Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist? Buddhism teaches us to practice harmlessness. Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature? Can consciousness, particularly the pure awareness aspect, reside in such parts of nature (e.g. non-animals), or why not?

Maybe yes, or, "yes in some (or most) forms of Buddhism". Look at this answer for example:

A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.

I'm not sure whether that meets your definition: I think that there the deva is sentient (and has an immaterial body), the tree not considered "sentient" (iirc perhaps it's called three-factored), and the tree is somehow the deva's home.
I think this type of belief is known to the West as Animism ... and some people posit that Buddhist doctrine was admixed into indigenous (non-Buddhist) beliefs, such that forms (e.g. national forms, like Thai) include elements of both.
I think devas and so on are a feature of all traditional forms of Buddhism -- I'm only unsure of whether they're associated with "nature".
As for "Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?", you might like to read this (or other writings related to such a topic):
“Thou shall not cut these trees” --
They are ordained now --
The story of Tree ordination in Sri Lanka
That's written by someone associated with "the Friends of the Earth" (which I think is an international organization of environmental activists, who are not necessarily Buddhist, so maybe biased somewhat and not a reliable editor of Buddhist doctrine).
As for what's "harmless" it would be an idea to check the Vinaya. I think that breaking (or killing) a living plant is not "allowable" to a monk, is a fault requiring confession -- "taking what's not given" might be an issue too.

I found that what I quoted above is a paraphrase of the story associated with Dhp 222 -- which may also be the origin story for the Vinaya rule against Bhikkhus cutting plants:

Once, a bhikkhu from Alavi wanted to build a monastery for himself and so he began to cut down a tree. The deva dwelling in that tree (rukkha devata) tried to stop him, saying that she and her infant son had nowhere to go. Failing to stop the bhikkhu she put her son on a branch, hoping that it would stop him from felling the tree. By then, the bhikkhu was already swinging his axe and he could not stop it in time and unintentionally cut off an arm of the child. Seeing her child being harmed in this way, the mother flew in a rage and was about to kill the bhikkhu. As she raised her hands to strike the bhikkhu, she suddenly checked herself and thought, "If I were to kill a bhikkhu, I would be killing one who observes the moral precepts (sila); in that case, I would surely suffer in niraya. Other guardian devas of the trees would be following my example and other bhikkhus would also be killed. But this bhikkhu has a master; I must go and see his master." So she went weeping to the Buddha and related all that had happened.
To her the Buddha said,

"O rukkha devata! You have done well to control yourself."

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 222: He who restrains his rising anger as a skilful charioteer checks a speeding chariot, — him I call a true charioteer; other charioteers only hold the reins.

At the end of the discourse the deva attained Sotapatti Fruition, and for her dwelling place she was offered a tree near the Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha. After this incident, the Buddha forbade bhikkhus to cut vegetation, such as grass, plants, shrubs and trees.


Seeking to enlighten other sentient beings - is it ever redemptive Following on from a few question I've asked about nihilism, I wondered - quite casually if not in an idle way - whether seeking to enlighten other sentient beings (into Buddhahood) is ever redemptive of either stimulus or response (I just mean self and other)?

Because in zen you can't seek to be a buddha, and in pure land you seek deliverance from another buddha, and theravada teaches the path of the arhant.

I used to wonder whether I did good deeds just to do good deeds or because it made me feel better and I got something out of it. I laugh sometimes at how hard we think about things. Literally worrying to much about whether we are being self rightous in doing good deeds causes us to actually be self rightous just worrying about it. Who cares whether we are doing good deeds or enlightening others for our own benefit! If it actually gets people to awaken and helps others then so be it! If doing good deeds because it makes yourself feel better ends up helping other people, then we should hope that our egos be filled to the brim!


Concentrating on Breathing I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels,  even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it? I have stopped meditation for fear of something wrong might have happened.
Thank you.

According to my experience in meditation, first time it was happened to me. Do not fear to do the mediation.

These are the steps for Anapana-sathi meditation.

1.Concentrate your mind into breathing process.

2.In that time,try to think about only breathing patterns.

After you do it more times you feel relax in your mind.
It gives you to easily concentrate for your work.


Buddha's knowledge of prior births Did Budhdha really got to know his previous births
....or was it just mind hallucinating because of hunger, thirst?

I don't mean any disrespect

If ever you get a chance, @I don’t know,  please try to read the following sutta. It is rather lengthy, so let me give you the bit that is relevant to your question.
DN 2 - Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The three knowledges, as described in DN 2, are:

Recollection of past lives (pubbenivāsānusati-ñāṇa): "He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, (recollecting,) 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details."

Knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings (cutūpapāta-ñāṇa): "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

Knowledge of the ending of mental effluents (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa): "He discerns, as it has actually come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are (mental) effluents... This is the origination of effluents... This is the cessation of effluents... This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. …”

The first two of these knowledges, even though they comprised part of the Buddha's Awakening, are mundane, in that people may develop them without necessarily attaining any of the transcendent paths and fruitions. Thus they belong under the category of mahaggata dhamma, as they are based on the attainment of jhāna either in this or in a previous life. The third knowledge, however — because it describes the arising of the transcendent paths and fruitions — comes under the category of lokuttara dhamma, and is the only one of the eight knowledges to do so.

DN 2 describes the remaining five knowledges as:

Insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa): "He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.'"

Mind-made body (manomayiddhi): "From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties, just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath."

Supranormal powers (iddhividhī): "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahmā worlds."

Clairaudience (dibba-sota): "He hears — by means of the divine ear-property, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far."

Mind-reading (cetopariya-ñāṇa): "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion (etc.)."


How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? The sorts of things that are not about being offended, not insults, but the exact opposite: are atrociously evil or wrong, so one would feel appalled if it had happened to anyone. On the one hand, one may be happy to let karma do its job, but -- on the other -- bodhisattvas must be impelled to save every sentient being.
Is the answer to seek material / earthly justice, and work to enlighten them, within the limits of Buddhist ethics?

one may be happy to let karma do its job
Recalling the brahmaviharas, I think that that -- i.e. "remembering that beings are heir to their own karma" -- is recommended as a recipe for "equanimity".
That's possibly not "good will" though -- i.e. if you're "happy" about someone's misbehaviour, that sounds like the opposite of mudita -- and good-will is important, see e.g. the parable of the saw (as an example of Buddhist doctrine that's relevant to what you're asking).
There's also the Dhammapada verses 3 through 6 -- which recommend against "he hurt me!" and "not stilling your hatred"...
There are other topics on this site though, about social justice -- e.g. if a person lies then you might not want to believe them in future; if they steal you might tell the police...
Or one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple

I gave him the money and he thanked me for it.


Is it fair to ordain a child even when they refuse? Based on the knowledge I have the only law for a layman in Buddhism is that no child can be ordained without the permission of the parents. However, something I see in this society (especially in rural areas) is that children are handed over to the temples to be ordained (mostly based on something to with their horoscopes) even when the children protest. Am I wrong to say this but doesn't a child's consent matter as well? You cannot be forced to be ordained.

I live in Asia and i am aware of the situation. Yes it is sad and here is how and why it is happening.

The horoscope matter happens because South Asian ideology is dominated by "Astrology". Most of South Asians choose almost everything based on it, child's name,who they are going to marry,their future & etc.
Specially Indians are very obsessed in this whole Astrology thing.

So what actually happens?

There is a Bad Habit among some people, they dump unwanted Cats & Dogs near temples. Sadly some children got so called "Bad horoscopes" with predictions like This child is a lethal danger to the father or mother or something like that.

As some people are obsessed with this so called "scientific practice" they tend to go to extremes. You would be surprised to know people walk away from marriages & relationships based on these predictions too.

So now the "Puppy situation" comes into play. They take children to temples and make them become monks. The temple has no choice here because the temple can't send someone away when the situation is like that.

There is another side to this....

Some parents can't take care of their children. So they would take boys to the temple to become monks. As the temple take care of their education and every other need.The parents are happy that their children are going to have what they would not have if they stay home.

Knowing that some children would not stay in monkhood after they are old enough, the temple still to all that needs to be done for them. There is no bind keeping them from going back. Temples finance the learning of these new monks until  they get a "Bachelor's degree".

This may be a situation in which a child's views or hopes are neglected, But if it wasn't for the temple who knows what will happen to these children?

