Where is the line drawn with stealing? It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes.

So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift.

On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn.

So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines.

Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not?

It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card?

For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing?

‘If a monk, intending to steal, takes from a village or from the
  wilderness what has not been given to him— the sort of theft for which
  kings, having caught a thief, would beat, imprison, or banish him,
  saying, “You’re a bandit, you’re a fool, you’ve gone astray, you’re a
  thief”— he too is expelled and not in communion.’ Second Parajika rule

This is for monks, but it's pretty clear - or at least it leaves the subjectivity to individual jurisdictions! (so in Italy, if you are starving and steal food, it's ok. If it's less than the value of a good shield (1/4 dinar), then in Sharia countries you are not in trouble)

With regards to possession, who possesses and to what extent, are probably useful measures. Who possesses is usually well defined (if not, then theft becomes a gray area). To what extent - how long should patents and copyright last, whether you can even effectively charge for something like streetlighting - are all likely subject to a social consensus.

Overall, if you perceive the object of your desire to be in the possession of someone else, or that someone else directly tells you so (asking is always a nice way to establish possession), then any intentional act to take such a thing, against the wishes of the owner would be theft, regardless of social consensus.

Piracy and claims as to the injustice of any and all economic systems are ancient claims, modernity only offers a novel spin on them.

If you think/believe/know that within a jurisdiction, a thing is claimed by someone and they don't have any desire to relinquish it, intentional taking of it is theft. Whether that possession is rightfully in their hands or not, is for their kamma, not yours.


Unknowingly Drinking Alcohol Me and my brother visited this pizzeria recently and he ordered two apple juices. Ryder's Wild Apple to be exact. I drank a sip of it and it tasted and smelled a bit like alcohol and obviously had the apple taste. But it had that beer smell. And then only I saw the label 8.8%. And I stopped drinking after it.

Did I break my 5th precept? I'm a person who doesn't take my precept very lightly. But I want to know whether I broke my 5th precept or not.

Did I break my 5th precept?

In order to break the 5th precept, the following four factors need to be present and fulfilled:

  Mada-niyam -- intoxicants.
  Patu-kamyata-cittam -- the desire to drink.
  Tajjo vayamo -- the effort is made.
  Pitappa-vesanam -- the intoxicants being drunk passing the throat.

Very importantly is the second factor, i.e. the desire to drink. This is also known as intention/volition (Cetanā).

If just one of these factors are not fulfilled, the precept is still intact.


Is a Ghatika an ideal minimum meditation duration? I've been reading books written by, or associated with Alan Wallace, that describe a period of time that is new to me - Ghatika (24 minute period).

  A session of twenty-four minutes is a good starting interval; for most people, it is neither too short nor too long ... and this is the session duration that the eighth-century Indian Buddhist contemplative Kamalashila recommended for begining meditators. (Minding Closely: The Four Applications of Mindfulness
   By B. Alan Wallace p.33)

Wallace goes on to claim that in the Vajrayana tradition a Ghatika is also considered an ideal meditation time because it is the time it takes for the subtle energies to do a full body circuit. Longer duration sits will of course be multiples of a Ghatika.

Some poking around on the internet reveals it is a Vedic measure of time - Vedic calculations of time and creation and was measured using a Ghatika Yantra, an ancient Indian water clock. I can find no reference to meditation apart from Alan Wallace references. Can anyone else perhaps shed more light on this?

You find references in:

Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim
Kamalshila's Stages of Meditation
The Abhidharma.

Je Tsongkhapa. Middle-Length Lam Rim:

  Indicating the length of sessions

  Is there an established length of
  meditation sessions, specified in terms of “The mind is tied to the
  object and placed for just this long?” The major texts such as Śrāvaka
  Levels do not seem to clearly uphold an established length. However,
  in Stages of Meditation III it says:

    Like that, gradually, you should sit for twenty-four minutes, one and
    a half hours, three hours, or as long as you can.

  Apparently this was set forth in the context of the established length
  of meditation sessions for special insight meditation after calm
  abiding has already been accomplished, but in the context of initially
  practicing calm abiding it is evidently similar.

In the Lam Rim bring ba, Philip Quarcoo's footnotes specify:

  Twenty-four minutes is one chu tshod, a unit based on traditional
  Indian time measurement and used in the Abhidharma. It is equivalent
  to one out of 60 parts of a day

  One and a half hours, in Tibetan thun phyed, literally “half a night
  watch.”

  Three hours, in Tibetan thun gcig, literally “one night
  watch”—common measure for a full meditation session.


Central idea of Buddhism Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are and don't have a preference or judgement? If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas. Isn't that already making a judgement? Am I misunderstanding anything?

The Central Idea of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering.  Everything else is a means to that end.

The goal is not to be objective, but rather, being objective can serve or be a milestone along that goal.  Here's how it works out.

We suffer because we are attached to desire.  Therefore, we let go of desire to stop suffering.  Since desire permeates our experience, when we let go of desire, we transform our experience.  This experience may still have desire, but we are not attached to it -- we see the desire as part of our experience and are not wrapped up in it.  This is "seeing things as they are" or "objectivity".  The subjectivity is there, but we're more aware of the subjective layer as something we add rather than part of the thing itself.

Judgments, preferences, and so on can still be there; after all, if the Buddha didn't have them, he would have just sat around until he starved to death.  However, we are not attached to these preferences and so on.  We don't get bent out of shape over them.

Why prefer this way?  Well, because you want to cease suffering.  If you don't care about suffering, there's no point in Buddhism.


'Kaya-sankhara' in Anapanasati & Paticcasamuppada? Are they related? The term 'kaya-sankhara' is defined in MN 44 as the 'in & out breathing'.

The same term is found in step 4 of Anapanasati & in the 2nd nidana of Paticcasamuppada, as follows:

  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ. 'He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ.'
  Anapanasati Sutta

~

  And what are saṅkhārā? These three are saṅkhārā: kāyasaṅkhāro, vacī (verbal) saṅkhāro, citta (mind) saṅkhāro. These are called saṅkhārā.
  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta

My questions:

Does 'kaya-sankhara' have the same meaning in both contexts, i.e.,  in & out breathing?
If not, is there another alternative definition apart from in MN 44?
If not, is it possible for both contexts to have the same meaning?

No.

Saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda cause viññāṇā-resultant, nāma&rūpa-resultant, saḷāyatanā-resultant, phassa-resultant, and vedanā-resultant.

Kāya-saṅkhāra is breath, cause of body's living, breath's effect. But breath is an effect, cittaja-rūpa, of paṭiccasamuppāda's elements. Especially for this question, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda cause kāya-saṅkhāra, breath, and many other effects.

In cūḷavedallasutta, MN 44, they talking about (1) concentration meditation then (2) three saṅkhāra than nirodhasamāpatti-attainment and  (3) nirodhasamāpatti-rising.

Because of above 3 contexts, the 3 saṅkhāra must relate with jhāna. And the proper relating saṅkhāra with saṅkhāra in MN 44 is kāya-saṅkhāra that we can found in ānāpānassati-pabba and ariyavasa-sutta. They are effect-saṅkhāra that are ceased by jhāna.

If breath is saṅkhāra-paticcasamuppāda, arahanta will can't breathe because buddha taught in cessation paṭiccasamuppāda:

  With the fading and cessation of ignorance without a remainder determinations cease.

But the fact appear in many sutta that arahanta still breath, except arahanta who achieving 4th jhāna, and nirodhasamāpatti. For the example in dutiya –– ariyavasasuttaṃ:

  Bhikkhus, how is the bhikkhu with appeased bodily determinations? Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, abides in the fourth higher state of the mind. Thus the bhikkhu is with appeased bodily determinations.

The context of many sutta related with ānāpānassati, already described itself:

  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

  Alternative translation: He trains himself, 'I will breathe in decreased breathing effort.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out decreased breathing effort.'

Sāriputta described in paṭisambhidāmagga also:

  What is "I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication, I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication"?

  What is bodily fabrication?

  Long breathing (that is the first element in ānapāna-pabba) relating with body = That long breathing involve with body, cause of body. The practitioner trains to calm=to stop=to cease that bodily fabrication.

In abhidhamma, vibhaṅga, is the same.

For more information, see ānāpānakatha in path of purification.

The very important information is: ariyavasasutta that memorized by anuruddha school, ānāpānassatisutta+cūḷavedallasutta that memorized by sāriputta school,  and mahāsaṭipaṭṭhānasutta that memorized by ānanda school, relating with each other with out any lacking.

Why?

Because they were arahanta who perfectly ceased every bias, then they recited and memorized tipitaka together, not just read.
No, they are not the same, they are used in very difference contexts.


Is Vessantara Jātaka in conflict with morality? Is there any convincing interpretation of Vessantara Jātaka that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening.

I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka.

All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?

At that time of the society husband is the sole owner of wife and children and he can give them away to anyone at will. To become a Buddha one needs to cultivate Dana Parami to the highest level. That includes the ability to give away anything you own. King Vessantara did not give away the children to be tortured. It was Jūjaka who decided to hit the children. So the Karmic consequences fall on Jūjaka. Not king Vessantara .

