Biology, Brain tumours and mental disorders, behaviour and Budhism The biologic construction of our brains leads to diferent behaviour and personalities. Like different antennas or generators, we can process signals diferent ways or receive them diferent ways.

Our brain is very bad understood, and it is more evident that behavioral patterns  can relate to the presence of brain tumours, or chemical unbalances.

If our construction affects our behaviour, and that we were born with those, how can those people follow  the Noble Eightfold Path, if their biology is made to go out of those principles.

Examples, a pornstar can love sex because the hormonal level is naturally calling that need. However in other living aspects can be  very compassionate.

Or a good man who worked all his life get a tumour that transform him in a violent person and eventually kill someone.

How can budhism "criticize" these behaviours if they are natural ocurances?

Buddhist practice doesn't start from the premise that the world is a just and fair place; rather, it aims to reveal that all conditioned existence is marked by suffering.  Suffering is the real problem and assigning blame doesn't help to alleviate it.  It's also not particularly helpful to consider what-if scenarios like "would I still be to blame if I had a tumor and couldn't control my actions?"  I have enough real problems without imagining new ones

See, reality doesn't happen to someone else and it doesn't happen somewhere else or at some other time.  Reality happens right here, right now.  This is not a hypothetical practice, this is a real practice and it deals with a real problem, the suffering that marks every passing moment, the clinging that creates it and the out-of-control mind that is churning away with these thoughts.  Not, "who's to blame for that?", but "who's to blame for this?"  Maybe drop the blame and just look for the cause.  Maybe drop the cause, too.  Just look.

Ultimately, Buddhist practice urges us to investigate this matter thoroughly, to find the root of suffering.  And then, remove it.  Perhaps this whole sordid affair is predicated on a misunderstanding, a subtle delusion that got out of control.  The Buddha suggests that there is such a cause to suffering and that it is possible to remove it.  The path of practice is prescribed as a way to purify this mind and reveal, with full clarity, the reality of this situation.


How to deal with bad past karma that makes my current life miserable? Before I practice Buddhism,I've made mistakes and hurt other. Sometimes I thought what happen to me now is the effect of what I did.
I try to  keep doing positive things but sometimes I could not stand this hard situation. Could anyone tell me please how to solve this situation in Buddhism way?

An understanding of what causes have contributed to the way we are right now is out of the realm of ordinary people; practically speaking, you are more likely to project a false impression of why you are the way you are that is wholly disproportionate in terms of cause and actual effect.

Much of what we are today has already been predetermined from the moment of our conception, including the nature of our body and our brain, our social status and community, and even our life choices and experiences to a certain extent.

That being said, karma performed in this life will certainly have an affect on our minds and influence our choices as well as our mental and physical well-being. Much of this is also out of our control, at least in terms of direct intervention.

What we can do is two things:

We can, as the Buddha taught Angulimala, "bear with" the unpleasant experiences. This has the effect of both neutralizing the mental suffering that comes from unpleasant experiences as well as nullifying any further bad karma we might create in reaction to the experience (thus potentially ending the cycle that caused the experience in the first place).
We can perform wholesome deeds like giving charity or help to others, abstaining from unethical deeds and speech, and practising meditation to calm and clarify our minds. This has the effect of acting as a buffer to our unwholesome deeds, in effect (potentially) counteracting them. As the Buddha taught to Angulimala:

  He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done,
  illuminates this world like the moon freed
  from clouds.

  -- Dhp. 173 (Buddharakkhita,trans)


Found items and the Second Precept There was a crumbled up dollar bill on the stairs when I was coming out of work today. I looked around and didn't see anyone who might have dropped it. I picked it up and walked away. Pretty soon I went back and laid it back on the steps again.

I realized I really didn't know how the 2nd precept, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given" should be applied to found items which don't have an apparent owner.

There are lots of examples:

*wild berries in the woods

*wild flowers in a vacant lot

*something interesting that washes up on the shore

*something that's been left on the side of the road

*money lying on the ground with no one anywhere around

*an apparently abandoned item in a desolate area

I hadn't really thought about this before, but as I was walking away with that dollar I actually felt kind of guilty. So I'd like to know found items should be considered for the future. Thanks!

The Vinaya actually goes into all of this under the rule against stealing. The question involves the factors involved in stealing:

the object has an owner,
you perceive that the object has an owner,
you intend to steal it,
you make effort to steal it,
you succeed in stealing it.

All have to be fulfilled in order for it to be stealing. So if you think something has been discarded, it is not stealing, even if it turns out that it has an owner. If you find out later that the item you took actually has an owner, any act you perform in relation to the item from that point on could potentially be an act of theft.
The point of the rule is to respect ownership; it has nothing to do with unowned items, or acts performed that do not breach that respect (e.g. taking something under the assumption that it has no owner).
The case where there is doubt about whether an object has an owner is more difficult, and it comes down to the third factor - intention. If you take an object that you think might have an owner with the intention to return it if you ever find out it has an owner, then it would not be considered stealing. Obviously, this becomes more unreasonable the more likely it is that the object has an owner. Really, the only way you could rationalize taking such an object is in the case where there is no compelling reason to think that the object has an owner still concerned with the object.
If it seems likely that the object has an owner who hasn't abandoned it, then it should be left alone - or the owner should be sought out. If it seems likely that the owner has long abandoned the object, then it may be taken as a possession if there is need.
The BMC I has some discussion about this sort of question as it relates to monks:

Because items that have been given away or discarded do not fulfil the factor of object here, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who takes a discarded object—such as rags from a pile of refuse—or unclaimed items from a wilderness. The Commentary, in some of its examples, includes items given up for lost under “abandoned,” but this interpretation has to be heavily qualified. If the owner retains a sense of ownership for the lost item, it would fall under the term claimed, and thus would still count as not given. Only if the owner abandons all sense of ownership would it genuinely count as abandoned.
...
None of the texts discuss the possible case in which one might be in doubt as to whether the object in question is not given, perhaps because the compilers felt that the factor of intention, discussed next, would not apply in such cases. Thus it would not be an offense under this rule. However, the wise policy when one is in doubt about an item’s ownership would be not to take the item for one’s own, or at most to take it on loan, as explained below.


How do we know numbers of past lives and rebirths? I can understand how the Buddha and various arhats and the like can surmise the existence of past lives and rebirth. What I dont see is how they come up with actual numbers of times they have been reborn and the total number of times anyone is and how long the universe has been contracting and expanding and things like that? At some point isn't that delving into the unknowable?

Apparently in Buddhist cosmology, the universe of worlds begins and ends cyclically. That's called an aeon or eon or kalpa. The Visuddhimagga calls this a Maha Kalpa (Great Aeon).

This wikipedia page (without sufficient citations) gives some statistics on the duration of a Maha Kalpa:

  Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately
  16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard
  seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be
  filled even before the kalpa ends.

  Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa,
  approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mount Everest). You take a
  small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years.
  According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even
  before the kalpa ends.

I found that a tiny mustard seed could have a diameter of around 1mm. If I make it easier by assuming that it is a cube with the sides of 1 x 1 x 1mm, then it has 1 cubic mm of volume.

Meanwhile, a huge empty cube of 16 miles on each side has 17 billion cubic mm of volume. So, if this huge empty cube is filled up at 1 cubic mm per 100 years, then how many years does it take to fill up 17 billion cubic mm of volume?

In my calculation, it would be 1.7 trillion years. So, the description is that this huge empty cube will be filled up before the aeon ends. Currently, physicists estimate that the age of our current universe is 13.82 billion years.

The same page also states:

  If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the
  Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even
  that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.

I'm not sure how many sand particles there are at the depth of the Ganges river from the beginning to the end of it, but I guess there must be at least trillions of particles based on this article. So, according to this description, we have had at least trillions of aeons in the past, with each lasting over 1.7 trillion years each.

In the Assu Sutta, it is taught that the amount of tears that we have shed in past lives exceed the volume of the four great oceans.

According to this article, the average amount of tears shed by a human being in a lifetime is 64 litres. And according to this article, the ocean has 321,003,271 cubic miles of water which is 1.34x10^21 litres. So, for one person to cry that much through all his past lives, he needs to have lived for 1.34x10^21/64 lifetimes, which is still in the order of 10^19, which is more than a quintillion lifetimes.