In my own country we had some terrible incidents, some single parents killing their own children and killing themselves. These events occurred in a short period of time and all these incidents happened because of either Family or Financial trouble.

The Temples provide a roof over these children and give them education. Temples do not hold these children against their will and do not force monkhood. If the children wish to stay without being a monk that is allowed too.


Sūkarakhata sutta and the "arahants seeking benefits they already have" I stumbled across this sutta yesterday (SN 48.58) with a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, which has the following passage:

Considering what benefit, Sariputta, does a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conduct himself in a way that shows supreme honor towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
It is, venerable sir, considering as benefit the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching.

So far, the question and answer seem a little curious. In the edition I have by Bhikku Bodhi, he added a note pointing out this was puzzling. But there is more. It continues:

And what, Sariputta, is the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed considers as the benefit when he conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty of faith, which leads to peace, leads to enlightenment. He develops the faculty of energy [...]
Good, good, Saripputa. [...]

Now, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is, as far as I know, an arahant. Also, even if I were to doubt Bhikku Bodhi's translation, skimming through the pali version (with a dictionary, my pali knowledge is 0) indicated they are not talking about an ordinary bhikkhu ("who has work to be done"), but an arahant -- a khīṇāsavo bhikkhu.
I tried googling for discussions around this text with no success.
So my question is: Are there any clues that shed light into this confusion? The confusion of the Buddha approving Saripputa words (and that Saripputa himself would say them, though its not clear if he was already an Arahant himself at the time), which imply that an Arahant still seeks a state of being, devoted to the development of faculties and to reap assiciated benefits.
While on a practical side this mostly concerns arahants (ie. if I'm to clear my doubts, I better become one), I'm also curious to know other (possibly notable) suttas that present problems (inconsistencies, etc).

www.palikanon.com has a clearer translation.

  The Buddha questions Sāriputta at Sūkarakhatalena as to why a monk who
  has destroyed the āsavas should revere the Buddha and his teachings.
  Sāriputta answers that it is because such a monk has secured freedom
  from the yoke. "What kind of security is it?" asks the Buddha, and
  Sāriputta explains that it is security obtained by the cultivation of
  the five indriyas of faith, energy, etc. S.v.233f.

An Arahant reveres the Buddha and his teaching not because he/she has anything left to attain, but because the Buddha and the Dhamma are what led him/her to Nibbana. The faculty of faith peaks out when a being attains Arahantship. The closer you get to Nibbana, the more respect and appreciation you will have for the Buddha and his teachings.

Incidentally, venerable Sariputta attained Arahantship by listening to the Dīghanakha (or Vedanāpariggaha) Sutta at the Sūkarakhata cave.


Does Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise 24:18 teach real knowledge? I like this verse, it is simply stated, and I like simple statements that can be made into something, or understood as, important.

But I'm totally unsure how to make sense of its four (famous) components! I probably think that "emptiness" means no causation, the idea that conditioned (caused) things don't exist in reality: that any supposed knowledge about them is bound to be found out as a form of ignorance. So then I understand them as:

causation isn't real
this is real
we can study this
and we already are

Is that an OK-ish understanding, or have I fallen into a trap? If it is, do all four of these teachings permanently replace our deluded conceptualisations?

No, this is not an OK-ish understanding, since it does not approach traditional interpretations (whether that of Tsongkhapa or his opponents belonging to the Jonang school or the Nyingma tradition).

First, from the Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint (Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, Shantideva, Tsongkhapa, etc) there are thee types of dependent-arising:

Dependent on causes and conditions
Dependent on parts
Dependent on names

From the Madhyamika-Svatantrika viewpoint (Bhavaviveka, Haribhadra, Kamalasila, etc). There are only the first two types (or maybe this is forced on them by Prasangika proponents).

The point is: all objects of knowledge are dependent arising, even those that do not arise from causes and conditions and are therefore permanent phenomena (such as space, cessation, emptiness). This accords with the next verse of the same chapter:

  Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist.
  Therefore a non-empty thing Does not exist.

Traditionally, we say that the meaning of dependent-arising is emptiness. This is an interpretation of the verse, since dependent-arising is not said to be emptiness, but the meaning of emptiness. This is because realizing emptiness does not equate realizing dependent-arising.  One can not realize something as being a dependent-arising without having emptiness prior. That 'this is a provisional name' refers to emptiness being dependent-arising. Since it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions. However, it depends on parts and names: the emptiness of the mind, for instance, depends on its basis (i.e. the mind). Emptiness is necessarily emptiness of something and depends on its basis, therefore it is a dependent-arising.

This was stated because some think that emptiness exists truly (inherently) while it is not the case.

I suggest you attend teachings on this text and commentaries. One needs to rely on a teacher to study such texts. You started saying that you like simple statements, but it might be a trap leading you to think you can understand on your own.


What is this picture? Even after referring to several books I simply cannot understand what this picture is depicting. I am not a Buddhist and am hence finding it difficult to decipher.

I found it on this page, whose title is, "The Buddha of Purification with consort". The description on that page says it depicts a manifestation of

  "unity of the fully developed masculine and feminine energy: the complete purity and highest state of enlightenment".

If that's an accurate description, could you provide the explanation of that phrase?

The Buddha himself didn't want to get entangled in samsara, let alone unite with the other sex; so isn't this contradictory?

That would be yab-yum.  I think the wikipedia entry will more than answer your question.  You can find that here.  The one thing the entry only hints at, however, is that this is an actual practice in Tibetan Tantra.  In fact, it's generally what comes to mind, for a popular audience anyway, when the word "tantra" is used.  I think it's an exercise in futility to try and justify this practice according to Theravada or Mahayana ethics.  Within a tantric context, it just is what it is.


Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What if parents are not alive anymore? I read that a person must get permission from his og her parents but what if that persons parents are not alive anymore. Can that person then not become ordained in this life?

Thank you for your time.

The commentary to this rule has some interesting discussion, including an answer to your question:

mātāpitaro matā, dārako cūḷamātādīnaṃ santike saṃvaddho, tasmiṃ pabbājiyamāne ñātakā kalahaṃ vā karonti, khiyyanti vā, tasmā vivādupacchedanatthaṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. anāpucchā pabbājentassa pana āpatti natthi.
In the case where one's mother and father are dead, a child brought up in the home of a "little-mother" (step-mother? aunt?) etc., when causing them to go forth their relatives make a quarrel or feel dejected, therefore, for the purpose of cutting off dispute, should also be made to go forth after asking leave. But in the case of causing them to go forth without asking leave, there is no offence.
-- mahāvagga-aṭṭhakathā, 1. mahākhandhakaṃ, rāhulavatthukathā

The commentary then says something that is not quite clear to me:

putto attānaṃ nissāya jīvati, na mātāpitaro. sacepi rājā hoti, āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo.
A son lives in dependence on himself, not on his mother or father. If he is a king, he should be made to go forth without having asked leave at all.
-- Ibid

I think these two sentences are meant to go together, and the period is a modern error, but it doesn't then say what a non-king should do in this instance. I don't see this as an issue, since clearly the previous statement still stands - without parents, asking permission is simply a courtesy.
Bonus - the commentary also contains the following edification:

eko mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ bhaṇḍitvā “pabbājetha man”ti āgacchati, “āpucchitvā ehī”ti ca vutto “nāhaṃ gacchāmi, sace maṃ na pabbājetha, vihāraṃ vā jhāpemi, satthena vā tumhe paharāmi, tumhākaṃ ñātakaupaṭṭhākānaṃ vā ārāmacchedanādīhi anatthaṃ uppādemi, rukkhā vā patitvā marāmi, coramajjhaṃ vā pavisāmi, desantaraṃ vā gacchāmī”ti vadati, taṃ jīvasseva rakkhaṇatthāya pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.
One, having quarrelled with their mother and father, comes saying "cause me to go forth." And when told, "having asked leave, come," says, "I will not go. If you do not cause me to go forth, I will set the vihara on fire, or I will beat you with a stick, or I will bring about some unbeneficial thing like destroying the homes of your relatives and supporters, or I will fall from a tree and die, or enter into the midst of thieves, or go to the borderlands," it is proper, for the sole purpose of protecting life, to cause him to go forth.
-- Ibid


Buddhist attitude towards prostitution and non-procreative sexual activity I would like to ask a question from a Theravada Buddhism perspective.