It was extremely tormenting for king Vessantara as you can see in the following passage:

  What follow are the verses of the Great Being's lamentation.

  "O when at morning or at eve for food my children cry, Opprest by
  hunger or by thirst, who will their want supply? [552] How will their
  little trembling feet along the roadway go, Unshod? who'll take them
  by the hand and lead them gently so?

  How could the brahmin feel no shame, while I was standing by, To
  strike my harmless innocents? a shameless man say I!

  No man with any sense of shame would treat another so, Were it a
  servant of my slave, and I brought very low.

  I cannot see him, but he scolds and beats my children dear, While like
  a fish caught in a trap I'm standing helpless here."

  These thoughts came into the Great Being's mind, through his affection
  for the children; he could not away with the pain to think how the
  brahmin cruelly beat his children, and he resolved to go in chase of
  the man, and kill him, and to bring the children back. But no, he
  thought: that was a mistake; to give a gift, then to repent because
  the children's trouble would be very great, that was not the way of
  the righteous. And the two following stanzas contain the reflexions
  which throw light on that matter.

  "He bound his sword upon his left, he armed him with his bow; I'll
  bring my children back again; to lose them is great woe. But even if
  my children die ’tis wicked to feel pain 1: Who knows the customs of
  the good, yet asks a gift again?........"

Also read the passage where the son defends his father's actions

  But the boy hearing this, could not stomach his father's blame; but as
  though raising with his arm Mount Sineru smitten by the windblast 1,
  he recited this stanza:

  "How, grandsire, can he give, when none in his possession are, Slaves
  male or female, elephants, a horse, a mule, a car?" The king said:

  [576] "Children, I praise your father's gift: no word of blame I say.
  But then how was it with his heart when he gave you away?" The lad
  replied:

  "All full of trouble was his heart, and it burned hot as well, His
  eyes were red like Rohinī, and down the teardrops fell."

So you can see that he gave them away not because he didn't care, but it was a bond that he had to overcome. What's ironic is that they say that the Mara could trouble the Buddha so much under the Bodhi tree because king Vessanatara lamented a lot for this great gift he gave. In comparison, when Maithree Bodhisatta becomes the Buddha, Mara can only watch from afar. He cannot come close enough to trouble the Buddha.


What is the Buddhist perspective on body language? Some explain that body language affects qualities like leadership, command, personality etc.:

Your body language shapes who you are

What is the Buddhist perspective on body language? Does body language affect mental qualities?

There are many examples in Buddha's life how others were inspired by his appearance.
King Bimbisara was tempted to offer him a palace seeing his stature on the first encounter (this was before his enlightenment),

  Look at this one, sirs. How handsome, stately, pure! How consummate
  his demeanor! Mindful, his eyes downcast, looking only a plow-length
  before him, as one who's not from a lowly lineage: Send the royal
  messengers at once to see where this monk will go.

  [..]

  "You are young, youthful, in the first stage of youth, endowed with
  the stature & coloring    of a noble-warrior. You would look glorious
    in the vanguard of an army,     arrayed with an elephant squadron. I
  offer you wealth : enjoy it. I ask your birth : inform me."

  Sn 3.1

Maha Kassapa accepted him as his teacher without hearing a word from him,

  On the road between Rajagaha and Nalanda, the Master sat down under a
  fig tree, waiting for his future disciple. When Kassapa arrived at the
  spot and saw the radiance of the Buddha's countenance, sensing the
  enlightenment that shone through it, he thought, "This must be my
  Master for whose sake I have gone forth!" He approached the Buddha,
  and paying homage, fell at his feet and exclaimed: "The Exalted One,
  Lord, is my teacher, and I am his disciple!"

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel345.html#ch4

The occasion where Milinda was introduced to Nâgasena in Milinda panha gives some insight on how Buddhist literature sees the influence of body language.
Nâgasena was a junior monk, yet Milinda was able to recognize him among others by his demeanor,

  And as he looked over the whole of the assembly, in front, and down the centre,
  and behind, king Milinda detected Nâgasena seated in the middle, and,
  like a shaggy lion who knows no fear or frenzy, entirely devoid of
  nervous agitation, and free from shyness and trepidation. And as soon
  as he saw him, he knew by his mien that that was Nâgasena, and he
  pointed him out to Devamantiya.

Now, this is a king that gets nervous and frightened by the sight of a monk.

  Whereupon the king rejoiced that he had recognised Nâgasena without having had him pointed out to him. But nevertheless, at the sight of him, the king was seized with nervous excitement and trepidation and fear.

This encounter conditions the king's mind, the king has accepted defeat by the very sight of this monk.

  'At the sight of Nâgasena, wise and pure, Subdued in all that is the
  best subjection, Milinda uttered this foreboding word-- "Many the
  talkers I have visited, Many the conversations I have had, But never
  yet, till now, to-day, has fear, So strange, so terrible, o'erpowered
  my heart. Verily now defeat must be my lot, And victory his, so
  troubled is my mind".


Can mind be free from becoming? Can mind be free from becoming  (Suffering) ?
I should be and I should that.
I am thin and I want to be a body builder.
I am this and I want to that.
Can mind free from becoming?

Of course you can! If you want to be free of something, get rid of the cause of it. The cause of becoming is attachment. The cause of attachment is craving. Work on getting rid of the craving to end all suffering.


What if a course lacks a proper introduction to Buddhist philosophy? I'm new to the practice of Buddhism. But I'm not new to the philosophical ideas of Buddhism. I've just begun a ground course in Tibetan Buddhism. The shamata parts are good, the philosophy parts not so much. I feel that the "view" is not really explained at all (for example, emptiness and the two truths). This creates a tension when I sit in "class". If this was university I'd go right ahead and state my opinion about the lack of proper introduction to these views. But somehow I feel I'm not supposed to object or criticize, I'm a bit afraid to offend and so on. But honestly I feel the philosophy part is not duly taken care of and explained.

My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"? And what if some of what the teacher says is simply wrong or misleading: would you comment directly on that?

I'm having a slightly similar experience: in that I'm taking a Yang style Tai Chi class for beginners, however I'm not quite a beginner i.e. I previously practised Chen style for a few years with a relatively expert teacher.

Now in this class, I hear the teacher explain the basics, but during that I notice that there are (what I'd consider) some important fundamentals (e.g. to stand up straight), which this teacher never explains.

  My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"?

I'm not sure what "how to relate" means as a question, but FYI some of my thoughts during class have been like:

I don't want to be a guy who argues or interrupts the teacher, shows lack of respect and disrupts class: other students came to learn from him, not to learn from me (see also conceit)
Occasionally I have added some sentence in my own words, if there's a verbal pause, if the teacher just answered someone's question and seems at a slight loss for what to explain further
Teachers and students have to start somewhere and maybe you can't teach nor learn everything at once; more time teaching theory would be less time practising, maybe it's his intention to teach barely enough of the static fundamentals so that he can begin to teach the dynamic movements of the form.
I'm at the class to learn how to practice the (Yang style) form, so as long as I'm getting that (instruction in the form even if not instruction in the fundamentals) I can't complain that me personally isn't getting from the class what I wanted
It sometimes worries me that other students who are beginners aren't getting enough instruction in the fundamentals (because this teacher isn't teaching everything my previous teacher taught) -- then I think that at my previous class we used to have lessons once a week, but we the students would also choose to meet during the week to practice. I haven't made time here, to do the same this time, but that remains an option: if I were really worried for the other students I could ask to meet them during the week so we could practice the lessons together (without disrupting class).

  But what if some of what he says is simply wrong or misleading, would you - in your situation - comment directly on that?

If that were to happen, in my situation I should probably be unsure of myself: because perhaps what he says is one way in which the Yang style that he's teaching is different from the Chen style that I was taught previously.

Also there are few students in our class, so we have every opportunity to ask individual questions. So if he said that we ought to 'something' and I disagreed, I could query that and ask for confirmation, "Is it meant to be like this (demonstrates this) or is it more meant to be like this (demonstrates this)?"

In your case you might (if you wanted to) ask that as a more pointed question, "Is what you just said contradicted by so-and-so who wrote such-and-such?" Perhaps that's an example of a question to ask privately after class, to see whether and how the teacher is able to respond to such a question?

If you're correct in claiming that he said something "wrong or misleading", then what you reply might (if what you say must be "disagreeable") belong to this category of 'right speech' defined in MN 58, i.e.:

  [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

(but I think it's worth reading that whole page of 'right speech' guidelines for further insight).

Or perhaps you could find a less confrontational way to say that, e.g. "I previously read so-and-so say such-and-such" without emphasizing that that contradicts the teacher. In general I hope questions are welcome as long as you act towards the teacher as if they're a teacher who you want to learn from. If they say things that contradict your prior knowledge then I hope it's on-topic to ask a sincere question ("can the teacher resolve this contradiction/doubt of yours?"), maybe less OK to make an accusation veiled as a question (e.g. "I know more about this than you do and you're wrong, don't you agree?").


