The Dangers of an Extended Meditation Session The Buddha was said to have meditated 40 days and 40 nights in a single sitting which begs the question is it possible to sit this long without any physical or mental injury?

As an example, my meditation sessions vary in discomfort. Sometimes when it's good, I wish the alarm hadn't rung  and then sometimes my foot falls asleep in 5 minutes.

There's this theory I have that when meditation is done properly (i. e. you are not fighting yourself), the body will begin to self-regulate itself and the mind will begin to heal.

Elsewhere, I have read that its good not to sit more than 40 minutes. Is this more of a legal disclaimer to prevent novice meditators from injuring themselves?

What I really want to know is that if you're comfortable and physically able to sit 40 days and 40 nights, is it OK to sit that long? I guess there's a chance you may be stuck in that meditative state. Have there been reports of meditators who don't return to their consciousness? Are there any reports of people who have tried it?

According to Empty Cloud The Autobiography of Master Xu Yun (famed Chinese monk of the 20th century usually with name transcribed as Hsu Yun).

  One day I cooked taro in a cauldron and sat cross-legged while waiting
  for my meal to cook and involuntarily entered the state of samadhi.

  MY 63RD YEAR (1902/03)

  Master Fu-cheng and others who stayed in nearby huts were surprised
  that I had not called on them for a long time and came to my hut to
  present their New Year greetings. Outside my hut, they saw tigers’
  tracks everywhere with no traces of man. They entered my hut and
  seeing that I was in samadhi, they awoke me with a qing (a musical
  instrument made of stone, the sound of which is subtle but
  penetrating). When I returned to self-consciousness, they asked me,
  ‘Have you taken your meal?’ I replied, ‘Not yet, the taro in the
  cauldron should be well cooked by now.’ When its cover was lifted, the
  cauldron was covered with an inch of mould. Fu-cheng was startled and
  said, ‘You must have been in samadhi for half a month.’ We then melted
  ice, cooked taro and ate our fill. They joked with me and left.

Now you can take this story with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of hibernation-like state for deep meditation...


Irritation due to breathing noises in dojo This might seem a silly question, but unfortunately I am extremely oversensitive to human noises. I don't mind meditation with the noise of traffic, or a thunderstorm, or the monotonous drone of a ventilator. But when I am trying to do za-zen in a dojo with other people and I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood. Basically, I stop the meditation and just start thinking about my work or something, to stop noticing the noise. I know this is wrong, and somehow I should make the noise, the other person's breathing and my own irritation part of the meditation: observe my irritation and meanwhile keep getting back to my own respiration, but I wonder whether there is some advice, some trick, to make this easier. I know I am my own biggest enemy here, but it's a problem that keeps on occurring and it's hard for me to get out of this trap.

I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood.

You are quite fortunate to have these kind souls gently show you the rough spots in your meditation. If you were alone, steeped in quiet, there would be no such disturbance. If there is suffering somewhere, it is attached to delight (MN1). For example, if one delights in quietness, seeking refuge from chaos on the cushion, then such disturbances would irritate. It would irritate especially if there is a sense of "my meditation" and "their noise". This is identity view and SN22.155 says:

  But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would identity view arise?”
  “No, sir.”

Breathing noises come and go. In and out. They are not permanent. Instead of thinking "that person keeps breathing loudly!", simply think "There is an in-breath." Later, notice that "There is an out-breath".  In doing so, the impermanence manifests. Seeing the impermanence, the next step is to recognize that it really has nothing to do with you:

  This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self --MN62

Knowing that this is not your self, simply count your own breath and return to that peace you thought threatened. It's not just your peace, it's also their peace. They, over there, are hearing your own breathing. Give them the gift of peace by gently attending to your own breath.


Does levitation really exist? Sometimes you hear of people who can levitate from the ground. It looks like it is not just a state of mind but a real physical happening.

So is there any prove of the existence of it and how is it is physically possible.

Yes it is possible and Lord Buddha had to show some supernatural powers in certain incidents. But Lord Buddha's perspective was a bit different from what you might expect....

One day Lord Buddha and some monks were on path to reach a certain village / city. On the way the group had to cross a river, there was a boat and people had to pat the boat owner to cross the river (Like a ferry). Suddenly a person who looked like a sage crossed the river levitating above the river. It was done by him to show off as the Lord Buddha's group was there.
Lord Buddha asked "how much does it cost to cost the river".
The amount was told to Lord Buddha, Then Lord Buddha said "That is how much that person's Power is worth"
(Because the power he had only helped him cross the river and that costed a certain amount,no matter how many river he cross that has no value other that the money he save when using the power. In the Grand scale of things he is just as helpless as any other being because his power does not free him from "Samsara")

Lord Buddha asked us to focus on the path and not on fancy powers. Because you do not necessarily need to be a Buddhist to do all of that. Because even Before Lord Buddha's birth people was able to do so much more (Like inter-realm travel).

One day a sage from another teaching wanted to know the answer to the same question that you are asking, So he came to Lord Buddha's Monastery and became a monk. All he ever did was practicing hard to reach the same level as the monks. He was sent by the elder sages of his earlier practice to learn Lord Buddha's teaching so they can show powers and attract people to their teaching (Foreigners to india and even some indians to this day ask questions like why are there so many similarities among Buddhism and other religions without knowing the kind of foul play Buddhism had to deal with).
He tried his best and he couldn't reach the level he wanted and he started asking questions from "Arahats" who visited Lord Buddha to acknowledge their completion of the path. But at the time all the Arahats visited was not with any powers (There are two different practices to reach the end and depending on what path you choose you either get or miss the powers,but there is no lack of the path between the two versions).
In the end he was fed up and directly went to Lord Buddha and told the truth. Lord Buddha kindly advised him and he became an "Arahat". But never returned to the older practice.

There is also another side to Powers....

One day a monk who had reached "Universal hearing (Dibba sotha)" came to Lord Buddha and asked Lord Buddha's guidance to gain (Dibba chakku) "Universal seeing/eye".
Lord Buddha looked at the monk's Karma and said you have not done enough good Karma to reach that level

So there is a clear mention that not only powers vary in the path also the powers can only be reached by ones who have done enough Karma to make it available.


Dharma-ending age in suttas and solution? What are signs of the dharma-ending age according to the sutras and is there a solution?

Below is "Exhortation to Protect and Propagate" by Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua, prefacing the  "Shurangama Sutra."

  Within Buddhism, there are very many important sutras. However, the
  most important Sutra is the Shurangama Sutra. If there are places
  which have the Shurangama Sutra, then the Proper Dharma dwells in the
  world. If there is no Shurangama Sutra, then the Dharma Ending Age
  appears. Therefore, we Buddhist disciples, each and every one, must
  bring our strength, must bring our blood, and must bring our sweat to
  protect the Shurangama Sutra. In the Sutra of the Ultimate
  Extinction of the Dharma, it says very, very clearly that in the
  Dharma Ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra is the first to disappear, and
  the rest of the sutras disappear after it. If the Shurangama Sutra
  does not disappear, then the Proper Dharma Age is present. Because of
  that, we Buddhist disciples must use our lives to protect the
  Shurangama Sutra, must use vows and resolution to protect the
  Shurangama Sutra, and cause the Shurangama Sutra to be known far and
  wide, reaching every nook and cranny, reaching into each and every
  dust-mote, reaching out to the exhaustion of empty space and of the
  Dharma Realm. If we can do that, then there will be a time of Proper
  Dharma radiating great light.

  Why would the Shurangama Sutra be destroyed? It is because it is too
  true. The Shurangama Sutra is the Buddha’s true body. The Shurangama
  Sutra is the Buddha’s sharira. The Shurangama Sutra is the Buddha’s
  true and actual stupa and shrine. Therefore, because the Shurangama
  Sutra is so true, all the demon kings use all kinds of methods to
  destroy the Shurangama Sutra. They begin by starting rumors, saying
  that the Shurangama Sutra is phony. Why do they say the Shurangama
  Sutra is phony? It is because the Shurangama Sutra speaks too truly,
  especially in the sections on The Four Decisive Deeds, the Twenty-five
  Sages Describing Perfect Penetration, and the States of the Fifty
  Skandha Demons. Those of off-center persuasions and
  externally-oriented ways, weird demons and strange freaks, are unable
  to stand it. Consequently there are a good many senseless people who
  claim that the Shurangama Sutra is a forgery.

