won't make him content when he is constantly bombarded with "evidence" of the opposite, after all, most people with more than their basic needs covered (I mean people of average economy, not the filthy rich) are content enough to not seek a means to end their "suffering".

The core teachings of the Buddha are universally applicable.

There is suffering. - Everyone knows suffering, rich and poor alike. The suffering of the poor may seem more obvious, but is there any doubt that the wealthy suffer mentally as well, regardless of their resources?
The cause of our suffering is our attachments. - The wealthy have more to be attached to, in fact.
There is a way to end suffering.
The way to end suffering is the practice of the Eightfold Noble Path.

We really only need to know that we suffer and that we seek relief from our own suffering. But it's a long path. If a person is convinced that money will end his or her suffering, they can give it a go; and then eventually realize that making money didn't end their suffering and pick up where they left off. That sort of thing probably happens a lot. My guess would be that many converts to Buddhism have found the teachings of the Buddha to resonate with them after having first tried other ways of finding happiness. It's because we try other ways of finding happiness first, and learn first hand that the things we thought would bring us happiness, didn't, that we can appreciate the wisdom of the Buddha's teaching.


Did Nāgārjuna describe features of the Fourier transform? The Fourier transform describes how to transform between cyclic and non cyclic. Did Nāgārjuna describe this already several centuries before Fourier as described in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20?
A full translation to western terms is

25:19–20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ
There is nothing whatsoever of the cyclic distinguishing (it) from the non cyclic.
ननिर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19
There is nothing whatsoever of the non cyclic distinguishing it from the cyclic.
निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of the non cyclic and the limit of the cyclic;
न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.

Nāgārjuna was not a mathematician; he was an eminent buddhist philosopher. That is certainly enough, don't you think?
There is an interesting parallel here, perhaps — maybe even a useful analogy, though one that would only be meaningful to people who understand Fourier transforms — but that's all. The claim inside the question asked is mere puffery (great word, puffery), but if we puff Nāgārjuna up with undeserved praise we deflate that which he actually deserves praise for.
A thousand people can all look at the same thing and describe it in a thousand different ways. Laozi described it centuries before Nāgārjuna, but we wouldn't give Laozi credit for Nāgārjuna's vision, and we shouldn't give Nāgārjuna credit for Fourier's vision.


Is appropriate to mentally talk to myself during meditation? Let’s suppose the primary object of my meditation is breathing. I usually just notice the exact point where my breath touch my nostrils and in my mind without words I just acknowledge this finding without words.

Now I wonder if, instead of just realizing it, I can also use words and short sentences in my mind like “the air touch there”.

I was reading about a vipassana technique call “noting”. If I understand it correctly when my mind drift to a secondary object I can just mentally talk to myself that I notice it and go back to the primary object.

I am curious if the same could apply to the primary object. I mean if whenever I notice something about the primary object I can tell about it to myself with mental words.

Everything I've heard suggests that this is OK, though it's not ideal. Ideal meditation would be stillness without interruption of thoughts; handling words in the mind requires thought.

I recall an Audio Dharma podcast where it was suggested that if you must do this, try to keep the words as brief as possible "In breath." "Out breath." That sort of thing. :-)


How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively do so about rebirth? How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively -- non literal -- not what is ordinarily meant -- do so about rebirth? They surely cannot believe rebirth is literal, so what exactly is it?
An answer from any perspective would be most welcome.

Among these Buddhists, however, this has led to the rejection not of
non-self but of rebirth. (Historically this response was not unknown
among East Asian Buddhists, and it is not rare among Western Buddhists
today.) The evidence that the Buddha himself accepted rebirth and
karma seems quite strong, however... this sort of ‘noble lie’ justification for the Buddha teaching a doctrine he does not accept fails in the face of the evidence that he also taught it to quite advanced monastics

Emphasis added
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#KarReb
So I'm not asking what the Buddha thought - we don't actually know - or any specific historical Buddhists. I am just seeking clarity on how you think of rebirth without literal karma^ , pretty uninterested in its psychological / self justification aspect, thanks.
^

a causal relationship between action (karma) and ‘fruit’ (phala), the
latter being an experience of pleasure, pain or indifference for the
agent of the action

I think of karma, seeds of karma, and fruits of karma as individual's action, latent effects of such action, and individual experience resulting from past action, correspondingly. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.
I think of rebirth as a type of karmic process that spans multiple lifetimes. An action is performed in one life, its seeds remain latent after death, then in another life the effects of those actions influence, shape, and configure individual's background, environment, and therefore personality, in a certain way. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.


Need advice on how to handle my emotions Tell you the truth, I joined Buddhism in search of peace and harmony. Not because I have mental issues. It is about admitting what I see and feel. I am not that much aware of stuff, but sometimes I aspire to be Buddhist; at other times, I am very emotional. At times I cry because the world is not aware of the basic values of humanity. When I choose to go to the Buddha for refuge, my family thinks that I am a psycho.. When I see others losing human morals, I suffer! Today I feel a bit better than yesterday, but when I look at myself during meditation, I feel like a person who suffers. It is not at all that I am different or I am trying to be different. I want to know the reason for this according to Buddhism?

Every unenlightened person has metal issues. The reasons are the defilements: craving, aversion and ignorance.

I would recommend doing Vipassana meditation in your daily life:

If you dislike something or someone's behavior, simply note it as 'disliking', 'disliking', 'disliking...' before it gets to crying. If you are too slow and already started crying, simply note it as 'crying','crying','crying...' instead of thinking while crying.

If you want the world to be in a certain way or want others behave to your liking or to think about you in a certain way, simply note it as 'wanting', 'wanting', 'wanting...'

Don't drop the ball no matter how tough or exciting it gets! Simply keep noting.

For more instructions: http://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/


What is the meaning behind the concept of "gods" in Buddhism? This is a question solely addressed to those practitioners who state that any reference to 'gods' in the buddhist suttas/sutras is some kind of metaphor for something other than the kind of gods of other religions (i.e. gods that exist  independently of the belief in them, although subject to conditionality). It does not matter the tradition the user may be following.
In your understanding, what does "god" mean?
In what other words could "a god" be explained?
What processes or phenomena are they trying to convey?
I'd also appreciate if you quote any canonical source, discourse or teaching of other masters that could support any claim made.
Thanks in advance for your time and effort.

In his commentary of MN 49, Ven. Thanissaro wrote:

It is a play on the word brahma, which is not only a noun denoting the
highest levels of devas, but also an adjective meaning "of great or
high power."

MN 49 is entitled the "Brahma invitation", so Ven. Thanissaro says that it means firstly an invitation by the Brahma, but it also means (through a word play) an invitation of great power or high power, which is an invitation by the Buddha to Mara (the personification of the temptation of sensual enjoyments and becoming) to refute the Buddha's claim that he has put an end to becoming once and for all.
An allegorical use of the term "Brahma" can be seen elsewhere. For e.g. parents are like the "Brahma" to their children in Iti 106 and the Buddha himself is like the "Brahma" to his disciples in Iti 100, who are "born from his mouth".
In Iti 112, we see the statement "he set the Brahma-wheel going". What is Brahma wheel? Ven. Thanissaro comments that it refers to the Dhamma wheel of SN 56.11:

The Brahma-wheel = the Dhamma-wheel, the name of the Buddha's first
sermon, so called because it contains a "wheel" that lists all twelve
permutations of two sets of variables: the four noble truths — stress,
its origination, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation —
and the three levels of knowledge appropriate to each truth: knowledge
of the truth, knowledge of the task appropriate to the truth, and
knowledge that the task has been completed. This wheel constitutes the
Buddha's most central teaching.

Here, calling the Dhamma wheel "Brahma wheel" denotes that it is the Great Wheel.
The most interesting use of this phrase comes in Iti 68:

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,
Brahma-become,
awakened, Tathagata,
one for whom fear & hostility
are past,
one who's abandoned
the All.

Here's the Pali version from here:

“Yassa rāgo ca doso ca,
avijjā ca virājitā;
Taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ,
brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ;
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ,
āhu sabbappahāyinan”ti.

So the Tathagata is awakened (buddham) and became Brahma (brahmabhūtaṃ).
In other words, he became great, like a god to us.
Returning back to MN 49, the opening verse states:

Now on that occasion an evil viewpoint had arisen to Baka-Brahma:
'This is constant. This is permanent. This is eternal. This is total.
This is not subject to falling away — for this does not take birth,
does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear. And
there is no other, higher escape.'

Ven. Thanissaro's footnote reads:

Baka Brahma here appears to be referring both to his Brahma world and
to the state of mind that enables one to inhabit his Brahma world.

