Is it important that the reality of things doesn't exist, instead of just behaving like things don't exist? In some traditions their philosophy says that concrete things don't really exist, only in the mind like just an experience. But is that vision important, or could just your relation to those things as if they don't exist be enough? In other words, is this philosophy just a way to concentrate on the spirit, instead of the outer world, or do they really mean this?

Whatever that exist outside we experience through our sense doors and paint a picture in our minds. This metal model we construct will not exactly correspond to what is outside will not the exactly the same from person to person depending on many factors like cognitive ability, sharpness of senses, etc. Hence that we know about the world is not perfectly in touch with reality and not always exist as we expect it to be. So it would be safe to say that anything we perceive as such does not exist in such a form that we perceive or expect it to be in. Also our outlook of the world is mentally constructed and does not exist in any form we expect or think it to be in. Also we have no ability to exactly know what exactly the world is as we are limited by cognitive ability and or faculties. So we will never know the world as it is, perhaps unless you become a Buddha as only Buddha can see all phenomena.


Should a Buddhist "have faith"? In many religions it is common to say: "Have faith in God" or Jesus or Allah...

In Buddhism we believe in Kamma, meaning that what happens to us is due to our past actions and it is usually not (or never) influenced by an external being. (It can change from school to school, some may pray and ask for things)

So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true? Or should I just do what I think is right and forget about it? What is the best way for a Buddhist to act in this situation?

PS: Please ignore the fact that I want something, I know this could be questioned in Buddhism as the wrong way to happiness, but that would be a different question :)

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha is reported as saying that Buddhist principles should not be accepted without evidence, and that 'it is proper ... to doubt'. Confidence/trust (sraddha) in the teachings is important, but 'blind' faith is actively discouraged. Here's what he is reported as saying:

  "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them...
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.

Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry


What is considered consciousness? Could someone illuminate me in "consciousness"?

Is it simply the ability to rationalize, analyze and most important concentrate? With or without ego?

Does consciousness dictate who we are?

In Pali Buddhism, 'consciousness' ('vinnana') is the sense awareness or cognition that operates through the six sense organs to facilite: (i) seeing; (ii) hearing; (iii) smelling; (iv) tasting; (v) touching &; (iv) knowing of the mind's internal feelings, perceptions, moods, thoughts, images, etc.

To use a rough analogy, 'consciousness' can be compared to the mere reflecting of an image by a mirror. Consciousness only 'reflects' sense objects, like a mirror, that is all. Consciousness does not 'think' or 'analyse', just like a mirror does not think or analyse.

To quote:

