Attitude towards harmful behaviors Whenever I'm confronted with behaviours I find potentially harmful, I get angry. One example of this is when I witness motorists speeding or otherwise making risky maneuvers (going after the light has turned red, cutting in traffic, etc.) I may be enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be  otherwise feeling quite serene, but then a single passing car happens to accelerate too much (sometimes noisily), and then I start feeling all sorts of feelings of disapproval, powerlessness and contempt.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for. Clearly, getting worked up over passing cars accomplishes little. It even hurts me, since I lose focus on what better thoughts I was enjoying before. Afterwards, I'm in an unhappy, vindictive mood for a while. People I love that see me having these types of reactions often look concerned and a bit disturbed. Pretty clearly, getting angry is not the right reaction.
On the other hand, even on a rational level, I'm not sure I want to not get angry, because it seems obvious to me that these drivers are taking unnecessary risks that will invariably lead to more kids getting hit by cars, more car crashes, more noise, environments that feel less safe - harmful things. If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Please note - reckless driving here is just an example. I'm hoping to find some insight on how to deal with things that are more or less tolerated by many, either by apathy, ignorance or differences in personal values, but that are for some reason important to me. Other examples that come to mind :

Marketing
Political propaganda
Erosion of private life
The environment
Social justice.

How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways? A "Live and let live" attitude seems problematic, since it contributes to the problem.

If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Given that anger is ineffective in that situation, I don't see how non-anger is enabling apathy.
You seem to be keenly aware of the potential dangers of unsafe driving. I presume you act on that, when you're the driver yourself, or when you're a passenger and able to communicate with the driver.
I don't see what good it does to get angry about the behaviour of others over whom you have no control, with whom you have no communication, whose driving you're unable to affect.
How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways?
Doctrine like MN 8 might be relevant:

Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here
etc.

The first part of the sutta may imply that what's especially good isn't the, "enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be otherwise feeling quite serene", but is more especially the decision to refrain from unskilful action -- including anger -- even when others don't.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for.
The doctrine of the "Three Poisons" suggests that people feel attracted to what's attractive, repulsed by or angry about what's unattractive, and confused or ignorant about what's neither. Perhaps we're used to thinking about things being Good or Bad, and are nonplussed about what's Not or Neither.
I think that Buddhist doctrine has a lot of "not" or "non-" in it -- for example the opposite of "harmful" isn't only  "beneficial" or "benevolent", it's also simply "non-harmful" or "harmless".
Similarly if you feel that anger isn't appropriate, then "what you should change it to" might be, simply, "non-anger". I like Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- it suggests you should refrain from "participating in" or "sharing" or "accepting" the misbehaviour (e.g. somebody's revving their car engine) -- not to violently stamp out that behaviour, but to see it as an attention-getting invitation which you decide to decline.
I think you described already many disadvantages of anger and why it's inappropriate (in the first two paragraphs).
I don't know how much doctrine you know already (since this is the first time you posted here), but I'd like to add two more things.

One is that I'm conscious of "conceit" as being a cause of inter-personal disputes, and try to avoid both (conceit and inter-personal disputes). If I'm tempted to dispute I remind myself that conceit is hard to eradicate (but should be eradicated) -- see here for some explanation of what conceit is:

Māna (Wikipedia)
This answer associates it with comparisons, e.g. "I am better than you" (including "... because I'm selfless and considerate, whereas your actions are potentially harmful")

I'm not trying to say that there's no difference between skilful and unskilful driving -- but perhaps I'm trying to suggest that getting angry is akin to unskilful driving -- see Chapter 17 of the Dhammapada, which includes

He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.

This answer suggests that getting angry or getting into disputes -- about what's ethical -- is still getting angry or getting into disputes.


Buddhist views on leadership During some meditation I need to say several sentences. One of them is I take refuge in the liberated Sangha. I noticed that I often forget to say that sentence and virtually never forget the other four.

I started to think whether it's a coincidence and came to the conclusion that I have problems with effectively co-operating with people. Up to now, I've been most effective, when I worked alone.

Are there any Buddhist teachings on how one can overcome mental obstacles, which prevent a person from being a good leader (using other people's talents to achieve goals, which benefit some beings and don't harm anyone) ?

Note: By "mental obstacles" I don't mean lack of skills (e. g. inability to estimate the effort of tasks) or obvisous personality defects (e. g. the wish to look better than the others in front of people). It's something much more subtle, which makes me do all the work alone, even though I'm pretty sure that there are people out there, who would gladly help me.

The Buddha ministered to all levels of society including Kings. On the occasion when King Pasenadi of Kosala lost in the battle and had to retreat to his capital at Savatthi the Buddha said

  "Victory breeds hatred.

  The defeated live in pain.

  Happily the peaceful live,

  Giving up victory and defeat."

I take this to be advise around ones attitude to winning and losing. If you live with an adversarial attitude then you will never be happy. If you believe that my win is your loss then whether you win or lose you will be in a painful mental state. Happiness lies with moving away from this false binary point of view.


Are Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism the same thing? This is a hugely amateurish question, for which I apologize, but: are Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism the same thing? If not, how are they related?

In particular, does the term "Tibetan Buddhism" refer to a specific school of Buddhist thought and practice, or does it just generically refer to any sort of Buddhism that is practiced in Tibet?

Wikipedia treats the two as separate entities, but some other sources (e.g. this) treat them as effectively the same.

No they are not the same, Tibetan Buddhism is a broader concept that subsumes Tibetan Vajrayana. Also, there's non-Tibetan Vajrayana, some still practiced in e.g. Japan.

To some degree all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, and particularly Karma Kagyu, recognize three yanas (Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana) as subsequent stages on an individual's path to complete enlightenment. These days many teachers tend to have their student jump straight into tantra right after Ngondro (preliminary stage of Vajrayana training), but traditionally, the student is supposed to master the foundational theory, discipline, and meditation of Hinayana before proceeding to Mahayana, then master Mahayana's practice of subverting one's ego, and attain realization of nonconceptual emptiness, and only then proceed to tantric practices of working with Yidams (generation/completion), the Vajrayana proper.


The spirit of five precepts The first precept tells us to refrain from killing living beings. If everyone in a city practices five precepts, everyone will become vegetarian.
Is it true the spirit Buddha wants us to develop is vegetarianism?

If every single person in a city or country practised the first precept with heedfulness, and also practised Right Livelihood, which prohibits trade in meat, then nobody would work as a butcher.

Those practicing Right Livelihood would also not be meat importers, suppliers or retailers.

The first precept is not about vegetarianism, or any type of diet. It's about allowing sentient beings to live with ease.

However, if you observe the first precept, it is still ok to buy and consume meat that was frozen in the supermarket. The reason for this is that you did not have the intention to kill and in fact, you did not kill that animal.

You're simply buying frozen lifeless meat that was long dead before you arrived at the supermarket. Please also see this question for a detailed discussion on this topic .


What's the canonical definition of end of the buddha sāsana? I was under the impression that the end of buddha sāsana occurs when noble eight-fold path(and the dhamma practitioners) disappear form all the realms including Śuddhāvāsa where only anāgāmins live. This contradicts with Ghatikara sutta.  It consists of a lord buddha's conversion with an anāgāmi brahma Ghatikara form Kashyapa buddha sāsana. That means at least anāgāmins and arahants from previous buddhas might still live in arupa brahma realms.

Did anyone come across a canonical reference for end of buddha sāsana?

I was under the impression that the end of buddha sāsana occurs when noble eight-fold path(and the dhamma practitioners) disappear form all the realms including Śuddhāvāsa where only anāgāmins live.

Imagine a school where only music prodigies or math prodigies attend, one would never have to worry about the decay of the school's reputation. The Pure Abodes are also like that. Since it's a realm where Non-Returners reside, it'll never face the problem of Dhamma decline there. Earthlings on the other hands, are much more inclined towards sensual pleasures and many other unwholesome deeds. It's the Dhamma on earth that's facing a serious danger of going into decline.
In SN 20.7, although the Buddha didn't give an exact number on the life span of the Dhamma, He did give the clear sign and cause to its disappearance:

"...In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.


Eating meat and buying meat Buddha said to his disciples (monks), meat can be eaten if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. Eating meat is different from killing animal, it's clear.

Lay people on the other side do not obtain meat like monks do, lay people buy meat. The money then goes to meat seller and abattoir. Is this the same as "Causing another to kill"?

Buddhist ethics is the basis to develop wisdom and mastery over the mind. If there are no unwholesome Karmic results you cannot collect your mind to develop concentration as wholesome results give present experiences than unpleasant which is more distracting in meditation.

In the above case through you can argue that you remote form of indirectly kill in buying meat you do not create the type unwholesome roots associated with killing in the mind which results in unpleasant experiences later. Making others kills which has Karmic repercussion would be instead of you killing you order someone else to kill or bring hims to such a state that he will kill intending that he would kill.

