How do mahayana Buddhist sutras describe a realized bodhisattvas? My question is how do the Mahayana sutras describe the behavioral characteristics of a realized bodhisattva? How does he behave? For example an Arahant is described as having “characteristics that please the noble ones”. Or something like that. Is there something similar in mahayana Buddhist sutras?

From Vimalakirti Sutra:

  At that time, there lived in the great city of Vaisali a certain Licchavi, Vimalakirti by name. Having served the ancient Buddhas, he had generated the roots of virtue by honoring them and making offerings to them. He had attained tolerance as well as eloquence. He played with the great superknowledges. He had attained the power of incantations and the fearlessnesses. He had conquered all demons and opponents. He had penetrated the profound way of the Dharma. He was liberated through the transcendence of wisdom. Having integrated his realization with skill in liberative technique, he was expert in knowing the thoughts and actions of living beings. Knowing the strength or weakness of their faculties, and being gifted with unrivaled eloquence, he taught the Dharma appropriately to each. Having applied himself energetically to the Mahayana, he understood it and accomplished his tasks with great finesse. He lived with the deportment of a Buddha, and his superior intelligence was as wide as an ocean. He was praised, honored, and commended by all the Buddhas and was respected by Indra, Brahma, and all the Lokapalas. In order to develop living beings with his skill in liberative technique, he lived in the great city of Vaisali.

  His wealth was inexhaustible for the purpose of sustaining the poor and the helpless. He observed a pure morality in order to protect the immoral. He maintained tolerance and self-control in order to reconcile beings who were angry, cruel, violent, and brutal. He blazed with energy in order to inspire people who were lazy. He maintained concentration, mindfulness, and meditation in order to sustain the mentally troubled. He attained decisive wisdom in order to sustain the foolish.

  He wore the white clothes of the layman, yet lived impeccably like a religious devotee. He lived at home, but remained aloof from the realm of desire, the realm of pure matter, and the immaterial realm. He had a son, a wife, and female attendants, yet always maintained continence. He appeared to be surrounded by servants, yet lived in solitude. He appeared to be adorned with ornaments, yet always was endowed with the auspicious signs and marks. He seemed to eat and drink, yet always took nourishment from the taste of meditation. He made his appearance at the fields of sports and in the casinos, but his aim was always to mature those people who were attached to games and gambling. He visited the fashionable heterodox teachers, yet always kept unswerving loyalty to the Buddha. He understood the mundane and transcendental sciences and esoteric practices, yet always took pleasure in the delights of the Dharma. He mixed in all crowds, yet was respected as foremost of all.

  In order to be in harmony with people, he associated with elders, with those of middle age, and with the young, yet always spoke in harmony with the Dharma. He engaged in all sorts of businesses, yet had no interest in profit or possessions. To train living beings, he would appear at crossroads and on street corners, and to protect them he participated in government. To turn people away from the Hinayana and to engage them in the Mahayana, he appeared among listeners and teachers of the Dharma. To develop children, he visited all the schools. To demonstrate the evils of desire, he even entered the brothels. To establish drunkards in correct mindfulness, he entered all the cabarets.

  He was honored as the businessman among businessmen because he demonstrated the priority of the Dharma. He was honored as the landlord among landlords because he renounced the aggressiveness of ownership. He was honored as the warrior among warriors because he cultivated endurance, determination, and fortitude. He was honored as the aristocrat among aristocrats because he suppressed pride, vanity, and arrogance. He was honored as the official among officials because he regulated the functions of government according to the Dharma. He was honored as the prince of princes because he reversed their attachment to royal pleasures and sovereign power. He was honored as a eunuch in the royal harem because he taught the young ladies according to the Dharma.

  He was compatible with ordinary people because he appreciated the excellence of ordinary merits. He was honored as the Indra among Indras because he showed them the temporality of their lordship. He was honored as the Brahma among Brahmas because he showed them the special excellence of gnosis. He was honored as the Lokapala among Lokapalas because he fostered the development of all living beings.

  Thus lived the Licchavi Vimalakirti in the great city of Vaisali, endowed with an infinite knowledge of skill in liberative techniques.


How do Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maitreya's prophecy? How do Mayahana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maiterya's prophecy?

I know for a fact that some e.g. son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi, and that some Vajrayana monks have taught Buddhahood in this very body.

But if Maitreya is the next Buddha, how can that be, given he's still not arrived, and is in the tusita heaven? Are there different kinds of perfect enlightenment, and the above realisations are in some way lesser (or more?) than Maiterya's?

I think your question embedded two questions and should be dealt separately to give clear answer: a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya? b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya?
The answer for a) is very simple, almost needn't answer; Maitreya is the only next Buddha to come, it will take long long long time, 5.6 billion years according to one saying.
(i) Mahayana Buddhists (Chinese tradition) held there is only one future Buddha to come after Shakyamuni, that is, Maitreya. Though Mahayana has Sutra recounting the total of these 1000 Buddhas in this Noble Kalpa. All those enlightened, highest accomplished Bhiksus, Buddhists, even exhibiting supernormal abilities, are just achieving the Bodhisattva Bhumis accordingly. One Bhiksu achieved Bhumi level 8th, well-known said to be Ch'an Master Puan (1115-1169CE). There's no English info yet for him, English info has very tiny of the Chinese tradition. He belonged to the Lin Ji Zong (Rinzai) lineage, the 13th. For achieving 8th Bhumi, that Bodhisattva has penetrated the mystery of Dharani therefore is able to cite his own Mantra. Traditionally monastery will chant this Mantra during month of cleansing, to drive away bugs and insects, called Puan Mantra. He also made it as the Guqin melody. There is another Bhiksu called Zhigong (418-514CE), also achieved very high Bhumi surpassing material constrains but it's almost a standard practice for this type that he acted like a mad monk to conceal his identity (a Bodhisattva with advance Bhumi) in order to not to cause disturbance to society; or like Monk Budai (ceased 917CE), all these superior Buddhists will not make claim to the ordinary people who they are, not to say claiming as a Buddha, that's the Chinese tradition.
(ii) To be a Samyaksambuddha (achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi) one must receive mark (授記) from previous Samyaksambuddha. Then there will be many many lives spent as Bodhisattva. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, he received the mark from Buddha Dīpankara. The Theravadin's interpretation of Samyaksambuddha is incorrect, at least I read from this forum. Their interpretation mixed it the same as a Pratyekabuddha. Saying it meant self-awaken is not correct, for Buddha always learns from previous Buddhas - so are we here learning as well, Buddha has teachers; also self-awaken is not a sufficient factor, he must be marked by the previous Sam. Buddha he will be another Sam. Buddha. This is another reason why Lotus Sutra must exist and completely making sense. On the contrary, those traditions missing this Sutra or the like is missing out very important teachings - traditions with incomplete teachings. Yet those who attack the Lotus Sutra, either they held hidden agenda, or needed illumination.
(iii) Due to the above understanding, anyone claimed to be a Buddha, a living Buddha, a reincarnation of a Buddha, a next Buddha, demonstrating supernormal abilities to elicit followers, a Maitreya herein, a Maitreya to be... etc. they are fraudulent. Yet there're not lack of examples throughout history.
b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
This was my puzzle too, when I just began my learning. I would have to declare that since I'm not following the Vajrayana tradition although I appreciate certain teachings found values in them also many historical great masters held my respect to, my answer should be regarded solely as personal opinion, derived from materials I studied only.
(i) I would sum up your referring only to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Zhügu (Living-Buddha, Tulku, reincarnation of a master) tradition. While I think it's possible the Buddhas could manifest their Nirmānakāya(s), but too many of those claims how many of them are real?
(ii) For Tibetan Buddhism, the undeniable fact is, that their religion and politics interwoven, hence, social status needed to establish for politican-monk. Historically, there're major schisms between the traditional Bon and Buddhism, and their merging and interfering. Very little is talked about, that during Tang Dynasty, Princess Wénchéng (628?-640CE) was granted to King Songtsän Gampo of Tibet, she took with her Bhiksus and Daoists, and scrolls1 of both schools. One of the Buddha Shakyamuni statues in Tibet today is reputedly said to be bought by her there. Also marked beginning the flourishing of Tibetan Buddhism; though there were Bhiksus coming directly from India before or after. From what I studied, Maitreya Buddha is not often focused, while Padmasambhava (?700?CE) was worshiped and also regarded the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. Padmasambhava appeared appro. 100 years after Wencheng's time, teaching Tantra, during the reign of Trisong Detsen (742-797CE). All these... serve quite a sound background and motive for claiming of reincarnation/continuation of certain established power player.
(iii) From here on, the emphasis of achieving Buddha-hood differs. Tibetan emphasizes on achieving Buddha-hood in one life-time, or maximum 7 lives, by practicing Tantra Yoga, with cultivation of merits/ Bodhicitta (Bodhicitta has many meanings too, not just about cultivation of the heart). One of the key methods is by "yoga-ing" (synchronizing) with the Guru, or the Yidam, so that one could acquire the same attributes of the Guru/Yidam, or the Guru can transfer his own achievement directly to the student... I'm still puzzling about how to discern these teachings, though I glean many useful knowledge from them. Up to this moment, I found that many of the evolved teachings (purely my own opinion) can be traced back to the (Chinese Mahayana2) Sutras, yet it's evolved, see? Just like many ignorant critics criticizing the Brahma Net Sutra of promoting self-immolation advocating burning oneself's fingers, body etc... even in the Chinese Buddhist community, they thought this so-called burning is a burning by the fire! Yet the disconnected interpretation could result in evolved teaching.
As in this case, one put aside the Maitreya prophecy, instead acknowledged there the Zhugu/Living-Buddha.