What are some examples of Buddhist rulers? I've been searching about this for a while, I have been looking for historical rulers who based their way of governing off Buddhist principles. But haven't been able to find a lot.

A good example is Asoka who ruled most of the India subcontinent  between 269 BCE to 232 BCE. He converted to Buddhism after witnessing the slaughter at Kalinga, a slaughter that he was responsible for. A rock inscription made at the time details this.

  His Majesty feels remorse on account of the conquest of Kalinga
  because, during the subjugation of a previously unconquered country,
  slaughter, death, and taking away captive of the people necessarily
  occur, whereat His Majesty feels profound sorrow and regret.

Asoka went on to rule for forty years on Buddhist principle and was one of the main people responsible for the initial spread of Buddhism out of the Indian mainland. He sent monks to many places throughout Asia and beyond including Mongolia, Burma, Afghanistan, Persia even as far as Turkey and Italy.

Such is his enormous repute they even made a Bollywood film about him. I have to confess that I've never seen it. I would be interested to know if it is worth the watch.

Additional Note

BBC radio have just done an excellent program on Asoka as part of the (also excellent) In Our Time series. Very much worth a listen if anyone is interested in this part of Buddhist history.


Particular Benefit from Writing I have noticed that when I write spontaneously, a lot of insight occurs. By this, I mean ideas flow in a manner generating many positive emotions as awe, joy, and movement.

In Buddhism, is such creative insight considered what is typically called 'insight' (e.g. insight meditation) or is the Buddhist version of insight something entirely different?

This Quora answer is an interesting story of a lady who was terrified of strange ghostly noises at night sounding like a woman wailing in pain. Later on, she figured out that this was the sound of cats mating. She gained insight into the nature of the noises, and this allayed her fear.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary entry of "insight":

  Definition of insight

  the power or act of seeing into a situation
  the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively

From the ATI Glossary (below), we find that Buddhist insight (vipassanā in Pali or vipaśyanā in Sanskrit) refers to insight that leads to liberation from suffering. It's not creative insight, but it's insight into the nature of how things work.

  vipassanā:
  Clear intuitive insight into physical and mental
  phenomena as they arise and disappear, seeing them for what they
  actually are — in and of themselves — in terms of the three
  characteristics (see ti-lakkhaṇa) and in terms of stress, its origin,
  its disbanding, and the way leading to its disbanding (see ariya-sacca).

From Theragatha 6.6 (quoted below), we find in poetical proses, the story of the monk Sappadasa who, 25 years after going forth and undertaking the training of the holy life, failed to achieve anything. He then was about to take his own life, when in a moment of deep concentration, suddenly had awakening insight into the nature of suffering, and became liberated.

  Twenty five years since my going forth,
  and no peace of awareness
  — not a finger-snap's worth — attained.
  Having gained no oneness of mind,
  I was wracked with lust.
  Wailing, with my arms upheld,
  I ran amok from my dwelling —
  "Or... or shall I take the knife?
  What's the use of life to me?
  If I were to renounce the training,
  what sort of death would I have?"

  So, taking a razor,
  I sat down on a bed.
  And there was the razor,
  placed ready to cut my own vein,
  when apt attention arose in me,
  the drawbacks appeared,
  disenchantment stood
  at an even keel:

  With that, my heart was released.
  See the Dhamma's true rightness!
  The three knowledges have been attained;
  the Awakened One's bidding, done.

In the Bahiya Sutta (quoted below), we find advanced ascetic Bahiya impatiently seeking the Buddha's guidance to help him understand the truth. A short explanation from the Buddha helped him gain insight into the nature of suffering.

  A third time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."

  "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

  Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed
  One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was
  released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having
  exhorted Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the
  Dhamma, the Blessed One left.


Attachment and Aversion Continuum When we consider attachment as something we want to stay present with, and aversion as something we try to push away, can we say there is a continuum present?

More specifically, does reducing attachment simultaneously reduce aversion, and vice versa? I have diminished a lot of attachments lately, and I still dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks and engage in effort.

Are they completely unrelated?

EDIT: Also, what is the best way to tackle aversion?

Thank you.

From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, which views mindfulness meditation that generates insight to be the only way to Enlightenment, detachment has a very specific purpose. It is viewed as a preparation or enhancement of upacara samadhi, which is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering and achieve Enlightenment). From this point of view, the only kind of attachment that needs to be temporarily suppressed is one that prevents the meditator from gaining upacara samadhi. This kind of attachment cannot be equated with pleasure. For example, some people experience the physical world and the physical presence of their body in that world as the only reality. This experience can be pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, depending upon the circumstances. Such a person is “attached” to this physicality because he or she experiences it as the only reality. When such a person practices mindfulness meditation, the only insights that make sense to him or her are those that make sense in the context of this experience. The kind of insights needed for Enlightenment are beyond this frame of reference. Such a person may be advised to practice the contemplation of the stages of decomposition in order to detach from this frame of reference. Perhaps surprising to the person who has no understanding of the psychology of this contemplation is the fact that often results in a blissful state of mind. If not practiced correctly, it can result in a morbid state of mind. In contrast to this sophisticated understanding of detachment, there is the common, ignorant, and false view that all forms of pleasure are forms of attachment and that progress towards Enlightenment consists of suppressing (becoming detached from) all forms of pleasure. Unfortunately, the suppression of pleasure does not generate the psychological insight needed to make real progress. The same can be said for the suppression of aversion. There is no continuum between attachment and aversion because they are not opposites. If by “diminishing attachments” you mean the avoidance, suppression, or reduction of pleasure, then you are not practicing any traditional form of Theravadin practice. And, if you “dreadfully struggle to engage in effort” to meditate, then you may be undermining your capacity of upacara samadhi. But, in all fairness, I would need to know a lot more about your situation to offer you any advice.


What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka? I would like to know the basis of Lotus sutra and it's relationship with the original teachings of Buddha mentioned in the Tipitaka. I would like to also know where Lotus Sutra contradicts with things mentioned in the Tipitaka.

A detailed and referenced answer would be really appreciated.

I have been watching this question for sometime, because the original poster posted this question in response to a comment I made earlier. I have refrained from replying because I didn't feel I could do justice to the Lotus Sutra, especially without coming across as attacking Theravada Buddhism.

However, given that Saptha Visuddhi above have decided to attack the Lotus Sutra and Mahayana Buddhism, I feel I must correct these erroneous views.

First of all, I must state that, in contrary to common Theravada claims about being the 'Pure Tradition' handed down by the Elders, Theravada is not the same as the Buddhism taught during the time of the Sakyamuni Buddha. Indeed while it is the most conservative, but it is not 'pure'. A common narrative asserted by the Theravada was that they maintained all the teachings handed down since the Early Buddhist Council, and maintained that they are descended from the Sthavira sect, while Mahayana are Mahāsāṃghika. Theravada narrative assert that the Mahāsāṃghika split off from the elders because they want to modify the Vinaya. While historical evidence and the narrative of other schools indicate that it was in fact the Sthavira who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya. Never the less, the current surviving Vinaya of the Mahayana traditions (East Asian and Tibetan) are in fact also descended from the Sthavira, and has more monastic rules than what is scholarly accepted to be the oldest the Mahāsāṃghika.

Further more, the Abhidhamma according to Theravada narrative asserts that it was taught by the Sakyamuni Buddha to his mother in heaven. This should have indicated that skillful means was being employed on the origins of this teaching.  Historical scholars indicate that the Abhidhamma as a synthesis of the Buddha's teachings, and has a checkered history and was not accepted by all Buddhist schools, and were actually one of the reason for the Early Buddhist schisms as each schools reject or accepted the metaphysical doctrines of other schools. Indeed some Buddhist sect did not consider Abhidhamma to be canonical at all as originally the teachings were called Dharmavinaya, containing only two 'baskets'.

The Abhidhamma made a lot of metaphysical assertions, as the teachings of the Buddha were analyzed and compiled. Prophetic predictions were made about the coming of the Future Buddha Maitreya, the disappearance of the Dharma and so forth. The differences between Buddhas and Arahants, and indeed the Four Stages of Enlightenment were analytically described. These four stages would have originally correspond to having attained Right View to practice the Noble Eightfold Path (stream entry), Ethics (Once Returner), Concentration (Non Returner), culminating in the Wisdom of a perfect Arahant. The differences between a Buddha, an Arahant, an a Pratyekabuddha were further described. In fact, many of these metaphysical doctrines made their way back into the Sutta Pitaka.

  Scholars, however, generally date the Abhidhamma works to originating some time around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the death of the Buddha. Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha himself, but those of disciples and scholars.

  Anguttara Nikāya

  According to Keown, "there is considerable disparity between the Pāli and the Sarvāstivādin versions, with more than two-thirds of the sūtras found in one but not the other compilation, which suggests that much of this portion of the Sūtra Piṭaka was not formed until a fairly late date."