Leaving aside killing, if you take ethics too far then you cannot live. E.g. your food and drinks do have microbes. Antibiotics kill microbes. I have heard once a monk with supernormal powers, after filtering water, saw that there were beings too small to be seen by the naked eye still in the water hence if you are strictly not to harm the you cannot ever eat or drink. The advice received was do not use your Jhanic powers to see if there are microbes in the water.

If you are vegetarian well and good, but if you are not, this is not a hindrance to develop mastery over the mind or wisdom and such action does not have karmic repercussions.


"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces" "When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces" is a quote from ~700AD that is too good to check. It is also the title of a reasonably good documentary about Tibetan Buddhism in the US.

Google already said that the "iron bird" is actually the name of a year. What is the surrounding context of this quote?

In the Karma Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism we interpret this saying in a different way.

We interpret the iron birds as the airplanes and the horses running on wheels as the trains or automobiles.

The prophecy was fulfilled when the XVI Karmapa visited the Sioux Indians in the seventies.


How to overcome the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence (in Western modernity)? An important part of the Path is overcoming the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence. I don't know if that's desire for living or aversion to death - maybe a combination. Therefore, I'm wodering if someone can share their experiences on this very essential aspect of the practice - preparing to die.

In the Buddhas teachings we are adviced to watch the after death-process; dead bodies on a charnel ground. But this is very difficult in modern (Western) society. I managed to get three days in meditation with a dead friend (no more is allowed in my country). They'd put some cotton in his orifices and some lubricant on the body. He looked like wax and I felt like I were at Madame Tussaud or watching Lenin. My friend didn't rot or stink so it was no good really, because the whole point is meditation on the process.

I've tought about trying some hospices and morgues. Surely they'd kick me out, but I also think it might be disrespectful; they're grieving and probably not Buddhists! Everything would be better with a charnel ground.

What are your ways of preparing for death? If you are living in a county where death is a taboo, you probably have met some of the same challenges as me.

In preparation for death you should:

accept the fact everyone must die and let go of the fear of death
not procrastinate meditation to develop wisdom
make your mind equanimous as possible to handle the pain of death so you do not lose the balance and get re born in a lower realm

In order to achieve 1, best is to contemplate that everyone must die and it is inevitable.

In preparation for 3, 2 will be helpful contemplation and meditation as each breath you take might very well be you last.

When you die your mind must be equanimous. This is the target of preparation to die. This can only achived through wisdom by realising the arising and passing away nature of things and realising any worldly phenomena experienced is unsatisfactory and not under one's control to make satisfactory hence let go and be equanimous no matter what your your experience is.

Meditating on a corpse is partly to realise that death is common to all and imminent, but another is to counteract the perception of beauty by seeing it rot. If the body is preserved it does not serve the latter purpose.

What you have to realise is beauty results when someone takes a certain shape and form here is beauty this might bring pleasure - attractive, displeasure - attractive, neutral - average or no special looks. When you analyse the anatomical parts separately this perception of beauty do not arise. Only when they are compounded and take a particular shape this perception of beauty happen. Likewise we take beauty or looks to be a constant than transitory. By looking at a old corpse you realize this, even perhaps even a old person. When it rots you see shape and form is subjected to decay, especially in a young corpse, and you see the transitory nature of beauty, i.e., something that was perceive so beautiful has suddenly become so repulsive. Since the subject is repulsive there is a change your mind may develop aversion towards the object or even the body itself. This is not the objective of repulsive meditation. You have to maintain absolute equanimity throughout, though initially if you are lustful some repulsion can be used to counteract it. If your mind is feeling disgusted at the subject or your body or someone else's body then this is not the type of meditation for your and can become dangerous as your mind is left unbalanced due to the meditation.

Also knowledge that whatever happened to the beauty of this person will also happen to me. The knowledge un un attempt to both beauty of oneself and others should happen.

You should meditate on how your mind constructs beauty and the sensation that follow and the attractions or aversions (you may just not like how someone looks) that result from this perceived beauty. Look at the sensation arising and passing regarding the subject of the meditation and realise the unsatisfactoriness in it (pleasantness when your mind perceives the attraction due to looks, unpleasantness when you perceive repulsiveness of looks and the subject, neutrality towards looks and the subject) and the non self nature. Though this develop revulsion and let go of the attachment to your body and mind or the 5 aggregates or the sense faculties or the world itself.


Buddhist thought on Amends Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs? I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests. But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft?

Walking the path with bad karma presently lingering will make it more difficult to gain wisdom. This is because the guilt you feel from stealing will distract you from your cultivation of concentration and insight. If you find you are having a hard time focusing during your meditation sessions because of this guilt, making amends could help you better progress in your search for enlightenment. If you are just suffering in general because of it, it still may be beneficial.

That being said though, it is not required to clear that karma. Once you attain enlightenment, all your karma is released, and the guilt will no longer remain.

So the answer is, how much is it bothering you? If you feel sad and guilty every day because of what you've done, making amends can relieve you of that. If it is of little concequence to you, don't worry about it and continue the path.


What puts out the mind Suppose we call "extinction" (by which I mean nirvana or final nirvana) whatever puts out the wandering mind / mental states.

What reasons are there for supposing it does so after the mind wanders, not before or during?

I suppose (as no sort of authority) saying it does so inside the mind is eternalism, or before - annihilationism. But I'm interested in the question not as a facet of Buddhist doctrine: but the question of whether we "die" in the sense the atheist attaches to death.

Suppose we call "extinction" (by which I mean nirvana or final nirvana) whatever puts out the wandering mind / mental states.

I think the first paragraph, "extinction or nirvana is whatever puts out the mind", suggests that nirvana has been reified and is seen as an agent which acts to put out the mind.

FWIW I don't know that it's that: I see it as a description of a state (perhaps a state of mind), not an agent: it's the state-of-being-extinguished (or of having-been-extinguished), not the agent-which-does-the-extinguishing. It's like the difference between Enlightenment (which is a noun) and enlightened (which is an adjective).

Also the word "extinguish" comes I think from the analogy of a flame: if you look at it, a flame appears to cling to what it's burning ... if it's burning a match or a log, the flame kind of clings to and dances around the wood.

I think that the "nirvana is an extinguishing" analogy comes from saying, "what would happen to a flame if it stopped clinging to its fuel source?"

So if you're asking "what puts out the mind" then that's like asking "how do you attain nirvana or become enlightened", and I think that the answer to that is "Buddhist practice" e.g. the Noble Eightfold Path (or something else though maybe perhaps similar in later versions of Buddhism).

you might like to add extinction of greed, hate and delusion, which are the fuel. :)

In case it would help you to know, there's some debate about "what is the fuel?" in the analogy.

Wikipedia's Nirvana with and without remainder of fuel references Gombridge. On page 66 of Gombridge's How Buddhism Began (in a chapter titled "Metaphor, allegory, satire") he claims that:

He showed in an earlier paper of his that the "three fires" was a reference to the (literally) three fires which a brahmin householder was expected to keep alight.
Later generations of Buddhists weren't interested in debates with Vedic brahmans and forgot the origin of the metaphor.
In later (e.g. Mahayana) times the "three fires" became associated with the "three poisons".

You can maybe kind of see that:

Wikipedia's Three fires (Buddhism) link redirects to the three poisons
The comments/conversation underneath this answer suggest that the "three poisons" are more central in a later version of Buddhism than an earlier version.

In contrast, the following suggest that it's the khandhas which are the fuel:

In Five Piles of Bricks – The Khandhas as Burden & Path
Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes,

  The Buddha introduced the concept of the khandhas in his first sermon in response to the first of these questions. His short definition of suffering was "the five clinging-khandhas." This fairly cryptic phrase can be fleshed out by drawing on other passages in the canon.

  The five khandhas are bundles or piles of form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. None of the texts explain why the Buddha used the word khandha to describe these things. The meaning of "tree trunk" may be relevant to the pervasive fire imagery in the canon — nibbana being extinguishing of the fires of passion, aversion, and delusion — but none of the texts explicitly make this connection.

In The Fire Sermon the Buddha asks, "What is burning?" and answers, that sense organs (e.g. eye), form, sense-contact, sense-consciousness, etc., are burning with the fires of lust and hate and delusion.

So apparently the three poisons are the three fires, but the khandhas (to which these fires cling) are the fuel.

is nirvana categorically not an agent?

Well, who knows, right? That's how I categorized it. If other people think I'm wrong then hopefully they won't let me mislead you, and will instead downvote this answer, or post a comment or post an alternative answer (currently it appears that two people agreed with it). Some people didn't understand your question though, which might be why it doesn't have more answers.

FWIW I think that maybe later schools of Buddhism might 'reify' more:

Later schools might (I don't know) see "Buddha-nature" as an agent.

Buried in Wikipedia's Buddha-nature article is the following quote,

  The Lankavatara-sutra contains tathagata-garba thought, but also warns against reification of the idea of Buddha-nature, and presents it as an aid to attaining awakening:

    Is not this Tathagata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught by the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.

