sense of achievement oriented behavior I had a previous question on the need to feel proud of ourselves. I was neutrally observing my thoughts and feelings when I was feeling proud of myself or feeling ashamed of myself. This led to a discovery in me that it was because of the desire to achieve. I want to achieve God's grace, achieve a social status, achieve success in my career, achieve happiness and wisdom through meditation, achieve others approval and appreciation, achieve popularity and so on. I think 24/7 my thoughts and judgements are all about the need to achieve something. Is this okay?

If I get detached from this achievement desire, what will it lead to? And how can we overcome this achievement oriented obsession?

The Buddha taught there are two kinds of desire:

(1) Ignorant desire (tanha): which seeks unwholesome & harmful things;

(2) Wise desire (samma sankappa; chanda iddhipada): which seeks wholesome & beneficial things.

The Buddha praised worldly achievements such as having a good reputation, good friends and vocational skill & learning. Refer to Maha-mangala Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta.

The Buddha taught you will succeed at what you want to achieve if you have four qualities, which are: (1) love & devotion (chanda); (2) energy & persistence (viriya); (3) mental focus (citta); & (4) analytical investigation (vimansa).

  One who desires progress and success in life, be it in the field of
  education, occupation or livelihood, is advised to abide by the
  following principles:

  A. The principles of growth: to practice according to the teachings
  that guide life to prosperity and eminence known as the four cakka
  (the conditions likened to the four wheels that carry a vehicle to its
  destination):

  Patirupadesavasa: choosing a suitable environment; to choose a
  suitable location in which to live, study or work, where there are
  people and an environment conducive to learning and betterment in
  life, to the pursuit of the truth, virtue and knowledge, and the
  generation of goodness and prosperity.

  Sappurisupassaya: associating with good people; to seek association or
  alliance with people who are learned and virtuous and who will support
  one's pursuit of the truth, virtue and knowledge, and one's
  advancement and growth in a rightful way.

  Attasammapanidhi: establishing oneself rightly; to establish oneself
  firmly in virtue and a right way of life; to establish a clear and
  virtuous goal for one's life and work, and set oneself resolutely and
  firmly on the right path to that goal, not wavering or being
  negligent.

  Pubbekatapunnata: having a good "capital foundation"; one portion of
  this capital foundation comprises innate qualities such as
  intelligence, aptitude and a healthy body; the other is, on the basis
  of that foundation, knowing how to rectify or improve oneself, to seek
  further knowledge, to strengthen good qualities and to train oneself
  in preparation for when these qualities are needed, to be ready to
  welcome success, to bring about welfare and happiness and to advance
  to even greater heights.

  (A.II.32)

  B. The principles of success: practicing according to the four
  conditions that lead to the success of any undertaking, known as the
  iddhipada (pathways to success):

  Chanda: having a heart of zeal; to be keen to do something, and to do
  it for the love of it; to wish to bring an activity or task to its
  optimum fruition, not simply doing it to get it out of the way or
  merely for reward or material gain.

  Viriya: doing with effort; to be diligent and apply oneself to a task
  with effort, fortitude, patience and perseverance, not abandoning it
  or becoming discouraged, but striving ever onward until success is
  attained.

  Citta: committing oneself to the task; to establish one's attention on
  the task in hand and do it thoughtfully, not allowing the mind to
  wander; to apply one's thought to the matter regularly and
  consistently and do the task or action devotedly.

  Vimamsa: using wise investigation; to diligently apply wise reflection
  to examine cause and effect within what one is doing and to reflect
  on, for example, its pros and cons, gains and shortcomings or
  obstructions. This can be achieved by experimenting, planning and
  evaluating results, and devising solutions and improvements in order
  to manage and carry out the activity in hand so as to achieve better
  results.

  When applied to the work situation, for example, these four conditions
  may, in short, be remembered as love of work, tenacity, dedication and
  circumspection.

  http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Part2_2.htm#9


References, Suttas, on the effects of rejecting (gifts) Just wonder if there are explicitly teachings on cause and effect of rejecting gifts. What might be the effect of rejecting a pure gift? Maybe one or another Sutta may come to your mind and maybe you like to share it in an answer.

Gift here can be in the frame of material gifts, to time, effort, skill and knowledge.

I can recall there is a Sutta where a monk reject the robes offered to hims as he had plenty of robes.


I am asking personal help, I want to renounce my home? Sorry for what I want seek help from someone. The matter is most serious.
I belong to middle class family of Indian village. My father died when I was 7 years old. My mother took very pain to raise me up to higher education and then I was seeking a job. That time is very hard for me, for I failed at every interview. Life is full of sorrow and pocket barely have any money to cope with any difficulties which I received from my mother time to time.
Then I nearly broke and felt the pain when my sister's husband beat her in one instance. I literally cried and pain was dual as I am even jobless. It was year 2012 then, my time almost lost in loneliness and solitude. I started praying and reading Buddha's word and found something to come from pain. I heartily followed Buddha's path of purity upto my level and when I eat, I eat a little with my attention verily focus when I eat.
Suddenly a light came, that was year 2012. The light goes on expanding year on year till 2013 and my mind attained full of bliss. I could stand on my terrace like a lamb immersed in the bliss for nearly 8 months. Its like I am at the feet of Lord. Afterwards when the bliss fades away, there comes the insight.
The word started appearing on my fore and I concentrated it day by day. But, suddenly when the word appears, I felt heavenly sound like beating of drum or flute playing, I move to that with my focus from where this sound coming. Then there appear 2nd word and I felt very joy, like I have found someone. Its like my Teacher is appeared before me. I concentrated day and night to be with that word.
I surprisingly got the job in Bank as a officer, even in interview I gave silly answers as my mind want to be monk at that time. 2013-2017 I work in the bank, but I feel I am going back towards the painful world. In 2017 I left that job,as people scolded me as I left the Government job, including my mother. My foot turn back to home, to tell my story and path to my mother. How I got it and it's the path choose me to leave the job. I felt before leaving my 62 year mother alone, I have to tell the way. In that period, something flashed in closed eye and I attained vision, like union with teacher.
Then in 2019 I got covid19 like symptoms all over my body, even before China declared the outbreak. Nothing happened to me except same symptoms of covid19 for days. After some time even that symptoms vanished and I felt amaze the very people on earth suffering the same. I felt again dejected, would I be the epicenter and responsible person to death of many.
Now I am lost and I desperately want to leave home. Can't do with my 62 year old mother. She will be alone. No one to care for her. I sometimes felt, somebody attacked me, like Mara. Or someone is taking the pain of this humanity by giving me Covid19.
I felt sometime that I am sacrificial person. Sometime, the words of Buddha comes to me, 'Only few saints and sages can't revive the pain of mankind, king asks: so what you would do then? Buddha replied: I don't know'. May be he was searching to relieve the pain of mankind with heavenly help. May be he sacrificed himself, just like what is happening to me.
I need a guide now. What shall I do? Should I leave home right away leaving my mother behind alone?
Sorry for the personal matter to bother everyone. But, may be someone can help! May all being happy!

There once was a potter named Ghaṭīkāra, who was the chief supporter of Buddha Kassapa. He was a lay person, deeply devout, and was once asked why he did not go forth.

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

His answer was simple:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

Ghaṭīkāra was also a non-returner.

MN81:18.6: Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence.  He has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones.  He is free of doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.  He eats in one part of the day; he’s celibate, ethical, and of good character.  He has set aside gems and gold, and rejected gold and money.  He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands.  He takes what has crumbled off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a carrier. When he has made a pot, he says,  “Anyone may leave bagged sesame, mung beans, or chickpeas here and take what they wish.” He looks after his blind old parents.  And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there,

The story of Ghaṭīkāra shows that one can take refuge in the Buddha, the teaching and the Saṅgha while living a simple life at home.
May your suffering ease in the limitless.


What does the one taste of the dharmadhatu really mean? What does the one taste of the dharmadhatu really mean? I know no language beside this English, and would be interested in any philosophical, literary, or religious answer on what "taste" means there, so I can best grasp what is being said.

In his commentary to Maitreya’s Mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga, Gyaltsab Je says:

  Because just as every drop of water is of one taste with the ocean, so every phenomenon is of one taste within natural emptiness.

Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen's explains:

  The absence of inherent existence of the mind of an ordinary sentient being, an arya or buddha is the same [in nature].

And:

  The final reality, the tathagata essence, the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind, is inseparable in the sense that all conventional phenomena are of one taste in emptiness. They are all inseparable in emptiness.

It does not mean that all phenomena are one and the same thing, for this would not be a Buddhist tenet. It means that phenomena are identical in that they lack inherent existence. Their lack of inherent existence can not be a basis for distinguishing them. In the same way, we say that sentient beings are identical in that they are subject to suffering while they want happiness. It is important to add “in this or that respect”, for we do not mean that they are one and the same objects.