  Khuddaka Nikāya
  This is a heterogeneous mix of sermons, doctrines, and poetry attributed to the Buddha and his disciples. The contents vary somewhat between editions. The Thai edition includes 1-15 below, the Sinhalese edition 1-17 and the Burmese edition 1-18.

However we can begin to see some common controversies and problems that exist to this day. For example, the nature of Nirvana, the nature of the discrete states of enlightenment. And the nature of prophecies. The role of women. The role of Arahants. How many times have you seen Buddhists passively accept the decline of the Dharma because it was already foretold by the prophecies. I have even seen Theravada Buddhists stated that in this Degenerated Dharma age, no one can attain Arahantship and that the best bet is to hope for rebirth in the time of the Maitreya and become enlightened then. The passive fatalistic world view was threatening the survival of Buddhism itself. Indeed even Sri Lanka, the very heart of Thervada Buddhism has demonstrated, they have actually lost the Dharma transmission at least 3 times in their history and had to be revitalized from else where.

Further more, certain schools such as the Madhyamaka led by Nagarjuna utilizing the doctrine of dependent origination, logically show that because all phenomena are dependently originated, they are ultimately empty, that is impermanent and selfless. Hence in Nirvana there is no actually leaving to go anywhere. As the Buddha would say the five aggregates are impermanent and not self.

  Eight Negations Of Nagarjuna

  no elimination
  no production
  no destruction
  no eternity
  no unity
  no manifoldness
  no arriving
  no departing

This probably imply in my own opinion to mean that there is no permanent cessation of birth and death. The cessation of suffering and sankhara are impermanent.

Hence, the ideal of the Bodhisattva was born, instead of desiring to be free from all worldly attachments as soon as possible, Buddhist monks and laymen alike were exhorted to remain engaged with the larger society. If escape from Samsara was in some sense impossible, what then is the goal of the Buddhist life?

The Lotus Sutra is one of those text which laid out the purpose of Buddhism. It points out that ultimately there is only One Vehicle, not three distinct vehicles, The Savakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas are ultimately on the same path - the Noble Eightfold Path. While there are differences in relative abilities, they are not ultimately irreversibly separated from one another. The teachings are only different because the abilities of people to understand something is different. Skillful means was emphasized as the manifold ways which a Buddha can teach sentient beings the Dharma. This was demonstrated with the parable of a rich man with the burning house who attracted his children out of the house by promising the rewards of different carts, but when they ultimately leave the house, the real cart "the one vehicle" they received is even more beautiful than the promises. The Lotus Sutra overturn the metaphysics described in the Suttas and emphasized that they are only skillful means, that is metaphors for the holy life.

Further more, Nirvana is compared to a phantom city magically conjured in the desert, allowing weary travelers searching for treasures to rest. Because the spiritual life is so difficult and demanding, nirvana allowed them to rest, before being exhorted to go further to the true purpose of the practice, to attain enlightenment. That is the Lotus Sutra state the goal of Buddhist practice is not to merely attain the state of no suffering, but to attain the full wisdom of a Buddha. This was compared to another parable where a runaway son returned home but did not recognize his own father, and the father set him out to do simple tasks at first to instill confidence until he can fully take on the inheritance of his father himself. Hence all beings have the potential to become a fully enlightened Buddha, regardless whether they are women, non humans or even sinners like Devadatta.

Further more, the Buddhas themselves are described as immortal because the True Dharma is immortal, unconditional and always present, the Noble Eightfold Path will always be the universal gate to experiencing Awakening.

This is reemphasized in the Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, said to be the very heart of the Lotus Sutra and a focus of many Mahayana Buddhist school. In it, it is stated that Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva can save beings who call upon him from the dangers fire, flood and storm, knives, demons, chains and demons. The dangers are of course the fire of anger, flood of cravings, storm of delusion, the knives of conceit, the demons of temptations, the chains of attachments and the robbers of afflictions, and we will indeed be saved as long as we apply the Dharma compassionately. The Avalokiteshvara is further stated to be able to transform to whatever beings as needed to teach the Dharma, reminding us that the Dharma is present everywhere if we knew how to look. The finger is not the moon, the raft is to ferry us across, not to be carried after we have arrived.

If you are attached to the metaphysics of Theravada Buddhism, you will be unable to see the wisdom within the Lotus Sutra.

I recommend reading this as a good introduction:

http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Lotus%20Sutra%20Book%20Preview.pdf


How can Name-and-form be the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate? In SN 22.82 Buddha says Name and Form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of Consciousness aggregate.

  “The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the
  manifestation of the form aggregate. Contact is the cause and
  condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate. Contact is
  the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception
  aggregate. Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of
  the volitional formations aggregate. Name-and-form is the cause and
  condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.”

However while elucidating dependent origination Buddha says Consciousness is the cause and condition for Name and form.

  This being so that is, beginning with the arising of this that arises,
  thus: because of ignorance there are volitional processes, because of
  volitional processes: consciousness, because of consciousness: mind
  and body, because of mind and body: the six sense-spheres, because of
  the six sense-spheres: contact, because of contact: feeling, because
  of feeling: craving, because of craving: attachment, because of
  attachment: continuation, because of continuation: birth, because of
  birth: old age, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair
  all arise, and so there is an origination of this whole great mass of
  suffering.

My question is : Is this a contradiction ? If not then please explain how?

From the Mahanidana Sutta (DN15):

  "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?'
  one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite
  condition.'

  "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form
  come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its
  requisite condition.'

  "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness
  come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its
  requisite condition.'

  "Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the
  origination of this entire mass of stress.

Did you notice the loop?

Piya Tan in his commentary on Dependent Origination, talks about five versions of Dependent Origination in the Pali suttas:

  Roderick S Bucknell (1999) identifies five main variations or versions
  of dependent arising: the standard version(s), the branched
  version, the looped version, the Sn (Sutta nipāta) version and the
  ancestor of the standard version.

  The looped version is so called because it represents consciousness
  and name-and-form as mutually conditioning each other,
   and "this causal loop is confirmed when the series is reiterated in
  summary in the  "normal" or forward direction," thus:

  Conditioned by name-and-form is consciousness.
  Conditioned by consciousness is name-and-form.
  Conditioned by name-and-form is contact

  The most famous example of the looped version is found in the
  Mahā Nidāna Sutta ; other examples  are  found in the
  Nala, kalapiya Sutta and  the Mahâpadāna Sutta.

The Mahanidana Sutta (DN15) continues in its explanation:

  Name-and-form

  "'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

  "No, lord."

  "If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

  "No, lord."

  "If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"

  "No, lord."

  "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

  Consciousness

  "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If
  consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a
  coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress
  in the future be discerned?

  "No, lord."

  "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

  "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing
  away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of
  designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which
  the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle
  revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e.,
  name-and-form together with consciousness.

Piya Tan explains this in his same commentary on Dependent Origination:

  However, in the looped versions of Diagram 5b, the nāma-rūpa
  that feeds viññāṇa is what, in Abhidhamma, is called the
  bhav’aṅga,  the “birth continuum.”  At the moment of dying, this
  bhav’aṅga is the cuti-citta, “death-consciousness,”
  and is also the  paṭisandhi citta,  “rebirth-consciousness”
  of the next life.
  The modern term for this is the existential consciousness .

So, DN15 says that name-and-form is the condition for consciousness, which is the condition for name-and-form, which is the condition for contact. This is in the looped version of Dependent Origination.

Based on Piya Tan's explanation, the first name-and-form is from the previous life, which is the condition for consciousness. This consciousness, at death, is what the Abhidhamma calls cuti-citta or the "death consciousness" of the previous life, and is the same patisandhi citta or "rebirth consciousness" of the new life. This consciousness, is the requisite condition for the name-and-form of the next life. The second name-and-form is therefore the name-and-form of the next life. This is very clearly proven by the DN15 quote:

  "'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

  "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If
  consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a
  coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress
  in the future be discerned?


Is there a finite amount of beings? According to the Buddhist teachings all beings are subject to Samsara and one can escape Samsara as he finds enlightenment.

But if all beings were ultimately to be reborn, with exception of those that reached enlightenment, wouldn't that mean that there is a finite number of beings, which only decrements?

Learning mathematics, I was warned to beware of logic based on an informal or naive definition of infinity (it is tricky and error-prone, see for example Zeno's paradoxes).

According to Wikipedia, 4th century BCE Jain mathematicians distinguished between "uncountable" and "infinite" (see ref and ref and ref) but I'm not sure that other (Buddhist) literature/authors supported a similar, specific, precise, or modern meaning of the word "infinity".

Some of The unanswered questions are questions about infinity: including whether the world is infinitely large, and whether it's eternal.

If these two questions were unanswered for good reason, then perhaps your question should be too.


How to use inner feeling (intuitive feeling) while taking refuge Starting ngondro practice, taking refuge in 3 jewels. As we know most of the Tibetan schools use the pretty common attitude. So if we are not talking about the differences, but the inner feeling and its development during each stage of the practice. What are they? Could somebody experienced walk us through it or refer to relevant text?