So, this points to Brahma as referring to states of mind and being (or becoming - bhava) which are of great and high power.
The sutta shows that such a mind state and state of being is not permanent or eternal, and there are even higher states of mind and being.
So, we can say that this is the "subtle" interpretation of Brahma.


Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings? Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?

I do not, I suppose, mean because the "bodhisattva" enjoys life. I am trying to ask about "compassion" for some group or even individual, if that is possible?

I don't mind if the answer ignores the alledged universality of Buddha-nature, but would prefer if it was from that perspective.

first karuna is not compassion. the pali word for compassion is anukampam.

second the buddha does not even claim he reached nibanna out of karuna, nor out of anukampam. The buddha claims that he taught out of anukampam though.


How does one practice to develop super-mundane powers through meditation? I have heard rumors of this happening and am curious if there is anything (especially textually according to the canon) on what practices may lead to this as i would like to see for myself if it is true or not. Please include references.

An example being ESP or other psychic phenomena.

Yes i know it is beside the point of practice and telling me that is not an answer to my question. Neither is the cop-out of "inappropriate question" so please refrain from posting such opinions!

Part of Daniel Ingram's "thing" is to speak more openly and frankly about this kind of topic than "traditional" Buddhists are sometimes willing to do. So you could have a look at his "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha" which I think mentions some of these phenomena. Also, the site he started, dharmaoverground.org has an entire sub-forum dedicated to discussion of such things. Here's Ingram himself in that sub-forum.

I have to add, for completeness -- and I'm not criticizing your question -- that I personally look on all that stuff askance. I'm not saying it's not real (although the meaning of the word "real" seems to take a bit of a beating on those discussions), but it's not why I got and remain interested in Buddhism.


How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism? How do we better determine when it is time to use logic and reason and when it is a time to just see things as they are?

Note: We don't have to disclose the specific kind of meditation that we practice but it might make our answers less ambiguous -metta

It depends on what you want to abandon or negate. In general, there are two ways of negating (or abandoning) an object of negation.

We oppose an affliction by way of generating a mind that is its opposite. For instance, a mind of love opposes a mind of anger... the virtuous intention to give (generosity) opposes miserliness... the wisdom of emptiness opposes ignorance (that is the mistaken conception of inherent existence)
We negate a non-existent object of negation by way of logic. For instance, we refute inherent existence  by way of applying logic, such as the reasoning of the diamond sliver, that of dependent-arising, etc.

Things are "organic" however. You can very well analyze death and impermanence so as to generate a consciousness in the entity of non-attachment, or of non-desire, or of renunciation, etc. According to Pabongka Rinpoche, once the mind of non-attachment has arisen (for instance), because it has found its way there through reasoning (and through paying attentions to things we usually overlook), there is no more need to apply logic anymore. We apply logic to find our way there again, and that way becomes easier to find every time we take it. Reasoning is just a means.

The reason we become angry without planning, "In five minutes, I will get angry" is that we are accustomed to it. We got there so many times in the past that our mind "naturally" takes the same course and find its way there again and again. When we are angry, even when we try to think "It's ridiculous and I am just telling myself stories, I am projecting, etc." we tend to think "Yes, but still... I have my reasons to be angry!" And we find ourselves reasons to be unhappy, we just feed it. The way we look at things and what we look at when we are angry are determined by anger. So, there is a need to apply logic to oppose this story telling by telling ourselves a story that is concordant with reality.

We have to do that until, one day, there will be no more need because loving kindness, compassion, generosity, etc. will manifest as naturally and effortlessly as our breathing goes. We will no longer get in our own way by thinking in a manner that lead us towards non-virtue.


Non duality - does it quash ambition? If you have fully  '" arrived" at non duality is there a threat that you won't have ambition? Isn't ambition a driving force in human life ?

Good question. There are several schools of thought here.

According to one, attainment of nonduality does leave the person with nothing else to be done. No goals, no ambitions.

What follows from this is an idea that before a student is introduced to nonduality, they must be first taught discipline and a high-drive attitude, so by the time they attain non-duality, they develop a habit of being strong. A kind of prophylactics against the nondual depression, we could say.

According to another school, even though there is a clear realization that in nonduality no goals make absolute sense, relatively speaking some things are still locally "better" than others, so some local goals may still make relative sense. In this context, if someone has eyes to see local problems, they will remain motivated even if globally nothing makes sense.

Finally, according to my teacher, having goals post-enlightenment is more like playing Make-Believe. One doesn't actually buy into these things, so it's not like a true (blind) ambition. But an enlightened being may act as if they were seriously engaged with something, more for the sake of others, and even for an enlightened kind of "fun", than out of greed to achieve anything.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism, they define Enlightenment as "union of wisdom and compassion" for this very reason. Wisdom refers to realization of emptiness or nonduality, which sees that both suffering and so-called sentient beings are empty. Compassion is seeing that, however empty, the experience of suffering is rather painful -- hence the drive (=ambition?) to help out.


Please explain when and where to use the terms Theravada and Hinayana I understand that Hinayana as a term is generally pejorative when referring to Theravadin practitioners. Where is the use of the term Hinayana proper, and why is it still used if it's considered offensive to Theravadin practitioners?

I believe that the term Hinayana is mainly used in the context of displaying "faulty" logic by earlier schools of Buddhist philosophy than the Madhyamikas. Can you say more about this?

The term Hinayana's usage is confused at best. It's mostly used now as a synonym for Theravada along with some other early Buddhist schools, but some people think Theravada needs to be specifically excluded from that group. From Pali Buddhism, Hoffman/Mahinda:

  It has been a repeated mistake to identify Hinayana with Theravada.
  But at this juncture the denial of the absolute and independent dharmas itself
  testifies to the fact that Theravada is neither Yogacara nor Hinayana.
  Some scholars continue to make the mistake of identifying Hinayana with Theravada.
  The Theravadins themselves never call their religion "Hinayana."
  Therefore, it is inappropriate for anyone to dub them with derogatory names.
  A few Buddhist schools, such as Sarvastivadins, claimed the existence of
  independent dharmas and mainted the pluralistic realism in the early history of Buddhism.
  Theravadins were not among them.
  All in all, Theravada is not Hinayana, and Hinayana is not Theravada;
  therefore, the criticism of Hinayana does not fall upon the Theravada.

I think the idea here being that the term Hinayana arose as a point of doctrinal criticism, one which Theravada did not practice, so it's not valid to use here.

But somehow I'm willing to bet no one but scholars views the term Hinayana so narrowly within its historical context. I think the term has evolved past its original scope.

Hinayana is mentioned in Robinson/Johson's The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction:

  At any rate, because Buddhist monastics were wandering the length and breadth of India,
  the anti-Abhidharma partisans eventually joined forces with the new Buddhist savior cults and other like-minded
  factions to grow into a widespread movement calling itself the Mahayana
  (the Great Course or Great Vehicle--yana: a going, a course, a journey; a vehicle).

  This was in contrast to the Hinayana (the Inferior Course),
  the new movement's pejorative term for those conservatives who did not accept the new doctrines as truly Buddhist.
  Because the conservatives answered the Mahayana propaganda largely with silence,
  they did not adopt any name for themselves as compared with Mahayana.
  Consequently, modern scholars have given them the name their adversaries gave them, Hinayana,
  although without implying any deprecation.

  Modern Theravadins do not like being called Hinayanists--who would?--but
  there is no other current term that designates the whole set of schools that arose between the first and the
  fourth centuries after the Parinirvana and continued after the rise of Mahayana.
  The term Nikaya Buddhism, for instance, accurately applies to these schools before the rise of Mahayana,
  but not after, as Mahayana formed a subgroup within each of them.
  Continued usage of the name Hinayana may expunge all derogatory connotations of the term.
  Quaker, Mormon, and even Christian similarly started out as labels sarcastically attached by outsiders.

I feel it's probably true that only some portion of the people throwing around the term Hinayana actually intend it to cause damage, the rest use it because what other term could you use? You can't just use "Theravada" for everything non-Mahayana and non-Vajrayana.

I find myself coming around to the view expressed at the end, of viewing the term without the derogatory baggage.

Because people often translate Hinayana as "inferior" vehicle, and of course that was the original intent, but I believe it literally means "smaller", which doesn't have to be an insult. The Buddha's concern in the Pali Canon does seem to be individuals, personal action and personal liberation from suffering, not the grand salvation of the universe, extraterrestrial Buddha fields, cosmic Buddhas, etc.

It is indeed a smaller vehicle by comparison.


Reincarnation of a Sotapanna person (Stream Enterer) When the life of a Sotapanna ends, let's say he/she reincarnates as a human.

Does that mean, the reincarnated is capable of demonstrating the qualities of a Sotapanna since a very young age?