  Now, the principles set forth in the Shurangama Sutra are on the one
  hand proper, and on the other in accord with principle, and the weird
  demons and strange freaks, those in various cults and sects, all
  cannot hide away their forms. Most senseless people, in particular
  unwise scholars and garbage-collecting professors “Tread upon the holy
  writ.” With their extremely scant and partial understanding, they are
  confused and unclear, lacking real erudition and true and actual
  wisdom. That is why they falsely criticize. We who study the
  Buddhadharma should very deeply be aware of these circumstances.
  Therefore, wherever we go, we should bring up the Shurangama Sutra.
  Wherever we go, we should propagate the Shurangama Sutra. Wherever we
  go, we should introduce the Shurangama Sutra to people. Why is that?
  It is because we wish to cause the Proper Dharma long to dwell in the
  world.

  If the Shurangama Sutra is regarded as true, then there is no problem.
  To verify its truth, let me say that if the Shurangama Sutra were
  phony, then I would willingly fall into the hells forever through all
  eternity—for being unable to recognize the Buddhadharma—for mistaking
  the false for true. If the Shurangama Sutra is true, then life after
  life in every time I make the vow to propagate the Great Dharma of the
  Shurangama, that I shall in every time and every place propagate the
  true principles of the Shurangama.

  Everyone should pay attention to the following point. How could the
  Shurangama Sutra not have been spoken by the Buddha? No one else could
  have spoken the Shurangama Sutra. And so I hope that all those people
  who make senseless accusations will wake up fast and stop creating the
  causes for suffering in the Hell of Pulling Out Tongues. No matter who
  the scholar is, no matter what country students of the Buddhadharma
  are from, all should quickly mend their ways, admit their mistakes,
  and manage to change. There is no greater good than that. I can then
  say that all who look at the Shurangama Sutra, all who listen to the
  Shurangama Sutra, and all who investigate the Shurangama Sutra, will
  very quickly accomplish Buddhahood.

  Composed by Gold Mountain Shramana Tripitaka Master Hua Translated by
  Bhikshuni Heng Hsien Reviewed by Shramanerika Heng Wen

The answer to the first part of the question is provided in the sutra that is mentioned in bold in the above quote.

Below is the sutra:

  The Buddha Speaks the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra

  Thus I have heard. At one time the Buddha was in the state of
  Kushinagara. The Tathagata was to enter nirvana within three months
  and the bhikshus and Bodhisattvas as well as the great multitude of
  beings had come to pay homage to the Buddha and to bow in reverence.
  The World Honored One was tranquil and silent. He spoke not a word and
  his light did not appear. Worthy Ananda bowed and asked the Buddha,

  ”0 Bhagavan, heretofore whenever you spoke the Dharma, awesome light
  would naturally appear. Yet today among this great assembly there is
  no such radiance. There must be a good cause for this and we wish to
  hear the Bhagavan’s explanation.”

  The Buddha remained silent and did not answer until the request had
  been repeated three times. He then told Ananda,

  ”After I enter nirvana, when the Dharma is about to perish, during the
  evil age of the five turbidities, the way of demons will flourish.
  Demonic beings will become shramanas; they will pervert and destroy my
  teachings. Monastics will wear the garb of laypersons and will prefer
  handsome clothes. Their precept sashes will be made of multi-colored
  cloth. They will use intoxicants, eat meat, kill other beings and they
  will indulge in their desire for flavorful food. They will lack
  compassion and they will bear hatred and exhibit jealousy even among
  themselves.

  ”Even then Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats will reverently
  and diligently cultivate immaculate virtue. They will be respected by
  all people and their teachings will be fair and egalitarian. These
  cultivators of the Way will take pity on the poor, they will be
  mindful of the aged, and they will save and give counsel to those
  people they find in difficult circumstances. They will at all times
  exhort others to worship and to protect sutras and images of the
  Buddha. They will do meritorious deeds, be resolute and kind, and
  never harm others. They will make physical sacrifices for others’
  benefit. They will hold no great regard for themselves but will be
  patient, yielding, humane, and peaceful.

  ”As long as such people exist, the hordes of demonic bhikshus will be
  jealous of them. The demons will harass them, slander and defame them,
  expel them from their midst and degrade them. They will ostracize the
  good monks from the monastic community. Thereafter these demons derive
  no virtue from their practice. Their monastic buildings will be vacant
  and overgrown with weeds. For want of care and maintenance their
  Way-places will drift into ruin and oblivion. The demonic bhikshus
  will increase their greed for wealth and will amass great heaps of
  goods. They will refuse to distribute any of it or to use it to gain
  blessings and virtue.

  ”At this time, the evil monks will buy and sell slaves to till their
  fields and to slash and burn the mountain forests. They will do harm
  to living creatures and they will feel not the least bit of
  compassion. These slaves will themselves become bhikshus and
  maidservants will become bhikshunis. Totally lacking in Way-virtue,
  these people will run amok, indulging in licentious behavior. In their
  turbid confusion they will fail to separate the men from the women in
  the monastic communities.

  From this generation on, the Way will be weakened. Fugitives from the
  law will seek refuge in my Way, wishing to be shramanas but failing to
  observe the moral regulations. Monastics will continue to recite the
  precepts twice a month, but in name alone. Being lazy and lax, no one
  will want to listen any longer. These evil shramanas will be unwilling
  to recite the sutras in their entirety and they will make
  abbreviations at the beginning and at the end of the texts as they
  please. Soon the practice of reciting sutras will stop altogether.
  Even if there are people who recite texts, they will be unlettered,
  unqualified people who will insist, nonetheless, that they are
  correct. Bumptious, arrogant, and vain, these people will seek fame
  and glory. They will put on airs in the hope of attracting offerings
  from other people.

  ”When the lives of these demonic bhikshus come to an end their
  essential spirits will fall into the Avichi Hell. Having committed the
  five evil deeds, they will suffer successive rebirths as hungry ghosts
  and as animals. They will know all such states of woe as they pass on
  through eons as numerous as sands on the banks of the Ganges River.
  When their offenses are accounted for they will be reborn in a border
  land where the Triple Jewel is unknown.

  ”When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and
  will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no
  longer speak the Dharma. Those who are genuine shramanas will be
  looked upon as dung and no one will have faith in them. When the
  Dharma is about to perish, all the gods will begin to weep. Rivers
  will dry up and the five grains will not ripen. Pestilences will
  frequently take millions of lives. The masses will toil and suffer
  while the local officials will plot and scheme. No one will adhere to
  principles. Instead, the human race will multiply, becoming like the
  sands of the ocean-bed.

  Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two.
  As the eon comes to a close, the revolutions of the sun and the moon
  will grow short and the lifespan of people will decrease. Their hair
  will turn white by the time they are forty. Because of excessive
  licentious behavior they will quickly exhaust their seminal fluids and
  will die at a young age, usually before sixty years. As the lifespan
  of males decreases, that of females will increase to seventy, eighty,
  ninety, or one hundred years.

  ”The mighty rivers will flood and lose harmony with their natural
  cycles, yet people will not take notice or feel concern. Extremes of
  climate will soon be taken for granted. Beings of all races will mix
  together at random, without regard for the noble and the mean. Their
  births and rebirths will cause them to sink and float, like feeding
  aquatic creatures.

  ”Even then Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats will gather
  together in an unprecedented assembly because they will all have been
  harried and pursued by the hordes of demons. They will no longer dwell
  in the assemblies but the Three Vehicles will retreat to the
  wilderness. In a tranquil place they will find shelter, happiness, and
  long life. Gods will protect them and the moon will shine down upon
  them. The Three Vehicles will have an opportunity to meet together and
  the Way will flourish.

  However, within fifty-two years the Shurangama Sutra and the
  Pratyutpanna [Standing Buddha] Samadhi, will be the first to change
  and then to disappear. The twelve divisions of the canon will
  gradually follow until they vanish completely, never to appear again.
  Its words and texts will be totally unknown ever after. The precept
  sashes of shramanas will turn white of themselves. When my Dharma
  disappears it will be just like an oil lamp that flares brightly for
  an instant just before it goes out. So too, will the Dharma flare and
  die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what
  will follow.

  ”A period of ten million years will follow before the time when
  Maitreya is about to appear in the world to become the next Buddha. At
  that time the planet will be entirely peaceful. Evil vapors will have
  dissipated, rain will be ample and regular, and crops will grow
  abundantly. Trees will grow to a great height and people will grow to
  be eighty feet tall. The average lifespan will extend to 84,000 years.
  It will be impossible to count all the beings who will be taken across
  to liberation.”

  Worthy Ananda addressed the Buddha, “What should we call this Sutra
  and how shall we uphold it?”

  The Buddha said, “Ananda, this sutra is called The Ultimate Extinction
  of the Dharma. Tell everyone to propagate it widely; the merit of your
  actions will be measureless, beyond reckoning.”