A phenomenon and its final nature (its emptiness) are one entity. They are inseparable. Just like you can not separate heat from fire, you can not separate emptiness from its basis.

In a commentary to Maitreya's Distinction, it says:

  "All phenomena are of one taste in that they are without arising ultimately."

A second interpretation is that it means that, in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness, no conventionality appear. A wisdom directly realizing emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner. Since conventional phenomena are not experienced by that wisdom, we say that such a wisdom does not taste them.

This second interpretation is clearer in the visualization at the end of the Confession Prayer:

  Then reflect on emptiness. In emptiness there is no I, the creator of
  negative actions. In emptiness there is no creating of negative
  actions. In emptiness there are no negative actions created. Even
  though there are infinite phenomena, in emptiness nothing exists at
  all. There is no this and that, no me and you, nothing. In emptiness
  everything is one taste. From this emptiness, everything comes into
  existence. Whatever exists is the manifestation of emptiness.

By looking for "phenomena are of one taste", and "in emptiness, everything has one taste", you might find additional material.


How to function properly in society after getting enlightenment? I am near. May be few hours or days. Right now it is getting a little harder to behave properly according to the society. I just don't talk much because I don't have much to say.
I'm not able to engage with people. All I do is keep sitting in silence in bliss, sometimes solving mathematics or playing chess or listening music.

Putting aside the doubts whether you're close to Enlightenment or not... Or even if there is such thing as "Enlightenment"... And whether Enlightenment is something that can be attained by "me" at some point, and then retained for ever... And whether someone enlightened could still have questions about what to do and how to behave... In other words, assuming your question is valid,

When you get "enlightened" you lose your reference point. So it may be hard to decide what's good / what's bad anymore. "What do I want? What should I do? Should I do anything at all?" -- nothing seems right or wrong by itself, in some sense it's all invented by people. Nothing is important, nothing is serious, all this stuff that normal people engage seems pointless. Hence the question about "how to behave in society" - did I get this right? I hope so.

There are two parts to an answer my teacher gave me when I asked.

First, regarding your own purpose and meaning of life. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, you are free. You can literally do anything. If you want to play games, you can play games. If you want to drink yourself to death, you can drink yourself to death. If you want to go to other worlds, you go to other worlds. If you want to teach, you can teach. If you want to do nothing, you can do nothing. There is no reason to sit and worry what's the "best" thing to do, because there is no "best" thing to do, they are all equally pointless in the big scheme of things. In fact, the best thing to do is probably to arbitrarily choose any idea X that you like, and be totally serious about it, as if it was indeed a serious thing you believed in.

However, from the perspective of life here on planet Earth, actions lead to results. What you do and say has effect. And all the people around you still feel pain, they still have their lives. If you stand up and walk out of class, this may look harmless to you, and the teacher's frustration may seem funny and unjustified (in the big scheme of things) - however, by doing that you're setting bad example to other students and you are making the teacher unhappy. So even though everything is free and empty, you just created a little island of chaos and suffering in your immediate locality. See what I mean? So the best way to function in society, is to always, always, always be mindful of the perspective of others. What will they feel? How will this affect them? Will this action lead to peace and harmony for others or will it lead to conflict and negative mindstates for them?

By combining these two principles -- the absolute and the local -- we arrive at the enlightened behavior: combination of spontaneous freedom with no reference point, and tremendous empathy/responsibility for everything you touch in your spontaneous dance.


Acting nice for karma's sake? If I recall correctly, karma is constituted of two parts - action and intention. Which means if one wishes to "gain" positive karma, one would have to conduct a positive action AND do so with a positive mind. With that being said, if I were to help an old lady to cross the street for the sole purpose of obtaining good karma, am I going to get good karma?

This is a triple win in term of accumulating and strengthening the effectiveness of the karmic action:

Being nice
Knowing being nice has consequences
Acting knowing there are consequences

When doing good, believing in Karma and knowing there are consequences, reinforce the good results.


What Buddhist texts describe the doings of syncretized Hindu deities? Some Vedic/Hindu deities are recognized as being part of Buddhist cosmology. For example, Indra, who is the chief god of the Vedic pantheon, is syncretized into Buddhism as Śakra, which is another epithet of his.

In Hinduism, the exploits of Indra are described in doctrinal texts like the Vedas and the Puranas, as well as in literary texts like the Mahabharata. But Buddhists (of any school) don't accept these texts as part of their canon, right? So, my question: in what Buddhist (canonical) texts would the doings of syncretized Hindu deities like Indra/Śakra be described?

Malalasekera's Dictionary of Pali Proper Names is a great place to find this sort of information; for instance, the entry on Sakka has a whole list of sources for info on the entity, both canonical and commentarial.

On the other hand, I can't think of any other divine beings that have been expropriated in the same way as Indra; in fact I'm not sure expropriation is the proper term, since Indra just means "chief", and so it could just be the Buddha using the Hindu name to describe Sakka.

Edit: Yama shows up in the Devaduta Sutta (MN 130)


Nature of Craving in Charm and Impressing Others I noticed recently that I tend to try and impress others and gather attention, especially with women (I'm a man). I see this as problematic because unlike other sources of craving and attachment, its hard to avoid others.

Thus, I'd like to understand the nature of the craving/grasping/etc. process in relation to trying to impress. What type(s) of attachment(s) are involved? How can one best relinquish a need to appear a certain way to others?

Also, I wonder: Is there any equivalent to 'overcompensating' in Buddhism? Overcompensating here means specifically attempting to augment the self because the self is in reality lacking, insecure. How does no-self affect this?

Thank you

What type(s) of attachment(s) are involved?

This is carving arising due to self-view.
There are 18 internal and external views across past, present and future making a total of 108 views of self rooted in carving.
18 Internal Preoccupations with Craving

(1) “I am”
(2) “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) “I am otherwise”
(5) “I do not exist”
(6) “I exist”
(7) “May I be”
(8) “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) “May I otherwise”
(11) “I might be”
(12) “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) “I might be that [be like that]”
(14) “I might be otherwise”
(15) “I shall be”
(16) “I shall be this [be like this]”
(17) “I shall be so [be like that]”
(18) “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
18 External Preoccupations with Craving

(1) by this (form, etc), “I am”
(2) by this, “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) by this, “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) by this, “I am otherwise”
(5) by this, “I do not exist”
(6) by this, “I exist”
(7) by this, “May I be”
(8) by this, “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) by this, “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) by this, “May I otherwise”
(11) by this, “I might be”
(12) by this, “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) by this, “I might be that”
(14) by this, “I might be otherwise”
(15) by this, “I shall be”
(16) by this, “I shall be this”
(17) by this, “I shall be so”
(18) by this, “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
With regard to external preoccupation with every interaction, one reinforces the self-view with further escalate to sensation resulting in the craving.

"by this experience or interaction, I look good and I appear positively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look good but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look good but I appear neutral"
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad and I appear positively",
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad but I appear neutral"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral and I appear positively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral but I appear neutral"

More the one appears positive with respect to the self-evaluation and the perception one appear, one experiences deeper shades of pleasantness. Similarly with it is negative one experiences unpleasantness. When there is no disparity, i.e., one's evaluation of oneself matches one's expectation of how one is perceived by others, there is a neutral sensation.
This is further appplified based on the people one tries to project the evaluation, the level one want to make an impression, the number of people involved as well as the source of the experience. The grouping of people could be:

oneself
special people (friends, foes, coworkers and family)
acquainted people
strangers

If the source is a close person then the feeling is more. If a loved one does something unexpected one feels more strongly than a stranger. E.g. if someone you admire is negative about you the pain is more.
If something about you is known by many vs few it will increase the feeling. E.g. if someone does something improper and is caught one may try to stop the knowledge of it spreading as one sees this as damaging.
If one it trying hard to impreses then this also will intensify the sensations. E.g. If one does badly at school it might be harder to let your parents know the results than a stranger who does not care as much.
The combinations give different shares of feelings:

something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other special people
something done by a special person, which does not affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other special people
something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other people who I care about
something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other people who are strangers

...

How can one best relinquish a need to appear a certain way to others?

This is by eliminating the classes of craving leading to self-view.


Is self-immolation an ethical act? The image of the Buddhist Monk Thich Quang Duc committing suicide by self-immolation is a hugely iconic image of the 20th century. But bearing in mind the first precept against taking life, can this be considered an ethical act in the context of Buddhism.

I appreciate that as a political act it was brave and significant. Since Thich Quang Duc was a committed Buddhist I would imagine that he was pretty certain it was in keeping with Buddhist ethics. What was his line of reasoning? Is there precedent in scripture for this kind of act?