Footnotes:
1. Scrolls in Chinese would be needed to translate into Tibetan, I assumed, hence evolved teaching from disconnected interpretation during translation. Example, when studying the Madhyamaka, since most of the English translations are based on Tibetan version, or so-called Sanskrit version, many of the analogies were incomplete/nonsensical, almost illegible, indicated these not only the translators' problem, could also be in the source texts. Yet such problem doesn't exist in the Chinese version of Kumarajiva's. Hence, it's logical to infer that the Tibetan is translated from Chinese, or Sankrit translated from Chinese then to Tibetan. Anyhow, the surviving versions Chinese is the oldest.
2. The translation of Sutras from Sanskrit (it's a generalized term since the ancient Chinese regarded all those such as Prakrit, Siddham... etc in one major group, called 梵語/Brahma Language) to Chinese was the most professional and under strictest rules, with large league often composed by more than 3000 Bhiksus/intellectuals, leading by great translators, such as Kumarajiva, Xuanzhang, Paramārtha3... etc. Since the Chinese language has highly modular capacity many Buddhist etymologies were created, that not only authentically transmitted the meaning, also enriched the Chinese vocabulary. Famous examples like: Tathagata = 如來, 12 Nidanas = 12 因緣, Vijnana = 識, Citta = 心... etc.
3. There is misleading writing in Wikipedia on Mahāsāṃghika4 quoting Paramartha said about how the Mahayana Sutras came about, that is completely a fabrication hidden under unknown agenda. What Paramartha left are just Sutras/Sastras translated, there's no record of his direct own words, how possible that Wikipedia amateur author is able to quot something that doesn't exist? Nevertheless, there is huge effort behind certain entity to promote what so-called Early Buddhism and sticking on Mahayana many different hats.
4. General accepted account of the schism in the 2nd Buddhist Council was initiated by the Elders who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya. The sect who were the majority kept the original Vinaya without altering it since the Buddha's passing away was Mahāsāṃghika, school carried Mahayana teachings.


How does one practice suffering well? Correct me if I'm wrong, I understand a lot of buddhism is about relieving of suffering through practicing of detachment. Removing detachment is a long process. Until one removes those attachments, there will still be suffering.

My question is: until one removes all of these attachments, one will suffer. How does one deal with these sufferings? Should one try to escape these sufferings in the moment? How does one suffer "well"? And not try to escape the sufferings?

One will not get ride of suffering by simply trying to ignore or oppress. Attachment has craving as its cause and craving has ignorance as its cause. So one needs to gain insight, how things really are. To gain that, one does well to learn about the teachings of the Lord Buddha and then look for one self, if this is right, as well as to practice the way to clean the mind, so that it is able to concentrate it so that one is able to see.

What ever one sees, as it really is, inconstant, stressful, subject to change, one gets, disenchanted. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.

It's not possible to escape form suffering by developing such what is called "householder-equanimity" and suffering is actually a yogis friend, which does not mean that one tutors one self, but observer it and in this way one finds a way out without simply counteract in an unwholesome way, Mr Jason.

The practice start with things many estimate as child work, now most are not even able to make this there way of live, like practice generosity (giving, letting go material thing), Sila (virtue)... the whole palette of meritorious deeds. There one is confronted with all his/here raw defilement of greed, dislike, stinginess, conceit. One has to work against the defilements all the time, while observing them well.

So please do not fall in the current promoted misinterpretations of non-reacting and simply developing a bunch of ignorance, calling it equanimity.

Last but not least, Atma likes "How does one practice suffering?" how ever, although it most important to know it well in all its aspects, its good not to forget to develop the path out of it as well.

Each noble truth has its certain task.

A good place to begin, actually has been always the first step is to follow good basic talks:

Better to Give than to Consume
Sensitivity through Generosity

And put this things into practice. Joy and pleasure are granted, as well as much suffering at the beginning with it.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Why would anyone ever want to go to the heavens? References to a rebirth in the heavenly realms seems to be viewed in a positive light in Buddhism. It's easy to see why it would be considered more favorable than a rebirth in the hell realms of course. But my understanding is that beings in heaven don't practice the dhamma as there is no suffering to create conditions for them to seek the cessation of suffering, so they will not become enlightened there. Is there something positive that comes of a rebirth in the heavens other than a temporary respite from suffering? I realize we don't get to choose our rebirths, but I would like to know if heaven is considered to be a truly beneficial place and if so, why? Thank you.

There is suffering in heaven. They still have to eat to maintain their bodies. They feel frightened when they get to know that their lives are running out. I've heard that there's a divine tree with flowers in the palaces of the Devas. When an year of their world comes to completion, a flower will wither and fall down. That is how they know that they are ageing. When they see this, they get upset and worried. Then they come to human world to acquire fresh merits. Also, their radiance diminishes as they age. When they are about to die, the flower garlands around their necks wither and they start to sweat as well. It is also said that they can perish if they get angry or forget to eat because they are too caught up with other pleasures.

Yes, there are greater distractions to the path in heavens due to the extreme sensual pleasures, but there are Devas and Brahmas who spend their time meditating. Especially the ones who have attained Magga Phala. Also, in the suttas we hear about many Devas and Brahmas attaining enlightenment after listening to the Buddha's sermons. Ex: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Anatta Lakkhana Sutta etc.

Here are some of the advantages of being a Deva or a Brahma with regards to practicing the Dhamma

They are born in full form with palaces and all the other requirements. They are not clumsy like humans at birth. So they don't need to spend a childhood orienting themselves to the world, studying and acquiring skills to make money just to get food, clothes and lodging. That saves a lot of time.
They don't get sick. It can be difficult to meditate if you get sick often.
They don't have bodily discomfort. So they can sit in one position for a long time. This is actually more useful if you do Samatha first and then turn it to Vipassana.
They don't have to take bath or cleanup as divine food has no excrements. So while meditations like Patikulamanasikara won't work in heavens, it saves time for other meditations.
Their life spans are huge. So once they learn a meditation technique, they can keep practicing it without having to learn it all over again.
They don't get angry easily, so they can possibly attain concentration faster, if they seclude themselves (helpful for samatha pubbangama vipassana).
They possibly get to meet other Devas and Brahmas who have directly heard the Dhamma from the Buddha. The Abhidhamma was fully preached at Tavatimsa heaven. So there are Devas and Brahmas who have heard the comprehensive version. We humans only have the summarized version.
The higher chance of meeting enlightened beings in heaven compared to human world nowadays.
The ability to read the minds can help them recognize enlightened beings easily. The divine eyes and the divine ears can be used to listen to all the sermons of the Buddha even from the palace.
The chance to hear the Dhamma from several Buddhas

Also, bear in mind that suffering in the first noble truth doesn't just mean pain. A pleasurable experience is also an instance of suffering as it is subjected to change and death.


Does Theravada posit the selflessness of phenomena? It is generally taught in Mahayana monastic universities that Theravada does not posit the selflessness of phenomena. There it is taught a dichotomy exists between the tenet systems employed by various Buddhist traditions:

The selflessness of persons
The selflessness of phenomena

In Mahayana texts it is often said that the self of persons and the self of phenomena comprise the "two selves" that are refuted. It is said that Theravada only posits and thus refutes the self of persons.

This is a commentary on a textbook used in Buddhist monastic universities in India/Tibet written by a Geshe Lharampa:

  For the, "Vaibashika school, there are 3 divisions and 18 subschools,
  one of which is the Theravadan school)"

  ...

  Selflessness of phenomena is not asserted because the Vaibashikas
  assert that an established base is pervaded by self of phenomena i.e.
  even though the V assert selflessness of person, they do not assert
  the selflessness of phenomena.

  Within existence, there are two aspects – person and phenomena. When
  one talks about selflessness of person, one is referring to the
  concept of “I”. When one talks about the selflessness of phenomena,
  one is referring to one’s 5 aggregates, all outer objects and
  everything other than concept of “I”. The V school doesn’t assert the
  selflessness of phenomena because they hold the view that phenomena is
  truly existent from its own side.

Emphasis in the original. The point I think is that a dichotomy is made between persons and external objects. The former is said to lack a self, but external objects are considered to be real or truly existent. Some Mahayana tenet systems say the latter also are unreal and not truly existent.

What do self-identified Theravada proponents think of this? Is this how you'd characterize your school or you understanding? Do you identify with the Vaibashika school?

The Vaibashika school doesn’t assert the selflessness of phenomena
  because they hold the view that phenomena is truly existent from its
  own side.

In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply that:

The self (of persons) is not truly existent.
Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables)

Of course, there may be a lot of Theravadins out there who dispute my second statement above, and would assert that all non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side.

EDIT: Just to make it clearer:

All sankharas (conditioned and/or compounded things) are subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana is not subject to change, arising and passing. Both sankharas and nibbana are empty of a self. But this does not mean that sankharas and nibbana are not truly existent. The self is definitely an illusion, but the world, transient as it is, may not be an illusion. Whether the world is an illusion or not, is not important to the path to the end of suffering (according to Theravada, in my opinion).


