How did the Buddha define success? I read somewhere that Buddha said "Those who fear death have not lived wisely". What did he meant by "Living Wisely" ?

I sometimes interpret this to mean that I should take a chance, quit my job, and become an entrepreneur.

What I want to ask is about mind, should I become hard work in a field according to the interest of my mind or should it does not matter, and keep on doing my work like robot (consciously).

Here's my problem: Some say that in order to achieve true success I should do something that interests my mind (so I will not be distracted or bored). If we are talking about spirituality, shouldn't what is interesting to me be less important?

That is, should I do things that I find fulfilling so as to achieve my success, or should i just keep working hard at what I am doing now, but with more focus?

The Buddhist goal is Nirvana, But I have a family and I want to give them a better life, Why earning money is seen as attachment ?

The Buddhist goal is Nirvana and on jet to reach it is called a Sekkha. Success comes then you have reached the goal and free from all stress is accomplished (Asekkha).

Even you are are not fully accomplished, the practice may help you manage your day to day stress, until one day you do not get stressed any more.

Also do not procrastinate doing the tasks as this is the last day or moment. This would help in your worldly aspirations also.


How to stay mindful of the gap in the breath When I breathe there's a certain time gap after the out breath and before the in breath. I find myself being dull or distracted at that time because there's no breath to notice.

Do I notice the lack of breath? Do I notice not noticing?

What I watch are the feelings of irritation or tension or rushing in my mind, generated in the very beginning and the very end of the gap.

My goal in meditation is to notice how I subconsciously create/maintain emotional tension or inner discord through subconscious grasping some idea, and to stop doing that.

When I see that around start and end of the gap my mind has a character of nervousness, then I know I have something to let go. Once I let go, my breathing winding down to the gap and then restarting again from the gap, feels peaceful and more natural.

So, what I really focus on is letting go and relaxing, until I basically feel perfectly good in the here and now. And the breathing around the gap serves as an indicator of the remaining tension.

As I relax, I keep watching more and more closely, in order to notice even smaller and subtler tensions and nervousnesses. It's like zooming in, more and more, on the precise moments the breath stops and restarts.

Then at some point when I really relax, I don't really care about watching the breath anymore, I watch something else (mind?) -- I don't know how to describe.


How does one practice Buddhism when experience is limited by the 6 senses? If one is limited by the senses and the formation of the sense, how does one practice Buddhism which espouses interrelatedness and interconnectedness?

For example, if i simply taste the grape i have in mouth, how do i realize that the grape is the result of the elements of nature e.g. propagation of seed, pollination, inception of a seedling, sprout, etc which in turn is supported by the sun, rain, soil, etc

If you're eating a grape and you are thinking about the soil and farmers and so on, then you are not eating the grape, you are thinking.  This isn't mindfulness.

You don't try to be interconnected.  You let go of all the conceptualizing that infiltrates experience.  The idea here is that your concepts are the thing that blocks interconnection; let them go, and there's interconnection.  You needn't develop it, you just need to remove the barriers to it.

Ironically, one of those barriers is precisely the exercise you mentioned.  Your thoughts about how you are interconnected to that grape is exactly what's keeping you from really being connected to that grape.

You don't connect in an ecological or social sense, but in an experiential sense.


Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha? Understanding of 'Anatta' is key to so much Buddhist meditation practice and philosophy that I've been exposed to but (call me conservative) I gain great confidence when the Buddha himself had something direct to say about the term / concept. There seems to be common consensus that 'anatta' means there is no abiding self / Self. Christopher Titmuss in his list of what the Buddha did not teach says:

  No-Self. The Buddha remained in noble silence when asked whether there was a self or no self. He simply stated that body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, including thoughts, and consciousness were not oneself and did not belong to self. he taught not self as vehicle for liberation from misperception. Anatta literally means ‘not-self’; if the buddha had meant ‘no self’ he would have said ‘na-atta’. What the Buddha did not teach

Having studied Avaita Vedanta for some years, I recognise Buddha's early approach as pure self-inquiry i.e. recognising that the self is not in any of the skandhas, that we normally identify with, which leads to directly to the real Self.

Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine?

I feel this is an important question as this view has implications for the commonly held view that Buddhism is humanist, nihilistic, compatible with atheism, secular etc., when the Buddha himself held no such position.

"Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?"

Anatta -- "not self" -- is a doctrine broadly present in the discourses preserved and currently available.

"Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine?"

There's no reasonable support for any doctrine of self in the collections above (and, just for completeness, there's no declaration "there is no self" in them as well, but more on that below).

The episode Christopher Titmuss refers to is probably the following:

  Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

  When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

  "Then is there no self?"

  A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

  Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

  -- SN 44.10

The Buddha then proceeds to explain why he did not answer (another explanation is given in SN 44.7):

  "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

  — "No, lord."

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

This knowledge ("that all phenomena are not-self") is famously repeated in the tilakkhaṇa formula:

  all conditioned phenomea are impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti)
  all conditioned phenomena are suffering (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā'ti)
  all phenomena are non-self (sabbe dhammā anattā'ti.)

  -- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

Commenting on it, Richard Gombrich -- an Indologist -- writes:

  The third hallmark is very often mistranslated (sometimes by me too, in the past) as 'not having a self or essence'. That is indeed how later Buddhists came to interpret it, but that was not its original meaning -- in fact, it is doubly misleading. Both Pali grammar and a comparison with the Vedānta show that the word means 'is not ātman' rather than 'does not have ātman'. However, as time went by the term was taken as a possessive compound and also taken to refer to everything, so that it became the one-word expression of Buddha's anti-essentialism.

  -- What The Buddha Taught, pg 70

Then, some people find themselves understanding that the Buddha advocated annihilationism (because of anatta), or eternalism (as some sort of occult teaching of a real Self behind his words). But the most obvious answer to these understandings is his own words, since he explicitly rejected both.

Among his many self-doctrine refutations, my favorite is this:

  "Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."

  -- MN 22


If a snake is eating a human infant in front of me what should I do? What is the difference if the snake was eating a frog or a human? What do Buddhist scriptures say about this?

Just kill the snake and save the baby

Ok , this would be the reaction of a person who has no idea what Buddhism is . But , even if we know Buddhism to some extent, we would do the same . Because still our minds are not developed.

According to Buddhism

Basically all lives are equal , if a snake is eating a frog , there will be no reaction from a person who has achieved nirvana. If the snake is eating a human (even if the infant is his own kid , there won't be a difference )he would never kill the snake , he will try to remove the snake using a stick , if it doesn't succeed,he will give himself to the snake and will save the life of his kid or any other human. But if the snake is eating some other animal, he will not interfere . Because according do Buddhism , people should not interfere with animal lives , all those things are unnecessary attachments. Buddha advises not to have pets , not to even give food to animals continuously , because if you do those animals will start to make bonds with you and you with them , that will definitely make ones samsara longer .

Conclusion

People should not interfere with actions of animals. But you can save any human being by sacrificing yourself or by using some strategy


Usefulness of Madhyamaka to personal practice? In my opinion, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) discuss the nature of the self (anatta, empty of self, dependent arising) in such a way that it is useful to the path towards liberation from suffering (such as overcoming self-view or sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

Meanwhile, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) do not discuss the nature of other non-sentient things (e.g. a chair, the universe, atoms, five aggregates), beyond noting that other things are conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca).

On the other hand, Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka seems to have expanded on these concepts to cover the nature of all reality (empty of inherent nature / svabhava, dependent arising, dependent designation). On top of this, Madhyamaka also posits that emptiness itself is empty of inherent nature.

To a non-Mādhyamika practitioner, Madhyamaka's discussion on the nature of all reality may appear to be an exposition on the "poisoned arrow". That is to say, it is not useful to the path towards liberation from suffering. Some might even say that the nature of all reality falls under the fourth imponderable (Acintita Sutta).

From a Mādhyamika practitioner's perspective, how is Madhyamaka useful to the path towards liberation from suffering? How is it useful to personal practice?

This should not be seen as negative criticism towards Madhyamaka. Rather, I seek to understand its usefulness to personal practice.

Madhyamika posits that both persons and phenomena (i.e. phenomena other than persons) are empty of true existence. While traditional text do not mention the emptiness of chairs, table, etc. They do say that persons and phenomena [other than persons] are empty of true existence. The Heart Sutra says:

  Phenomena also are empty.