Or, does it take years of practice (again) to regain Sotapanna qualities ?

And how long roughly does it take ?

And is there anyway to tell if a kid attained Sotapanna in his/her past life ?

I'm answering this with some experience I know similar to this.

It's says that 7years is the minimum age that it would take to understand Dhamma. I haven't seen a reference for this but it is said by many people. An example for this is prince Rahula become a monk when he was at age of 7years.

Anyway according to some stories I've heard present day, They no need to practice anything, they them selves starts to realise that there's a problem in the things they do. That's because they have the right view. So that right view starts to conflict with the view of the other people (puthujjana). So with their understanding they have started to search for Dhamma. And they have come and stopped at some monks. And these monks' view is not accepted by the majority of the people (same as in this forum). But those stream entrants people say that it is what they have looked for.

  How long does it take?

Can't give an exact answer to that. But as mentioned earlier it's said that minimum age is 7. With the experience it can go up to 20, 30 as well.

Only way to tell about past life is through pubbe-nivās-ānussati-ñāṇā (which is used to see the past lives) which can be obtained by meditation, or by asking buddha. But a rough idea can be get by asking the right view

With metta..!


A limit of right speech At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech?

"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord."

Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts.

I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech?

I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?

From Abhaya sutta:

  [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  [2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

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

  [4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html

This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. Timing becomes a factor.

What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing & agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose.


A better translation of four elements In English translation, the four elements are translated as

Earth
Fire
Air
Water

Instead, if they are translated as below

solidity - the state of being solid with hardness and softness.
Heat - the state of getting heat with hot and cold both identified as heat.
Force - the state of pushing and pulling, or state of supporting and pushing
Liquidity - the state of coagulating and flow or dripping

I am not a language expert but after studying four elements in Buddha's teachings and tipitaka the latter definitions seems more appropriate than Earth, Fire, Air and Water which have ambiguous meanings or are of less comprehensible.

Is it possible that we can have better English translation for Four elements since Earth, Fire, Air and Water seems limited in sense? What could be the better translation to understand the nature, characteristics and two opposite edges of four elements?

I don't think that's necessary.  At once, they're both metaphorical descriptions and literal representations.  E.g. earth implies solidity, but at the same time it can have the literal characteristics of the element as with the earth kasina being composed of clay.


Sunyata and Void. How can be the void without a super consciousness? Vedantist calls it Sunya or Sunyata. Buddhists calls it Void .
If you once perceive that voidness , is “something”.
They both get inside there and return back, saying that was Samadhi.
How can be Samadhi without Consciousness , isn’t it like susupti or just artificial?

The Void is sometimes implied differently than other times
in English. Existential descriptioning isn't English's long suit.
Maybe Zen/ Chan discussions of the concept are generally more prominent
overall.
Confusion etc isn't The Void.
In The True Void 'is' Reality. There isn't confusion.
There isn't dukkha. There isn't cloudiness.
There isn't any illusion. There isn't delusion.
In The Void there is nonmisinterpretation.
Attempts to define The Void tend to be circular or inaccurate.
The description of going into it or something isn't vague enough.
The question does a quite good job of nonpigeonholing of it.
Maybe lost something in translation: maybe more at
based on reasonableness, logic is very limited by concrete
things available for its processes & sometimes either cannot conclude
because of insufficient information etc, or comes up with
rather nonsensible conclusions because of the data available.
Buddhism provides guidelines for addressing things which
haven't necessarily become data yet, and how previously
unencountered data can be reasonably addressed. Reasonable
consideration may be more effective than logic only.
The Void mightn't be so like a temporary journey to
someplace or other, real or existential, etc, as cited in the
question. Maybe very nice spots, but they aren't descriptions of
The True Void. Those sound more like heavens or something.
And may be Impermanent.
Consciousnesses arent really so much part of The Void,
consciousnesses are more at heavens etc.
Logical typical word description doesnt do so well with
trying to describe The Void. Despite many people writing books
about it, giving things names etc, The Void is different from
names or groups of words and most reference points. So
fundamental description of The Void which uses words would tend
to be circular/ misleading.
Some things can 'be' without being grounded in ordinary descriptioning.
That's sort of the answer to the question, in language. Which is a very
Good & nicely asked question.


What is the meaning of Pali word "Apannaka" his question is based on the sutta translation of MN60.

What is the Pali translation of “apannaka”

https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato

Ven. Sujato translate it as “guaranteed”

Bhikkhu Bodi translate it as “incontrovertible truth”

I.B Horner translate it as “the sure”

Ven. Thanissaro translates it as “Safe Bet”

When I read the Sutta, my understanding is that the meaning is very close to the word “safe bet” even though the gambling is very un Buddhist. Perhaps I would say “safe action”

It obviously cannot be "guaranteed" because the moral realm is never guaranteed; per MN 136, MN 117, etc. Regardless of what "apaṇṇaka" means; I think a "safe bet" is the most accurate meaning, based on Dhamma principles. The idea of "incontrovertible" appears to slander the Dhamma.

For example, moral people who hold the follow view can still suffering when their mother & father die because they still believe in mother & father:

  ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed;
  there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world
  and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who
  are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and
  brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge
  and declare this world and the other world.’

MN 117, a later addition, written by an arahant, properly says the above is non-noble defiled right view siding with merit & not siding with liberation. MN 117 was required to be written to straighten out other later additions, such as MN 60, which falsely say worldly right view has guaranteed results.


Change and decay of one's own body. How fast is it? We all know that we get sick and get old but i have heard that "Abhidhamma" talks about a faster version of decay and change.As i have heard there is a change that is happening every fraction of a second but we are unable to recognize it with our senses.

Does anyone have knowledge to share about this?

And how can we use this to our personal practice?

With vipassanā-ñāṇa you can recognise this change perhaps not to the clarity as in the Abhidhamma.

In p 39 of Process of Conciousness and Matter by (Aggamahāpaṇḍita) Bhaddanta Dr. Rewata Dhamma (Writen as a supplement to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma), gives an idea at what rate phenomena arises and passes away.

For personal practice if will be sufficient recognise:

Arising
Passing
Change, i.e., what has arisen is what has not arisen before

Also see my other answer on similar subject matter: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12392/295

Following two articles by Piya Tan might be of interest:

Dhamma and Abhidhamma
The Radiant Mind


Which of the five hindrance does 'comparison' fall in? Which of the five hindrances does 'comparison' come under? I mean when the mind starts chattering, "he is better than me, he succeeded where I failed, he got this and I got nothing, he got better of me" etc etc. I don't have ill-will or hate or resentment towards the person, just plain comparison.
And, how to get over this hindrance? I try to develop mudita (empathic joy) but does not find that enough. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Specifically "comparison" sounds to me like (i.e. it reminds me of the doctrine about) one of the 'fetters', i.e. "conceit" -- see this answer -- then see also this Wikipedia.
I think the opposite of mudita is meant to be "envy" -- so see issā where that's identified as one of the "unwholesome mental factors" etc.

As for getting over it, it reminds me of this,  quoting from A Still Forest Pool -- Lessons in the Forest

A Western monk at WatBa Pong became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the detailed and seemingly arbitrary rules of conduct the monks had to follow. He began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chah's teaching. At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.
Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

Re. Ajahn Chah's laughing, thoughts like "he got this and I got nothing" doesn't seem to me the kind of mental habit that a forest monk has trained towards.
The suttas say -- and Ajahn Chah too says, in this quote -- that Buddhism is more about "letting go", rather than about "acquiring".
This article Letting go reminds me that among the first training recommended for a layperson might be acts of generosity or dana.
I think the Pali word that's translated as "letting go" is vossagga, and that it's identified as instrumental in initial stages of meditation.
Perhaps that -- i.e. renunciation, abandonment, detachment as a practice/training/choice -- is a reason why living as a Buddhist monk might be considered right and skilful (c.f. your recent question about "advantageous").


Buddhism vs. Nature and Real World I'm not very experienced in Buddhism but while reading some articles and few books about it I wonder about one key thing..

If I am not mistaken, the compassion with other species is one of the key pillar of Buddhism. It teaches us that everything is relative and feeling the compassion with others can help us from the anger and so on (perhaps it's very vague claim and I know there's much more to add but to keep this question brief..)

I really do like the idea however I'm "lost" when it comes to confrontation with laws of nature. Biologically, the human is just an animal. Everyone is trying to survive. The stronger eats weaker (we see it in nature every day and every second - tigers, sharks..everyone just hunts for weaker in order to feed itself and survive). I mean - where is the compassion here?