  And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness

  SN 12.2

~~~

  Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.

  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 (mano) & ideas, intellect-consciousness (mano-vinnana) arises.

  The meeting of the three is sense contact.

  MN 18

In Pali Buddhism, the ability to rationalize, analyse & concentrate are other functions of other kinds of mentality (called 'mano', 'nama', 'sankhara khandha', etc).

Each of these mental functions, be they consciousness ('vinnana'), intellect ('mano') or mental intention ('sankhara khandha'), can operate without ego or self ('atta'). 'Ego' or 'self' is a natural instinctual yet ignorant idea the mind imputes upon conscious experience & mental activity. (If interested, read more here).

In Buddhism, what 'we' are is a product of the mind's accumulated & conditioned intentions & thinking (sankhara khandha) & thus 'what we are' is essentially unrelated to consciousness itself (even though what 'we' are are thoughts about what the mind is conscious of).

In short, we are what we 'think' we are. What we think we are is called 'bhava' ('becoming' or 'existence') in Buddhism. To quote:

  The craving that makes for further becoming (bhava) — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be (bhava), craving not to be (vibhava):
  This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification
  described by the Blessed One.

  MN 44

The 'view' or 'belief' ('ditthi') of 'what we are' is what the mind clings or attaches to (rather than what the mind is conscious of). To quote again:

  There are these five clingings to the aggregates, friend Visakha: clinging to the form (body) aggregate, clinging to the feeling (vedana) aggregate, clinging to the perception (sanna) aggregate, clinging to the fabricating aggregate (sankhara khandha), clinging to the consciousness (vinnana) aggregate. These five clingings to the aggregates
  are the self-identification ('sakkhaya ditthi') described by the Blessed One."

  MN 44

For example, a small baby, before its mind/brain is mature enough to develop ideas of "me" & "I", is continually conscious of an image, sound, smell, taste & touch of a certain woman. Then one day, when the mind/brain became mature enough, it started to categorise (label & solidify) those images, sounds, smells, tastes & touches as "my mother". This categorising of "my mother" was the beginning of developing the ideas that dictate what we are or what we think ourselves to be.

To continue the original quote from above so to incorporate the process of thinking:

  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

  MN 18

What "we" are, namely, "self-identification", is what the mind thinks & objectifies about.


Which buddhist traditions are typically viewed as most liberal? Yes it is asking for opinions, which i will investigate further on my own. opinions would be helpful in this particular circumstance.

For some (unspecified) definitions of "liberal", might Soka Gakkai International (SGI) be among the "most liberal"?
For example,
this page says,

In their Study of SGI, Phillip Hammond and David Machacek suggest that the religion is "characterized by an almost libertarian perspective on individual behaviour."

I visited some SGI meetings many years ago, and those I met seemed like nice enough people, OTOH I didn't understand (didn't get much of) their doctrine.
They call themselves Buddhist, e.g. here is the meta description from their web site,
<meta name="description" content="Worldwide Buddhist network which promotes peace,
culture and education through personal transformation and social contribution.
Buddhist concepts, news, links with SGI organizations around the world and more." />

Wikipedia's introductory paragraph says,

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese new religious movement based on the writings of Nichiren and the teachings of the organization’s presidents Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, Jōsei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. It is one of the larger Japanese new religions. Originally a lay group within the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist sect, the Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and places the chanting of the name of the Sutra at the center of devotional practice. The movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics. It has also been at the center of controversies.

I'm not sure whether to say it is a Buddhist tradition or whether it's from a Buddhist tradition. Here's what they write about their organization:

What is SGI?
Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a lay Buddhist movement linking more than 12 million people around the world. SGI members integrate their Buddhist practice into their daily lives, following the Lotus Sutra based teachings of Nichiren, a 13th-century Japanese Buddhist priest.
Just as the lotus blooms in a muddy pond, all people can manifest the Buddha nature--inner resources of courage, wisdom and compassion that can equip them to overcome life's challenges and lead happy and fulfilling lives. As "engaged Buddhists," SGI members aim to create value in any circumstances and contribute to the well-being of others. Their practice sparks a process of ongoing inner transformation and empowerment known as "human revolution." The promotion of peace, culture and education is central to SGI's activities.


How does enlightenment relate to the higher realms of existence? How does nibbāna relate to the 31 lokas and does rebirth into higher realms of existence precede enlightenment or result from it? Many thanks.

The higher realms are not directly related to enlightenment although some higher realms (such as the moral humane 'human' realm or the meditative jhana 'godly' realm) can help with reaching enlightenment. Thus, some (but not all) higher realms precede enlightenment rather then result from enlightenment.

The word 'existence' or 'bhava' generally refers to attaching to things as 'self' thus, as described in AN 4.123, for example, any attachment, self-becoming or 'ego-existence' in a higher realm will eventually lead to 'hell' ('suffering'; 'torment'; 'despair').

In short, enlightenment cannot precede from or result in any kind of 'existence' ('bhava') since enlightenment ends 'ego-existence'.


Why is only intentional action considered as Karma, which gives rise to corresponding consequences? Consider a situation (just a silly example) like this:

Suppose I'm walking on a road or grass field, and I know there are living beings like ants and other insects lying down on the surface, but I don't have any intention to kill any being while I walk there to reach my destination.

But, as I'm walking, consequently, many little beings are killed by me by stomping on them, though I don't have intention to do so.

Buddhism says that only an action done with intention will account as a Karma that will affect us accordingly..

Referring to this and the situation I gave for example, does it mean that the killing of insects without intention (though I know I'm going to kill them) isn't a bad Karma?

Will I not face any effect due to that action I did unintentionally, but KNOWINGLY?

If that's the case, why can't I rob a house and say that I just did it to quench my starving stomach, not to hurt anyone?

Isn't the consequence of doing an unintentional action considered as a seed that can affect oneself? Why?

If you say I'm wrong, then how is Karma in Buddhism different from that of Jainism, where every action is a Karma?

What you say or justify do not count. What counts is your volition.

For volition to give result the volition should have any of the 6 roots (3 wholesome - alob, adosa & amoha + 3 un wholesome - lob, dosa & moha ). When you accidentally step on an insect you do not know of its existance non of these roots arise in your mind, as you do not have any intention to kill. You know you are steeping on insects but as iterated before you do not have the intention to step on them, hence there is no un wholesome roots in your mind to create the Karma.

When you do rob someone what ever the justification you are motivated by one of the roots (loba). Even satisfying your hunger is due to loba. What ever the justification there you know and have the intention. Hence there are Karmic results. Every wilful action need intention, even an action which might not generate any karma like lifting your hand. Your body will not sleep walk you into robbing without any intention or thoughts.

Also I asked this related question which might complement the above question: Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned?


Why are there so many different paths? I will admit I am just starting to look into buddhism and such. I am confused because so far I understand that the Satipatthana sutta provides everything anyone needs to become 'enlightened'.

If that is the case, then why is there so many different forms of buddhism (including the tantric one) each with various meditation techniques etc? If the Satipatthana sutta (or Anapanasati sutta) are the 'bread and butter' of buddhism, why would anyone need anything else/different to achieve their enlightenment?

Its like, if something works then why even bother changing it up?

This problem is not only with buddhism ,rather with almost every religion.

During his time , Buddha never taught any tantra , mantra or yantra. Although his teachings vary from person to person but with common as 5 Percepts , cycle of suffering , impermanence & eight fold noble path. Satipatthana sutta came later for intelligent beings. There were people who wouldn't understand any meditation, buddha used to teach them karma path, eg.,  'truth' is  to be loved - for newly married couples  ,...

Even during buddha's time , few people didn't need any meditation as they remain aware every moment residing nearby him ,like Ananda. Even animals used to move towards awareness ,eg., drunk elephant bowed in front of buddha , lion wouldn't kill anyone near enlightened one.

Rise of tantra , mantra , yantra in buddhism was due to incapability(less power) of truth_seekers after buddha to remove bad omen from atmosphere just by upadesh(lessons) via voice & hence leading to basic teachings to be insufficient ,especially in Himalayas where to keep body warm , people were dependent on alcoholic_foods making them completely ineligible for basic teachings. That's where , Hindu Aghori teaching of tantra , mantra & yantra was mixed with basic teachings to generate a new teaching of Mahayana ,Vajrayana ,Tantrayana etc. with common as 5 Percepts , 8 fold noble path , cycle of suffering & impermanence.

Why buddha didn't teach tantra ,mantra or yantra?
     Because , these come under powers(Siddhis) and powers are merely used for fulfilling one's desire. This increases & gives more space for Ignorance.

When you are stuck in problem and haven't won your fear , you will definitely try to use powers to get out of that problem. This is the main reason behind power in buddhism , hinduism , Christian(white magic) etc...


Losing mindfulness and peace after three weeks of successful practise I've been practising mindfulness meditation for about three weeks now. I started with ten minute sessions but soon increased it to a half hour and then either a full hour or two haf hours with a five minute break. I felt that my practise was making me more peaceful, less angry, calmer and generally happier. I would achieve what access concentration quite easily and yesterday I felt an experience that I found rather similar to the descriptions of the Buddhist first jhana.