    The Blessed One replied: [...] it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas [...] teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garba is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness

Would you say that "egolessness, non-discrimination and imagelessness" can be "categorized as an agent"? I'd say no, that's not an agent. That might be splitting hairs though, because although not an "agent" I could call it a "condition". The theory of Dependent Origination (and the second noble truth) emphasizes that things are conditioned/conditional/dependent, they arise or don't arise depending on certain conditions. Perhaps the condition could be called an "agent", if it causes or allows something, but maybe it's not "acting" or "taking an active role", not a doer of an action, not a subject of active verb, it is "devoid of will-effort".
I think that, certainly, some view Bodhisattvas as agents.
There are other 'states' which I view as being more 'active' than nirvana (although they're still just 'states' and not 'agents' themselves): i.e. the brahmavihāras (or appamaññā) i.e. the states like 'metta' and so on.
Gombridge also claims that nirvana is viewed differently between Mahayana versus earlier schools.

  I hope it is not too farfetched
  to suggest that this may have contributed to an important
  development in the Mahayana: that it came to separate nirvana
  from bodhi, ‘awakening’ to the truth, Enlightenment, and to put a
  lower value on the former (Gombrich, 1992d). Originally nirvana
  and bodhi refer to the same thing; they merely use different
  metaphors for the experience. But the Mahayana tradition
  separated them and considered that nirvana referred only
  to the extinction of craving (= passion and hatred), with the
  resultant escape from the cycle of rebirth. This interpretation
  ignores the third fire, delusion: the extinction of delusion is of
  course in the early texts identical with what can be positively
  expressed as gnosis, Enlightenment.

After all that, it's still difficult to be sure of what nirvana is w.r.t. death. Wikipedia summarizes it as follows (and includes a lot of quotes to support that summary),

  What happens with one who has reached nirvana after death is an unanswerable question. The five aggregates vanish, but there does not remain a mere "nothingness."

*... puts out the wandering mind / mental states.

And even apart from whether it's an agent, I don't know that nirvana (assuming you attain nirvana during your life, which is the only time you can attain it) "puts out the wandering mind / mental states".

The bit I mentioned earlier, above, about fire, suggests that nirvana puts out clinging (or craving), and/or that putting out of craving results in nirvana.

The mind continues (that's part of the "burden" that's talked about, which people put down when they die). Whether you'd call it a "wandering" mind I'm not sure. Ability to concentrate (right mindfulness, right concentration) are part of the eightfold path, so maybe not "wandering".

On the other hand some people (even before nirvana) are said to acquire unusual types of special knowledge so in a way perhaps you could say that their mind is able "wander" even further than usual (e.g. to see things far away, to view past lives, etc.) – but maybe just this last paragraph is "Buddhist doctrine" and contradicts what you asked for i.e. an "atheistic" view.


All sentient beings? This is a question about Pure Land Buddhism.

What is a sentient being ?
What is a living being ?
Examples, e.g. slug, tree, bacteria, cat, aliens ?

How do you teach enlightenment to a cat ?

Are the snow lions in a pure land enlightened ?

How do slugs get to be enlightened ? Do they have to be reborn as human first ?

How can every living being be enlightened ?
Do they all have to be human first ?

Thanks.

What is a sentient being

In Classical Chinese Sutra, sentient being is 有情眾生, or simply 有情, a brief translation is one who has feelings, emotional beings. Trees, rocks, mountains... are not. But they can be dwelling places of Devas (Avatamsaka Sutra). I think in between there are marginal or transitory, like bacteria, slug, insect... like a rainbow though we say there are 7 colours, but in fact it's indivisible, between red and orange there is red-orange, re-red-orange, red-red-red-orange... so on and so forth, so the same as sentient beings and non-sentient beings, in respect to the multitude of lifeforms and substances.

  How do you teach enlightenment to a cat ?

You should teach a human before teaching a cat, you should teach a human who has confidence and respect of Buddha before teaching those not... if a cat is ready for enlightenment, it's the Bodhisattva's job, not unenlightened human being you or me. Also a cat the first task before anything else, is to acquire human form - to be reborn as human.

  Are the snow lions in a pure land enlightened ?

No snow lions in Pureland. Pureland is the emanation of Amitabha only those harmonious with his emanation are emanated by him, there are birds, trees, lotus, pavilions, clothes, foods, musics, dances, ponds... you may read the Pureland Three Sutras.

  How do slugs get to be enlightened ? Do they have to be reborn as human first ?

There are no slugs in Pureland, all crawling things are not found in Pureland, if the birds are there it's due to Amitabha emanated them, and they are beautiful birds singing beautiful songs of the Dharma: the Four Truth.

It's not easy to transmit the Buddhist teaching if one didn't get a more profound understanding of what Buddha tried to convey, that the appearance of our world is purely our own conceiving. Such as this world - earth, with the grits, thorns, thunderstorms and lightnings, putrid smells, walking on two feet from distance to distance - spacetime... are all our own conceiving.


prajna vs jnana across schools Can anyone explain the difference between the terms prajna and jnana and how they differ between schools? I learnt for several years with a chinese tradition, where we were taught that prajna is experiential wisdom as opposed to jnana being intellectual wisdom, a view which I am told by my friends who read pali is shared by the pali cannon, however my understanding is that in tibetan buddhism the useage often seems to be the opposite (see for example John Reynolds' "the golden letters")

Can anyone shed some light on this issue?

From Pali linguistics perspective, both words share the common root jna ("to know"). So jnana literally means "knowledge", while pra- in prajna means "before" and "super", making it into "super-knowledge" or perhaps "proto-knowledge" or even "meta-knowledge".

Traditionally in Buddhism (Tibetan or not), jnana is used to refer to various insights (realizations, recognitions) one gets along the way, while prajna is taken to mean the noumenal aspect of the Ultimate Realization (Enlightenment).

Unfortunately the schools disagree on what exactly it means to be enlightened, and therefore on the exact nature of prajna. Here I'll speak from Mahayana/Madhyamaka perspective, as I understand it.

Most Mahayana schools of Madhyamaka heritage equate prajna with either direct supraconceptual realization of Emptiness ("the ultimate reality") or, taking it a step further, with direct realization of inseparability of "the ultimate reality" and "the conventional reality" (the world as we know it in day-to-day living).

The Chan family of schools traditionally emphasizes the "supraconceptual" part of Realization, for them understanding is incomplete until your really "get it" deep in your guts, so to speak. So when they talk about prajna they mean not as much intellectual understanding of "the two truths", as realization of its practical implications to our life -- and the resulting modus-operandi.

From this realization comes certain skill in dealing with phenomena, now seen as lacking substantial existence. One can jungle alternative designations without getting stuck. This skill, in my understanding, is the prajna proper. At the same time the Realization comes with coemergent compassion towards sentient beings trying to organize their lives around the wrong assumption that reality they deal with is solid and reliable. As well as with clear understanding that a sentient being can't simply jump from its modus-operandi based on innate confusion, to the modus-operandi based on enlightenment. There is time and effort and the right conditions required. This drives even more compassion on the side of the ones acquainted with "the knowledge of the two truths", due to which they see the need to employ upaya or skillful means, to gradually take sentient begins from point A to point B.

This conglomerate of realizations, concerns, considerations, and the resulting behavior is known as "prajna-karuna", the unity of wisdom and compassion.

The reason some teachers may downplay prajna, is because without the water of compassion it is considered a dry understanding of emptiness, lacking life, therefore incomplete. I suppose their praise of jnana could refer specifically to "knowledge of the two truths", which is said to be the root of compassion.

As always in Buddhism, the words are used as designations to refer to some real stuff going on. As long as we know what we are talking about, we won't get confused as to what's what.


Why is Buddha needed? In order to attain Nirvana one must be able to  understand that his or her self is an illusion , error or is like a dream. This understanding doesn't come naturally. Naturally one finds that there is a self. Naturally one finds that he or she is behind feelings ,thoughts ,perceptions. Most humans and animals (I guess ) would more likely observe and conclude that I am angry, I am coming , I am going , I am doing this or that , I am suffering etc.. He fails to see that he is made up of aggregates. He fails to see that all aggregates dissolve. He fails to see that his self will dissolve too because it is made up of aggregates.He clings to the thought that that was me. Clearly we see that in order to attain Nirvana a sophisticated Teacher is required because Nirvana requires a deep understanding of self. I wonder whether a teacher is always required for Nirvana or nature provides a clue to non-existence of self.

So my questions are :

Is it possible for humans or animals to attain automatic Nirvana? (Here automatic means without any help from external teacher)

If yes , then what is the need of Buddha ?

EDIT : For more clarification on the meaning and nature of the word Automatic in the above question I add the following:
I say automatic Nirvana in the above question because all aggregates must dissolve automatically and complete dissolution of Self is Nirvana.No amount of Karma or no kind of karma can keep the Self alive forever.Self by nature is liable to pass away as an error , illusion or dream.

Here I quote,from the book Buddha by Dr. Hermann Oldenberg ,page 216, about the things which no one can stop from happening:

  There are five things which no Samana, and no Brahman, and no god,
  neither Mara, nor Brahma, nor any being in the universe, can bring
  about. What five things are these ? That what is subject to old age,
  should not grow old, that what is subject to sickness, should not be
  sick, that what is subject to death, should not die, that what is
  subject to decay, should not decay, that what is liable to pass away,
  should not pass away—this can no Samana bring about, nor any Brahman,
  nor any god, neither Mara, nor Brahma, nor any being in the Universe."