When I look around and think of the nature I can't help my self but - it's brutal. For example, what about an elephant stepping over the mouse without even realizing it just killed the poor mouse? Or bird mommy flying out of the nest to find some food for the young ones and getting caught by cat? The young birds will die brutally by hunger..and nature has millions such examples every day. Technically, the mouse will die because it wasn't strong/fast enough to escape. The same for those birds. That's how nature gets rid of the weaker ones. It's brutal. The morality and ethics teaches us to value the life while in fact the nature seems to possess no value for life.

These days, we, the humans can simply call a pizza service and feed ourself. It is the science and technology allowing us to survive the harsh conditions. The development of our civilization. But the core is the same - the struggle for survival where the compassion doesn't really help much. How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me?

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this question doesn't have any sense. But still - I'd like to ask you - does the Buddhism say anything on this topic?

Samsara can be quite brutal and there is suffering. The Buddha acknowledged this in the First Noble Truth. And his last words urged his disciples to strive on with diligence toward their enlightenment. Only through Nibbanna will one escape the suffering of Samsara.

Nature is full of examples of suffering such as you detailed. The animals involved have no evil intentions. They simply eat to stay alive. This is why humans are so very fortunate. We generally don't have to live such a brutal life and we can think things through and form intentions and take actions with as much wisdom and compassion as we possess. This is a blessing.

Treating all beings with metta (loving kindness) creates peace in one's mind. Treating other beings with cruelty creates conflict and discord in one's mind. One is clearly better than the other for living a peaceful life and for creating better conditions for one's meditation and eventual enlightenment.

A sutta which explains this idea of taking care of others by taking care of yourself is the Sedaka Sutta. SN47


Is reflecting upon a choir conducive to the path of Enlightenment? A few years ago, I read in the introduction of a Spirituality book about this story of Gautam Buddha. I've forgotten the name of the book, but this poetry has stuck in my memory for ever. The story goes something like this:

The young prince Siddhartha is sitting in the garden, having felt disgusted by the vanity of the celebrations going on in the palace. That's when he hears a group of celestial beings passing by singing melodious choirs:

  We Know not whence we come,
  nor where we float away
  Time and again, we tread this round, of smiles and tears
  In vain we pine to know
  whither our pathway leads
  And why we play this empty play

Each time I remember or reflect upon this choir, I get a profound feeling of anicca. I know that even thinking about this is also a sign of attachment, as even those thoughts are impermanent. But is it wrong to get energized or inspired by a choir, even if the inspiration is towards the path of enlightenment?

As a side note, has such an anecdote really happened with Gautam Buddha? Is there such a mention in any suttas?

"But is it wrong to get energized or inspired by a choir, even if the inspiration is towards the path of enlightenment?"

In principle, I don't think so. It's quite reasonable actually to regard the verses in the suttas having that precise purpose (otherwise, why write in verses?). Additionally, many traditions do chanting.

"I know that even thinking about this is also a sign of attachment, as even those thoughts are impermanent."

Not necessarily. Inspiration does not entail craving, and feeling inspired is very important, I don't think anyone who have directed their lives to this path would be able to gather energy to do so without inspiration.

Moreover:

  [...] and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is glad, rapture is born in him. in one who is rapturous, the body becomes tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.

  --   Vatthūpama Sutta, MN 7

also:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life and is appropriately aroused for the ending of the fermentations. Which two? A sense of urgency & awe toward things that should inspire urgency & awe and, feeling urgency & awe, appropriate exertion. Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life and is appropriately aroused for the ending of the fermentations."

  Feeling urgency, awe / toward what should inspire it / the wise,  masterful /
  ardent monk / should investigate / with discernment. / One who lives thus / ardently / not restlessly, at peace / committed to awareness-tranquillity / would attain the ending / of suffering & stress.

  -- Iti 2.10

However, as we know, it's not always like this:

  Bhikkhus, have you not known me to teach the Dhamma in such a way as this: ‘Here, when someone feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states increase in him and wholesome states diminish; but when someone feels another kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states diminish in him and wholesome states increase [...]?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

  -- Kīṭāgiri Sutta, MN 70

By "inspiration", we are presumably talking about, say, something that acts as a vehicle to something else. But when it ends in itself, that is just sensual delight:

  And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen sensual desire and for the increase and expansion of arisen sensual desire? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of the beautiful: frequently giving careless attention to it is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen sensual desire and for the increase and expansion of arisen sensual desire.

  -- SN 46.51

In more detail:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' [...].

  -- SN 35.205

That is, craving through the five aggregates.


Can meditation cause you to sleep less? Over the last few months I've started meditating late on a night (as well as my usual morning practice). I'm finding that I am sleeping less but not feeling tired because of it. Is there any information around about how mediation may or may not affect sleep patterns?

For instance Dipa Ma, the Indian housewife and meditation teacher was up at 4.00 am every morning to meditate for a few hours presumably finding that perfectly OK. That said Margaret Thatcher only slept for 4 hours a night and I would hesitate to call her a Buddhist meditation master.

The reason the body do not need as much sleep when one do a lot of meditation is because while we meditate, we are getting some rest that the body needs. Meditation increases the production of melatonin in our bodies. Melatonin is a hormone known for creating restful sleep.

This article might help.


To reach 1st jhana, do we have to let go, or do we have to put some effort? Recently, I've been reading a lot about the different methods and perspectives for reaching the jhanas.

For a long time, the only method I've been using is to "let go" everything, and to use the breath as a kind of anchor for the eventual and sporadic distraction. But I never felt anything like joy or rapture.

A few days ago, I found a meditation instruction where the instructor tells that effort and will can be used to give rise to joy and to expand it throughout the body. An as soon as I started doing that, I felt and important qualitative difference in the kind of feelings arising.

Is this application of effort compatible with "letting go"?

What do the suttas tell us about this?

Kind regards!

The method you cite first is correct.  Do not pursue the second.  Any authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord.  Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana.  The first stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem to come out of no where.  We cannot force them to arrive.

If I had to guess, I'd say the main reason why you [and really most people] aren't experience jhana is that you haven't been sitting enough.  Outside of a retreat setting, daily 90 minute sits is really the bare minimum for effective samatha meditation.  Any less than that and the mind just isn't quelled enough for jhana factors to present themselves in any kind of stable way.  To be terribly honest, you are also highly unlikely to find full absorption outside of a retreat setting.  It usually takes at least three days of 10+ hours a day of sitting for the mind to release its hold on the world and the grosser manifestations of the hindrances.  Only afterwards is the mind prepared for jhana practice.


Buddha's night before enlightenment According to the historical story before the day of enlightenment, Mara apparently lured the Buddha with various worldy pleasures. Now, I am not arguing whether Mara really existed or is just Buddha's mind (which would be rather my interpretation). But The Buddha should at that time be a non-returner and he must have abandoned the fetter of sensuous desires. He should've chilled in the 4th Jhana not giving a damn!

So my question is: Why was it a struggle for the Buddha if the conditioned fetter of sensuous desire was already uprooted as an anagami?

In my understanding, Buddha did not progress through the four stages of enlightenment he later prescribed for his students.

This is because, for Buddha students - you start with theoretical understanding (stream entry), and then you practice according to instructions until you achieve it (arahant-hood).

In Buddha's case, because he is Self-Awakened, he starts with intuitive practice and then achieves understanding (Bodhi).

So in Buddha's case he does not proceed gradually, phase by phase, like assembling the puzzle by looking at the complete picture. Instead, it's like solving a puzzle randomly - by the time he sat under the Bodhi Tree, he had assembled most of the pieces but still did not know what was shown on the picture.

This is why in Buddha's case he left all interpretative possibilities open until the last moment, which means he still had doubts until the very last moment. Those doubts are represented in the anthropomorphic personification known as "the Mara".

In case of Buddha's students, the interpretative framework is locked in place from the time of stream-entry, so doubts are eliminated at that phase.


What happen before the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven create Samsara? What i want to ask is what is the life before the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven create Samsara (know as wheel-of-life,cycle-of-birth) and law of causation

This is an understandable confusion of 2 mythical concepts:

[Samsara] is the wheel of rebirth, divided into 6 realms:

Niraya (hell)
Preta (hungry ghosts)
Tiryak (animals )
Manushya (humans)
Asura (demi-gods)
Devas (deities)

The Six Heavens of the World of Desire are 6 places between earth and the Brahma heaven:

Chatur-maharaja-kayika (Heaven of the 4 heavenly kings)
Trayatrimsha (Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods)
Yama Heaven
Tushita (Heaven of Contentment)
Nirmanarati (Heaven of Enjoying the Conjured)
Paranirmita-vasha-vartin (Heaven of Freely Enjoying Things Conjured by Others)

The “Heaven of the Devil King” (Māra  in Sanskrit) resides in Paranirmita-vasha-vartin. Māra enjoys making free use of the desires of others to manipulate and control others according to their own will. The founder of the Nichiren lineage wrote:

  This world is the province of the Devil of the Sixth Heaven.  All of
  its people have been his karmic associates since time without
  beginning

Since manipulating someone's desire will have karmic consequences, this can be associated with Samsara, but the Devil King did not create Samsara, nor is it recorded who is assumed to have created the Six Heavens.


