What are the four dharma seals? I can find various modern English-language translations (and descriptions, explanations) of the four dharma seals (e.g. on Wikipedia or on Lion's Roar); but --

What's the earliest or original reference (scripture) in which the seals are defined?
What's the best and/or the most famous original description (if that's not the same as above)?
In which canonical language[s] are they defined? Are they (also) defined in Pali or Sanskrit?

I'm ideally looking for all four seals together as a formula -- not e.g. the three characteristics as an early version of it, nor a text which only for example describes emptiness.

In Tibetan schools the four seals are usually presented like this:

Everything that is conditioned (or "composite") is impermanent.
Everything that is stained (or "tainted") brings suffering.
All phenomena are empty and devoid of a self (or "of independent entity").
Nirvana or ("The Realization") is peace.

The first three look like paraphrases of the original Three Marks of Existence:

anicca vata sankhara (all assemblies are transitory)
sabbe sankhara dukkha (all assemblies are faulty / entail pain)
sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena are no-self or "coreless")

And here is a commentary by H.H. Dalai Lama from "The Gelug/Kagyü Tradition of Mahamudra."

[For non-Mahayana Buddhists]

  never separating the actions of their body, speech and mind from the behavior shaped by the vinaya rules of ethical discipline is karmamudra, the seal of their behavior.
  The realization of the lack of any true, unimputed identity of a person, specifically the total absence or voidness of a person existing as a substantial entity able to stand on its own – the coarse identitylessness of a person according to the prasangika-madhyamaka presentation – is dharmamudra, the seal of their preventive measures.
  The state of separation from disturbing emotions and attitudes, on the basis of the abiding nature of purity, attained through meditation on the identitylessness of a person is samayamudra, the seal of their close bond.
  The nirvana or total release that they attain without any remainder of aggregates is mahamudra, their great seal.

[For Mahayana Buddhists having taken the vow of Bodhisattva]

  never separating the actions of their body, speech and mind from behavior based on practice of the six far-reaching attitudes is the seal of their behavior.
  Based on their practice of the six far-reaching attitudes in general, and particularly of the joint path of shamatha yoked with vipashyana, their meditation on voidness, free from all mental fabrication and fabricating, seeing that all phenomena appear but without true, inherent existence, like illusion, is the seal of their preventive measures.
  Through the ethical self-discipline of a bodhisattva, restraining themselves from all selfish thought or action so that they are never tainted by any stain of working for their own purposes is the seal of their close bond.
  Having followed a path that has had as its essence the combination
  of compassion and the understanding of voidness, on which they have
  practiced method and discriminating awareness without one having
  ever been missing, but rather with method always apprehended within
  the context of wisdom and wisdom within the context of method, their
  single taste of compassion and voidness is their great seal. At that point, their ultimate combined vision of both the full extent of what exists and how it all exists, being of a single taste of compassion and wisdom, totally pacifies the extreme of remaining passively in a nirvanic state of total release from all suffering.

I do not know the original/earliest source of these.


Term for instructual terms I don't know that the term, "instructual term" is the best way to describe what I'm trying to say, but basically, I'm curious as to what things such as "the four noble truths", "the ten factors", "the eightfold path", "the ten worlds", or "the five desires" are called. All that they have in common is that they have a number of parts -as indicated in their title- and then some sort of philosophical name for an abstract idea. Basically, I am justwondering if there is a term that broadly referes to things like what I listed above.

All these are collectively referred as the Dhamma.


In the movie Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, why does the master cry? Here is the movie: Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring 2003

The plot is that the student having attachment to a woman, leave the temple and marries her. Years fly by, and the student returns because he kills her, after her affair. The master helps him to let the anger out before being caught by the police, and then he immolates himself. After that, he leaves some śarīra.

My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation?

My answer is that he disappoints with the student. But isn't that disappointment an attachment?

My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation?

The "Winter" segment of the movie kind of gave the hint. Notice in this segment, after being paroled from prison for the crime of killing his wife, the now middle-age apprentice returns to the floating monastery and begins to take on the role of his previous master. And as with the movie's title's central theme, which reflects the cyclical nature of Samsara, the same exact history repeats itself with the scene of a woman abandoning her baby son, then the baby becomes the boy apprentice who is shown tormenting a turtle in the Spring-Again segment,... etc. Putting together all the pieces of the puzzle, it points to the original old master's own dark past with its own dark kamma before he renounced it to become a good monk. So although after years of training and gaining certain level of attainment, he's still not free of his kammic debt. And so he cries not only out of sadness for his student but also for himself, that his self immolation doesn't mean total and final complete liberation, there's still "more work to be done" and life will go on and on until all kammic debts' been completedly exhausted, hence the image of the water snake swimming away after the self immolation.


Is Samadhi mentioned in Jhana Suttas? Do the Pali texts on jhana actually mention Samadhi and/or One-Pointedness by name in the jhana descriptions or is this mention apocryphal?