This citation means that both persons and phenomena are empty of true existence. Thus, it is not true that "Mahayana Agamas do not discuss the nature of other non-sentient things".

In his Commentary on Aryadeva’s Four Hundred, Chandrakirti says:

  Through the division of phenomena and persons [selflessness] is understood as twofold, “a selflessness of phenomena and a selflessness of persons.”

In addition, traditional Mahayana texts explicitly posits that phenomena one encounters and "deal with" on the path to enlightenment are empty. For instance, the objects of abandonment are empty, nirvana and samsara are empty, afflictions are empty, minds are empty, and so forth. Why? This is because while our misconception of the nature of a cup is not that which binds us in samsara, seeing the afflictions, etc. the way they exist is most relevant.
phenomena the way they exist is relevant, while it is not so much our misconception of the nature of a table that binds us in samsara.

Nagarjuna’s Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness says:

  Compositional activity is caused by afflictive emotions.
   The afflictive emotions that motivate actions have a nature of [contaminated] actions.
  The body is caused by [contaminated] actions.
  All three are empty of inherent existence

The types of phenomena of which emptiness is usually emphasized, though, are the aggregates. According to Madhyamika tenets, one cannot obtain even the path of seeing without directly realizing both the emptiness of person and that of phenomena [simultaneously]. Here, phenomena refers to the aggregates.

In Precious Garland, Nagarjuna says:

  As long as conception of the aggregates exists,
  So long is there conception of an I in them.

This is because we posit that the conception of self of person is based on the conception of self of phenomena, and that it is not possibly to eradicate one [ignorance] without eradicating the other.


Did Buddha ever get angry after enlightenment? I'm exploring the nature of anger, so want to know.

Anger(Patigha/Byāpāda) is uprooted at the stage of Anagami. So it's technically impossible for any being who has attained Anagami or above to get angry, let alone the Buddha.


What is the meaning of Dhammavicaya What is the exact meaning of the second factor of Enlightenment 'Dhammavicaya'? Does it mean: enquiry of the Dhamma (buddhasasana)? Or is it the enquiry (= tilakkhana) of all dhammas i.c. all phenomena? Or both?

The sutta says:

  Abiding thus mindful, he investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it. On whatever occasion,
  abiding thus mindful, a bhikkhu investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it—on that occasion
  the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor is aroused in him,
  and he develops it, and by development it comes to fulfilment in him.

The word 'dhammaṃ' above is 'singular' (rather than plural). Therefore, dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo (the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor) appears to mean examining satisambojjhaṅgo (the mindfulness enlightenment factor) with wisdom.


What is wrong with my vision of karma? We are consciousness housed inside a physical form. We started off as the nothingness of the universe ... all potential. Then we were bound to this form just as someone capturing air in a bag. Although we are normally formless and all one big lump of consciousness instead of a bunch of individuals -
 this circumstance changes that. We are now identified as that bag.

That bag, our body, interacts with the universe and sets wheels and gears in motion every which way. Those movements ripple repercussions both onward and back as cause/effect. There is no "time lag" so a consciousness is just immediately changed and as long as that change deviates it from the whole then it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.

This make sense to me without being bound in mysticism. Where is it incorrect? Or is it? I really think I have something here.

From a Theravada Buddhist perspective, this theory suffers from the error of an enduring self.  It is dependent on their being a persistent consciousness or, at minimum, some sort of enduring higher self.  From a Mahayana perspective, this theory establishes an erroneous dichotomy between form and emptiness.  There is ultimately no distinction between the bag (i.e. the body), consciousness, and the universe.


The impact of the subconscious mind on the conscious mind How should one consider the impact or influence of the subconscious mind on one's conscious awareness and mental processes, especially during sitting meditation? My mind seems to often exhibit a proliferation of short-lived flashes of images "from nowhere". Is consideration of the relationship between the subconscious mind and the conscious mind a futile endeavor or a worthwhile endeavor? Some brief exposé of how Buddhism views the importance (or unimportance) of the subconscious mind would be appreciated.

There is an interesting section on Visions and Signs in the teachings of Ajaan Fuang. I quote my other answer here.

  § "Don't be amazed by people with visions. Visions are nothing else
  but dreams. There are true ones and false ones. You can't really trust
  them."

  § A Bangkok housewife who was practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang
  heard some of his other students say that meditation without visions
  was the straight path. It so happened that she had frequent visions in
  her meditation, and so hearing this made her wonder why her path was
  so winding and convoluted. When she asked Ajaan Fuang about this, he
  told her: "Having visions in your meditation is like having lots of
  lush wild greens growing along the side of your path. You can gather
  them as you go along, so that you'll have something to eat along the
  way, and you'll reach the end of the path just like everyone else. As
  for other people, they might see the greens without gathering them, or
  may not even see them at all — because their path goes through arid
  land."

  § "Visions — or whatever things appear in the course of your
  meditation: It's not the case that you shouldn't pay any attention to
  them, for some kinds of visions have important messages. So when
  things like this appear, you have to look into how they're appearing,
  why they're appearing, and for what purpose."

  § "There are true visions and false visions. So whenever you see one,
  just sit still and watch it. Don't get pulled into following it."

  § "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."

  § "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."

  § One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"

  His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."

  § "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."


What are Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields in Buddhism? What roles do they play in various lineages? Recently, I heard the terms Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields.  It was explained as a place to do good deeds for gaining good karma.  However, I'm not sure about the explanation or what it means.  What are Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields?  What role do they play in Buddhism?

A Buddha-Field is another word for a Pure land, a realm associated with a Buddha. In the Pure Land Buddhism followers chant to a Buddha such as Amitabha in order to be reborn in his pure land where enlightenment is guaranteed thereafter.

To be honest I'm not seeing much about Dharma-Fields when I look. But if you are seeing the term used in the same context as Buddha-Field I'm going to go out on a limb and say they mean the same. I'd be interested if someone else knows otherwise.

The question about pure lands give more information.

I hope that helps some.


Does this kind of meditation have grounding or an equivalent in Buddhism? I've done a kind of meditation recently (or thought exercise), inspired by Buddhist teachings, and was wondering if the meditation has a specific name in Buddhism?

The meditation goes as follows:

Start with a couple minutes of breathing meditation.
Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment.
For an aversion:

Allow the aversion to be there.
Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding to also be there, even if just for the duration of the meditation.
Try and build a sense of kindness towards the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding.

For an attachment:

Allow the attachment to be there.
Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to be there.
Allow the opposite of the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to also be there.

Repeat above until there is nothing left that I feel attachment or aversion towards.

And that's it. I've found that this gives an incredible sense of ease and calmness and presence.

Does this have any grounding in Buddhist teachings?

OP: Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment.

This seems right:

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta

OP: ... Allow the aversion to be there ...
OP: ... Allow the attachment to be there ...

I believe you have to remove attachment and aversion:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta


For an "advanced practitioner" (sorry), how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly? How to practice? Sorry but I will talk about attainments and mention some stuff that are sometimes considered hard to get to, you are free to not read. I will probably abandon this account after this post.
Well... I'm post stream-entry, I don't really have doubts about that.
I have 2 "addictions", that is 2 things that even if I decide not to do them, I end up doing them eventually. For example, sometimes, if I decide to only eat once a day and lower my weight then I can actually do it for weeks or even months, but eventually I end up going back to my old habits and gaining weight. Sometimes I decide to stop them and I can't, that's also true. Both "addictions" are quite mild and don't have any significant consequences.
I know general Buddhist instructions for dealing with them. Specially from Yuttadhammo videos online.
Other than that, my conduct is quite clean. Both my actions and words seem clean to me. My thoughts are almost all about Buddhism or actual meditation. I would say that they are either wholesome or they show a little restlessness, with only occasional thoughts that are worse than that.
But it's also true that I'm mostly okay with all of this. I don't really suffer the desire of the "addictions". I rarely notice it, and when I do notice, it doesn't feel disgusting. It doesn't feel mine, it doesn't feel like it is a bad thing that needs improvement. Same with thoughts, I don't have any reasons to consider them worse or better than other kinds of thoughts.
This is a conflict I have. Between being confident in considering the "addictions" and thoughts as not-mine, perfect, without any need to judge me for them, and on the other hand considering this not cool and trying to reduce them.
So, how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly?
Also, I don't really know how to practice right now. I'm inclined for practices during the day (instead of sitting on the cushion only meditating).
I don't think jhana will help. I can get to deep jhana in seconds, I don't really see much room for improvement. Sorry if that comment bothers anyone, I wouldn't even mind not being able to practice jhana.
So, how do you recommend me to practice based on my situation?
Thanks for reading, sorry if any of it bothered you or gave you expectations of how things should be.