Based on these descriptions, I would say that the existence of the universe (with all its worlds) where sentient beings live, and the amount of past lives that we have had, is effectively infinite. The past lives recalled by the Buddha are only the last n lives, rather than ALL of it.


The idea of “self” in Buddhism How does Buddhism define “self?” I read in some book that Buddha would avoid such questions, but I wonder why.

The Buddha never avoided it. All that occurred here is there was a teaching (SN 44.10) where the Buddha refused to answer certain wrongly put questions by a confused individual.

The Buddha taught:

The underlying tendency to form "self-views" lies within every new born baby (MN 64)
"Self" is an ignorant assumption that is a mental fabrication or deluded thought (SN 22.81)
The arising of this "self" thought or view is the arising of suffering (SN 12.15; SN 5.10)
This "self" idea is a "disease" - Ud 3.10
This "self" idea is a cancer, dart & affliction - MN 140

  This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a 'self.'

  Ud 3.10

  Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace.

  MN 140


Is it possible for active people to truly live practice "mindfulness"? Several buddhist/meditation books recommend me to practice "Mindfulness" or living in the present moment alone.

I am a married man with a 4 yr old son and wife.I am currently working in one of the top 10 IT company in the world.

On any given time I will have a "list of things to do" which are important and which are pending from my side.

So if I ignore my tasks and "live only in the present moment" it will greatly harm me and my family's life.
Also how am I supposed to be at peace when all the pending items keep reminding me that they are not yet completed even if I try to calm myself for couple of minutes.

Does this mean that people with lot of responsibilities should refrain from practicing "mindfulness" ?

Mindfulness or living in the present moment is not the same as not having goals or responsibilities. Instead it is about doing everything you do with full attention and without judgement.

For example, an active and not very mindful person would drive a car, look at his watch to see what time it is, and nervously think about everything he still has to do today, all three at the same time. A mindful person would drive the car with full attention. When other thoughts pop-up he would accept it and let them just pass by without giving them too much attention. Only when he has arrived at his destination would he actively think about his next activity.

This means that you still can have goals, it's just that you are not (in your mind) busy trying to achieve multiple goals at the same time. Additionally, being mindful also means that you accept whatever happens without judgement. If you accidentally hit another car while driving, you (try to) don't get angry or upset, but instead accept and deal with the consequences of the accident.


What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death? What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death?

I don't have my copy to hand. I'm asking, because I suspect a dear friend of mine may have died last week.

In general, the process of the Bardo can last between 7 - 49 days with a chance of rebirth or liberation every 7 days.

Depending on your friend's knowledge of the Bardo he could either still be in the Bardo, or in the process of seeing his next life / being reborn / in utero.


Do all words belong to conventional truth (Sammuti Sacca)? "Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam
  Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam"

According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings.

We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason.

So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?

All words are like sign posts. The meaning of it is an idea that is in the mind of the person who is speaking it. And the communication will take place if the person who hears it has assigned the same meaning to the word in his/her mind.

Therefore the shared meaning has to be previously agreed upon or communication will not be very effective. As a result it is extremely difficult to communicate an idea (ex: enlightenment/dhamma) when the receiver has no data points to relate to. They become merely words.

So yes, the words don't have the properties of what they refer to. For example Alan Watts once said that "You can't get wet from the word 'water.'".


Priority of Meditation I'm wondering whether one would have much success quitting addictive behaviours BEFORE having a meditative practice. Is this just wasteful/pointless? Would meditation allow a much easier relinquishing of bad habits?

In sum, should meditation come first?

Thank you.

Bad physical habits are stopped by adhi-sīla, physical observe.

Then, bad mental habits are stopped by adhi-samādhi, concentration-meditation.

Then, whole, future, bad habit's root-causes, avijjā-root & taṇhā-root & dosa-root, are vanished by adhi-paññā, insight-meditation.


Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali? I notice many Sinhalese posting on Western chatsites about Buddhism. However, I often notice these Sinhalese don't have particularly strong empathy with the Pali of the suttas. I sometimes feel "dukkha" ("suffering") when having to answer their questions.

Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?  Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

OP: Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?

No, Sinhalese language has many similarities to Pali. Many of the words in Sinhalese language were derived from Pali and Sanskrit.

In the introduction chapter of the book, "An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar of the Pali Language" by James D'Alwis, it has stated that;

  THERE is hardly a country on the face of the Globe which presents greater facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the Pali, than Ceylon; and, perhaps, no nation possesses greater advantages for its study than Sinhalese. Pali, like the Sanskrit and the Sinhalese, forms a necessary part of the course of education pursued by the natives. Our Alphabet is common to these several languages, and the affinity which the Pali bears to the Sinhalese, both verbally and gramatically, renders its study far more easy to the people of this country than even to the Burmese.

  Although the Sinhalese, as a language, has been latterly neglected; the Pali, from its being the dialect in which the Buddhist scriptures are recorded, has always been the principal study of the largest portion of the Ceylonese, who are followers of Buddha.

~ Cited from: An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar

  OP: Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

The answer should be yes to this question according to the above quoted passage mentioned in the answer to the first part of the question.


mind is like illusionist as per "mano puggmama dahma mano setta mano maya" Buddha explain mind as illusionist create millions of imaginary questions and travel time to find answers to those imaginary questions like reincarnation,rebirth and existence.Buddha never answered those metaphysically created imaginary questions.Buddhism is about come and see through wisdom not come and believe.so my dear friends are you agree with me???

I disagree with you about 'mano puggmama dahma mano setta mano maya' in the Dhammapada, which is about the mind creating intentional actions (rather than about the mind creating illusion).

  1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

  2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.

It is the Phena Sutta which refers to the mind as an "illusionist".


Why should progress in meditation lead to rebirth in a more worldly setting? It seems that the more successful your meditation is, the more lavish the surroundings of your next life (e.g. rebirth in a heavenly realm following the attainment of certain meditative states). However, this seems contrary to the goal of non-attachment, and a more logical karmic result of meditative attainment would be rebirth in some setting that would most easily propel you into a monastery. So, why does progress in meditation cause rebirth in a more worldly setting?

As I have understood, Heavenly and Hellish realms are determined by state of mind. It is well said that two people can be walki g down the same street and one is in hell and other is in heaven. Heaven and hell is the way we experience this universe.
So if you do meditation and you get born in a monastry world setting and it is still heavenly as it will all be experienced.


What is called a promise in Buddhism? I'm a 16 year old girl and at a time in my life,I have been used to watch inappropriate things.
When my parents found this out,my mom got me promised to her in front of Buddha to not to do it, and I promised her with pure intention of keeping it.
Then by the time, when I just turned out to be a teenager I just got and urge and curiosity to see them and I watched them again.
Is this even a promise, if it is a promise according to Buddhism then have I done a sin?

Talia, there is no 'sin' in breaking a promise made with pure intentions of keeping it. (In fact, if someone promises with all his heart to kill me, I hope he breaks it!)
Even for monastics, like me, we occasionally have to break our promise or agreement to do something (such as accepting a invitation to a meal or to give a talk) when something else more important crops up. It would be unwise to think we have to keep all our promises, made based on circumstances at that time.
It's only wrong if we 'promise' with the intention of not keeping it. In this case, the so-called promise is actually a deliberate lie.
Can you actually be sure that you wouldn't do something in the future? I can't. I know my mind now, but I can't know how it will be in the future. So, how can we promise what we cannot be sure of?


How to differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental disorder or delusion? Many spiritual teachings ask the followers to develop detachment towards worldly objects and events. Certain meditation techniques ask the followers to be a mere spectator to one's thoughts and get emotionally detached. Few spiritual people report having spiritual experiences like out-of-body or having seen a deity in their dreams or in daylight.

My question is, how do a follower of spiritual practice differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental or neurotic disorder like ' dissociative disorder'?

If you suffer and make others suffer, that's a disorder. If you are happy and make others happy, that's a good result. Although sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better.


How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol? How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol? How did his students justify his drinking? Is it possible an enlightened being could or would drink alcohol if they had been physically injured and had serious chronic pain? Like Rinpoche had chronic physical pain? What about strong opiate pain killers?