Immediately after that experience, it seemed to me like my mind had almost, and very suddenly, let go of the progress that I had made and I suddenly returned to my former angry restless self. I am again suddenly consumed by angry thoughts about a trivial event that happened many months ago. I don't feel the peace that meditation used to bring anymore and today I really struggled even to finish a half hour sitting. I don't seem to be able to release distractions or thoughts anymore and can't stay with my object of meditation.
What's going on? What do I have to do to restore my mindfulness?

All of those things are coming back because you haven't really fixed anything.  So many people use meditation as a vacation.  They run themselves ragged in their day to day lives only to use the cushion as a kind of karmic hospital.  This is palliative practice and just like a vacation from your job or your terrible marriage, spending a week in the zendo or Tahiti isn't going to do a damn thing for your mind.  Meditating this way isn't any different from popping pills or smoking a blunt.  Sure, your problems melt away for a time, but you aren't addressing the crap that made you want to melt them away in the first place.
We sit to prepare our minds for insight.  Anything else that happens - jhana, bliss, IDK talking to devas - all that is wholly ancillary.  Rather than try to preserve those feeling of bliss, wholeness, and peace, instead turn that bright and less blemished mind to your own personal obstacles.  There are entire suites of insight, whole canons of material that you can investigate from Zen koans to vipassana objects, etc.  Gaining direct knowledge into those things are what's going to stop those bad habits from reemerging.  Simply sitting isn't going to cut it.  Bliss doesn't change anything.
And for what it's worth, you're just starting.  Of course you are going to hit a roadblock.  I've been doing this stuff for the better part of two decades and I still have good practice days and bad ones.  Keep at it.  It'll come back.


When during meditation we forget where we are As far as I understand, awareness is an important concept in buddhism, and an asset to develop through meditation.

During meditation (following vipassana as taught by Goenka), it has happened to me that I forget where I am at that moment. When this question/feeling arises, the answer comes little by little
being really general at the beginning, and gradually refining to a more detailed description of where I am, like:
you are in this country, you came to this place, you are in a retreat, your are sitting in this meditation hall, etc.

My questions are:

Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ?
Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Since you are asking from a specific tradition, I can give a pretty specific answer:
Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ?
Yes, it is expected at the stage of bhaṅga-ñāṇa (knowledge of dissolution).  Though generally available texts don't mention this phenomenon, teacher manuals make reference to it. Here is the general state that leads to this phenomenon:

For at that time each object that is being noticed seems to him to be entirely absent or to have become non-existent. Consequently, at this stage of knowledge, it seems to him as if he were engaged in noticing something which has already become absent or non-existent by having vanished; and the consciousness engaged in noticing appears to have lost contact with the object that is being noticed.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Progress of Insight

Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ?
No, but it is common in bhaṅga-ñāṇa to think that your practice is not progressing because of an inability to notice objects clearly (only noticing their disappearance):

It is for that reason that a meditator may here think: "I have lost the insight"; but he should not think so.
-- Ibid.

The reason for losing perception of where you are in bhaṅga-ñāṇa, or the similar observation also common to bhaṅga-ñāṇa of losing perception of the position of the body (i.e. thinking the body or part of the body has disappeared), is because with bhaṅga-ñāṇa the meditator has broken through the illusion of concept into the reality of ultimate existence, no longer putting attention on concepts like "place" or "body". Since in ultimate reality you aren't anywhere and your body doesn't exist, these concepts have no place in the yogi's mind at that time.


How to deal with people and handle rude language? How should one properly handle cases in which people use a rude language and indulge in idle talk or gossip, according to the Buddhist teachings?

How to speak or act with a pure thought when people say stupid things and jokes at you, and use rude language towards you, trying to upset you, according to Buddhist teachings? And how to change the unwholesome thought to wholesome when the mind is full of hatred and aversion towards these people and cultivate loving kindness? Which way is best of sending metta to them?

In Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says:

"Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate.
In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
[...]
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words [...]' That's how you should train yourselves.
-- Kakacupama Sutta, MN 21

An addendum to this would be when the authors of rude language and idle talk or gossip are buddhist themselves committed to the practice. In that case, with the above in mind, one may, at his/her discretion, chose to bring their attention to this, so as to help them steer back to their practice. Of course, one certainly may chose to intervene in the case of non-buddhists, but since they may not be committed to not perform these kinds of speech, raising the matter can make things worse -- that's when taking responsibility for being timely and beneficial applies specially to ourselves, specifically:

Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech; he speaks truth, adheres to truth, is trustworthy and reliable, one who is no deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from those; thus, he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices on concord, delights on concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and lovable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable by many. Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma, and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.
-- Culahatthipadopama Sutta, MN 27 (Nanamoli/Bodhi)

In the case of monks engaging in these acts, there may be something specific in the Vinaya, the collection of monastic rules, about how to handle these situations.


Personal practice of vipassana meditation no rise of ill will towards other beings and  sankhara disappears  after samadhi nimitta has been seen. Sometimes when other person have scold ,dukka appear as a cloud and disappeared. What is the state of this?

You care too much of states and 'what is this, what is that'.
It's not necessary to know all this. There is too much wanting.

Whenever a question arises you should just say to yourself: wanting to know, wanting to know, wanting to know. Or just: wanting, wanting, wanting.
Get rid of all that desire.


What is the significance of Reclining Buddha Statue in Laos compared to other countries in Asia? Hello regarding the reclining Buddha statue here in this link http://www.buddhastatuesnow.com --

What are the differences between this and other reclining statues in Asia? I have seen several and this one is different. For example the fingers are much longer and the Buddha appears happy while in other countries he is more solemn and hands are not so prominent. Thank you for any info you can provide!

This is a depiction of the Buddha in his last moments of life, just before he achieved parinibbana (nirvana-after-death). There are 32 signs of a great man and 80 secondary signs (all of which the Buddha possessed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha#The_32_Signs_of_a_Great_Man and long slender fingers, long earlobes as depicted are two of the lesser signs.. I guess if you examine it up close, you will probably get some more  (foot arches etc?)! As for the differences, I am not well versed in art or its history, sorry!


How can I know that I am clear of thoughts while I am meditating? While meditating, one might try to be aware of their surroundings, to be present in the moment. But how can we become aware of it without thinking that we are aware?
Another example is when one can listen to sounds or silence, and even if one is not trying to put stories behind the sounds, one might find oneself thinking about the wave of the sound, or its variations, its length, etc.

There are multiple kinds of mental phenomena, not all of which can be classified as thoughts.

First and the crudest kind, are visualizations, cravings, and replays. This is when we mentally leave here and now, and are experiencing what basically is a (short or long) daydream about the subject our mind is concerned or agitated about.

The second kind are mental chatter. This is when we think in words, silently saying them in our head. If you look carefully you will notice how the muscles of the tongue and lips are slightly engaged as you "pronounce" your inner speeches.

The third kind is conceptual thinking. This is when we mentally follow a chain of logical relationships between objects or concepts. These are still thoughts.

The fourth kind is labeling. This is when we mentally recognize phenomena we experience and identify them with a category or attribute that makes them distinct, given the context.

The fifth kind is registering. This is when we make a mental note of experience without labeling it to any category. For the purposes of this answer, these are the borderline between thoughts and non-conceptual experiences.

The sixth kind is non-conceptual perception. This is when we experience (see, hear, smell) or feel (a bodily sensation or emotion), without labeling, acknowledging or noting it in any way. Famous technique used by Zen masters to awaken one to this level is to make a sudden noise in the middle of long meditation session.

The seventh kind is perception of energy. This is when we feel chakras and meridians.

The eighth kind is samadhi. This can't be described in words and must be experienced to be understood.

When we say "my thinking has stopped", we usually mean levels 1-4, while levels 6-8 can still function. This said, it is not like in meditation our goal is to stop thinking. Rather, it is to open ourselves to levels 6-8. As we get better at this, thinking can go on "in the background" without affecting our meditation.


Is it okay to seek financial gains as a layman? I work in a highly competitive market, and often people around me only talk about money or finances or the global economy day in and day out. A few of my friends/interns were attracted to Buddhism after I told them about meditation recently. Some of them became lay practitioners, but are now questioning what seems to be a contradictory lifestyle.

In short, is having a goal of seeking financial success and money considered an attachment to the world? Is this contradictory to the Buddhist path of humility? Thank you.

Contrary to the popular belief, Buddhist way of life does not start with the eradication of attachment.Detached nature is a quality of final realization but definitely not the main part of the process. The noble eight fold path starts with right-view(Samma Ditti). If the path is correctly followed, the final destination will be free of suffering which is caused by attachment. Worldly beings are attached to the sensual world due to a false view(ignorance). Therefore, it is important to clear the vision first rather than removing attachment. Because it would be something forceful and artificial which leads to more problems.