If you're post stream-entry you should understand that "I" is not a thing, therefore your eating habits or weight problems are not your decision, they are part of your overall life style, your environment, and the patterns of your life. If you really want to change them, change your situation drastically, move to another place etc. Either that or make a firm decision to stop worrying. The worst you can do is to keep perpetuating the inner conflict without fixing either by changing or by letting be.
What you need to meditate on, is why exactly this still bothers you. Why do you even think this is important? I'm guessing you still have some notion of "better" bothering you. If that's the case, that's what you need to focus your meditation on, the concept of "better". Why do you still crave "better", you want to be perfect or what?


Is buddhism athiestic? Sorry, I'm a beginner to Buddhism but at least from whatever I have heard buddhism seems atheistic. But I've also heard claims like the Buddha is higher than the 'devas' and all that. Does buddhism believe in god? are there any suttas which can prove otherwise?

Buddhism teaches about higher consciousness such as Deva or gods.
However, Buddhism does not teache a one creator God or one and only god overpowering you.Gods can help you like any other human can help you but not with eliminate your suffering, unfortunately.

==================

Scattered throughout the suttas are references to as many as thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during their long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily grim and painful hell realms all the way up to the most exquisitely refined and blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is temporary; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to their past kamma. When they pass away, they take rebirth once again elsewhere according to the quality of their kamma: wholesome actions bring about a favorable rebirth, while unwholesome actions lead to an unfavorable one. And so the wearisome cycle continues.

The realms of existence are customarily divided into three distinct "worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of refinement:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless jhanas.
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees of mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed to (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to possess extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these realms, the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have attained to "non-returning," the third stage of Awakening. The Fine-Material World and the Immaterial World together constitute the "heavens" (sagga).
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the animal and hell realms.
The information on this page was assembled from a variety of sources. In the interests of economizing space I have not attributed each fact to its respective source.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


Which canon and traditions does the Flower Sermon text belong to? I've heard of a Buddhist story in which the Buddha just holds up a flower and one monk in the audience understands then becomes instantly enlightened. I believe it is a foundational text for Zen Buddhism. Where does this text originate from? What canon or collection of texts is it from? When was it wrote and which tradition(s) does it derive from?

Generally I would just like to know a bit of background to the history, authoring and authority of the text. I have only ever hear to it referred to in secondary sources and never giving a primary reference.

Here is some information about it:

  The origin of the Zen school is traditionally traced to Mahakassapa,
  who was said to have received a direct transmission outside the
  scriptures. This transmission is illustrated with the evocative story
  of the Buddha holding a flower silently before the assembled Sangha:
  only Mahakassapa understood, and smiled. The story is gains special
  resonance since Mahakassapa is renowned as a curmudgeonly old monk –
  although his authentic verses in the Theragatha do indeed show a
  delightful love of nature.

  Despite the fame and importance of the story, it is not attested in
  any Indic scripture, and is a Chinese Chan invention. It’s first
  appearance is apparently in the compilation of koans, the 無門關
  (Wúménguān, often rendered in English as The Gateless Gate), compiled
  by the Chinese Zen master Wumen Hui-k’ai (無門慧開) and first published in
  1228. The development of the notion of lineages is discussed by Dumoulin.
  -The Date of the Flower Sermon, Sujato Bhikkhu

The text is found, as mentioned above, in "The Gateless Gate" under the heading "Buddha Twirls a Flower".


What's the awakened state like? I can grasp the truth of the false self.  That what I think of "me" in my mind doesn't exist . But I'm scared of giving it up after 45 years of it. Im like the guy in the matrix. Nero?

An awakened mind no longer has any desires, ambitions, fear, anger and so on.

I do understand the fear. It is quite normal and natural. And functional in the sense that the mind won't let go. So long as you fear you are attached to what you are used to.
Basically there is no need to worry. You won't suddenly wake up, not knowing how to react or something like that. The mind only lets go when it's ready, and that means that there will be no fear.

Practice is, in my humble opinion, key. Intellectualising and thinking and reasoning can get you only this far. Only by experiencing will fear subside, because your mind get's used to new experiences. It will familiarise itself with the yet unknown. And understanding and wisdom will grow... and so on.. and so on.


Is there a real difference between "not-self" and "no self", and if so, which one is correct? Just in case someone is interested, this is a question based on this thread, but it's not necessary to read such discussion to understand and answer this question.
I'd like to know about the differences (if there is any) between the next statements, and to know which one is correct from the perspective of Early Buddhism:

"There is no self to be found"
"All phenomena are not-self"

So, basically, is there any difference between "no self" and "not-self"? And which one corresponds to "anattā"?
I'd appreciate any help.
Kind regards!

I can't easily tell a difference between "no self" and "not self" in English -- and if there is a difference (if you can construct a distinction in meaning) I think it's too fine a difference to be significant -- like if someone tells you something is "a mile away" and you get out your micrometer.
I mean, the "a" prefix in Pali is a negator, which appears on all sorts of words:

kalika ("time"), akalika ... how do you translate akalika? I say "timeless" because I think that happens to be a felicitous word in English, but equally be "without time, "outside time", "not subject to time" or "not controlled by time" or "nothing to do with time"
verena ("hatred"), averena ... how do you translate averena? I say ""non-hatred" (because I hope that's the most literal translation even if it isn't idiomatic English) but some translations say "loving-kindness" -- i.e. not just an absence of hatred, they substitute one of its "polar opposites"

Maybe "selfless" could be a translation, however in English that's an adjective used to describe "altruistic" behaviour (so that's not an appropriate translation).
anatta is grammatically a noun. I don't, I wouldn't, normally equate two nouns -- "a dog is a cat" for example doesn't make sense. So I usually read anatta as if it were an adjective ("a dog is hairy"), i.e. as if "form is anatta" is describing a property or characteristic of form. And lakkhaṇa
 (translated "characteristic") in Anattalakkhaṇasutta suggests that seeing anatta as a characteristic -- an adjective not a noun -- isn't bad.
One time is it appropriate to equate two nouns is when you're talking about categories -- "a dog is an animal". Perhaps anatta can be seen as a category of things, especially in phrases like Sabbe sankhara anatta.
I think of "self" as a verb in that kind of context ...

Calvin and Hobbes - Verbing Weirds Language - by Bill Watterson for January 25, 1993

... i.e. "selfing" is an action, it's something you do to things -- you "take as 'self'" or "perceive as self" or "attach to as if it were self" -- and an anatta thing is something which you shouldn't "self" in that way, something which isn't fit to be selved.
Perhaps you can see that the Anattalakkhaṇasutta is about the five aggregates. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta mentions aggregates too:

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

So I think of "selfing" as "grasping" or "attaching" (especially to aggregates).
I think that colloquially the word atta had two meanings:

atta -- me, myself
Atta -- my Soul, the Soul -- see Ātman (Hinduism)

I think that informs the meaning too -- to say that the aggregates are anatta is to say that they shouldn't be regarded as "soul" or "permanent self", which fits in with such things being anicca (impermanent).
Since you're asking I don't think it goes so far as to say "there is no soul" or "there is no self" -- instead see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- that would belong to the "thicket of wrong views" cited here.


Does yesterday have buddha nature I am asking because I think that if the past has buddha nature, and the dharmakaya is impermanent, then there is nothing left of the enlightened when they die.

Dharmakaya is not impermanent. Where did you get such an idea?
Buddha nature/dharmakaya is not impermanent. Dharmakaya = the idea of Self, Buddhanature, Allah, Brahmin, Substrate... it's the thing that is beyond existence and nonexistence... it's beyond separation and non-separation. It's the thing that stands beyond time and exists without existing.

"Past" is a way of categorizing time.
It is just as much a figment of imagination as "present" and "future".
The only thing that exists is the "now" but even that is speaking relative to a "past" and "future" which do not truly exist except in your imagination.
Nonetheless, the imagination is an important tool for discussion, desire, economics, etc. It is the foundation of our worldy and supernatural discoveries.