Any advice on leg numbing during sitting? It happens at about 20 minutes every time lately... either in half lotus (a traditional position that i would like to honor), or with one leg laying in front of the other, or indian style... doesnt matter, my left leg goes numb. sitting up in a chair doesn't seem conducive to a meditative state and laying down i just fall asleep. id really like to do some intensive and very long blocks of meditation (advice on this would be appreciated also) but im not sure how to approach this severe distraction and get past it.

I feel your pain!  That was a huge problem for me for years!  There is a cure, thankfully.  There is some trial and error involved, but if you persist, you'll figure it out.  First, some background.  What you are experiencing usually has to do with how your butt is making contact with the cushion.  There is a big nerve center in either of your two butt cheeks.  They are located just slightly below where the bone pokes out.  When you press on that place for long periods of time, it causes the "pins and needles" feeling.  In fact, your entire leg will usually go numb first - the tingly feeling is the nerve "waking" back up.

There are a couple of ways to overcome this problem.  The take away from any of these methods is that you want to take pressure off that area:

One way people do it is by using a higher cushion.  The idea here is that if you are off the ground a bit more, you are less likely to sink back and onto that nerve center.  You also create a natural incline with your legs.  Your thighs slope up to meet your hips.  Of course, while this will help relieve the nerve pressure in your butt, it will also eventually result in knee pain as your legs are taking more of your weight.  I tried this for a while by stacking two cushions sort of like this  ->  o\  (if that graphic makes any sense).
Another way is to lean back a bit.  Actually, you should be doing this anyway (it helps eliminate back pain as you are less likely to lean forward).  Leaning back helps shift the weight more onto your coccyx.  You are going to feel a little weird at first - almost like you are falling backwards.  I think this is because there is a tendency for your chin to raise.  Just make sure you are keeping your neck straight.
The method that worked for me had to do with how I was setting up on the cushion.  A lot of people plop down right in the middle of the zafu.  This is a bad idea.  You are throwing all of your weight down right on those nerves.  Personally, I set up right at the very edge of the zafu with just my coccyx coming down on the cushion.  Those bothersome nerve centers don't even make contact with the cushion at all.  I also incorporate points 1 & 2.  My cushion is a little higher (maybe about five inches) and I do lean back just a bit to keep my weight coming straight down into the cushion.

Hope this helps!  I know how annoying it can be!!!


Am I a man of integrity? Namo Budhhaya (I would like to begin by paying homage to Buddha...I don't think that will violate the rules of the forum please).

I oppose science for its wrong views on the origin of Universe , origin of consciousness and existence of God. However I everyday use science to make my life simpler. I am indebted to science for giving me all the comfort.
But here arises the question of integrity.

How can I use the services of science if I oppose its values ?
Am I a man of integrity?

Is Integrity Anatta too ?

Your dog guards your house from robbers and other criminals. But if it barks at your friends and relatives, shouldn't you shush it? Is that being ungrateful to the dog?

Rice is the staple diet of most asians. But are you ungrateful to rice if you refuse to eat spoilt rice? You eat rice when it is healthy to eat. In the same way, agree with scientific teachings when they are beneficial and true. Reject them when they are mere hypotheses based on wrong views.

Integrity is the quality of being honest. It is Anatta like everything else. But Anatta does not imply that one should not cultivate good qualities.


when one Citta perishes,from where does the next arise? Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas.There can be no stable permanent Citta,in kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.one citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?it cannot be a nothing.but the Citta also cannot preexist as that would be absurd and there would be infinite mes or yous right now somewhere.it would also mean that the world would be Fate.but such a notion is Absurd anyway.it cannot also be that there is an infinite set of predetermined Cittas in a dormant state.as Cittas are all that' Exist' in the Mahayana and Tibetan schools.They cannot be dormant.dormant where?in a concrete external world?if such a receptacle existed wich was permanent and unchanging and not momentary it would be a Self!
Citta can be equated with Vijnana Skandha or alaya vijnana aswell,as the alayavijnana is momentary within Buddhism.
it cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta because then it would just be the same Citta and Cittas are not Substantial according to Nagarjuna.
It cannot be that a Citta endures until the next arises because this would confer confused Experience and still the former Citta has no Causal power to create another Citta Exnihilo.
So how does the momentary flux of Cittas work?

Citta arises from mentality-and-materiality (nama-rupa). As long as the physical body (materiality) is alive, cittas will continue to arise.
Note: citta is of the same substance as consciousness.

Mentality-and-materiality is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate. SN 22.82
With the origination of mentality-and-materiality there is the origination of
citta. With the cessation of mentality-and-materiality there is the passing away of
citta. SN 47.42


In Depth Study of today's Dharma Teachers teachings Does anyone know of any site on the internet (or elsewhere) that studies profoundly and carefully, the works of Dharma teachers? Like Mahasi Sayadaw,or Ajahn Chah, or any Dharma  teacher for that matter?

For instance, Mahasi Sayadaw's book, "The Progress of Insight" can be hard to comprehend, so what if a teacher got together with a group of students to study such a book of teachings in depth.

Perhaps something like the following:

Each pertinent sentence might be studied one by one, the translation of each sentence might be scrutinized, the scriptural origins would be analyzed and each sentence might be made better understood with real examples of what is meant.

I'm sure that sites such as these are out there but I for one have found that they can be hard to find.

I put "today's Dharma Teachers" in the question here not because I wanted to exclude answers about  in depth studied of older teachings. I would like to know of these in depth kind of study groups no matter how old the teacher or teachings are. I suppose I thought that if I didn't put "today's Dharma Teachers" that the answers would consist of the more common study of older teachings & teachers and the newer teachings & teachers might be overlooked. -Metta

There are many people who are attached to Mahasi Sayadaw on Dhammawheel and Bhikkhu Pesala (http://aimwell.org/ or on DW) is for sure on person (since he translated much) who can help out in the sphere of his understanding.

You also can try to get in contact with Upasaka Florian. He runs a blog and pages on facebook and g+ concerning much about Mahasi Sayadaw and communities around it and he had studied much. He would for sure also know other places.

As for Ajahn Chah, Atma is sure, that it would really not make sense to

  Each pertinent scentence might be studied one by one, the translation of each scentence might be scrutinized, the scriptural origins would be analyzed and each scentence might be made better understood with real examples of what is meant.

You would, in the case of Ajahn Chah, need to meet an Ajahn Chah and most would and do not like it to be confronted by him, even get mad. And you even would need to start with sweeping and other services.

Atma would also say, if not even understand an interpreter, is better to do it among the original source and get then an understanding of what the particular teaches tells.

Having read some of his books a little Atma thinks that there are less who would understand many things, if not good leaned in the scripts or have certain experiences by one self. The teachings also carry much danger of developing certain views.

The problem of not understanding the path or not coming on to it, is most seldom the teaching or the explaining, but simply the not willingness to start seriously with the home work. Dana, Sila.

  Making Tables & Chairs

  It's good to make the mind pure and at peace, but it's hard. You have
  to start with the externals — your bodily actions and words — and work
  your way in. The path that leads to purity, to being a contemplative,
  is a path that can wash away greed, anger, and delusion. You have to
  exercise restraint and self-control, which is why it's hard — but so
  what if it's hard?

  It's like taking wood to make a table or make a chair. It's hard, but
  so what if it's hard? The wood has to go through that process. Before
  it can become a table or a chair, we have to go through the coarse and
  heavy stages.

  It's the same with us. We have to become skillful where we aren't yet
  skillful, admirable where we aren't yet admirable, competent where we
  aren't yet competent.

  Maggots

  When we give rise to right view in our hearts, we can be at ease
  wherever we are. It's because we still have wrong views, still hold
  onto ideas that are poisonous, that we're not at ease. Holding on in
  this way is like being a maggot. Where it lives is filthy; its food is
  filthy. Its food isn't fit to be food — but it seems fitting to the
  maggot. Try taking a stick and flicking it out of the excrement where
  it's feeding, and see what happens. It'll wiggle and wriggle, eager to
  get back to the pile of excrement where it was before. Only then does
  it feel right.

  It's the same with you monks and novices. You still have wrong views.
  Teachers come and advise you on how to have right view, but it doesn't
  feel right to you. You keep running back to your pile of excrement.
  Right view doesn't feel right because you're used to your old pile of
  excrement. As long as the maggot doesn't see the filth in where it's
  living, it can't escape. It's the same with us. As long as we don't
  see the drawbacks of those things, we can't escape from them. They
  make it difficult to practice.