Please try to avoid general answer - there is already plenty information in the literature.
This question is about the essential experience which I consider as the key of the successful practice.

Thanks in advance.

Taking refuge in the Three Jewels means to make effort to receive the blessings of Buddha, making effort to put Dharma into practice in our daily life and making effort to receive help from our Sangha community and in particular our teachers.
Blessings are anything that transforms our mind from negative to positive, that increase  our faith etc. A great way to do this is to remember that we are always in the presence of living, loving Buddha.
There are a myriad of ways to put Dharma into practice such as simply being mindful of a verse of the teachings that has touched our hearts, developing equanimity and love, practicing patience, giving etc.
Taking positive advice and encouragement from our Dharma brothers and sisters and considering advice from our teacher helps with the last one. Also, seeking to clarify confusion by discussing and debating are good too.


in Budhism, what would happen with a soul in a eventually case of succesfull cryogenic reanimation? there is some text that speaks something related about, what would happen with a soul in a eventually case of succesfull cryogenic resucitation? i know this is a very new theme, but, if reincarnation is possible, what happens when that last body reach a reanimation?

This is not possible. Once you die the stream of consciousness arises in another body. This is another person. You cannot bring back this stream of consciousness to the same / previous body.`

Once the consciousness has left the body regardless of it being frozen or not the body is dead. The body cannot be made alive again. In believe in the process of freezing the body would at some point die as heat is needed to sustain life.

Also in Buddhism there is concept of no soul. So what question like what happens to the soul is irrelevant. I believe once procedure is done you are simply dead and just a lump of matter devoid of any life faculty.

There are stories of dead getting reanimated, but this is due to other entities repossessing the body and not that the person has become alive again. This appears in the Vinaya, exact location I forget, but there is a rule not to take clothes from a fresh dead body for robes until some lapse of time, if I remember right. See note on Vetala-panka-vimsati BRAHMA-GALA SUTTA and p252, THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA: THE INDIAN EMPIRE VOL II HISTORICAL.

In case of these possessions the body does not live again as the entity which walks in does have a own subtle body but is controlling the dead body. For this to happen is very rare as you have to be a very powerful entity to do something like this. There are some less powerful entities which can do an illusion of being actually moving. That is why when you are meditating on a corpse it is advised to concentrate also on position of the corpse relative to objects around the corpse before starting so you can reassess that this is not the case such illusion comes to your mind.

Also following question might be of interest: Where in the Pali Canon are there Discussions on Reanimated Corpse?


Does consume eggs and fish oil violate the first precept? Technically egg is a singular cell. it doesn't feel pain.So does break egg violate the first precept?

Most often doctor prescribe fish oil(cod liver oil) as a medicine for rejuvenate brain cells as it contain omega -3? Doses it violate first precept?

It does not unless the egg is alive. Eggs sold in supermarkets are usually unfertilized. Fish oil is not an animal.


What does Buddhism literature and tradition say about transgender folks? This may seem like a question that is far too modern for an ancient tradition, but when I traveled in Thailand I learned that katoeys (male-to-female) are a legal gender in Thailand.  What does Buddhism say about the folks who experience discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity?

As it becomes less dangerous for transgender folks to change, I am finding out that several of my friends are transgender and I would like to know what Buddhism offers them.

The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara can be seen as having an indeterminate gender. Quoting from this website

  One interpretation of this development contends that the bodhisattva
  is neither male or female but has transcended sexual distinctions
  [...] the flowing drapery and soft contours of the body seen in
  statues and paintings have been intentionally combined with a visible
  moustache to emphasize the absence of sexual identity.

So the issue of gender can take on a more flexible interpretation with some more Mahayana aspects of Buddhism


Distractions during practice ( Goenka) I recently completed a 10 day Goenka retreat. When we began vipassana on the 4th day, I noticed that I was getting a lot of tension/pressure/movement around my eyes. I informed the teacher of this and she instructed me to try practicing with my eyes open to train my eyes to not move to the same point of focus as my mind (presuming that that's what was happening). It's been several weeks now since the end of the retreat and I've remained practicing 2.5-3 hours a day, every day, except since the end of the retreat I've practiced with eyes closed. The tension/pressure/movement hasn't gone away; if anything its gotten worse, to the point now that it's getting very difficult to do full body scans because the intensity of sensation around my eyes fully averts my attention back to the forehead area. Sometimes it's just a very intense but dull pressure, other times it's random and very sporadic movement of sensations, other times its a very intense energetic feeling. How do I deal with this?

You have very strong concentration but your mindfulness is lacking behind. Every time you fix your mind on an area the concentration takes over and because you have strong sensations in the eyes your concentration takes you back to the eyes.

The solution is to scan faster whereby you increase your mindfulness and not let concentration zoom in. When you have succeeded to prevent going back to the eyes then slowly slow down your scan.

You may have to start to scan as fast as a Xerox machine.


The knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth What exactly is the "bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" or "insistence that this is the only truth" in the sutta below?
Why is it a bodily knot or tie?
Please provide examples.
The Pali term is "idaṁsaccābhiniveso kāyagantha".
SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Bodhi:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of
covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of
distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to
dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots.
This Noble
Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four
knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter
destruction, for their abandoning.”

SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Sujato:

“Mendicants, there are these four ties. What four? The personal ties
to covetousness, ill will, misapprehension of precepts and
observances, and the insistence that this is the only truth. These are
the four ties.
The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge,
complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these four ties.”

The Buddha taught 4 yokes;

The yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance. - AN 4.10

4 clingings;

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
views clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana)

The expression

Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots.

As i understand it, one can interpret the knots as untied by unyoking, unyoked one enjoys non-clinging. 1st & 2nd knots are fully untied at the unyoking from sensuality as anagamin, 3rd & 4th would be untied by a stream enterer as the 3rd is silabattaparamasa fetter and the phrase in question i assume is an untieing due to unyoking from the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance, a non clinging to the doctrine of self & pernicious wrong views, these too are abandoned by a sotapanna.
As to why it's a bodily knot, i guess because it binds to getting a body due to being yoked becoming/existence but some say Kaya is a tricky word and if one makes those assertions then one can pull different interpretations.
Also one can interpret the knots closer to the tangle sutta.
There is this verse (SN 7.6):

A tangle within,
a tangle without,
people are entangled
in a tangle.
Gotama, I ask you this:
who can untangle this tangle?

[The Buddha:]
A man established in virtue,
discerning,
developing discernment & mind,
a monk ardent, astute:
he can untangle this tangle.
Those whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
have faded away,
arahants, their effluents ended:
for them the tangle's untangled.
Where name-&-form,
along with perception
of impingement & form,
totally stop without trace:
that's where the tangle is cut.


How do you repent in Chinese Buddhism? Repentence is often mentioned in Mahayana texts. Outside of my knowledge of the meaning of the English word, which is colored by Christian concerns, I'm not sure what's involved. What is done during repentance? Is it just a matter of feeling sorry?

Platform sutra describes 'non-symbolic repentance' as including sincere promise to never repeat faults in the future, and acknowledgement of our past faults, that are caused by defilements of mind (ignorance, pride, and envy), which we decide to clean off our thoughts for good.


Origin of the Thai letter ฑ (tho montho) How did the character Montho from Ramayana make it into the name of the Thai letter ฑ (tho montho) of the Thai alphabet. Where is the relationship and in what year was this connection established?

Thai is one of the most complicated written languages in the world..  (not saying most efficient).  One of the rules is if a word is from foreign language, a new alphabet and a written structure is invented so that it would be distinguishable between original thai and foreign languages, which mainly Pali or Sanskrit.

To give an example of a word "nirvana"  since it is not English, there would be a need to invent a new letter that produces "n" sound and new structure on how to put letters together so the goal is to communicate to readers that "nirvana" isnt English origin.  Lets say "&^" is a new "n" sound, nirvana would spell "&^ervanah*".  For that, now "n" sounds has two representations in Thai Language "n" and "&^"  and every time "&^" is used it cant be used with "i"  etc.   Most of foreign languages in thailand at the time of beginning of written system were Pali and Sanskit around 700-1000 years ago.  So my guess is, ฑ (tho montho) is younger than 1000 years old.
I dont think religious beliefs were not as strong driving force as the idea of separating foreign languages to original Thai.

tho montho produces "T" sounds but not of Thai Origin.  If word is originally Thai, "t" sound, would use "tho thahan ท"

this guy put a video explaining thai written system.
thai written language explained

PS. Dont try to pronounce island of Phuket in Thailand, with an F.


Do artists/entertainers accumulate positive merit when people enjoy their craft? A painter whose painting hangs in a public museum, a writer that has their works checked out of the library frequently,  a singer with melodies that calm the mind, and a comedian that gets people laughing are some cases I have in mind.

A harder case would be a rapper. Say their song offends a few people, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state. Get creative, feel free to discuss cases not listed here. I only list them to help clarify what I am asking.

However impermanent and fleeting the benefit they provide to others is, when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?

We can also consider the two cases of the artist being, or not being, a Buddhist.