If no one can stop the dissolution of Self from happening then we see that eventually everyone will attain Nirvana with or without a great teacher like Buddha.

In Buddhism, rebirth will occur endlessly without the attainment of Nibbana (which does not happen naturally or by some sort of evolution). There is no automatic nibbana. Natural spiritual evolution is a Hindu idea (see Chapter 26 of Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda) and not a Buddhist one.

In Buddhism, all beings are not naturally progressing towards Nibbana. It is possible to be reborn as a Brahma, then later as a pig as in Dhammapada 338-343:

  On one occasion, while the Buddha was on an alms-round at Rajagaha, he
  saw a young dirty sow and smiled. When asked by the Venerable Ananda,
  the Buddha replied, "Ananda, this young sow was a hen during the time
  of Kakusandha Buddha. As she was then staying near a refectory in a
  monastery she used to hear the recitation of the sacred text and the
  discourses on the Dhamma. When she died she was reborn as a princess.
  On one occasion, while going to the latrine, the princess noticed the
  maggots and she became mindful of the loathsomeness of the body, etc.
  When she died she was reborn in the Brahma realm as a puthujjana
  brahma but later due to some evil kamma, she was reborn as a sow.
  Ananda! Look, on account of good and evil kamma there is no end of the
  round of existences."

The Self disappears and arises again endlessly through rebirths - which is explained through dependent origination. As stated in Milindapanha 3.5.5, rebirth is like light of a candle passed from one candle to another. It can be passed on forever. Also see this answer.

It is indeed possible to become enlightened (i.e. attain Nibbana) without ever encountering the teachings of a Sammasambuddha.

Such beings are called Pacceka Buddha or Pratyeka Buddha (see here and here), which literally means "private Buddha" or "lone Buddha". You can find some details in this question. A Pacceka Buddha would not have the ability to teach others and start a Buddha Śāsana.

While it is possible for someone to become free from suffering this way, it is immensely harder than if someone learns it from a Sammasambuddha (or Samyaksambuddha).

My analogy here is that Albert Einstein is a "Buddha" of physics who discovered the Theory of General Relativity and taught it to others through his groundbreaking published paper and his lectures to trained physicists. While it is possible for others to discover this on their own, it is immensely difficult. It is easier to learn it from Einstein and from those who have learned it from him.


Does the breath literally stop in the fourth Jhāna? I've been trying to understand the descriptions of each of the Jhānas in various Suttas, and I don't get what's meant by an element in some descriptions of the fourth Jhāna. For example:

When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled.

– SN 36:11
It seems to me that that passage is saying that the breath literally stops, but this seems physiologically impossible. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that volitional in-and-out breathing ceases? Or is the passage, perhaps, referring to the perception of in-and-out breathing?
I've even gone so far as to look up the words in Pāli, but this has only added to my confusion, since they seem to translate as literally the cessation of breath. Is this, perhaps, a shortcoming of our understanding of Pāli?
If this is to be taken literally, what is the scientific basis for this phenomenon? Is it perhaps a perceptual phenomenon, where the meditator merely perceives the breath as having stopped? Or, if this is indeed an error in interpretation, then how is it to be interpreted?
I should clarify that I'm not seeking to troll, or challenge the tradition. I myself am a lay disciple of the Dhamma. I'm prepared to accept an answer one way or the other, but I really want to have a solid understanding.
Thanks.

The breathing is imperceptible, that is all, because there must be movement of the breathing for it to be perceived. However, obviously the body continues to have breath flowing through it.


Buddha's tooth, ashes, footprints and other marks There are many places that claim to have a part of the Buddha, a tooth, ashes, a footprint (sri pada) etc.

I would like to know, according to Theravada tradition (but I accept answers from other traditions), what is recognizable as being true? What is left on earth from the Buddha?

I found this information on Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piprahwa

In January 1898, W.C. Peppe led a team of men to unearth a large mound on his land. Having cleared away scrub and jungle they set to work building a deep trench through the mound. Eventually they came to a large stone coffer which, on opening, contained five small vases containing ashes and jewels .[6]
On one of the vases was an inscription which was translated at the time to mean "This relic deposit of the Lord Buddha is the share of this renowned Sakya brethren, his own sister’s children and his own son;" meaning that this reliquary contained the ashes of the Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama[note 1], a member of the Sakyas [4] (however, there is no mention in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha having a sister). And in the 1970s the original interment site of the Buddha's ashes at Piprahwa was claimed to have been discovered by the Indian archaeologist S.M. Srivastava several feet deeper than the coffer containing the relics that W.C. Peppe had excavated.[5] This find was dated by Srivastava to the period in which Buddha lived.


Will sentient beings go to hell for abandoning the Holy Dharma? The sanghata sutra says that upon death a person that abandons the Holy Dharma will have his dreams broken and go to hell for 8 aeons.

  The Blessed One said: “Sarva-shúra, limitless are the migrations of sentient beings who disparage the holy Dharma. Limitless too are their future lives. Sarva-shúra, sentient beings who abandon the holy Dharma will experience feelings for an eon in the sentient beings’ great hell of Lamentation; for an eon in the Crushing Hell, an eon in the Hot Hell, an eon in the Extremely Hot Hell, an eon in the great hell of Black Lines, an eon in the great hell of Avíci, an eon in the great hell called Hair Rising, an eon in the great hell of Calling Out ‘Alas!’ and, Sarva-shúra, they will have to experience the sufferings of these eight great hells for eight eons.”

So if someone converts to another religion he will go to hell?

This is not an admonition against converting to another religion per se. This has to do with the consequences of knowingly giving up or disparaging something very specific and grave.

I think this Sutra is equating the Holy Dharma with undertaking and committing to the Bodhisattva vows. And not by a lowly being, but by a Great Being. If a truly Great Being has managed the incredible - near miraculous task - of actually generating engaged Bodhicitta - which is very specific and requires a super-heroic herculean effort - and then abandons that Bodhicitta or disparages it, then the consequences are world shatteringly bad for that being and all that depend upon them.

Knowingly giving up and totally abandoning the Bodhisattva vows and/or disparaging Bodhicitta - the noble goal of attaining enlightenment and becoming a Buddha for the sole sake of liberating countless sentient beings - is a karmic action that will result in countless lifetimes in the worst possible hells. Why is this so?

Knowingly giving up or breaking the perfectly accomplished Bodhisattva Vows or disparaging the truly generated and engaged Bodhicitta is among the blackest and heaviest of karmas one could possibly inflict upon oneself. Why? Because it destroys the hopes of countless sentient beings who are relying upon the Bodhisattva to accomplish their goal.

When you take vows there are consequences to breaking them. This is true for all vows. And the Bodhisattva vows are among the most serious vows that could possibly be taken.


Body feels like crying After stressful events that I'm unaccustomed to, or after strenuous workout, my body feels as if it wants to cry.

I am unable to produce the tears to "cry it out", but my body feels it.

This started happening when I had a miscarriage (at the time, I didn't know I had miscarriage, but Doctor estimates it was at that time).

Right now, I do meditative drawing to ease the symptoms. People think I am an artist (I'm in IT) because the drawings are so intense and beautiful.

Also, I do deep-breathing meditation, 15 minutes, 2 times a day. I lay on my bed on my back, knees bent, feet flat on the floor. I place one hand on my stomach, one hand on my chest, and I concentrate on breathing through my diaphragm.

As I inhale, diaphragm expands, exhale, diaphragm contracts.

Anything else I can do?

What does Buddhism recommend about art? Or anything to ease this suffering?

Welcome to the site.
There are (many) people on this site who have practised meditation themselves, but perhaps there's no-one who is very experienced as a teacher of meditation? It seems to me that this ("Body feels like crying") would be a question which an experienced meditation teacher will have heard before: so, one small bit of advice is, can you try to make contact with an experienced meditation teacher?
There are several forms of breathing (during "breathing meditation"): see for example Active breathing, passive breathing.

Anapanasati is most commonly practiced with attention centered on the breath, without any effort to change the breathing.
In the throat singing prevalent amongst the Buddhist monks of Tibet and Mongolia the long and slow outbreath during chanting is the core of the practice. The sound of the chant also serves to focus the mind in one-pointed concentration samadhi, while the sense of self dissolves as awareness becomes absorbed into a realm of pure sound.
In some Japanese Zen meditation, the emphasis is upon maintaining "strength in the abdominal area" (dantian or "tanden") and slow deep breathing during the long outbreath, again to assist the attainment of a mental state of one-pointed concentration. There is also a "bamboo method," during which time one inhales and exhales in punctuated bits, as if running one's hand along the stalk of a bamboo tree.

The above spends more words talking about chanting and the "bamboo method" than it does in the first paragraph about "passive breathing", but it might be right in saying that "passive" breathing is the way in which it's most commonly practised.
There's a book about Anapanasati, Unveiling the Secrets of Life:
a Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bikkhu, which has information about several (not all) techniques of breathing meditation, and which people recommend.