  (108 Dhamma Similes)

Atma likes to add, that if you, a group, friends... would seek for an environment to do such, lessons, teaching, what ever, please feel free and invited to use the environment of this online monastery and don't hesitate to ask for help or what ever in this regard. Your are free to perform it if you like to put an effort into it.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


How do the stages of insight before stream entry relate to the suttas Are the stages of knowledge before stream entry mentioned in the suttas? How does this correlate with the Visuddhimagga? E.g. sabba-kaya-patisamvedi (in some interpretations) may directly relate to bhanga-ñāṇa.

The sixteen stages of knowledge are taken for the most part from the Patisambhidamagga, a treatise attributed to Sariputta. They are also enumerated in the Abhidhammatthasangaha. Some are specifically mentioned in the suttas, e.g.:
udayabbaya

Yo ca vassasataṃ jīve apassaṃ udayabbayaṃ
Ekāhaṃ jīvitaṃ seyyo passato udayabbayaṃ.
Dhp. 113

nibbida

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti yadā paññāya passati
Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.
Dhp. 277

ādīnava

Disvā ādīnavaṃ loke ñatvā dhammaṃ nirūpadhiṃ,
Ariyo na ramatī pāpe pāpe na ramatī suci.
Ud. 5.6

The knowledges are also closely related to the seven visuddhis from the Rathavinita Sutta (MN 24), again attributed to Sariputta (and Punna Mantaniputta).


What's the role of altruism in Buddhism? In discussions about how to translate words such as averena (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of averena, the first method renders 'love', 'loving-kindness', or whatever translation is used for metta; in the second, 'non-hatred' is the translated concept.
This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first).
I know there are suttas like AN 11.1 which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like SN 47.19 state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of Brahmaviharas, with metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha as mind-states to cultivate.
Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from sotapanna to arahant) Samma Sankappa is broken down as nekkhamma, abyapada and avihimsa, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness.
After considering all of above, here's the question:
What would you say is the role of altruism (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) and other forms of positive (as "presence of something", not as "good") wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions?
How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative (as "absence of something", not as "bad") wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?
EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective:
As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter. With that I mean: what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?
My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough.
I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views.
I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
With respect to Buddhism, altruism is therefore:

AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

Quite significantly, Buddhism goes further:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Importantly, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are not practicing stinginess in the conventional sense. Rather, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are in seclusion extinguishing defilements of self-involvement.
Ultimately, Buddhists ideally practice to benefit themselves and others:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

When I first read this, I found it a startling departure from my preconception that altruism was the highest ideal.
A parallel consideration here is that altruism concerns itself with "good deeds". Here, too, the Buddha says quite simply:

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results;

But the Buddha goes on to say more:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

We're all familiar with the muddle of dark and bright. But what is the fourth goal?

AN4.233:5.1: And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?  It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.

That fourth goal leads to the end of suffering for all.


Playing repetitve music as meditation practice The way I see it, music (like everything else?) is empty of inherent existence. This is not obvious. Plato and Aristotle believed that harmonies and rythm express/represents "charachters". Contrary to the Greek champions, I do not think musical harmonies and rythms express or represent anything in and of themselves. The "meaning" and interpretation of music is dependent on causes and conditions, dependent on its parts, and imputed by mind. Music is empty.

My question is how this emptiness of music can be incorporated into my practice. In stead of giving up music because I want to spend my time with meditation, I am wondering if the emptiness of music might in stead and in addition be used as a "mantric device" in mediatative practice.

Here's the idea. I play bass. Me and my fellow musicians love minimalist repetition. Some say practicing an instrument is boring because you have to to the same thing again and again, but I don't agree. I think playing the same bass line over and over (alone or with others) is giving the same experience as meditation with mantras. When you play a simple line hundresds of times, you don't have to think about playing. And after a while you don't know where the line starts and ends, it's circular. The mantra is in my fingers and not my mouth. In the end, both mouth and fingers are in the mind anyway.

It may be a long shot, but I wonder if this way of using repetition is used as a meditation device in any Buddhist practices. What schools of Buddhism is most open to this kind of idea?

The biggest issue with music is:

you can get attached to it
can created mental recitation of the lyrics which in turn creates verbal fabrications

Hence best is to resort to more conservative meditation pratice. Having said this Richard Shankman of Metta Dharma Foundation teachers mindfulness of sound as an alternative meditation technique. Excerpted from “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation”:

Mindfulness of Sound
In the instructions for mindfulness of breathing we let all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness, not forcing or pushing them away but bringing a gentle sense of allowing them to be in the background while giving some preference or predominance to awareness of our breathing. In the same way, with this practice we allow other experiences to stay in the background and we give preference or predominance to the experience of sound. You may feel a natural draw or pull to awareness of hearing, and this practice can be very calming and settling. Those for whom mindfulness of sound works well commonly report it as an easily accessible and even compelling meditation object. You may be drawn to awareness of the sounds themselves or you may be more naturally aware of the act or the process of listening or hearing.
Mindfulness of sound entails working with either inner or outer sound. Even though it may be very quiet where you are meditating, you may feel drawn to rest your awareness in listening to however many or few sounds may be present at any time. Other people hear an inner sound, a clear perception of ringing or some other sound, experienced not through the ears but in the mind. You can see if you have such an experience and if you are drawn to rest in awareness of inner or outer sound.
If you are working with mental noting, you can mentally repeat hearing or sound if that helps keep you stay connected and centered with the auditory experience. If you practice mindfulness of sound, just substitute hearing every time I use the terms breath or breathing.

Since you seem to like music the main question would be how you can do this without attachment in order to make this effective, i.e., using music as a means to meditate.

Also perhaps the following might might help you (thanks to @ThiagoSilva for point out): Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta


Not listening to parents is bad karma? This is something that I keep hearing from my grandmother that annoys me so much. Although I am of age (26 to be precise), I am still expected to listen to almost every word that my parents say (at least according to my grandmother).

Not to bring personal matters to the site, but I keep arguing that not listening to parents should not be considered ill-treatment of them. They expect me to wear nice clothes, but I don't. (I prefer wearing the same clothes. Who has time for fashion?) They expect me to marry the one they want. They always say that as a Buddhist I should be very obedient. These days when you turn on the TV to listen to some Buddhist advice, monks most of the time talk about parent-child relationships and go on about how children should always listen to their parents.

I am not saying my parents ask me to do anything bad, but as children we know (sometimes, not always) what is best for us. But when we do what we want all hell breaks loose. Daddy shouting, Mommy crying, and Granny shouting that my bad karma will eventually give me disobedient children just like me.

Jokes aside, I want a serious explanation when it comes to parent-child relationships. I am quite aware of the Sigalovada Sutra, but when we do something we want and parents get hurt, is it always bad kamma? It can't be, right? Otherwise the amount of bad karma Prince Siddhartha would have gained after all the pain his father went through...

Please share your thoughts.

This is something I keep hearing from my grandmother that keeps annoying me so much. Although I am well off age (26 to be precise) I am still expected to listen to almost every word that my parents say (at least according to my grandmother). Not to bring in any personal matters into the site but I keep arguing that not listening to parents should not be considered as ill-treating them.

Not listening is not necessary ill treating but if you are intentionally hurting them then it is negative Karma.
Any way it is a good idea to listen to your parents but it does not mean you have to do exactly. They may have experiences you might not have. So best cause of action is to get their input and them proactively take the best possible and rational action. Sometimes by just listening you parent maybe happy.
Also be diplomatic when when you have a difference of opinion.

They expect me to wear nice clothes but I don't (I prefer wearing the same clothes. Who has time for fashion?).

Fashion is actually changing and attitudes. Getting too attached or averse to them is not skillful. Best is to get into a happy medium. If you are scruffy then your social acceptance will also go down hence there is some point in having to dress nicely. Everyone has to depend of society even monks to get their requisites hence you should be reasonably acceptable and presentable.

They expect me to marry the one they want.

If you have someone see how you can present the person of your choice. Sometimes there may be issues with your choice you might have not considered. If it is purely driven by lust it might not work. So think about compatibility. Play it tactfully.
Also the following answer maybe of some help: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14207/295 in choosing the right person.

They always say that as Buddhist I should be very obedient and these days when your turn the TV to listen to some Buddhist advice, monks most of the time talk about parent-child relationship and goes on about how children should always listen to parents.

As mentioned above getting wider range of input is beneficial to make optimal decisions. More than just robotically doing what you parents say what is needed is to make the relationship more cordial. This maybe difficult due to the generation gap.