This is clearly evident in Buddha's main lay disciples such as Anatapindika, Vishakha or King Bimbisara who were successful in worldly life as well as supra-mundane life.

All in all, aspiring financial success is not against the path as long as you are doing it in a right way(Samma Ajiva) and your main goal in life is the cessation of suffering.


Difference between Pin (Punya) and Kusal(Kushala)? I have seen people using the words Pin ("good deeds") interchangeably with Kusal; and Paw ("bad deeds") interchangeably with Akusal.

But there are clear differences between them -- per my understanding:

Pin (Good deeds) - Actions done physically, verbally or with mind that has good karmas
Kusal - Anything that would lead you in the path to nirvana.

(Paw (Bad deeds) and Akusal are the opposites of the above.)

But I'm not sure about these definitions. I would like to know the exact meaning of these and how they are related to each other?

Pin(Punya) and Kusal are both same. Pin means that which purifies the mind. Kusala means that which is born of wisdom or that which counters defilements. The good deeds that lead to birth in heavenly realms are called Wattagamini-Kusala and the good deeds that lead to Nibbana are called Viwattagamini-Kusala. Here's an explanation by ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma Thera.


Majjhima Nikaya 152 Indriyabhāvana Sutta In this sutta, the Buddha teaches how different people should approach sense-restraint. Here, the enlightened ones can perceive objects in a different light (positively, negatively or dwelling in equanimity), whereas beginners should be repelled in sense-objects.

My question:  (i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally?
                         (ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

(i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally?

The commentary, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, says:

  Although the sekha has already entered upon the way to final deliverance, he is still prone to subtle states of liking, aversion, and dull indifference in regard to sense objects. He experiences these, however, as impediments to his progress, and thus becomes repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by them.

The Pali words used are aṭṭīyati harāyati jigucchati.

  (ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

This is an interesting subject. Based on the abhidhamma it seems some states are to an extent intrinsically "attractive" and others are intrinsically "repulsive". How intrinsic these qualities are, I'm not sure. This sutta seems to affirm that they are intrinsic but an arahant is able to change their reactions to such experiences. These reactions would be for example reflex reactions to bad smells or tastes involving physical reactivity and mental association with smells of the past. They would not involve partiality, as an arahant does not like or dislike in the mental sense. The arahant could still perceive a bad smell as disgusting, or a beautiful flower as attractive, even though they didn't like or dislike either.

It seems to be this freedom from partiality that allows arahants to "play" with their reactions in ways that beings with mental partialities cannot. An ordinary worldling is bound by attachments both positive and negative that force them to see attractive objects as attractive and unattractive objects as unattractive.


Is dukkha conventional or ultimate? Is it different from the other two marks of existence? Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?

I am confused, because on the one hand, it is usually mentioned together with two other marks of existence, which clearly look like the ultimate truth: "self" is conventional, and ultimately there is no self, and permanence of phenomena is conventional too, and ultimately everything is impermanent.

On the other hand, dukkha looks like something conventional: suffering, or lack of satisfaction, depends only on the existence of the sufferer, and ultimately, there is no sufferer, there are only empty aggregates.

Moreover, if I were the last sentient being to become enlightened, there would still be no self, and phenomena would still be impermanent. But there would be no suffering. I don't know how to wrap my mind around this asymmetry.

According to the Wikipedia article Four Dharma Seals, some schools of Buddhism teach "Three Dharma Seals" as including Nirvana but excluding Dukkha (for example Google finds The Three Dharma Seals by Thich Nhat Hanh) because "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence".


Do Buddhists think other religions are wrong? I appreciate that religion can be many things but I want to consider the more soteriological aspects of religion. If we can take as a premise that religions including Buddhism have a strong concern about salvation - this would mean that Buddhism and other religions have competing views on this matter. Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense?

I'm particularly interested in references for reasonable authoritative texts or quotes from teachers either ancient or contemporary. Also are certain schools of Buddhism more open to other religious views and perhaps other ones more exclusive in their views?

In Buddhism you have to straighten your views. In this process there may be times where you new views might start contradicting your previous beliefs or that of established religions. There are 3 stages to straightening your view:

You learn the Dhamma and see that this sounds right
You see it is logical
You practice and empirically verify and see that it is in fact true.

As a person taking the path you need not put aside any views as right or wrong to start with just because it is said so. Through logic and practice you start seeing things clearly then you can straighten your views. When you experience some thing sometimes even a a firm believer in Buddhism you would start seeing things in a new light and sometimes see your initial conceptual understanding differs from reality.

Hence the Buddhist position would be that conceptual / philosophical understanding is flawed. Your understanding is right only with regard to what you see at the experiential level. Hence any philosophical / conceptual aspect of any religion including Buddhism cannot be absolutely right.


Addicted to a particular pleasure even when you know it has its drawbacks. There’s a passage where the Buddha says that the reason we get so stuck on sensual desires, sensual pleasures, is because we don’t see any other alternative to pain. But when you see that there is the alternative and, as you reflect on it, you see that it has fewer drawbacks, greater rewards, and that you can learn how to tap into it when you need it, then it can be your new attachment—a better one. Does anyone know in which sutta that this passage is found?  Could someone help me in this?

Even after one has seen and understood that there's a better way, that's still not sufficient to abandon sensual pleasures. One would need to attain and experience the higher path himself. As taught in MN 14:

  Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.


Bodhisattva Śvetaketu and Gautama The Buddha taught that he was the Bodhisattva Śvetaketu who resided in the Tushita heavans, before being born as the human Prince Gautama.
where is this passage coming from?

Śvetaketu and Bodhisattva in Sanskrit are Setaketu and Bodhisatta in Pali.
There was one person called Setaketu in the Setaketu Jataka, but this is the story of a human on Earth, but I'm not sure if this is the same as Śvetaketu of the Chandogya Upanishad. In any case, this Setaketu is not a Bodhisatta.
From this page, we find this story:

And, having ended his life span in the human abode, the future Buddha
was reborn as a deva by the name of Setaketu in the abode of Tusitā.
....
In this way, after making the five great investigations, the
Bodhisatta Deva Setaketu resolved: “I will descend to the human abode
and become a Buddha.” Having so resolved, to the devas and Brahmās
from the ten thousand world-systems who had assembled to request him,
the Bodhisatta gave his consent thus: “O devas and Brahmās, now is the
time for me to become a Buddha as requested by you. You may now take
leave as you please, I will go down to the human abode to attain
Buddhahood.”

That story of Bodhisatta Setaketu appears to be from the Buddhavamsa.
From the wikipedia page on Buddhavamsa:

The Buddhavaṃsa (also known as the Chronicle of Buddhas) is a
hagiographical Buddhist text which describes the life of Gautama
Buddha and of the twenty-four Buddhas who preceded him and prophesied
his attainment of Buddhahood. It is the fourteenth book of the
Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is the fifth and last division of the
Sutta Piṭaka. The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three pitakas (main sections)
which together constitute the Tripiṭaka, or Pāli Canon of Theravāda
Buddhism.
Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavaṃsa is
considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and
2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.

Apparently the Buddha spoke to Sariputta and the contents of this is recorded in the Buddhavamsa.
The Buddhavamsa, Cariyāpiṭaka, Apadāna and Jataka Tales are later additions to the Pali Canon, a few centuries after the Buddha's passing. I believe it was not recited by Ananda at the First Buddhist Council right after the Buddha's passing.
Furthermore, I could not find the Buddha ever mentioning Bodhisatta Setaketu in the main nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka (by searching AccessToInsight and SuttaCentral).
So, it is hard to concretely state that it was the historical Buddha who first spoke about Setaketu.
As such, in my opinion, this can be considered an unverifiable, though inspiring, legend.

After writing this answer, I discovered that the Acchariyaabbhuta Sutta (MN 123) has Ven. Ananda talking about the Bodhisatta before his birth, in the presence of the Buddha, apparently recalling something the Buddha told him before, but he does not explicitly mention the name "Setaketu". Tusita heaven (host of Joyful Gods) is mentioned.
From Acchariyaabbhuta Sutta (MN 123):

“Sir, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the Buddha:
‘Mindful and aware, the being intent on awakening was reborn in the
host of Joyful Gods.’ This I remember as an incredible quality of the
Buddha.
I have learned this in the presence of the Buddha: ‘Mindful and aware,
the being intent on awakening remained in the host of Joyful Gods.’
This too I remember as an incredible quality of the Buddha.
I have learned this in the presence of the Buddha: ‘For the whole of
that life, the being intent on awakening remained in the host of
Joyful Gods.’ This too I remember as an incredible quality of the
Buddha.
I have learned this in the presence of the Buddha: ‘Mindful and aware,
the being intent on awakening passed away from the host of Joyful Gods
and was conceived in his mother’s womb.’ This too I remember as an
incredible quality of the Buddha.

If you're interested in topics surrounding Bodhisattva-hood, you can read the book "The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal" by Ven. Anālayo.


What is the difference between an arhat, bodhisattva and a buddha? What is the difference between an arhat, a bodhisattva and a buddha? References to the scriptures would be most helpful.

I'm open to both Theravada and Mahayana perspectives.