At the risk of going off-topic I'll also mention two non-Buddhist forms of breathing, from my own experience

Aerobic exercise (e.g. bicycling) -- I'm not sure how you can do "deep breathing" when you're not exercising, but exercise is recommended e.g. by (non-Buddhist) doctors as a way to help your body manage 'stress'. I mean, a bicycling fast enough that it begins to affect your breathing (and/or cycling up-hill), at e.g. 20 km/hour; or, various forms of running if you prefer (though I prefer cycling, myself, because it's easier on my joints). The experience (of well-being from being physically fitter) may make you more 'attached' to feeling physically fit (and perhaps monks don't recommend physical exercise, except perhaps "walking meditation"); nevertheless it (exercise) is meant to be one of the ways to cope with stress: see for example Exercising to relax from Harvard Medical School.

I've also sometimes enjoyed practising a "Tai Chi" form, which is also called a "moving meditation". There's a description of that (with links to videos) here. The caveats are that you need a reasonably good teacher; and a form with a reasonably low stance; and maybe a couple of years of lessons: because you need to learn the form before you can practice it, and you have to practice repeatedly (having already learned the movements) to learn to integrate the breathing with the movements; and learning a long form (e.g. 108 moves), which takes about 20 minutes to practice, might take a year (or more) to learn. Still I found that's it's good for breathing and posture (so, "physical well-being" again), and there's something to be said for its way of handling conflict.

Another (Buddhist) form of meditation which you might like to investigate is Metta Bhavana.

There are various ways of practicing metta-bhavana, the meditation on universal love. Three of the principal methods will be explained here.

In terms of insight about suffering, it might be worth considering "the Three Poisons" i.e. ignorance, desire, and aversion; for example:

Aversion: I don't want to feel sad
Desire: I want to feel happy
Ignorance: I don't know why I feel sad

A common problem is, apparently, that if you think you're averse to something then you may try to avoid it. If you "feel like crying" and are averse to that feeling then there's a tendency to avoid inspecting that feeling, avoid thinking about that feeling. Instead maybe you need to be willing to investigate (accept, work out) such a feeling if it arises. I presume you'll find that such a feeling is transient (impermanent), because most feelings eventually are.


What is the monastic policy on family visitations? If one was to ordain, would they ever be able to see their friends and family again? If so, how often? Thank you

If one was to ordain, would they ever be able to see their friends and family again?

The following quote is from the book "The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople", Chapter: Intimacy - Touching. The last part of the paragraph is interesting. I have highlighted it:

  "If a bhikkhu touches his mother out of affection, then this is still an offence but the lesser one of wrong-doing (dukka.ta). [46] While gratitude to parents was strongly emphasized by the Buddha, the bhikkhu having left the home-life and his family should not cling to worldly relationships. The only true way for him to fulfill his filial obligations is by gaining insight into Dhamma and then teaching his parents."

Here it's stated that if possible one should teach the Dhamma to ones parents, meaning that one will be able to see them again.

There is another quote from the same book, Chapter: Rains Retreat:

  A bhikkhu must make a formal determination to be resident at dawn every day in that place for the whole three month period. (There are exceptional circumstances when he may be allowed to be away, but even then he should return within seven days.)[26] These three months are often a special time of study or meditation and so are sometimes known as the Rains Retreat or Rains Residence. This is also the normal time when the young men of South East Asia become monks for the traditional three month period.

  [26]: This special leave of absence (sattaaha) can only be taken in order to: visit or nurse ill Dhamma-friends and parents; support fellow bhikkhus who are thinking of disrobing; to attend to some essential duty of the Community; to support faithful lay devotees who make an invitation. (See EV,II,pp.84; 89-90)

Here it's mentioned that a monk is allowed to take leave from the Rain Retreat only under special circumstances, e.g. to visit or nurse ill parents. One should return in seven days.

  If so, how often?

I could not find anything within the Theravada Tradition as to how often one is allowed to visit family.

Here is a quote from Plum Village (Zen Buddhism):

  When you are ordained as a monk or a nun, you make a commitment to stay with the Plum Village Sangha for the rest of your life.  The Sangha is your family and our monasteries are your home.  Even when difficulties arise, we do our best to live in harmony with our brothers and sisters.

  Your immediate family is welcome to visit you and they do not have to contribute to expenses. You can also have leave to visit your family every two years, or, in the case of an emergency, sooner.


How does one do mindfulness of breathing with relaxation? In this lecture, by B. Alan Wallace, of mindfulness of breathing with relaxation, it has been instructed that I have to release all thoughts, relax every part of the body and let go of all involuntary thoughts during exhalation.

Now what exactly is meant by releasing all thoughts with exhalation? What should I do during exhalation? Does it mean that mind will go blank during exhalation? If yes, then how is it possible?

Briefly, "let go" here means you turn your attention to something else (like the room in front of you) - and then whatever thoughts you had the moment before dissolve by themselves.

Normally our attention is dragged around by thoughts and experiences. Being able to disengage from them, and either hold on firmly to one thing, or to switch around at will, or to kinda suspend mid-air as thoughts and experiences flow by - is a useful skill to have.

Specifically in this case you're learning to disengage from whatever particular thoughts you have at the moment - to disidentify and to stop feeding.

It doesn't mean your mind goes blank, since you still have experiences of your body and surroundings, exhaling etc., - and you have an overall idea of what it is that you are doing (meditating, disengaging). So all mental functions keep on going, it's just that you are learning to gently let go of mental chatter, daydreaming, worrisome replays etc.

(no reference for this: I'm summarizing broadly based on what I was taught by the live Zen Master, what I read in books, and on my own meditation experience)


Euthanasia and Buddhism The first precept makes it clear that we should refrain from killing.

However let's say you have an animal (or worse, a human) who is going to die anyway (say from being attacked by another animal, or some incurable disease). He can either die on his own in agony, or you could end his life quickly.

The intention is not to end his life out of hate or anger, but out of love and compassion - and anyway, nothing you or anyone will do will change that their going to die.

Looking through the other questions on the topic, it's clear that you're going to get bad karma for killing something, even if it's (in your head) justified by self-defence or whatever - but in those cases you have a choice of killing vs something bad happening , while in this case you have a choice of killing vs watching die.

I've been to a lecture in which a Tibetan Buddhist monk (specifically, a nyingmapa) was asked the same question by a teenage girl. Basically, his answer was, such killing would both end some existing suffering and create some new suffering. Because regular person does not see all complexity of karma network spanning multiple lives, his or her acts are very likely to make the karmic situation even worse.

According to that monk, compassionate killing should be left to either dakas/dakinis (the crazy yogis capable of "eating icecream and shit at the same time" -- i.e. skilfully dealing with consequences of the bad karma they take on) or omniscient buddhas who can grant liberation at the time of killing, or at least create a favorable karmic condition in subsequent lives.


Faintness of Object of Meditation I started meditating recently formally, after a while of non-formal meditation, and I'm realizing that the objects I meditate on, either the breath or an image, are extremely faint. In the case of the breath, I barely can tell whether I'm on the breath or some other object, and it is hard for me to switch my attention to the sensations at the nostrils. In the case of an image, it is extremely faint and hard to distinguish.

My questions are as follows:

1) Should I continue with the breath, hoping it will become clearer despite not knowing if I'm truly focused upon it, or should I switch to a visual imagined object?

2) Should I keep meditating despite the faintness of these objects of focus or is there a way to dispel this dullness outside of formal meditation? Are there any tips or techniques to do so?

Thank you in advance.

As far as I've been taught (specifically by Richard Shankman), it's fine to pick a place where the breath is strongest for you (for example the rise and fall of the chest), rather than one proscribed by a certain teacher or text. Also, from Joseph Goldstein's Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening: "For myself, I always appreciated the pragmatism of Munindra-ji, my first teacher, who said to observe the breath wherever it is easiest, wherever you feel it the most clearly."

And in general, I wouldn't worry too much about things being "faint." As long as you can feel it most of the time, patience and practice are more important than idealized technique. It's normal for the breath to disappear, so to speak, on occasion.


Knowingly having to hurt a close person I will try to get my situation across without going into too much detail. About a year ago I moved with my mother to the other end of the country. For me it was an adventure and a good opportunity to progress in my career. For her it was the realization of a childhood dream. Growing up in the southern part of Germany she always longed for the north and the sea. She thoroughly enjoys her new life.

For me, however, this was the worst year of my entire life. At the beginning I thought I merely had a bad case of homesickness but as the year progressed, I again and again slid into prolonged depressive episodes. I have been treated for depression before and I usually cope quite well with it, but now again, my situation has worsened to such a degree that I am convinced that I only have two possible courses of action: Get back to my hometown at the next opportunity or have my condition deteriorate until I am either hospitalized or until I harm myself.