Quoting from "Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa, with commentary by Longchen Yeshe Dorje, Kangyur Rinpoche, with a foreword by H.H. the Dalai Lama:

  Alcohol, the taking of which is a downfall according to the shravaka
  Pratimoksha and constitutes a fault in the bodhisattva discipline, is
  regarded in the Mantrayana as a substance of samaya that must
  always be present. The Guhyagarbha-tantra states:

    Meat and alcohol must not be lacking
    For they are substance of accomplishment,
    Food and drink, essences and fruits
    And all that is a pleasure to the senses.

  and also:

    In particular, it is improper for meat and alcohol to be lacking.

  It is taught that such substances are to be enjoyed by yogis who,
  by means of the practice of the stages of generation and perfection,
  are able to overcome the power of their thoughts—which at first
  seem so solid and real but which at length appear as the very deity. In
  general, this refers to the aspirational deity, for those who are on the
  path of accumulation; to the deity of wind-mind, for those who are
  on the path of joining; to the deity of luminosity, for those who are
  on the path of seeing; to the deity of the united level of learning, for those who are on the path of meditation; and to the deity of the
  united level of the Dharmakaya and Rupakaya, for those who are
  on the path of no more learning.

  Practitioners of the inner tantras of the Mantrayana act without
  dualistic clinging, in such a way as to support their view of the purity
  and equality of phenomena. Through the skillful means of the
  generation stage, their own aggregates and elements, the universe
  itself, and all the beings that inhabit it arise as the display of the deity,
  mantra, and mudra. Such practitioners bless the substances of the
  sacred feast, or tsok offering, transforming them into amrita. And
  when they enjoy them, the alcohol is no longer ordinary; neither is
  their attitude one of ordinary indulgence. Within this state of great
  purity and equality, their perceptions are transmuted and they
  experience themselves as the deity and the alcohol as amrita. In such
  circumstances, yogis and yoginis are allowed to consume alcohol.
  They do not cling, out of self-interest, to ethical precepts concerning
  what is to be adopted or abandoned, regarding them as truly existent
  and immutable values, and they are not attached to their self-image as
  bhikshus and bhikshunis. Neither do they cling to the notion of
  altruistic generosity in the relative, materialistic sense, clinging to the
  idea of being Bodhisattvas. Yogis and yoginis who are thus allowed to
  partake of alcohol are not like Shravakas, who must repudiate desire
  because they have no means whereby defilements and sensual
  pleasures may be harnessed on the spiritual path. Neither are such
  practitioners like ordinary people, who, in the grip of negativity,
  accumulate actions that propel them into samsaric existence. Through
  the profound yogas of generation and perfection, all perceptions are
  transmuted. All appearances become the infinite mandala of deities.
  The samaya substances, alcohol and so forth, are enjoyed as amrita,
  and for that reason they may be consumed. Not only is no fault
  committed but merit increases, for yogis and yoginis who enjoy such
  samaya substances are in fact making offerings to the Three Jewels
  and the Yidam deity. It is thus that their accumulation of merit and
  their development of spiritual qualities are enhanced far more
  intensely than if they were to make offerings to the Sangha—the
  Sangha, that is, composed of monks and nuns confined to the
  pratimoksha discipline, or of ordained Bodhisattvas who strive for the
  sake of others but who as yet lack the view of purity and equality.


Establishing a shrine in the bedroom? If one weren't able to have a proper room in which to establish a shrine, could the bedroom be a suitable place to put a statue of the Buddha ?

As expressed by Lama Yeshe, sexual misconduct would include sexual activity if it is "near holy objects, such as the guru or the Triple Gem." (reference Taking the Mahayana Restoring and Purifying Ordination), thus reassessing how I approach the situation.

Considering this, would shrouding the shrine with a cloth or in a cabinet be sufficient to keep it there in such a place when not practicing ?

Many blessings to you.

First, you should keep in mind that rules are different for those on the monastic path than those who are lay practitioners. Monastics are not supposed to engage in any sexual activity (in most orders), but it is presumed that lay practitioners can engage in sexual activity without it being considered misconduct (so long as they adopt the right attitude). All you need to do is maintain a properly respectful attitude towards your altar.  This might involve covering your altar, buying a small folding screen to put in front of it, or even taking down your altar and putting it away when you are not meditating.

It's worth keeping in mind that purpose of an altar is to create the proper mental state (attitude) for meditation and spiritual development. The altar itself has no intrinsic value or meaning beyond that which you imbue it with; it is more like a stepping stone or walking stick that helps keep you on the path as you move forward. An attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) is one of the Ten Fetters, so while it is important to maintain an attitude of respect towards any altar or image of the Buddha, one does so because it creates respect for the Buddha within, not because some external Buddha or external rule demands it. Follow your conscience and you will not go wrong.


What is the appropriate use for the term bhante? I've noticed on the site that quite a few people address Yuttadhammo as bhante. I'm aware that this means teacher. However in my sangha (Triratna Buddhist Community) the term is used differently. People only ever us bhante when speaking about the founder of the movement and even then it's only really people who have a more personal relationship or at least a very strong attachment to his teachings. For instance I wouldn't use the term - not that anyone would have a problem if i did - it just wouldn't seem appropriate. So the usage of the term on this site seems very casual.

I'm not asking for any validation that my sangha is using the term correctly - we probably aren't. It's just that how I would use it and how it's used on the site seem different and I'm wondering on the most appropriate usage for the term. Is it a casual term of address? Does it signify respect? Should it be only used for people with a personal relationship to the teacher?

From the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  "And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus (monks) address one another as
  'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus,
  Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name,
  or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones
  as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'

  Footnote: "Friend," in Pali is avuso, "venerable sir" = bhante, "your
  reverence" = ayasma.


Notions of self in religions that blend Buddhism and Hinduism I read in Peter Harvey's book an Introduction to Buddhism that there was a syncretistic religion in Bali that was a mixture of Buddhism and Hinduism. He didn't give many details as it was a very minor point. Has anyone got any details about this religion. I'm particular interested on how it deals with the notion of the self. My rudimentary understanding of Hinduism is that there is most definitely a self (atman??) whereas in Buddhism a central tenant is that there is no fixed self (anatman). The two religions seem to conflict on this point so I'm interested how this is reconciled.

As a note I think there is also this kind of religion in Cambodia but I could be wrong in that.

Please do not vote on this answer since it doesn't directly address the question about the religion in Bali, but does go to a nearby place. I misread the question and wrote out this answer, and don't want to throw it away, in case it maybe of use to someone. Happy to delete it if anyone objects to it staying here.

--

I've personally found the idea of samvritti bodhicitta to be indistinguishable from the Atman. However I am no expert. FWIW, the exact position of the five skandhas / heaps as defining the self is hotly debated within Buddhism, there is no single position on this matter that satisfies all schools, past and present, as far as I know.

I find there's a lot of Hindu opinion that Buddhism is really not a different religion, so much as a clearly refactored expression of Hindu ideas.

  Famous Indian Hindu scholars like the ex-President of India the late Radhakrishnan state ‘The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization.’ (2500 Years of Buddhism, 1971, Government of India, foreword, p.ix). Swami Vivekananda said that the Buddha was a great Vedantist for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, volume 7, p. 59 and Inspired Talks, volume 3, p. 527). Likewise, Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattarai, Swami Prapannacharya and scores other Nepalese and Indian scholars, too numerous to be mentioned here, have written that Buddhism is a reaction, a reformation of Hinduism. The Buddha tried to reform some of the malpractice within Hinduism and he never wanted to create a new religion. In short, according to these scholars, Buddhism is correct Hinduism without any malpractice and evils and what is called Hinduism is the malpractice and distorted form of the Vedas.

Source: http://www.byomakusuma.org/teachings/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.aspx

p.s. above source goes on to refute this position - but it occurs to me this is treading in muddy water territory since it's the kind of debate no one is truly equipped to answer. Anyone unenlightened would be arguing from a position of bias, and be worried about the implications of consequent gain or loss of power. An enlightened one would probably find the whole debate silly. I find it hard to side with either the Buddhists or the Hindus on this.

It is also said by Hindus that Shankaracharya, a leading Hindu saint of the 8th century defeated the leading Buddhist scholars of his day {source 1}, {source 2} in debate and converted them to Hinduism by showing them that their position on self wasn't so unique.

Also see, Wikipedia article on Shankara -  this debate incident is often not mentioned on Wikipedia because of its obvious capacity to incite emotions.

Thirdly, Hindu belief is that the various Buddhas are an avatar of Bhagavan Mahavishnu.