Through the Processes of Jhana does it have a Permanent effect or temporary effect on your life Is Jhana like a meditative absorption state?  I've come across this term.

Is Jhana like a barrier, once broken, you go onto the next barrier, and so on and so on. Is this process a permanent effect on the mind or a temporary effect of the mind? Do you basically start over from stage 1 every time, does your body ever become accustomed to it, and do you have to constantly renew the Jhana over and over in order to progress?

"Jhana is like a meditative absorption state? I've come across this term."

"[Jhanas are] distinctive meditative states of high concentration in which the mind becomes unified. [...] Jhana is often referred to as an absorption state, since the mind in Jhana is so deeply concentrated that it 'absorbs' into the meditation object."
Richard Sankman, The Experience of Samadhi

Yes. Jhana also corresponds to "right concentration" (samma samadhi) in the eightfold path (see SN 45.8).
"Like a barrier once broken you go onto the next barrier an so on an so on."
Yes. There are multiple jhanas. The canon describes a sequence of 4 Jhanas followed by 4 more states (in later commentaries, they are known respectively as Rūpajhānas and Arūpajhānas). The commentarial tradition also expanded on the states that precede the first Jhana (e.g. access concentration).
"Is this process a permanent effect on the mind or a temporary effect of the mind, Do you basically start over from stage 1 every time [?]"
It may affect the mind in many ways, but one doesn't really stays permanently absorbed in Jhana during day-to-day. Reaching a certain Jhana may not necessarily require going through previous jhanas (though it is emphatically advised to perfectly master them in sequence and develop stability instead of trying to "jump around").
"does your body ever become accustomed to it [?]"
I'm not aware of any body related issues associated with Jhana.
"do you have to constantly renew the Jahana over an over in order to progress?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "renew", but just like any training that requires repeated practice, mastering jhanas also requires effort and training, specially to reach deeper Jhana states.


Why Lankavatara Sutra was replaced with Diamond Sutra by 5th patriarch? As far as I know, Lankavatara Sutra was held in high esteem by both Bodhidharma & his disciple Huiko to the extent both based their way of enlightenment on this Sutra. But what it is seen that 5th patriarch Hunjeng recommended his disciple Diamond Sutra. From there onwards, Diamond Sutra took the central position in Zen.

What was the reason for this gradual replacement of Lankavatara with Diamond Sutra?

Many of the early Chinese patriarchs and their works are partially or completely shrowded in mystery. For example, it was probably not Hui-Neng, but his disciple Fahai who recorded the teachings and dialogues of his master. The work most closesly associated with the 5th patriarch is the East_Mountain_Teaching, the first "really Chinese" collection of teachings not based on translations of Sanskrit texts.

The Diamond Sutra you are referring to is just a section of the works of Hongren and Hui-Neng, the latter is called the Platform Sutra, referring to the platform on which the master would sit during his discourses. The Platform Sutra actually contains discourses on the Diamond and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as many other Sutras. So does the East Mountain Teaching collection of the 4th and 5th Patriarch.

It's indeed true the popularity of the Lankavatara Sutra declined, but this evolution started long before Hongren and Hui-Neng. Early masters of the Chan tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra masters", as this is one of the texts that Bodhidharma supposedly brought with him from India. This sutra was probably written around 350 CE, but in China this is not the most copied edition. Two subsequent editions with many commentaries and additions were made between 500 CE and 700 in collective volumes called the Taisho Tripitaka. Scholars nowadays think that the Lavankatara Sutra declined in popularity because of certain chapters that were based on Theravada values, such as eating meat and the "Thrice Clean" practice.

The first Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra dates to the early 5th Century, but the version that supposedly caused Hui-Neng's enlightenment experience was brought to China in the 7th century by a monk called Xuanzang. Also consider that the printing press in China was invented in the first half of the 9th century. The oldest surviving printed text we actually have is a version of the Diamond Sutra from Dunhuang. This would certainly have been a major factor in its distribution and therefore its popularity.

So, in conlusion, the popularity of the Lavankatara Sutra in China was set in motion long before Hongren and Hui-Neng. The subsequent (heavily edited and commented) editions of this sutra were both created by imperial edict, which would have had considerably more influence on Chinese Buddhhism as a whole in stead of just the Chan school.


Social Media and Right Speech I seem to have a lot of consideration for others in person, but on social media -- where non-verbal cues are lacking -- I react more easily with irritation and impatience. Since such communication was not existent in the Buddha's time, I wonder:

Are there Buddhist tips or remedies specifically linked with such online types of communication? Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?

Thank you

The conditioning main component of speech is thinking and pondering.

  Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

So I believe regardless of if you speak it or write it the results are the same.

If you just think it and do not follow through with the communication then the effects will be less as this is purely mental karma. If one follows through, more people come in contact with what you have said and comprehends what has been said more the karma. E.g. if you lie and 2 people get deceived this is worse than 1 person. If you lie and nobody understands this is less bad than one person understanding what you said.

The guidelines would be the same for both online and non-online interactions, namely. abstaining

from lying,
from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, and
from idle chatter.

See: Sacca Vibhanga Sutta

For further guidelines see: Right Speech


How is a living being/lifeform defined in Buddhism? As asked in the question, what are the characteristics by which a thing is classified as 'living being' or 'non-living' ?

How is a lifeform defined in Buddhism, I mean, like how humans consider themselves as living beings due to various facts such as: their  experience in this world due to consciousness, their actions (kamma), etc.

If lifeform is defined as something that has consciousness and capable of producing kamma, what things are concious?

Is a plant a living being/conscious? Is a stone living being/conscious? Is the universe conscious? Is everything a lifeform in some way?

Is rebirth possible only as a lifeform? (I mean, by rebirth, just a transfer of consciousness/experience subject to different conditions. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Can our next rebirth be as a stone/whatever, other than the 5 predefined possibilities (human, god, ghost, animal, hell) in Buddhism?

I'd be glad if all the questions are addressed :)

Being can be classified as:

has 5 aggregates or at least the mental subset
has has Nama-Rupa if in the material realm or Nama in the non material realms
has at least mind in the 6 sense faculties
arisen through Dependent Origination (DO)
subjected to the the 4 Noble Truths (4NT)
out of the 6 elements at least has consciousness
has Citta and Cetasika and in the material realms rupa
nourished and sustained by the 4 nutriments

A plant also lives but is not a being as it does not meet the above. It does not have a mind (henceforth Citta and Cetasika doe not arise) or consciousness, not subjected DO or 4NT. Plants also need nutrients but not the 4 nutrients which sustain a being.

A being is born another being in one of the 31 planes of existence or becomes extinguished if you attain Nibbana. An animate being cannot become an inanimate object like a stone.

Perhaps a way to access if a something is alive is through birth, aging and death along with the above factors. Something that is born ages and dies. Plants also does the same so they are alive but not beings.


How does a Buddhist care for others' suffering? Please forgive me, I know really little about buddhism. From what I heard, the Buddhist will try to find relief from suffering by meditation and trying to be selfless. But what about others that are suffering? Does the Buddhist value more attaining enlightenment for himself or helping others in need? Also what if others do not have the skills to practice to go towards enlightenment? Is the Buddhist concerned?
I'd like to understand more the relationship between the Buddhist and the suffering of other people.

When a person is sick, due to knowing they are sick, they act to visit a doctor. To be a doctor, a person must study medicine at university for at least 5 years, before they can help sick people.

Similarly, a person who is suffering must, via their own initiative, seek out a solution. Similarly, to be a Buddhist that can help others end suffering, a person must train for enlightenment.

An enlightened Buddhist makes themselves available to help others. However, others must learn to help themselves by following the advice of Buddhism.


What Buddhist materials explain how to understand one's irrational feelings? There is some person in my life and whenever I see his or her photo, or something related to him or her (e. g. reminder of the place he or she lives), I experience strong feelings.

They are totally irrational (I haven't been in contact with this person for years, I live thousands of kilometers apart from him or her) and I don't understand them (when you don't see a person for a long time, you tend to forget him or her, but I don't). No psychological technique I tried (all kind of NLP stuff, EMDR, meditations, relaxation tapes, long walks, sex, talking with lots of nice people, hard work and whatnot) didn't help me understand and get rid of those feelings.

Whenever I think I've forgotten him or her, I get a reminder from the outside world (someone mentions something related to him or her, or a there is a billboard with a message related to him or her, or I hear a piece of music from his or her region in the radio etc.).

Basically, I need to figure out whether

I should do something with or about this person or
just forget him or her.

What publicly available Buddhist teachnings can I read in order to learn in order to sort out these feelings (begin to understand their nature) on my own ?

Notes:

I don't want to discuss what kind of feelings they are. I just need a manual, which I can apply and do it myself.
Going to a group, or talking to a psychologist or guru aren't viable options because according to my experience 99.9 % of advice you get from other people on important matters is wrong (in the past such advice caused more harm than good).

According to Buddhist dependent origination, depending on contact feeling arise, depending on feeling craving arise, depending on craving clinging arise, etc...

The feelings that arise is a result of past conditioning and when there is contact the past feeling that was conditioned arise, be that attachment, revulsion or neutral feeling. The practice to recondition how we look at a person, others and ourself included, is the 32 parts of the body practice of which the link is one example.
Google for ways to practice the 32 parts of the body.


Why is Buddhism followed mainly outside of India when it originated there? India is the original land of Buddhism, but it is followed/practiced more outside its country of birth. Are there any reasons for this?