In the Sutta it's said having sex with particular people is considered as sexual misconduct:

He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.

My question is, why prostitute does not include in the prohibited person? Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual misconduct?

Second question is, from my understanding for married people having sex with their partner is not an offense but how about having oral sex or sodomy with your own wife or husband?
Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an animal?

Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual
  misconduct?

It does not break the 3rd precept, if both parties are proper(not belonging to the 20 kinds of improper partners). However, not breaking the 3rd precept does not mean you are not committing unwholesome Kamma. All sexual activities are unwholesome regardless of if you are not breaking the 3rd precept. Because the root causes are always lust and delusion.

The five precepts are given as the minimal moral standard that is required for spiritual development. A person who keeps to the 5 precepts can still commit many unwholesome Kammas. But doing it with your spouse can potentially be less unwholesome compared to doing it with a prostitute. Because the relationship with your spouse can involve wholesome feelings as well. With your spouse you are not trying to have pleasure regardless of if she/he is enjoying it. You are usually more gentle and if she/he isn't ready or finds a certain method uncomfortable, you get to practice self restraint. That comes from Metta & Karuna. So it's not all lust. But with a prostitute, you are mostly trying to get your money's worth. Usually you don't care much for the other person. The focus is on extracting the maximum enjoyment you can, in whichever way you so desire during the time you get. The lust involved here can be much more stronger. So it can cause greater unwholesome Kamma. Also, there are other disadvantages to consider like your reputation being sullied and the higher possibility of catching STDs.

  Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an
  animal?

Any kind of sexual activity has the potential to give you a unfavorable birth, if it comes forward at the time of your death. Read more about how the mind works at the of death. However, engaging in unorthodox sexual activities usually requires a greater degree of lust and delusion. So the said methods can potentially cause stronger unwholesome Kamma.


Is consciousness a result of contact? I read the following on the internet:

  Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.

  It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).

  We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.

Is consciousness a result of contact?

Or contact a result of consciousness?

What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this?

From the Madhupindika Sutta (MN18):

  "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
  the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future
  forms cognizable via the eye.

  "Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.


Are there any specific stories or talks where Buddha discussed using mind altering substances other than alcohol? It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals.

My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect.

Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad.

I'm asking for the story or stories.

No. The dharma is about returning to your buddha mind or original mind unaltered. The use of mind altering drugs goes directly against the return to the unaltered mind literally by definition. I would venture to say that Mind Altering things (ie. TV/EGO/DRUGS/External Attachments) are what the middle way and the dharma are trying to be free from.


Is lack of doubt a form of self-cherishing? Many people frequently make bold and confident claims about what Buddhism is or isn't with little or no humility or doubt. Their views are asserted to be correct, and anything contrary to their view is asserted to be simply wrong or a misunderstanding.

My own doubts are sometimes the cause of suffering, but they also protect me from having fixed views which can be erroneous and leave no space for growth, adjustment and wisdom.

My view is that the more confidently a view is expounded, the more likely it is to be wrong, and the more likely that self-clinging and self-cherishing are lurking in the mind, but even this view seems uncertain.

Perhaps developing contentment with the uncertainty of reality is a part of wise practice, but I can't be too sure of that either.

The first part, "bold and confident claims", sounds like it might be associated with doctrines about "stream-entry".

I think that one of the characteristics of stream-entry is "confidence" -- for example SN 55.40

  a disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence

Whether that confidence is justified or deluded is another question -- which I think is a well-known problem/question -- i.e. "how can you tell whether you are or whether someone else is a stream-winner?"

Further to that subject, this answer says that a stream-winner might have conceit -- but only "true" conceit.

One of the way to avoid that problem -- I hope -- is to cite references. For example "a confident claim about what Buddhism is or isn't" might be accompanied or supported by a reference to a Buddhist sutta -- then the claim of whether something is "Buddhist" might rest of whether it is (accurately) based on "a Buddhist sutta".

Pali suttas begin with ...

  so i have heard.
  evaṃ me sutaṃ—

... which I like.

After a while -- after you learn some "Buddhism" -- you may or may not need or want to ask for references, when someone says something about Buddhism without citing a reference -- because you might recognise which sutta or other doctrine supports what they are saying.

Then there's also a matter of, whether you can "verify" a doctrine based on your own experience -- because the dhamma is said to be:

  ... well declared by the Bhagavā:
  visible here and now, immediate,
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

Another solution is to find a teacher of whose teaching you are confident.

The second part, "anything contrary to their view is asserted to be simply wrong", sounds more questionable to me. I think a lot of suttas warn that arguing might be papanca etc.

Translator's Introduction

  Three passages in the discourses — DN 21, MN 18, and Sn 4.11 — map the causal processes that give rise to papañca and lead from papañca to conflict. Because the Buddhist analysis of causality is generally non-linear, with plenty of room for feedback loops, the maps vary in some of their details. In DN 21, the map reads like this:

    the perceptions & categories of papañca > thinking > desire > dear-&-not-dear > envy & stinginess > rivalry & hostility

  In Sn 4.11, the map is less linear and can be diagrammed like this:

    perception > the categories of papañca

    perception > name & form > contact > appealing & unappealing > desire > dear-&-not-dear > stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes

  In MN 18, the map is this:

    contact > feeling > perception > thinking > the perceptions & categories of papañca

The third part, "developing contentment with the uncertainty of reality", sounds like basic right speech -- AN 10.176

  "And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action?

  "There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.

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

  "Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large.

  "Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal.

  "This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action."

Finally, all dhammas (including the dhamma) are supposed to be "non-self".

And Buddhists do I think "cherish" the dhamma.

So it may be "dhamma-cherishing" rather than "self-cherishing".

But one of the modern teachers warned against "Spiritual materialism" -- I don't know what exactly that might correspond to in the earlier doctrines -- and I haven't even read what "spiritual materialism" means exactly, I think it means something like, an egoistic tendency to want to accumulate spiritual attainment in the same way that other people like to accumulate material things like fame or fortune.

So, I guess, yes, it's sensible to be a bit sceptical.

I think there are people, though, who will teach the doctrine carefully and maybe step-by-step and also so on -- AN 5.159

  It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

  The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'
  The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].
  The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'
  The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'
  The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'(note)

  It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching.

  (note) According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.


Are there other things like life? In this text SN 56.46 Andhakara Sutta: Darkness, the Buddha seems to say, in my opinion, that life is much more stressful than black holes.

And I think life is an anomaly in this universe just like black holes, stars, time, quantum entanglement and such.

But are there any other things he has mentioned that are outlandish and we are unable to comprehend by using juxtapositions as always? Or did he just ignore them completely as they were not important?

Sorry if my question is not clear. I always have a hard time interpreting what's in my head to words.

Going off of what Dhammadhatu posted, the word used in the sutta, lokantarika, is not so much "life" but "this world and the other world". So black holes, quantum entanglement, every objectively measurable phenomenon (and many subjective phenomena as well) is included in that.
I'm not sure the term outlandish is appropriate, but I think I understand you to mean examples of metaphors involving vast numbers, powers, amount and the like. There are suttas where the Buddha says that all the salt-water in all the oceans is less than the tears we have cried throughout our wandering in Samsara as a way of illustrating the vast timescales. A similar sutta describes (I think) all the rivers in the world as holding less than the amount of blood spilled from our beheadings. And of course the turtle, living at the bottom of a great ocean, surfacing once a century, and a hoop floating on the top of that ocean being carried about by currents. It was said that the chances of encountering a Buddha and their dhamma was less than the chance of that turtle putting its head through the ring. So we are then fortunate to live in a time where we can hear that dhamma!
As for your last question, there were some questions that the Buddha strictly refused to answer based on their being irrelevant to the task of understanding and eliminating suffering. Those were: is the universe/world system eternal or not? Infinite or not? Does a Buddha exist after death? Not exist? Both? Neither? When asked these, the Buddha refused to answer as they were not relevant. Hope this helps!


Questions regarding meditation posture and movement I was trying sitting cross legged and back straight during Anapanasati meditation.

I have looked at this question -> A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness

I would like to know what are the possible bad practices learned during meditation and in the posture and I would not want to make those mistakes.