I am not saying my parents ask me to do anything bad. But as children we know (sometimes not always) what is best for us.

Life choices perhaps may not be determinable until it plays out when you do not know who is right. All you can do make decision with the best facts you have.

But when we do what we want all hell breaks lose, daddy shouting mommy crying and granny shouting my bad karma will eventually give me disobedient children just like me.

Disobedience and rebellious behaviour sometimes maybe rooted in version. What you have to is to see if there is aversion or some sort of irritation is present and this is influencing your cause of action.
If 3 people feel your are in the wrong perhaps take a step back and see if actually what you have done is the best and what other alternatives would have been there. I am not saying you might be wrong but when this happens it is good through revisit something you have done just to reaffirm what you did is best with the information you had.
In addition willfully making your parents happy would be positive karma. So if you can do something to make them happy go for it. It is some time very little things which go a long way.

Jokes aside, I want a serious explanation when it comes to parent-child relationship. I am quite aware of the singalovada sutta but when we do something we want and parents get hurt is it always bad karma?
It can't be right?

If you do it with intention to hurt or your are due to being internally angry then it will be. So try to get into knowing your true intentions and motivation and what it is rooted in.

Otherwise the amount of bad kamma prince Siddhartha would have gained after all the pain his father went through... Pleas share your thoughts.

Prince Siddhartha left the householder's life with the intention of liberation and helping mankind. This is positive. Though incidentally his father maybe hurt it was not his intention.
If you can think of ways to do something without hurting someone then this would be the best cause of action. But with many lifes choices not everyone will be always agreeable and satisfied, hence try to be accommodating as possible within reason and follow through with the best action taking into account to all opinions and parties affected. Keep in check there is no negative motivations, volition of roots in what you are doing.


Should I teach an infant practice Anapana? I want to know what the right age for a child to learn meditation, for example if I do anapana with a toddler, can it stop the development or it will help the child to stay into panya later.

Vipassana courses starts from 8 year old, but that may be due to other reasons, but personally I think I can teach my daughter as soon as possible.

At the time she is less than 3 months old, and she had started making sounds, I know it doesn't make any sense, but this is the age when infants  start to learn and copy things right?

I think if I act like I am breathing my daughter will stop copying me in coming months, so could doing anapana  be good or bad for her?

I have a 17 month old and personally I feel there needs to be an intention to meditate in an individual, rather than blind copying or operant conditioning.. An infant's mind effectively goes through a process of building a self in the first few years and Buddhist thought goes against such a process in a way that I don't think a really young infant will comprehend. Myself, I am waiting till the kid hits 2.5-3 years old, when he will have enough access to language to begin the process of meditation through a personal, conscious choice (if he doesn't want to, then I won't force and will wait!).


How can I practice mindfulness meditation with sound, not breathing? I want to start practising meditation, but breathing exercises extremely psyche me out. I find any activity that involves intensely focusing on a part of my body distressing, sometimes nauseating. So the traditional "focus on your breath" mindfulness meditations aren't really ideal for me.

I like the idea of meditating listening to sound, for example the sound of rain or waves on my phone. But I'm completely new to meditation and am not sure how best to implement this practice. Should I wear over ear headphones, or is it best to have the music ambient and not directly my ear? Should I be sitting up or lying in bed? (I don't really have any other comfortable spots in my house besides my bed.) Should it be light, dark or semi-dark? Eyes open or closed etc.?

The basic question I'm asking is: what are the best practices and practicalities for mindfulness meditation using sound?

Sound is a valid object of mindfulness, one of the six sense objects, part of the fourth foundation of mindfulness:

  "He understands the ear, he understands sounds and he understands the fetter that arises dependent on both; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of the unarisen fetter, and how there comes to be the abandoning of the arisen fetter, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of the abandoned fetter." (MN 10, Bodhi trans.)

The point here is to observe sounds as something that gives rise to potential fetters (liking, disliking, conceit, possessiveness, etc.). Through mindfulness, one understands sound as merely sound, as impermanent, unsatisfying, non-self, and one relinquishes craving in regards to sound.

In my tradition, we remind ourselves "hearing, hearing..." as a means of cultivating mindfulness.


Did Buddha go through the stages of sotapanna/sakadagami/anagami before his enlightenment? Did Buddha go through the stages of sotapanna/sakadagami/anagami before his enlightenment? Or did he go straight from a normal person to an arahant and a Buddha during the night of his enlightenment?

The orthodox Theravada interpretation is that he went through all four stages.

[I]n the course of his long wanderings in samsāra, the bodhisatta had been to all the realms except the five suddhāvāsa realms which are meant only for those who have attained anāgāmi stage. The bodhisatta usually attains all the four stages on the path only in his last existence.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Discourse on Paticcasamuppada

N.B. I assume "usually" above is a mistranslation; it is not usually, it is always the case AFAIK.


How do you understand the Cakkavatti Sutta? https://suttacentral.net/dn26/en/sujato

How could humans have lived 80 000 years in the past? And how could we live 10 years in the future, with people reaching sexual maturity at five, when life expectancy is constantly increasing?

I have never read the sutta. Bhikkhu Sujato wrote:

The Dīgha contains truly mythic texts in DN 26 Cakkavattisīhanāda and DN 27 Aggañña. These set forth a myth of origins, replacing conventional creation mythology with an evolutionary account of how the world came to be the way it is. In these stories, human choices play a critical role in how the environment evolves, and in how it will all fall apart. The Aggañña depicts climate change quite explicitly, showing how human activity affects the plants, the weather, and the natural ecosystem of which we are a part (see also AN 3.56).
The mythology is essentially cyclic. There is no absolute beginning; just another turning of the wheel. Thus even when the world falls apart and civilization collapses, there will be a new renaissance, far in the future, and ultimately another Buddha will arise. He is named as Metteyya (Sanskrit: Maitreya) who in the early texts appears only in DN 26 Cakkavattisīhanāda. He went on to become one of the most important figures in Mahāyāna Buddhism, and many Buddhists even today still await his coming with hope. Yet DN 26 is not taught in order to encourage devotees to dedicate themselves to Metteyya, but to illustrate the impermanence and uncertainty of our lives. The Buddha always taught that we should practice as best we can to understand the Dhamma in this life.
The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation


How do I relax thought-fabrication? In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta the Buddha gives 5 ways to help calm the heightened mind. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation the fourth method is described as

he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard
to those thoughts.

Can some one unpack that a bit. How would I go about relaxing my thought-fabrication?
Many Thanks

In my opinion, this is basically practicing four Jhana by gradual training. For instance, a person who likes killing stops his habits gradually. Say stop killing humans, then animal then fish then insects, etc. Another example is substituting angry thoughts with lovingkindness thoughts.
==============
iv “If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might consider: ‘Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?’ and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: ‘Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?’ and he would stand; then he might consider: ‘Why am I standing? What if I sit?’ and he would sit; then he might consider: ‘Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?’ and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture one that was subtler. So too…when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/bodhi


What was the reason why Buddha taught reincarnation? Although Buddha (Siddhartha) taught that humans had no soul, nevertheless he taught that there is a reincarnation. My question is not how these two 'dogmas' are compatible but why he 'needed' reincarnation? His teaching are mostly very simple and  not really metaphysical. Was teaching the noble eightfold path not sufficient?

The Buddha didn't need it so much as he explained that was just how things work. Just as water has the quality that's labeled "wet". Life has a quality (among many) that is labeled Death and Death has the quality labeled rebirth/Life.

Also, reincarnation and rebirth seem to be different in that the former implies a continuous soul and the latter simply the result of conditions.


Is there a tradition or practice involving fasting in Buddhism or Buddhist countries? Many religions have period or specific practice including fasting. I'm aware of the eating prescriptions of monks, but are there traditions or practices involving fasting for Lay-people?

If not in scripture, are there in culturally Buddhist countries?

In Tibetan Buddhism there is a special practice called Nyungne. Essentially it is a practice on Thousand-Armed Chenrezig who is the embodiment of loving kindness and active compassion (the active aspect is represented by his standing not sitting posture, see the picture below).

The practice is done in retreat settings usually for 2,5 - 3 days. From the day one the practitioners refrain from talking and from the day two they fast and do a number of meditation sessions per day, all focused on Chenrezig. I've been told that it should done with someone who has a direct transmission on this practice and who can give fine details about it. Overall, I know many Western practitioners who took part in such retreats so it is definitely not an old-forgotten, exotic ritual.

In general, Nyungne is a purifying practice on the level of body, speech and mind and helps to nurture compassion and loving kindness towards all the sentient beings.