India (the modern country) didn't exist when the Buddha was born.
The Buddha was born near modern-day Northern India or Nepal.
Wikipedia's Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent says,

[This] refers to a gradual process of dwindling and replacement of Buddhism in India, which ended around the 12th century. According to Lars Fogelin, this was "not a singular event, with a singular cause; it was a centuries-long process."
The decline of Buddhism has been attributed to various factors, especially the regionalisation of India after the end of the Gupta Empire (320–650 CE), which led to the loss of patronage and donations as Indian dynasties turned to the services of Hindu Brahmins. Another factor were invasions of north India by various groups such as Huns, Turco-mongols and Persians and subsequent destruction of Buddhist institutions such as Nalanda and religious persecutions. Religious competition with Hinduism and later Islam were also important factors.

This History of the Delhi Sultanates says,

Between 1160 and 1187, Muhammad al-Ghuri conquered the Ghaznavid Empire; he continued to expand his territory, and in 1192 he razed the Buddhist temple complex at Nalanda to the ground, in effect terminating the history of Buddhism in India.

It references a student's paper on the The History of Persecution of the Buddhist Faith, which includes,

Among the destroyed temples, 2/3 were Buddhists, and this was critical to Buddhism's ability to remain as a formal religion because they had already lost all but a few institutions in Nalanda, Odantapuri, and Vikramasila, over the previous centuries. (20)
The Nalanda University, a great Buddhist center of learning, was raided by Turkic Muslim invaders under Bakhtiyar Khalji, a general of the Turkish commander Qutb-ud-din Aybak, in 1193. He committed documented executions, harassed and tortured erudite monks, killing 15,000 scholars and 200 faculty of the University. (21) The campus and invaluable works of art including the images of the Buddha were destroyed and the enormous manuscript library of the University was burned down. He also destroyed the monastries in Vikramshila, which were in modern Bihar, as well as many monastries in Odantapuri in 1197. As he persecuted Buddhism, he supported Muslim missionaries and made the biggest number of converts to Islam under his reign. (22) By the end of the 12th century, many Buddhist monks retreated to Nepal, Sikkim, Tibet and Southern India. (23)
Persecution of Buddhism was accelerated in this period by Brahmin revivalists who kicked the Buddhist monks out of Buddhist monasteries and temples in order to transform the places into Hindu institutions; they were seeking protection from Muslim invasions by facilitating the installation of Brahmin gods. (24) No less than 1000 Buddhist temples were appropriated by Hindus, etc.

The (numbers) in the quote above are references to various history books etc.
There's a Wikipedia article (whose neutrality is currently disputed) titled Persecution of Buddhists which includes,

In 1200 Muhammad Khilji, one of Qutb-ud-Din's generals destroyed monasteries fortified by the Sena armies, such as the one at Vikramshila. Many monuments of ancient Indian civilization were destroyed by the invading armies, including Buddhist sanctuaries[45] near Benares. Buddhist monks who escaped the massacre fled to Nepal, Tibet and South India.[46]

... and continues in a similar way.
Perhaps these are the reasons: i.e. they're historical reasons.
It might seem as if it would be interesting to try to answer this question by discussing 'motive' (e.g. "why would people prefer to be Hindu than to be Buddhist"), comparative religious views (e.g. about 'just war'; and about how well the religion is integrated into the broader society at large), and comparative values (which religion is more useful, more attractive, more true) but I expect that would be subjective opinion, off-topic and unhelpful.

I'd also mention this answer to the question, Were Buddhists murdered en masse during the first Muslim conquest of India?
It references a thesis which says that Buddhism declined (not especially violently) during the 200 years or so following the first Muslim invasion -- i.e. in the 8th century AD -- mostly because urban merchants (who previously supported Buddhist monks) converted to Islam for various reasons; whereas the more-Hindu farmers were relatively unaffected.


Body scan guided meditation that covers only the upper body? I'm not certain if this is the right place to ask this question so let me know if I need to try a different forum.
Does anyone know of a guided body scan that only covers the upper body? My partner is paraplegic and is trying meditation for the first time. It could be really good for her. But the first words were "feel your feet on the floor". She tried to stick with it, but it was just too much. I know meditation sometimes means you sit with discomfort, but that is way too much pain and way too early in her trying meditation.
So, if anybody knows of such a body scan from the waist up - please let me know.
Also
Many thanks,
Kim

Just modify the instructions accordingly. A proper body scan just involves probing and examining the kinaesthetic response from every cell your body, not just the skin, but internal organs and everything in between. You don't have to start with the feet or the head, you can start wherever you feel like, can stay as long as you want. But the more you can pervade your awareness to every cell in the body, the better results you're going to get in your meditation practice. The longer you work at it, years and decades, if you're serious about your practice and dedicate several hours a day to it, energy channels will open up and it will feel like you can sense every cell in body, even all of them simultaneously.


If physical action causes reaction, doesn't mental action cause reaction too? For example, Newton's third law is that if a body acts another body, so the other body reacts to the acting body.

Now consider a mental action, for example one person who loves another person: that action doesn't always cause a reaction, the other person doesn't love a person who loves.

Is not the law of action and reaction, of cause and effect, also true for mental actions as it is for physical actions?

Is Newton's action- reaction law true for only on the body? Isn't it true for our mind?

In relation to kamma the physical universe has a tendency to balance itselt out towards the zero-state. The various conservation laws can be an example of that. Take for example the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you alter one of the vectors the others vectors will "react" and change in accordance in order to maintain the zero-state.

The most common example used is the ice skating figure doing a pirouette. Here the skater begins with arms stretched out and thereby having a large moment of inertia. Then the skater pulls the arms closer to the body and thereby decreasing the moment of inertia. In order to conserve the angular momentum something else has to change and that is the angular rotational component.

In the same way when we commit actions by body, speech or mind there will be an reaction. Like when disturbing the universe it will wobble a bit and then balance itself out again.

When that is said i do not think that your question is really about buddhism and it maybe better to ask the question on Physics SE since you will probably get a better answer there.

When answering your question i tried to make the reaction-mechanism of our actions a bit clearer by making a comparison between the physical universe and kamma (i do not know if such a comparison is valid and this one is merely for the sake of understanding the mechanism). In buddhism we call that cause and effect as its also been mentioned previously in this thread.

Lanka


Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire? It looks like a loop. We know desires cause us suffering, however the desire to abandon desire looks like a desire too, right?

I'm sure there is a trick, something to explain why it is different, so... who can help?

Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

Yes, it is. A wholesome one that ends when you reach the 'park':

  ...
  "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one
  with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by
  means of desire."

  "In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as
  you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire,
  thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park,
  wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence
  allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent
  allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go
  to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
  particular act of discrimination allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has
  reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the
  true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is
  released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an
  endless path, or one with an end?"

  "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an
  endless one."
  ...
  -SN 51.15, To Unnabha the Brahman

You might also want to read AN 4.159 which also touches on this theme and is an interesting read.


If sex is prohibited, how do we survive? Sex can lead us to suffering in many ways; however, if all of us are just like Lord Buddha according to his story, wouldn't humanity become extinct?

Sex is prohibited for monks and nuns

If you are not observing higher precept like 8 or 10 precepts sex is not prohibited for lay person. Lay person has only to adhere to 5 Precepts. This prohibits wrongful sexual acts, i.e., sex with someone under another's protection... and other acts.

As you said sex is craving and can lead to suffering. But not very body or householder is in the stage to eradicate higher stages of craving for sensual pleasure than the rudimentary level which might lead to misconduct. At the basic level this is what is required. As you progress in the path you have to remove sexual urge.

Also Vipassana Meditation can help reduce sexual urge. There are Samatha techniques also but if you take the insight root you kill 2 birds with one stone. You can try http://dhamma.org or http://internationalmeditationcentre.org which has centres in many cities and faily large outreach.

You loose complete sensual desire is when you become a non-returner where by you eliminate the fetter of sexual desire. If you take human world number of being achieving this state is small. Hence there is no risk of extinction. Also a stream enter will have lust and a lay follower may engage in sex as long as it is lawful (a stream enter does not engage in sexual misconduct).


If a snake is eating a frog in front of me, what should I do? I always wondered what should I do according to buddhism in a situation like that. Obviously I have two options.

Hit the snake and save the frogs' life.
Just keep watching without doing anything.

Can someone explain this

Don't hit snake, but better we understand it's the nature. We cannot get snakes to eat non-veg. We can't change the nature of the world.

Animal world is described as one of 4 hells in Buddhism. Their Karma stance causes them to born in different worlds. The most eligible karma they have done in their sansara (chain of lives birth, live, die) will bring their life events to them.

Also If we kill the snake, we get it on our Karma account. Karma is like a chain which keep our lives continuing through sansara.

Please refer http://justbegood.net/MoreQuestions.htm for better understanding of Karma and their consequences.


About kamathanha during vipassana When kamathanha disappears  during meditation ?is it during sotapanna state or sakadagami state?

Kamathanha is subdued(temporarily) when you attain any Jhana(Dyana). Kamathanha is weakened(permanently) when you attain Sakadagami. Kamathanha is eradicated(permanently) when you attain Anagami.