Anyway, to give you a clear answer to your unclear question, the past does not have buddha nature since it is completely imaginary, dharmakaya is permanent (it is all-that-is), and your logic does not follow about enlightened people.

On the other hand, it is true, much is left behind through the bodhisattva path including the fetters which bespeaks of the fear you have of "nothing being left".


How to work with praise and blame? What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon?

I am specifically looking for answers with

Explanations on the significance of praise and blame, and how they relate to each other.
Stories on how to work with praise and blame.

Examples from outside the Pali Canon are also welcome (other traditions, or non-scriptural), but preference will be given to answers that match the above.

What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon?

Due to space, I'll answer with some excerpts but bear in mind that the full texts should be read for a better understanding:

  (1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.

  “Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his
  mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

  “But, bhikkhus, (1) when an instructed noble disciple meets with gain,
  he reflects thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He thus understands it as it really
  is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute … (5) …
  blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he reflects thus:
  ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent, suffering, and subject to
  change.’ He thus understands it as it really is.

  “Gain does not obsess his mind, and loss does not obsess his mind.
  Fame does not obsess his mind, and disrepute does not obsess his mind.
  Blame does not obsess his mind, and praise does not obsess his mind.
  Pleasure does not obsess his mind, and pain does not obsess his mind.
  He is not attracted to gain or repelled by loss. He is not attracted
  to fame or repelled by disrepute. He is not attracted to praise or
  repelled by blame. He is not attracted to pleasure or repelled by
  pain. Having thus discarded attraction and repulsion, he is freed from
  birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is freed from suffering, I say.

  “This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference
  between an instructed noble disciple and an uninstructed worldling.”

  -AN 8.6, Worldly Principles (2)

  "'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to what was it said?

  "There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss
  of wealth, or loss through disease, does not reflect: 'That's how it
  is when living together in the world. That's how it is when gaining a
  personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is
  the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions
  spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly
  conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise, pleasure, &
  pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through
  disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes
  distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss
  of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects:
  'That's how it is when living together in the world. That's how it is
  when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world,
  when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly
  conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight
  worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise,
  pleasure, & pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or
  loss through disease, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not
  beat his breast or become distraught.

  "'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to this was it said.

  -AN 4.192, Traits

  Gain and loss, disrepute and fame,
  blame and praise, pleasure and pain:
  these conditions that people meet
  are impermanent, transient, and subject to change.

  A wise and mindful person knows them
  and sees that they are subject to change.
  Desirable conditions don’t excite his mind
  nor is he repelled by undesirable conditions.

  He has dispelled attraction and repulsion;
  they are gone and no longer present.
  Having known the dustless, sorrowless state,
  he understands rightly and has transcended existence.

  -AN 8.5, Worldly Principles (1)

Not to gain or loss
not to status or honor,
not to praise or blame,
not to pleasure or pain:
      everywhere
they do not adhere —
     like a water bead
     on a lotus.
     Everywhere
they are happy, the enlightened,
everywhere
un-defeated.

-Thag 14.2, Godatta

He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
     defeated, by those judging the issue:
He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
     "He beat me," he mourns.

These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
     In them are elation, dejection.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
     for they have no other goal
     than the gaining of praise.

He who is praised there
     for expounding his doctrine
     in the midst of the assembly,
laughs on that account & grows haughty,
     attaining his heart's desire.

-Sn 4.8, To Pasura

As a single slab of rock
won't budge in the wind,
so the wise are not moved
     by praise,
     by blame.

-Dhp 81


How do you handle when someone tries to instill guilt in you? From a perspective to hindrances to meditation this may fall under remorse and regrets, but not very apt in that sense.

Using Buddhist philosophy to get over and respond, how do you handle when someone tries to instil guilt in you, like trying to make you feel like you have done something wrong, you are a bad person, I am a victim, you are a perpetrator.

How to respond to such a person?

Sutta references are appreciated but otherwise, any workable answer adhering to keeping Buddhist precepts and practise is welcome.

The important thing to do is to have in mind that these people are puthujjanas, so they are bound to be awful, especially when they think something bad is happening to them.
now the puthujjana who receives this ''attack'' better have equanimity.

If this happens too much, then the solution is to no longer live around people who try to make you feel sad. It is hard, especially when it is people in the family, but separating yourself from bad puthujjanas in order to live with the meritorious puthujjanas and non-puthujjanas  who train for the noble path  is the way to have sati, and ultimately to be awaken, like the buddha tells Ananda in the Upaddha Sutta.

For the ''sutta reference'' you can read the Akkosa Sutta where the buddha is insulted by some puthujjana and the buddha replies that he does not take up the insults.


Are some of the supernormal powers a direct contradiction to old age, sickness, and death being unavoidable? If a supremely enlightened being can become many, walk through walls and dive into the ground as if it were water doesn't this mean that he is not dependent on his body and can actually make the body into anything he wants? If he can become many couldn't he just manifest a new body? I have yet to come across even one case of any of the supernormal powers that has been scientifically confirmed. Usually after doing some research on claims of these powers I find an explanation that completely debunks them as frauds. I don't want to know if these exist in order to gain them but because I want to be aware of any discrepancies with in Buddhist texts in order to better fully understand the Dharma. For me truth is the highest goal so separating fact from fiction is a must.

Then the real question is whether we humans are capable of seeing all the facts there are in the world? Carl Sagan put it best with his flatlander simile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 . Now say there's some being who possesses supernormal powers living in a cave on those extremely remote mountains, s/he'd probably has no interest to come down to our civilized world to prove anything. So in scientific term, it's a matter of the sample size. And in the words of another great scientist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, don't dismiss the "whale" just yet: http://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/92432571651/claiming-there-is-no-other-life-in-the-universe-is

About the contradiction to old age, sickness,...well, there's no contradiction. According to the suttas and commentaries, the meditator has to meditate on a particular element kasina in order to be able to manipulate that element (ie. meditate on the water kasina to walk on water, on the earth kasina to go thru earth, etc.), in other words, s/he can only temporarily perform such feats under certain levels of concentration. They themselves are subjected to impermanence..


Monks precepts - Not to teach dhamma to women and not to recite dhamma in pali with laymen? Two of the Pacittiyas (monks precepts according to Vinaya) implies that 1-Bhikkhus should not teach more than 6 words of Dhamma to women and also 2-Should not recite texts of dhamma in pali with laymen.

Is this correct? I may have read that in a non reliable source of per haps I may have misinterpreted it, it could also be an issue with the translation... not sure.

Anyway, I woukd like to understand it better. thanks!

I think your first doubt was taken out of context from the following rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 370):

  Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to
  a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.

  “Then Ven. Udāyin, dressing early in the
  morning and taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to visit a certain
  family. At that time the lady of the house was sitting in the main
  entrance, while the daughter-in-law was sitting in the door to the
  inner chamber. So Ven. Udāyin went to the lady of the house… and
  whispered Dhamma into her ear. The daughter-in-law thought, ‘Is this
  monk my mother-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ Then,
  having whispered Dhamma into the ear of the lady of the house, Ven.
  Udāyin went to the daughter-inlaw… and whispered Dhamma into her ear.
  The lady of the house thought, ‘Is this monk my daughter-in-law’s
  lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ After whispering Dhamma into
  the daughter-in-law’s ear, Ven. Udāyin left. So the lady of the house
  said to the daughter-in-law, ‘Hey. What did that monk say to you?’

  “‘He taught me Dhamma, ma’am. And what did he say to you?’

  “‘He taught me Dhamma, too.’

  “So they criticized and complained and spread it
  about, ‘How can Ven. Udāyin whisper Dhamma into women’s ears?
  Shouldn’t the Dhamma be taught openly and out loud?’”

  The two factors for the full offense here are:

  1) Object: a female human being who knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, and who has not asked one a question about the Dhamma.

  2) Effort: One teaches her more than six sentences of Dhamma without a knowledgeable man present—i.e., a male human being who also knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken.

  ...

  Summary: Teaching more than six sentences of Dhamma to a woman,
  except in response to a question, is a pācittiya offense unless a knowledgeable
  man is present.

Your second doubt, seems to be referring to this rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 356):

  Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.

  This is an offense with two factors:

  1) Effort: One gets a student to recite Dhamma line-by-line with oneself (which, as we shall see below, means to train the student to be a skilled reciter of a Pali Dhamma
  text).