For the second time since my move to Hamburg, I get back to my hometown on a business trip. Last time I was there, it felt as though I had waken up from a bad dream. Nevertheless, I made the trip back. This time, I am sure that I will be unable to return. On the one hand I am filled with joy at the idea of returning home for good, on the other hand I cannot put into words how bad I feel about having to tell my mother that I am not going to come back to her. I have to emphasize that she is dependend on me in a way that is certainly to be considered out of the ordinary. She has lost a lot in her life which is why she clings so badly to our relationship. I know that the announcement is going to leave her devastated.

I have about five years of buddhist practice and even though I think I have made a lot of progress and I know that I should aim to achieve upekkha, this is too big for me. This adds to the conflicting state, I am in at the moment. It feels as though, as if to add insult to injury, I am not only betraying my mother, but also failing in my endeavor to quite simply be a good person and to live according to the Noble Eightfold Path.

I am not sure what kind of counsel I expect or want to receive in response to this post, but in any case I am heartfelt grateful for everybody who took the time to read through this. (And maybe has a few lines of her or his thoughts to share.) This has gotten longer than I intended it to be but I want to make sure to make my feelings understood as precisely as possible.

By the way: I know that, quite apart from my feelings of spiritual shortcoming, depression constitutes a serious psychiatric condition. I do take medication and I have an appointment with my old Stuttgart-based psychiatrist two days from now. So I have taken care of that side of the coin. I would just like to try to evaluate and get feedback on my situation from a spiritual/Buddhist point of view.

Thank you again!

Have you meditated on the reasons why you feel depressed being away from your hometown?

Is it friends and your social life in your hometown? Or is it some other reason?

If it is the friends and social life that's the problem, then you can try to make new friends. For e.g. why not join your local Buddhist community? For example, you can explore the Buddhistische Gesellschaft Hamburg e.V.. They seem to have a lot of interesting activities like group meditation, sutta studies and dhamma talks.

This way you can solve two problems in one go. It is not always the case that you have to choose either A or B. Sometimes, you can find a third way, C.

Drawing upon the example of the Buddha's life, he found that it did not work if he chose either over-indulgence or over-asceticism. Instead, he paved the middle way to enlightenment. The same theme can also be found in the Sona Sutta with the analogy of the strings of a lute playing music only when it's not too taut or too loose.

So, I suggest that you don't have to choose either your sanity or your mother's extraordinary dependence on you. Instead, you can pave the middle way, by solving multiple problems simultaneously.


Beings who are not aware of their own existence? In some realms there are some beings who are not aware of their own existence (Some place in Brahma realm). How do their aggregates work when they themselves aren't aware of their existence?

If you can please provide a sutta, Sutra, link, or a reference.

In some realms there are some beings who are not aware of their own existence (Some place in Brahma realm). How do their aggregates work when they themselves aren't aware of their existence?

Unconscious beings (asannasatta) has consciousness suppressed temporarily until their life span ends. Due to this they cannot be aware of anything including themselves.

Also interestingly the Abhidhamma says this is the only plane where animals do not cling to life or have the love of life or attachment to the plane of birth.

In the Arupa Loka consciousness is present hence the mind works which means there can be self awareness.

  If you can please provide a sutta, Sutra, link, or a reference.

Sutta references to unconscious beings.


What is the deal with "instant" Karma? Over the years, I've noticed that the idea of karma is quite popular in the USA.
 Specifically, specifically this is the idea "karma" means that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you in this life.

I recall coming across the idea that the more advanced a Buddhist practitioner becomes, the more immediate the repercussions of negative thoughts or actions.

Experience leads me to believe that negative thoughts and actions do have fairly immediate repercussions in terms of personal suffering for a given individual.  This seems to hold both in cases where suffering is the goal of the individual, whether consciously or unconsciously, and in cases where the individual is seeking release from suffering.  This may be distinct from the popular idea of "karma", but nevertheless is immediate.

Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma"? Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?

"...Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma" in a Buddhist context? Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?..."

Kamma is fourfold and is divided into sections, i.e. by "way of function, order of ripening, time of ripening and place of ripening".
Kamma by "time of ripening" is further subdivided into 4 types according to the time of taking effect:

(i) Immediately effective (ditthadhammavedaniya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the same existence in which it is performed; otherwise, if it does not meet the opportunity to ripen in the same existence, it becomes defunct. According to the Abhidhamma, of the seven javanas in a javana process, the first javana moment, being the weakest of all, generates immediately effective kamma.
(ii) Subsequently effective (upapajjavedaniya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the existence immediately fol- lowing that in which it is performed; otherwise it becomes defunct. This type of kamma is generated by the last javana moment in a javana proc- ess, which is the second weakest in the series.
(iii) Indefinitely effective (aparapariyavedaniya) kamma is kamma which can ripen at any time from the second future existence onwards, whenever it gains an opportunity to produce results. This kamma, gen- erated by the five intermediate javana moments of a cognitive process, never becomes defunct so long as the round of rebirths continues. No one, not even a Buddha or an Arahant, is exempt from experiencing the results of indefinitely effective kamma.
(iv) Defunct (ahosi) kamma: This term does not designate a special class of kamma, but applies to kamma that was due to ripen in either the present existence or the next existence but did not meet conditions con- ducive to its maturation. In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives becomes defunct with their final passing away.
-- "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 200-220.


How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed Because our consciousness can only persist in our brain. When the brain is destroyed, our consciousness is destroyed as well. We become no one. How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed. We are just new when we are born and we can't pass the consciousness or memory to any new born baby.

if you take it literally, Buddhism does not teach "reincarnation" because to actually reincarnate, there has to be something permanent like a soul to transmigrate from one life to another.  Consciousness is not permanent.  It raises and falls all the time.    Now, to understand "reforming" in Buddhism, you need to understand "Satanam/being".  it is  another term as difficult as nirvana because it does not have sign or dimension or anything/.. Buddha said "because ignorance as barrier, desires as bindings, satanam continues to moves in samsara".  In my own words, there is a thing outside of time and dimension that latches on consciousness and takes it as self, me, mine..  as long as ignorant and desires persist, satanam will latch on another consciousness when this one connected to your brain ceases to work.   As long as that feeling we all have that we call "I, me, my" exist, when this body is broken, the "I, me, my" will instantly latch into other body and call that body (5skandhas) as ours.  Do not take satanam or "being" to be the same as permanent soul.   here is link to look up being or satanam


Can someone give references of the four stages of enlightenment in the four major Nikayas? It is generally held that there are four stages of enlightenment, namely, Soatapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahant. These stages are achieved by a practitioner as she/he gradually eradicates the ten fetters. I need the complete reference of these topics (four stages and ten fetters) in the first four Nikayas of the Pali canon. Can anyone help me?

It appears in many sutta of many nikāya.
The Example
Sutta Pitaka Vol 1 : Sutta. Tī. Sī Mahālisuttaṃ:

‘And what, Sir, may those other things be?’
‘In the first place, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of the Three Bonds (the Delusions of self, Doubt, and Trust in the efficacy of good works and ceremonies) becomes a converted man, one who cannot be reborn in any state of woe, and is assured of attaining to the Insight (of the stages higher still). That, Mahāli, is a condition, higher and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of those Three Bonds, and by reducing to a minimum lust, ill-will, and dullness, becomes a Once-returner, one who on his first return to this world shall make an end of pain. That, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of the Five Bonds that bind people to this world becomes an inheritor of the highest heavens, there to pass away, thence never to return. That, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further. Mahāli, when a brother by the destruction of the Deadly Floods (or Intoxications—Lusts, Becomings, Delusion, and Ignorance) has, by himself, known and realised and continues to abide here, in this visible world, in that emancipation of mind, that emancipation of heart, which is Arahatship—that, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter still, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.

Another, in Sutta Pitaka Vol 2 : Sutta. Tī. Ma. Mahāparinibbānasuttaṃ:

“Ānanda, the monk Sāḷha, with the ending of effluents, dwelt in the effluent-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known and realized them for himself right in the here-and-now. The nun Nandā, with the ending of the five lower fetters,16 has spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world. Sudatta the male lay-follower, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, is a once-returner, who—on returning only once more to this world—will put an end to stress. Sujātā the female lay-follower, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of destitution, certain, headed for self-awakening. Kakudha the male lay-follower… Kāraḷimbha… Nikaṭa… Kaṭissaha… Tuṭṭha… Santuṭṭha… Bhaṭa… Subhaṭa the male lay-follower, with the ending of the five lower fetters, have spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world.
“Ānanda, more than 50 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of the five lower fetters, have spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world. 96 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are once-returners, who—on returning only once more to this world—will put an end to stress. 510 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, never again destined for states of destitution, certain, headed for self-awakening.

The link, that I gave you, are included pāli version. You can take the keywords from that pāli to search more information.


Doing "death contemplation" on others I dont get much effect from death contemplation on myself - i wondered lately maybe contemplating the death of those close to me might work to install a sense of urgency

do you think its effective ? and should i do it the same way as death contemplation of self or different ?