What is storehouse consciousness? I've been reading Peter Harvey's Introduction the Buddhism and I've come across the concept of storehouse consciousness. It's in relation to Yogācāra and Chan Buddhism - originally with Yogācāra. It contains karmic seeds (not sure what they are to be fair). Can anyone give me an explanation of this concept. At the moment it seems to me to be some sort of real existence that underpins reality but I'm sure that's not it.

I appreciate that there is an explanation on wikipedia about it but I'm not finding that hugely illuminating.

Shinshu Buddhism also refers to this
http://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.com/2011/12/alaya-storehouse-consciousness-and.html

  The alaya consciousness or storehouse consciousness is the place where
  all the actions and experiences in this life and the previous lives
  generated by the seven consciousnesses are stored as karma, being the
  only consciousness which comes along with every birth. This
  consciousness influences at the same time the workings of the other
  seven consciousnesses.

  We take this alaya consciousness with us in all our births in the
  various realms of existence. It contains the seeds of various types of
  karma, and it is the storehouse of the habitual evil karmic tendencies
  that we have cultivated for eons. Because of the karmic seeds
  contained in the alaya consciousness one may die a premature death, be
  stricken with unexpected disease or inexplicable misfortune, overcome
  by strong desires, aversions and obsessions, can think and do things
  that one should never even imagine, etc. So strong is the influence of
  the alaya consciousness. .. When Shinran is recorded as saying in
  chapter 13th of Tannisho: “a person may not wish to harm anyone and
  yet end up killing a hundred or a thousand people”, he is in fact
  referring to the influence of past karma contained in the alaya
  consciousness.

  Blockquote

So this storehouse consciousness sounds like the karma dump or receptacle where all the seeds of previous intentions and actions reside. It sounds like just a different way of categorizing one of the basic principals of karma and the seeds that generate more illusory experiences. It is only creating a category for where the karma remains until it manifests.

THere is further info that might be useful further down on the page of the link above.

Hope this helps some.


Detachment : What are we really parting from? I was thinking about detachment today and this thought occurred in my mind...

We like what we see,hear,touch,smell,taste & think. This liking turns into attachment over time and this is the attachment we talk about when we say "Detachment".

And we say that one who practice the path should part from these worldly temptations and he should try to realize and part from those binds.

But what are we truly attached to,i mean when we say attachment we commonly blame the things that we think are tasty,nice,comforting,satisfying and etc.
But when i thought of this i felt that we are not attached to the source of these attachments.

The way i see it we are attached to the attachment, let me simplify...

  I think we are not directly attached to the taste of chocolate, i feel
  we are actually attached to the attachment that we once made when we
  tasted it for the first time. I think we are keeping that in mind and
  when we see chocolate again the older attachment comes and we gladly
  accept chocolate because we want what we once felt, i think this is
  why we always compare our meals even though we do not have a clue what
  we are comparing it with. As the taste of chocolate makes us live that
  moment again we love chocolate, because it is the source of that
  feeling that we hold dear.

After thinking this i felt that i should focus on what is the true source of attachment,
is it taste of chocolate or the fact i once loved the taste of chocolate? which one am i truly attached to,
is it a moment that i had which i want to live again and again or is it just plain taste?

Attachment (and the other things you mention) are described among the Twelve Nidānas.

For example chocolate exists as:

Name ("chocolate") and Form (the form of chocolate)
Sensuality (sight, taste, touch, smell, idea)
Contact (between our consciousness, our senses, and chocolate's form)
Desire
Attachment
Memories

You're right if you're saying that the specific/single answer is difficult to discern. I think that's because:

Attachment isn't to a single thing
Attachment doesn't have a single cause

When I say "not a single thing" I mean that chocolate exists as name, form, sensual contact, mindfulness (or the lack of it), sensual desire, memory and other fabrications; it's not a single thing.

When I say "doesn't have a single cause" I mean that attachment depends on a lot of conditions: sensuality, desire, form, contact, and fabrication.

Instead of "single cause" I think it's better to understand it as "dependent co-arising" ... e.g. "attachment to chocolate arises with (sensuality, desire, memory, etc.)".

It might be better to see the whole chain as a single system rather than as separate bits.

Your question is a bit like asking, "What is the 'chariot' exactly? Is it the wheels, the yoke, the thing it carries, or its destination?" To understand it correctly, it's kind of all of these.

So perhaps you can discern attachment as an active component within the whole: e.g. it's something which affects the 'way' in which people travel.

Also if I look at some of the various definitions of Kleshas (defilements) then sometimes it's listed and sometimes it's not. If the list is detailed then it's a 'separate thing', if it's a shorter list then I think it's just included (presumably along with Taṇhā/craving) in the category of Lobha/desire.


How to reveal truth about a liar or a person who is trying to deceive others? If someone is intentionally deceiving someone else and if I am aware of it, if I inform the innocent person in this matter, would that be against five precepts?

Show sympathy for the liar, he is in more trouble than his victims.Sacrifice yourself to him with all the help you can but show no anger show him something he has never seen before hospitality and forgiveness.


What is the best introductory (but comprehensive) book on SECULAR Buddhism? There is already a question on the best overall books, but many readers/newcomers may be put off (as I have been) by books that discuss for instance rebirth and karma in a literal sense.

So what is the best introductory (but still comprehensive) book on Buddhism as a way of life?

In my opinion, 'Secular Buddhism' can be problematic since often adherents to this new group (such as Stephen Batchelor, who believes purity of mind is not possible) often misrepresent the Buddhist teachings due to no aspiration to practise Buddhism at a high level. They are like Protestant Christians that seek to modify the Buddhist teachings to suit themselves.

While there is nothing wrong with not believing in post-mortem rebirth, there is an understanding of karma & 'rebirth' that does not involve believing in an afterlife. To write-off 'karmic inheritance' is not particularly wise since there is such thing as karmic inheritance (such as when a murderer ends up in prison for their actions).

I would recommend books by monks such as Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, etc, because these demonstrate both a proper understanding of Buddhism & the 'here-&-now' approach you are interested in.

It is important to understand the Buddha himself taught his teachings are about the 'here-&-now', what in Pali is called: "Sanditthiko, Akaliko, Ehipassiko, Opanayiko and Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi". Therefore, being 'secular' is not contrary to the true Buddhist teachings.

However, if you are interested in a 'watered-down' Buddhism that may help you with ordinary life then 'Secular Buddhism' might be suitable.

I personally would recommend the following books if you want to learn about true Buddhism while not interested in 'post-mortem' rebirth & other unverifiable belief systems:

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Buddhadassa_Bhikkhu_Buddha_Dhamma_for_University_Students.pdf

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn_Sumedho_Cittaviveka.htm

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf

more books by these authors are here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/

You are also welcome to read my posts or ask me questions on this chatsite since these are always 'secular'. There is a here-&-now interpretation for the majority of the vast teachings attributable to the Buddha, including those about 'rebirth'.


Consciousness - "Facets of One Entity" I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are created by itself?
Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?
Could liberation be the realisation of this?

I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in
itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from
this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are
created by itself?

No. There is no ONE entity.

Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?

Consciousness is Anatta. It is not me , mine or myself. Neither is it somebody else's consciousness.


Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta I understand that Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one with everything but that we are under an illusion that we are separate and through enlightenment we can realise the truth.
Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self' but that we are under the illusion that there is one because we are too distracted to see that what we call self is nothing more than a bunch of impermanent processes i.e. the 5 skandhas.
I have issues with both beliefs.

With Advaita it doesnt matter how many Rupert Spira videos I watch I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain. Unless some penny drops and I finally get it somehow, my view won't change any time soon. Sure there is the sense of an observer when we sit and watch the thoughts etc but there is no proof that this is an 'eternal self' and not just some process of the brain being able think about thought.

With Buddhism I have begun to grasp the concept of Annatta because it kind of makes sense that all these different things are arising and passing however I have failed to hear any clear explanation about rebirth.  If there is no self then what is it that is reborn?  I know this question has been asked a zillion times but all I ever hear from Buddhists is that lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing.  If this illusion of self is not what gets reborn therefore I will not even remember my past life then why does it even matter at all? Also what do Buddhists believe about the observer of experience? They teach to sit and observe what is going on internally so what do they believe is observing? Nothing? Nothing is observing something?  The Advaita school of thought say that Buddhists are overlooking the truth. That the reason they think there is no self is because the self cannot look at itself just as eyes cannot look at themselves.

'Re-birth' is merely the re-arising of the 'self-belief' or 'self-concept' (in this life). To quote:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form, feeling, perception, thought fabrication &/or consciousness to be a 'self'. That assumption is a thought fabrication. Now
  what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that thought fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That thought fabrication (of 'self') is born of that.
  SN 22.81

  The craving that makes for re-becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving-to-be, craving not-to-be: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One. MN 44

This 'self-belief' or 'concept' is a thought that is known or observed by 'consciousness'. Just as consciousness is not the thought of a 'dog' or 'tree', consciousness (which observes) is not the thought of 'self', 'I' or 'me'. The thought is a separate thing to the consciousness.

There is no evidence of anything living on beyond the ending of the activity of 'the' brain (not 'my' brain). The totally lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing was not an analogy spoken by the Buddha. Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are impermanent. When the activity of life (the aggregates) ends, that's it. If the mind can fully realise & accept all life ends, it will be at peace. That is all that needs to be done. Please read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta and the Maggavagga and be free from doubt.


Emptiness and one taste Might it be true that emptiness can be conceived of as the one taste of mind: that the world of mind has only one reality which is everywhere and always the same, unchanging.