There is no simple answer, since it will always depend on the context. However, in most cases, it would go agains the first precept: to abstain from killing.

However, there could be situations where the act is interpreted in different contexts. Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote (a few years after the incident in the picture):

  The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength
  and determination that he can endure the greatest of suffering to
  protect his people. What he really aims at is the expression of his
  will and determination, not death. To express will by burning oneself,
  therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an
  act of construction, that is to suffer and to die for the sake of
  one’s people.

In a more recent interview (with Oprah Winfrey), Thich Nhat Hanh mentioned that there were a lot of killings (by the government of its citizens) in the country at the time, and that the monk that chose this action saw it as a peaceful action to put an end to the violence (protesting with a non-violent action to create attention, instead of violence that would cause more violence). In other words, the action to save many lives was an act of compassion.

From Wikipedia regarding sacrificing the body:

  The act of sacrificing one's own body, though not by fire, is a
  component of two well-known stories found in the ancient Buddhist text
  known as the Jataka tales, which, according to Buddhist tradition,
  gives accounts of past incarnations of the Buddha. In the "Hungry
  Tigress" Jataka, Prince Sattva looked down from a cliff and saw a
  starving tigress that was going to eat her newborn cubs, and
  compassionately sacrificed his body in order to feed the tigers and
  spare their lives. In the "Sibi Jataka", King Śibi or Shibi was
  renowned for unselfishness, and the gods Śakra and Vishvakarman tested
  him by transforming into a hawk and a dove. The dove fell on the
  king's lap while trying to escape the hawk, and sought refuge. Rather
  than surrender the dove, Śibi offered his own flesh equivalent in
  weight to the dove, and the hawk agreed. They had rigged the balance
  scale, and King Śibi continued cutting off his flesh until half his
  body was gone, when the gods revealed themselves, restored his body,
  and blessed him.

A much discussed topic, and the answer is that it depends on the context.


Canonical definition of Upekkha Where can I find a canonical definition of equanimity (upekkha) in the Theravada buddhist texts?

From SN 36.31:

"Now, O monks, what is worldly equanimity? There are these five cords of sensual desire: forms cognizable by the eye... tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense desire and alluring. It is the equanimity that arises with regard to these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly equanimity.'
"Now, what is unworldy equanimity? With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of gladness and sadness, a monk enters upon and abides in the fourth meditative absorption, which has neither pain-nor-pleasure and has purity of mindfulness due to equanimity. This is called 'unworldly equanimity.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly equanimity? When a taint-free monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred and freed of delusion, then there arises equanimity. This is called a 'still greater unworldly equanimity."


Equanimity in the Aghatavinaya Sutta In the Aghatavinaya Sutta, there are five antidotes given for arisen ill-will(āghāto). I am puzzled because one of these is to develop equanimity ("upekkhā tasmiṃ puggale bhāvetabbā") and another is to reflect on ownership of kamma, which is used to generate (/is the cause of) equanimity as I understand it. I don't understand what is intended by having these separate. Full text follows.

  "There are these five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred
  arises in a monk, he should wipe it out completely. Which five?

  "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.

  "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.

  "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.

  "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should pay him
  no mind & pay him no attention. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.

  "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct
  one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions:
  'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions,
  born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as
  his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that
  will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be
  subdued.

  "These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises
  in a monk, he should wipe it out completely."

Looking at the text, it does not recommend reflecting on the ownership etc of kamma as a method of developing equanimity (upekkha). Here it is specifically for removing resentment (āghāta). As far as I can tell from searching the electronic Pāli Canon the idea of reflecting on kamma is never linked with upekkhā.
In reflecting on kamma one is taking the approach to hindrances (nīvaraṇa), which Kamalashila in his book Meditation: The Buddhist Way of Tranquility and Insight calls, "considering the consequences" (pg 54-5). The other four are: cultivate the opposite (mettā & karuṇā); cultivate a "sky-like mind" (upekkhā); suppression (don't think of the person or asatiamanasikāro); and lastly going for refuge (not included here). This list and Kamalashila's are not a perfect match, but seem to be similar in intent. They are methods for dealing with the hindrances in preparation for practising jhāna.
I'm not sure whether it is helpful to think in terms of a hierarchy of "effectiveness". One has a number of techniques one can use to help deal with the hindrances, and tries each of them until one works.
The reflection on kamma comes from a list of five things to continuously reflect on famously found at AN 5.57, titled Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta (The Discourse of Facts to be Continuously reflected On) in the Burmese Ed. of the Canon. In this text it gives the benefit (athavasa) of doing this practice of reflecting on the consequences:

atthi, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ kāyaduccaritaṃ vacīduccaritaṃ manoduccaritaṃ. tassa taṃ ṭhānaṃ abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhato sabbaso vā duccaritaṃ pahīyati tanu vā pana hoti. idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthavasaṃ paṭicca ‘kammassakomhi, kammadāyādo kammayoni kammabandhu kammapaṭisaraṇo, yaṃ kammaṃ karissāmi — kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā — tassa dāyādo bhavissāmī’ti abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā.
There is, Monks, bad conduct (duccarita) of body, speech and mind by beings. But when one continuously reflects on [this reflection on kamma], then such wickedness is completely abandoned or it is [at least] diminished.

Thus the point of this practice is not so much generating upekkha as it is the elimination of wicked conduct (duccarita). And resentment (āghāta) is clearly a form of mental wicked conduct, a mano-duccarita, in the language of the Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta. Reflecting on the consequences of such wickedness will help the person who aims to eliminate the hindrance in preparation for meditation. Clearly this has more general ethical applications as well, but it seems the main context is meditation and eliminating the hindrances.


How to practise Zazen so that it leads to Satori? Currently I practise Zazen as I have read from books i.e 'Just sitting doing nothing'. I keep an erect sitting posture, back straight and eyes closed.
This hasen't led me anywhere.

So I am asking the official way to practise Zazen and Zen in general so as to lead one to Stori.

Yes it has.  You just don't know where it's led you.  Keep at it and you'll find your way out of the bag eventually.

(Official answer - get a teacher.  You can't practice Zen by yourself.)


Where can I learn more about 孔明點將? A relative of mine did some kind of praying ritual in front of a Buddha where she had a canister of 100 or so sticks, and on each stick there is a Chinese number from 1 to 100.  My relative started shaking the canister and eventually stick number 9 fell out.  My relative and I both do not speak or write chinese.  But apparently, she is supposed to read about 孔明點將, which is related to stick number 9.

Where can I get an English description/story of stick 9 孔明點將 ?

Also, we do not know anything about Buddhism. So if you can recommend any brief literature that might help with the context of stick 9 孔明點將 , that would be great.

I found the translation here:
http://accesschinese.com/divination/guanyin/your-lot.php?tile=9

Now that I read it, I don't think it has anything to do with Buddhism


Is it possible to attain wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration? Concentration and mindfulness is a rare achievement. People can have wrong views , wrong intentions but it seems they are able to achieve high concentration and mindfulness.

My question is : Is it possible to achieve wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration?

I think a lot of wrong mindfulness persists today utilised mainly in a non-Buddhist way. Many attempts were made to separate Mindfulness from Buddhist context. Example is mindfulness for mindfulness sake as in therapy; if people don't know the reason are they mindful, then the problem arises. As in, what is there to be found in the present moment, any why? They often don't know the why and what, and this is confusion.

All of the non-Buddhist approaches as MBSR might go extremely awry. Many charlatans make money by trying to make people to be mindful of the present moment as a "cure-all" therapy for everything. It has caused some cases of depression and people suffering from mental breakdown. Mindfulness like that has long history of creating examples of blind obedience in the East, such as creating Samurai culture in feudal Japan, as means of controlling people without questioning the orders.

In Buddhism however, the reasons are very clear, we want to apply wisdom of the teachings, releasing and transforming karmic seeds, breaking bad habits. It is much safer to do it this way, rather than apply it as a therapy for a specific case. Mindfulness should not be devoid of ethics, for performing good deeds ultimately lead us to a better life. Performing selfless acts destroys clinging and disease of "mine" and therapeutic mindfulness doesn't go that far.

Thus, mindfulness without practising other parts of the path in tandem is wrong mindfulness.

As for Right concentration, there has been a lot of issues recently about mixing Samatha, or mediation in general with psychedelics as it might be profound experience. Many magazines were involved in promoting such ideas. That I would call wrong concentration, the one that goes against composing the mind, but altering it.