  2) Object: The student is neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhunī.

  ...

  Summary: To train a novice or lay person to recite passages of Dhamma by
  rote is a pācittiya offense.


How do you meditate with a blocked nose? I have a blocked nose and I can’t feel the breath sensations. Should I put my finger to feel the breath? Is it ok if I focus on other things like finger touching each other? How do I feel the breath sensations if my nose is blocked?

Maybe try to troubleshoot the causes to the blocked nose first. If it's just normal nose booger, gently blow your nose before the sitting to clear nasal passage. If it's allergy/inflammation, eat high vitamins fruits/veggies and maintain regular daily exercises. Anyway, usually once you've gotten into some relatively settled absorption state, the allergy/inflammation tend to naturally subside and you'll breathe better.


Is this talk just a convention? In this question it was said that Buddha said  "I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened ... I am a conqueror (of evil qualities)."
The answer seems to be that Buddha used 'I' for sake of convention.

Given Anatta , is the following talk a mere convention?

I have craving for music.
Do you have craving for ice-cream?

Is the 'I'and 'you' used in the talk above merely a convention or is it real?

It's all about mental context, my friend. If in your mind there's a (silent) conviction that you see, you act, you were born, you will die, this is you etc. - if your subjective experience is like that - then for you there is Self. Even if you don't use the word "I", there's is still belief in I in your mind.

If in your mind there's a silent understanding of how things work, how mind works, and how illusion of I is generated - then for you there's no "Self" or "No-Self" - you clearly see how it really is. Even if you use the word "I", there's no belief in I in your mind.

All talk is conventional, because "conventional" means we assume we are more or less in agreement what each word means. What matters is your mental context.


I would like to become Buddhist I'm a mathematics student and I want to become a buddhist because I've heard that they don't believe in any god.

How can I get in to buddhism?

What kind of books do you recomend to read for starters?

Can I be a Buddhist without joining any community?

Is there any kind of "secular" Buddhism?

I would like to learn about their vision of life without making any rituals. Is that possible?

I've heard that they don't believe in any god.

It depends on what you mean by God. Buddhism does not have the concept of a almighty, creator (deism), sustainer, creator plus sustainer (theism), destroyer, everlasting god, external controller or owner or creator of the soul, enforcer of karma or retribution and rewards for one's actions, etc. but does mention Deva who are better described as celestial being / deity but which is sometimes translated perhaps loosely or incorrectly into English as gods.

Also see God in Buddhism.

  How can I get into buddhism?

Why don't you 1st take a course at a meditation centre. You can locate a centre close to you here: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index, http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html, http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

  What kind of books do you recommend to read for starters?

Start with In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) Edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi

  Can I be a Buddhist without joining any community?

Anybody walking the path (The Noble 8 Fold Path) with a view to come out of stress can be considered a Buddhist. It will be helpful if you are part of a community as it can help you with learning and practice. But also if you join the wrong community it can be detrimental.

You can try https://www.dhamma.org/ or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/. Also http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ has other groups which you can try out but be wary that not all forms of Buddist pratice give the same results.

  Is there any kind of "secular" Buddhism?

Secular Buddhism as in the west may have gone too far in re integrating Buddhism but inherently Buddhism is secular. Also see answers to this question on Secularized Buddhism

  I would like to learn about their vision of life without making any rituals. Is that possible?

Buddhism does have culture which has developed around it and the cultural significance change from country to country. There are not Rites and Rituals in Buddhism itself.


Usefulness of attending a Thai temple in the United States So I've been a Buddhist since around 2007, but I've never been to a temple. I don't think I've ever actually met another Buddhist. I just go by what I read in Bodhi's translations and Thanissaro's lectures and practice on my own.

A few months ago, I started working in Raleigh, NC, and my drive home now goes right by this Dhammayut temple (map). It's only something like 8 minutes out of my way.

I had called their number a few years ago and asked if--I forget what I said specifically--something like do you have any services? (I may have said "Sunday services." Ack.) The response was something like:

  Aah.. uh, no...

Sort of like a Consuela "no.. no..". It didn't seem that the person spoke English very well, although I think he understood my question.

At the time I had figured that a Thai temple is probably just not very interested in westerners. (I've noticed typical western converts to Buddhism don't tend to wholeheartedly buy into one tradition or another, they might read books on Zen, listen to lectures by the Dalai Lama and also watch videos by Ajahn Brahm. They often totally disregard the idea of rebirth. I can see how some of this might be off-putting to conservative Theravadins.)

So I figured their interest is just in attending to the Thai community there, and/or they may have few or no people that speak English well enough to teach in that language. Since then I've sort of alternated back and forth between this view and thinking maybe I ought to pursue it further. Now that I'm so close to the temple, I'm thinking more about trying to attend.

So my question is does anyone here have first-hand experience with Thai temples in the United States and how those tend to handle westerners wanting to attend?

I'm really only interested in practice. I'm only interested in devotion-based actions (e.g. veneration of Buddha statues, kathina ceremonies) insofar as they inspire practice, because I can imagine a scenario where the only thing being done is offering of incense, giving robes and alms to monks and maybe listening to Pali chanting, with little or no meditation or English-language talks. If that's the case, it might not be worth it. (Although this is a Dhammayut temple, so I would tend to think they would certainly be doing meditation there?)

I'm specifically interested in anyone who's Thai and attends Thai temples in the United States, especially a Dhammayut temple like this one, and could give me some insight as to how they operate, what practices they do and how useful it would be to someone who's interested primarily in practice, less in ritual..

Sorry not Thai.

I'm a westerner (black American) who attends a Thai Forest temple, and they were welcoming to me since the beginning. Honestly as someone who has been attending for a while, the "Sunday service" question would have been strange to me too. We have chanting and meditation open to laypeople once in the morning and evening. Of course, visitors are welcome all day, and there are regulars who also make lunch for the monks, and offer other food, medicine, and other donations.

It is not good to make decisions based on your imagination. For example, your assessment would be incorrect if applied to our temple. Offering robes formerly is mostly only done once a year for Vesaka. Also, donations, chanting, and meditation go hand-in-hand. Offering food, taking refuge, praising the Three Jewels, practicing gratitude for things we do not normally think about (food, shelter, clothing), and spreading loving-kindness is the basis for a healthy meditative life. At my temple, they speak both Thai and English, and if you can find an English version of the Pali chanting book they use (technically their books are already in "English" as far as using transliterated Roman script), it is easy to pick up on the keywords that let you know what you are chanting at any given moment.

Also, the Buddhists in our temple are comfortable with going to Mahayana-based temples as well, and "doing as the Romans do", which includes more incense offering and devotional aspects like that.

Saying that, the Dhammakyut orders formed from a movement that basically Protestantized Buddhism in that region, so you have to take in account how Thai Buddhism is practiced in modern times when considering practicing Thai Buddhism.

It is really like any other new place. You just go in and check it out, without expectations, meet it on its own terms, then decide whether the temple is for you or not.


Is there awareness of impermanence during the formless meditations Is there awareness of impermanence during the formless meditations?

If you choose to see things as they are or investigate the Dhamma. Since in the 8th Jhana there is a residue of Perception and Feeling hence you should direct your observation to understand the impermanence of feeling or impermanence of what is felt if you what to develop insight into the 3 marks of existance.

A person taking the Arupa Jhana route attains the final goal by going though Nirodha Samapathi (cessation of perception and feeling)

See: Raho,gata Sutta for further details.


Are there examples of the Buddha showing humour in the Pali Canon? Leading on from this question - are there any examples of the Buddha showing a sense of humour or a certain lightness in his teachings within the Pali Canon? I was once told that it is possible to find examples where he perhaps approaches teaching with a gentler approach depending on his audience. Certainly the Buddha gives the lions roar but does he sometimes give the cheeky wink too?

You could say the Buddha and arahants had a peculiar form of humour, as Konrad suggested in his comment above. The hasituppādacitta (smiling-producing mind) is a citta unique to enlightened beings. While they can also smile due to beautiful-functional cittas, the hasituppādacitta is rootless, containing none of the wholesome or unwholesome roots.

This means they would smile at things ordinary folk wouldn't, like brahmas being born as pigs (Dhp-A 338), or ghosts being tortured for past misdeeds (Dhp-A 71).