  When the four-fold assembly of disciples heard this sutra they grieved
  and wept. Each of them resolved to attain the true path of the Supreme
  Sage. Then bowing to the Buddha, they withdrew.

  End of The Buddha Speaks the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra.

  From the Seng You Records, translator anonymous. Appended to the Song
  Annals.

Is there a solution?

The solution once again is as Master Hsuan Hua says in the top-most quote: to protect the first to disappear sutra: The Surangama Sutra.

It is a gem of an exegesis of the Shakyamuni's original teachings and a consummating addition to Theravadin sutras...


Is vegetarianism compulsory/obligatory in Nicherin Buddhism? I recently visited Japan and went to see a Nicherin Buddhist monastery and temple in Tokyo. There they were preaching that Buddhism is not just for the Japanese or Chinese or some particular race, it is for the entire humanity. The chief monk their would barely speak English but he said he is a follower of Buddha, Nicherin and Tanaka Chigaku. Then he invited me to his home and his wife served fish sushi and chicken meat balls for both of us! I ask, 'You are a Buddhist and an ordained monk, do you eat meat?' He replied that even Buddha and his followers ate meat!

There are three lineages of pratimoksha vows and none of them prohibits the eating of meat. Anyway, the transmission of the pratimoksha was lost in Japan, as attests the fact that the "monk" is married and lives with his wife.

He surely has the bodhisattva vows, however. There are also a number of lineages of bodhisattva vows. Some prohibit the eating of meat and some do not. For instance, in the Brahma Net Sutra, it says:

  A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately  eat meat. He should
  not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the
  seed  of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and
  causes [animals and transc endental] beings to avoid him.

The bodhisattva vows that I have (in Tibetan Buddhism) do not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does it advise to restrain from eating meat.

Most Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese have the bodhisattva vows from a lineage rooted in the Brahma Net Sutra, and therefore are encouraged to restrain from eating meat.

Even then, practitioners do not adhere that strictly to the bodhisattva vows.


Finding it difficult to cultivate mudita(empathetic joy) I am finding it very difficult to cultivate mudita for people who are happier and have it all. I am finding it easy to have empathy for those who are suffering. But my ego feels threatened when I encounter happy people who are not even practicing dhamma or meditation. How do I train my mind? How to look at such situation when people are in better situation than me?

The problem is most people don't understand what mudita really is and what the goal of it is. It's not to just unilaterally develop non jealousy and partake of joy in any kind of success that others enjoy. For example, if you resent Donald Trump, it's not mudita to do, "I hope he gets reelected again and he stays happy for a long time.".
It's only proper mudita if the vicarious joy is based on kusala Dhamma activities. That is, if Donald Trump behaves in accordance to the Dharma and enjoys success and happiness from those Dharmic activities, then it would be mudita to vicariously experience joy and hope he continues that type of kusala Dharmic activity and reaps the benefit of it for a long time.


Do buddhists believe that time travel will ever be possible? If yes, what would happen if someone would travel back in time to prevent other person's birth?

In general time is held to be the object of thinking.
In the earliest texts, Buddhists hold that there exist these 12 elements;

Eye & Forms
Tongue & Tastes
Ear & Sound
Nose & Aromas
Body & Sensatipns
Intellect/Mind/Consciousness & Ideation

They hold that is not possible to point out anything in the world that would repudiate the 12 and therefore the 12 are defined as the All or Everything in a definitive sense.
Out of these, 6 are thought of as having their respective objects.
The ideas of time and time travel are not repudiating these 12 and are included as the object of ideation.
Furthermore the 12 can be thought of as 5 classes of past, present & future

Form
Consciousness
Feeling
Perception
Synthesis/Formation

Of these 4 are thought of as having an object. Form is thought of as not having an object.
The All can also be the object of thought in a collective sense and a single element, it is then thought of as the conditioned element and is thought to change as it persists rather than arising & ceasing.


What sort of infinite regress to birth is Nagarjuna's MMK arguing for? I start with some quotes, to show how I got to two specific questions about Buddhism, then a question that is more philosophical and general.

Batchelor's translation of Nagajuna's MMK:

  I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened
  one who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no
  annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no
  identity) to ease fixations.

Looking at the section on birth, 7.4 (I'm more or less choosing interesting parts at random to get to my particular point, below)

  The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone.  The root
  birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth

That seems like an infinite regress of births, suggesting birth is caused (7.19)

  If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would
  be endless.  If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR
  if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that
  [i.e. causelessly].

which may be why he concludes (7.34)

  Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas,
  likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught.

perhaps via support from 1.3

  The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.  If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

birth is not an other thing, its essence is not in others, and in conjunction with the argument in 1.5

  Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not
  non-conditions?

we're back to birth being an infinite regress, but the apparent way out, it being caused, makes no difference, because cause too is a birth: birth is no birth.

My questions:

We can pile up adjectives as long as we want. The red of the rose is a red that is red, and so on. Whereas actions, verbs, take up time, and suggest an infinite number of tasks, births, need to occur for one to.

Is there, in Nagarjua's Sanskrit (different grammars teach different rules), an adjective for the past tense of born?
Even if we do use an adjective for birth does this offer any problems? Does the meaning of "born" always involve an incomplete infinite regress of actions, or can that be avoided if it itself is not an action?

I suspect that we can get out of the infinite regress only through the claim that the born thing exists to have such and such aspects. Am I right?

Does my presentation of the idea that born things must exist because they are caused, unlike nirvana, makes sense to yogacarin theories of trisvabhava?

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over and over again, to make sure the reader is left with no doubts about the points made.

The initial verse introduces the subject of liberation from reification (paraphrasing Garfield's translation):

  I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
  the best of teachers, who taught that everything is dependently arisen --
  not dying, not born, not subject to annihilation nor permanence,
  not coming, not going, with no delineation, no [fixed] identity; -- to liberate from reification.

With arising/birth, just like with every other topic, Nagarjuna uses 'reductio-ad-absurdum' to show that discrete things are reified abstractions we impute onto reality, confusing them with reality itself.

Specifically, speaking about arising/birth, he tries to show that the notion of birth as a moment when something is born is incohesive under close scrutiny. He says, if something arises at point T1, then what is the moment T0 when this arising itself begins (arises). If we look at any such point, we see an infinite regress - not into the past, but into splitting each moment of arising into its "beginning" and the rest of the moment.

Equally, when we look at the moment when something has fully arisen... This notion of "having arisen" is absurd as well. This is where he gives that simile of the lamp, saying that where lamp with its light has fully arisen there is no darkness (absence of light), therefore arising of the lamp could not have possibly caused illumination of the darkness, because by the time lamp with its light fully exists, darkness has gone. This is a similar argument to the "initial moment of arising" argument, except now we're scrutinizing the final moment. As we look closer we see that there is no concrete point in time when something is "fully arisen".

All of this is meant to illustrate that the notion of arising, and therefore the notion of entity, is an abstraction, and that we should stop reifying things as solid and having clear boundaries, because in reality they do not.

In Yogacara's theory of three-fold-svabhava, reality can be analyzed from a perspective of how it appears to a mind of naive reification (i.e. that entities are real), from an analytical perspective of dependent-origination (which explains how entities gradually become more solid as a result of development of the mind of reification), and from an enlightened perspective of Buddha, who look at all this stuff with full understanding of how it works and therefore clearly sees the true "quantum" reality behind both the confused perspective as well as the analytical dependent-origination perspective.

P.S. to those wondering how all this relates to Noble Path and liberation from suffering: in Mahayana, reification of entities as something real and solid is considered the root cause of attachment, therefore of suffering. In Mahayana's interpretation, the ignorance Buddha spoke about, is exactly this naive ignorant reification, not understanding that entities are imputations and therefore grasping onto the phantoms. This in turn leads both to objective conflict because of clashing points of view, and to subjective suffering when things turn out to be different from the way we imagined.


In the Anapanasati Sutta what is meant by 'sensitive to rapture/bliss'? Considering these verses of the Anapanasati Sutta

  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.'

  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.'

In the commentaries I have read rapture and pleasure (bliss) are taken as jhana factors as detailed here. What exactly is been suggested here? Is it possible to experience these factors in meditation without being in the jhanas and maybe encourage them? Can one encourage them by focusing on them and almost willing them into being? I was always told this was counterproductive. Presumably this part of the sutta is samatha. Is it being suggested that you should be in the jhanas before going on any further in this meditation?

I think generally I'm just wanting some additional explanation to what these verses mean and the implication of them to meditation practice.

I assume that by rapture and bliss you mean the Pali words Piti and Sukha.