I am not sitting purely cross legged. The feet are under the shins or calf. I am unable to sit perfectly straight noticing that I am leaning forward. Should I at this juncture, straighten up again? What if a mosquito bites you at that moment, like it is biting me right now? Should I move to scratch an itch?

Is it important to simply acknowledge and not react to anything at all? (Reaction in the sense move a little...)

What is right mindfulness? Not reacting and simply acknowledging? What if it adversely affects my legs by not moving and possibly getting bitten by the mosquito?

I was being told that we don't practice to become experts on sitting. So if you  have intense pain, go the middle way. Acknowledge pain, acknowledge that you want to move, try to overcome the pain a bit, acknowledge unbearable, and after a few moments, if necessary, move the body mindfully (not automatically, in reaction), and carry on particing, again in still.

It is important to simply acknowledge, and even if you have to react to unbearable pain, acknowledge first, and react as if in slow motion. If you have pain and then worries about your legs, acknowledge fear (and let it go and go back to breath), if you fear mosquito, acknowledge fear etc.

If you become aware of an automatic reaction (movement) which has already taken place, acknowledge that awareness, acknowledge your thoughts about it (self-judgement, or whatever else arises) and go back to breath.

Middle way. If your meditation hall is on fire, acknowledge smelling, seeing, fear, then get up mindfully and take care of survival of yours and your fellow meditators.

I find the question you linked to be a very good explanation.


Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precept? Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts?

I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts.

Obviously, anal sex performed by a husband on a wife would not break the literal teaching found in the 3rd precept. However, its often voyeuristic nature tends to place it within the sphere of mere lust, which is unwholesome, unless the wife genuinely rather than begrudgingly consents to the act.

In certain societies, anal sex was a common way for men to have sex with their wives and avoid pregnancy. However, many wives resented it. If a wife resented this, it would be an unwholesome act, not based in real love. But if the wife enjoyed it & was happy to do it, I suppose it would be OK (ignoring the fact the anus being something not really designed for sexual penetration).

Similarly, if committed homosexual partners sincerely wish to practise anal sex, it seems OK, I suppose (i.e., ignoring whatever risks are involved). But if anal sex is part of some domination or aggression motivation, it would not be OK.

Sex exists in nature for reproduction. However, it is acknowledged in religion that sexual desire is also something "oppressive"; that often needs to be "managed". When questions about sexual morality arise from the perspective of "sexual desire management", it becomes more complex & less straightforward. But when sex is for reproduction, sexual morals is easier to define.

Naturally, ordinary male & female relationships have children as a very strong factor that naturally binds the relationship. When people, be they homosexual or heterosexual, engage in childless relationships, this lacks the natural children factor that helps define ethics and also greatly helps maintain the relationship.

For example, when a wise man sees marriage & children are the optimal life for a woman, a wise man can easily generate compassion towards women and even lose sexual desire towards women (and thus easily become a monk or enter samadhi). In the Buddhist suttas, wise men left the household family villlage life because they could see the business of reproduction & family life was a burden & bondage. For homosexuals, however, such a perspective is lacking.


How does rebirth fit with the fact that everything is impermanent? One of the lessons Buddhism teaches is that everything is impermanent. Our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our bodies, our life. Everything. We are surrounded by death. We are mortals. There is an end to this.

However, Buddhism also has the concept of rebirth. Karma follows you not just in this life but in your next. It's also said that the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. This to me implies some sort of a soul (for lack of a better word), condition, or consciousness that is not impermanent. After you die you get reborn. There is an "you" that transcends the current (impermanent) existence.

I guess, my question is, is there some sort of a soul, consciousness, or a condition, that is not impermanent? When one reaches enlightenment (nirvana) and stops the cycle of rebirths, what happens to them?

"Rebirth" is a moral teaching in Buddhism; about destiny due to action (karma).

"Impermanence" is a transcendent teaching in Buddhism.

"Rebirth" and "impermanence" are not intended to "fit" together.


Are monks better teachers than ex-monks? It seems that most of the dharma teachers in the West are lay people, as opposed to Asia where most of the teachers are ordained monks.  Many of the western teachers were monks for a while, but decided to disrobe.  My assumption is that these teachers are not enlightened because they usually get in relationships after disrobing.

My question is, is it wise to follow these lay teachers, or is it better to wait and try to find a monk who has made a firmer commitment to the dharma?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just that it seems like the act of disrobing is sort of a rejection of Buddhist teachings.

1. There were lay Arhats

In the Buddha's time there were lay Arhats such as the rich merchant Vimalakirti of Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. His knowledge was considered by the Buddha (to the discomfiture of many monks) to far surpass most monks, and equal Bodhisattvas. Thus, being lay is no reason to look down upon a teacher.

2. Having the Buddha for a teacher does not guarantee enlightenment

The Buddha was frequented by several Kings, one of them, I can't remember his name right now, and I certainly don't want to defame the wrong King, was a regular patron of the Buddha, visiting him more than once. It so happened that at one point in a succession struggle he ended up killing his own brother. So much for having the Buddha as a teacher.

On the other hand, there was a blind weaver girl who heard the Buddha speak from afar only once, and that was enough for her to begin her contemplation on death and impermanence. She died a stream entrant.

In this age of the Internet, one can be like the blind weaver girl, and listen to the great teachers of our age anytime we like. There were even people who listened to the Buddha's teachings as it was narrated by someone who had heard it from someone else who had heard it from someone else and so on, handed down several times, and still attained enlightenment.

3. Western teachers relate better to western students

There are definitely great eastern masters who have produced enlightened western students. Still,  several western students report getting very little out of the extended stays in Tibetan and Thai monasteries, other than a liking for strange food and exposure to a new culture. That's not to say it always works this way, but certainly more times than we care to admit. Especially monks who ordain as children are unfamiliar with anything other than the local culture and monastic setting, and are rather uncomfortable with foreign students.

Western teachers, lay or otherwise are often times better at relating to western students, and vice versa. That is not to say, some of them are not Dharma politicians, several of them can be that way, always saying what the student wants to hear, and presenting a false facade of calm, peace  and enlightenment, but then such teachers are everywhere, even in the East.

One Western monk's account with his Burmese teacher went as follows - he confided  his problems in attaining deep concentration to the Senior abbot, and the Abbot's only question was - "did you ever do drugs?" As a college student he had taken his share of weed, which he admitted to. That was it, the teacher decided he was unfit to be taught, and ignored him for the rest of the time he was at the monastery. The teacher's cultural perception of drugs clouded his ability to nurture the student.

I'm not discouraging you from going out to find a supremely enlightened monk to learn from, but it is the equivalent of saying, "I will not move from here until I can afford a Rolls Royce." Maybe all we need is a bicycle.


Does Buddhism claim perfection? Does it claim to perfectly describe the nature of this world and all of mankind without contradiction as other religions do?

I read this article: http://approachingaro.org/certainty .

The author says:

  Buddhism is unique, as far as I know, in insisting that the kind of answers we want cannot be had, anywhere. Emptiness—inherent uncertainty—is at the heart of Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is sometimes described as “The Way of Disappointment.” If we follow it sincerely, Buddhism repeatedly crushes our hope that somehow it will satisfy our longing for answers; for ground we can build on; for reliable order.

I know this may just be an opinion. If this is true, it seems contradictory to me. It's in and of itself a claim of certainty that we, as human beings, can never attain certainty.

That's a ridiculous statement.  How could you follow something sincerely that wasn't built on solid ground?  If the dharma wasn't certain, pursuing it would be a complete waste of time.  While it might not answer larger, existential questions like "why are we here", it is a fairly reliable point of departure.

Uncertainty is, however, a very important part of practice.  In fact, doubt and frustration are one of the most salient features of the path.  Buddhism doesn't seek to give answers.  Instead it asks us to reevaluate our assumptions.  It's very aim is to disrupt the order we've conjured around ourselves.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Buddhism tries to perfectly describe the nature of the world.  The very act of describing it inevitably reduces it to ideas and descriptions.  What Buddhism does attempt to do is give us an opportunity to see the nature of the world perfectly.


Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma? In reference to this:

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting,  and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?

Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?

Their usual advertisement:

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?

or the usual approach of them:

Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?

Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute?

That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma?