According to the Prasangika-Madhyamika Mahayana school of Tenets,

A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He as achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).

In his commentary to Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, Gyaltsab Je says:

  For the Hearer and Solitary Realizer arhat, because they do not meditate on the perfection of wisdom.
  It means that although Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha arhats cultivated the wisdom realizing emptiness, their wisdom is not conjoined with bodhicitta. Therefore, it is not a perfection of wisdom.

Commenting Gyaltsab Je, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  Bodhisattvas, hearers (shravakas) and solitary realizers (pratyeka buddhas) arhats do have realizations of reality, but they do not realize it in the same way as a buddha.

And:

  The Hinayana arhats and bodhisattvas on the three pure grounds, are reborn due to uncontaminated karma that propels them to take birth and their body is a called a mental body.

A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha.

We say that in terms of wisdom, a Hinayana arhat is more powerful than a bodhisattva before the 8th bhumi, because he abandoned afflictive obscurations while the bodhisattva abandons them from the 8th ground.

Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  Having generated spontaneous bodhicitta the bodhisattva has entered the Mahayana path [the path of accumulation] and the cause is great compassion, the concern for all sentient beings. He blocks the two extremes in two ways.

The Lam Rim, Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi,  and Maitreya’s Ornament for Clear Realization  explain well what bodhicitta is, how it is the entry gate to the Mahayana, etc.

A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted.

Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum explains the two bodies of a buddha that can also be divided into three, four, or five.


Going to a Catholic School Namo tassa bagavato arahanto samma sambuddhasa (Sorry, I am not fluent)

I go to a Catholic High School & I have a theology class that preaches only their truths & say it is the supreme truth above all & that if one does not believe so they will perish in the extreme notion of the eternal hell.

I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them, but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day, it can be hard to focus on my emotions toward other paths, as well as it can be hard for me to not get distorted by them & follow the Buddha's teachings.

  What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching while at
  the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of
  so) towards other paths?

Metta to all! :)

Why don’t you instead use this as an opportunity to explore what they do get right?  Catholicism specifically can have tremendous similarities to Buddhism.  The writings of St. John of the Cross especially come to mind.  Rather than meeting them with aversion, why not curiosity and openness instead?


Problems with the abdominal area while practicing Vipassana I have been practising Vipassana for 5 months since going on a 10 day course.

In answering someone's question on increased salivation during a 10 day Vipassana course, the respondent stated that the abdomen was the anchor that stopped us from flying away.
 I was very interested in that because when I meditate I sometimes feel there is a huge stone in my stomach region that won't let me go. Occasionally if I struggle really hard I feel I can break the link to that weight and then I seem to pop out into a huge very blissful area. This occurs only rarely as it is very difficult to do. To do it, I feel I have had to give up on everything and 'throw myself off a cliff'
I feel there is a lot of fear in this stomach area and a tightness like a fist. I always find it very difficult to feel sensations in this area when practicing the Vipassana.
Can anyone help explain further about the abdomen being an anchor to stopping one from flying away and perhaps answer it in relation to the experiences I mention above.
Thank you for your time.

These are not problems, this is a good sign. This means you are making progress :)

Contrary to the popular assumption, our mind is not supported solely by the brain. Significant parts of mind (mind is not really discrete so perhaps I should not say "parts") operates on the basis of the rest of the body. Specifically, lower layers of what's known as "subconscious mind", "emotional mind" and "intuitive mind" are in fact informational aspects of the bodily processes. Then there are currents of mind (here's a better word!) that are not confined to our body at all and are more connected with "external" processes - but that's a separate story. The point is: mind, emotions, intuition, mood, and body - are all connected in what's known as psychosomatic continuum. When you start meditating, your "conscious" layers come in contact with "subconscious" layers - and to you this looks like you suddenly discover feelings and broodings that you had no idea existed.

Specifically, some of our experiences and memories - especially powerful, traumatic and/or repetitive - are "stored" as tensions or blockages of certain muscles of the body. The most significant ones are the muscles of pelvis, abdomen, diaphragm, chest, shoulders, throat, and the muscles of face and scalp. Abdomen is where memories of danger (~fears/insecurities) are usually stored or rather the emotional components thereof.

So when you do a watching-the-bodily-sensations type of meditation long enough, eventually you open up and gain access to these somatic memories. If you keep going on in a gentle but persistent manner, you may be able to "go inside" and "dissolve" and sometimes even recollect the actual traumatic events they came from. (This second part is more like a free gift. Focusing on the recollection too much may slow down the whole process. What matters is going through the somatic/emotional bubble and opening up.) There are kilotons of energy locked up in those bubbles - and opening some of them may completely change your character and therefore the course of your life. Just be sure to proceed very very gently. Navigating these things require a lot of sensitivity. There is no danger in forcing it, it's just that being too eager makes them less likely to trust you and let you in. ("Them" being the blockages). It took you 5 months to get here, it may take you another 5 months or 5 years or 10 years to go through - needless to say it is well worth it.

A couple of auxiliary techniques I recommend:

try to sit in a way that makes it easy to open and relax the whole area: from diaphragm to upper abdomen to lower abdomen. Start from the top or the area that you feel is the most alive and meditate on it until it starts moving and opening up. Then slowly make your way down. Keep relaxing the muscles and letting it go as you learn to trust yourself.
on the days when you don't meditate, try to slightly tap the abdomen (like the King Kong) while making an effort to not defend it by tensing. Keep doing this very gently until you can open it up. This is really cheating and the "proper" way to do it is through Vipassana alone, but in my practice it can help speed up the process. Just don't tap so hard as to insensitize the area - overdoing the tapping may temporarily remove the physical blockage without releasing the emotional energy.
in my experience, it helps to meditate in a very cozy atmosphere, e.g. with lots of sunshine etc. - whatever makes you feel happy, secure, and comfortable will help opening up. Sometimes you have to cultivate the positive feeling by indulging in and repeatedly enjoying whatever cues that make the ambiance look stereotypically good to you. The patterns of shadows on the wall, the rays of light, the chirps of birds - whatever works for you. Your main focus should still be on the breathing and abdomen, but let's say 20% of your attention can periodically scan the "happy cues". As with everything, don't overdo this mechanically. It's a subtle thing that requires sensitivity to what makes you happy. This is not the core technique anyway, you can achieve success with just the watching meditation alone, but it does help a bit.

This is really all there is to it ;) - just keep going and hopefully you can open your blocks and enter your subconscious through them.

There are layers beneath layers of blockages. You may open one layer only to discover another one... and another one... and another one. It does feel scary to open those - like exposing your naked soul to the world - so I understand why you're saying you feel like you need to jump off the cliff.

Finally, all of this is very individual and subjective - so your experience may not match mine, but since we are all humans we should hopefully be similar enough.


In which tradition Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada? It is Tibetan mantra.
In which traditon Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada?
Or it is used in all three traditions, since this is Buddhism teaching?

The back cover of the book "The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra" by Alexander Studholme states:

  Om Manipadme Hum, perhaps the most well-known and most widely used of
  all Buddhist mantras, lies at the heart of the Tibetan system and is
  cherished by both laymen and lama alike. This book presents a new
  interpretation of the meaning of Om Manipadme Hum, and includes a
  detailed, annotated precis of Karandavyuha Sutra, opening up this
  important work to a wider audience.

  The earliest textual source is the
  Karandavyuha Sutra, which describes both the compassion of
  Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva whole power the mantra invokes, and
  the mythical tale of the search and discovery of the mantra. Through a
  detailed analysis of this sutra, Studholme explores the historical and
  doctrinal forces behind the appearance of Om Manipadme Hum in India at
  around the middle of the first millennium c.e.

  He argues that the
  Karandavyuha Sutra has close affinities to non-Buddhist puranic
  literature, and that the conception of Avalokitesvara and his
  six-syllable mantra is influenced by the conception of the Hindu deity
  Siva and his five-syllable mantra Namah Sivaya. The Karandavyuha Sutra
  reflects historical situation in which the Buddhist monastic
  establishment was coming into contact with Buddhist tantric
  practitioners, themselves influenced by Saivite practitioners.

The mantra "OM mani padme hum" seems to be found only in Tibetan Buddhism.

However, Avalokiteshvara can be found in other non-Tibetan Mahayana traditions like Pure Land Buddhism. Avalokiteshvara is officially not found in the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, even if you can find images of him in some Theravada temples.

Mantras or some kind of phrase for chanting can be found in almost all Buddhist traditions like "namo amitabha buddha" in Pure Land Buddhism, "nam myoho renge kyo" in Nichiren Buddhism and "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" in Theravada Buddhism.


Do beings have control where they get re-incarnated I hear some people saying that after death souls often get re-born among close relatives. For example, your grand parent may be re-born as your child after death. Although I never believed in this in the past, due to some of the incidents that happened during last couple of years, I feel like there is some truth about this. Does Buddha give any explanations in this respect?

According to the Mata Sutta (SN 15.14-19):

  At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