Who (which groups or individuals) say so?

And: what reasons are there to believe it is a correct charaterisation of mind?

I think such experiential truths should not be intellectualised. Any intellectual stance - of permanence or impermanence will be outside of non-dual reality.

Silence is the right answer. cf. Vimalakirti sutra (Wikipedia).

  Vimalakīrti remains silent while discussing the subject of emptiness
  with an assembly of bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas give a variety of
  answers on the question what non-duality is. Manjusri is the last
  bodhisattva to answer, and says that "by giving an explanation they
  have already fallen into dualism". Vimalakirti, in his turn, answers
  with silence.

p.s. I didn't downvote, I don't object to the question.


What is Karuṇā? Is 'compassion' really a good translation? Is compassion really a good translation for Karuna? I've been fooled by "patience" before, now I'm sort of suspicious of the other common translations for the paramitas.

Does karuna in addition to feeling other people's pain also entail regret? In "A Few Good Men" by Nattier, she talks about people on the Bodhisattva path developing karuna by doing a 3 part ritual that is a repentance ritual. This seems far removed from imaginatively feeling the pain of others.

Could it be that Karuna and English compassion, don't cover the same semantic ground?

Literally, karuna means "to mourn", "to pity", "to lament" - but the Buddhist meaning is quite different.

In Pali Canon karuna is one of the four brahmaviharas, practiced as an antidote against aversion towards people and society due to their shortcomings. Somewhere in the Canon I've read Buddha saying karuna is like what a good king should feel for his people. The king does not complain that his country is imperfect nor does he resent his people! Instead, he appreciates their condition and tries to help them out as much as he can. (This doesn't mean he lets them sleep in his bedroom - he can't solve their problems for them, but he can "give them the fish pole and teach them how to fish".) There is a reason they are called "brahma-vihara"-s, the dwellings of Brahma - the nondualistic all-inclusive God-Absolute. It is like the practitioner takes on the Brahma's perspective.

In Mahayana compassion goes hand in hand with wisdom and skillful means, exemplified by Lotus Sutra's parable of the burning house. It is like compassion of parents towards their children. They know there is sex, but they don't want their children to be harmed by what those are not ready for, yet. They know Santa Claus is an illusion, but because they love their children so much they put the gifts under the Christmas tree.

As you see, in both cases it is a top-down compassion, compassion of superior taking care of the junior, weak, sick, or confused - using whatever tools you have at your disposal, from logic, to useful fiction, to wrath and "tough love". Instead of resenting the way the world is or the people are (=the victim stance), we take the master's stance.

At the same time, part of the practice of deconstructing the ego is to cultivate clear understanding that in principle, there is nothing substantial that makes Bodhisattva "better" than others, beside the luck of having encountered, and benefited from, the genuine teaching. Bodhisattva can relate to everybody's dukkha - because they see that deep inside people are not that different. Everyone is subject to the three marks of existence. Every one is subject to emptiness. Even though Bodhisattva has realized Emptiness, s\he sees how hard it is to not assume things to be real. Bodhisattva can see how people organize their lives around illusions - and how it inevitably leads to suffering. This is why it is said, in one who sees things as they are, compassion arises spontaneously.

So [in my understanding] Buddhist compassion is not as much just feeling other people's pain -- as it is an attitude, a modus operandi permeated with the sense of ownership of and responsibility for the good of all beings - based on being able to relate, to put oneself in their shoes.

P.S.

Several quotes to support my understanding.

Thich Nhat Hanh:

  [Karuna is] the intention and capacity to relieve and transform suffering and lighten sorrows. Karuna is usually translated as 'compassion', but that is not exactly correct.

Buddhagosha:

  1) When there is suffering in others it makes (karoti) good people’s hearts tremble (kampana), thus it is compassion (karuna).
  2) It combats (kinati) others’ suffering, attacks and demolishes it, thus it is karuna.
  3) or it is dispersed (kiriyati) over the suffering, is spread out through pervasion, thus it is karuna.

The-Teaching-of-Aksayamati-bodhisattva Sutra:

  As for this great compassion (maha-karuna), reverend Saradvatiputra, it means "work" or "action" (kar-)
  ...
  [Even if is for the sake of others] it is one's own work - thus it is called "great compassion".


What are "Good / Correct things" to a Buddhist to do? We know there are good and bad things in the world,now that is general knowledge.But our version of right and worlds version of it seems to go against each other,

So my question is what are the actual good things as opposed to worlds view of it?

Simply do what is really beneficial you and / or others.


What are the "realms" or "planes of existence"? Various suttas mention various 'planes' or 'levels' or 'realms' of existence; for example:

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
Scattered throughout the suttas are references to as many as
thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which
beings can be reborn during their long wandering through samsara.
These range from the extraordinarily grim and painful hell realms all
the way up to the most exquisitely refined and blissful heaven realms.
Existence in every realm is temporary; in Buddhist cosmology there is
no eternal heaven or hell. [etc.]
The realms of existence are customarily divided into three distinct
"worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of refinement:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are
accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless
jhanas.

The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen
realms [etc.]

The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms [etc.]

The information on this page was assembled from a variety of sources.
In the interests of economizing space I have not attributed each fact
to its respective source.

I don't want to ask for a precise list, but how or what should I  understanding these realms are?
I have heard several versions now of what "levels of existence" are:

Some say it is like physical, or is it mental (psychological), biomes in this universe?
Others say it is other universes or even other dimensions?

My understanding of "levels of existence" is that they are mind states.For example when i'm happy i am residing in the deva realms and when i'm sad or angry in the lower realms.These mind states keep changing and fluctuating all the time it never lasts.As for real physical places I think the only way to find out for certain is through meditation.


What exacly is the so-called "formless" jhana? When reading the suttas, sometimes I come across to the expressions:
"dimension of the infinitude of space",
"dimension of the infinitude of consciousness",
"dimension of nothingness" and
"dimension of neither perception nor non-perception".

What exactly is the meaning of the expressions above? Why they are "formless"?
When the Buddha describes Right Concentration, he mentions only the four "form" jhana, why he excluded the "formless" jhana as Right Concentration?

Here is my understanding as of 2018.

When they say "form" (rupa) or "seed" (bija) in context of meditation, it's what we call an object of meditation these days. For example, your breath, an image of the Buddha, a particular repulsive image used as an antidote to lust - are all examples of meditation objects. An object of meditation is used as its focal point and directly correlates with the meditation's goal or objective.

Formless meditation, in contrast, is a type of meditation that involves no particular focal point, no object. As I understand, the formless jhanas refer to a step-by-step sequence of getting rid of any notion of object, however subtle.

But before we can talk about formless meditation we need to talk about the ancient model describing the process of perception. In that model, the way we perceive things is by identifying a mark (aka sign) that serves as the main determining characteristic of an object, and by matching that mark against our memory of previous impressions, making an associative interpretation that what we're looking at (hearing, thinking about) can be described with such-and-such concept. This initial hypothesis is then confirmed by finding other secondary marks (signs) that the identified object must possess and confirming they lead to the same association. This process repeats in cycles until one of the associations expands into a related concept or a memory, which leads down some train of thoughts with its desires, fears, and other problematic mindstates.

Since thinking was understood to be the root of all evil, and yoga was defined as "citta vrtti nirodha" (stopping the ever unfolding associative cycle), getting rid of all objects was the chief method for stopping the thoughts. This was the state of the art before Buddha.

Now that we understand what we're dealing with, we can understand the sequence of formless jhanas. First, you visualize infinite empty space with no objects. This is a good approximation of objectlessness, but if you think about it, you still have an object on your mind - the image of empty space. In fact, this image of empty space consists of some kind of mental "mark" or "sign" that the meditator assumes to be a good associative hook (e.g. a tactile sensation of moving and encountering no contact, or a spatial image of endlessly expanding in all directions etc.) plus the concept "empty space" that we are interpreting that sign into. So, upon close examination this type of meditation is not very objectless as it still involves what's these days is called semiosis or the act of interpreting a sign into a meaning.

So as a next step, you meditate on the empty mind with no objects. It's a mind that is potentially capable of perception, it could potentially have an object but it does not. At first you successfully imagine such a mind and in contrast with meditation on empty space, this does seem to involve no sign and no act of interpretation. It seems like a truly objectless state. But then, as you keep meditating on it, you realize that in fact your meditation still does involve a subtle kind of "sign" that is interpreted into a concept! The idea that serves as a sign in this case is a notion of time passing with no objects appearing in/to the mind! So while this meditation is closer to objectlessness, it still has a kind of very subtle object - the notion of time passing.

So you progress to meditation on Nothingness. You just sit there with no content whatsoever. Your mind is completely blank. There is no perception of space or time. It looks like, finally, you have succeeded. However, once you master that, you realize that this absence of content in fact disappears when you stop meditating, therefore your meditation still has a limit, still has a focal point. You still artificially restrict your attention to exclude whatever is going on, and that counts as form. It's a very-very subtle object, it's an object of no-object - but an object nevertheless. The thoughts are stopped while you're in meditation, but once you come out of this withdrawal, you're back to square one. So this state is non-sustainable.