What do Buddhists believe in? Does Buddhism say everything is an illusion? For Buddhist, are all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, he thinks I'm a philosophical zombie without minds,feeling,emotions? It turns out that all people in the world believe that other people have consciousness besides the Buddhism?I don't think this is true, so I want to clarify thanks

Buddhism teaches what is commonly called the human life form is comprised of five aggregates (SN 22.48; SN 22.22), namely, body, feelings (of pleasantness, unpleasantness & in-between), perceptions, mental formations (such as emotions & thinking) and consciousness via the six senses.
Buddhism teaches what is commonly called "the self" is merely a product of thinking and conditioning (SN 22.81) and is not ultimately real and is merely the manifesting of suffering (SN 5.10). Therefore, Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are "not-self" ("anatta"; SN 22.59).
Buddhism says anatta (not-self) is only the true nature of things but is also the understanding that leads to the ending of suffering because, according to the 1st Noble Truth (SN 56.11) all suffering is caused by the mind possessively clinging/attaching to things (the five aggregates; SN 56.11), both internally & externally, as "I", "me", "mine" and "self" (SN 22.1).
The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to mitigate and end suffering (MN 22 paragraph 56). Here, it is taught nothing whatsoever should be attached to (as "I" & "mine"; MN 37).
In Hinduism, when it is taught "everything is an illusion", the purpose of this teaching is also to end suffering and made the mind feel more free & unattached.
In summary, Buddhism believes if you can live according to the Noble Eightfold Path you can live a life that is free from suffering.


Is overthinking violate third precept? I have noticed most of the time third precept is interpreted as sexual misconduct or adultery. But third precept emphasize all the misbehavior and misconduct using all six sensual spheres. "Kamesumichchara" in here kama means involvement of all six sensual spheres.

E.g in this answer;  One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.

My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery?

Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?

In my (Mahayana) interpretation, Kamesu-micha-cara means "Behavior incorrectly motivated by desire of sensual pleasure". This pertains to any pleasure associated with any of the senses.

The core idea of the precept IMO is that "desire of pleasure" is "wrong motivation". It is not that sensual pleasure in and of itself is bad. It is that receiving pleasure is an invalid goal. Instead, behavior should be motivated by a valid goal, such as health, well-being, harmony, peace, and Liberation.

Since mind counts as one of the senses, any activity "motivated by desire of MENTAL pleasure" should count as violation of the precept. This would pertain to indulging in all types of mental pleasures such as idle conversations, games, fantasies, philosophizing and others.

There is a fine line here though. An activity would only be a violation of precept, if its sole motivation was receiving (mental) pleasure. If activity has benefits such as development of mental faculties, reduction of pathological mind states, and increase of wholesome mind states, then it should count as constructive activity of useful nature.

For example, if someone is depressed, and is engaging in meditation aimed at increasing motivation and generating positive mind states, this should not count as indulging in mental pleasure - even though it involves deliberate generation of joyful mind states.

So I think the main criteria here is, whether we are indulging for pure pleasure, or doing it deliberately with a wholesome goal in mind.

And yes, in this interpretation "overthinking" or more precisely "indulging in thinking and philosophizing for the pure pleasure of it" would count as violation of third precept.


What are the 4 wheels and 9 doors in Snp 1.29? What are the four wheels and nine doors mentioned in the sutta below?

Why is it "born from a bog"?

What is the meaning of the sutta?

From the Four Wheels Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1.29):

  “Having four wheels and nine doors,
  Filled up and bound with greed,
  Born from a bog, O great hero!
  How does one escape from it?”

  “Having cut the thong and the strap,
  Having cut off evil desire and greed,
  Having drawn out craving with its root:
  Thus one escapes from it.”

four wheels and nine doors

It means 4 limbs(?), 9 body openings (7 head, 2 lower) -- so, a human/being in sensual world. By cutting off kama-chanda, one leaves the sensual realm (human would & other sugati realms, is bound to higher heavens). As quick perceived. It seems not related to direct Nibbana (although "with its roots" is mentioned, but the wish was related to the dirty sensual realm).

See also AN 2.35: Samacitta Sutta — Minds in Tune

Further investigations in regard of "cakka", wheel:

More common is Chakra, for the "wheels" and might be also denote old indian models of "life-energy", usualy 5 or 7 charkras, which leads to

  The esoteric traditions in Buddhism generally teach four chakras.[3] In some early Buddhist sources, these chakras are identified as: manipura (navel), anahata (heart), vishuddha (throat) and ushnisha kamala (crown). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra

but as still not really proper seeming, a Pali research gives a better answer:

  catucakka an instr. of four, a lucky tetrad, a fourwheeler of the body as expressing itself in the four kinds of deportment, iriyāpathas A ii.32; S i.16, 63 (catucakkaŋ). In this sense generalized as a happy state, consisting of "4 blessings": paṭirūpadesa -- vāsa, sappurisûpassaya, atta -- sammāpaṇidhi, pubbe -- kata -- puññatā, https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Cakka&searchhws=yes

(sugati loka, human with certain merits)

bog: refers to birth in a womb, phlegm... swamp. The questioner obiviously aware of asubha of body, form.


Is it OK to purchase cat food? Forgive a (possibly) silly question - but I have a cat as a pet, and of course I purchase cat food for him and feed it to him. Being a pretty recent participant of Buddhist thought and practice, I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do myself) is frowned upon, but the thought occurred to me the other day - is it also frowned upon to buy my pet meat-based products? By doing so I participate in the killing of animals. On the other hand, cats are pretty much carnivores by nature, and trying to get a cat to go vegetarian would likely harm him.

I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do
  myself) is frowned upon

It depends on the tradition and personal beliefs. If you follow Theravada Buddhism, you wouldn't have any issue with feeding yourself or your cat with meat products. In Theravada Buddhism, the word of the Buddha is valued higher than personal opinions. So you or your cat is less likely to get frowned upon, just for eating meat. :) Vegetarianism is usually treated as a personal food preference.


What is the difference between mindfulness and detachment? From Mindfulness:

  Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which one can develop through the practice of meditation and through other training. Followers of Buddhist teachings utilize mindfulness to develop self-knowledge and wisdom that gradually lead to what is described as enlightenment or the complete freedom from suffering.

From Detachment:

  Detachment, also expressed as non-attachment, is a state in which a person overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world and thus attains a heightened perspective. It is considered a wise virtue and is promoted in various Eastern religions, such as Taoism and Buddhism.

I see that the two terms are very related, but I'd like to understand more about the differences and the interactions between the two. As in my understanding, the answer to the question mindfulness thinking about future and past? is that as long as one is detached to the past and the future, one can mindfully examine them. Is that correct?

'Mindfulness' means 'to remember' to apply/practise the Buddhist teachings. It does not mean 'bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment' (as written by a person in Wikipedia).

For example, if I wish to stalk and assassinate (murder) another person using a rifle, I must meticulously bringing my attention to experiences occurring in the present moment. Yet murdering a person in the present moment is not practising the Buddhist teachings.

In summary, for the 'trainee' of the higher path, the mind must continuously remember to not attach to any experience. Therefore, to practise non-attachment requires mindfulness, as written in the suttas:

  His mindfulness... is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, not clinging to anything in
  the world.

  MN 10


Why not force awareness of things during vipassana? I have heard a lot about vipassana just being mindful of what happens to come up, not looking for more things to notice. However, if we compare meditation with e.g. lifting weights, when you start, you lift (say) 50, so even though its harder, you add 20 more... Then when you normally just need to lift 50, its way easier because you've been working out with 70. My question is, why not do that with meditation? I'm curious why some people don't think it's the thing to do.

As in speed noting, if I can be aware of everything all at one time constantly isn't that being fully aware?  If I can see even the most minute details of the current reality effortlessly through pushing my mental ability during meditation, looking further into things to note more things and staying aware of them all at one time moment by moment till they pass away.  Until you lose track but then try to remember to be attentive to those that remain and notice the new.

What is said about mental "exercise" as a developmental practice?

The mental exercise the be able to note everything is developing Concentration and Wisdom. These are tenets covered in the Anapanasati Sutta and (Maha) Satipatthana Sutta according to the Theravada Tradition.


How to practice without a teacher? I'm going to join buddhist group which is in another city so I'll have few occasions to meet sensei especially because she is from USA and she arrives only few times a year to my country. So how should my practice look?

Ask your questions (about how to practice without a teacher) to the Sensei when you meet her.

Since you appear to be taking refuge in the Sensei, her advice would be the most appropriate (in the near term).


Individuality vs rebirth One topic that confuses me is that of rebirth, and how individuality may relate to it.

I've heard/read that the buddhist concept of rebirth is different than the popular concept of reincarnation, though I haven't found a clear explanation of the difference.

One metaphor that I've seem more than once is that of the flame in a candle, that can be transmitted to another candle, the idea being that of a certain continuity.