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

In the Assu Sutta, the Buddha taught that the amount of tears that one person has shed in all his previous lifetimes added together would exceed the volume of water found in the four great oceans.

I made a calculation in this answer based on the Assu Sutta, to show that according to the Buddha, we have all been reborn no less than 20 quintillion (20 x 1018) times. However, since the Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident", I guess that it should be far greater than 20 quintillion times, perhaps approaching infinity.

In the Mata Sutta, the Buddha reinforces this point by saying that it's hard to find somebody in existence whom you have never had anything to do with.

In other words, your finding that you are probably born among relatives from former lifetimes is true, because almost every person you meet in your life was a relative in some former lifetime. In fact, every human being currently living on Earth may have been somebody you have known in a previous lifetime.


When something goes wrong One hears of religious psychosis, with a 'Buddhist' element. As well as people who convert to or begin to study / practice Buddhism and seeming different, somehow worse; more solitary or unconcerned, etc..

What is going on these sorts of lives, becasuse I don't think "zen sickness" always applies to confusion with the dharma?

There are cases when someone gets obsessed, this is known as the Dharma fever. In my lineage this is not considered too bad. Many folks coming into Buddhism have preexisting aversion to this world. Generally speaking, my Buddhism is Buddhism of love and acceptance - if someone is in a difficult life situation and lost balance, or even never had it because that's how their life turned out, we see that with the maximum warmth and try to make the best out of the situation. In Varjrayana everything is energy, even the energy of confusion, so we try to use all that. I personally hate silent, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive treatment of confusion. If someone is completely off base, they need love and acceptance, not judgment.

The cases when someone gets arrogant and/or righteous are not tolerated well. Ego is the enemy of enlightenment, so spiritual snobbery has to be persecuted.

I've never heard of true madness, but losing a sense of boundaries is standard. This is where the personal presence of teacher and sangha comes in handy. Someone has to stop you when your head starts spinning, slap you on the face, bring back to the ground and give a hug. I miss my last teacher for that.


How to accept and surrender to the mind's non-acceptance of doubt and ill-will? I have a question that I would like some input on.

Lately, I have been able to see the fruit that total acceptance and surrender can bring to one's experience. I have tasted moments of pure joy, compassion, and equanimity. In these states, everything appears very clear and I'm able to rest with the experience and not cling on to these pleasant feelings. Everything I have read about and heard from teachers seems crystal clear. Perception is completely altered and the mind is clear.

Inevitably, these experience fall away and hindrances make their way back into the mind. In my experience, the hardest of these hindrances to overcome is doubt. Once doubt enters, it's easy for ill-will to follow as well as other hindrances.

Intellectually, I'm aware of the Four Noble Truths and that desire causes suffering, and even that desire for the cessation of desire causes suffering. I'm aware that aversion to whatever state of mind and feelings are currently present only perpetuates them. However, when the pleasant states are gone and hindrances arise (especially doubt), I begin to question everything I know.

I have told myself and written down tips and advice on how to handle these kinds of situations when my mind was unhindered. Even though I know in my heart to trust my own words and experiences, when doubt is strong enough, everything is deluded.

I don't have a single question, but I would appreciate input on how to handle strong moments of doubt and ill-will towards that doubt. In the past, I have always managed to accept the feelings and allow them to pass, which is what I know I need to do, however in the moment it can be incredibly difficult.

The toughest thing for me to work with is getting angry at myself for not accepting the unpleasant feelings for how they are. I know that to move past them, I need to accept non-acceptance, but that is always easier said than done. This leads to a downward-spiral of aversion towards aversion of doubts.

Any words, tips, or tools you guys have are so very much appreciated.

Edit: I apologize if this is too much of a discussion-based question without a real definitive answer. I am new to SE in general, so please forgive me if this isn't an appropriate question.

Any words, tips, or tools you guys have are so very much appreciated.

Does it help to remember that "doubt" and "identity view" belong together? If they eradicate together (at the same stage) then maybe they arise together.

  Even though I know in my heart to trust my own words and experiences, when doubt is strong enough, everything is deluded.

Isn't 'identity view' a bit deluded too?

So like, "I am doubting" and "here is myself experiencing doubt": just forget it. Experience it, recognize it, remember it's delusive, and put it away, do or be without it.

I (subjectively or as an analogy) experience some kind of brain storm that's like an electrical short circuit, that draws all the electric current and does nothing. If it persists and I recognize it then I deliberately blow the fuse on it: i.e. recognize it as a fault, switch off the current (stop feeding it), try to see a bigger, more stable, more useful picture.

I label/name that storm "a thicket of views", which the suttas say is associated with views about self.

In summary I'm trying to suggest that if you're experiencing "doubt" then maybe you're experiencing "identity view"; maybe you can already handle identity view, and/or recognize it as a cause of doubt.

  I would appreciate input on how to handle strong moments of doubt and ill-will towards that doubt.

According to the Wikipedia article I cited above, doubt and identity-view go together but ill-will may remain until later. So don't be surprised if there's ill-will.

I mean, you're saying "ill-will towards doubt and delusion". I suppose you have to be free of the doubt and delusion you talked about, first and foremost; and once you see things clearly then you can (perhaps literally) "sort out" the ill-will (maybe ill-will goes after delusion stops, like you say it comes after delusion starts).

This advice is partly based on the idea that "right view" is the first (or if it's called "right knowledge" then it's also nearly the last) factor on the path.


At what age does a person becomes capable to understand Buddhism? Further to my question about discussing Buddhism with children, I want to ask that, at what age does one becomes capable of understanding Buddhism?
The very first time I came across Buddha and Buddhism was in my school textbook where I read the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path. I must have been around 14 or 15 at that time and raised in a liberal Hindu family. But I still remember at that time, I thought to myself, 'this is so simple and has nothing to do with the all power full Hindu gods that I worshipped and adored'. I underrated the Buddha.
Fast forward 20 years, after going through intense mental suffering, breakups, and craving and desires which never got fulfilled, and then starting contemplating about the whys, and spending time reading about religions and science and meditation, I now call myself a practicing Buddhist.
So at what age does one becomes capable to understand Buddhism? Is going through suffering a necessary part of one's path? Does failing to have a romantic relationship act as a trigger to start contemplating about life and turn to religion? Does exposure to the absurdity of life somehow turns a person look inwards?

7 year olds one can go forth into homelessness and  Arahantship can be sustained, younger than that is unheard of.

When I was seven
& newly gone forth,
having conquered with my power
the great powerful serpent,
I was fetching water for my preceptor
from the great lake, Anotatta,
when the Teacher saw me & said:
"Look, Sariputta, at that one,
the young boy coming there,
carrying a pot of water,
well-centered within,
his practices — inspiring;
his bearing — admirable.
He's Anuruddha's novice,
mature in his powers,
made thoroughbred by a thoroughbred,
good by one who is good,
tamed by Anuruddha,
trained by one whose task
is done.
He, having reached the highest peace
& realized the unshakable,
Sumana the novice
wants this:
'Don't let anyone know me.'"

Thag 6.10


Can a person get into any stage of enlightenment without being aware of it? In Buddhism we classically have four stages of enlightenment:

Stream-enterer (Sotapanna);
Once-returner (Sakadagami);
Non-returner (Anāgāmi);
Arahant.

My question, as stated in the title, is: can a person attain to any one of the four stages mentioned above without clearly recognizing it?

Samyutta Nikaya - Maha Vaggo (2) Sotapatti Samyuttaya

Here you can find sutta where Buddha explains who a Sotapatti stream winner is.

Unwavering impression of Buddha
Unwavering impression of Dhamma
Unwavering impression of Sangha
Maintains Aryakäntha sîla

There are other places in Tipitaka where Buddha mentions the first three and the fourth one as

No doubt of The Four Noble Truths (Sammä Ditti) -

A definitive answer may be found here:

  Samyutta Nikaya - Maha Vaggo (2) Sotapatti Samyuttaya - 11.1.5

As you might notice, as long as there is doubt (Vicikiccä) you are not sothäpanna. By observing your own mind, you can confirm if you are sothäpanna or not.

To go a step further, it is wise to practice Buddhism with the thoughts

As long as I make assumptions using "me", "mine", "my soul" I need to practice detachment.
As long as I have craving, anger or delusion, I will practice detachment, metta and vipassana (Sammä Ditti)

This way, one won't waste time thinking am I this, am I that. Where there is craving, anger, delusion, there is harm for oneself and others. Therefore, you can practice this just by deciding to be harmless.

 English Version


Sallatha Sutta and modern psychology The Sallatha Sutta, famous for the idea of two arrows, has the following passages that are less often discussed. I am particularly interested in interpretations of the highlighted words and how they might relate to the modern psychological concept of decentering, defusion, disidentification or a metacognitive stance. (See modern passage below.) Both personal opinions and references welcome.

Sallatha Sutta, SN 36.6, Thanissaro Bikkhu translation

About the "uninstructed person"...

  Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it as though
  joined with it. This is called an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
  joined with birth, aging, & death; with sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs. He is joined, I tell you, with suffering &
  stress.

And later about the "well-instructed disciple", the same structure, for example...

  This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined
  from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs.

The Nyanaponika Thera translation is a bit more condensed here and uses "fettered" instead of "joined"

  When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral
  feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks,