Piti and Sukha are supposed to be comfortable and pleasant states of mind that arise whenever the mind is sufficiently calm, abiding in itself. However, these states have degrees of maturity, and they are not always conventionally pleasant. Diarrhea or sensations of ants crawling for example are results of Piti that the commoner wouldn't enjoy as pleasures.

Piti and Sukha can arise both in Samatha and Vipassana, leading some to compare the nanas of Vipassana with the Jhanas of Samatha, and claim they are one and the same with subtle differences. However, this is not agreed upon by all, who think there's a big difference between khanika samadhi and jhana.

My own view is nanas & jhanas are equally beneficial, but different in character to some extent, yet not as different as the hardliners make it out to be.

However Piti and Sukha are false fruits - one may be captured by them, and remaining content in them, may return to them time and again without making more effort to enter higher nanas or jhanas.

There are five types of Piti with the final kind being the jhana factor Piti.

One can be practicing Vipassana, and from the final Piti depart to a Samadhi, or exit a jhana samadhi directly into a Vipassana nana.

Five kinds or types of Piti

  1. Khuddaka piti (minor rapture)

  This state is characterized by the following:

  The meditator may be aware of a white color.
  There may be a feeling of coolness or dizziness and the hairs of the body may stand on end.
  The meditator may cry or feel terrified.

  2. Khanika piti (momentary rapture)

  Characteristics of this piti include:

  Seeing flashes of light.
  Seeing sparks. Nervous twitching.
  A feeling of stiffness all over the body.
  A feeling as if ants were crawling on the body.
  A feeling of heat all over the body.
  Shivering.
  Seeing red colors.
  The hair on the body rising slightly.
  Itchiness as if ants were crawling on one's face and body.

  3. Okkantika piti (flood of joy)

  In this piti:

  The body may shake and tremble.
  The face, hands and feet may twitch.
  There may be violent shaking as if the bed is going to turn upside
  down.
  Nausea and at times actual vomiting may occur.
  There may be a
  rhythmic feeling like waves breaking on the shore.
  Ripples of energy
  may seem to flow over the body.
  The body may vibrate like a stick
  which is fixed in a flowing stream.
  A light yellow color may be
  observed. The body may bend to and fro.

  4. Ubbenka piti (uplifting joy)

  In this piti:

  The body feels as if it is extending or moving upwards.
  There may be a
  feeling as though lice are climbing on the face and body.
  Diarrhea may
  occur.
  The body may bend forwards or backwards.
  One may feel that
  one's head has been moved backwards and forwards by somebody.
  There
  may be a chewing movement with the mouth either open or closed.
  The
  body sways like a tree being blown by the wind.
  The body bends
  forwards and may fall down.
  There may be fidgeting movements of the
  body.
  There may be jumping movements of the body.
  Arms and legs may be
  raised or may twitch.
  The body may bend forwards or may recline.
  A
  silver gray color may be observed.

  5. Pharana piti (pervading rapture)

  In this piti:

  A feeling of coldness spreads through the body.
  Peace of mind sets in
  occasionally.
  There may be itchy feelings all over the body.
  There may
  be drowsy feelings and the meditator may not wish to open his or her
  eyes.
  The meditator has no wish to move.
  There may be a flushing
  sensation from feet to head or vice versa.
  The body may feel cool as
  if taking a bath or touching ice.
  The meditator may see blue or
  emerald green colors.
  An itchy feeling as though lice are crawling on
  the face may occur.

Sukha

  The fourth defilement of vipassana is sukha which means "bliss" and
  has the following characteristics:

  There may be a feeling of comfort.
  Due to pleasant feelings the
  meditator may wish to continue practicing for a long time.
  The
  meditator may wish to tell other people of the results which he has
  already gained.
  The meditator may feel immeasurably proud and happy.
  Some say that they have never known such happiness.
  Some feel deeply
  grateful to their teachers.
  Some meditators feel that their teacher is
  at hand to give help.

Source: http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html

One cannot understand the meaning of these terms sufficiently by poring through a Pali dictionary; true understanding in these cases is experiential.

Not everyone attains these states in sequence, one's mind can skip some steps, or one's attention may not catch them when they occur.

If one is on a retreat, and only practicing Anapanasati for several days, one can certainly come very close to the textbook definitions, but that doesn't make the experience special. What makes the experience special is the several days of sustained practice.

  If all the Buddha's teachings are lost, one can recover all of them by faithfully following the breath.

I instinctively felt this statement arise in me with no doubt whatsoever when I first encountered the Anapanasati Sutta, which was the first Buddhist text of any sort that I had read. I was pleasantly surprised some days back to see the Buddha has said much the same - that one can reach enlightenment with just the Anapanasati practice.

Most monasteries in ancient times only had a few suttas at any one time, and this accounts for the great profusion of texts today which were each written from an individual's personal realization of the grand truths.

The ancient masters who took Buddhism to several distant lands had certainly not read every text there was on the topic - they couldn't have because many of them weren't yet written. Yet, their transmission was pure because their realization was personal - they had walked the same path as the Buddha, and seen the same things. That was enough.

Being flooded with various texts from several traditions today thanks to the Internet, the challenge for each of us is to find time from reading to actually practice. A foundational text like Anapanasati actually contains all the necessary elements of practice. All we need is the confidence to read no more, and lock ourselves away in the practice room.

UPDATE:

I think there are a few specific questions I forgot to answer:

Is it possible to experience these factors in meditation without being in the jhanas and maybe encourage them?

Yes

Can one encourage them by focusing on them and almost willing them into being?

I think this recent Dhamma talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Don't focus on Jhana, focus on the breath" (mp3 linked) answers that.

I was always told this was counterproductive.

Usually yes, because meditation becomes a strain, and goal oriented.

Presumably this part of the sutta is samatha.

It is a core meditation technique for mindfulness and concentration - both. It is mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta as such.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

  "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to
  the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his
  legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the
  fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in;
  mindful he breathes out.

The Buddha himself rarely made a clear distinction between Samatha states and Vipassana states, to him it was all meditation that co-existed, he  often called out the jhanas specifically.

A lot of the modern emphasis on Vipassana, and the resulting mindfulness movement is based on an excessive reliance on the Abhidhamma (itself a commentary), and the Visuddhimagga (which is brilliant, but has some controversial roots since Buddhagosa is said to have burned up ancient manuscripts that preceded it for reasons unknown).

  In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost
  always pair it with samatha — not as two alternative methods, but as
  two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with,"
  and that should be developed together. One simile, for instance (SN
  35.204), compares samatha and vipassana to a swift pair of messengers who enter the citadel of the body via the noble eightfold path and
  present their accurate report — Unbinding, or nibbana — to the
  consciousness acting as the citadel's commander. Another passage (AN
  10.71) recommends that anyone who wishes to put an end to mental defilement should — in addition to perfecting the principles of moral
  behavior and cultivating seclusion — be committed to samatha and
  endowed with vipassana. This last statement is unremarkable in itself,
  but the same discourse also gives the same advice to anyone who wants
  to master the jhanas: be committed to samatha and endowed with
  vipassana. This suggests that, in the eyes of those who assembled the
  Pali discourses, samatha, jhana, and vipassana were all part of a
  single path. Samatha and vipassana were used together to master jhana
  and then — based on jhana — were developed even further to give rise
  to the end of mental defilement and to bring release from suffering.
  This is a reading that finds support in other discourses as well.

Is it being suggested that you should be in the jhanas before going on any further in this meditation?

No, that isn't the intent.


Sudden arising of disgust I was meditating today on accepting and letting go of fear, anger and anxiety (which were very loud in my mind at the time) when suddenly my reactions to these states turned into disgust: whenever anger came up, I quickly became disgusted by it. Same thing happened for fear and anxiety. As soon as I sense the suffering in my thoughts, I become disgusted by them. Why is this happening?

Why is this happening? The mind could be becoming clear & attuned to what is healthy & peaceful. Inner wisdom could be functioning.

Below is a quote from The Removal of Distracting Thoughts sutta:

  Like a well-dressed young man or woman who feels horrified, humiliated and disgusted because of the carcass of a snake, dog or
  human that is hung round his or her neck...the monk in whom
  unskillful thoughts continue to arise...ponders on the disadvantages
  of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly, these thoughts of mine are
  unskillful, blameworthy and productive of misery. Then the evil,
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).

The Fire Sermon describes the liberation that results from clearly seeing the 'fire', burning or oppressiveness of lust, hatred & delusion. In the text, the word translated as "estrangement" is 'nibbindaṃ', which also means 'disgust' or 'revulsion'.