The terms 'jhana', 'samadhi' & 'one-pointedness' ('ekaggataṃ') are all found in the sutta passage below:

And what is the faculty of concentration? Katamañca, bhikkhave,
samādhindriyaṃ?
It’s when a noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains concentration,
gains unification of mind. Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako
vossaggārammaṇaṃ karitvā labhati samādhiṃ, labhati cittassa
ekaggataṃ.
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption... So
vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ
vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.
SN 48.10


What is the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā? I have read the causes of anger, lust, etc. but I haven't yet encountered the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā. I am sure, most of us have had issues with this ailment.

What is the root cause of it?

If you read my answer to question about attention, you will see how I explain the process of attending, which is exactly what you're asking about.

From this explanation it becomes clear and almost obvious, that the cause of losing attention is that some other stimulus creates more active associations in you than the object you're trying to attend to. So those new associations crowd out perceptions and thoughts about the original object, and so you switch the focus.

The root of the problem is, you have more interest in other topics than in the object you're trying to focus on.

Maybe you have inner resistance/aversion to this object. Maybe you are lazy because you don't believe in success of your exercise. Maybe you are simply not familiar with the object of meditation and so you have nothing to think about it. Either way the object is not creating enough reaction in you to remain engaging.

One way to fix all this, instead of forcing your attention to stay there by force, is to do active investigation of the object you're attending to - to examine it, look at it from all sides, compare it, analyze it, research it, examine your attitude to the object, - and this way you will generate a lot of associations leading back to the same object, and so your attention will remain with it.


Why do I get a feeling on my forehead as if someone is touching it during meditation? I do meditate sometimes,not everyday.

After 5 to 10 minutes during meditation I start getting a feeling  on my forehead as if someone is touching in it.

Sometimes after listening to binaural waves or do yoga, I get this same feeling.

I understand that something is happening to the pineal gland.But my friends who meditate they don't get this, its only me.

What exactly happens here and how does it work? Can someone explain?

Due to ones past store of conditioning one gets different experiences. The main thing is not to attach too much importance to these experiences as thinking about it will be a distraction main task at hand which is the meditation and also perhaps a source of attachment or aversion on how you react to it which is also decremental to meditation.


Rebirth and brain death I am very new to buddhism, so my understanding is very basic. My previous world views were very materialistic and deterministic. It might not be surprising that the most confusing concept I find so far is rebirth.

Lets take this theoretical situation: Somebody is declared brain dead.

Does this person gets reborn?
What if medicine improved and we would bring this person back to life?
What if this person would be left in this condition forever by keeping that person alive with medical resources?

Thank you for your help!

The common stock phrase the Buddha used to describe rebirth process in many suttas:

  "...because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, s/he reappears in a happy/unhappy destination..

A brain-dead person is not dead yet. When the body is officially dead, there'd be the full departure of 3 things: vitality, body heat, and consciousness (MN 43).
So, does this person gets reborn? No, since s/he's not dead yet. What if medicine brings him back to life? That'd be great. What if this person would be left in this condition forever by keeping that person alive with medical resources? S/he is still who s/he is, but just like taking a long deep sleep..


What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana? This question is pretty straight forward.

Suppose I wish to attain Nibbana then what are the conditions which I must fulfill in order to attain Nibbana?

What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana?

This answer is pretty straight forward.

Practice and perfect the Noble Eightfold Path as laid out by the Buddha. When perfected, the Path Consciousness takes Nibbana as an object.

It performs four distinct functions, i.e.; "fully understanding Dukkha, abandoning the origin of Dukkha, realizing Nibbana and cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path".

  Is Nibbana guaranteed after perfecting the Noble Eightfold Path ?

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


Do all conditioned things arise from ignorance? A new friend said:

  If wisdom is not permanent, then it is conditioned. But all conditioned things arise from ignorance. How can ignorance be ended by
  something borne of ignorance?

Do all conditioned things arise from ignorance?

That is why it is called ceto- & pañña-vimutti... and not vimutti-pañña (althought most translated as such).

How ever, to actually understand (see for "oneself") it requires the fundation: right view... till right livelihood while the rest would come by "itself". Also wisdom arises from ignorance, yes. One is given to see for him/herself following the right path.

There are some heartwood similes to be found in the text, if after investigation to increase Saddha.

And the general "paradox"'s solution is broadly known: certain food is used to go beyond the requirement (of food), and so with all used conditional things as well. Wisdom is used for liberation, like the whole path's paccayas (requisites, foundations, fundaments, bases...)

And it is not so that "by arising of wisdom the great mass of stress ends" but by total uprooting, destruction... of avijjā ("not understanding").

One may remember also that the boat, Dhamma, eg. "knowing", has to be abounded after having crossed to finally go beyond: unbond.

[Note: This here is not meant to be used for trade, exchange, stakes... and what ever ordinary gains. If not given to give so, it should be deleted]


Does sottapana have perfect morality (sila)? Someone told me the other day that a Sotapanna has perfect morality, particularly five precepts. I think I did read somewhere a Sotapanna has perfect morality but I forget the source. Can someone refer me to any source that says a Sotapanna has perfect sila?