However, I think that poses a challenge to the idea of individuality. For instance, a flame may be transmitted to another candle, and still exist simultaneously in the first candle. The equivalent in terms of human life would be some content of the mind of Joe being somehow transmitted to another person (or multiple individuals) while still existing in the mind of Joe (that is, during his lifetime).

Also, a flame can be formed from 2 or more sources, for instance, we might use  match and a lighter to light a single candle. Conversely, one candle can transmit its flame to several other candles or objects. In terms of humans, that would be like the contents of the mind, or the karma, of Joe, being transmitted to Peter, Mary and Jeff after Joe's death. In that case, if Joe's karma is a mix of good/bad actions, presumably some of his "heirs" could get a good or bad portion of the karma by sheer luck. Also, we might imagine that the karma, or the contents of the minds of three different people, Peter, Mary and Jeff, combine after their deaths and then "land" on a newborn baby, Joe. In that case, If, say, Jeff was a really bad person, but Mary and Peter were really good, then Joe might receive a good "inheritance", and, in that sense, Jeff's bad karma would have been "diluted" by those of Mary and Peter.

What I'm getting at here is that, the way the candle metaphor is presented, it seems to be incompatible with the idea of individuality.

On the other hand, if we think that the karma of Joe will be transferred to some individual being or entity or person after Joe's death, and that Joe's present conditions are affected by the karma of only a single being in the past (as opposed to being the amalgamation of 2 or more karmas), then in this case individuality is preserved. But in that case, how does the concept of rebirth differs or is incompatible with the popular concepts of reincarnation and soul?

If Joe's karma gets transmitted after his death to Jeff, and after Jeff's death his karma gets transmitted to Mary, etc, isn't that tantamount to the idea of a soul? I think some people might object and say that the soul is like a "thing" that has infinite existence, while in the buddhist view there's a constant change, and constant creation of karma. But, to use another metaphor, wouldn't that be like comparing a tree, from the seed stage to a full grown tree? We might say that the full tree is not really the sapling, and the sapling is not the seed it once was, and that is true in one sense, but in another sense, the tree is still the same "being" as the seed. One seed will not generate 2 or more trees, and 2 or more seeds will not combine to form a single tree. Regardless of the definition of "continuity" that we choose, there's clearly a sense of individuality.

Where does buddhism stand on that?

The flame analogy is not logical to me since, to me, a flame must depend on the fuel & wick, similar to how the mind must depend on the physical body & food. Imo, a flame cannot be 'disembodied', just as a mind cannot be disembodied. For example, when sparks spread fire (say in a forest fire), the sparks of fire are attached to some physical matter, such as leaves.

Similarly, the Pali suttas appear to state in many places (such a MN 38, SN 22.53 & SN 12.67) that there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body & sense organs.

I have only read about a dozen or so places in the Pali suttas from around 8,000 suttas that teach about literal reincarnation (eg. AN 3.15, MN 143, MN 50, MN 81, etc). Since these contradict the main teachings, particularly SN 22.79 (which is about 'past dwellings' rather than 'past lives' & states all recollections of the past are not a 'self'), the impression arises these literal reincarnation suttas are later additions rather than the words of the Buddha.

The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth' or 'rebirth'.

The impression of Buddhism I have is, as Buddhism grew in India, the clergy, keen to expand Buddhism, introduced reincarnation teachings (which are very appealing to many people), the most prominent being the Jataka Tales about the Buddha's past lives & similar suttas in the Digha Nikaya.

On face value, my personal view is the core teachings of the Buddha do not include life-to-life physical rebirth.


The senses, electroreception, synaesthesia I am curious: how do Buddhist traditions treat senses other than the six that are traditionally given, e.g., electroreception (the ability to detect electrical fields/stimuli)? If there are actually more than six senses in some cases, it seems mildly problematic.

Related question: how do Buddhists talk about synaesthesia? Are there any interesting issues surrounding this phenomenon?

My answer is based on my experience with Buddhist thought (about 13 years of study and 1-2 years of retreat)--when it comes down to it, it would not be problematic if there were to be a seventh sense door.

While Buddhism talks about the six sense doors (the regular five plus anything experienced purely in the mind [emotion, thought, etc]) which are said to encompass all that a human being could experience in this conditioned world, in theory you could throw in as many sense doors as you like and it doesn't make a difference--just be mindful, practice the eightfold path, and see dukkha as dukkha, and so on.

In another vein, having had some experience with what seems to be electroreception, it seems to fall under the realm of the physical or body sense door.

Regarding synesthesia, I have not heard about that in a Buddhist context, but I would extrapolate from what the Abhidharma says--each second contains millions and millions of mind moments, so no matter how fast or simultaneous anything seems to be, only one mind moment at a time ever happens. I haven't mastered meditation to the extent that I can verify that the Abidharma matches my experience, but from a intellectual standpoint, that would seem to be the answer, i.e. senses mixing is really just rapidly flowing sense perception.

Some interesting questions--all sense contact would fall on the wheel of dependent origination, so that would be a fruitful line of inquiry. And with regard to any sense contact, feeling, perception, etc., as Joseph Goldstein (American Buddhist teacher) once said, "Just notice what arises and don't cling." Can't go wrong with that.


Views of world during insight meditation I am reading books on Buddhism and I come across this sentence in every book.

It states that our world view will change and we will know actual working of the world during insight meditation.

It doesn't provide any explanation on how  different it is / will be from the view which I have. Whether this actual view of world is same for everyone who does insight meditation or it is different based on the experience one has?

What is difference between these two views?

It's a moment by moment view of our own individual experience. You know the workings of your imediate experience more and more the more you practice seeing reality as it is. Seeing reality as it is means putting more focus on whatever you're aware of on purpose, in your own experiencial reality, moment by moment. This is basically insight meditation or mindfulness.

When you understand your own world of experience then you know the rest of the world because it all works fundamentally the same. Approached another way, your experience is the world for you as my experience is my world for me.-Metta


Does sexual liberalism lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm? In DN 31, the Buddha said a libertine is an evil companion leading to ruin.

  There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine,
  any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and
  companion.

  These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.

In the Tanhavagga, the Buddha taught craving, particularly when developed, leads to woe and suffering:

  334. The craving of one given to heedless living grows like a creeper. Like the monkey seeking fruits in the forest, he leaps from
  life to life (tasting the fruit of his kamma).

  335. Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.

  342. Beset by craving, people run about like an entrapped hare. Held fast by mental fetters, they come to suffering again and again for a
  long time.

Therefore, if a person pursues and engages in sexual activity merely for sexual gratification, will they increase craving in both themselves and another?

If a man, for example, has sex with a woman because his has lust but has not personal commitment towards the woman, will not craving be created in the woman leading her to keep searching for a sexual partner?

Are those who are always searching for sex, love & companionship destined for rebirth in the hungry ghost world or even hell?

Let me present the so-called Tathagata Dhamma viewpoint, represented by Dhammadhatu. The answer is no, sexual liberalism doesn't lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm. You may want to want to read this answer to see why, according to this viewpoint, rebirth cannot fall into the dhamma of the Buddha. If there is no rebirth, then, logically speaking, there is no rebirth in the hungry ghost realm either.


Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality? A standard model of human practical reasoning is the belief-desire-intention model of action.

Very simply put: The agent has a desire (“I want to be a doctor”) and a set of beliefs (“Studying medicine will get me there”) on the basis of which s/he forms an intention to act in a certain way (“I’ll study hard and try to get in to medical school”). When you ask a person, the intention and the desire is what the person refers to as her or his reasons for doing (and not doing) what s/he does. F.ex. staying home and reading instead of going to the pub.

Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality that can be extracted on the basis of canonical texts? And if so, is the Buddhist practical rationality model normative (what's beneficial/not beneficial) or descriptive, based on the agents subjective rationality like the belief-desire-intention model of action?

Here is more on the model (as ascribed to D. Davidson, the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes goes back - hold fast! - to Plato).

the belief-desire-intention model of action

Are the "four noble truths" an example of that?

I "believe" the first three truths
I "desire" the end of suffering
Therefore I "intend" the fourth noble truth

Or "ethics":

I believe that immorality causes or doesn't alleviate suffering
I wish to avoid causing suffering
Therefore I intend to avoid immorality

Or "compassion":

I believe I am able to suffer (and want to avoid that)
I believe other people are like me (able to suffer and wanting to avoid that)
Therefore I intend other people to be free from suffering

  the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes back - hold fast! - to Plato

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I liked it. I'd rather not spoiler it but I was remembering it earlier today: towards the climax (which isn't at the end of the book), he goes back to Homer and the Sophists. He quite loses his cool over Aristotle, which is funny at the time, sadder later.


How is white lie damaging? Someone is chased by a murderer, he hides in your house. The person who wants to kill him asks you if you have seen the man. And you say you didn't see. How is this action damaging, what harm have you done?