My off the cuff comment on all this:

There is no heresy or apostasy in Hinduism, it is the most accommodating of any religion I've known.

Unlike several religions including Islam and Christianity, there was never any effort at the harmonization of Hinduism into one standard religious idea; because the very idea of Hinduism as a distinct religion is a recent Westerner's view of things.

According to the modern Indian constitution (since 1950) all believers in Indian religions such as Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are clubbed together as Hindus. So that's what it says on the Indian passport unless one is a believer in an imported religion such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

Hinduism in the way that appeals to me at least has a breathtakingly grand view of religion as its core definition, according to which all beings share the same spiritual essence since they share the same physical essence. There isn't a special Christian blood group or a Christian planet earth and a Hindu planet earth, so how can there be different truths of the world?

If someone has an idea of God, and godliness is found in all, then aren't all ideas of God manifestations of God?

Note however, the Buddha doesn't go anywhere near such philosophy. He simply wasn't interested, because it wasn't going to lead to the end of suffering. He wasn't interested in absolute ultimate truths that didn't liberate people from everyday suffering. (see Simsappa sutta)

However in this grand view, the essence of religion is that there is no religion. There is no beginning, no founder, no end. The cosmic truth is too vast to be divided along the lines of human thought. The only things that matter are ethical living and peace in the here and now.

"Hinduism is about correct action, not correct belief. Orthopraxy not Orthodoxy."

I like this definition, and it isn't very far at all from Buddhism. However as Buddhism traveled across other cultures, a bit of orthodoxy of the lands did slip in, unused as they were to the idea of orthopraxy.

As long as one believes like the original idea of Hinduism as the all religion, anyone can be a Hindu.

This is easier said than done - religious conflicts have festered in India for a very long time, with Siva temples being destroyed to make way for Vishnu temples, or the other way around; or Buddhist monasteries being razed to make way for Siva temples or the other way round; or temples being razed to make way for mosques and churches and so on, ad infinitum.

It is as if no one wants this memo that all religious identity is unreal, because it all arises from thought.


Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil.
Which Sutta(s) talk about this, hopefully in more detail than I can remember?

The subject is karmic consequence, and the law is surprisingly not intuitive.

In comparing two types of actions:

1) Not knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
2) Knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.

What is not intuitive about that law, is you would think if one had wholesome and skillful intentions, before committing an action which is actually evil, that one is less culpable for the negative karmic consequence, in comparison to someone who knowingly commits and evil action even knowing fully well that the action is evil.

Which sutta(s) talk about this?

I don't remember if I'm stating the general form of the law quite correctly, what concrete examples were given in the sutta(s).

I see there is this thread with mostly the same question:
Doing evil knowingly and unknowingly
It seems KN Miln might be the only scripture, and no one was able to identify a sutta. The key words from that passage "knowingly" (jānāti) and "evil action" (pāpaka kamma).

So can anyone confirm there is no sutta about that?

The following sutta is not about kamma (but is about internal defilements).

  Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? One
  person with a blemish (aṅgaṇa) doesn’t truly understand: ‘There is a blemish in
  me.’ But another person with a blemish does truly understand: ‘There
  is a blemish in me.’ One person without a blemish doesn’t truly
  understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ But another person without a
  blemish does truly understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ In this
  case, of the two persons with a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better. And of the two persons without a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better.

  MN 5

I cannot imagine knowingly doing evil wicked kamma is better than not knowingly doing evil wicked kamma (such as the wicked Mara kamma of reviling Noble Ones & making false declarations of jhana attainment). Knowingly doing evil wicked kamma sounds psychopathic.


What if there was no one to offer food to monastics? This is a questions that often comes up when I visit study groups, particularly when the subject of everyone practicing like a monk/nun comes up. Wouldn't monastics be allowed to farm-just enough for sustenance?  It seems extreme that they would just starve because no one fed them. My understanding was that the food offering was mostly established for the lay people to have an opportunity  to give and gain merit, but I may be wrong. Is there a canonical reference saying monastics can only eat if given food? What did they do before the order was fully established? What about forest monastics who go of for extended periods alone?

There are several monastic orders that currently allow monks to cook their own food, but usually there is a lay community that donates the cash or food.

I don't know of anyone who starved merely because there was no one to offer food. The Vinaya is real but so is reality. I think most will find an empty stomach is more real than the Vinaya.

In any case the making an honest living, if absolutely necessary isn't a parajika offense - a monastic may prove to his/her peers that it was essential to earn money, and if the peers agree, there is no penalty. Even if it is found to be an honest mistake, it won't be treated as harshly as if one had broken a parajika vow.

  The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of
  automatic disrobal, are as follows:

  Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.
  Stealing something of value (which includes smuggling, cheating or deliberately avoiding payment of a tax).
  Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also
  includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.
  Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be
  Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or
  that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of
  these states.

source: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut019.htm


Can this Buddhist do this job? At my university I and my group were offered a case of opinion on Buddhism.

Neither I nor my colleagues are Buddhists so we have done a lot of research in the last few days, but we are afraid of misinterpreted this religion.

The case given to us is about a Buddhist who works in an investment fund and basically his job is to recommend investments to clients.

Right now, the best investment he can recommend is related to the manufacture and exchange of automatic weapons.

We found that having a job that causes suffering to other creatures is against buddhism and for that reason, since weapons are something that is created to cause suffering the worker is in doubt...

Can he recommend this investment on weapon to his clients because recommending this investment is really far from causing suffering to other creature with a gun or it doesn't matter and it is against the buddhism and he should leave this job ?

Thank you,

Tiago from Portugal

It may not be necessary to be a Buddhist to realize that doing harm to others by selling weapons, is not a wholesome act.


What is wisdom? How to contemplate? There are 4 aspects  of satipatthana meditation. Can anyone explain how  to do the cittanupassana? Is it not merelly noting the hate, greed and delusion? Isn't it?.

Many people will disagree with my answer because they wish to believe they are practising cittanupassana.
The word "anupassana" means to "watch closely" therefore cittanupassana is not "noting" because noting is thinking rather than watching.
Also, because "anupassana" means to "watch closely", there is no thinking whatsoever in the mind when cittanupassana occurs.
For example, in the practise of Anapanasati, cittanupassana is practised with full concentration, i.e., with knowing each in-breath & each out-breath.
About cittanupassana in Anapanasati, the Buddha commented:

I do not say that there is the development of mindfulness of breathing for one who is forgetful, who is not fully aware.
MN 118

Cittanupassana occurs after the breathing has calmed & after the rapture that arises from calming breathing is also calmed.
Cittanupassana is directly knowing the quality & purity of the mind. Although during cittanupassana the mind can have stains of greed, hatred & delusions, these stains are not thoughts or thinking. They are the energy or mood of the stains/defilements themselves. Therefore, MN 10 says:

And how, monks, does a monk fare along contemplating mind in the mind?
Herein, monks, a monk knows intuitively the mind with attachment as a
mind with attachment;
he knows intuitively the mind without attachment, as a mind without
attachment;
he knows intuitively the mind with hatred, as a mind with hatred;
he knows intuitively the mind without hatred, as a mind without
hatred;
he knows intuitively the mind with confusion, as a mind with
confusion;
he knows intuitively the mind without confusion, as a mind without
confusion;
he knows intuitively the mind that is contracted, as a mind that is
contracted;
he knows intuitively the mind that is distracted, as a mind that is
distracted;
he knows intuitively the mind that has become great, as a mind that
has become great;
he knows intuitively the mind that has not become great, as a mind
that has not become great;
he knows intuitively the mind with (some other mental state) superior
to it, as a mind with (some other mental state) superior to it;
he knows intuitively the mind with no (other mental state) superior to
it, as a mind with no (other mental state) superior to it;
he knows intuitively the mind that is composed, as a mind that is
composed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is not composed, as a mind that is
not composed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is freed, as a mind that is freed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is not freed, as a mind that is not
freed.
MN 10


I don't know pali or Sanskrit if anyone can have pdf of english Tipitaka Can anyone please send me link to the pdf of line by line English translation of Tipitaka at least translation only.

The Tipitaka, also known as the Pali Canon, is a very huge collection of text. The main religious text of other religions like the Bible, can easily fit into one hand as a book. Compared to this, the Tipitaka is very huge. It's more like a library shelf full of books.