Do we need to cheat the mind to escape thoughts which would lead to bad habits? Do we need to cheat the mind?

For example:

A thought came: "Why not get Drunk tonight?" (I don't drink & smoke)
Next Thought: "No I am not supposed to do it" (is this 'mind' talking again?)
Next Thought: "Oh Come on, Don't be a child."
Next Thought: "No my room mates are good people, I can not."

When I think about it, I came to know that my friends are also a major fact in helping me in making good habits.

But what if someday I am with some guys, who are always drinking, and there is no pressure of insult?

How to control mind?

Is observing the feeling of lust actually helping me to know more about it?

Is it true that we can never control the mind, and that we just have to cheat it by either focusing on some other thing (which is just to avoid the feeling, but it will come back), or to observe it? What exactly happens when I observe a feeling or sensation in the body?

What is the best way to change a bad habit? Someone told me to know the reason why I want to change it, but would that be enough?

But what if someday I am with some guys, who are always drinking, and there is no pressure of insult?

I agree that friends (the company you keep) are important.

I think that doctrine is found in several suttas:

Upaddha Sutta:

  And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life

Bhikkhuni Sutta

  'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Sigalovada Sutta  (read the whole sutta, not only this quote):

  Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.

Dhammapada;

  If one finds a sagacious friend, who is a virtuous and steadfast companion, one should live with him joyfully and mindfully, overcoming all dangers.
  If one cannot find a sagacious friend, who is a virtuous and steadfast companion, one should live alone like the king who gave up and left the country he had won, and like the elephant Matanga roaming alone in the forest.
  It is better to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. So one should live alone, do no evil, and be carefree like the elephant Matanga roaming alone in the forest.

Is observing the feeling of lust actually helping me to know more about it?

If I tell you to jump off a tall building I think there are two things you could do:

Jump off the building, because I told you to, without thinking about it
Hear the sound of my words but without obeying them (without making them your intentional action)

I think that "observation" is a bit like the second scenario -- it helps you to detach from the impulse ... and/or to experience the sensation (the sound or thought) without that forming much impulse to act.

What is the best way to change a bad habit? Someone told me to know the reason why I want to change it, but would that be enough?

Various ways include:

Avoid the bad habit in the first place. For example if you've reason to believe that smoking is harmful and addictive, don't start smoking (never try smoking) -- if you do you might say, afterwards, "Well once was OK (I survived it), it was new, interesting ... maybe try it again now!"
If you acquire a bad habit, try to stop it as soon as possible. Allowing yourself to continue to practice the bad habit for longer doesn't make it easier to stop!
Change your situation (e.g. avoid living with harmful people)
Understand the harm and the unsatisfying nature of the bad habit -- sometimes it's a habit because it's not satisfying (because "doing it once isn't satisfying" is the reason why you're tempted to do it again)
Consider or search for wholesome alternatives (e.g. if a bad habit is a choice, an option, there may be other other choices, better options)
Beware the "I am special" temptation, i.e. conceit: for example, thinking "drinking is harmful for other people ... but it's OK for me!" -- or the opposite, e.g. "may everyone else be happy ... but I just want to drink myself to death!".
Consider the future: "If I continue to do this, what is the likely consequence?"
Confess (admit) the fault.

For example, in the Vinaya (the monks' rules), many transgressions are labelled "faults of confession". I don't know details but I think that if a monk transgresses they're supposed to confess that (to another monk), "I did such-and-such", and that there are reasons why that's prescribed.
Another example, from secular life, people who are habitual alcoholics might go to a meeting for alcoholics, to discuss and share experiences about what the various problems are, and maybe how and what it's like to overcome them. You can't really do that unless you're willing to say, "Alcoholism is a problem (is one of my problems) and it would be appropriate for me to attend these meetings".
If you don't want to admit you have a problem then avoid committing problematic actions -- that's one of the ways in which social pressure or peer pressure might help you to stay out of trouble. Conversely if you do have a problem then admit it.

Also FYI the thought "Oh Come on, Don't be a child" sounds to me like it has some implicit/unstated assumptions or views: for example that, "Being a child is bad", and that, "Adults drink alcohol". Beware these implicit assumptions or arguments (and others) are not necessarily true -- it may be quite a common line of "reasoning" (argument) among teenagers or young adults, though.

Is there a difference between ego and conceit?

I think that English isn't the "native language" of Buddhist Dharma, and "conceit" is an English translation.

For longer explanations of what the word "conceit" means, see for example the answers to this question, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

and does Bhikkhuni Sutta's Essence means to abandon conceit

I think that conceit includes comparing yourself to others, for example the following are both called forms of conceit:

"I am better than he is"
"He is better than I am"

I think the essence of the Bhikkhuni Sutta is that although conceit is to be abandoned finally, it can be a useful tool, a useful stage on the path.

For example the following is conceit:

"That monk was able to achieve a stage of enlightened. If he could do it then so can I: and if I do what he does then I too will reach that stage!"

That's conceit because it's comparing yourself; but it's useful because it gives you confidence or faith, and gives you a good example (and doesn't give you a bad example).

I also do not understand the impulse thing (Does impulse means the action one takes after sensation)

I'm not sure I do either.

See for example this page:

  Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

  And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

I think that two examples of that are:

I see an apple. The thought occurs, "Supposing I were to eat the apple?" I decide (or accept the impulse) to eat it.
I look over the edge of a tall building. The thought occurs, "Supposing I were to jump off this building?" I decide not to (or refuse or ignore the impulse) to jump.

When the sutta says "Contact is the cause" perhaps that means for example "Seeing the apple" and "Being aware of the thought".

The "intentional action" is when I eat the apple and do so intentionally (knowing that it's an apple, having decided to eat it for some good or bad reason).

Many people say by smoking they are not harming anyone, so they do not have reason to quit, (even spiritual people say that)

I have observed there are people who say that, yes.

What I need to understand of this?

I think that these are people who are less likely to change that habit: because they say it isn't harmful.


Did Huineng claim he didn't know Buddhism? If yes, what does it mean? In a Facebook post on Huineng (6th Patriarch), I found the below conversation -

  A monk asked Huineng, "Who is able to attain the essential teaching of Huangmei [the Fifth Patriarch]?"
  Huineng replied, "Those who understand Buddhism."
  The monk then asked, "Have you attained it?"
  Huineng's answered, "I don't understand Buddhism."

Where do I find a reference to this and what does it mean to not understand Buddhism?

Zen masters often said that they didn't know anything of Buddhism. For example, in Suzuki's essay, "The Doctrine of Enlightenment," the Fifth Patriarch is quoted as saying: "Four hundred ninety-nine of my disciples understand well what Buddhism is, except one Huineng. He is not a man to be measured by an ordinary standard. Hence the robe of the faith was handed down to him." (Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series) What this means is simply that Hui-neng's wisdom didn't come from studying the sutras but from within himself. On the other hand, he well understood all of the sutras intuitively because of his wisdom. This is not to say one shouldn't study the sutras, but that understanding comes from within, and one shouldn't rely on anything without.

If the particular quote is accurate, Hui-neng was engaging in a particularly Zen method of teaching, and his answer shouldn't be taken literally. He may have meant that if you really understand Buddhism, if you have attained the state in which there are no things such as a self, enlightenment or Buddhism, then you don't understand Buddhism.


Are there any differences in karma? Is there a difference in karma of giving someone $ 1 and giving someone $ 1000, or its same for anything given?

and

Is there a difference in karma of killing a small animal (like mosquito or small fish) and killing an big animal (like a cow or an elephant), or the karma is same for all killings ?

If there is a difference what makes the difference?

The difference will always be the mental state of the person performing the action. Giving is dependent on one's state of mind while giving; the amount is intrinsically inconsequential (though obviously a poor person will feel more strongly about giving $1000 than giving $1). As Sakka, king of the devas of Tavatimsa says in the Vimanavatthu:

"Natthi citte pasannamhi, appikā nāma dakkhiṇā;
Tathāgate vā sambuddhe, atha vā tassa sāvake"ti. (vi. va. 804);
There is not, when the mind is confident, such a thing as a small gift,
In regards to a Tathagata, fully enlightened Buddha or, furthermore, his disciples.