The quote below explains the word 'nibbindaṃ':

  The more common translation of nibbidā is “disillusionment, disenchantment” but the more serious spiritual practitioners generally
  prefer “revulsion,” even “disgust.”

  http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.1-Nibbida-piya.pdf

In some commentaries, 'nibbindaṃ-disgust' (nibbidanupassana-nana) precedes or creates the 'desire for liberation' (muncitukamyata-nana) rather than liberation itself (as found in the scriptures).

Note: 'Disgust' is not the same as 'hatred/aversion'. 'Disgust' leads to freedom, since it leads to the rejecting, dropping & subsiding of the negative emotion.


Does an arahant ever reveal that he is an arahant? An arahant is one who has eradicated all defilements and broken all 10 fetters, namely sensual desire and conceit.

Why would an arahant mention that he is one and does the texts say anything about the purpose of mentioning that one is an arahant?

I think the Buddha said he was an Arahant. The Ariyapariyesana Sutta says,

"Then, wandering by stages, I arrived at Varanasi, at the Deer Park in Isipatana, to where the group of five monks were staying. From afar they saw me coming and, on seeing me, made a pact with one another, (saying,) 'Friends, here comes Gotama the contemplative: living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance. He doesn't deserve to be bowed down to, to be greeted by standing up, or to have his robe & bowl received. Still, a seat should be set out; if he wants to, he can sit down.' But as I approached, they were unable to keep to their pact. One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, you will in no long time reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now.'

The book In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "is a worthy one" in this sentence as "is an Arahant",

"Thereupon I told them: 'Monks, do not address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata is an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One. Listen, monks, the Deathless has been attained. I shall instruct you, I shall teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as you are instructed, by realizing it for yourselves here and now through direct knowledge you will soon enter and dwell in that supreme goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen rightly go forth from the home life into homelessness.'

I suppose the reason was to persuade the five to listen to his teaching, to benefit them.

FYI page 136 of The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained,

This would have led some people to
remain secretly convinced of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s guilt and—because he was
an arahant—would have been for their long-term detriment and harm.

... which might imply that someone who is (secretly or not-so-secretly) against an arahant would be so to their detriment. So might that perhaps be another reason for an aharant's "revelation"?

Page 86 through 98 explains the following rule,

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly
noble knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, “Thus do I know; thus do I
see,” such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion,
he—being remorseful and desirous of purification—might say, “Friends, not knowing, I
said I know; not seeing, I said I see—vainly, falsely, idly,” unless it was from overestimation,
he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.

So I suppose the rule is to forbid knowingly lying about it.
There might be another rule for not saying such a thing to a lay person (page 92),

Claiming a superior human state that one mistakenly thinks one
has achieved is no offense under this rule, although if addressed to a lay person
the claim would come under Pc 8.

Note that "superior human state" is not just "being an aharant" but also attainments of jhana, samadhi, fruits of the path, abandoning defilements, being free from hindrances, etc.


Getting rid of long discourses from Tipitaka, what could be true intention? I have heard that people mention long discourses (Diga Nikaya) are not authentic Buddha's discourses (not Buddha's words). The fact that makes me surprised much more is that they say "in Diga Nikaya, Brahmajala Sutta was not discoursed by Buddha".

After I have studied Brahmajala Sutta; such bold words and complete coverage on Indian Brahman and Brahmin religious concepts as well as all modern religious concepts, I thought those kind of very complete specifications of 62 concepts/beliefs could only be named and discoursed origins of them by only Sammasambuddha or someone like Sammasambuddha (who has very complete Panna without any rival can claim or find loophole/falsehood or incompleteness in his discourses).

What could be the motive of such weak claims?
Is it more appropriate to find any incorrectness or loophole of Brahmajala Sutta and other controversially claimable Suttas in Diga Nikaya first before saying authenticity of these Suttas?
Could it be more easier to prove by saying specification and origins of 63 beliefs that was not covered by Brahmajala Sutta?
Is it correct way to say that Suttas from Diga Nikaya (start from Brahmajala Sutta) are ehipassiko?
At the time of Buddhahood of Gautama Buddha, all India regions are overwhelmed by Brahmanism and Brahmins. Buddha has only 60 monks which are from rich men of Yasa young guy and friends. It is not inappropriate to convert some Brahmins who had a sense that Atta of Brahmanism was in vain. It was obvious that Sāriputta and Moggallāna are disciples of Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta and they joined to Sanga society with 250 disciples of same teacher. DN 12 Lohicca Sutta might be counter question to those scholars who questioned authenticity of Diga Nikaya but actually it makes infinite loop about disagreement.
Another possible reason about Bramhajala Sutta is Suppiya did blaming on Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga but the sutta did not mentioned what were details words of Suppiya and to what extent Suppiya did false-fully accusing we do not have chance to know. If a leader of such Sanga society did not properly repeal wrong accusation, what kind of leader Buddha would be.
Sariputta claimed that Buddha's Sila was the best possible Sila a person can keep it clean, unbroken. In Brahmajala sutta, it is where we get a chance to understand/learn Buddha's Sila by grades and it is also role model to future Sanga nonetheless future Sanga has tendency not to keep as many as Buddha prefer to.
Propagation of Anatta views on Brahmanism overwhelmed Indian region is bold move of Gautama Buddha and many adversary effects should had been expected (need citations here). Scholars can logically do reasoning about it. Immediate decision about not to do any discourses to anyone just after enlightenment was nullified by request of Sahampati Bramha, so it is inappropriate or weak claim that Buddha would not do driving less dusty eyes Brahmins to become monks.
Gautama Buddha did offensive (if improper reasoning on his) remarks to Maghandi's daughter in Maghandi Sutta. But the explanation was Buddha had Karuna on Maghandi couples and only the daughter was completely out of picture. For this ages of valuation of women lives, this kind of remark will be viewed as very offensive to community and legal level but this was some kind of example that Gautama Buddha did speak if there was great benefit to save Brahmins from unfruitful believes of Atta view and/or Veda.
It seems like scholars cannot appreciate Buddha converting people who believed Brahmanism but they failed to notice that such big Sanga society cannot be done by overcoming adverse Atta view, worshipping Brahma and caste system.

To make a blanket statement that the "DN was not spoken by the Buddha" would not be wise. Obviously, there are certain suttas in the DN that reasonably conform with what the Buddha taught in other suttas as verifiable truth.

It must be noted the core principle of the Buddha-Dhamma is that is it 'verifiable', namely: sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi. Any sutta that departs from this core principle is open to question.

It must always be kept in mind that pre-Buddhist Brahmanism was very different to Buddhism however, over time, both Buddhism & Hinduism changed so much that they became largely indistinguishable resulting in Buddhism becoming extinct in India. Many commentators have attributed this to Buddhist efforts to proselytize the religion & the DN has been deemed (for example, by Bhikkhu Sujato; by Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 31 of his SN) to be the major vehicle of proselytization. In other words, it was corrupted Buddhism designed to seduce Brahmans. It is widely acknowledged that:

  Recent
  scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya
  may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
  converts to the new religion."

If the DN was composed for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
converts to the new religion, then it is unlikely the Buddha spoke for this purpose, since the Buddha was only interested in converting those with little dust in their eyes (MN 26) and keeping his doctrine pure (AN 2.23, AN 2.25, MN 22, MN 38, etc).

As for the Brahmajala Sutta itself, it is not the specific sutta best chosen from the DN to make a claim the DN was not spoken by the Buddha because the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta appear sound. It is others suttas best chosen to make such claims, such as the Maha Nidana Sutta, which is obviously a corruption of the Buddha-Dhamma.

This being said, the Brahmajala Sutta might possibly contain words or doctrines that are not found in any other sutta, such as saññīvādā, antānantikā, amarāvikkhepikā, etc. I think only a competent scholar could make a reasonable hypothesis. If so, it is open to question.

Another peculiar feature of the Brahmajala Sutta is it is a response to a debate between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta. It is possible but it also seems strange the Buddha would give such a lengthy, pedantic & close to paranoid anal discourse due to the discussions between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta.

The paranoia or defensiveness gets even worse, with the morality sections referring to "Gotama" himself abstaining from attending unsuitable shows, games and recreation, etc, to the point of sounding very childish. At least I would expect the Buddha to refer to his Vinaya abstaining from these worldly behaviours rather than himself personally.

To me, the Brahmajala Sutta sounds like a PhD dissertation rather than the words of a Buddha. That being said, as already posted, the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta are sound. Therefore, there is nothing explicit in the Brahmajala Sutta to deem it not Buddha-Dhamma.