No, just an Arahat has such. But a Streamwinner has what is called "virtue pleasing and praised by the wise". Not capable to make grave faults and lead deliberate misconduct. In affect he/she is still able to conduct unskillful deeds, but would not hide it and leave them covered, would confess them quick, be ashamed and intent to correct.

(You may find the wish after resources, there where you lead the discussion and try to argue on other place.)

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


Scattered mind while doing Body Scanning in Vipassana I have been practicing Vipassana under the tradition of S.N Goenka for the last 2 and half year. When I scan my body and observe different sensations, I find that my mind is not clear and It's not like I'm sleeping but there is dullness of awareness. Some part of my mind is aware of the sensations but it's not clear and there is a thin layer of thoughts in between. It's like trying to see the sun(sensation) when there is thin layer of clouds(thoughts) in the sky. In other words the mind is scattered while doing Vipassana. I believe it's the sloth and torpor that is causing all this and Vitarka-Vicara faculty is not that much strong. I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

Interesting, because I was just about to suggest the same when I read your post saying it doesn't work for you.

When I walk meditation, I have the same problem as you and I deal with it by simply noting the length of the distraction. I don't fight it. I simply say, "oh I was distracted for a block." Or I say, "I was distracted for a mile."

This sounds so simple and so silly, right?

But it works because what happens is that you will find that the distractions decrease in length over days and weeks. This is exactly the same approach taken for noting the length of breathing: "this is a long breath" and "this is a short breath".  The breath becomes longer on its own without any struggle or grasping.

Similarly, notice that you are "scanning the body" or that you are "distracted from scanning the body". Just be aware. I counted my breath for decades. That is only the first step!  Just be mindful and aware of what is happening. It is not a race. Be gentle and mindful.


In Buddhism Can Devas do Something For Us? My mother is a christian woman but has strong traditional roots in voodooism and ancestral worship.My question is,Is it possible for human beings to invoke a deva/gods/territorial spirits(nagas etc) to do our bidding? In a Buddhist context Can a Deva help a human being? Is there such a story in the suttas.Why would a Deva help a human being? According to my mother a particular deva helps us because he was our family/relative/ancestor.Is this compatible with Buddhist Beliefs?

In Buddhist scriptures, devas are described as powerful beings who often interact with humans. So assuming devas are real, they can surely hinder or help humans in a material way. What no being can ever do is force or hinder another's spiritual path. There we are truly alone. Even Mara can only tempt beings to stray from the skillful path but can never succeed as long as we can see through its illusions.


Parinibbāna in secular Buddhism I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth.

What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism? How is it different from any other death? If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term? Can any death be called parinibbāna?

In my understanding, the notion of Nirvana was a nod towards pre-Buddhist (Inc. Jain) ideas of the times. Nirvana was something transcental, something ultimate everyone spoke about but barely anyone could define.

When The Buddha achieved his Breakthrough, he mapped his ideas back to preexisting notions, to make it easier to communicate with people. So Nirvana is a bit tongue-in-cheek term, the so-called Nirvana. The Buddha attained what he himself called "Liberation of mind from suffering through Wisdom", which he equated with the Nirvana everyone at the times were looking for.

Then, the notion of Parinirvana is an even more ironic gesture. Since "Nirvana in this life" was actualized by not holding on to anything that could create a basis for suffering, death of "someone who is like this" (Tathagata) was the ultimate act of not holding on to anything to the highest degree possible, thus it can be half-jokingly called Super-Nirvana or Parinirvana.

Regular people die while still grasping at things, and so their death leaves an element of regret which then lives on as a negative impulse affecting the lives of people to come.

The Buddha's death is the ultimate act of letting go. It's an act of letting things go on their own course, governed only by Natural Law. The Buddha haven't attempted to stay behind and continue teaching Dharma indefinitely - which would be an act of grasping. Instead, his Parinirvana is an example to all of us Buddhists to not force the right Dharma on everyone, nor be aggressive in teaching and saving people, but to let things play out naturally while helping whenever we can.


Social context of Buddhist rituals I have a couple of questions about Buddhism rituals. Were Buddhism's rituals performed by a certain social class, or for a particular political end? Also what else was happening in the culture at the time the ritual was created or performed? Did Buddhism's rituals serve to bolster the political interest of the status quo?

In a sense, this series of questions is probably too broad to be answered in this format. Given Buddhism's 2,558 year history, it's rich and varied traditions, and it's spread throughout Asia and much of the world outside of Asia, Buddhism's history is not homogeneous. It's been adopted by many different cultures and each of those cultures adds it's own flavor to it's practice of Buddhism.

But there are some things that can be said. Unlike Hinduism, the prevalent religion in the region when Buddhism originated, a follower of the Buddha's teachings did not need to be born into any particular class or caste to be ordained or to be considered a teacher or leader. So the answer to your question about Buddhism's rituals being performed by a certain social class is, no.