Health Risks of Meditation? One hears a lot about the benefits of meditation; everything from calming yourself and lowering your blood pressure to working towards purifying your mind and finding freedom from suffering. Even as a newer meditator, I feel a better sense of physical and emotional well being.

But I'm interested to know if experienced meditators and teachers know of a down side to meditation either physically or mentally. Does so much time spent in one position lead to physical problems such as circulation problems or back issues or even mental breakdown during intense periods of meditation? And if so, are there things one can do to avoid such issues that might interfere with continued meditation?

Here is a physical problem: Knee injury from sitting postures without requisite hip flexibility. This applies to almost any floor-sitting posture, depending on the meditator's hip flexibility. This is based on my own experience injuring my knees in sitting meditation.

The knee injury occurs when insufficient hip flexibility causes the knee joint to rotate laterally. Lateral, in anatomical terms, means away from the body in a left/right direction.

The knee is a very simple joint mechanically, and is only designed to flex and extend. It is damaged by rotating medially/laterally. The lateral rotation required for sitting postures should come from the hip.

Full lotus position (each foot on top of opposite thigh) and half lotus position (one foot on top of opposite thigh) are the most dangerous positions for this case since they cause a lot of lateral rotation in the knees, if there is not sufficient hip flexibility. Burmese position (one foot in front of opposite shin) is much less dangerous, but might still injure a person with tight hip ligaments.

So the key is that we need flexible hips if we want to sit on the floor easily.

Although full lotus and half lotus position are discussed more in Yoga, and not in the context of Buddhist meditation, I feel this advice still applies since I injured my knees by sitting in half lotus. Now I protect my knees by avoiding lateral rotation, keeping my hips flexible, and only using Burmese position for sitting.

This video by KinoYoga shows how to prepare for lotus position safely, and can help to clarify by providing visual instruction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdVHk5C0L8U

And this page has many stretches I have found useful to loosen the hip for safer sitting:
http://zenmontpellier.voila.net/eng/lotus/lotuseng.html

Be well and take care of your knees.


Color perception in meditation In the Theravada tradition, there is a list of 38 objects of meditation. In them, there are 3 colors: Blue-Green, Yellow, Red. This is not what I'd expect if these three colors are picked in a way which is based on a basic neurological phenomena.

Can anyone point me to classical references detailing experiences and meditative observation on the nature of color observation?

The most colorful sutta is MN77 Mahāsakuludāyisutta.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are red, with red color, red hue, and red tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are white, with white color, white hue, and white tint.
(etc.)

AN10.29 is the second most colorful sutta.


What are any and all of the exceptions to eating after noon if you've taken 8 precepts? Is broth and vegetable juice allowable?

I am preferably looking for an answer by an experienced monk.

In order to understand the precept for lay people, it is useful to look at the rules for monks. For monks, there are four types of edible requisites, according to their lifetime:

1. Yavakalika

Solid food; including milk, soya milk, rice milk, etc.

This type can only be taken during the morning hours and may not be stored beyond noon of the day it was received.

2. yamakalika

Most types of uncooked, pulp-free fruit, vegetable, flower, root, or leaf juice.

This type can be taken any time of day, but only kept until dawn of the day after it was received.

3. satthahakalika

Medicinal tonics: ghee, oil, butter/cheese, honey and sugar.

This type can be taken any time of day by a monk who is sick in a way that will be assuaged by taking the tonic (usually stomach upset or hunger due to inability to keep food down). These may be kept for seven days.

4. yavajivaka

Anything normally considered as a medicine, within reason (any fruits, roots, flowers, bark, salts, etc. that are considered medicine by the world)

This type can be taken any time of day provided there is a compelling reason (i.e. a sickness that is ameliorated by taking the medicine). They may be kept one's entire life.

The sixth precept probably follows the same pattern as the monastic practice (leaving aside the part about how long items may be kept), so unless one is sick, the only thing that can really be taken outside of the morning hours is uncooked, pulp-free fruit or vegetable juice.

Tea, coffee, ginger, etc. are medicine and should only be taken if they are known to ameliorate a sickness one currently has.

Note that the five tonics can be useful for people unable to otherwise keep eight precepts due to health concerns. I once had an elderly student who was afraid to keep the eight precepts, and I suggested she try and if unable to take some butter. She was against the idea of taking butter due to its high cholesterol content, but I convinced her to try anyway. In the night, she sent a request for food so I had someone send her back a small butter pot. In the morning she came back all smiles, astonished at how well the butter worked to protect her stomach and feeling no adverse effects of keeping the precepts.


What do Buddhists think in quick prayers (at graves, near altars etc.)? When declared Buddhists and Eastern Asians in general quickly pray next to graves and altars in silence, what kinds of thoughts go on their minds? Of course, it's not possible to read people's minds, but how are they taught to pray  in such occasions and places?  I'm curious especially about non-practicing Buddhists who aren't very religious in general and may not know things like mantras by heart, but still do that.

I'm not Eastern Asian but I'd guess that the brahmaviharas would be appropriate -- including e.g. "may you be well", and mudita in the form of "recollection of virtue".

I've read that a common phrase is ...

  Anicca vata sankhara — "Impermanent, alas, are all formations!" — is the phrase used in Theravada Buddhist lands to announce the death of a loved one [but I have not quoted this line here in order to begin an obituary].

You said you didn't want a mantra but here is a longer quote -- it's not very long.

    Aniccā vatha sankhārā
    Uppāda vaya dhamminō
    Uuppajjitvā nirujjhanti
    Te san vūpa samō sukhō

    (Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta)

  This verse is actually not in the Dhammapada, but it is a very common verse. In Sri Lanka (and possibly in other Buddhist countries), it is displayed at funerals in order to emphasize the “fleeting nature” of life. It actually has a much deeper meaning, and explains why we face sorrow inevitably (because death is inevitable), and how it can be permanently removed to attain the Nibbānic bliss.

  This verse is said to have been uttered by Sakka, the King of the Dēvas, just after the Parinibbāna (passing away) of the Buddha.

  A common translation is:

    All things are impermanent
    They arise and pass away
    Having arisen they come to an end
    Their coming to peace is bliss

I don't know whether there are "prayers" as a Western theist (e.g. "Abrahamic religion") might understand that word -- see e.g. Paccha-bhumika Sutta (SN 42.6) -- so I think it's a person's own virtue that's important, rather than intercessionary prayer -- though there are different schools of Buddhism, some of whom pray (e.g. here) though perhaps not for the same reason as a theist.

I think it is common too (in some cultures anyway) to make some offerings to ghosts -- there's a popular ghost festival. I'm not sure but I think that the Theravada teaches that the "ghost realm" is one of the states (of suffering) into which someone way be reborn, and that the only way they can eat there is if someone is kind enough to remember to share their food with them.


How does one escape suffering when they cannot provide for those they love Taoism and Buddhism say we should distance our self from suffering and accept life as is if we cannot change it. But what if we have serious clinical depression or cannot provide properly for those we care about?
It is easy to distance when your self is the only factor but not when others depend on us. If we cannot make the lives of those we care about good then is the next step to teach them Buddhist or Tao values of accepting life as is?

The real answer is that one cannot - it is the caring that causes the suffering:

Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved.

From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?

-- Dhp 210-212 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

In fact worrying about others, or feeling depressed about our situation, doesn't help others or our situation to improve. This is how we reconcile with the Buddha's teaching; it seems callous and cruel to give up our concern for others, and it seems unproductive and negligent to stop caring about our worldly affairs. In actual fact, both our relationships and our worldly affairs improve when we give up our attachments to them.
Consider our concern for others; we worry, we fear, we cling to their happiness and suffering - does any of that improve our ability to work for their betterment? Clearly not. There is a difference between fulfilling one's worldly responsibilities and actually caring about their success or failure. Unfortunately, our culture (most cultures, in fact - even supposedly Buddhist ones) encourages us to care and looks with scorn on those who don't care. This doesn't make it any more useful to cry and moan when suffering arises or any less useful to be impartial and objective when dealing with problems no matter how personal they may be.
In brief, duty and responsibility should be what dictate our worldly affairs, not concern or care. As to what our responsibilities are, this differs from relationship to relationship; we don't have a duty or responsibility to teach our parents, for example, but we do have such a responsibility to our children. The point is, even if we fail in our responsibilities, we should not allow that to lead to sorrow or depression, neither of which is at all beneficial to self or others.


Craving-clinging leads to volitional actions that can be used for duties. If I let go of craving, how would I do duties to family? If I let go of craving by doing Vipassana, then according to dependent origination, there would be no clinging. With no clinging, there would be no volitional actions - without these actions, how would I do duties to family members?

Craving is not required to help your family. You only need compassion(Karuna) and kindness(Metta). Craving only makes you worried and sad.