(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds
prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a
noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity,
and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.
That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on
to say:
“If you act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, or stupidity,  your fame shrinks,  like the moon in the
waning fortnight.
If you don’t act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, and stupidity,  your fame swells,  like the moon in the
waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome &
unwholesome, benefit & danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising
of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it
has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful
and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and
those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to
them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of
principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
SN 46.2

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or
properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3)
What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by
means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the
skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?
Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only "racism" is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.
The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.
If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.
If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.


Syllables and Prayers During Guru Yoga A while back I was at a workshop by a Yungdrung Bön abbot who taught Guru Yoga using a visualization of the Master with a crystalline body where you visualize being purified first by fire, then wind, then water followed by beams of light radiating from the Master's brow-to-your-brow, throat-to-your-throat, and heart-to-your-heart.  When this happens and at several other points there are specific prayers and syllables that are prescribed.

I found a similar version in Healing With Form, Energy, and Light by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche which gives the ritual there, but without the strictly Tibetan elements. It clearly has the same bones (which is not surprising), but it doesn't contain the prayers or syllables.

My question is: Does someone know the full version with the syllables and words intact (in any version, recognizing that there may be several variations) and/or a lead on where I might find it?

Just the prayer and syllables in question, not the surrounding prayers and other elements of the practice (e.g., the refuge prayer), but this is the prayer that I was thinking of (བླ་མའི་རྣལ་འབྱོར, called the "lamai naljor prayer", also transliterated as "lamé naljor", or translated as "Guru Yoga prayer"):

  སྤྱི་གཙུག་བདེ་བ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ།
  དྲིན་ཆེན་རྩ་བའི་བླ་མ་ལ་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས།
  སངས་རྒྱས་སེམས་སུ་སྟོན་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ།
  རང་ངོ་རང་གིས་ཤེས་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབས།

Transliterated:

  Chi tsuk dé wa chen pö po drang du
  Drin chen tsa wé la ma la söl wa dep
  Sang gyé sem su tön pa rin po ché
  Rang ngo rang gi shé par jin gyi lop

It has been translated as:

  On the crown of my head, in a palace of great bliss
  Benevolent root lama, I pray to you.
  Precious one that reveals that my own mind is Buddha,
  Bless me to recognize my own true nature.

I have also seen it translated a little more poetically:

  From the crown of my head, palace of great bliss,
  I pray to you, benevolent root lama.
  O precious one, grant me the blessings
  To recognize my own true nature as a Buddha.

There is a version of this practice found in Opening the Door to Bön by Latri Khenpo Geshe Nyima Dakpa Rinpoche, in the 5th preliminary practice, "Connecting With the Teacher", which provides a virtually identical prayer with a slightly different transliteration and another translation.

It also includes a lot of the surrounding details, visualizations, and prayers. This version of the practice is subtly different from the one that I learned, but the bones are very similar if not identical.

The three syllables are:

AH – White, Forehead
OM – Red, Throat
HUNG – Dark Blue, Mind

These are Bön-specific seed syllables and other branches sometimes use variations.

I don't own the book and so can't speak to its contents in any great detail, but Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche has written a book called Guru Yoga: According To The Preliminary Practice Of Longchen Nyingtik would seem to cover the practice from a different angle.


Do you have to follow a monastic lifestyle to attain enlightenment? How do the different groups/sects of Buddhism view attaining enlightenment and living a common life? In other words, do they think it is possible to be a common person and achieve enlightenment? Even for someone who has a family, friends and coworkers that aren't Buddhists?

Do you have to follow a monastic lifestyle to attain enlightenment? At first approximation, the answer is: yes in Theravada, no in Mahayana.

Since probably as early as Milindapanha (~100 BCE) and most certainly by the time of Vissudhimagga (~430CE), the orthodox (~Theravada) position was, you must be a monk to attain Nirvana.

But since you asked about Enlightenment, I should point out that Enlightenment is the goal of Mahayana, while in Theravada, the final goal is usually called Nirvana (Nibbana in Pali), not Enlightenment (Bodhi in Pali). In Mahayana, Enlightenment can be attained by a layperson.

These are "official" positions (as much as we can talk about official positions in such a heterogeneous conglomerate of teachings as Buddhism). Informally, in my own understanding, what some Mahayana schools call "Enlightenment" is what Theravada schools call mere "stream-entry". Other Mahayana schools however have this notion of multiple levels (bhumi), in which what Theravada calls "stream-entry" is level 1 of 10, with Final Enlightenment counted as 11th. It kinda gets complicated from "stream-entry" onward, because the boundaries of "self" no longer apply, so it is difficult to talk about Enlightenment with no subject to tie it to.

Anyway, from practical perspective, the point is, it is extremely difficult to make any meaningful progress towards Enlightenment/Nirvana if most of your focus is on pursuing material ends (success, wealth, entertainment, helping your relatives achieve the same). In order to get pretty close to X while leading a semi-normal life, one's top priority must be spiritual practice, followed by family and everything else. This basically means, squeezing study of Buddhist philosophy here and there, making meditation part of your daily routine, and, most importantly, deliberately utilizing your family & work situations as shootingrange for Dharma practice.


Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training in india? I have done 02  10days Vipassana Meditation  (S N Goenkaji)and want to devote life for same. Interested in knowing is any monetary in india where I can stay for years or more and learn teaching of Buddha and Vipassana

Following lists out Buddhist monasteries in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_monasteries_in_India


Living in the moment without indulging in it I find it difficult to live in the moment or go with the flow as i am reminded of the sense doors and hence am guarded in the present to not to be totally involved in the moment and I miss the flow or to experience the moment as it is. I am trying to follow the zen and the middle path. How does one practice being in the present ?

"Living in the moment" isn't a practice, but a result. It's another word for the mindfulness or wakefulness "muscle" that develops as you do your practice. So if you don't feel it, don't worry about it.

Follow the instructions for your particular practice, and you will feel your "muscle" for living in the present moment gradually strengthening in your daily life. For example, as time goes by, you'll notice that it is easier to be concentrated in everyday situations, or that you are more and more resilient in recovering from strong emotions.

It isn't really "you" living in the present moment, anyways. Your awareness is always living in the moment as it is. You don't need to correct your awareness. If you try to live in the present moment, then you'll merely be constantly trying to do two things at once

When you watch the sense doors, it's your non-present "self" that practices turning itself toward a true present phenomenon, and it does it over and over again. It's the only tool you have, so it's normal if you feel that doing this is not in harmony with the "true" present moment. But it is the right way to develop the skill of returning to your awareness more and more often, so that it becomes more and more automatic.


How do I integrate Vipassana practice into daily life? I'm am completely new to meditation, and I have really been wanting to start it. The past few days, I've been doing Vipassana sessions for the first time; however, I hear people say that it doesn't matter if you mediate if you do not carry the practice into daily life.

But, how can I continue to be mindful in daily life? Any tips for a newbie?

Thanks!

Follow the following basic steps in integrate meditation to daily life:

Pay attention to fabrication and how they are created, i.e., when you react to sensations. Train to be equanimous to sensations. Understand the cause and effect with relation to what causes misery. Understand that to the reaction to sensations cause new fabrications. Actively clam the creation of fabrications.
Try to understand the 3 marks of existance / characteristics with regard to the 5 aggregates and the mind matter phenomena. Starting the process by seeing the impermanence of sensations. (Even when looking at impermanence of a body part, how you sense the body part of the sensation when you bring your attention to the particular body part. Also seeing impermanence is easier and lead to seeing the other two characteristics of existance - corelessness and unsatisfactoriness.)

In more detail:

Physical

Bodily fabrications

Actively look at sensations in the body - especially areas tied to sense faculties i.e. skin, eyes, ear, head, mouth - when they come in contact something
Understand that the normal tendency is to react. Try to ensure you do not react and maintain equanimity to what ever sensation.
Try to look at the breathing process and the sensation it create. Sensation of touch around your nostrils. Feeling of oxygen spreading in the in breath and sensation in your body in the out breath. Expansion and contraction it causes in the body. The speed and length of the in and out breath.
Contemplate on the sensation on you body part by part. (How you sense a body part is by looking at the sensation aground it when you move you attention to the body part. This not any verbalisation or visualisation.)
Contemplate on you bodily posture. The sensation associated in staying in a particular posture and sensation when changing your bodily posture (like when walking)
Also the vibrations is the body cased by your heart beat when breath is not predominant
You should investigate phenomena with a view to understand phenomena at the experiential and empirical level. Through this investigation you should eventually see the at 3 characteristics of all physical form at the experiential level. This is not a concept or verbalisation but at the experiential level.
Further investigate the make up of the corporal structure: solidity, liquidity, gaseous nature, and heat. Investigate how sensation related to these states. Investigate the changes of the states. E.g. numb leg, rumbling stomach, etc. Investigate the relationship of fabrication and these states. E.g. how numbness comes and goes, headache comes and goes, etc.