I want to do it to get a sense of urgency

all thoughts on subject are welcome

Whether you contemplate death of self or your immediate loved ones, if you could make sure that (when death come to you) you will face it as a disciple who have attained path-fruition and not as a lay person with false-views, then you have done what is right. When doing it, try to do the ‘Nava Sivatika’ (Nine cemetery contemptations). This is the last exercise in mindfulness of the body. You could do this contemplation of the body's disintegration after death either imaginatively, or with the aid of pictures. Then this clear mental image of this decomposing body, you apply to your own body, or that of your loved one, considering:

  "This body, now so full of life, has the same nature and is subject to the same fate. It cannot escape death, cannot escape disintegration, but must eventually die and decompose."

If there is one single word that is more important than any other in the whole of the Dhamma of the Supreme Buddha, it is URGENCY. In whatever way, if one could develop a sense of urgency, and in your case what you have stated above, then by all means stick to it. Do you think that everyone in this world will develop a sense of dismay (samvega) with what is happening around you? Who would ever see the other side of life -  the universality of suffering?  Of those who see life in this way, what is the percentage that will develop an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way?  How many will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma? So whatever means that you will employ to instil a sense of urgency, then that is the way to go.

What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. Buddha knew this well. That is why He said, “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”


Dealing with Contempt and Social Comparison I have been experiencing greater calm lately, yet at some moments I seem to judge others, as in public places or in general. I understand this as contempt, though I don't really believe it; I don't believe I am better or that people are worthy of contempt, but the thoughts arise anyways and I try to just observe them with equanimity. Often, I experience quite a few of these thoughts, and this impedes my calmness.

What is the best manner to deal with contempt, or just comparing oneself with others in general?

Does metta help, and what kind?
Should I watch the thoughts with equanimity or alter them?
Is there some other meditative technique that would help?

Thank you

May I suggest a book: Only don't know by Zen Master Seung Sah. It is not directly related to your problem, but I think its title provides an answer to your problem.

The way I deal with these sort of judgmental thoughts, is by "not knowing". 99% of these judgements are based on our superficial assumptions about these people's lives, based on a few signs we can observe. If you think about it that way, it becomes clear that we construct an idea of these people in our heads, and then we judge that idea! We think we are superior or inferior than an idea we ourselves constructed. Isn't that funny?

In Buddhism, one of the key elements of applying Dharma in practice is becoming good friends with ambiguity. Normally we are used to clarity and the confidence that comes from clarity but in Buddhism we recognize that this clarity is illusory. In fact we know very little about the world, may be 5%, and the rest we infer ourselves. From this inference, which most of the time is not very accurate and sometimes outright wrong, come all kinds of problems. So one of the essential skills in Buddhism is remaining open, unconclusive, ambiguous with regards to people and the world. This is known as "beginner's mind", and is what's referred by Zen Master Seung Sah as "only don't know".

Thanissaro Bhikkhu at some point gave a very good talk (I listened to it in recording, it must be available online but I can't find it at the moment) on Ego and Egolessness. The gist of his message was that, basically, Ego is a giant overgeneralization that we make, a horrific simplification about ourselves. We create this caricature of who we are, and then struggle to fit that with (again) a caricature of the world that we likewise created. Instead, the Buddhist approach is to be free from generalizations, free from the caricatures. 99% of our judgemental thoughts come from these sort of generalizations or caricatures - of either ourselves or others.

So the main technique to overcome these thoughts of contempt and social comparison, whether in your favor or not, is to learn to challenge your own assumptions and generalizations. Perhaps talk to some people and try to really understand their personal world. It may not be the happiest world but in my experience it is almost always a world that has its own logic, its own sense of goodness, honesty, pride. It will usually have some samsaric elements to be sure: attachments, Ego, side-taking, karmic tangles - but within that setting there is always a sentient being that is doing their best to be good. The definition of "good" may be skewed in their system of coordinates, due to traumas and all kinds of karmic situations, and their level of skill and motivation may vary - but they always want something good and try to achieve that within their limits.

When you stop creating caricatures of people, and try to see the world through their eyes - nothing but compassion arises.


Can we use computer coding activity as a kasina object? Anything we do mindfully can cause a meditative experience. I am a software developer and sometimes when I am engrossed I don't feel the 'I', some kind of 'annatta' experience. Reaching somekind of Zen experience. I want to ask can we use this activity of programming computers as a kasina and achieve some jhana state? How do I go about it?  Also, is my understanding of what kasina is correct?

What you are describing is colloquially known as being in the zone. It's a type of refined concentration where spectacular human feats can be achieved. There's a lack of ownership regarding the current task and often the concept of a body disappears. This should make you curious.
It's completely possible for jhana to occur under these circumstances, off the cushion and in the throes of daily life. In my personal understanding, experiencing jhana off the cushion has much more of an impact. In fact, this kind of exploration should be actively encouraged.
For dhamma practice, the object of concentration must not be generating continuity of thought, as with your task of programming code. There is something behind that primary task. This is the whole point: to bring meditative enquiry into the sensuous domain such that we become receptive to evermore subtle forms of awareness: hence, from coarse to fine, until we reach the bare subtleties of our awareness which flickers like a mirage in the desert. Like approaching a mirage in the desert, it vanishes; conditionality ceases. See the Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.
Look furthermore into these events you describe and see if you can replicate them in other settings. It's also important that, through study or teacher interaction, one is able to find a stable environment from where these experiences can be contextualized. See the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness.


Anybody know what is Nirvana and where we can find it? Learning Buddha dharma we need to dive in to the dharma world. Without knowing the truth about Dharma we can not reach our enlightenment.

It's  hard to know what Nibbana is without experiencing  it. The same as it  can't be known what an orange tastes like until it's taste is experienced, it can only be described with words. It's easier to say what it's not.

Nibbana is not nothingness or annihilation. Nibbana is the highest goal, better than the bliss of Heaven.

Nibbana is a state of great renunciation. There is Heaven within Samsara but it's imperminent and Nibbana is the   final permanent liberation beyond Heaven and outside of Samsara.

Nibbana is an end of the cravings which cause all the suffering of birth, old age, disease, death, lamentation and fear.

Nirvana is the cure for our suffering here in the material world of Samsara caused by craving sensual pleasure and seeing reality as we want to see it rather than how it really is.

It's the correct understandung, virtue, peace and clarity of reality as it really is that leads to Nibbana.


Why do some English-language texts refer to the Buddha as "Lord"? I often see this word online, especially in Sutras translated into English. Does the original Sutra written in Pali or Sanskrit mentioned it like this?
The meaning of "Lord" as per wikipedia is I think quite a contradiction with Buddha:

Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler.

In Wikipedia it mentioned that Gautama Buddha "is often called Lord Buddha". I believe it's a misconception?
Compassion and Peacefulness are always the fundament of Buddhism -- if the "Lord" title can be changed to "Teacher", which is the truth and can make billions of people happy, then isn't that a good karma?
The reason i am asking this is because "some" people of other religions may see this word and feel very discomforted.
Compassion -> If words being changed from "Lord" to "Teacher", then many would rather practice instead worshipping. Many do not know who is Buddha, but claimed to be Buddhist like I did before. Many would go to temple to worship for more power, money, desiring higher quality of living, bigger house, etc which is contradictory with Buddhism teaching. It would make other non-Buddhists comfortable too.
Post note base on comments:
It sounds that base on the written statement, Buddha is dhammassāmī or lord of the dhamma but bhante "venerable sir" sound more decent or less offensive for others especially those non Buddhist (low EQ one).
The first definition of wikipedia ...

"Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler"

... is wrong or inapplicable, because none of that wording matches, except "Buddha is a person".
It contradicts with the 10 percepts of Buddhism -> Not to use false words and speech, or encourage others to do so.
Wikipedia is impermanence and Buddhism is not bases on written truth -- can somebody who has higher knowledge/wisdom request them to change it?
This is the first Sutra that lead me to Buddhism and it's one of the most common Sutra used in south China and South East Asia. 世尊 or bhagavā is commonly used. dhammassāmī or Lord is never been used. But 神(God in direct translation) is commonly used which lead to misconception. If you would ask me the 神(God) wording should be revised for Buddhism because the 神(God) in Buddhism is totally different from Christian/Muslim conception yet it's a very sensitive wording.
http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading_simplified/sutra_explanation/EarthStore/EarthStoreSutra.htm
Let me know if I am also making any false words and speech, I am kinda learning here too.

In ancient Pali and Sanskrit texts the most common title for the Buddha is Bhagavan, which means someone rich and/or important (like e.g. Bill Gates or the president etc). This is how the Buddha is often called in the third person (i.e. Bhagavan raised from his seat and said...)
The way the Buddha is usually addressed in the second person (i.e. when you say "yes, sir, I'll do as you say sir") - is "bhante". This is understood to be a Pali version of the Sanskrit "bhavantaḥ" which means "all of you" or "[plural] you" or "the big/important you".
Another common reference is Sugata, which means the lucky one or the successful one.
Finally sometimes he's called Jina which means the victor or the winner (in a battle).
Lord is a common English translation of the first title, Bhagavan, and sometimes of the second one, Bhante.