A section of the Dhammapada called "Brahmanavagga: The Holy Man" reinforces this in quotes such as:

  Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and

  I do not call him a holy man because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging — him do I call a holy man.

Perhaps the most universal Buddhist rituals are Taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Also accepting a number of precepts, 5 for ordinary lay people, 8 for more serious or dedicated lay people, serious meditators, and ordinary lay people on an Uposatha day and hundreds of precepts for ordained men and women. Taking refuge and precepts might be considered a ritual in the sense that they are often stated aloud in a group; although these are equally valid when done privately. The fact that both of these "rituals" can be done privately without any connection to a religious institution or particular type of religious leader would seem to indicate no connection to furthering political ends or interests.

I think anything else that would be considered a ritual in Buddhism is more related to the particular culture practicing it; a cultural overlay if you will. In fact, in Buddhism, release from adherence to rites and rituals is one of the hallmarks of a person who has reached a particular level of attainment. From Wikipedia's page on Sotāpanna:

  Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery (issara nimmāna). Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the right view of the sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is the elimination of the notion that there are miracles, or shortcuts.


Modern Narcissism and Buddhism I was reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and related conditions like Borderline Personality Disorder. Some qualities seemed in direct opposition to what I've read in books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I was wondering if there were descriptions of Modern Psychological Narcissism in Buddhist works (as opposed to vanity in the Greek myth)? Is it closely tied to notions of Ego?

For example, we are encouraged to cultivate Equanimity in Buddhism. BPD has erratic and extreme emotional shifts. Its sufferers have extremely dichotomous, dualistic thinking.

Some notion of objectivity is encouraged in Buddhism, a realization that one is observing a phenomenon, and one may have thoughts, judgments, etc about the phenomenon, but this isn't really the thing being observed. People with NPD and the like may be considered extremely subjective, unmindful that they are having opinions and so failing to distinguish between the observation and the judgments.

Envy is extremely common among narcissists. On the path to liberation, envy is one of the first emotions to disappear.

Are there teachings of Buddhism that could be especially helpful for such people?

There's a passage from the daodejing that I always find appropriate on questions like this. It goes, roughly:

When one man hears of the dao, he sets out to embrace it.
When another hears of the dao, he is interested, and thinks about it sometimes.
When a third hears about it, he laughs out loud at how silly it sounds.
If no one ever laughed at it, it wouldn't be the dao.

In order to appreciate the philosophy of Buddhism, we have to appreciate the problem of Buddhism: the problem of discontent and its cessation. And it isn't enough to appreciate the problem intellectually — in that, "Yeah, I know, a lot of people are miserable" sense — we have to feel the problem. We have to embrace the problem down in the core, because until we embrace the problem, we will have no reason to embrace the solution.

Not everyone can embrace the problem in this visceral way, and so we find a wide range of 'intellectual' Buddhists, who are quite devout (in their own way) but carry on a shallow practice. And we find other people who cannot even appreciate the problem intellectually, and write the philosophy off as mere farce. That is... what is.

When we talk about people with personality disorders, we are talking about people with (in general) a pervasive debility in both self-reflection and other-reflection. At best they make a mental beeline towards immediate gratification without considering secondary consequences; at worst they see the world as a zero-sum game of misery, where the more misery they inflict on others the less they think they will experience for themselves. Such people would have no interest in Buddhism (which they'd probably denigrate as 'sop for losers'). You couldn't get them to sit on the cushion without offering them some immediate, tangible reward (which would be counterproductive). I'm not saying it wouldn't be good for them in the long run — practice benefits everyone — but we'd have a job getting them to take the idea seriously in the first place.

I sometimes find it helpful to remind myself that we can't always help damaged people, but we can aim for a world that damages people less. That is (I think) the essence of the bodhisattva .


If a buddhist should not kill a mouse living in their home, what justification do they have to rid themselves of a parasite such tapeworms An extension of this question posted earlier:
How not to kill the mouse in my house?

Where does one draw the line for which forms of life are ok to destroy, and which ones are not? Is it just a calculation of causing the least suffering? A human has a more complex nervous system than a worm, so to reduce his suffering is paramount?

I can think of many ways to spin the issue so that the human must allow himself to die, and ways to spin it so that killing living creatures is acceptable. Are there some general guidelines?

The Mahayana perspective on social and ecological ethics is based on the high ideals of symbiosis, harmony, and cooperation.

In the old times there were wandering monks who did not work and lived on alms - in return they shared the nectar of Dharma. They were no parasites. And if some of them were, Buddha encouraged the householders to be selective in choosing which monks to support.

Symbiosis is defined as a relationship beneficial to both sides. If the other side starts abusing its privileges to the extent that the relationship starts endangering your health and well-being, you have the right to withdraw your support. Meaning, you can stop feeding the beneficiary and let it find another sponsor. In the case of mice and other pests, this should be as simple as keeping your house clean and locking out access to food resources. In the case of the parasite, you can go on a 21-day fast; if worse comes to worst you have the right to expel.