So then, as the final step, you realize that complete withdrawal from all objects is not as effective as learning to stop the associative mechanism from cycling. So instead of trying to generate a state with no objects, you transcend that restriction and allow your attention to stay wide open to stimuli, without apprehending any single one of them. Things may happen as normal but you don't associate, don't conceptualize, don't get carried away by them. Your meditation is truly formless (objectless), because the mind is wide open without grasping at signs. Unfortunately, this state is still useless because you can't really function in it. Any human activity that requires association and interpretation is incompatible with this method of liberation.

This ends the progression and concludes the study of semiotic perception.

The reason Buddha de-emphasized this approach, which apparently was known before Buddha, is because it has no direct relevance in his own framework, that of the Four Noble Truths. In Buddha's system the principle problem of sentient existence is "wrongness" (dukkha) and the goal is "suchness". So in Buddha's sequence of jhanas, the progression is focused on working with sources of "wrongness" in one's mental continuum, his method is to abandon coarse and then progressively subtler sources of "wrongness" while generating coarse and then progressively subtler states of "suchness" (joy=>bliss=>peace=>etc).

The formless jhanas are a nice exercise in concentration and an easy example of progressively refined meditative sequence that many practitioners in Buddha's times must have been familiar with, but in and of themselves they do not lead to Liberation as Buddha defined it - permanent, unconditional cessation of dukkha.

This is why most traditional sources describe formless jhanas as optional. In the ancient metaphorical language, the subjective experience of meditator in a formless jhana is compared with that of a deity at a certain level of heavens, whose life has no suffering but is finite and inevitably ends with eventual return to Earth.

While Buddha's jhanas are a progressive unfolding of his Four Right Efforts:

  "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for:
  "[i] the sake of the non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[ii] ... the sake of the abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
  "[iii] ... the sake of the arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[iv] ... the maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen."

And are a progressively closer approximation of the cessation of suffering declared in the Third Noble Truth.

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

In Buddha's four jhanas (known by contrast with the others as the "rupa" or form-jhanas), you examine your mind, identify the immediate sources of dukkha (cravings, attachments, hangups, mental conflicts etc.), as well as the various factors hindering your progress (distractions, pessimism etc.) and let go of those, while at the same time finding ways to generate the positive qualities that help you keep going, such as Motivation, Energy, Attentiveness, etc. as well as the approximations of suchness such as Pride, Joy, and Peace.

The culmination of rupa jhanas is liberation in the suchness of spontaneous presence, which involves no feeling of "wrongness" whatsoever and is endlessly sustainable because it is not limited by any condition other than the absence of aversions and cravings for things to be otherwise.

So unlike arupa jhanas which solve the wrong problem in the wrong way, Buddha's jhanas succeed by focusing on the right issue (that of the "wrongness" or "rightness" of one's experience) and then progressively refining the practice until it culminates in a fully sustainable, truly unconditional liberation.


Sexual misconduct, what is it What is it? Is sex just for pleasure with your partner breaking a precept? Eg with a condom. And is being circumcised bad over personal preferences/ (hygiene,aesthetic)? is oral and anal sex bad? Is masturbation bad? And is circumcising your sons bad?

Sexual misconduct is defined in the Pali scriptures as having sex with someone else's partner or fiancee and with those living under the protection of their parents or an institution (in the case parents, if the parents disapprove).

The purpose of refraining from sexual misconduct is to not harm/damage existing relationships.

Therefore, having sex for pleasure, using a condom, circumcision, masturbation & oral & anal sex are not, in themselves, sexual misconduct (even though some of these things can be unwholesome & unskilful).


Do Buddhist monks live an ascetic life style? Please note that my understanding of Buddhist principles may be very much influenced by popular depictions.

I have read that the eight-fold path teaches that you should strike a balance between asceticism and indulgence.

Common depictions of Buddhist monks often shows them living a very ascetic lifestyle. My sources for this are simply what I have seen in documentaries online.

My questions are:

Do Buddhist monks live such an ascetic life style? If so, then why? Is this not going against the eight-fold path?
If the depictions I have in mind are untrue then what is Buddhist monastery life like such that it balances indulgence and asceticism?

Roughly 3 categories of buddhists could be seen: the lay, the monastic, and the ascetic. Monks usually live in a monastic community but some do live in a more solitude/ascetic way.

I've never seen ascetic life condemned in the suttas. The rhinoceros sutta is commonly brought as praising ascetic life and I understand that in the Theravada vinaya there's the practice of Dhutanga. I believe it can be beneficial when the monasteries available present too much obstacles for the practice. But asceticism when living alone can be harder without community support.

Here, I am trying to differentiate the buddhist ascetic practices from ascetic practices performed by other religions (such as extreme fasting, self-mortification, etc). From the point of view of these extreme practices, a buddhist ascetic has a moderate life style. Also, english translations of the suttas have the Buddha referred to as "the ascetic Gotama", where "ascetic" translates samaṇo.

The Buddha praised a life of freedom and few belongings: a robe, something to help gathering food on alms round, and a proper location to meditate and sleep (e.g caves, under trees, etc).

I think it's problematic to reduce the eightfold path as a teaching on "balance". First, because it's a very rich and detailed system. Second, because anyone can perceive their own life as balanced. If anything, "balance" might be taught to laity because it's hard to be fully committed to the practice while also committed to normal life.

The problem of perceiving buddhism in that way (which is the way it is frequently exposed in the west) is that it leads people into think their indulgences are moderate, and that renouncing them is an extreme that should be avoided. Moreover, it has the strange effect of creating the perception of the monk's life as an extreme austerity (and, if buddhism was teaching that, no one should ever be a buddhist monk).


What is meditation and are we dulling the mind through what is considered formal meditation? I ask this with a healthy skepticism.

What is meditation? Is it the style that is put forth in the texts or traditions, like Tibetan or Indian or whatever tradition? For example,  sit down and dedicate time to meditate. And is the definition of meditation objective or is it a subjective experience/practice? For example, Marcus Aurelius' writing, Meditations. Can following a train of thought intentionally, not compulsively, be considered meditation?

I wish to question why we sit down to meditate for sometime. I have been giving answers on this site, giving so-called "practical advice" about sitting and meditating and then it struck me that I may be dulling the mind through this. Meditation seems to lend you to a certain calmness, which is good, but if I may say, a certain suggestibility.

I accept that the mind's activity is fairly ceaseless. Is this an altering of the state of mind in a sort of long term negative way?

What I mean is, it seems to me that sometimes I can't seem to distinguish between "dulling of the mind" and "calmness" through meditation.

It sounds like a result of the process of suppressing the mind. You don't want to do that. Just accept everything as it is.

My approach is more to do with the reversal of the roles of the thinking mind and awareness in ordinary life. Normally the thinking mind is in control and awareness takes a back seat, but through persistence it's become the opposite. This feels more like the thinking mind is just having a rest, rather than it being dulled. I can switch it on whenever I want and it works probably better than it used to.

There really is no need for meditation because you can just use life as the grinding stone for the self. It's something you can do all the time and is no different to your ordinary life plus perhaps the idea of throwing yourself into circumstances that would be beneficial to your refinement. All you have to do is stay in that unborn mind state as much as possible. It just eats through everything of its own accord, just as it should do in meditation.


Nothing i seem to have flipped the switch by getting rid of everything I feel pulled to the belief i was a monk before. My first life. And other things are happening to me. Is there anyone who will listen rather than attack? Try to understand rather than condemn?

In other words, could such view make sense (or be accepted) in the Buddhist context?

Yes, you were a monk, but not in one previous life, but in very many previous lives. Through good deeds you did in those and other your previous lives, now you have a good fortune and met Buddha's Teachings.

Now you can practise those teachings and find the true will of your heart this moment. Finding true will of your heart this moment is the highest realization, on which you have worked during many lifetimes, but still you have not mastered it completely in your previous lives. However, there are good chances that you could do that in this present life.

Also, your first life was not as a monk. Before becoming a monk, you lived many lives, doing many deeds, both good and evil. However, when you became a monk, you changed, and an immense amount of your previous bad karma was destroyed through your practice.

Every life you changed, and every moment you continue to change. Don't bother with previous lives: they passed and exist no more. Think of this moment: what is the wish of your heart now?

There was a time I dedicated my life to that cleaning: like a nugget of gold, covered with dirt, was my mind and my behavior. Every moment I tried to be in accordance with the original longing of my heart, keeping efforts to act as gold, not as dirt. With the help of other beings, including you in your previous lives, I was able to realize what the heart wants, and I try to not lose that realization since.

When I remain in that presence of the will of the heart, it gives rise to feelings of easiness and freedom, kindness and purpose.

I wish you the same!


Where's the story in which the Buddha praised a non-returner for keeping the knowledge of his attainment private? I'm trying to find a specific story in where the Buddha spoke about the attainment of one Anagami lay person with a group of monks while praising his good qualities. Later, when those monks went for alms at his place, they informed him that the Buddha had spoken about his attainment. Then he asked the monks, if there were any lay persons present when the Buddha revealed it. The monks reported this back to the Buddha when they returned to the temple. Then the Buddha praised him again and said that is also another good quality of him.

I've heard this story several times in sermons, when the question comes up, whether an enlightened being would reveal his attainment to others.

"I hope, sir, that there were no white-clad householders there."

"No, friend, there were no white-clad householders there."

"It's good, sir, that there were no white-clad householders there."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.023.than.html


Responding skillfully to an insincere apology from AN 2.21:

  "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools.

How about when the person presenting the apology is not doing it sincerely? How to respond skillfully?