How is this action damaging, what harm have you done?

Actions are 3-fold. They are done by body, speech and mind. All actions originate in the mind (Dhp. verse 1-2).
Unwholesome actions are based in the 3 root defilements, i.e. Greed, Hatred and Delusion. All other defilements are variations of these roots.
When one commits an unwholesome (akusala) action, e.g. tells a lie, then one is stiring up/giving rise to defilements and reacting to them. Defilements are one of the foundations for unwholesome actions.
When commiting unwholesome actions by body, speech and mind, oneself is always the first one to be harmed. That is because one must give rise to defilements and react to them, i.e. act on basis of them, thereby harming oneself and setting oneself back on the path.
One is moving further away from Nibbana, when one commits volitional unwholesome actions.
The Buddha was very clear on the destructive nature of lying, even if a lie is merely told in jest.
This can be seen in the "Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta". In this sutta the Buddha is giving an exhortation to his son Rahula, on how to distinguish between wholesome (kusala) and unwholesome actions.
The following quote is the Buddha's words on the topic of lying:

Thus I have heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary .

Now on that occasion the venerable Rahula was living at Ambalatthika. Then, when it was evening, the Blessed One rose from meditation and went to the venerable Rahula at Ambalatthika. The venerable Rahula saw the Blessed One com- ing in the distance and made a seat ready and set out water for washing the feet. The Blessed One sat down on the seat made ready and washed his feet. The venerable Rahula paid homage to him and sat down at one side.

Then the Blessed One left a little water in the water vessel and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this little water left in the water vessel?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so little, Rahula, is the recluseship of those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie."

Then the Blessed One threw away the little water that was left and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see that little water that was thrown away?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so, Rahula, those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie have thrown away their recluseship."

Then the Blessed One turned the water vessel upside down and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this water vessel turned upside down?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so, Rahula, those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie have turned their recluseship upside down."

Then the Blessed One turned the water vessel right way up again and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this hollow, empty water vessel?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so hollow and empty, Rahula, is the recluseship of those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie."

"Suppose, Rahula, there were a royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles, full-grown in stature, high-bred, and accustomed to battle. In battle he would perform his task with his forefeet and his hindfeet, with his forequarters and his hindquarters, with his head and his ears, with his tusks and his tail, yet he would keep back his trunk. Then his rider would think: 'This royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles.. .performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hind- feet... yet he keeps back his trunk. He has not yet given up his life.' But when the royal tusker elephant...performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hindfeet, with his forequarters and his hindquarters, with his head and his ears, with his tusks and his tail, and also with his trunk, then his rider would think: 'This royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles... performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hind- feet... and also with his trunk. He has given up his life. Now there is nothing this royal tusker elephant would not do.

So too, Rahula, when one is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I say, that one would not do. Therefore, Rahula, you should train thus: 'I will not utter a falsehood even as a joke.'

-- MN 61 Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta, p. 523, Bodhi Translation

For further information on this important sutta, there are 2 audio Dhamma talks available.

First one is by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and can be found here.
The other is by Ajahn Brahmali and can be found here.

If you have any questions to what I wrote, let me know.


Milarepa and Avalokiteshvara practice In the Vajrayana tradition, where did Milarepa state that it was possible to use the practice of Chenrézik (Avalokiteshvara) instead of the one of Hevajra?

There is a qualitative difference between a practice which uses Avalokitasvara (Chenrezig) for visualizations, etc., and the practice that was used by Avalokitasvara to reach enlightenment. They are not the same.
The Mahayana/Vajrayna Surangama Sutra is of immeasurable value in this regard. It describes this path, which was taken by Buddha and Manjusri, as well as Avalokitasvara, and all Buddhas. See Manjushri’s Summation from the Surangama Sutra: https://bit.ly/ManjushriSummation
Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö’s “The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come,” (“ma 'ongs lung bstan gsal byed sgron me zhes bya ba bzhugs so”) indicates this meditation method is the one most useful for beings such as we, in the Dharma ending time. See: http://bit.ly/TheLightThatMakesThingsClear
Using this method with the support of inner spontaneous sounds* results in the accomplishment of Great Responsiveness (Mahakaruna) and the supreme siddhi.
There is a universal understanding of this path. See: http://bit.ly/PathToEnlightenment
The Tibetan Nyingma teacher, Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche, is teaching the Surangama Sutra at the Larung Gar center, in Sêrtar County of Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, in Sichuan, China, also known as Kham, which he is the head of, since late 2019.
The english translations of those teachings are on Youtube. This is the webpage announcing his teachings: http://khenposodargye.org/teachings/khenpos-classical-teachings/surangama-sutra/
Note: many traditions use inner spontaneous sounds to different purposes and with different interpretations. Here are a list of keywords to search with: Abstract Sound, Astral Sound, Anāhata Nāda, Dharma Sound of the Diamond Samadhi, Chönyid kyi rangdra (Chos Nyid Kyi Rang Sgra), Dharmata Swayambhu Nada, Divine Tremoring, Eternal Sound, Holy Stream of Sound, Inner sacred sound, Inner Sound, Music of the Spheres, Nada-Brahman, Omkara Dhvarni, Primordial Sound, Resonance of Emptiness, Sawt-e-sarmad, Sacred Sound, Shabda, Shabda Brahman, Sound of Creation, Sound of Silence, Soundless Sound, Thunder of Silence, Transcendental Sound, Unborn Sound, Unstruck Sound, Word of God.


What should I choose, Life or Nirvana? A little personal story ahead also sorry for the long post...

Story:

Three years back my life was a disaster, I was as far away from Dhamma as possible,   I was into the dark side of modern life. Drowned into money, greed, sex, addictions which inevitably rolled me into stress and depression, but I still had my job. At the time, I was reading one of the books by Thich Nhat Hanh and one evening as I left my office, I sat on a fountain-side watching all the people coming out of the high-rise buildings rushing to catch the tide back home. I had kind of epiphanies moment where I asked what am I doing with this? where is my life going? I felt that I definitely did not want to spend my life climbing the corporate ladder...it was like a terribly dreadful feeling I can't put into words...

So very next day I quit my high paying job, in a few days moved out of the big city and into my parent's house. From there I started seriously reading Buddhism. In a years time, I was way over my addictions at least the alcohol was out. From there I did a couple of 10 day- vipassana retreats and also did a month-long retreat at a Zen monastery. At the end of last year, I was over my anti-depressants tablets and stopped going to a psychiatrist.

This whole year I spent meditating in Zazen and Vipassana, I have finally to my satisfaction finished reading books. Now I have come to the point that I have known that the Theravada tradition is best suited to me and I am reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Jnanas the third time.

Question:

My life has been changed for better, I don't have a job for three years but I don't have any financial worries or family concerns. I have narrowed down to bare minimum needs and I can possibly live like this till I die.

But now it seems I want to live in a better way, in the right way according to Dhamma. Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara. Life seems to have gotten a new meaning if I choose to give it. It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time.

OR

I have made some good progress in meditation. If I continue with current focus for this coming year(2019) I am hoping to progress till a nimitta. Also, I have met a normal guy online who has attained Enlightenment, (from his words and actions he looks genuine) so following his example, Nirvana seems like an achievable goal within a human lifetime.

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging. Now life seems like worth living again, although I am very much well versed with suffering.

So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara(going back to make money and lay life) and Nirvana(single minded focus on meditation)?

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.

This is a problem because you think that being reborn is good but actually it is suffering. If you want to be reborn in a heavenly realm you should know that these realms are also impermanent and it is much harder to practice the dharma there. And you also have no idea how much you might have suffered in samsara.

In SN 15.3, the Buddha said this.

  "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

If you want to achieve nibanna then practice the noble eight fold path.

  "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. [4] Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

You must also practice the four frames of reference. I’m not going to say how to practice it here but these four frames of reference are not four different exercises. Right mindfulness comes before right concentration so I think you should practice it if you want to achieve nibanna.


How close is English to Pali? How close is English to Pali? If you look at the etymological pages in wiktionary, for English words, it often includes a "Proto-Indo-European" root, and sometimes mentions Sanksrit too. Take e.g. 'mad'
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mad#Etymology

From Middle English mad, madde, madd, medd, from Old English ġemǣdd,
ġemǣded (“enraged”), past participle of ġemǣdan, *mǣdan (“to make
insane or foolish”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to change;
damage; cripple; injure; make mad”), from Proto-Germanic *maidaz
("weak; crippled"; compare Old English gemād (“silly, mad”), Old High
German gimeit (“foolish, crazy”), Gothic  (gamaiþs,
“crippled”)), from Proto-Indo-European *mey- ("to change"; compare Old
Irish máel (“bald, dull”), Old Lithuanian ap-maitinti (“to wound”),
Sanskrit मेथति (méthati, “he hurts, comes to blows”)).