Giving to the Buddha is considered to be of greater merit, not because of the benefit to the Buddha, but because of the ability to inspire faith and confidence in the giver.
As for killing, the mental state involved in killing large animals is generally more intense; also the sense of the weight of the act is greater, so the mind will be more strongly affected by it. Killing virtuous people, parents, etc. is even worse, because it sets one squarely against virtue.
But there is no hard and fast rule here either; if you obsess over killing a single mosquito buzzing over you at night, you may cultivate more unwholesomeness than a single act of killing a larger animal.
Furthermore, karma isn't a single act of killing; it may be cultivated every moment; every thought concerning a moral or immoral act is karmically potent, so it's imprecise to ask if x or y is good or bad, better or worse, since karma is only a single thought moment at a time, and thus the potency depends upon the nature of the individual mind states.


Finding a Sangha in London I've been what you might call an armchair Buddhist for many years. I'm at a point where I'd really love to meet other like minded people and get involved with the Buddhist community on a more personal level.

I live in London. Having listened extensively online to Dharma talks from wonderful teachers like Gil Frondsal, I can see there are a great many communities in the United States which spread the Dharma. I was wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of similar communities in the UK, specifically London?

I've been to London Buddhist Centre and that was very good. It's part of the Triratna Buddhist Community and it's explicit aim is to present the Buddha's teaching in a way that is compatible with modern society. It's in a converted fire station so it's a really good space and it was friendly when I went.

I am biased though - I'm involved with Triratna in Leeds so it's my sangha. I think it's still a good recommendation though.


What makes someone enlightened? Some years ago I somehow managed to stay almost the whole day without any thought, and for several months I used to be in that state of consciousness. I had the breathtaking feeling of emptiness and freedom, there were no ups and downs anymore, I was completely balanced and a profound happiness had taken me. I thought I had become a Buddha, but the thoughts started to come in and this state of consciousness faded. What makes someone enlightened?
I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened. Well, I think that is very challenging.

States of calm attained thorough meditation is only temporary.Enlightenment is permanent.You can't stay in that state forever.The key is not to get rid of thoughts or be in a state of no thought but to see the nature of these thoughts to the point that it doesn't bother you.

I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened

what.

i don't know maybe.But i think it takes more than 45 minutes to be enlightened.Unless your an Anagami.Also enlightenment is not a not thinking contest.If that was the case i can think of a few people who'd be enlightened by now.


Is the following quote in conventional lanaguge? DN 1 states the view of nihilist wanderers, as follows:

  Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Is the word 'self' used here in conventional language?

Or does the word 'self' here actually represent a belief in self by those nihilist wanderers?

If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened?

It appears to me those Brahmins believed in none existence.
It appears they did not believe in kamma and rebirth.
What Buddha taught was the dependent origination.
It is not enough to understand the not self. That has to be realised through dependent origination.


If you Consolidate the Satipatthana Instruction from the Tripitaka what would the additions and variation in Comparison to Maha Satipatthana Sutta If you consolidate the instructions from the Tripitaka and other sources what would be the variations and additions to the instructions given in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta?

Here are four comparison tables that expose the similarities and discrepancies in  satipaṭṭhāna discourses from the Pāḷi Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas:
From Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan, p.166-169. Click the images to enlarge.


How do you recognize the attainment of enlightenment? In the Buddhist story of Ananda, Buddha's most devoted disciple, it's said that after Buddha's death the first Buddhist council was assembled to write down all of Buddha's teachings.

Only those that were enlightened could attending the council. As the person who was closest to the Buddha, Ananda knew best the teachings of the Buddha, but because he wasn't enlightened he could not attend.

So Ananda started an intense meditation and became enlightened just before the council took place.

How did he knew he became enlightened? How do you recognize when your practice finally brings you enlightenment?

The way to check the stage of enlightenment on or another person is in is by checking which fetters are broken and which are not. If all 10 are broken then you are fully enlightened. This should be done with utmost care as in many cases there is a chance one may overestimate.


Are there Buddhist traditions without monks? Are there any traditions without an associated monastic community or even where the monastic element is significantly minimised. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and the blurring of the monastic and lay elements is a particular feature. I was wondering if we are very peculiar in that or if there are other traditions, modern or historic, where that also would be the case.

SGI, for example, describes itself as a "lay Buddhist organization".

I'm not sure I'd want to call it orthodox Buddhist, though.

Traditionally there might have been a split in lifestyle between monastery (and a literate life) and fields (and manual labour). I think I remember seeing a TV documentary with teenagers, monk-candidates, studying texts in a monastery: one said that the (academic) study is difficult/onerous, nervertheless easier (therefore a better career choice) than spending life working in a (agricultural) field.


Correct Perspective for Mindfulness I am wondering whether anyone can give me information on the correct way to practice non-judgmental mindfulness. The way I understand it, different attitudes towards experience can imply:

Attachment: Participating in an experience or indulging in a desire or fantasy through action.  Or, even, clinging to and believing thoroughly a thought or idea, i.e. in a non-relative way.
Aversion: The opposite, which is aversion towards an experience, shunning it, denying it, avoiding it by removing oneself from it. Denying realities and ideas, considering them as entirely wrong or false, or undesirable.
Equanimity: Finally, having equanimity, holding experiences in oneself without acting upon them or avoiding them, and considering the relativity of ideas and emotions, etc.

I believe the third point is mindfulness, but when I practice meditation very little seems to arise. I am caught in the breath. Outside of meditation, even, I often act out of anger without time to think, or fail to experience different emotions and affects.

Is it possible I am meditating wrongly, in a way that inhibits non-judgmental awareness of inner experience, and instead prevents these experiences from arising? I.e should these experiences (lust or anger, emotions, etc) at least arise?

Here are some good resources on how to mindfulness

https://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Seeing-Through-Rev-0_3.pdf

https://pathpress.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/notes-on-meditation-by-bhikkhu-ninoslav-nyanamoli.pdf


The importance of NOW Why this (and only this) moment is the exclusive possibility to see things as they really are?

The future is only just an imagination at best as it has not happened and the past is only an memory. You cannot see the in details anything other than what you remember or things yet to unfold.

So present moment is what you can study to get a understanding of reality at the subtlest level.


Buddhism and past lives? The idea of having more than one life in Buddhism is regarded not  just as a theory but  a truth that can be experienced and verified If this is so, what was the technique used by the Buddha to recollect past lives? What is the exact technique that leads to remembering one's past lives according to Buddhism?

According to my teachers (Korean Zen and Tibetan Vajrayana), because Buddhism explicitly denies existence of soul (see anatta), the concept of rebirth does not refer to reincarnation of the same person, but rather to propagation of information from one life to another.

Recollection of past lives then is not to be understood literally but as a metaphor for clearly seeing patterns of karma acting out from one generation to another. This requires shedding an irrational belief in existence of "I" as a solid entity, subject of experience, and independent agent of action.

The technique for achieving this level of insight is known as vipassana or "special insight meditation", to be preceded by "calm abiding meditation", samatha, in order to attain the necessary clarity of mind.


Would Siddhartha Gautama have agreed with modern forms of Buddhism? Siddhartha Gautama accepted as its close disciples some secular.
They had the same chance to gain enlightenment, without practicing rituals, and without believing in everything he said or did.

Looking at the big picture can show that Siddhartha's truth doesn't hide behind idealism or practicing specific rituals. By it's nature it is everywhere, and it's findable in everything.
The Truth could be in any ritual or practice.

So isn't it out of context to create massive religious groups like we can see in modern Buddhism ?

Isn't it against the nature itself of the truth, to mass share a specific view of it ?

There is a related statement in SN16.13, where the Buddha warns about the decline of his teachings, the true Dhamma, and the rise of counterfeit Dhamma. But at the end, he also gives some hints as to the way to preserve the true Dhamma:

  "... When beings are in decline, and the true
  Dhamma is waning, then there are more precepts and fewer monks attain
  enlightenment. But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma,
  Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a
  counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true
  Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no
  counterfeit gold has arisen in the world... The earth-element does not
  make the true Dhamma disappear, the water-element... the
  fire-element... the air-element..., But right here men of straw
  appear, and it is they who bring about the disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. A ship, Kassapa, may sink all at once, but it is not thus that
  the true Dhamma disappears. There are five contributory factors,
  Kassapa, which lead to the adulteration and disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. Which five? It is when monks and nuns, male and female
  lay-followers behave disrespectfully and rebelliously towards the
  Teacher,... towards the Dhamma,... towards the Sangha,... towards the
  training,... towards meditation.