According to the Talaputra Sutta, one time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries.
The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms.

See also:

This question: Will actors really go to hell?
My answer to Are actions in computer games bad for karma?


Are buddhists also called brothers and sisters? Usually when speaking about someone who is following the buddha teach is called a monk. But are monks or other buddhists sometimes also called brothers and sisters? Is it common or very rare? And what is the reason behind it?

No, when speaking about a monk, you should use respectful words like 'Venerable', 'Bhante', 'Reverend' etc. If you are speaking of a layman, it's ok to call 'brother' or 'sister' or any other decent way of addressing.


Did I exist ? Am I existing or Will I exist? In Potthapada Sutta Buddha asks Citta similar question.

  "Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not
  not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do
  you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you
  answer?"

  "... Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'I existed in the past. I did
  not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I
  exist now. I do not not exist.'... That's how I would answer."

If I interpret it correctly Citta essentially says that he existed in the past , will exist in the future and that he is existing now.
This conclusion contradicts the position that self is an error, illusion or is like a dream because when an error is corrected it vanishes(self is annihilated).
Self has both origin and an end then how can Citta say that he is existing now, he existed in the past and that he will exist in the future?
I am simply repeating the question Buddha asked to Citta because the answer looked contradictory to me.
The questions are :

Did I exist ?

Am I existing?

Will I exist ?

The questions are :
Did I exist ?
Am I existing?
Will I exist ?

Conventionally speaking, yes to all three questions. The self is a concept, an idea, a mental formation, belong to the 4th aggregate of mental formations.

Ultimately speaking, no to all three questions. Concepts are not part of ultimate reality. Experience is. When writing this post, looking at the computer screen, there is definitely a "seeing" going on, but ultimately, no "seer" can be found.

There are Four Ultimate Realities; Rupa, Citta, Cetasika and Nibbana.


I'm looking for the translation of the Dharmaskanda Sutra Where can I get the English translation of the Dharmaskanda Sutra or at least the original text?

If you're referring to the Abhidharmadharmaskandhapādaśāstra, the Sanskrit fragments have been discussed in English in J. Takasaki, Remarks on the Sanskrit Fragments of the Abhidharmadharmaskandhapādaśāstra. JIBS 13,1 (1965) 411-403 <33-41>.


What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism? I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful.

It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something.

Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

I think that the reason you only find references to homosexual activity in the vinaya is BECAUSE the vinaya is the only place where there is a need to be specific regarding sexual acts... Oral sex is still oral sex whether it's performed by a man or a woman, an animal or even yourself.

In the Suttas, the teachings, it doesn't matter if you are attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, etc. it's all about craving,clinging, desire, attachment, and aversion all underpinned by ignorance. These come from the mind and go far deeper then sexual identity and attraction.

As for Homosexuality and the Theravada tradition, buddhanet.net strikes again:

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

  As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.


When and how should someone practice Patikulamanasikara meditation (reflections of replusiveness) The practice of Patikulamanasikara, or loathsomeness of the body has intrigued me for quite a while but I was always uncertain of how to do it right. So, here goes: How do I know if it would be a right meditation for me and how does one start?

Yes, I can find the sequence of words: Hairs of the head, hairs of the body..etc. But does one first memorize the whole section or is possible to meditate while using notes?

Ven. Bhikku Bodhi writes about this type of meditation in his book "The Noble Eightfold Path", p. 77-78:

  The next two sections on mindfulness of the body present analytical contemplations intended to expose the body’s real nature. One of these is the meditation on the body’s unattrac- tiveness, already touched on in connection with right effort; the other, the analysis of the body into the four primary elements.

  The first, the meditation on unattractiveness, is designed to counter infatuation with the body, especially in its form of sex- ual desire. The Buddha teaches that the sexual drive is a mani- festation of craving, thus a cause of dukkha that has to be reduced and extricated as a precondition for bringing dukkha to an end. The meditation aims at weakening sexual desire by depriving the sexual urge of its cognitive underpinning, the perception of the body as sensually alluring. Sensual desire rises and falls together with this perception. It springs up because we view the body as attractive; it declines when this perception of beauty is removed.

  The perception of bodily attractiveness in turn lasts only so long as the body is looked at superficially, grasped in terms of selected impressions. To counter that perception we have to refuse to stop with these impressions but proceed to inspect the body at a deeper level, with a probing scrutiny grounded in dispassion. Precisely this is what is undertaken in the meditation on unattractiveness, which turns back the tide of sensuality by pull- ing away its perceptual prop.

  The meditation takes one’s own body as object, since for a neophyte to start off with the body of another, especially a member of the opposite sex, might fail to accomplish the desired result. Using visualization as an aid, one mentally dissects the body into its components and investi- gates them one by one, bringing their repulsive nature to light. The texts mention thirty-two parts: head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, stomach contents, excrement, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, snot, spittle, sinovial fluid, and urine.

  The repulsiveness of the parts implies the same for the whole: the body seen closeup is truly unattractive, its beautiful appear- ance a mirage. But the aim of this meditation must not be mis- apprehended. The aim is not to produce aversion and disgust but detachment, to extinguish the fire of lust by removing its fuel.

There is also a reference to The Visuddhimagga, chapter 8: "Mindfulness occupied with body", verses 42-144, p. 236-258. Here it gives in-depth instructions on how to perform the technique and it takes all body parts and describes each in detail.

Lastly, Pa Auk Sayadaw gives a description of this type of meditation in his book "Knowing and Seeing", p. 44-46:

  The Thirty-Two Parts of the Body

  If you want to develop meditation on the thirty-two parts of the body, you should first re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light of concentration is bright, brilliant, and radiant, you should use it to try to discern the thirty-two parts of the body, one at a time.

  The thirty-two parts of the body are twenty parts with predominantly the earth-element, and twelve parts with predominantly the water-element. The twenty earth-element parts should be discerned in four sets of five:

  1-5. Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin. 6-10. Flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys.

  11-15. Heart, liver, membrane, spleen, lungs.

  16-20. Intestines, mesentery, undigested food, faeces, brain.

  The twelve water-element parts should be discerned in two sets of six:

  1-6. Bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat.

  7-12. Tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.

  Discern the parts in the given order, but one at a time. Try to see each of the parts, as distinctly as you would
  see your face in a clean mirror.

  If, while doing this, the light of concentration
  should fade, and the part of the body being discerned become unclear, you should re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light is again bright and strong, you should return to discerning the parts of the body. Do this whenever the light of concentration fades.
  Practise so that you are, from head hairs down to urine, or from urine back to head hairs, able to see each one clearly and with penetrating knowledge; keep practising until you become skilful.

  Then, again using the light of concentration and with your eyes still closed, you should try to discern another being close by. It is especially good to discern someone in front of you. Discern the thirty-two parts of the body in that person, or being, from head hairs down to urine, and from urine back to head hairs. Discern the thirty-two parts forwards and backwards many times.

  When you have succeeded, discern the thirty-two parts once internally, that is in your own body, and once ex- ternally, that is in the other person’s body; do this many times, again and again.

  When you are able to discern internally and externally like this, the power of meditation will in- crease. You should thus gradually extend your field of discernment bit by bit, from near to far. Do not worry that you cannot discern beings far away. Using the brilliant light of the fourth jhàna, you can easily see beings far away; not with the naked eye, but with the eye of wisdom (¤àõacakkhu). You should be able to extend your field of discernment in all ten directions: above, below, east, west, north, south, north east, south east, north west, south west. Take whomever you dis- cern, be they human, animal or other beings, in those ten directions, and discern the thirty-two parts, once internally and once externally, one person or other being at a time.

  When you no longer see men, women, or buf- faloes, cows, and other animals, as such, but see only groups of thirty-two parts, whenever and wherever you look, internally or externally, then can you be said to be successful, skilful, and expert in discerning the thirty-two parts of the body.


Accurate and Concise Translation of Dhamma Qualities The common stanza describing qualities of dhamma goes as "Swakkatho bhagawatho dhammo sandittiko..." which describes six of them. I am looking for an accurate and concise translation of this from someone good in both Pali and English; and of course Buddhism

There's one here -- Dhammānussati:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo: sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā: visible here and now, immediate, inviting to come and see, effective, to be individually ascertained by the wise.

If you use a mouse to hover over one of the coloured words (of English or Pali) there's a popup containing a little definition of the Pali:


Higher textual criticism resources I would like some resources on textual criticism of the pali canon and other ancient buddhist works generally considered to be trustworthy. These should include works from all three traditions if possible.

Be it via blog, video or audio I don't care.

Theologian Robert M. Price sets a good example example of the level of rigor I'm looking for here in this podcast.

https://youtu.be/AyQPVytxbGI

In other words, accessible to the lay person who doesn't speak in this case, Greek or Aramaic, but not dumbed down and pedantic to the point of being patronizing.

There's not much of the kind of critical criticism of the kind that Price is giving in his talk. Scholars of Buddhism are largely in love with their subject. It is something I have complained about on my blog. Academia is still in the stage of trying to accurately describe what Buddhism is and generally likes what it sees. Few scholars are engaged with what it is not or with the conflicts and contradictions within the tradition.