There is a difference between the ideas of apology and revelation or confession. When we in the west read in the suttas about some person recognizing his mistake, we should not be thinking he is apologizing. The idea is that by confessing ones understanding that one has made a mistake and that one understands the nature of that mistake one has made the details conscious. Conscious of the error and the corrective measures needed to prevent its repetition, one is then in a position to take those corrective measures. It is the making conscious that is the important thing.

Apology is asking for forgiveness, not necessarily stating that there will be any effort to reform.

In both cases there is the idea that once an error is sincerely confessed, or a wish for forgiveness expressed in an apology and the other person does not acknowledge the confession or forgive the transgressor, the bad kamma of the deed passes over from the one who is confessing or apologizing to the one confessed to or apologized to. It is beyond my scope to comment on the reality of this belief.

In the case of the apology, going by the Christian practice, there is no requirement that the transgressor understand his error, and one is supposed to forgive, '“seventy times seven times” (490) (Matthew 18:22), a number that symbolizes boundlessness. ... '

In the case of the confession the transgressor must express an understanding of the error and corrective measure before it is necessary to acknowledge it. In this case (and we do not have an example in the suttas so this is just me making up what seems to be a logical response), the polite thing to do would be to explain exactly what was needed before the error could be acknowledged. A diplomatic construction of the statement: "You have not understood your error and consequently I am unable to acknowledge it for you." With perhaps an explanation such as made above to point to what is needed to be done by the transgressor in order to turn this exercise into something helpful to the goal, i.e., change of behavior.

Since the distinction between confession and apology is not likely to be known by most persons in the west, a further act of kindness when faced with an apology that looks to be a sincere effort at change for the better would be to explain this distinction and by that give the person an opportunity to change the apology into a confession.


what is the traditional zen stance on agriculture and animal care? its a pretty straight forward question. facts only please, no opinions, and i request that only an experienced and well practiced zen buddhist answer this question (to avoid speculation).

thanks.

I am not a well practiced zen buddhist but just a practitioner of zen buddhism. I do not know the answer but I do know where I would look for this answer. If I were tasked with finding the above I would look in the Diamond Sutra.

"The Diamond Sutra advises us to throw away is the notion “man,” human being. This is not too difficult. When we look into the human being, we see human ancestors, we see animal ancestors, we see vegetable ancestors, we see mineral ancestors. We see that the human is made of non-human elements. We see that we are at the same time a rock, a river, a cloud, a squirrel, a rose. And if we take away all the non-human elements, the human being is no longer there.
This is the deepest teaching on deep ecology. In order to protect the human being, you have to protect elements that are not human, because these elements are our ancestors, and if you destroy them there is no way we can be here. That is why discrimination between man and nature is a wrong view. You have to see you as nature, one with nature.
That is why harmony, respect of life, is possible. So throw away the idea that the human being is the boss, man is the boss, man can do anything to nature. The key is contemplation on impermanence of non-self."
-Thich Nhat Hanh, Dharma Talk: Free from Notions, Ocean of Peace Meditation Hall
Deer Park Monastery
Sunday, September 25, 2001


Ordaining vs normal life Lord Buddha left the normal life due to frustration he got seeing those four instances of human life.
In today when people get the same frustration they call it as depression, and motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships. I'm confused in this scenario, what is the relationship between ordaining and depression ?

I would not say that it is due to frustration that Supreme Buddha left for we call the ‘Great Renunciation’ when he left all the worldly comforts and riches to find the end of suffering. You are partly right @Irasha... taken on its own, samvega can be a very depressing realization. Which is why it has to be paired with pasada, or confidence: confidence that there is a way out.  For won't not for a better word, in Sinhala it is called    “අවබෝධයෙන් කලකිරීම”. A positive thing.

In the famous story about young Prince Siddhartha seeing the old person, the sick person, and the dead person, he also saw a forest mendicant. That was his fourth vision. His realization after seeing the forest mendicant was, “This must be the way out. If there’s any way out, this is it.” And so he pursued that conviction with a strong sense of clarity and confidence.

Depression is different. In depression the mind harms itself. It keeps sapping its own strength, thinking in ways that get it depressed, thinking in ways that gets it fearful, that just drain its strength away. There are all kinds of wrong thinking that can do the mind a lot of harm. You may focus on thoughts that lead to anger, on thoughts that lead to depression, on thoughts that are self-destructive. That’s the most typical way most people focus their minds. Only way out is when you learn to give up those habits, you find resources of strength inside that you wouldn’t have anticipated. You can hold onto them.

All states of mind have mind as their forerunner. mind is their' chief, and they are mind made. Everything occurs with the prominence of mind . Thus says the pali text: "Manō pubbangamā dhamā - manō setthā manō mayā".  One’s unpleasant feelings that depress the mind are clung as suffering.
The more naturally prone to depression, anxiety, etc. the more likely and easily one could be adversely affected.

When one feels a sense of depression, a sense of sadness, there’s a physical side to it and there’s the mental side. The mental side is made up of lots of little thoughts that are all glommed together. So the Buddha recommends that you take it apart in terms of the khandhas, in terms of the aggregates. Look for the feeling, and then look for the perception. An important perception is saying, “This is my suffering, this is happening to me,” which may be true but you don’t have to think it. It’s an optional thought. You could simply say, “This is suffering,” and leave it at that. That would adequately describe the situation and would also be more helpful. The thing is, you have to catch the mind in the act of applying that particular perception. It will do it repeatedly again and again and again. That’s what clinging is. It’s holding onto a particular thought and just repeating it over and over again.

When you can see that happening, you realize that you’ve got the choice to drop it. You don’t have to keep hitting yourself over the head. As the Buddha said, there are things that may be true but if they’re not useful, if this is not the right time for them, we don’t say them. Take that principle and apply it to the mind, to your inner conversation. There may be perceptions that in one way or other are true enough, but they’re not useful and this is not the right time for them. They’re actually causing you suffering, so why bring them in?

To see things clearly is called discernment, seeing distinctions, being able to tease things out. Learn to be equanimous, patient, accepting of everything. Suffering comes, and you tell yourself that that’s just the nature of experience, that’s the way it is. Craving comes, well, just accept the craving, that’s the way it is. It is the ability to admit what’s going on. Then there is also a duty or a task to do with each of these truths. It is being mindful – it is a kind of meditation (sati sampajanna).

Meditation may be helpful with managing depression. Learn the right way to meditate, as there are a lot of nonsense out there and many blind alleys. Listen to “Budu Suwanda” on Youtube by Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero or Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero. Start with a sense of pasada, that this is your way out. Stick with the practice with that sense of conviction, confidence, desire. If you approach the meditation in a desultory way, you’re going to get desultory results. You really have to be devoted to what you’re doing here.


When you are an enlightened Buddha do you have no more worries or fears and desires? All Buddhist traditions hold that a Buddha is fully awakened and has completely purified his mind of the three poisons of desire, aversion and ignorance. A Buddha is no longer bound by Samsara, and has ended the suffering which unawakened people experience in life.

The term buddha is also used in Theravada to refer to all who attain Nirvana. Within the Buddhist tradition, this term has commonly been interpreted as the extinction of the "three fires",or "three poisons",passion, (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance.

But does this all mean that fe Siddartha Gautama never worried about his health or was never doubting about hisself whether he was doing good or not?

The term buddha is also used in Theravada to refer to all who attain
  Nirvana.

please let me make a correction, in Theravada a term used to all who attain nibbana is arahant

Buddha is one who only attained nibbana on their own having discovered the path to nibbana for themself without reliance on anyone else

  But does this all mean that fe Siddartha Gautama never worried about
  his health

i think it means that as a Buddha he didn't

  or was never doubting about hisself whether he was doing good or not?

as a Buddha he could do nothing BUT good, because with awakened beings virtue and skill are natural, it's like a compass hand which points at only one directon

Doubt is one of 10 fetters, which is abandoned at as early as the sotapanna stage not to speak of the arahantship


Is preparing eggs for a meal considered as sinful in Buddhism? When preparing a meal with eggs, If a person cracks a egg will it be bad karma? Because, It is considered that farm chicken eggs are not fertile or doesn't have chicks growing inside. Therefore will it give bad karma for making eggs?

I think the idea of sinful or not doesn't apply to Buddhism. There are only wholesome/skillful actions and unwholesome/unskillful actions.  Karma = intention.

As long as you are mindful of what you're doing and your intention is to prepare a meal for nourishment, instead of causing harm in any way, cracking an egg during the meal preparation doesn't seem to be a cause for bad karma.


Rationalism and The spirit of inquiry Is a logical questioning process of every thought(almost) a useful way to break through thought itself and possibly understand enlightenment? For eg:- What is this thought? What is the mind? And try to inspect it clearly. If no answer appears, (because you see they are difficult, almost impossible questions) that is still ok, but you begin to question things with a scientific temper and rationality.

Logical thinking about Buddhism is like route / trip planning. The practice of Buddhism is the journey which will take you to the desired destination.

The Buddha has his for or adventure over countless lifetimes and found a long lost path and said this take you to this place. Thinking and pondering on how to take the trip is at the realm of logic. Travening is the realm of pratice. Arriving at your final destination following the direction and landmarks is the final realisation. As not body can fully describe the city to the minute details he just mostly mentioned how to get there with some attributes of the destination to entice you to try out the journey.