As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, the samsaric approach involves solving the problems brute-force. The problem is solved at a very superficial level, the level of symptoms - but the root cause remains. No matter how much poison you waste on cockroaches, if your kitchen is dirty they'll keep coming back. In contrast with that, the Enlightened approach is to look in depth and solve the underlying problem. Prevent the problem altogether.

Violence is a low-skill approach. Instead, all arranged situations have supporting conditions they depend on. To the extent that you can identify and manage the supporting conditions you can control the situation.


Life before life on earth Is there any reference in Buddhism about how our life was before life has appeared on this earth? Were we all in heaven or hell realms?

I suggest you take a look at the Dhammapada which is part of the Pali Canon if you are interested in Buddhism.

The Buddha taught that such questions weren't important. He rather encouraged people to focus on the life here and now. There are a few dialogs in the Pali Canon in which Buddha answers his apprentice's similar question with a metaphor.


Why Buddha said "if you want to remove small/light codes from Vinaya"? In Maha-parinibbana Sutta, Buddha said "if Sanga want, after I completed Parinibbana, you can remove small and/or light codes from Vinaya". Why Buddha said this approval to Sanga? Is it a kind of testing to future members of Sanga whether they can completely comply the Vinaya or not? This approval may lead to breakage of Sanga to Mahayana, Theravada, and more. This approval, is it being served as a reference to other parties of Sanga who cannot comply the vinaya completely not to be blamed by normal people? Or is it just a question to just Sanga at the time of been said and this was the way to be. Or any purpose of this approval? Or is it totally not approval, and just question?

If the Buddha had totally approved the removal of certain rules then the Buddha would have explicitly mentioned which ones.

In the 1st Council the monks could not decide what extent was minor rules, so ultimately decided to keep all the rules with the fault of not clarifying being with Ven. Ananda when the Buddha mentioned this.


I'm scared of the universe So here is a quick "disclaimer":

I know that the Buddha didn't answer metaphysical questions since it made no sense to him. He wanted to afaik limit/remove suffering as much as possible.
Also I know that science isn't always right and is itself making up theories which more then often enough turn out to be false.
Also I meditate a lot every day as in sitting meditation and all together mindfulness.

Well now to my question:
I somehow get scared of thinking how there was (according to science) a big bang and then I wonder what was before the big bang or where the space comes from that the universe takes up etc. I don't know why but especially these last days I'm drawn to think about it even though I know it doesn't help me in any way and even if I happen to know everything it won't change anything.

Also another thing I think of is heat death. Which again I know is a story made up by science and then I ask myself is it really worth to do anything, live, help etc. anybody if in the ultimate end everything will be gone and does that maybe imply that all beings will reach paranirvana?

And just like these questions seem metaphysical and paranormal I feel like the idea of rebirth and paranirvana is also somewhat scary to think about and is as well somewhat metaphysical.

I wish I could give up all these unnecessary thoughts which cause suffering to me. Also I wish science wouldn't go as far as trying to explain everything.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

OP: I know that the Buddha didn't answer metaphysical questions since it made no sense to him. He wanted to afaik limit/remove
  suffering as much as possible.

No. The Buddha did not answer metaphysical questions because it confuses and bewilders the questioner.

You are confused now, and it makes you scared and gives you suffering.

The Buddha already predicted that in AN 4.77:

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

This is what you're experiencing now. Confusion caused by thoughts about the metaphysical nature of the world.

  OP: I don't know why but especially these last days I'm drawn to think
  about it even though I know it doesn't help me in any way and even if
  I happen to know everything it won't change anything.

The Buddha did not discuss metaphysics also because it is not useful. That is exactly what you have written here. It won't help you in any way and it won't change anything. It is completely useless.

The Buddha taught in MN 63:

  "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
  poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
  him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
  removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
  warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
  have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
  man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
  short... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
  common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
  arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
  to him.

It is more useful to remove the poisoned arrow i.e. end suffering, rather than think about where the arrow came from, who shot it, what kind of arrow it is etc.

Also, why does metaphysical speculation lead to madness?

It's because it's outside our range of senses (including thought and mind). So, you can never completely understand it.

This too, the Buddha taught in SN 35.23:

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Physics - this is possible to theorize and prove. For e.g. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity can be proven by the perihelion precession of Mercury, deflection of light by stars, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing etc. It is also useful - for e.g. Theory of General Relativity has been used in the application of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, to compensate for time dilation.

But metaphysics? It's impossible.

Then you may ask, why do some other religions or philosophers discuss and debate about metaphysics extensively? The answer for this comes in Udana 6.4 (parable of the blind men and the elephant).

  OP: I somehow get scared of thinking how there
  was (according to science) a big bang and then I wonder what was
  before the big bang or where the space comes from that the universe
  takes up etc.

If you fear something where there is nothing to fear, it means you are holding a false view about something. You need to let it go. As the Buddha has taught in Dhammapada 22:

  Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.

There's nothing to fear about the universe.