Mental

Verbal fabrications

Look at applied thoughts or mental verbalisations or visualisation and sensations it creates
When you your sense doors cones in contact this cause a sensation in recognising and giving evaluation to the contact and a perception created. E.g. This is my friend. Associated with this again feeling comes into play.
Look at the change of mental state and associated sensations when you get distracted. E.g. if you think about dinner you will get a sensation throughout your body but predominant around your belly. If you are not equanimous this will lead to to more through proliferation with verbalisation or visualisation of food mental state change
Proliferation of thought from any contact. E.g. a smell cause to remember some previous incident. You should investigate the sense doors in involved.
You should actively calm the chartering mind which would lead to concentration.
Look at 3 characteristics of all mental form

Mental fabrications

Look for moods and mental states, perception forming
When you your sense doors cones in contact this cause a sensation in recognising and giving evaluation to the contact and a perception created. E.g. This is my friend. Associated with this again feeling comes into play.
Look at changes in mood and mental state when it comes in contact with any sense objects. First this arises around the organ e.g. around the ear followed by the head when you give evaluation and perceive
Look at 3 characteristics of all mental state

In any of the above if any uneasy or tense sensation / feeling arise bring your attention to it for a short while. At higher stages when something comes to your attention it dissolves. Use this to release your tension. Initially the sensation will be physical but as you go on physical sensation become pleasant and neutral much of the sensation would be linked to thoughts and mental states which generally dominant around the head area. At some state all sensations will be pleasant. Keep dissolving even pleasant sensations until it is neutral by moving your attention to the sensation. At this point where there is neutral feeling all over and you are not creating any new fabrication is an important point. You have the leave the results to time.
You should actively investigate cause and effect and through this understand the cause and effect misery and how to eliminate it. Contact > Recognise / Register > Evaluation Through Perception > Sensation > Craving > Clinging > Fabrications. Through this understand the root cause of misery is the clinging to sensations and this sensation is caused by your perception and giving evaluation as wanted or unwanted and reacting to it with craving or aversion. When you stop giving evaluation and be equanimous than reactive then the fabrication stops as well as the pain due to your attachment or expectation of the outcome.
Acrobats, dancers, etc, have to be really mindful of what they do otherwise there would be disaster. With an exception of Uggasena, acrobats are far away from enlighten. The main thing is to practice the right type of mindfulness. The right type is to be mindful of the the sensations without reaction understanding it true nature. With each contact we have a choice. To react to the sensation the contact brings and be miserable or not to react and be at peace.
Investigate the sources from which sensations arise. External form coming in contact with a faculty resulting in contentiousness followed by sensation. You crave to prolong, get rid of be in situation where certain sense input is available (at a show) or situation where certain sense input is unavailable (get out of prison and go to the Caribbean). You have no absolute control over the form. Even you eat the same dish it might not be the same. You do not have absolute control over the faculty as your eyesight may deteriorate. You have no absolutely no control over the sensation as it just arise and passes away. Investigation of physical / material form of the organ would show they are also arising and passing away. At least at the logical level if not seeing arising and passing away externally see that external form is impermanent as well.
Then investigate what we are made of:

We have physical form with physical sense faculties. Investigation of physical form my brining your attention and sensing the sensations arising and passing on those parts.

We have faculties. These faculties come in contact with external form and you register this contact. I say this. I heard that. I read that.

We have a way to recognise and register external form and stimulus. This recognition is what makes our faculties useful. Investigate you your mind recognise something on contact and what following and sensations that arise when recognising.
We have a mental form

We views and outlook of the world and we analyse things against this perceptions. From this you analyse and build you take or view on the matter. This taste good. What a great story.
We have habits and reactions. When we get a sensation resulting from a contact we have build a habitual response and reaction to it.
We have mental images of what we have come in contact.

We have feels and sensations. May it be happiness, sadness, heat, cold, touch, etc. When we get and input from out faculties we analyse against our perception or view we conclude that this is wanted or unwanted. Being in contact and registering the input on its own gives rise to sensation but burning is the sensations through your take on the matter and longing for more or less and to be in situation which might bring more or less of the input.
Investigation on all physical and mental form will reveal all this is changing, cannot be fully controlled and or worthy of being identified as me and any expectation or exertion of control any of these things which are part of us result in misery.

In our minds we created a universe of our own with yourself as the centre. This universe is mainly of different perceptions which differ from reality. It can be perception about one self, view and beliefs, habits, etc. Many off these perceptions results in misery when reality is different. For different inputs you give evaluation and identify a gap which is positive (linked to pleasant sensation - craving as the base), negative (linked to unpleasant sensation - as aversion as the base) or neutral (linked to neutral sensation - as lack of wisdom as the base). Through you meditation you should note the arising of these sensation and straiten your views such that you are not attached to perceptions which cause misery and cultivate perceptions which help get over misery. (Girimananda Sutta mentions 10 of them.)
Also when analysing your mental and physical processors you will see that any mental action will have physical manifestation and vice versa. With regard to both you will that some sensation are linked with the characteristics of matter (since we are sensing this through a sense faculty what we see is the associated sensations). Namely, solidity / hardness, liquidity / flowing nature, gaseous nature, temperature / vibrations, space between the quantum of elements and conciousness. Without conciousness you cannot feel anything. Feeling has some characteristics of matter (solid, gas, ...). When you are angry you will also feel a bit hot. Also when you have a numbness there will be a solid feeling around the area. The make up of you body also will have these characteristics. Also food and environmental influences have similar manifestations.
The 3 poisons and all defilements and linked to sensation and perception. Identify as defilements come and go. What sensation they create. When you transgress morality also the same thing happens (unpleasant sensations). When you do do good the opposite happens (pleasant sensations). Also your thoughts and mental actions are similarly. Be mindful of all actions and thoughts which cause sensations (what ever the nature - generally pleasant [craving as the root] or unpleasant [aversion as the root]) and contribute to building perceptions (generally neutral [delusion as the root])
In all cases we should be

Mindful of the arising and passing away of sensation while maintain equanimity
Investigative of the causes of sensations
Develop concentration to be able to and do finer analysis of any mental / physical form and input
Exert effort to be mindful and maintain equanimity, develop concentration and calm the fabrications and crating of fabrications
Be investigative of phenomena.
Actively calm the fabrication process
Be mindful and attentive to sensation until painful sensation subside and you are left with pleasant sensations. When any pain comes to your mind it will just pass away at some stage. Exercise appropriate effort of be mindful. Be investigative of what cause the pain and what makes it dispensary. Investigate keeping you attention on the whole body that there is not place without pleasantness
Similarly be mindful and attentive to pleasantness until it is no more.

In summary there are 4 thing you should look out for:

Cause and effect and the impact on rising and passing away of misery
Actively calm the fabrications. (Bodily, verbal and mental)
Get right of unwholesome perceptions and out look of the world and replace it with a more conducive out look towards your mental well being
Understand the 3 characteristics of all phenomena

See:

What are examples of identity-view?
Culavedalla Sutta which involved Vishaka who was a householder (lay disciple).
Contemplation of Feeling
Importance of Vedana
The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness (See introduction: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna)
Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta
Formations
Bhaddekaratta Sutta (Chinese version)
Madhu Pindika Sutta
Chettana Sutta
Bhaddekaratta Sutta
Anathapintikovade Sutta
Dhatu Vibhanga Sutta
Channovade Sutta
Bojjhanga sila sutta
Mula Pariyaka Sutta
Titth Ayatana Sutta


Differently able people and their "Vinyana" Say i am a Differently able person and i cant move my arms so how does my Vinyana work?

Is that part of my "Kaya Vinyana" (The vinyana that works with the body) deactivated or lost contact with the arms?

What is the connection between the Vinyana and a uncontrollable body part like arms or legs?