Perhaps the only prominent scholar who is actively critical is Greg Schopen though much of his criticism is based on the conflict between archaeological evidence and textual evidence. His collection of essays "Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks" is worth reading. This video The Buddha as Businessman shows him giving a talk that gives a good idea of his approach.

Apart from my blog there are a few online references which are openly critical of Buddhist ideas and practices.

The Secular Buddhist Association;
Ted Meissner's  Secular Buddhist podcast (now seems to have merged with the SBA),
Meaningness (by a Buddhist and sometimes about Buddhism, but with a much broader scope).
Glenn Wallis's Speculative Non-Buddhism is a rather acquired taste, but nothing if not critical. Strong influence from Post-modernism and Marxism.
Richard K Payne is an academic who is frequently critical of modernist developments in Buddhism.
There's also Smiling Buddha Cabaret focus on feminist themes.
I have not reviewed Matthew O'Connell's Post-Traditional Buddhism seems to be in a similar vein (he's influenced by Wallis).

There may be more. But this lot will keep you busy for a while. There are a number of websites which are aimed at critical approaches to practice. This is not really my area of expertise, but one can look into the phrase "dharma overground" for example.


What is the most accurate translation of the word 'dukkha'? This question is a sequel to my previous question about First Noble Truth.
It seems that there is discord about the exact rendering of the word 'dukkha'. Sorry if I sound like a pedantic dou*h. I am just trying to understand it clearly.
So the answer I received in this link and this link translates it as 'stress'. (I personally think it's wrong, but I am not any authority or scholar).
The Wikipedia page for dukkha gives the following translations: "suffering", "unhappiness", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress".
So what's the exact meaning?
I am asking because the exact rendering changes the meaning and its effectiveness as teaching a lot.

As i understand it Dukkha can be derived from the Sanskrit kha, one meaning of which is some sort of opening, ie 'the axle-hole of a wheel', and the antithetic prefix Duk. Meaning that if you were given a wheel to try for a fit and having tried putting it on your chariot axle you would see that the wheel's 'kha' is a bad fit. Someone would then ask you if the wheel is sukha and you would reply; no it's dukkha. So here it's close to unfitting, bad, wrong, incompatible, unsuitable, disagreeable and ill-fitting or of the wrong kind.
Sukha would be the opppsite kind of fit. Well-fitting.
I think the ill or the illness are also good translations for dukkha .
From wikipedia

According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of sukha is "said to be su ['good'] + kha ['aperture'] and to mean originally 'having a good axle-hole'...." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda sukha denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots). Sukha is juxtaposed with duḥkha (Sanskrit; Pali: dukkha; often translated as "suffering"), which was established as the major motivating life principles in early Vedic religion.

In the pali we can see this applied to feelings [vedana] denoting pain as 'dukkha vedana' but it's use is broad.
There is a sutta called Dukkha which illustrates this;

"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..."

Translator's Notes (Thanissaro)

Dukkhataa, an abstract noun denoting "suffering" in the most general sense.

Dukkha-dukkhataa, the actual feeling of physical or mental pain or anguish.

Sankhaara-dukkhataa, the suffering produced by all "conditioned phenomena" (i.e., sankhaaras, in the most general sense: see BD [Buddhist Dictionary (2nd ed.), by Ven. Nyaa.natiloka, Ven. Nyaa.naponika (ed.), Colombo 1972] s.v. sankhaara I, 4). This includes also experiences associated with hedonically neutral feeling. The suffering inherent in the formations has its roots in the imperfectability of all conditioned existence, and in the fact that there cannot be any final satisfaction within the incessant turning of the Wheel of Life. The neutral feeling associated with this type of suffering is especially the indifference of those who do not understand the fact of suffering and are not moved by it.

Viparinaama-dukkhataa, the suffering associated with pleasant bodily and mental feelings: "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (VM XIV, 35).

I think that in regards to #3 It's noteworthy that it's said; 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' [all formations are dukkha] in the texts. So i think the translator made a slip there writing 'suffering produced by sankhara' and that it should be suffering associated with or suffering denoting all formations [sankhara-dukkha].
All formations are inconstant and to that extent they are flawed in as far as happiness goes, what is flawed that is classed categorically as dukkha.


Dilemma caused by differing viewpoints regarding soul and karma I'm a spiritual aspirant who likes to practice meditation to attain the ultimate goal of nirvana or moksha. The trouble is I've read too many differing doctrines and theories regarding epistemology of the soul and spiritual science.

Firstly, the Hindu doctrine advocates the existence of soul as defined by the scriptures/vedas. So, any meditation along these lines (such as Patanjali yoga sutras, Ramakrishna society, etc.) will mostly involve concentration on at least an object. I've practiced patanjali style of dharana-dhyana-samadhi meditation briefly in the past.

On the other hand, I've also read about the Vipassana and Buddhist doctrines, having already done a 10 day vipassana course in the past. This view is diemetrically opposite to the former, as it clearly denies the existence of a permanent self. More importantly, it also says there is no absolute Brahman or God, so meditation along these lines will involve NOT having any mental objects including a brahman.

Now, as a spiritual aspirant, I'm TOTALLY CONFUSED! I just don't know what kind of meditation to perform. As far as faith is concerned, I have faith in both - I have read the vedas and found them to be full of truth. And at the same time I don't find anything wrong with Buddha's teachings either.
But as regards meditation, this has caused me a dilemma! Request advanced practitioners with experience here to suggest me what to do.

NOTE: I'd practiced Anapanasati during my Vipassana course which was very helpful and tranquil experience. However, the patanjali style of meditation was also equally beneficial.

A concrete, substantial self implies inherent existence. Inherent existence is the lens of delusion through which we naturally view the world. Buddhism teaches dependent origination, which helps free you from this root delusion.

To believe in the Hindu scriptures, you have to rely on faith. Buddhism's principles become self-evident through honest introspection, not faith.

The purpose of meditation is to free beings from suffering, at least from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. If you are still clinging to cyclical existence, this ultimate end seems impossible as you are still heavily under the spell of the root delusion.


3 deliverance 8 liberations and stages of enlightenment Is there any relations between 3 deliverance, attha vimokkha and stages of enlightenment?
During meditation (like anapanasati) , how does one switch to insight (into five aggregates) after gaining some concentration?

  the conditionless (or signless) liberation (animitta-v.),
  the desireless liberation (apanihita-v.),
  the emptiness (or void) liberation (suññatā-v. ).

vimokkha

According to Classical Theravada (that is, the Pali Canon as interpreted by the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga) the three deliverance just refer to which of the three characteristics is the most prominently contemplated the mind to attain enlightenment, and there isn't much of a practical difference.

The eight liberation are mostly an alternate way of describing the progression of samadhi. You can describe it in a lot of different ways, the Jhanas are just one way of talking about it.

You also ask how to switch to the contemplation of the five aggregates after attaining concentration, especially using anapanasati. The most general description of this is given in the Visuddhimagga:

  One who wants to accomplish [insight], if, firstly, his vehicle is
  serenity, should emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhána,
  except the base consisting of neither  perception  nor
  non-perception, 3   and  he  should  discern,  according
  tocharacteristic,  function,  etc.,  the  jhána  factors  consisting
  of  applied  thought, etc., and the states associated with them, [that
  is, feeling, perception, and so on]. When he has done so, all that
  should be defined as “mentality” (náma) in the sense of bending
  (namana) 4  because of its bending on to the object.

  Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his
  house, finds its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that
  mentality, he seeks to find out what its occurrence is supported by
  and he sees that it is supported [588] by the matter of the heart.
  After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements, which are
  the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as
  “materiality” (rúpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold,
  etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality”
  (náma-rúpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and
  the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”

(Visuddhimagga XVIII.3-4)

In other words, after attaining concentration, your switch your object of meditation to the mental qualities in the mind caused by such concentration. You put your attention on and observe the qualities of peace, clarity, joy, etc... and see them very clearly. After that, you turn to the body, watching and observing the physical sensations of the body such as hardness, cohesion, movement, heat, etc...

If you want detailed instructions on how to do this especially for Anapanasati, this section of Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on Anapanasati is one of the best in my opinion: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu-Anapanasati-Fourth_Tetra.pdf


What makes Lord Buddha worthy of worshiping as to suttas? I know Lord Buddha is worthy of every respect but what is the correct answer/what has the Lord Buddha himself has said?

What makes a lord Buddha worthy of worship as to lord Buddha are there any reference from suttas that we can find?

In MN 77, the Buddha teaches a group of wanderers the five reasons why His disciples venerate Him and look to him for guidance:
1. Supreme aggregate of virtue
2. Excellent knowledge and vision
3. Supreme aggregate of wisdom
4. Teach the Four Noble Truths
5. Show the way to develop wholesome states.


References on Rupa and Arupa Jhana through Brahma Vihara I am looking for freely available resource on achievement of Jhana through Brahmavihara. What are such references?