The Tipitaka is organized into three "baskets", namely the Sutta Pitaka which mainly contains the discourses (suttas) of the Buddha and his chief disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which contains rules for the monastic order, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which contains detailed analyses and summaries for advanced students.

I assume that you're a beginner. A beginner would mostly be interested in the Suttas. Even then, the amount of suttas are vast, and they are not arranged in a way that is friendly to beginners.

For beginners, I highly recommend the book "In The Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. There was an online PDF version here, but that link doesn't work today.

Another option is to try "Path to Freedom: A Self Guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings" by Access to Insight.

This question on Buddhism.SE has suggested lists of suttas in an order or sequence that is suitable for beginners. They are also linked to the online English translations.

Yet another option is the book "Early Buddhist Discourses" by John J. Holder. This is in fact an online PDF copy. According to the books's Amazon page, it contains "twenty discourses from the Pali Canon--including those most essential to the study and teaching of early Buddhism - are provided in fresh translations, accompanied by introductions that highlight the main themes and set the ideas presented in the context of wider philosophical and religious issues."

The options above will give you nicely arranged content for your study.

If you just want to refer to particular suttas of the Tipitaka in English, please see Sutta Central or Access to Insight.

For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.


What are your thoughts on Ajahn Maha Bua? Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma

I am posting this because I've yet to post a question.

I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his.

However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism.

Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta?

Thoughts?

I've read some of his stuff on the asubhasannam training & progression. It's pretty good/interesting. Title is "Samadhi begets wisdom" or something like this.

I've also read excerpts from his other book, that about Ajahn Mun. That one makes me think that the author, if he himself believes those things, at the time of writing, is quite certainly not Ariya.

I think he is probably an accomplished yogi in general tho. Maybe like Alara Kalama or Uddaka Ramaputta attainments & views.

That book i recommended is pretty shocking, it's hard to imagine what life was like for ven. maha bowas and of his monks.

Another thing is that sometimes he seemed somewhat cruel, like on occasion he said some things about children as being just out of hell. The way he carried himself in general from what i've seen has been less impressing, chewing tobbacco, crying, harshly complaining about children.

I've heard he said once to fill a new meditation house that was done built, knee deep, with excrement.

Im sure some might think these are eccentrisities of an Ariya but i see nothing of this sort in the Sutta Pitaka nor Jataka.

This is my impression.


How can we include meditation in our daily activities or day to day life? Given that if a person is extremely busy & unable to give full time to meditation but wants to penetrate mind to eradicate past live impressions, how can he/she do so?

It simply comes down to two words… sati sampajanna.  Sati is mindfulness.
The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.

Our happiness, our lack of happiness, depends on our actions. So that’s where we focus our attention. That’s what we should keep in mind. This is called dhammanussati, keeping the Dhamma in mind. This is why the Buddha has us listen to the Dhamma, read the Dhamma. Whatever thinking that you do, it needs to be through the Dhamma.

When you create a frame of reference here in the present moment, there are lots of things you can tune in to. You can choose the body in and of itself. You can choose feelings, mental states, mental qualities in and of themselves.

Whenever your thoughts go to recollecting your past incarnations, try to get them out of your mind, as they are a-Dhamma. To be consciously forgetful in that way requires an act of mindfulness—in other words, deciding which level you’re going to tune in to while you let everything else go for the time being. Of all the sensory input that comes in at any one particular moment, you make a choice of what you’re going to pay attention to, what memories, what frame of reference you’re going to bring to that particular moment. And it’s an important mental skill to be able to shift your frame of reference as necessary.

Being mindful means being very deliberate and clear about what you bring to whatever you’re doing: what you’re going to remember, what you’re not going to remember, what you’re going to recollect, what you’re going to let go, which things are useful to recollect right now. If you wanted to, you could sit here and spend the whole hour thinking about facts that would make you totally miserable, but what does that accomplish? We’re sitting here to think about things that are useful for the mind, so remember the things that are useful for the mind, that will help it develop. As for the other voices coming in and out of the mind, listen to the ones that are helpful and ignore the ones that are not. You can be selective.

This way, mindfulness becomes a quality we can apply to everything we do. And instead of making us unable to function, it actually heightens our ability to function, because we understand the process that the mind goes through.


Mixing Buddhism with other religions The predominant opinion of people with a lot of experience with practising Buddhism seems to be that there are irreconcilable gaps between Buddhism and Christianity and that it makes no sense to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. On the other hand, they don't seem to have a problem with mixing Buddhism with Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion.

Are there objective differences between these all these religions on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?

EDIT: It seems that many answerers didn't understand my question. Let me say it again. I'm not asking: "Is it possible to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?". This is what I am asking:

Are there objective differences between Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?

Within my own experience of this, I think it is entirely down to personal opinion. Throughout my upbringing, I was very lucky to be brought up in a country with so many temples and religions that there was hardly any discrimination and a huge encouragement to take part in celebrations. I have always been taught that each religion is equal, and that they mostly aim to reach the same goal: Love and Compassion to alleviate suffering. I think due to modernisation and differing ideologies — e.g. a Westerner's take on Buddhism is rather different to an Asian's take on Buddhism simply due to social and cultural differences — texts have been interpreted in a whole multitude of ways, which therefore causes a whole host of problems. Some will say all religions are very different, others will say they all wish for peace, etc.

My mother was brought up Taoist and Buddhist, she does prayer, and goes to the temple every time we are back in our native country. However, she calls herself a Christian. She believes in God, and at no point do I feel I have the right to question any of her beliefs. I also feel it is easy for her to believe in differing religions because our home town embodies the churches, mosques and temples. She happily practices what she believes in, regardless of its religion. Buddhism in itself is a philosophy, like the Tao, and it is wholly accepting of all religions. If my mother is happy, let her be happy, as long as she feels she is living a good life.


Spirituality of a life from Buddhism I read a number of books regarding Buddhism. However for me it's a bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction: in other words, I am looking for how to achieve a real happiness of life from myself.

As far as I know, leaving is one way to achieve it.

As a practice, I start to do Anapanasathi Meditation, to concentrate my mind. When mind is in concentration, for one thing, it makes freedom feeling of a life.

I need to ask: what is the spirituality of a life?
Please explain it in depth.

You might see also How to explain what Buddhism is?

However for me bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction

I think that the word dukkha is sometimes translated as dissatisfaction.

Is it OK if I say that? You say you've read a number of books regarding Buddhism; so maybe you know about dukkha and the Four Noble Truths already, and so I can just refer to them without explaining them?

Anyway, perhaps "a life with satisfaction" might mean "a life without dukkha" -- and, well, I think that's the foundation of Buddhist doctrine -- how to live without dukkha.

It involves the cessation of "craving", apparently -- perhaps even cravings for "spirituality", if that makes sense (I don't know what you mean by "spirituality", but maybe you're "craving" it).

An opposite to dukkha is sukha (not an exact opposite, but nevertheless). Various forms of Sukha are supposed to be available to lay house-holders -- being ethical, fulfilling all your responsibilities, good friendships, and so on. I might recommend this book for more details about that.

Other schools of Buddhism maybe emphasise that it's satisfying to try to help (save) other people.

I think that some people summarise the doctrine[s] as saying that what's "satisfying" is one's own ethical behaviour -- for example:

  It is the same technique most people unconsciously use to maintain their ego: finding reasons to congratulate oneself, and reinvesting the joy that comes from that into further effort in the same direction. The only difference here is that Buddhists use it consistently with Ethics ...

If I behave well (e.g. generously) then I might remember that good behaviour with some satisfaction (or I might, at least, have "no remorse"). And, to be a bit pedantic, it might be about having good intention, rather than only behaviour ... behaviour tends to follow after, follow from, intention.

As an addendum, when you talk about "life" and "spirituality", perhaps you're talking about what's translated from the suttas as "holy life" -- perhaps that's brahmacariya -- and features in suttas like this one -- or in this formula.

However that may give the impression that Buddhism is only for monks, which isn't the whole truth.


"No spontaneously reborn beings" One of the 10 wrong views is the view that there are no spontaneously reborn beings.

The preceding 2 wrong views in the sequence of 10 are "there is no mother" and "there is no father".