I am not reffering this question about Blind,Deaf or Mute people only about the people who are not able to use existing and functioning body parts

In my opinion, Vinyana is always present, but it is the function and sharpness of the faculty that distinguish the different experiences or what is felt through the faculty. In the context of mediation your faculties should be sharp for your the experience the reality as it is, so a person with diminished faculties generally will not be able to progress in Vipassana.

E.g. if your arm is lost then your limps then you have are not without or diminished Kaya Vinyanaya but due to the fact that a part of the faculty is missing there is not chance that to make contact of even if there is contact I does not register in the case of a blind person.

The ability to move is Power or Ability (Irdi) in which our body reacts to our intentions. The function of Vinyanaya is to register any contact which comes through the sense doors.


How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana? How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana? (In future lives)

Traditionally, one hears it from one's teacher (Buddhist mentor). For example, my Zen master once said, pointing at me, "One day this guy will get everything. He will be Bill Gates". This is known as "the prediction".

Even without that, the teachings say, if you are committed to figure it out, however slowly, you will get there sooner or later.

This abstract idea that Nibbana is actually within reach gets concrete and personal only at pretty advanced stages. Basically, once you clearly see the mechanism of conflict/suffering and how it all works, and not just see but get some grasp of mastering unconditional "rightness", that's when you know you will get there with time.


What is the meaning of "Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others." To my knowledge, Bodhicaryāvatāra expressed the Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others. I have done this to perfume my own mind..

In my limited understanding, it refers to the negative thoughts although I do not have complete comprehension of it.

What does it refer to, what is the intention and what is to be practiced?

Shantideva’s work is among the most beautiful and profound pieces of writing ever composed on earth in any language. It is jaw dropping in its profound beauty and the author must have been an extraordinary Bodhisattva if not a fully accomplished enlightened being. Personally, I prefer to see it as the work of a fully and completely enlightened being. To me this verse was written out of compassion by this perfect being  to show others how to accomplish the same by overcoming the foes of conceit and self-importance.

The purpose of this verse is a thought training by the author intended to show others how to subdue conceit and lust for reputation. It is a verse which is full of humility and self-deprication designed to counteract conceited and prideful thoughts.

Shantideva's text is a master class in training the mind to be a Bodhisattva. All the verses are examples illustrating how a Bodhisattva practices and thinks.


Does Dhp 256-257 condone judging others? In several answers on this site, judging others as judge or jury is looked upon unfavourably, for both lay people and monks. It is often said that the one who passes a guilty or innocent verdict, would carry some karmic consequences.

However, the following quote from the Dhammapada seems to condone the act of judging others.

Is this the right interpretation of these Dhammapada verses or is there another interpretation?

Maybe it's just a metaphor? If so, a metaphor for what?

On the other hand, if this is the correct interpretation, then could these verses be used to endorse the participation of lay Buddhists as judge or jury?

Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  To pass judgment hurriedly
  doesn't mean you're a judge.
  The wise one, weighing both
  the right judgment & wrong,
  judges others impartially —
  unhurriedly, in line with the Dhamma,
  guarding the Dhamma,
  guarded by Dhamma,
  intelligent:
  he's called a judge.

Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita:

  Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.
  He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian
  of law and is called just.

Householder Ruben, interested,

Don't confuse judging (discrimination) with acting on (execution of) a judgement.

Right judgement is most important, and of course always approved and encouraged. It's different in relation to acting in certain ways on a judgement, or to believing that ones judgement could change things afterwards.

So one who has the duty to judge others' acts should of course not lie, nor judge improperly out of affection or other reasons, taking side. However, it would be improper to approve harmful acts executed on account of one's judgement (even proper judgement), not to mention if harm occurs on account of improper judgement.

In how far one could act properly in certain circumstances, relying on certain societies with their proper or improper means, would be different from case to case.

Again, there is never any real duty if it violates the basic precepts, either lying or physical harming, depriving... by body, signs or thoughts.

And even a monk would be called to judge cases in their society -- yet the execution on those acts have no physical harming as it's consequence, or does it make what's done undone, but it's to support the further practice and headed to reestablishment in the community.

So these two things -- judging, and acting on a judgement -- should be divided, so that it may not be taken wrongly.

(Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade or entertainment, but as means for doing merits toward release.)


How are Prasangika and Svātantrika different? I was refreshing myself with some stuff on Madhyamaka.

I don't understand how the difference between Prasangika and Svātantrika can be svabhava. How can svabhava exist without changing anything else about conventional entities or ultimate reality?

So what other claims does this entail about conventional entities by Svātantrika?

Or does Prasangika show their ultimate reality cannot be empty?

First, the Gelug and the Nyingma presentations of the Prasangika system vary (in particular with respect to other-emptiness / self-emptiness). My answer is from the Gelug standpoint.

Second, I am confident that the following references would answer your questions:

Editor's introduction to The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham,
Editor's introduction to Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham, and
The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?

Prasangika give a short definition of conventional truth:

  An object found by a mind distinguishing conventionalities.

While the short definition of ultimate truth is:

  An object found by a mind distinguishing the ultimate.

Although the Svatantrika definitions differ, these two help understand the issue at hand. The definition mentions what consciousness has one or the other truth as its object: in one case, "a mind distinguishing conventionalities", in the other "a mind distinguishing the ultimate." It is important to understand what a conventional valid cognizer and an ultimate valid cognizer are, because they apprehend different objects. A conventional valid cognizer apprehends conventional truths while the mind analyzing the ultimate apprehends ultimate truth, the lack of inherent existence. Nihilist think that, since a mind analyzing the ultimate does not find conventionalities (i.e. all it finds is the absence of inherent existence, emptiness) then conventionalities are utterly non-existent. This is the reason why Khedrup Je reminds us: not seeing sounds does not refute the existence of sounds... in the same way, not finding conventional truths with a mind of ultimate analysis does not refute the existence conventional truths. It is not because an Arya in meditative equipoise on emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, not apprehending any conventionality, that conventionalities are refuted. Conventional truths and ultimate truths are just the objects of two distinct cognizers, just like smells and sounds are the objects of two distinct consciousnesses.

Both Svatantrika and Prasangika assert that ultimate truth - the absence of inherent existence - is not found by any conventional valid cognizer: it is found only by the pristine wisdom realizing emptiness. This wisdom is a mind that we also call "mind distinguishing the ultimate", "mind of ultimate analysis", "mind analyzing the ultimate." Svatantrika posit that phenomena are empty of inherent existence ultimately because the mind of ultimate analysis apprehends the lack of inherent existence, but they are not empty of inherent existence conventionally because such emptiness is not found by any conventional valid cognizer. Khedrup Je says:

  Therefore, when [Svatantrika] explain that entities are natureless, it should be taken in the context of referring to an ultimate [nature, and should not be taken as denying that things exist from their own side]

Prasangika disagree with this assertion. They posit that inherent existence is utterly non-existent. Therefore, phenomena do not exist inherently, be it conventionally or ultimately. Emptiness of inherent existence is not found by any conventional valid cognizer but this does not entail that phenomena are empty only ultimately and not conventionally. According to Prasangika, phenomena are empty of inherent existence even conventionally, since inherent existence is a mode of existence that is refuted by ultimate analysis. Since emptiness of inherent existence is apprehended by an ultimate valid cognizer, its opposite –  inherent existence – must be utterly non-existent. Another way of saying is that inherent existence is not an object of knowledge of even conventional valid cognition. Therefore, no phenomena exist inherently in any way.

Both Jetsün Mipham and Geshe Dreyfus suggest that this distinction was overly emphasized by Prasangika while needed not be. It is the point of Geshe Dreyfus's book: What Difference Does a Difference Make? In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it also says:

  Those who, through practice associated with the view of the concordant ultimate, thus attain the experience of the ultimate truth in itself may be called either Prasangika or Svatantrikas depending on the way they make or do not make assertions in subsequent attainment. But one should know that in terms of their realization there is no difference between them. They are both in possession of the wisdom the Aryas.

Prasangika claim, however, that the object of negation asserted by Prasangika is not the same as that of the Svatantrika. Asserting that anything exist inherently in any way (as the Svatantrika do) is untenable. Therefore, according to Prasangika, only a proponent of Prasangika tenets is “in possession of the wisdom of the Aryas”. Indeed, we often believe that all Superiors (Aryas) must be Prasangika by tenets.