Also I would like to dig deeper into what Bhanthe Vimalasiri has written on the subject. So references on his teachings are greatly appreciated, but so would be works by other teachers.

Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena,

May Atma be able to proper trust that Upasaka is well, healthy any heedfull?

Especially Notes here give further crosslinks, aside of the Sutta it self:

SN 46.054 and a linked in another question AN 04.125

Also Sankhitta Sutta: In Brief
(Good Will, Mindfulness, & Concentration) might be of interest.

And here maybe useful Bhant Nyanadassanas teaching: From mettā Jhāna to nibbāna and a Sutta and commentat that supports that: DN.09 and at least The Limits of the Unlimited Attitudes -
The Brahmaviharas on the Path to Awakening by Bhante Thanissaro with many links and crossreferences.

All collected in "Metta-Boom just fills Heaven and Hell"

Here some of Ven.Mahāsi Sayadaw comments.

In regard of Bhanthe Vimalasiri, best to ask Upasaka Micro, he is surely be found on any forum of other tapapals, charts or equal Buddhist communities and as disciple (till not so long mentioned as such) of Bhante, he always loved to share in this regard.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not meant for commercial purpose or use for other wordily gains.)


Alternative to lying? This looks like a bunch of riddles, for that pardon me....

If someone run past you and some chasing him with weapons ask you if you saw him or not, seeing the danger that he is in you might want to lie but if you do not lie he might get hurt

If your boss call you and ask if one of your Co-workers said something bad about the boss, you will have to be truthful but in doing so you break a precept as you are using your word to make two people dislike each other.

In these kind of situations can we imagine some other thing and answer thinking i'm answering in reference to my imagination and skip the breaking of precepts?

Like saying i did not saw the man who ran away, thinking "There is no such being called me in reality, also there is no man who ran away in reality either"?

I saw something like this done by Lord Buddha when Lord Buddha tamed the anger of "Anguli maala". Lord Buddha says....

"I've stopped now you should"
while walking, this was said in reference to the stopped journey through samsara in a Lord Buddha's life not in reference with feet.

If someone run past you and some chasing him with weapons ask you if you saw him or not, seeing the danger that he is in you might want to lie but if you do not lie he might get hurt.

While lying is deceit, if it saves a life, can that not be considered a wholesome act?

Recently while visiting one of the Sea Shepherd ships, I noticed a Buddhist statuette that was gifted from the Dalai Lama. While the sea shepherd ships stand between whales and other species that need their protection, the Dalai Lama himself is quoted as saying, in reference to Sea Shepherd tactics, 'when protecting life, it is not a [sin] to cause damage, as the life is more valuable'.

I would consider this to be in the same league as lying to someone who is going to cause serious injury or death. You are protecting life.

In Buddhist teachings it is the intention that is of utmost importance in may areas of life decisions.

If your boss call you and ask if one of your Co-workers said something bad about the boss, you will have to be truthful but in doing so you break a precept as you are using your word to make two people dislike each other.

This would be the equivalent of 'gossip' I would say. I have been put in this situation before and my answer was "the two of you need to sort your own business out and not involve others".

In these kind of situations can we imagine some other thing and answer thinking i'm answering in reference to my imagination and skip the breaking of precepts?
Like saying i did not saw the man who ran away, thinking "There is no such being called me in reality, also there is no man who ran away in reality either"?

This would be very bad for you. At the end of the day your 'intention' is deception when you think this way. This can form a bad habit as you deceive yourself even more than you deceive the other people. As my example above, you don't have to lie, there are always other options.

For example, with the man chasing the other man, you could ask him instead "what is wrong" "can I help you", maybe he is chasing a man who hurt his child, or a robber. There are many options to be considered, and delving into the situation to gain better understanding would be better than deceiving yourself.


What is the difference between transcendental state of mind and Nirvana? Some yogis of India believe in transcendental state of mind. However I saw no such reference in the teachings of Buddha.
So , what is difference between transcendental state of mind and Nirvana?
(Assuming Nirvana is the Buddhist state of mind)

Nirvana is not a state of mind but is an element the transcendental mind has sense contact with.
As for "transcendental" mind, the Pali is "lokuttara"; which literally means "above/beyond the world".

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.
Ani Sutta


Law of Karma in the Buddha's own words Where can I find the law of karma and rebirth in Buddha's own words?
Which scripture mentions it explicitly, as told by Buddha, and accepted by all sects of Buddhism?

Ven Bodhi discusses this matter and quotes relevant suttas in his "In the Buddha's Words" chapter V "THE WAY TO A FORTUNATE REBIRTH".

The following list, which was posted on SuttaCentral, is a greatly expanded version of Ven Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words list:

  Since i've found Ven. Bodhi reference list, i've been expanding it and here's what it's grown up to thus far. Hopefully someone will find it useful and continue to expand it as one gets more familiar with the Nikayas corpus

The links to the actual texts can be found in this posted list (as a part of a much longer one).

Most (if not all) of the texts are available on Access to Insight as well.

I cannot vouch that the view on kamma presented in these suttas is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, but it at least should be so for Theravada.

  The Law of Kamma

  (1) Four Kinds of Kamma (AN 4.232)

  (2) Why Beings Fare as They Do
  after Death (MN 41)

  (3) Kamma and Its Fruits (MN 135)

  (4) Kamma sutta - old and new kamma (SN 35.145)

  (5) Sivaka sutta - other causes (SN 36.21)

  (6) Devaduta sutta - kamma is only personal (MN 130)

  (7) Mahakammavibhanga sutta - the workings of kamma are not simple (MN
  136)

  (8) Vipaka sutta - violation of 5 precepts leads to states of woe and
  what they are (AN 8.40)

  (9) Tamonata sutta - 4 types of people in the world (AN 4.85)

  (10) Saleyyaka sutta/Veranjaka sutta - conduct determines realm of
  future birth (MN 41/42)

  (11) Panatipati sutta (AN 4.214)

  (12) Acintita sutta - workings of kamma are incomprehensible and
  should not be pondered upon (AN 4.77)

  (13) Vanijja sutta - success and failure are results of quality of
  offerings to holy people (AN 4.79)

  (14) Dasadhamma sutta - kamma is individual (AN 10.48)

  (15) Apayika sutta - false accusers of celibates go to hell (KN :  It
  48)

  (16) Abhinhapaccavekkhintabbathana sutta (Upajjhatthana) - kamma is
  only personal, everyone is an owner of their actions (AN 5.57)

  (17) Acela sutta - on one who experiences the results of kamma (SN
  12.17)

  (18) Nibbedhika sutta - kamma is intention (AN 6.63)

  (19) Angulimala sutta - arahant’s bad kamma gets exhausted in the last
  life (MN 86)

  (20) Lonaphala/Lonakapalla sutta - developed holy way of life
  alleviates bad kamma; salt simile, jail simile, goat butcher simile
  (AN 3.99 or 3.100) see (25)

  (21) Janussonin sutta - who is born where based on morality (AN
  10.177)

  (22) Jhana suttas 1,2 - jhana relation to rebirth in heaven (AN
  4.123,4)

  (23) Metta suttas 1,2 - brahmaviharas relation to rebirth in heaven
  (AN 4.125,6)

  (24) Ariyamagga sutta - 4 types of dark and bright kamma and its
  results (SN 4.235)

  (25) Sankha sutta - bad kamma gets lost in immeasurable brahmaviharas
  (SN 42.8) see (20)

  (26) (Karajakaya) Brahmavihara sutta - bad kamma gets lost in
  immeasurable brahmaviharas (AN 10.208)

  (27) Yodhajiva sutta - warrior which kills is reborn in hell (SN 42.3)

  (28) Talaputa sutta - actors are reborn in hell for enhancing asavas
  in people’s consciousness (SN 42.2)

  (29) Sangama sutta 2 - the verse seems to suggest that one’s rewarded
  with exactly what one has done oneself (SN 3.15)

  (30) Samannaphala sutta - sequence of rebirths is linear (DN 2)

  (31) Cula-Punnama sutta - where persons of integrity and no integrity
  end up (MN 110)

  (32) Culakammavibhanga sutta (MN 135)

  (33) Parikuppa sutta - 5 deeds which lead to hell (AN 5.129)

  (34) Sukkhamala sutta - bodily, verbal & mental misconduct lead to
  hell (AN 3.38)

  (35) Ekamsena sutta - bodily, verbal & mental conduct consequences in
  this life and the next (AN 2.18)

  (36) Kukkuravatika sutta - bright, dark, bright & dark, neither dark
  nor bright types of kamma and its results (MN 57)

  (37) Annataro brahmana sutta, Janussoni sutta, Ekamsena sutta - the
  future is determined by conduct (AN 2.6-8)

Since then I also found these:

Pansu suttas - rebirth in human or deva realms is rare (AN
56.102-113)
Mahasihanada sutta - 5 destinations (MN 12)

Maybe some day someone will volunteer to extract from these suttas relevant excerpts and compose out of them a coherent readily available text.