  "But when monks and nuns, male and female lay followers behave
  respectfully and deferentially towards the Dhamma,... towards the
  Sangha,... towards the training,... towards meditation, then these
  five things conduce to the maintenance, the purity and the
  preservation of the true Dhamma."

In DN16, the Buddha also commented on the various conditions, if observed, would lead to the growth of the congregation of monks and not its decline. But these are too long to be quoted here. I'll quote only the first set here:

  "The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline,
  bhikkhus, so long as they assemble frequently and in large numbers;
  meet and disperse peacefully and attend to the affairs of the Sangha
  in concord; so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish
  the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training
  (Vinaya) laid down; so long as they show respect, honor, esteem, and
  veneration towards the elder bhikkhus, those of long standing, long
  gone forth, the fathers and leaders of the Sangha, and think it
  worthwhile to listen to them; so long as they do not come under the
  power of the craving that leads to fresh becoming; so long as they
  cherish the forest depths for their dwellings; so long as they
  establish themselves in mindfulness, so that virtuous brethren of the
  Order who have not come yet might do so, and those already come might
  live in peace; so long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to
  welfare endure among the bhikkhus and the bhikkhus are known for it,
  their growth is to be expected, not their decline.

Hence, it is not the size of the modern Sangha or congregation of Buddhists that is the problem, but rather it is whether they really follow the teachings or not.

The book "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. Shravasti Dhammika provides good information on how parts of the Sangha and the Buddhist World today may not be reflecting the original ideals put forward by the Buddha.


Actions taken to transfer merit What do you have to do in order to transfer merit. Do you just do something wholesome, and wish for someone else to receive the karmic result? Etc…?

From the book What Buddhists Believe by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera:

Buddhism also teaches that the acquired merit can be transferred to others' it can be shared vicariously with others. In other words, the merit is 'reversible' and so can be shared with other persons. The persons who receive the merit can be either living or departed ones.
The method for transferring merits is quite simple. First some good deeds are performed. The doer of the good deeds has merely to wish that the merit he has gained accrues to someone in particular, or to 'all beings'. This wish can be purely mental or it can accompanied by an expression of words.
This wish could be made with the beneficiary being aware of it. When the beneficiary is aware of the act or wish, then a mutual 'rejoicing in' merit takes place. Here the beneficiary becomes a participant of the original deed by associating himself with the deed done. If the beneficiary identifies himself with both the deed and the doer, he can sometimes acquire even greater merit than the original doer, either because his elation is greater or because his appreciation of the value of the deed is based on his understanding of Dhamma and, hence, more meritorious, Buddhist texts contain several stories of such instances.
The 'joy of transference of merits' can also take place with or without the knowledge of the doer of the meritorious act. All that is necessary is for the beneficiary to feel gladness in his heart when he becomes aware of the good deed. If he wishes, he can express his joy by saying 'sadhu' which means 'well done'. What he is doing is creating a kind of mental or verbal applause. In order to share the good deed done by another, what is important is that there must be actual approval of the deed and joy arising in the beneficiary's heart.

I encourage you to read the whole page devoted to this (linked above). There is a lot of interesting supplemental information including the reasons for transferring merit to the deceased and the right and wrong way to go about doing this.
The Author refers to the Tirokudda Kanda sutta which you may find interesting.


Does Buddhism claim that our World is an illusion? In other words is it a Matrix? Any proof for this? I wrote this article: Do people leave in Matrix? Information, entropy, time and cellular-automata.

The article tries to prove that the visible world is an illusion or a "dream".

My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?

Also, the article includes a proof of the existence of a Higher Conscience. Is that in direct relation with Buddhism (i.e. the topics discussed here on this site)?

Also, if you found any logical flaws in this article then please mention/list them.

"My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?"
No, it's not the main topic of Buddhism.
From the Pali canon point of view, it's also not a claim of Buddhism that the world is an illusion.
In contrast, the main topics of Buddhism are the nature of suffering, the nature of pleasure, the ultimate freedom of suffering, and the ultimate pleasure (born from the freedom of suffering).
It's visible from the sutras that the Buddha refrained himself from making many ontological statements -- statements about "what is out there" and the nature of "what is out there". And some people seem to believe he refrained from making any ontological statements at all, which may induce the idea that he regarded the world as an illusion.
In general, however, his concerns with the world starts when a stimulus is "perceived" -- when sense data is contacted. The nature or reality of what lies behind what has been sensed is not dwelled on. Thus, generally speaking, the formulations of the World from the Buddha are in terms of the senses.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of the world. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
[...]
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. [...]
-- SN 12.44

When he doesn't ignore "the outside world", it's possible that he could be speaking in conventional terms instead of positing a view, as in "there's a house behind that mountain" (and not as in "that house exists and it's real", in the ontological sense). When he speaks of characteristics of "the house", his focus arguably lies in what is perceived by the senses and his interest is in how these perceptions affect us.
The closer he gets to an ontological view (i.e. when the nature of the "house" is of interest) could still not really be about trying to pinpoint the actual nature of the thing "out there" independent of observer, but about the perception of it, in particular, associated with three characteristics: being subject to change, it's unsatisfactoriness as ultimate protection of all suffering and, upon inspection, showing a lack of ultimate stable essence.
On the other hand, he is known to have "proclaimed the world with it's devas, Mara and Brahma" against those who proclaimed otherwise, which is an assertion about "objective reality". Also, he taught a moral law which distinguish between sentient beings and non sentient beings which seem to imply some ontological distinction. But I think the interest to investigate the non-subjective actual nature of things is generally lacking when such knowledge does not benefit the path to terminate suffering.
Finally, since Buddhism regards mind as a sense (in the same category as taste and sight), then even in a universe where all interactions are confined within ones own mind, Buddhism still applies.


Tolerating Sensations VS Diminishing them I was wondering something. Basically, I was wondering whether sensations, such as suffering:

(1) naturally occur within the person, as pleasure and pain, or happiness and suffering, and it is their exacerbation which people call, for example, suffering. So, a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc.

Here, suffering and sensations always exist.

or (2) involve an underlying neutrality which is the absence of sensation, and experiencing suffering or happiness generates a corresponding feeling.

Here, suffering and sensations cease.

So, (1) implies a variety of different and co-existing sensations, while (2) implies a neutral basis wherein sensations arise and dissipate.

This might seem like a metaphysical or trivial question, but I think its quite significant.

In (1), diminishing suffering might involve tolerating its presence, more and more. In (2), the ideal is neutrality, and suffering is diminished by elimination.

So, I think this question wonders whether Buddhism advocates (1) the existence of sensations and phenomena, positive or negative or neutral, but the equanimity towards them. Or, does it advocate (2), the equanimity towards sensations as in their diminution, and the return towards neutrality?

Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?

Thank you.

Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
What ever Buddhism could do, does, should, even experiences... The Buddha told, and such is it recited:

"Eggman!"
"Yes," the householder replied.
The Monk said, "Eggman, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing.
...
"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.
[6] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying.
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

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


Implementing the Satipatthana Sutta IRL [HELP] I want to put this book to practise and use in real life. I want to be able to apply this book in three ways: (Reading Analayo's version)
a. How can I practise a specific part of the SS when I'm meditating on the cushion?
OR
Which meditations align with sharpening a specific skill from the SS?
b. How can I practise a specific part of the SS when I'm meditating off the cushion?ORWhat actions can I perform in everyday life to practise these skills from the SS?
c. How can I reflect over a specific part of the SS each day/week/month?ORWhat questions can I answer each day/week/month to reflect over my practise from the SS?
How can I get in touch with someone who can help me to this? :)
Metta. :) Thank you. :)

Since you seem interested in what Bhikkhu Analayo has to offer in regards to the Satipatthana sutta I would suggest you maybe consider looking into his
practice guide.


What is the difference between mindfulness and concentration? Does the concentration occurs during first jhana?or is it relates to the samadhi which involves in second jhana?What is actually one pointed of the mind means?

Concentration is part of every mind state: the normal, regular, every-day-of-life mind states; the unwholesome ones; the wholesome ones.
It is absolutely not limited to jhana states!

One-pointed means basically that it focusses the entire mind on to an object. In vipassana we speak of momentary one-pointedness where the mind in this moment focusses entirely on this object and the next moment on the next object.