If one wishes to critique the authenticity of the DN, others suttas are best chosen.

To conclude & to answer the question, the reason for dismissing DN suttas such as the Maha Nidana Sutta is because they promote wrong understanding of Dependent origination, which is the core dhamma of Buddhism.


Why is my voice changing? I'm vegan is about 1 year, and as time.
I felt my voice became deeper and more resonant.
I watched some of the monks has such voice
Why is my voice changing?

It's probably to do with the absence of tension. When you're relaxed, your voice tends to be lower. If you meditate or do yoga the voice naturaly goes in that direction. It's possible something similar happens when you eat very healthy and remove other kinds of tensions.


Health Questions Regarding the Ordained Below, I have questions regarding Buddhist monasticism. They are centered around topics of health.

May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?
Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise to keep healthy?
Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?

Few can do and most can not.

Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise for the sake of retaining their health?

When you say for the sake health. Is this closer to rehabilitation after suffering a stroke or jogging for general exercise? I think this question isn't supposed to be answered categorically.

Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

I think most monks have access to these things.


Enlightend beings don't make more good or neutral karma? Does a Buddha or Arahant not make good or neutral karma? If somehow an enlightened one does make karma does it immediately come to a result? Are all the actions enlightened beings  do the result(vipaka) of previous good karma while on on the path to Nirvana? Is all the enlightened karma neutral?

In its essence, "kamma" means "action" with attachment.

While the suttas do refer to "kamma without attachment" namely, "neither-dark-nor-bright kamma" (AN 4.237), this type of kamma is also called the "kamma that ends kamma" (AN 6.63). Therefore, it is not really "kamma".

the essential meaning of "kamma" is "action with attachment", as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? 'There is what is given,
  what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of
  good & bad actions....

  MN 117

Refer to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa PDF booklet: Kamma in Buddhism


Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant? Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

Can you remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

I think that Wikipedia's article suggests not:

  Rhys Davids & Stede (1921–25) state in part that "Freedom from the 'Āsavas' constitutes Arahantship."

And

  These points are collected and summarized by Bhikkhu Bodhi thus:

    The āsavas or taints are a classification of defilements considered in their role of sustaining the forward movement of the process of birth and death.

    The three taints mentioned in the Nikāyas are respectively synonyms for craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and ignorance. [The fourth āsava, attachment to views, appears in the commentaries.] When the disciple's mind is liberated from the taints by the completion of the path of arhantship, he reviews his newly won freedom and roars his lion's roar: "Birth is destroyed, the spiritual life has been lived, what had to be done has been done; there is no more coming back to any state of being."

There's another question about asava here: What is effluent? The answer to that question is I think a good explanation, and it includes two references for further reading.


Isn't it insane Bodhidharma cut his own eyelids? I am not questioning the path of Zen. It just exist as it is. But I read this legend about Bodhidharma. To stay awake he cut off his eyelids and tea was flourished. Upto now I have felt tranquility in meditation. But isn't it an insane act. How people tell this story about a great Zen master? Or is it mystical way of delivering something which I am not understanding?

Usually, such extreme Zen stories are used to illustrate commitment and urgency to achieve enlightenment.

It's said that he cut his eyelids because at some point he fell asleep during meditation, a major distraction for him.

Huiko, a disciple, is said to have cut his arm to be accepted as a student by Bodhidharma.

There are many other stories, some involving cut a disciple's fingers (master Gutei Isshi), others cutting a cat in half (master Nansen Osho) and so on.

As far as factuality, I don't think these stories are believed by zen monks to have happened (at least, the ones harming another being), but their symbolism remain a strong vehicle to convey strong meanings, specially in the form of Koans.


Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate? Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?

An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?

The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated:

  “When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.”

Could it be that this “insisting on consciousness” as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

Theravada Buddhist answer.

  Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?

It is not.

Consciousness (Citta) exists only as a taker of objects. If one has to characterize it as anything, it is rather a "knowing, cognizing or processing" of an object and not a real thing.

Here is a quote (my highlights) on the nature of Consciousness from the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  "Consciousness: The first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha
  is devoted to an examination of citta, consciousness or mind, the first of the four ultimate realities. Consciousness is taken up for study first because the focus of the Buddhist analysis of reality is experience, and consciousness is the principal element in experience, that which constitutes the knowing or awareness of an object.

  The Pali word citta is derived from the verbal root citi, to cognize, to know. The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam).

  The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition".

  -- Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 1: Compendium of Consciousness, Guide to §3, p. 27.


Can Metta improve one's luck? Since one can benefit so much from practicing Metta, can it also helps improving one's luck?

Yes. For 2 reasons I can think of:

Creates good Karma on which some can give results in this life time
Makes you pleasant and likeable hence increasing chances of some one dealing with you and supporting you


Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine? I had read occasionally on internet that Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine. So Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine ?

There's a book by K. Jamanadas "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine", whose preface starts with,

  [This book] has potential credibility to create
  controversies unknown to historical writing and the Hindu common folks who flock to worship Tirupati Balaji
  as one of the supreme deities. It is also a new challenge to indologist at a time when politically imbued
  scholars are engaged to wash out their hands by proving and disproving claims of Hindus and the Muslims
  against each other as they did over the issue of Ayodhya Shrines.

Its conclusion is that

  The image of Lord Venkatesvara was not sculptured by the artist as an image of Vishnu, but that of
  Avalokitesvara, sometimes in the reign of Kalabhras, after the period of Mamulanur, and before the period of
  Silappadhikaran, around 3rd to 5th century A.D.


Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not? For example, in this answer, we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain.

I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated.

My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question.

This answer is interesting:

  Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are
  magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each
  conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither
  exists independently.

To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not.

My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media.

So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.

In short: it doesn't matter.
Why? Because drilling down on this topic will not free you from suffering. Instead, it may well create more.


View of Thervada and Mahayana Buddhism on where Conciousness is located Does these 2 types of Buddhism claim that conciousness is located inside our brain or somewhere else, beacuse I have started studying a Thervada monk that claims that conciousness is not inside the brain which makes me confused and seems not logical for me to accept. What did the Buddha teach?

According to buddhism, consciousness (vinnana) are characterized as originating from the ayatanas, our senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch, and mind).

Even though there needs to be a physiological base for our consciousness, there are more prerequisites for consciousness to establish itself, meaning that it emerges in the mind when any of these six different senses makes contact with external sense objects (for example ear - sound).

In other words, it's not until internal sense bases "contacts" with external sense objects that consciousness manifests itself through declarative cognitions.

According to the buddhist concept of dependent origination, to define consciousness therefore isn't just a matter of where it might be localized, there also has to be cognitions/perceptions in order to properly determine what it is.


Taking refuge in the three jewels with respect to DN 26 “Mendicants, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other
  refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other
  refuge. And how does a mendicant do this? They meditate observing an
  aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and
  aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of feelings
  … mind … principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and
  aversion for the world. That’s how a mendicant is their own island,
  their own refuge, with no other refuge. That’s how they let the
  teaching be their island and their refuge, with no other refuge.

DN 26

How is this squared with the Buddhist taking refuge in the three jewels - or at the very least, since the teachings are mentioned, with taking refuge in the Buddha and the Sangha?

The Buddha is the Dhamma; the Dhamma is the Buddha (SN 22.87).

The Sangha are (only) those realizers of the Dhamma.


Difference between Samsara and Dukkha What is the difference between the terms "samsara" and "dukkha"?

What is the relationship between the two?

Samsara is a continuum of our  individual mind moments.

Dukkha is the deep down feeling that something is missing or wrong that occurs throughout Samsara.


How does Buddhism explain the creation of everything (universe) How does Buddhism explain the creation of everything (universe). Did Buddhism faithfuls believe that universe had always been here and forever, and everything runs by cause-and-effect?

Did Buddha have any power of any kind to influence the universe, or it's just teaching? and if so, who rules the universe before Buddha's birth?

Buddhism says that the world has no discernible beginning.

That it runs by cause-and-effect.

That people are able to influence their own state, and have an effect on others.

And that you shouldn't spend too much attention on theoretical questions, such as "when did the universe begin?", because there are more important questions such as "how can we help to end suffering?"


How could we have so many past lives without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment? While I do have a personal and intimate belief in reincarnation, I really struggle with the Buddhist belief that we have innumerably many past lives.

A monk I listened to explained that all the beings we meet everyday were once our parents in a specific past life, as well as our enemies.
Honestly, i find this perspective quite hard to believe.
It seems to me that if had so many past lives, we should have reached wisdom and Buddhahood at some point already.

How (according to Buddhism) is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience, without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

Infinities can be one-way. Consider the negative numbers.