Now beings born on earth mostly see beings coming to existence due
to a mother and father. Most will never see a "spontaneously reborn
being". So how does one form the view that there ARE spontaneously
reborn beings when one has never seen such beings? Or is it adequate to simply not reject the
possibility of the existence of such beings, but not form the view
that there are such beings?
Also, if one has the view that there is a mother and father, how
does one reconcile these 2 views with the view that there are
spontaneously reborn beings, which we are also told are born without
a mother and father? Further, say if all the beings we encounter
were born spontaneously, how can we form the view that there is a
mother and father? Or do the words mother and father mean something other than the biological parents or the first pair of primary carers, e.g. DP verse 294?
Why is this view included in the 10 wrong views? The other 9 views
does provide a framework for beings to avoid evil and do good.
Rejecting this wrong view and accepting its opposing view that there
indeed ARE spontaneously reborn beings requires a stretch of the
imagination for many. What is the moral purpose?

Once again these questions are asked only for academic interest.

A view is when you affirm a certain thinking to be true. Simply having a thought of doubt doesn't qualify as having a view, even though it's still unwholesome.

A human taking the view that there are no spontaneous beings solely based on his inability to see them points to a flaw in his thinking. I.e. thinking that anything that cannot be seen does not exit. If a born blind person has the same thinking, he might even deny the existence of the sun and the moon. This is similar to taking the view that the earth is the only place with sentient beings in the whole universe because we haven't seen any aliens yet. The same line of thinking can make a person take the view that Nibbana does not exist, because he hasn't seen it.

Not believing in father and mother is more about thinking that there's no use in caring for them, which is wrong and detrimental. It's about biological parents.


Does studying mathematics or science lead to a practitioner of Buddhism acquiring wrong philosophical views and mental afflictions? Among the steps needed to attain enlightenment, a practitioner of Buddhism needs to abandon the wrong philosophical views that they acquired due to either wrong teaching or wrong study. In this sense, a practitioner that is less educated need only remove his or her sense of self or ego and the afflictions due to his or her present body. However, a practitioner that is educated would also have to remove the philosophical views acquired through wrong learning.

As paradigms in science have historically been replaced by new paradigms a la Kuhn, this means that science is necessarily a wrong view. For instance, a person living in Newton's time would have studied the absoluteness of time and space, but that view was displaced by Einstein's relativistic paradigm. Whatever science we are learning now, whether it be quantum physics or evolution or species, given the historical record, would be a wrong view and replaced by a more correct paradigm in the future.

Even mathematics have proven to be contradictory through history. At first, set theorists believed in unlimited comprehension till Russell's paradox showed the need for bounded comprehension, in the fateful saga of Russel and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. Pythagoras's theorem was thought to be unconditionally true, but now it is true in only one of the three absolute geometries and physicists now believe our world to be non-Euclidean, in which Pythagoras's theorem fails.

After one is reborn in another world, the physics or mathematics of that world would likely be very different, and one's body would also likely be very different. This probably indicates the impermanent nature of the science and mathematics of our current society.

Are you also of the opinion that the learning mathematics and science causes a person to acquire wrong views? Would this lead one further away from enlightenment?

If you are looking for enlightenment you should be concerned of not being attached to these studies, or averse to what you disagree. The same fits to Buddhism itself, you should't become absorbed, or obsessed, to the Dharma.

All philosophies are mental phenomena, they aren't either good or bad in themselves. But they can hinder your search for enlightenment if you are too concerned about them.

Math and science share a side of problem elaboration and solving. So it would contradict Buddhism if you enjoy or think it is meaningful to be worried about all those problems. Over-thinking about anything and having a heavy attitude over theories or facts are opposite to the practice of meditation.

The point of meditation is to not being absorbed to mental elaborations. So there is no sense to think all over a sitting session. Then this extends to daily life, there is no sense to have a sharp and clear mind when meditating and daydream in the rest of the time.

For short, the point isn't what phenomena you engage, but it's how you engage to phenomena. If you can elaborate on any philosophy in a detached way it wouldn't be a problem at all. So the practice would be to think while being present and aware. (yes, this one is quite paradoxical)


In what ways are the Advaita concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' and the Buddhist concept of Buddha Nature similar and different? In what ways are the Advaita concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' similar, and/or different, to the Buddhist concept of Buddha Nature?

This is a good comparison, that is where the doubt arose:
Nonduality in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

Maybe there is a similarity...?

One short paper that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta".

When we compare the Advaita Vedanta, especially as interpreted by Shankara and Madhyamika, whether be it the Svatantric from of Bhabya or Prasangic form of Candrakirti, the sharing of the same language, culture and analogies while talking about two different paradigms becomes obvious. Because of the use of the same language structure (be it Pali or Sanskrit) and the same analogies to express two different paradigms many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamika is a re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta.
In fact, the Buddha, after long years of Brahmanic as well as Sramanic meditation, found the concept of Brahma (an ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum to this ephemeral transient world) not only inadequate to solve the basic issue of humanity- i. e. sorrow (dukha) and questioned the very existence of such an eternal substratum; but also declared that a search for such an imagined (Skt. Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a form of escapism and therefore not really spiritual [...]

[...]

Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism.

[...]

Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality then there can be no liberation from the changing, transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahman- such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahman is necessary a dead end which leads nowhere, let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i. e. realizing groundless.

[...]

But even though Sankara copied the use of these words from Buddhism and also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with these words different. [...] In the Vedantic context, the relative truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is that this samsara is an illusion and the ultimate truth (skt. paramartha satya) is that there is an ultimately existing thing (skt. paramartha satta) transcending/ immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist and the both transcendent and immanent Brahman will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality.


Compassion Meditation's Efficiency In compassion meditation (metta-bhavana), does the strength of the effect depend mainly on concentration? Or are there other factors involved as well?

Thank you.

I depend on concentration and sincerity of on thoughts.

If one can keep out other distracting thoughts one's concentration increase thus increasing the effectiveness.

If one just repeating words than sincere this decreases the effectiveness.

Ultimately what is needed is:

one generates compassionate thoughts
develop compassion as a quality
break barriers where one classify beings as favourable and unfavourable


Buddhist Prayer Beads, Malas How are Malas used in the spiritual Buddhist practice?

Are there instructions and introductions for use?

I am equally interested in responses from the Buddhist practice of monks and lay people (less New Age theories). I am particularly interested the application of Malas uses of all Buddhist lineages in everyday life.

String of beads can be used in Anussati meditation in sitting or when you are out of meditation to occupy the mind with wholesome thoughts.


Where is the consciousness located? Cosmic Consciousness? I recently became aware of questions regarding the location of consciousness. The argument put forward is that the consciousness is separate to the body. This is not something I considered before.

The first is conjecture by a Doctor Fenwick https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain

"Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”
Fenwick is not a physicist, so I dredged the following link, the mind of wigners friend which supports the Fenwicks theory.

The second is based on quantum mechanics https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040667?read-now=1&seq=1
The key points central to the article are

"A. My body with its internal nervous system(explored to any future degree of physiological completeness) functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. Further more quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis of the mechanism.

B. I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."

The 3rd is offered as evidence of the first 2 links https://youtu.be/Uq8l4XVfgPA

Am I correct in thinking if all the information in the universe exists in a timeless dimension(membrane) of space and our brains only access a part of it, making us who we are. Can we access more information towards enlightenment maybe? or sixth senses? via meditation a bit like the Buddha may have done?

In particular can any one point out if there are any errors in the second link that might make its central argument incorrect?

It is never a good idea to mix the speculations of the modern rationalists with buddhism. In buddhism, the location of consciousness is irrelevant. The thing to know about consciousness is this:

  "He discerns consciousness, the origination of consciousness, the
  cessation of consciousness, the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of consciousness. He discerns the allure of consciousness,
  the drawback of consciousness, and the escape from consciousness.

  "And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness:
  eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness. From the origination of name-&-form
  comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of
  name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness. And just this noble
  eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  consciousness, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right
  action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence
  on consciousness: that is the allure of consciousness. The fact that
  consciousness is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the
  drawback of consciousness. The subduing of desire & passion for
  consciousness, the abandoning of desire & passion for consciousness:
  that is the escape from consciousness.