  OP: Also another thing I think of is heat death. ...
  if in the ultimate end everything
  will be gone and does that maybe imply that all beings will reach
  paranirvana?

Parinirvana is not the same as non-existence. It is also not the same as existence.

This is discussed in many suttas like SN 44.6, SN 44.8, SN 44.11, SN 22.86, AN 10.95 etc.

The Buddha has never declared whether the Tathagata (Buddha) exists or does not exist after death.

  OP: And just like these questions seem metaphysical and paranormal I feel
  like the idea of rebirth and paranirvana is also somewhat scary to
  think about and is as well somewhat metaphysical.

All the confusion about rebirth and parinirvana and what happens to beings can be answered by SN 22.86:

  "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth
  or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare,
  'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man,
  attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described
  otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after
  death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after
  death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

  "No, lord."

  "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only
  suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering."

Also SN 44.6 is useful.

  OP: I wish I could give up all these unnecessary thoughts which cause
  suffering to me.

Yes! You need to give up unnecessary thoughts, for the reasons already explained above.


Is there any meditation technique to develop the feeling of Gratitude? It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not possible to develop desires. I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.

I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.

What I was trying was to say, "I am grateful for what has been already given". but it's becoming like a mantra and proving useless. Is there any technique to generate the feeling/emotion of gratitude?

I looked at this question, but the answer I am looking for isn't there.

It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not
  possible to develop desires.

Are you sure? Where do the suttas say gratitude leads to the realisation of anatta & Nibbana?

  I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.

Brahma-Vihara is more detached than gratitude. Brahma-vihara is a type of liberation (MN 43). Where as gratitude is often mixed with obligation. The Pali word for 'gratitude' is 'katannukatavedi', which means: 'what others do for me; what I must do in return'.

  I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.

Simply reflect upon the benefactors you have in life. Mother, father, friends, teachers, employers, employees, bus drivers, shop keepers, nature, food, environment, etc.

About worldly meritorious right-view, MN 117 says it is right view to believe: "There is mother & father". What this means is there are "benefactors" (towards which gratitude should exist). Ingratitude is a sign of wrong view.


Even if those offended are just ignorant about the word "Hinayana", why use it? Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive?

There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke?

Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

In my very first encounters with Buddhism I've always thought, that this is simply the distinguition between "maha" and "hina" in a sense of a larger fraction and a smaller fraction of the sangha in the first larger schism after the second(?) council. An example already known to me was the pair of nouns "Men-shewiki" (smaller fraction) and "Bol-shewiki" (larger fraction) of the communist movement at the early time of Lenin, when the two fractions separated due to different view of things and of how to proceed.
So also the basic term "maha-sanghika" came to me, as "the larger fraction" of the sangha, and I thought, "maha-yana" and "hina-yana" was simply derived from that (physical) comparision of size (the "vehicle of the larger/ smaller fraction").
But with irritating frequency I heard of disgust of buddhists connected with the term "hinayana" - and I'd seen one time in an online discussion someone telling, that "hina" does not simply mean "small(er)" but has a derogatory, diffamating tone.
It seems difficult to find an entry in an actual dictionary (online, don't have a Pali/Sanskrit dictionary at my own), but I found this in a yoga-wiki:

http://wiki.yoga-vidya.de/Hina

  Hina (Sanskrit: hina adj. u. n.) ist das PPP der Sanskrit Verbalwurzel
  (Dhatu) ha und bedeutet: verlassen, zurückgelassen; mangelhaft,
  fehlend, klein, gering, schwach; kleiner, weniger wertvoll; Mangel,
  das Fehlen.
  (I try to translate but may miss the tone of valuation: "... lost, left behind; buggy, missing, small, low, weak; smaller, less valuable; the lack, the missing")

... while I still do not know the opposite term of "maha" simply with the meaning "small" without a social/valuating tone.

(In principle) I still cannot understand how such a connoted term as "hina-yana" could have at all been born in the sangha of the followers of the Buddha - possibly coined by members simply of "the larger fraction" ("maha-sanghika") even when they thought themselves (and maybe correctly) as practioners of a "wider concept" ...

The disgust of Theravadins seems to me understandable, if I imagine of calling one path/"vehicle" the "omnibus" (mahayana) and the other one the "Bobby car" ("hinayana") using english language - and even to insist on such an implicite valuation in face of the concern with this, which was expressed openly many times and also long times.

A funny/joking example of the tricky relation of ours to the terms "large" and "small" stems from the former socialistic german republic, when the ideal(!) of smallness (in the realms of electronical devices) could not be met as perfect as in "the west", and the people ironically trumpeted: "we have the largest microprocessors of the world!".

So in focusing more on the answering of your question - surely it should be advised to look at common examples, where the "smaller" is the "finer":

being more focused
having more concentration,
being free of a bunch of litter (and -for instance- of fetters)

and -just for the mental exercise of emanicpation from the connotations of "greater" and "less" - one can try to find then actual terms for the advantages-of-the-smaller to get rid of any feeling of being-pissed, of confrontation or even of revenge or of any unkind emotion which might come up when feeling bullied by the term "hina-yana"....