What the Buddha said is that there is no "first point".

  SN15.19:1.3: No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

And with the ending of ignorance, one does not return.

  AN2.36:4.7: When they pass away from there, they are non-returners, not coming back to this state of existence.

Non-returners (anāgāmi) and arahants do not return. They have left behind the negative infinity of suffering.


If the self is scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this? The concept of self is important in social psychology: self-concept, self-esteem, self-control, self-awareness, etc. As a science, these concepts are measured under scientific methods, and there are interesting results. For example, a positive self-esteem does not mean people only have positive self-evaluations, but about balancing positive and negative thoughts.

I think these results don't necessarily refute the central idea of Buddhism that clinging on the self concept will lead to sufferings, but on the other hand, Buddhism also advocates scientific methods to evaluate itself. As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion".

What is the Buddhist view on this?

FYI: • Buddhism and psychology: Perception and the self – Wikipedia
• Social psychology: Self-concept – Wikipedia
• Mindfulness is used to develop self-knowledge
• How is the Concept of Consciousness in Psychology Related to the parallel Buddhism concepts?
• What is the relation between measures, constructs and concepts?

"If the self is scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"

Let's be very clear: the self has not been scientifically measured. It has not been measured by any scientific discipline let alone social psychology which is about as soft a science as you can find. Set aside the replication crisis that is most profoundly visible in social psychology and look at your assertion on the merits. Please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal - regardless whether it has been replicated - that shows the objective measurement of "the self" itself.

No, you cannot do this because there exists no such study or result. Why? Because all that has been "measured" by social psychology are ideas or subjective feelings, impressions, or perceptions about the self. But ideas, feelings, impressions and perceptions are not the same as the self.

Do you stipulate this is true? I hope so, because otherwise it will be hard to go further. If not, then again please cite one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even suggests otherwise.

Assuming you do stipulate, then let's correct your assertion above to:

"If feelings, impressions, perceptions or ideas about the self are scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"

The Buddhist view on this is that these feelings, impressions, perceptions and ideas about the self are not in dispute. Indeed, the only remarkable thing would be if social psychology found that these ideas, impressions, perceptions or feelings about the self did not exist. But of course they do. The Buddhist view stipulates that all these exist and befuddle sentient beings into believing that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way when in fact no such real, essential, inherent self can be found.

"As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion"

Again, if you think there is strong evidence from social psychology that the self exists in a real, inherent, essential way then please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal saying so. I don't think you can. No, what you'll find is numerous findings indicating people talking about their subjective impressions, feelings, perceptions or ideas about the self. That is not scientific evidence that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way.

BTW, I never said that the self is an illusion. Rather, it is like an illusion just as all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way. Let me say that again for emphasis: far more than just the self, all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way completely void of real, essential or inherent existence. What's more, there is not one valid empirical scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise. Proffer even one scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise and like His Holiness the Dalai Lama ... I would be more than happy to investigate and change my mind if something, anything, can be shown to exist under ultimate analysis.


Is there something specifically wrong with keeping the 8 precepts as a lay person? I know that the 5 precepts were intended for lay people. I know that in lay life, most people choose to only keep the 5 precepts, and there is no requirement to keep any more. I know that sometimes lay people take the 8 precepts temporarily. However, is there anything specifically wrong with a lay person keeping the 8 precepts on an ongoing basis? I know it's harder to do as a lay person as opposed to a novice(edit: I meant anagarika). But is it specifically discouraged or wrong for any reason?

No.

In fact, an anagarika (literally a homeless one) would observe the Eight Precepts on a full time basis, but in addition, would not maintain a lay household i.e. they would live a nomadic lifestyle or live in a monastery.

An anagarika is neither a novice monk (samanera) or a fully ordained monk (bhikkhu), but is a kind of informal state between lay life and novice monk, with far less rigid rules compared to monkhood. For e.g. they can deal with money and perform financial transactions. They can also cook their own meals. Monastic rules related to non-intimate interactions with the opposite sex also do not apply to them.

Usually, those who are interested in becoming monks would be asked to spend some time in a monastery, first as an anagarika, then some more time as a novice monk (who keep the Ten Precepts), before undergoing full ordination.

However, there are some people who have preferred to become full time anagarikas like Anagarika Munindra.

Even if one is not an anagarika, it is still foreseeable that a lay person could keep the Eight Precepts on a full time basis.


How to navigate the impracticality of Sigalovada sutra? Consider the advice of Buddha about friends and Wife in the Siglovada Sutta.

  friends and colleagues so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you are afraid, not abandoning you in misfortunes, and honoring all your descendants.

  Some are drinking buddies,
  Some say, 'Dear friend! Dear friend!'.
  But whoever in hardship stands close by,
  That one truly is a friend.

Sleeping late, adultery,
Hostility, meaninglessness,
Harmful friends, utter stinginess:
These six things destroy a person....

In today's world where Smoking and drinking has become such a common thing and where socializing has become equivalent to having a few drinks at least a glass of wine, it's hard to find a guy to make a friend who would fit into Buddha's description of a friend here. I mean I have given up the vices but if I will try to find a mate like me its impossible, I will be left alone.

A similar thing goes with the wife,

  And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

In today's time of the hit and run relationships and all that we know of modern day relationships, this seems impractical.

Following this Sutta will leave you lonely. How do you navigate this problem?

The truth of the Buddha's teaching is timeless and doesn't get affected by modern norms or customs. Imagine if it's influenced by social norms, then there'll be a possible scenario in a distant future where human virtures and values becoming severely degenerated. It'll be common practice and acceptable social norm for humans to do all kinds of evil and little to none of virtuous conducts. If going by the standard of that future time, the Buddha's teaching will be perceived as completely irrelevant, or at least only deemed valuable to a very very small number of people. The Dhamma drum will have so many pegs that it won't be able to make audible sound. So for the OP question, you'd have a better chance of finding a friend or a soulmate with similar mentality or conducts if s/he also cultivates similar virtues. Finding fellow Buddhist practitioners would be best, but any other sincere followers of other world religions would also be fine since they pretty much share similar codes of conduct. If all else fail, then it's perfectly ok to walk the path alone like a proud Rhinoceros


Did Buddha ever go outside India to teach? It is said that Buddha has divine eye (ability to see who're capable of realizing liberation) and psychic power.

Is there any account in pali canon in which Buddha sees someone who could realize nibbana and travels outside India to teach?
It seems to me there would always be someone outside or far from where Buddha dwells who can see Dhamma?

The Buddha visited Sri Lanka on three different occasions. His first
  visit was to Mahiyangana; the second to Nagadipa, and the third was to
  Kalyani (Kelani). On these three occasions he stayed at sixteen
  specific locations and meditated by himself or with his disciple
  monks. For that reason, those places have come to be regarded as
  highly sacred. They are called the Solosmasthana.

Apart from that, the Buddha visited the Thawthisa heaven, seven years after his enlightenment to preach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and the other Devas and Brahmas. He spent three months there.

He also visited a country called Sunaparanta with four hundred and ninety nine arahants, including venerable Kundadhana and venerable Ananda.


Upekkha and Non-attachment in Buddhism I have read on Wikipedia, after an enlightening answer on here, that upekkha signifies not total indifference, but that:

  The "far enemy" of Upekkha is greed and resentment, mind-states in obvious opposition. The "near enemy" (quality which superficially resembles Upekkha but is in fact more subtly in opposition to it), is (cold) indifference or apathy: one is not neutral after having engaged deeply with the wordly winds, but due to having closed oneself off to many emotions related to these worldly winds.

Can anyone expand on this paragraph, and especially on that last part?

Thank you.

I don't understand the whole quoted text, because my english is terrible, however I understand upekkhā-brahmvihāra's enemy, so I will explain just it:

Near enemy = fake-upekkhā = unwholesome mind that acting like upekkhā, but it is just a lazy and a fool mind that don't has any knowledge to manage that situation, so fake upekkhā just acting like upekkhā, but the real mind is difference.

Far enemy = appeared enemy = antonym of upekkhā. upekkhā mind factor is in the middle way between unwholesome mind especially lobha and dosa. So lobha and dosa are an opposite of upekkhā.

I am not sure that you already knew this:

In path of purification, visuddhimagga, said that there were 10 difference phrases that upekkhā is used in tipitaka.

Your quoted text is upekkhā-brahmvihāra, tatramajjhattatā mind's factor. It is not upekkhā-vedanā mind's factor.