  "For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the origination of
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the cessation of
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of practice
  leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly
  knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the escape
  from consciousness in this way, are practicing for disenchantment —
  dispassion — cessation with regard to consciousness, they are
  practicing rightly. Those who are practicing rightly are firmly based
  in this doctrine & discipline. And any brahmans or contemplatives who
  by directly knowing consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  origination of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way,
  directly knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly
  knowing the drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing
  the escape from consciousness in this way, are — from disenchantment,
  dispassion, cessation, lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to
  consciousness — released, they are well-released. Those who are
  well-released are fully accomplished. And with those who are fully
  accomplished, there is no cycle for the sake of describing them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.057.than.html


Is it correct to say that true compassion (not trying to be) only manifest when there is wisdom? That is to say that wisdom must come first before compassion.

Correct. True compassion comes from being able to relate, to see things from the perspective of the object of compassion. While this may partially exist before wisdom, only complete realization of Emptiness gives unlimited insight into other perspectives. Normally, this ability is hindered by ego's attachments, biases, fixed views etc. The enlightened mind is completely free from these and can truly see from all perspectives, without distortion. This "knowledge of all modes" is what gives rise to true compassion.

Although, of course partial wisdom and partial compassion can develop together in lock-step.


Shamata and vipassana - loss of willpower I've been meditating (somewhat regularly) about one or two years back. Mainly shamata, and vipassana lately. Today I feel that my willpower is considerably lower than before.

I mean, I used to be very interested in a variety things (such as music theory, matial arts, computer programming paradigms, algorithms, and so on). And lately I'm not feeling interested in them so much as I did before. Some years ago I used to think about them, study them and practice them.

Lately I'm not engaged in any of these activities, besides what relates to my job. Sometimes I think about getting involved with one or another of them, but soon I feel unwilling to get exposed to unsatisfying activities, I feel there is no sense to make effort on impermanent matters.

When I started meditating I thought I wouldn't lose "my interests", and now I feel somewhat lost by this lack of enthusiasm. It doesn't feel bad at all, I'm just a bit unsure about letting my secular skills and interest fade away. I'm not sure it is ok if this unwillingness deepens.

Do you think it is OK? Is it expected in the Buddhist path? Do you think I should let it happen?

Or do you think there is something missing in my practice? Do you think something must be done about it?

I'm asking for an advice, so I'll allow myself to be partial to choose an answer.

I can relate to your question. I too come from a software background and have had a similar set of experiences.

Even though we have had similar experiences, the underlying cause could be different. I'll share with you why I think I have had these experiences; perhaps some of my thoughts/insights might be useful to you.

You mention being interested in a variety of things: music, martial arts, software, etc. According to me all of these things -- even when they are interesting --  take a slice of your mental space. They take up space in the memory as well as the mind's computing cycles.

Software development, among all these activities is a bit different, in that it is the most stressful. Most programmers start of with a lot of passion and try to keep track of several things in their field. This is a very commendable attitude, but the rate at which stuff changes has become absolutely insane in the last few years. So IMO, regardless of passion, you are developing stress under the surface, just by having to keep up with so much. I think many of us have a silent inner fear of becoming out of touch with current knowledge. This stress works on the brain silently, till a point where something's got to break. This is not just my opinion - I have read several blog posts by developers who feel the same way.

A reason why sometimes we try to do a variety of things is because we have an achievement oriented mindset. Such a mindset unfortunately always comes with an underlying stress of not having achieved enough, and it pushes a person to achieve more, to do more. Maybe such a person cannot feel comfortable until they have spent themselves totally in trying to do things. If that is true, then fatigue and stress is bound to accumulate in the mind - and show it's impact at some point.

Now let's come to your spiritual practice. A very nice (but sometimes undesirable from a worldly perspective) effect of meditation is, that it makes you start calling out those things that are stressing you without adding any value to your life. Sure, meditation brings authentic joy, but the path to authentic joy for some/many people is through the process of calling out those things that are sapping on the spirit.

Once you start calling out things that have become part of your daily routing, suddenly everything might feel meaningless. There sets in a form of exhaustion and detachment from everything.

I am not saying this is a healthy state, but it may be part of the landscape. Even though joy and energy are some of the factors of enlightenment, not everyone experiences them right away. Very often growth happens through a tunnel of hopelessness.

This moment is perfect the way it is - just breathe -- A Zen Saying

Does this saying feel liberating to you? If it does and if you feel that you have an achievement mindset, then tempering it with a certain calm acceptance of the present might help.

Try doing fewer things and don't feel compelled to fill your day with something or the other. See if that helps. Give yourself the luxury of feeling happy even when you are not doing tasks that are in some way adding to your knowledge, etc.

I would like to respectfully disagree with the fact that joy, energy and calmness are factors which develop once someone starts meditating. Sure, they will and should develop, but nobody can say when. Different people come to meditation at different points in their life and with different backgrounds. They are certainly going to have different experiences.

IMO and with a disclaimer that it comes purely from my subjective experiences, I don't think there is anything wrong in the way you feel. Examine why you are feeling listless. Could it be that you have been over extending yourself from several years. Are you feeling tired from having to do so many things? It's possible that this is a phase, or it's possible it might be a time to introspect and find out if you are leading the kind of life that is authentic to you.

There are many mediators whose journey involves dark and difficult periods. I think it's important to be honest with yourself and also maintain a sense of humor.

I'll say, honor your journey and examine your reactions. I am sure your own self examination will show you the right way.

Great question - and an important one. Thanks for asking.


Whose nirvana is it anyway? Allow me to take you on a little detour through Heidegger?

He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me.

I think this means that "my death" never arrives... That may sound weird, but if we view death as a complete extinction of the "person" or whatever makes them up, then the empirical instant that death begins necessarily goes unnoticed - as in I can have no cognition of "my death" or by proxy the time it occurs.

i.e. It cannot be said that the event of my death is in any way only empircally real for me (because such a quality would never arrive): but who else dies for me? Which of course isn't very Buddhist...

But it does make me wonder if a similar thing can be said about nirvanic extinction? Or is the true self of a Buddha his or her nirvana, such that it can be said the Buddha is no more, just not that he or she reached it?

From a buddhist point of view, i think the question is flawed already from the beginning by assuming that there exists a "self or person" by using the words "whose nirvana, my death, person, his or her nirvana".

By using these words it is implied that a self exists which it do not. There exist a physical and a mental stream and nowhere is there a self to be found. A self is not even needed in the equation. Things work just fine without the need for a self.

If you try to search for this self by either using the method of analysis where you break things up into the constituent parts and look at them you will not find a self anywhere.

If you use the method of synthesis by looking at things in a relational/interdependent way by using the doctrine of dependent origination you will also not find a self anywhere. Why? Because according to dependent origination things only exist as a part/reflection of other things. Therefore no real self can be found.

The false idea of a self arises when the 5 aggregates work together as a physio-psychological machine. The false idea of a self is really just one of the 52 mental formations belonging to the 4th aggreate and all the aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. This is said by Dr. Walpola Rahula on p. 18 in his book "What The Buddha Taught".

So in order to answer your question i would say that you should take out the aforementioned words and then you have your answer which is that no "self or person" achieves nibbana. Assuming that a "self or person" exists is not refering to ultimate reality - paramattha sacca. Instead you are dealing with concepts which is not real.

Lanka


buddha and the fear? Fear is something that can hold us back in inaction. Fear is something that i have in me regarding my presence and purpose of existence. Apart from my social life, apart from whatever i can do for my family i have an instinct to have much more potential in me. But fear of loosing my present keep me in inaction and i am unable to step forward to my purpose (meaning of my existence). So many doubts and real life barriers are also here. I want to know at what point buddha overcome his (level) fear ? And how it feels to be fearless (completely) ?

Fear is a primal instinct which has its function as it enables us to avoid dangerous situations, thus fearlessness is in itself dangerous and there is such a thing as pathological fearlessness.

Complete and permanent fearlessness came for the Buddha with Awakening, of a different type than pathological fearlessness: for us still shackled by the Hindrances there is only temporary release in the Jhanas and learning to accept fear as part of existence. Moreover, as Acharya Buddharacitta writes, the Buddha taught the Karanya Metta Sutta to his monks in order to help them develop mindfulness as some disgruntled devas were oppressing them with frightful visions:

  Monks, go back to the same spot! It is only by striving there that you will effect the destruction of inner taints. Fear not! If you want to be free from the harassment caused by the deities, learn this sutta. It will be a theme for meditation as well as a formula for protection (paritta).
  Then the Master recited the Karaniya Metta Sutta — the Hymn of Universal Love — which the monks learned by rote in the presence of the Lord. Then they went back to the same place

So that's also a way to deal with fear.