Is there anywhere I can read about Pali as a language that has influenced the etymon, development, of English today?

You can find this info on the wikipedia page for Indo-European Languages in the form of a family tree below, with Pali and English highlighted with a yellow box.
Legend:

Green: Language still in use
Red: Language extinct
White: Categories

English is a Germanic language, while Pali is an Indo-Iranian language. Both come under the major family of Indo-European languages.

Credits: Modified from this image


Lending a friend money,and not getting it back Last year ,I lent a friend alot of money ,he convinced me that he lost his wallet and needed money for certain payment,promising that he will return it after 3 month,he payed some of it  then delayed it to the next year and now he tells me to forget about it till he can return it.

Now there is a feeling of regret not only because of the money which ,I Lent in expectation of getting it back but also because the friendship got affected . Feeling that he is a liar made me think , I should've been mindful of the deception.As well as not having any compassion for him.

What should be done right now according to Buddhism?.

Next time better simply give, never expect something return, for bondage is seldom a help for both, all involved. If not able to give, that's "fine" as well, but never lend. Even if now saying "no need to pay back", for example, your friend might be even more lost.

My person did, after doing such one or two times, never gave loans and it makes/made much more on releasing joy to simply give when asked and able to, and never even a little regret in don't giving loans but make clear liberal gifts.

Now what to expect? Just let it be his good and proper or demerits? If possible to bear it. Would be one possibility: patient. Things are at least not for sure and giving, even if time and place to get back on good track, is always good.

Much joy in wise and liberal growing. Joy in giving without intended on a deal or back of low and material things.

(Note that this is not given for trade exchange or stacks, but to turn toward freedom from bound in loan giving because of debt)


Reference request: three types of actions I'm looking for a sutta in which the Buddha is recalling past lives, including, I believe, lives as the great Brahma, and asks himself on account of what actions he ascended to a position of such great power; he investigates and answers that it was because of three things. I remember two--abstention and giving--but can't remember the third. If anyone knows what passage I am talking about it would be much appreciated.

The 3 qualities:

dānassa giving
damassa self-control (or desires can't control you)
saññamassā'ti restraint (have control over your faculties)

§ 22.   {Iti 1.22; Iti 14}

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results. Having developed a mind of good will for seven years, then for seven aeons of contraction & expansion I didn't return to this world. Whenever the aeon was contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power. Then for thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the gods. For many hundreds of times I was a king, a wheel-turning emperor, a righteous king of Dhamma, conqueror of the four corners of the earth, maintaining stable control over the countryside, endowed with the seven treasures[1] — to say nothing of the times I was a local king. The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., giving, self-control, & restraint.'"

  Train in acts of merit
  that bring long-lasting bliss —
  develop giving,
          a life in tune,
      a mind of good-will.
  Developing these
  three things
  that bring about bliss,
          the wise reappear
          in a world of bliss
  unalloyed.


What are the Five Precepts? And where are they found in the Pali Canon? I realize that this is a Straw Man question for the group but I would like to raise our visibility on  the Web and perhaps start our community wiki.

It is the start of Abhisanda Sutta (AN) 8:39:

  "Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?

  "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life.  In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning taking what is not given (stealing), the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning lying, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from lying. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

These are the "five precepts" or pañca-sikkhāpada. They are frequently stated in English as:

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

Which you can see along with the Eight Precepts at The Five Precepts


Renunciation and Negative Mysticism (Escaping from ones Dharma) May All Beings be Truly Happy!

Is it possible that one can see that everything they have tried has failed, in a worldly sense, and has brought about suffering for themselves and others: has been completely selfish in motivation, at most times; and the times when help was extended to others, had little effect on alleviation of any suffering.
Much contemplation has been gone into very deeply on this subject.  I have found that without Right Loving Understanding, one is lost and is subject to confusion and suffering.

So my question is that it seems logical to stop and address ones own suffering, and become free from suffering, so that one can be a beacon of peace and sanity in an insane world: so I am drawn to the monastic life ... but, have been told that this is a path of negative mysticism: that one should be a part of the world, and find time for personal peace while maintaining a householder's responsibilities?

I have failed time and again attempting to achieve this goal.  It seems that society and the way in which it functions is deeply corrupted.  How does one remain uncorrupted unless one is free from it?

The most important goal at this point is to be free from suffering so one can be liberated and be of service to humanity.  Can this be achieved in a corrupted world?

In a future that had a respect for all living things and lived at a humane level of consciousness I could see this being possible.

Your idea about "One's Dharma" is Hindu & not Buddhist. Equally, your concerns about helping the world are too far ahead in respect to priorities. A monastic life (which does not necessarily mean official ordination) is the formal opportunity to final personal inner peace & contentment. In Buddhism, developing inner peace is the primary responsibility. Monasticism is the ideal mysticism. If personal liberation is a person's path, this person will find themselves in a monastery. When I was 23 years old, I found & lived my 1st year (as a non-monk) in a monastery, where I meditated around 8 hours per day. This was the most beneficial year of my life. As for the world, it is certainly increasingly corrupted & little can be done to help the world at the current time.


What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom in the Buddha's teaching? What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

In Mahayana, intelligence and wisdom are not used interchangeably. Wisdom has various meanings, depending on the context. The issue is that different Tibetan words are translated 'wisdom.' I assume these Tibetan words correspond to different Sanskrit words as well.

In the Abhidharma, it says:

  QUESTION: What is wisdom (shes rab)?

  RESPONSE: It strongly
  differentiates the qualities of things that are to be examined. It has
  the function of overcoming doubt. Just as it has been said above,
  wisdom is a knower that individually differentiates the faults and
  good qualities of things that are to be examined.

However, wisdom (yeshe) refers to the cognizer realizing emptiness. There are also three types of wisdoms:

  There are three types of wisdom: the wisdom arisen from hearing, the
  wisdom arisen from thinking, and the wisdom arisen from meditation.

The wisdom arisen from analytical meditation on emptiness is yeshe. It is the one we refer to when we speak of the higher training in wisdom. Or when we speak of cultivating the perfection of wisdom.

Intelligence refers to a mental factor that a student must have. It resembles shes rab.
In the Middle Length Lam Rim, Tsongkhapa says:

  Someone to whom good ways of explaining appear as faulty ones, due to
  not having the intelligence to distinguish them, is not a suitable
  vessel. Therefore one needs to have the intelligence that understands
  [what is to be abandoned, and what is to be adopted].


Where can I find suttas about the immaterial realm? I read in Ajahn Brahms book that you pass through 4 immaterial realms after jhanas and before enlightenment. I want to know more about them. Where  can I find the suttas in the Tripitaka?

The immaterial jhana are optional & not required for enlightenment (refer to SN 12.70), which is why immaterial jhana are not included in the noble eightfold path (refer to SN 45.8). The Buddha attained enlightenment by developing the 4th material jhana (refer to MN 19). However, the immaterial jhana are described in many suttas (such as in detail in MN 111) because they are a natural development of concentration or quieting (refer to SN 36.10). I recommend reading MN 111.


vipassana progress questions Does a stream winner who practices vipassana tend to have a feeling being oblivious to most of things he thought was very important before.It's a feeling as if things don't really be marked in the mind as very important as it used to be. Is it possible to happen?

It's possible but not necessarily a sign of having entered the stream. If someone engages is vipassana meditation for a couple of decades f.i. there can also be an increased lack of interest in things or forgetfulness. Just due to increased habituation of new ways and natural wear-and-tear of old habits which are no longer supported.

To be on the safe side: I would suggest to see it as a sign progress and of effective meditation rather than as a sign of being a stream-enterer.


Why should we stop the Samsara? Throughout the holy texts it is implied that the reader is looking for a way to stop the cycle.

Why should the reader want to stop the cycle?

I think that dukkha is the reason why the reader is looking for a way to stop the cycle.

I think that, because the "four noble truths" were the first thing that the Buddha explained, during his first sermon after enlightenment (with dukkha being the subject of the first of these four noble truths).

The fact that dukkha is the cause of the search (i.e. that "the search is the result of stress") is also stated explicitly, in the Nibbedhika Sutta:

  "'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should
  be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of
  stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The
  path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.' Thus it
  has been said. In reference to what was it said?

  Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
  the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
  getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
  clinging-aggregates are stress.

  "And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the
  cause by which stress comes into play.

  "And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor,
  slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in
  stress.

  "And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a
  person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns,
  laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with
  pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or
  two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either
  in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress.

Saying that dukkha is the reason for the search might seem like a one-size-fits-all answer: if several/many people want to stop the cycle, do they all have the same reason for wanting to?