Spontaneous Formation of Mandalas Somehow, I seem to be forming mandalas within my psyche without any particular knowledge of how I'm doing so. I'm merely walking around, or meditating, and there will occur mandalas of great complexity (usually of the same shape) which arise in my mind. When they do, my mind will explore and think about them, almost obsessively, and attempt to understand them. Any idea about this?

I've had similar experiences. Though Buddhism doesn't directly talk about the Kundalini system or even use the terminology (though Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism has something close or maybe the same in Thummo), reading about it was useful from a systemic analysis perspective.

Regardless of any explanation I found, it was ultimately only for curiosity satisfaction.

I think the best approach is to continue to practice and to not get carried away by this. Especially not obsessively, as you state. Just observe, remain equanimous and go on about your meditation.

One could term it a nimitta in the  Theravada tradition, I suppose.

In any case, it is a good sign of powerful concentration, keep at it.


Virtual things that emerge from interaction and exist as interaction According to this comment:

  "Form is like a lump of foam ... And consciousness like an illusion" (SN 22.95)
  means something more subtle and interesting, much more deep than just
  "empty of self". It means that these things are "virtual" (in the
  original sense of the word) - they emerge from interaction and only
  exist as interaction, they only seem solid "from inside" but in
  actuality they are like sleight of hand.

I guess this comes from one of the Mahayana schools' interpretation of Madhyamaka shunyata (emptiness).

What does this really mean?

Let's say I have a piece of apple in my hand. I see that it's an apple. I feel that it's an apple when I touch it. I can smell it as an apple. It also tastes like an apple when I bite into it.

How does the apple emerge only from interaction?

How does the apple exist only as interaction?

How is the apple like a sleight of hand that only appears solid, although it's virtual?

I originally thought this is related to physics, where things that we can experience are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. However, Buddhism is almost always related to the mind. So, how does this apply to the mind?

Does this interpretation come from Yogachara?

You only really know of the apples existence by touching it, smelling it and tasting it.  That is, interacting with it. Even looking at it is an interaction.


single word for metta in English language I have been struggling to find a single English word for "metta".Think I have failed. Once I read "what Buddha thought"by Walpola Rahula Thero mentioned as Universal Love which I don't agree as universe is man made theory. Also love is an attachment. so if someone mention a single word for "metta" please. So are there any single word? If there is not single word,what the reason?

Mettā means Goodwill, goodwill (german: Wohlwollen, wish for wellbeing/aspiration for heal), wishing the best, is possible the best rendering for best path effects.

In such a way goodness is not binding but gives way and release, freedom.

Friend (mitta), german Freund, assosiated with Freud, joy, pleasure, heal: e.g. giving sukha, ease.

(Special Met[t]a-Note: Let my person add that the common used excuse "oh, it's difficult to translate" or "there is no similar word in engl.", people hear all to often, is also pointless in regard of metta. Metta in buddhist countries is a common used word and is used like the word love by people, right or wrong, depending on their understanding, context... And what sounds/signs/pixels/bits are used to try to express a certain experience, vision or idea: just one who knows, knows, by direct experians. Nothing can be really explained either by one or million words. Sometimes not even one word is required to understand. So watch out.

This just that one might be careful if hearing someone using the word love (generally: other words as used to), not to be preoccupied "wrong! He/she does not know". Listen further and try to see context and preoccupation in regard of a conventional level first. Wisdom is not found in forms of expression, whether in Pali, Sanskrit, English... signs, smells, taste, bodily touch, and again ideas.

Todays liberal and creative use of words might make it easier for wise but much more difficult for fools, not to speak about 'common sense' dictionaries and encyclopedias... Use "mojo" as translation if you wish (if you endless mojo is already killed), but don't lose it and take care of it "like a mother takes care of here only son". Worthy to read in regard of this: Methuna Sutta to find out where metta becomes really an attitude of Brahmacariya.)

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


Does Zen have an unusual view of samadhi? There was a book titled Zen in the Art of Archery:

Zen in the Art of Archery is a short book by German philosophy professor Eugen Herrigel, published in 1948, about his experiences studying Kyūdō, a form of Japanese archery, when he lived in Japan in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing Zen to Western audiences in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Not only archery, there are other lay activities too which I somehow think of as associated with Zen, for example: tea; gardening; poetry; sitting; sword-play; calligraphy and painting; maybe music; ...
I just read this comment:

Samadhi means “absorption,” but fundamentally it is unity with the whole universe. When you devote yourself to what you are doing, moment by moment — to your kōan when on your cushion in zazen, to your work, study, conversation, or whatever in daily life — that is samadhi. Do not suppose that samadhi is exclusively Zen Buddhist. Everything and everybody are in samadhi, even bugs, even people in mental hospitals.

Is this statement even true (or is it mistaken), according to Zen?

If it's true, do other schools of Buddhism have a similar or comparable view of samadhi?
I get the impression (perhaps I'm wrong) that some traditions see samadhi as associated with meditation, and meditation as distinct from (even deliberately renouncing) any other activities.

When I answered this question I wanted to say something from my 'personal' experience of becoming absorbed in or engaged with some activity. I decided not to because this is a site about Buddhism and so an answer based on only my personal activity or experience might be off-topic.
I know next to nothing about Mahayana (e.g. Zen or Tibetan) Buddhism. Can you reference some recommended text on the subject of "absorption", absorption in lay activity? Maybe something that might help to answer Rishi's question?

The only theory I have heard of about activities (apart from that it's virtuous to engage in activities which are helpful or beneficial) is Flow (psychology). But that is not (so far as I known) a Buddhist theory. Does Buddhism have anything to add to or to contradict that theory, analogous?

If absorption in activity is (kind of) legitimate, what's the important difference between sitting (meditating) on a cushion and e.g. sitting at a potter's wheel, or sweeping the floor, or whatever?

'Samadhi' generically means 'collectedness' or 'concentration'.

The Pali states there are two types of concentration, namely, 'right' & 'wrong':

  In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished...

  MN 117

'Right concentration' is defined as concentration that has seven supporting & requisite factors:

  Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration
  with its supports & requisite conditions.

  MN 117

Therefore, an expert marksmen trained to assassinate people in war has 'samadhi' but it is 'wrong samadhi' because it is not supported by the above seven factors.

In fact, if a 'Zen samadhi' is not supported by the above seven factors, particularly 'right view', it is not 'right concentration' according to the Pali.

As for the word 'jhana' or 'absorption', this generally refers to a 'meditative' concentration.


Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste.

One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything.

I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana.

Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) therefore it is obviously something known.

MN 26 says:

  Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced (vedanīya) by the wise.

SN 56.11 says:

  ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized (sacchikata).’

  Concise Pali English Dictionary sacchikata pp. of sacchikaroti
  realised; experienced for oneself.

  PTS Pali English Dictionary sacchikata seen with one’s own eyes,
  realized experienced

The Dhammapada says:

  205. Having savored the taste of solitude and peace (of Nibbana), pain-free and stainless he becomes, drinking deep the taste of the
  bliss of the Truth.

Nibbana is the dropping of all burdens; like the experience of relief when urgently urinating or dropping a heavy backpack or drinking cool fresh water on a hot day.

Read more here: SN 43.14-43 and Nibbana For Everyone


Are Western Buddhists generally older? I was listening to the introductory podcast from the Buddhist Geeks series. The guys presenting are of the younger demographic i.e. in their twenties. They felt that this was unusual and most Western Buddhist practioners were older - baby boomer generation.

Does anyone have any surveys or statistics that analyse self identified Buddhists in the West by age? Do they tend to be older? Or is the age range pretty much similar to the population at large?

I am 32 and I live in Florida. Florida is full of older people and they outnumber us 20s and 30s year olds. As for Buddhism, the ratio stays pretty consistent to the overall demographic. In my sangha of over one hundred, and I maybe one of three people under 40 years old. Our local university often sends students to experience the sangha for extra credit, but they rarely stay past the assignment.

However I have started a wake up sangha for people in their 20s and 30s (www.wkup.org) here in Fort Myers, and the wake up sanghas do seem to be growing.


Mindfulness when “reading” : Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition Practice Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition

I spend most of my unproductive time (traveling , when nothing special to do ) on reading Dhamma books using my iPhone.

These moments are not appropriate for sitting or walking meditation , so I follow "daily life" instructions can be found here http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/how-to-meditate/chapter-six-daily-life

But when I try to make a clear thought "reading" while reading I find it interfere with reading . How should I use clear thoughts to be mindful when reading ?

Yesterday I have answered a question similar to yours where i write about being mindful when studying/reading with basis in the Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition. There are also references to books and videos by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw and Ven. Yuttadhammo.

You can find it here. Maybe it might be of some help to you.

Lanka