Is Practicing Tantric/Wrathful Meditation Dangerous Without a Guru? Some time ago, I found a mala in a shop that I was quite drawn to for reasons I cannot explain. At the time I thought it was wood but as the stain wore off I saw it was bone. This lead me to do some research into Bone Malas and I learned about tantric buddhism and wrathful meditation. This in turn lead me to a mantra I started repeating with the mala 108 times every day. Everything I read said I needed a master or guru to help initiate or guide me. So my question is how dangerous is this? Do I need a guru, and how on earth does one get initiated into a a type of buddhism?

This is like with children playing doctor: most of the imitation activity they can come up with is going to be harmless, but if they get their hands on real medications and start actually taking them at random, then they can get into real trouble.

Similarly with Tantra, as long as all you do is mindlessly repeat some mantras and get a tattoo of a wrathful deity on your arm, you'll be alright. But if you were to read some serious self-visualization guidelines and started imagining yourself as a random yidam, then you might very likely exhaust all your energy and consequently die, or worse, get stuck in a nightmarish realm.

What's nice about gurus, they know what you need to do, and most importantly why. In other words, they see your energy configuration, and they know what the right configuration looks like.

The easiest way to get initiated into tantric Buddhism, is to go to a lecture of a local Tibetan lama and sign up for an interview (it is he who interviews you, not the other way around). Based on the interview, if you look serious enough, and most importantly cooperative enough that the guru won't have to argue with you over every little practice ("why do I have to do 100,000 prostrations?!") -- then you may get accepted for a Ngöndro course. (Many teachers tend to have all their new students begin NGondro at the same time, so you may hear "Lama such-and-such accepts students for a new NGondro, to start the next spring.") Ngondro may take anywhere from one to three years during which you will not see anything remotely exciting or interesting. If you have enough diligence to last through Ngondro, and you prove yourself as smart enough to pick up hints and subtleties, but also psychologically stable enough, then you might be accepted into an actual tantra.


Are there Zen monastries in India? I am searching for a Zen monastery in India.

My google search returns Vajrayana Tibetan monasteries.

Please let me know if you know a Zen monastery in India.

There's a World Buddhist Directory which may be helpful (I don't know any personally).

This URL -- http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/search.php?keyword=&search=Search&country_id=42&province_id=0&tradition%5B%5D=mahayana -- returns 35 "Mahayana" matches in India, and several of these are Zen (or probably Zen even if they don't say "Zen").


Methods of Modern Meditation Masters There are some very influential meditation masters of the 20th century such as Mahasi Sayadaw and S.N. Goenka who have many people today who follow their methods. Is it possible to summarize the methods particular to modern meditation masters (type of meditation, etc.) and provide links to their teachings? This might be helpful to those new to meditation or those looking to expand their understanding of the many styles of meditation available today.

This is a community wiki and a work in progress. Please consider adding your knowledge to this post. Thank you!

Ledi Sayadaw -Vipassana movement pioneer. Extremely influential in spreading Vipassana Meditation among lay people. Considers the whole Tripitaka when formulating the meditation instructions of which many have their roots in the Abidhamma.

Mohnyin Sayadaw
Saya Thetgyi
U Ba Khin - Lay student of  Saya Thetgyi (student of Ledi Sayadaw) but highly influenced by Webu Sayadaw

Mother Sayama Gyi
S.N.Goenka -lay teacher that has many meditation centers worldwide that offer 10 day retreats on a Dana basis.,
Ruth Denison -Elder lay teacher and former student of U Ba Khin

Webu Sayadaw -believed to be an Arahat
Mogok Sayadaw
Pa Auk Sayadaw - Most orthodox in following the Visuddhi Magga and commentaries. Course starts with Anapana or the 4 elements. If starting from Anapana the course covers all 40 meditation objects and covering all the Jhana. (A course may take upto 3 1/2 years to complete at the monastery.)

Nauyane Ariadhamma

Thai Forrest Traditions

Ven. Mun
Ven. Cha student of Ven.Mun

Achan Bram -big help in the resurrection of the theravadin bhukkhuini order.
Ven. Sujato -Dhamma Scholar. Began practice in the Mahasi tradition but is now a critic of the Mahasi appoach
Achan Munido

Ven. Maha Boowa student of Ven. Mun
Achan Lee

Thanisaro Bikkhu

Sun Lun Sayadaw
Mahasi Sayadaw

U Pandita -Former student if Mahasi Sayadaw
U Silananda -Former Student of Mahasi Sayadaw
Chanmyay Sayadaw (U Janaka) -Former Student of
Mahasi Sayadaw
Oo Min Sayadaw - Taught cittanupassana rooted in Mahasi Style meditation
Sayadaw U Tejaniya -student of Shwe Oo Min Sayadaw
Sunlun Sayadaw -Vipassana movement pioneer
Mingun Sayadaw -Vipassana movement pioneer
Mogok Sayadaw -Vipassana movement pioneer
Jack Kornfield
Bhante Yuttadhammo -Teaches Mahasi method online and offline
The Arahat Daniel M. Ingram -Teaches a radically western approach. Studied many traditions and recommends the Mahasi approach above all

Buddhadasa Bikkhu
Banthe Vimalasiri former student of Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw but devised his own technique after considering that technique to be flawed


What are the different Buddhist views on marriage? I know that marriage is a secular event in Buddhism, but what are the different attitudes are there for or against marriage? And what type of Buddhists(Theravada, Mahayana, Sangha, Lay etc)  claim these views?