  is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old
  age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is
  fettered by suffering, this I declare

Bikkhu Bodhi (not online) uses "attached" and "detached"...

  "If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, he feels it attached. [209] If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging and
  death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, [210] he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death;
  who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

From the point of view of Buddhadharma of the Pali Canon, is it reasonable to say that the highlighted words (in the negative sense -- disjoined, not fettered, detached) have roughly the same meaning as the modern psychological concept in this passage from a 2002 paper by Teasdale.

  Particular importance has been attached to the shift in cognitive set
  known as “decentering” or “disidentification,” in which,
  rather than simply being their emotions, or identifying personally
  with negative thoughts and feelings, patients relate to negative
  experiences as mental events in a wider context or field of awareness.
  For example, a patient’s perspective on thoughts and feelings of
  worthlessness might change from one in which they are experienced as
  the “reality by which I am condemned” to one in which they are
  experienced more as “passing thoughts and feelings that may or may not
  have some truth in them.

I think they're related but not identical.
I think the Sallatha Sutta can be paraphrased along the lines of, "physical sensations lead to feelings (I feel that I like this, or that I don't like this) which lead to attachment (I want this to continue, or I want this to stop)" -- which means that, now you have two problems, i.e.

an unpleasant physical sensation
not getting what you want.

That's what's meant by,

"... So he feels two pains, physical & mental".

I think the reason given for the second pain is,

... he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him.

So I think this is an example of clinging or attachment causing suffering.

He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling.

Instead he ought to see that the feeling (and sense-contact) is impermanent, that it arises and passes away, and not be attached to it.

Whereas a disidentification or decentering which you quote from the 2002 paper by Teasdale seems to me, not exactly the concept of 'detachment' or of seeing impermanence, but more specifically the concept of 'anatta' or 'non-self'.
For example, the article "No-self or Not-self?" suggests that any concept of self is a cause of suffering.
There's a description of decentering in the Gaddula Sutta,

It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

I think there are two related concepts:

Detachment from the clinging-aggregates (perhaps by observing arising-and-passing-away, which is an object of vipassana meditation)
Learning to avoid the view that, "This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am".


What means HRI above lotus and moon? What does mean the syllable HRI above lotus and moon?
What does mean those visualised aspect separately and together?
What kind of inner feelings they should evoke?

You are probably referring to this:

It is a "seed syllable" used for meditative visualisation, notably in the Tibetan Chenrezig prayer/ritual. The incantation phrase of this ritual reads:

Hri Le P’hag Chog Chen re zig


Why does Mahasi Method have the points on the Body to attend to? What is the reason? It seems to be to train concentration while avoiding one pointedness?
Might the lack of one pointedness be counter productive at some point?

Any type of meditation that is worth the name will increase concentration in a beginner.

The body is a good first object of vipassana meditation because it is inescapable and we identify with it so strongly, so automatically all kinds of thoughts also get faced.


Feeling the Need to Take A Deep Breath After Developing Concentration I am new to this site and am not entirely sure if this is an appropriate question to ask, if it is not forgive me. I practice Vipassana meditation and after some time observing the breath, I feel the need to take a deep breath in, as if I'm fixing to suffocate and require a large inhalation of Oxygen. This sensation always arises after I really feel like I have pinpointed the breath and my breathing becomes more shallow. It seems to be creating an impasse in my practice, for as I begin to feel the first Jhana arising, my mind immediately shifts its focus to the satisfaction that occurs after I breath in heavily.

If your breath becomes shallower faster than the extent you have calmed down the fabrications this tend to happen. Sometimes the breathing stops and suddenly after someone time you gasp to breathe. But again these inconsistencies reduce after some practice so might be safe not to pay attention to it and keep your focus on the breathing process.

Alternatively you might be trying to control the breath even without your knowledge. You might be "forcing" the breath to be shallow causing a gasp to breathe.


When I empty out intentions and relax in meditation, what is this force that moves my body in complex patterns? When I empty out intentions and relax in meditation, what is this force that moves my body in complex patterns?
For example, when I let go for a bit I start walking and making circles and doing movements with my hands (mudras), and even martial arts type of moves with intricacy and  intelligence. There is a force making me doing it and I feel my body following energies like a magnet.
So the questions are:

why does it happen?
what am I suppose to do with it?
is this like wu wei of taoism or Tibetan Buddhist Shamans channeling spirits?

That's chi, not wu wei.  Wu wei is more of an approach - one that can give rise to feelings of chi, aid in samatha meditation, etc.  Using chi is outside the scope of Buddhist practice, although Jwing-Ming Yang mentions its role in Buddhism in many of his qigong books.  Personally, I appreciate his effort, but his writings on the subject seem like a bit of a stretch to me.  You're better off just sitting on the cushion.  Meditation practice is complicated enough.  No need to add additional complexity.


Are multiverses real according to Buddhism i have heard that buddism also says that multiverse exists. So, i want to ask something. Before few weeks, i saw two dreams in which I was totally aware of myself and at that time at those places, i can clearly feel that whatever I was experiencing, they are Real. In other word, if somebody would have come at that time and told me, this is your dream, than i would have laughed to much. In other words, I can still remember all the detail of that place(dream) and time, the detail of my hands etc. How can this be possible? As I've heard that worlds are just state of mind, similarly dream also. So does that makes, the dream world also as a real world, if a person is always their? Can I again feel such experience? That was very cool, I can still remember that. Before sleeping that night, I was thinking about how multiverse is possible, which I think sometime a because these things are very cool, specially from spirtual path. Were those two of the universe(world) among infinite other universe?

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.


"Marks of Existence" and "Gates To Enlightenment", are they Same? Three gates and Four marks  are shown using these tearms -Impermanence,  Suffering, Non-self, Voidness, Nirvana,Shunyata (Emptiness).

Some questions discuss them separatly. But some conflicts can see.

Quote from FullPeaceOrg

  The Three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa),
  are these three characteristics (Theravada)

Impermanence (Anicca)
Suffering or unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha)
Non-self or not-self (Anatta)

  This is a central teaching in Buddhism - completely understanding
  these three leads to the liberation of Nirvana/Nibbana. All sentient
  beings experience these marks of existence

Quote from Andrei

  In an interesting twist, my present teacher, who comes from a
  Taoism-influenced non-sectarian tradition, speaks of Three Gates To
  Enlightenment, the experiential realizations one must go through on
  one's way to Completion:

  Pain or Suffering. One must realize that life is painful and accept pain as necessary condition for one's growth. This involves
  dropping resistance that comes from seeing pain as important factor of
  one's decisions.
  Impermanence or Transience. One must fully accept that nothing is permanent in one's life, and admit the inevitability of death. This
  involves dropping attachments to what one holds as dear.
  Nothingness or Voidness. One must go through the realization that life is pointless and has no meaning in the absolute sense. This
  involves dropping fundamental preconceptions or imperatives about the
  purpose of one's life.

Quote from Three Marks of Mahayana

  Most of the time in Mahayana (both Vajrayana and Zen) I hear of  Four Marks of Existence: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and
  Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is
  equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising).

Is something missing there?
Is there any common agreement?

Pretty generally speaking, realising the truth is enlightenment. So if the three(or four) marks of existence are true then realising them would be the gates to enlightenment.
The different sects of buddhism are forming distinct views and belief systems, which is not wise, this is what results in very confusing and difficult reading.


Can Buddhists be good workplace leaders? Many people that start to meditate and follow the Dhamma become more tolerant, less attached to reputation, more "easy going" and treat all with loving kindness, this can create an opportunity for people to abuse them, miss deadlines, reduce the quality of the work etc...

That said, how should a Buddhist behave to balance loving kindness with leadership skills that sometimes requires you to be not so "nice" to get the work done, imagine if you have tried loving kindness before but it did not work, only made the person abuse you more and take advantage of your compassion.

From a more practical position, here are some reflections. I am sure others have their won approaches.

First of all, place importance on one's own practice. Kindness can be applied in situations that call for firmness or other actions perceived as unpleasant. Being kind to the person or people one is leading is always possible (even though we all fail at times), and important to distinguish from approval. We can accept the person without approving of their actions.

Another suggestion is to avoid speaking and acting out of anger (or any type of aggression). This is where the practice becomes so important, because the more, the deeper, we practise, the more we are able to accommodate.

To quote the Dalai Lama

  Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.

As they say, ´Being a pacifist does not mean being a passive-ist´ - there is nothing stopping correction of behavior (coming late, abusing others, and the rest of the long list), but the opportunity is always there to do it with kindness towards the person. Even if you have to fire somebody for not doing their job properly, you can have compassion for them and try to be helpful.

Should you be presented with anger from the person or people you lead, trying to see their view also helps, especially in discovering the underlying cause of the anger (the attachments, and so on).