EDIT As others have noted, fear comes from aversion (and this is why the Karanya Metta Sutta dispels fear by replacing it with loving kindness). Thus, the Buddha vanquished fear when he  destroyed aversion. This happened before Awakening.


Arising of Contact, Feeling, Perception, Thinking I have seen in many places the description of the phases of contact, feeling, perception, thinking and etc. upon this site. I have three questions:

1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination?

2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

Thank you.

1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of
  dependent origination?

It is called 60 piyarūpaṃ-sātarūpaṃ in saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.

It is a present part of dependent origination, nothing difference.

  2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

Contact = metting of a sense + a sense-organ + a sense-data.
Feeling = result of contact.
Perception = memory of feeling for recollecting next time to
take/avoid the memorized feeling.
Thinking.

  3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha Chapter 8.


Attachment Towards Environments and Objects I have just asked a question about computer use, and it spurred another question in my mind: How does attachment towards objects and places occur?

I'm specifically wondering if all pleasurable activities and experiences reinforce attachment to their corresponding objects and places. For example, if a person watches different shows on television, and each are pleasurable, does this -- in addition to creating attachment to the different shows -- produce attachment to television overall aside from these shows?

In other words, I'm asking whether attachment transfers from activities to their related elements, the objects involved. Another example might be a person watching a theatre play which gives them pleasure; would such a person develop attachment to the theatre and the actors?

Finally, it seems relevant to include the example of someone engaging in casual sex for the sake of it but who then develops attachment towards the other person. Is this yet another case of strong pleasure forming at attachment via attribution?

Attachment is attachment and we become attached to attachment. Generating a desire and fulfilling it is a wonderful pleasure. You must have noticed that people usually prefer to transfer their attachments rather than lessen them. It's much easier.

It seems an important issue. Transferring attachments is a great way of avoiding doing without them, and I should know, but also a way of overcoming those that are unwanted and steering our attachment towards objects and activities that might be better for us.

Your point about the transferring of attachment to the object of pleasure seems right to me, and again it seems an important issue.


Which sutta is it in which Sariputta asks his disciples .. friend if someone asks, is the world eternal I remember reading once, disciples of Sariputta were going out into the world and he ask them the question: "Friend what if someone ask you is the world eternal or is not eternal". Then his passed his disciples when they just quote Dependent Origination "depending on contact, feeling arises, depending on feeling, craving arises..etc..

I'm trying to look for that sutta again. Anybody know which sutta is it or my memory has been corrupted, there never was such a sutta.

I found two that are similar, but not identical.

The Kalara Sutta is similar, in that it's Sariputta talking about Dependent Origination. However, in that sutta, it's the Buddha who is asking the questions; Sariputta has no disciples; and instead of asking whether the world is eternal, the question is whether birth is ended. This could perhaps be the one you're thinking of, because the Buddha asks questions like, "But, Sāriputta, if they were to ask you ..."

Or there's the The Greater Discourse on the
Elephant-Footprint Simile, which starts with Sariputta addressing the bhikkus as "Friends", and ends by repeating that "He who sees dependent origination sees the
Teaching; he who sees the Teaching sees dependent origination."


Are all forms of Dukkha related to a sense of self? A few days ago I started reading books about Paticcasamuppada because I realized how little and shallow was my understanding on this capital matter.

Despite getting the gist of it, I still have problems understanding the exact details.

For instance, I understand that dukkha arises from the 3 kinds of craving (kama, bhava, vibhava), and that craving is the condition for the arising of sustenance/clinging/fuel.

I've been reading a book based on Dhamma Talks given by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Under the Bodhi Tree) on the topic of Dependent Co-arising. There it is said that all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine".  Is that always the case?

If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself?

Or to put it in other words...

Is the arising of the idea/perception of self always necessary for the arising of dukkha?

I'm not sure if I'm expressing my doubts correctly.

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

From the second noble truth, we know that suffering (dukkha) is caused by craving (tanha). From the third noble truth, we know that the cessation of suffering comes through the cessation of craving.

What is craving really?

From this answer, we learn that craving is a habit of reification or objectification-classification (papañca). I quote that answer here:

  Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a
  generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A
  child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply,
  because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is
  attractive and desirable.

  Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its
  fake promise to make you happy.

Meanwhile, in this question, I quoted Sutta Nipata 4.14:

  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the
  world?"
  "He should put an entire stop to the root of
  objectification-classifications (papañca): 'I am the thinker.'

  Commentary (Thanissaro):
  The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads into the
  immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
  thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
  into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
  perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
  must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
  granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
  inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
  drop them.

Now what is the notion of the self? It's a mental fabrication. It's a view. It's a thought in the mind.

Due to this deep-seated thought or view of "I am the thinker" i.e. the notion of the self, one reifies everything that is perceived through the six senses into objects and classifies them according to its relationship to the self. It creates the duality of self and non-self, as well as classifies the relationship of non-self things to the self e.g. this belongs to me, that does not belong to me. Without the notion of the self, this reification would not exist.

And craving is, as said above, just a habit of reification.

For e.g. when you look at food that looks interesting to you, you experience craving. When the food is not present and you think about it, that's clinging. When you try to get this food, but it is denied to you, you experience anger. If somebody else took the last piece of that food and it is denied to you, you feel jealous as you see them relishing it.

To you, that meat thing on the plate looks like delicious food. To a vegan, that may look repulsive.

Why is this the case? That thing on the plate is just a thing. It's your mind that objectified it and classified it as delicious food. The vegan's mind objectified it and classified it as repulsive food.

Isn't it delicious food, only relative to you (the self) and your eating preferences (some characteristic of your personality i.e. part of your self)?

To a honey bee, that meat thing on the plate is not even food, because that's not the kind of food that it eats. That's just dirt to the bee. The bee objectifies it and classifies it relative to its self.

So, all types of craving and clinging and views are all relative to your self. If there is no notion of self, then the (sight and smell of the) thing on the plate is just something on the plate, that evokes no emotion.

So, all forms of sufferings are indeed related to the notion of the self.


What are the things that the enlightened people know but others don't? Recently, I heard a list of things that the non-enlightened people don't know about reality. Ex: Some people might think "everything is permenant". but I forgot the complete list. So, what are they ?

It is very useful to know those things becuase I can aware about them in day to day life.

the usual sutta about the higher knowledge is mn112
https://suttacentral.net/mn112/en/sujato

you can read bikkhu analayo analysis with the comparisons with paralel suttas here
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sixfold-purity.pdf


What is the difference between craving and clinging? Considering the 12 nidanas

Ignorance
Mental Volitions
Consciousness
"Name" and "Form"
The six senses
Contact
Feelings
Craving
Clinging
Becoming
Birth
Suffering and Death

What is the difference between craving and clinging? They seem very similar to me. It would be helpful if someone could reference the original Pali and draw out the nuances of these terms.

Many Thanks

Craving is when the baby reaches with desire for the pacifier and clinging is when the baby has the pacifier and won't let it go.

To distinguish craving from clinging, Buddhaghosa uses the following metaphor in this source:

  "Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached,
  like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the
  grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping
  his objective.... They are the roots of the suffering due to seeking
  and guarding."


What is real meanning of Prathipathi poojawa? I know best poojawa is prathipathi poojawa. Does it mean follow the Lord Buddha's instructions? However what is a depth meaning of it? And how can I achieve it?

It means to honor the Buddha by working on purifying the mind and attaining freedom from suffering as he instructed.


Is meditating when tired a waste of time? I like to meditate sometimes just before bed. Invariably I end up drifting off into dream type states and ending the mediating early. Is it a waste of time to meditate when tired or conversely are there some particular benefits to doing it then?

Many thanks as always

Sariputta discusses this in DN33.

Here is the problem:

  Eight grounds for laziness. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. But while doing it my body will get tired. I’d better have a lie down.’ They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for laziness.

Here is the solution:

  Eight grounds for arousing energy. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. While working it’s not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’ They rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for arousing energy.

DN33 is a long sutta. It is two hours long. I listen to it as much as I can. And when I am tired of walking, tired of listening, I hear the above verses. They come late in DN33, just when I need them.

Perhaps they may work for you as well.