Reincarnation and stem cell research How do we apply reincarnation to phenomena such as reproduction by binary fission (amoeba) and creating animals like Dolly the sheep from a single cell? Also, why the population is rising in the animal kingdom including humans, surely, it cannot be other beings from different realms are coming to earth. I am so confused about this although I am a  practicing Buddhist.

How do we apply reincarnation to phenomena such as reproduction by binary fission (amoeba) and creating animals like Dolly the sheep from a single sell?Also, why the population is rising in the animal kingdom including humans, surely, it cannot be other beings from different realms are coming to earth.
I am so confused about this although I am a practising Buddhist.

If you want to become an even more confused Buddhist, then keep pondering this :)
If not, then stop pondering this and go practice.
You might also want to take a look at the Four Imponderables:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

These imponderables the Buddha advices not to contemplate, since they will only agitate and destabilize the mind, making it less suitable for practice.


How can mindfulness be about immovable attention? There seem to be a lot of disagreements about the very basic term "mindfulness". Here is one of them.

Yesterday I listened to a talk, where it was it was said that if one achieve total concentration on an object, there is no mindfulness. This makes sense to me, as ALL attention is on the subject and none is left to be mindful of what is going on (it was also mentioned that there is no wisdom gained from this, as it is from the moving, momentary concentration in mindfulness that one makes realizations about the four noble truths).  This is all in accordance with my understanding of the difference between concentration and mindfulness.

Then later at the evening I read an article by Ajahn Brahmavamso ("The quality of mindfulness") where he says that "with development, you can experience immovable mindfulness. The mindfulness that is on one thing entirely...The Buddha said this reaches its peak in the fourth Jhanas". I have read and heard a thousand other places that this is what he said about samadhi (concentration). And that one of Buddhas main contributions was the introduction of sati/mindfulness which among other things makes one aware of impermanence.  How should "immovable mindfulness" ever give any realization of impermanence...immovable means permanent.  He also says that "Once you know that type of mindfulness, then you know how ridiculous it is to think you can become Enlightened without Jhanas. Without such powerful mindfulness you can't get the powerful insights". To my knowledge Jhanas and one-pointedness (which I would call concentration) is not about insight. To my knowledge Buddha, before he found the path to (his) enlightenment,  was taught meditation techniques which aimed towards being completely absorbed, but that he found that this did not bring him what he searched for. Isnt this one of the major points in buddhist teaching?

When one gets absorbed, focused, or mindful in anything, no matter what the object is, the mental factor called “ekagghatha” takes over and make the mind latched on to it. Being mindful depends on the situation. The kind of mindfulness one has when driving a car is different from the mindfulness when reading a book, and the mindfulness needed to attain a jhana is different from those two.

The jhana that one comes to by using the breath only would not help in walking this Path. As you correctly pointed out Buddha figured this out, and managed to break through and achieve Nibbhana. Just by focusing the mind on the breath, one can achieve only a mundane type of jhana. Also trying to be mindful by doing “walking meditation” by saying “lifting the foot”, “putting it down” would only get you to this lower level mundane jhanas.

The higher levels of Jhana that furthers the Noble Eightfold Path are achieved by supermundane “ekagghatha”  that one comes to by coming to upacara samadhi.  When listening to a Dhamma discourse or reading about a Dhamma concept one can get to this type of mindfulness.

When contemplating on bad consequences of mind-made pleasures, willingly giving up by comprehending their bad outcomes one is able to come to the higher levels of Jhana.

If one’s intention is to walk this Path, the focus should be something related to Nibbana. It could be a Dhamma concept or Nibbana itself. Focusing on the peacefulness of discarding sense pleasures can be done only when one comprehends the true meaning of anicca, dukkha, anatta. By being mindful the correct way, one can come to samma sati.


Is practice of Vedanta a prelude to practice of Buddhism? Prince Siddharta was schooled in Vedanta, which was the predominant philosophy prevailing in India 2500 yrs ago. Majority of Buddhists today seem to have ignored the study of Vedanta and dived into the deep end of mastering the Tripitaka first, especially Abhidhamma. 'The Path of Purification' - Visuddhimagga - has referred to the learning of the 'Three Vedas.' (vide Chapter XII.44 of Bhikkhu Nanamoli's English translation). Given the fact that not many yogis become Arahants today, is it possible that Buddhists need to master the fundamentals in Vedanta first, as the Buddha himself would surely have done in his youth?

Edit to add:

What might the answer be, if this question asked about "the Vedas" instead of "Vedanta"?

If you read the Vedanta page on Wikipedia, you will find this info:

  Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu
  philosophy.

  Some of the better known sub-traditions of Vedanta include:

  Advaita Darshan - established by Adi Shankara (788–820 CE)
  Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE)
  Dvaita Darshan - established by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
  Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya (c. 7th century CE)
  Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE)
  Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE)

On the other hand, if you read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha:

  The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians
  in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
  More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while
  at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those
  who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side
  of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies,
  however, have not been accepted by all historians.

So, Vedanta came after the Buddha, and I suspect that Advaita Vedanta appeared as a philosophical response to Buddhism.

So, the Buddha could not have studied Vedanta, and this question is moot.


To become a Buddha must a person be born in a highest caste in their society? To become a Buddha must a person be born in a highest caste in their society? Or if someone is born in a low caste, is he unable become a Buddha?

In the Digha Nikaya in Mahāpadāna sutta, the Discourse of the biography of the Buddha, and in Acchariya Abbhutadhamma sutta we get to read about the life stories of the seven Buddhas: Vipassi, Sikkhi, Vessabhu, Kakusanda, Konagamana, Kassapa and Gotama.  The full life story of Vipassi Buddha given in this sutta explains that the incidents discribed are a Rule (Dhammata) for every Buddha.

When a Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be) fulfils all the Paramitas in the last life of before his birth in human world he will be born in the Tusita Heaven. When the time approaches, various signs appear in the ten thousand world systems. The Devas of all worlds assemble in Tusita heaven and request the Bodhisatta to be born in the human world as a human being to become a Buddha. The Bodhisatta will not reply until he has made the five great investigations. (Panca maha vilokana – divine foresight) regarding time (Kala) continent (Dipa), place of birth (Desa) clan (Kula) and mother (Matha).

Kala- Time: It should be a proper time. It should not be more than one hundred thousand years of human life span and less than one hundred years of life span. If the life span is too short people will have excessive defilements. Because of excessive defilements people to not comply with the advice given by the Buddha.

Dipa- contement: Only in Jambudipa / India the Buddhas & Pacceka Buddhas are borne.

Desa- place: (Madhyadesa) – a region in Jambudipa / India

Kula- clan: Khattiya or Brahmana.  The Buddhas belonged to all the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmanas. It is another of the Rules (Dhammata). So the question of "if someone is born in a low caste, is he unable become a Buddha?" would not arrise.

Matu- mother:  The Bodhisatta Mata in her last birth must not passionate. She should have to practise five precepts without violating them for her life. She should not have more than (7) days life after the birth of the Bodhisatta.


What is a refuge tree? What is the nature of a refuge tree(s)?  How does one incorporate a refuge tree(s) into their practice?

My understanding of a refuge tree is a visual representation of a lineage of a particular school of Buddhism. From Wikipedia

  the lineage of gurus and transmission of teachings is depicted in
  visual form as a visual mind map

For instance I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and we have our own refuge tree (shown below). At the bottom is Sangharakshita winding its way to his teachers (e.g. Dhardo Rimpoche) and up to more historical figures (Hakuin, Milarepa) and into the mythic (Amitabha, Ratnasambhava) up to the Buddhas past present and future (Shaykamuni, Dipankara, Maitreya).

We study it to find inspiration and guidance in other teachers and other times. Because the movement is electic it means something to us to study a Zen figure (Hakuin) and then a Tibetean (Milarepa) and draw out the underlying themes. More pragmatically and politically the Triratna Community has been criticised for lacking a proper lineage so we (over)compensate by having a refuge tree that we study and refer back to.


Without formal refuge? An unknown contributer wrote

  Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?

Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?

Maybe worthy to give reflective answer.

[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]

Your question is posed mainly from a modern Western/Capitalist perspective where seclusion from economical "responsibilities" for spiritual practice is - to say the least - not encouraged. Also, the West doesn't have a tradition of handing out food to begging monks, in fact, in many countries this practice is illegal. It was very different in Asia before the industrialization.

During the Golden Age of Buddhism in China, the Ch'an (Zen) school actually consisted to a large extent of 行者 (wandering monks), who would travel throughout China, searching for the "right" master, entering into a discussion with the master of every temple they came across. This is still a common and widely accepted practice in many Mahayana traditions.

The mythological monk Bodhidharma, claimed as their founder by several Chinese Buddhist schools, would definitely qualify as a wandering monk, as does the mythological Budai.

Also in the Ch'an tradition, there are a series of drawings called the Ten Oxherding Pictures, the tenth picture is entitled "Return to society":

  Barefooted and naked of breast,

  I mingle with the people of the world.

  My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,

  and I am ever blissful.

  I use no magic to extend my life;

  Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

As for laypeople, Huineng was a layman, but is considered to be one of the most important Ch'an masters.