For that reason, dukkha is a broad term with apparently several meanings or usages; the WIkipedia article starts with ...

  Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan: སྡུག་བསྔལ་ sdug bsngal, pr. "duk-ngel") is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness".[a] The principle of dukkha is one of the most important concepts in the Buddhist tradition. The Buddha is reputed to have said: "I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha."

... and then continues, with many various categories (and translations) of dukkha.


Can someone provide explanation on dependent origination According to this law, every phenomenon owes its origin to another
phenomenon prior to it. It may simply be expressed as “depending
on this, this originates”. An example of Dependent Origination in
nature is given below:
There being clouds in the sky it rains.
It having rained, the road becomes slippery.
The road becoming slippery, a man falls down.
The man having fallen down becomes injured.
Here a shower of rain depends on the clouds in the sky.
The road becoming slippery depends on the rain.
The fall of the man depends on the road becoming slippery.
The injury of the man depends upon his fall:
Conversely:
If there were no clouds in the sky, it would not have rained.
Then the road would not have become slippery.
Then the man would not have fallen.
Then he would not have become injured.

So this is understandable and clear to anyone. So can anyone explain (in simplified way)dependent origination step by step with practical examples?

okay, since you asked for a simple explanation... this is about as simple as I can make it:

Avidya: A newborn baby has no memories nor concepts, just a potential to learn.
Samskaras: Everything that happens leaves a trace, or imprint, on the baby mind.
Vijnana: As similar patterns happen again and again, baby begins to recognize them and classify in buckets by similarity and thus becomes minimally aware.
Namarupas: The baby begins to assemble recognizable features into individual objects.
Six doors: The baby begins to develop a notion of "here" and "there", and the doors connecting "here" with "there" (seeing, hearing etc.)
Contact: As objects disappear and reappear, the baby comes up with idea of "contact" or having the object.
Vedana: Baby notices that when some objects are present it feels good inside. So baby decides that this good feeling comes from the object.
Craving: From this, baby learns to miss a good object and to crave it again.
Upadana: As this craving becomes obsessive, the baby learns to make the contact its goal and to work towards the goal, in order to experience the good feeling again.
Bhava: As baby learns to crave, work towards a goal, and enjoy the gratification, it develops a notion of self or "I". Because it has the same obsessive thought of the goal from the initial desire, through working on it, and until receiving gratification. This obsessive craving becomes "I".
Jāti: From the notion of "I" comes self-identification with a living organism -- a human individuum.
Jarā-marana: From the self-identification with an individuum comes idea of death and million other problems.

The only real problem with this explanation... there is no baby! Baby is an object we learned to assemble. Which is why Buddha's original language is more precise, even if cryptic. "Ignorance" -> "Samskaras" -> "Vijnana" and so on. But if we put aside nitpicking about reification inevitable to any casual explanation, and just focus on the main idea, at least this explanation gives us a hint what Dependent Origination could be about.


According to Buddha's characteristics and teaching in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana (and Karmamudra)? One of the characteristics of Vajrayana is its secret transmission (esoteric tranmission) of certain teachings. The other one is the controversial   karmamudra (sexual practice to reach spiritual attainment).

So the question is, according to the characteristics and teaching of Buddha in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana and karmamudra?

According to the early texts the Buddha didn't have any secret teachings. Somewhere in the Digha Nikaya (I think it's in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, but it's a very long Sutta and I can't quite locate it) the Buddha said: "I do not have the closed fist of the teacher who holds anything back" and in AN 1.283 the Buddha said: "Three things shine openly, not in secret. What three? The orb of the moon, the orb of the sun and the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathàgata"

One thing to note though is that the Tantras mostly don't claim to have been spoken by the historical Buddha Sidhartha Gautama, or Shakyamuni Buddha, but by Vajradhara, a different Buddha that is often understood to be Shakyamuni appearing in Tantric form. They say that Vajradhara appeared to the various Mahasiddhas in visions and revealed to them the various Tantras that became the basis of the tantric teachings.

Also, just to clarify for readers who may not be aware, Karmamudra is a high level tantric practice in which one engages in sexual intercourse with a special consort in order to destroy the knots around the Heart Chakra and thus allow the attainment of enlightenment. It is a very high level practice and isn't done lightly. Monks are not allowed to do it (at least in the Gelugpa school) because of their vows of celibacy. It's a very rare practice.


How does the བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ (Bardo Thodol) "Tibetan Book of the Dead" fit in with the Kangyur and Tengyur I am looking for a public domain copy of the Tibetan book of the dead (in original Tibetan script, not a translation) online in text format (i.e. not a PDF). This lead me to the main question...

My question is, I have seen the large volumes of the Kangyur and Tengyur, but then independently there is this book Bardo Thodol, The Tibetan Book of the Dead. They say it is from Nyingma literature. Being a novice, I am trying to understand the relation between Nyingma and Kangyur/Tengyur. And thus how the Tibetan Book of the Dead fits in. Wondering if one could outline the relations between them.

The Bardo Thodol is an extract from the Guhyagarbha tantra, which is the most important tantra in the Mahayoga class, and the most studied tantra within the Nyingma school. The Guhyagarbha is certainly in the Kangyur.


What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha? What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha?
There are three kinds of Tanha. (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava)
some description of Vibhava Tanha:

“And how do some slip right past? Some, feeling horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with that very becoming, relish non-becoming: ‘When this self, at the break-up of the body, after death, perishes & is destroyed, and does not exist after death, that is peaceful, that is exquisite, that is sufficiency!’ This is how some slip right past.
Itivuttaka 49

See also What is Vibhava Tanha? (on Dhamma Wheel).

yes there is not much on Vibhava Tanha in the suttas. The term Vibhava Tanha always appear without any detail.https://suttacentral.net/define/vibhava
Perhaps the closest you get is the dimension of nothing or perception-nonperpcetion like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html

today some people say that Vibhava Tanha was added because puthujjanas managed to think that a lack of bhava Tanha means idolizing suicide, so they countered that with the lack of the formal opposite of bhava tanha, which is Vibhava Tanha...


Any instance in the pali canon where a sotāpanna born as a human? According to the Theravada Buddhism, a sotāpanna can be born in 7 existence in kama-loka which includes human realm.

  Yê ariya saccâni vibhâvayanti - gambhira paññnêna sudêsitâni,
  Kincâpi tê honti bhusappamattâ - na te bhavam attamam âdiyanti,
  Idampi sanghê ratanam panîtam - êtêna saccêna suvatthi hôtu.

  Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.

  -- Ratana Sutta Verse 9

Is there any such instance in the pali canon, in the commentaries or in any Buddhist culture?

AN 3.87 didn't provide any specific instance but in this sutta, the Buddha talked about 3 grades of stream enterers from low to high:

...Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering;
With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering.


Does the degree of the victim's sentience correlate with the kamma associated with killing it? "One should not kill a living being,
  nor cause it to be killed,
  nor should one incite another to kill.
  Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.

  Sutta Nipāta 2.396"

Is there more negative kamma associated with killing a biting insect than with killing a more sentient animal like a sparrow or mole?

For instance, do I incur more negative kamma by swatting a mosquito that is sucking my blood than if I kill a more sentient and less troublesome squirrel that is raiding my garden?

Yes, killing a human generates far more karma then crushing an ant.
However the size of the seed does not determine the outcome of the seed.

One teacher once noted that the karma of swatting a fly grows exponentially.
That after a few days, especially if it is a repeated action, it can be grown to the size of the initial seed of killing a human.

However the initial human killing seed grows similarly as fast.

The thing is we have all these seeds or "karmic imprints" if you will, that are all maturing and ripening. Both good an bad, and they are coming in at a rate of around 60 imprints a second.

I once let a mosquito eat its fill from my arm back when I was more seriously into Buddhism, the thought process was along the lines of sure, I have plenty of blood... eat up. The bite was magnificently itchy, and I will never do such again.

Now I crush mosquitoes, I don't enjoy killing them, I don't seek it out, but if one is buzzing around in my apartment it is off to the bardo with it.

However, squirrels raiding your garden, that is a slightly different scenario. Have you researched other options? Is there another way to protect your garden? It would be worth it to explore these questions from a karmic standpoint.

Better to plant as few of those kinds of seeds as possible, or plant the opposite kind of seed... maybe out of compassion put out some food that squirrels eat and enjoy nearby, if the squirrel is hungry you will get the karma of feeding a being of lesser sentience. A full squirrel is less likely to raid your garden.

Another thing to consider is the attachment to the garden, and the outcome of the harvest. If you lose one or two tomatoes, but harvest 12, really I'd say let the squirrel do its thing. I don't know the full extent of the raiding though, perhaps this squirrel ate all of your tomatoes. It still is not after your blood though, so there is that.