On the practice part, specifically on handling ill-will (anger and other), here is a note from the Pali Canon (Access To Insight):

  Six things are helpful in conquering ill-will:

  Learning how to meditate on loving-kindness;
  Devoting oneself to the
  meditation of loving-kindness;
  Considering that one is the owner and
  heir of one's actions (kamma);
  Frequent reflection on it (in the
  following way): Thus one should consider: "Being angry with another
  person, what can you do to him? Can you destroy his virtue and his
  other good qualities? Have you not come to your present state by your
  own actions, and will also go hence according to your own actions?
  Anger towards another is just as if someone wishing to hit another
  person takes hold of glowing coals, or a heated iron-rod, or of
  excrement. And, in the same way, if the other person is angry with
  you, what can he do to you? Can he destroy your virtue and your other
  good qualities? He too has come to his present state by his own
  actions and will go hence according to his own actions. Like an
  unaccepted gift or like a handful of dirt thrown against the wind, his
  anger will fall back on his own head."
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

  — Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta

  These things, too, are helpful in conquering ill-will:

  Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
  Faith, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
  Rapture and equanimity, of the factors
  of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

As a summary, I would like to reiterate that we can always have kindness for the person, for the situation, and for our own reactions (they are based on conditions, after all) - allowing for increasing acceptance with more practice.


What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed? I would like to know what are all the cases in which a karma's fruit is destroyed.

Except being destroyed by walking the "path"  - this will derail this question cause this causes discussions on this point alone  ... so please ignore the destruction of karma with practicing the nobles path.

karma's fruit can be destroyed by other karmas - right?

Karma's fruit can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right?
(*Subsequently effective kamma - upapajjavedaniya kamma)

answer to second mini question : yes  (counting karma with tiny amount to ripen as destroyed vipaka )   -  but that does not mean that karma with destroyed vipaka has no effect cause there are 3 effects for karma  -  and there always have to have at least one effect the three are :  samuṭṭhānas  - accummulations - vipaka

No, actions can not be done undone, breath, past can not be destroyed. So also their results will come into being, as long (as excluded to be answered) there is to BE.
That's importand: outside there is no escape.
By effort, having a cause, certain deeds are done or not, and those effects will take place or not.

Breath: "I read now at manual of abidhamma that karmas can destroy other karmas - and a comment from some member here that if some karmas dont have a chance to rise in this life or the next they destroyed (by destroyed i mean they dont have any effect)"

Maybe add a link in your question, for such is not the Dhamma of the Buddha: no effect, when there is a cause. One may, as said, by training the mind skillfully, bear it with more ease, of cause even to big extend. Nevertheless, what has been caused will have it's effect.
Here again some illustrations and Suttas (also to do not understand the law of kamma as a straight line, determinated):

Aṅgulimāla’s case illustrates a general principle stated in AN 3:101: If the workings of kamma required strict, tit-for-tat justice—with your having to experience the consequences of each act just as you inflicted it on others—there’s no way that anyone could reach the end of suffering. The reason we can reach awakening is because even though actions of a certain type give a corresponding type of result, the intensity of how that result is felt is determined, not only by the original action, but also—and more importantly—by our state of mind when the results ripen. If you’ve developed unlimited goodwill and equanimity, and have trained well in virtue, discernment, and the ability to be overcome neither by pleasure nor pain, then when the results of past bad actions ripen, you’ll hardly experience them at all. If you haven’t trained yourself in these ways, then even the results of a trifling bad act can consign you to hell.
The Buddha illustrates this principle with three similes. The first is the easiest to digest: The results of past bad actions are like a large salt crystal AN 3.99. An untrained mind is like a small cup of water; a well-trained mind, like the water in a large, clear river. If you put the salt into the water of the cup, you can’t drink it because it’s too salty. But if you put the salt into the river, you can still drink the water because there’s so much more of it and it’s so clean. All in all, an attractive image. The other two similes, though, underscore the point that the principle they’re illustrating goes against some very basic ideas of fairness. In one simile, the bad action is like the theft of money; in the other, like the theft of a goat. In both similes, the untrained mind is like a poor person who gets heavily punished for either of these two crimes, whereas the well-trained mind is like the rich person who doesn’t get punished for either theft at all. In these cases, the images are much less attractive, but they drive home the point that, for kamma to work in a way that rewards the training of the mind to put an end to suffering, it can’t work in such a way as to guarantee justice. If we insisted on a system of kamma that did guarantee justice, the path to freedom from suffering would be closed. (from: Wisdom over Justice)

See also:

Kamma & the Ending of Kamma

The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH

[Note: This is a Gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


Should I avoid using Mindfulness to fall asleep? Is the use of Mindfulness of breath for falling asleep a "bad" practice? Might such a practice invite torpor during sitting meditation?

If you are using meditation to go to sleep:

You are inducing a hindrance. If this becomes habitual it will block your progress.
Also when meditating you should be alert and hence reduce the hindrances and sleepiness. If you are not falling asleep it not an issue if you are meditating. It is said a Yogi never sleeps.


What is Buddhist reality? If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things?

In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller.

Also there is conventional and realities. As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. This is for the sake of communication.


What is the meaning of ditthi visuddhi? The third visuddhi of the Satta Visuddhi is "ditthi visuddhi". But what is the exact meaning of it ?

Purificatiin of view:

  'The divine eye is purified since it is a cause for Purification of View (diṭṭhi-visuddhi), owing to seeing passing away and reappearance of beings. One who sees only passing away and not reappearance assumes the annihilation view (uccheda-diṭṭhi); and one who sees only reappearance and not passing away assumes the view that new beings appear (nava-satta-pātubhava-diṭṭhi). But since one who sees both outstrips that twofold [false] view, that vision of his is therefore a cause for Purification of View. And the Buddha's sons see both of these.' (PsA 259; Vism 423)

Wisdom and the Seventy-Three Kinds of Mundane and Supramundane Knowledge, given by Ven. Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana


Other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada? There are the six types of consciousness (viññāṇa) based on MN 38, namely those related to the six sense media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind.

In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana.

So, are there any other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses?

What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media?

I know in Mahayana, there are still two more types of consciousness according to this Wikipedia page. But this question is asking more from the Theravada perspective (including Abhidhamma).

Are there any other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses?

According to Theravada perspective, there are only six types of consciousness (which you've already mentioned). This is a categorization of consciousness based on its sense base. Every consciousness falls into one of these six. In Abhidhamma, there are many categorizations [based on wholesomeness, sphere of the being (kāma-loka, rūpa-loka, arūpa-loka), worldliness, etc...] can be seen of same consciousness which mentioned in Suttanta desana.

In Abhidhamma,

Considering all the consciousness, there are 89 consciousness in brief and 121 consciousness in detail.
By considering wholesomeness and unwholesomeness, there are 12 unwholesome consciousness and 21 wholesome consciousness in brief (37 in detail).
By considering worldliness, there are 81 mundane consciousness and 8 super-mundane consciousness in brief (40 in detail).
By considering the sphere, there are 54 sense-sphere consciousness, 15 form-sphere consciousness, and 12 formless-sphere consciousness.
There are 20 functional consciousness and 36 resultant consciousness in brief (52 in detail). [Note: These consciousness won't make kamma.]

  What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media?

No, it falls under mind consciousness and we can say it also falls under resultant consciousness more precisely according to Abhidhamma.

There are 10 consciousness (*) arise in eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body sense bases (2 consciousness in each with the division of wholesome resultant and unwholesome resultant). All the other consciousness arise in mind base.

Note 1:
(*) :-

Rootless Wholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant body consciousness with pleasant feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant body consciousness with painful feeling.

Hence,

Eye consciousness = 2
Ear consciousness = 2
Nose consciousness = 2
Tongue consciousness = 2
Body consciousness = 2
Mind consciousness = 79 in brief (111 in detail)

Note 2:

One consciousness may fall into more than one category above mentioned.
In abhidhamma, the word citta used instead of viññāṇa to mention consciousness.
This Dhamma is well preached. So there's no contradiction between Suttanta desana and Abhidhamma desana. Hence every sutta can be explained with Abhidhamma.

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


Are Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism the same? Regarding the Buddhist ideal model for practitioners, is there any difference between Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism?

I could see some similarities in the Theravada  Mahayana Doctrines.

Mahayana and Theravada

Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.

The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.

Both Mahayana and Theravada doctrines help us to not being influenced by the objects of the six senses. In Mahayana they call it the becoming of Buddha Nature – to be awakened. We call it being an “Arya Shrawaka” in being a part of the ideal community of Noble Ones (ariya-sangha)

The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. ‘Paramita’ in Mahayana is this ‘crossing over’ and ‘reaching the other shore’ in walking the eightfold path.

The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.

Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.