The thing is that Svatantrika posit a conventional analysis while Prasangika do not. Since they posit the entity of conventional valid cognizer differently, what these cognizers apprehend must differ as well. Prasangika argue that no conventionality is an object of analysis, but an object apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer that does not investigate the mode of existence of anything. The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

  [Some] think that to affirm a tenet that investigates conventional
  phenomena is incompatible with the Prasangika stance, which is to
  accept phenomena as they are, without analysis, according to the
  general consensus.

This is because conventionalities – conventional truths – are just that: conventions. They are not to be refuted or investigated. Once, in a class I was attending, a student asked our teacher “Since I only see John's body, and the person is not intrinsically one with her body, then it means I have never seen John, doesn't it?” It is due to this type of misunderstanding that Prasangika refute any conventional analysis. It shows just how important it is to understand how conventional truths are objects of conventional cognizer, not of minds analyzing the ultimate. As soon as one engages in analysis, he leans towards the direction of realizing emptiness, and the mind realizing emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, it does not apprehend conventional truths.

On the other hand, Svatantrika posit that one can analyze the mode of existence of phenomena by way of a mind of conventional analysis, and thus refute that phenomena exist in certain ways conventionally. For instance, Svatantrika-Yogacara posit that external establishment can be refuted with a conventional analysis. Thus, they claim that phenomena lack external establishment conventionally, do not lack inherent existence conventionally, lack inherent existence inherently. They lack external establishment conventionally because a conventional valid cognizer can refute external establishment; they do not lack inherent existence conventionally because the emptiness of inherent existence can not be found by way of conventional analysis; they do lack inherent existence ultimately because the emptiness of inherent existence is found / realized by way of a mind analyzing the ultimate.

The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

  It must be said, however, that in the context of pramana, or valid
  cognition, applied on the conventional level, [according to
  Svatantrika] it is quiet acceptable to say that phenomena exist
  according to their characteristics or that they are established by
  valid cognition and so forth.

Prasangika say, on the other hand: (1) there is no such thing as conventional analysis (2) inherent existence is utterly non-existent even if its absence is found only by a mind of ultimate analysis, because inherent existence and its emptiness are opposites. It is important to understand what conventional valid cognition and ultimate valid cognitions are to understand what their respective objects are. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

  The Prasangika texts refute 'true existence' (bden grub) and
  'existence according to characteristics' (rang mtshan nyid kyis grub
  pa) indiscriminately. But when one makes a distinction between these
  expressions – as the Svatantrikas do (refuting true existence on the
  ultimate level and asserting existence according to characteristics on
  the conventional level) – one must distinguish, if one is not to
  confuse the issue, the two kinds of reasoning and their respective
  spheres.

Additionally, according to Prasangika, if a phenomena was inherently existent, then it would have to appear the way it exists (i.e. it would have a truly existent phenomena).

According to Svatantrikas, however, conventional truths are empty of true existence (i.e. they do not exist the way they appear) but are not empty of inherent existence conventionally. When Prasangika say that a phenomena does not exist inherently, they mean that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you do not find it. Svatantrika mean something else, since they posit both that (1) they exist inherently and (2) they do not withstand ultimate analysis. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

  [According to Madhyamika-Svatantrika-Yogacara] if conventional
  phenomena were assessed from the standpoint of ultimate valid
  cognition, they would not be even slightly established thereby.

This helps understand the Svatantrika position that conventional truths do not exist inherently ultimately but do exist inherently conventionally.

How do conventional phenomena appear, according to Svatantrikas? They appear as:

existing by way of their own characteristics
not being imputed by mind

While they are, both:

existing by way of their own characteristics, and
imputed by mind.


Loving-Kindness for Concentration In meditation, I seem to have great difficulty with the breath. Having some stability and mindfulness, but very little concentration, vividness and sharpness.

However, loving-kindness works for me in deep ways. Is compassion meditation a kind of concentrative practice? How far could it bring me along the concentrative path?

Also, would interspacing anapanasati and metta (e.g. doing one one day, and the other another day) beneficial, or should one try sticking to one type?

With regards to your first question, yes, loving-kindness meditation aids concentration because, well you focus on an object (or more) while (trying) to suspend every distracting thoughts.

Initially, mindfulness with breathing can be difficult because the breath is too subtle for the "over-active & over-stimulated" mind.
That's why you can use thinking meditations such as loving kindness meditation, reflection on virtue, reflection on Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, reflection on death etc. etc.

Also, loving-kindness elicits positive emotions, which make the mind calmer and brighter. That's the reason why the Buddha praised Sila so much, and it's Sila that leads to joy, tranquility so and so forth which, ultimately, lead to concentration and seeing things as they are (vipassana).

To quote:

  Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?"
  [The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
  "And of freedom from remorse?"
  "Joy, Ananda"
  "And of joy?"
  "Rapture, Ananda"
  "And of rapture?"
  "Tranquillity, Ananda."
  "And of tranquillity?"
  "Happiness, Ananda."
  "And of happiness?"
  "Concentration, Ananda."
  "And of concentration?"
  "Vision and knowledge according to reality."
  "And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"
  "Turning away and detachment, Ananda."
  "And of turning away and detachment?"
  "The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."

~


Is it considered "normal" / "possible" / "bad" / "wrong" the use of Mala Beads for counting breaths while meditating? I sometimes use my Mala Bead during meditation, I find it quite "concentrating" to turn one bead for each breath.
As I read online, when I reach the center bead, I reverse the rotation and start rotating the beads in the opposite direction.

Is this a considered "normal" behaviour? Or I just came up with it, mixing (and maybe misunderstanding) what I've been reading/studying?

Thanks!

Using beads for samadhi sounds weird. Anapanasati is being sensitive to cittasankara and kayasankara before killing them, no beads will ever to this for you.

Generally speaking people cling to their wrong idea that some external objects will clean their citta for them, like some sound, like Om, or some things they see, or even a splash of water will wash all the hindrances and bad karma magically.
But like the buddha said, what matters is to clean the mind and this is done ''by the mind itself'', no objects will do this for you, or way better said, cleaning the citta is done with proper attention, with sati and so on.


How does Buddhist Logic work? In the Wikipedia article Buddhist Logic, it is mentioned that Buddhist Logic is different from classical western logic.

  ‘Indian Logic’ should be understood as being a different system of logic than modern classical logic (e.g. modern predicate calculus), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right. ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.

How does Buddhist logic work then? And how is it used in the exegesis of Buddhist scriptures?

On the one hand, there is logic which is a set of rules for making deductions, inductions, etc. Even in the West, there are various. For instance, (1) classical logic and (2) intuitionistic logic. I believe that they have different ways of dealing with the law of excluded middle. I used to study more philosophy of logic than logic itself, and there are great differences in that respect between formal and intuitionistic.

In Buddhism, when logic is applied, there is no "set of rules for making deductions" that is different from those of classical formal logic.

Ilya Grushevskiy gave an explanation of the law of identity and law of non-contradiction that makes you think that Indian logic is different from classical logic. However, Tibetans give another explanation. We say: X does not exist inherently. Therefore, X is not inherently one with X, but it is conventionally so. It is not inherently different from not-X, but it is conventionally so. And so forth.

In the same way, the first verse of Nagarjuna's Karika says "Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise." We explain: of course, a tree arise from another conventionally, since a sprout, or a seed, is not a tree. But since it is not inherently produced, it does not inherently arise from another. We call that "refuting the four extremes of production."

When you say "Indian Logic should be understood as being a different system of logic than modern classical logic[...]" it could refer, not to logic itself but to:

Dialectic, as for instance that of Nagarjuna. Western scholars tend to describe it as negative, but that is a category that is applied as well to that of Western philosophers (such as Kierkegaard, for instance)
A set of propositions.
Epistemology.

Indian and Indo-Tibetan epistemology mainly describes types of consciousnesses. Consciousness is qualified as an object-posessor since it knows its object, and so we speak of seven types (or more or less, depending on the text). For instance, a "wrong consciousness" that engages its object erroneously, an "inferential cognizer", etc. Consciousness is always described in relation to the causes of its arising (a sense power, an object, a immediately preceding condition) and is thus not taken independently.
In the Indo-Tibetan traditions, one studies epistemology so as to know how mind works. It is all aimed at mind training and is not merely "philosophical" in that sense.