The Pali scriptures say:

Parents have a duty to arrange or find a suitable marriage partner for their children (DN 31); therefore marriage appears to be viewed favorably (for non-monks) in the Pali scriptures.
A suitable marriage partner in one that shares four qualities (AN 4.55).
In marriage, a husband serves his wife & gives the wife authority in the home. (DN 31)
There are seven kinds of wives (AN 7.6).
Marriages where one or both partners do not follow the five precepts & do not practice unselfishness are doomed for problems &/or failure (AN 4.53).
Difficult is life as a monk; difficult is it to delight therein. Also difficult and sorrowful is the household life. (Dhp 302)


Ordination and support from parents If one intends to ordain, say in Thailand, and one lives in India - would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents (since one is not yet ready/able to support oneself)?

If they support you then it is OK.  You should ask for support according to their faith and ability.
Normally supporters and family are the same words in pali.
It is listed in the Metta sutta as family "kulesu", often translated as donors.

However, one should live a modest life and ask for only what one needs.  Asking for sangha needs is much better.  It depends on your family's desire.
There could be a problem with receiving donations from your parents if you gave them money beforehand.  I am not sure of the exact details.

While I do not know the exact rule for this, I do remember asking about this with a monk who gave his parents money and then asked for a computer specifically saying, "Use the money I gave you.". The teacher (Sayadaw U Kovida, paauk) said this would be unallowable. (This transaction never went through, by the way)

To avoid a situation like this, if you do give your parents your money, you should say,
 "This is yours, use as you wish."
Or "Do not use this for me or to monks."
Then when you ask them for things, whatever they do, it is their money and donations are from their own doings.

It is actually legal for them or even a bank to have money for you as long as you do not use it.  This is how one ordains temporary in a vinaya tradition.  If you decide to stay full time, things can get complicated with bank accounts (if you are one who cares about vinaya). Some need to temporarily disrobe to handle their affairs.
According to ratapala sutta, he told his parents to throw the money in the river.


Can a person without any of the five physical senses attain arhatship? I have read a person without senses cannot attain arhatship or even go through the noble eight fold path. But the story of Chakkupala thero confuses me somewhat

I think it's been said that beings in the formless realms cannot attain enlightenment because they cannot perceive (hear, read, or otherwise learn) the Buddha's Dharma ... perhaps too they also can't perceive the three characteristics of existence.

This says,

  The inhabitants of these realms are possessed entirely of mind. Having no physical body, they are unable to hear Dhamma teachings.

See also footnote 8 on this page,

  An Abhidhamma text, the Vibhanga — drawing on a passage in DN 1 — mentions another level of devas of form not listed here: the Non-percipient beings, a level in which there is no perception at all. The commentary explains that they are not listed here because this attainment is open to hermits and seers outside the Buddha's teaching, and does not require virtue. This, however, ignores the fact that the four jhanas and four formless states are also open to people outside the Buddha's teaching; and although virtue helps with the attainment of jhana, it is nowhere stated in the Canon that the jhanas cannot be attained by a person whose virtue is not pure. A more likely reason for omitting the Non-percipient beings here is that this state, unlike the jhanas and four formless states, is not conducive to the arising of insight, and so would not be considered a desirable goal.

I don't know how to reconcile the above two statements, i.e. whether formless is the same as non-percipient.

People who are blind or deaf, or who are blind and deaf can learn to communicate. So I suppose this is only applicable to non-percipient beings in the formless realms: not people.

Cakkhupala Thera was able to hear the dharma.


Why was Lord Buddha reluctant to ordain females as Bhikkuni initially? I have learnt that Lord Buddha was initially reluctant to ordain females but after a lot of convincing by his step mother Buddha started ordaining females. Why was he initially reluctant? If not for his step mother would there even have been a chance for Buddha to ordain women?

there's an alternative point of view suggesting that if the Mahapajapati's story is indeed authentic, it postdates the first acceptance of a woman into the Sangha, who could be Bhadda Kundalakesa, and that reluctance of the Buddha concerns specific circumstances of that particular episode and not wholesale refusal of women entrance into the order

Bhadda Kundalakesa Therigatha (Thig 5.9)

  I traveled before in a single cloth,
  With shaven head, covered in
  dust,
  Thinking of faults in the faultless,
  While in the faulty
  seeing no faults.
  When done was the day's abiding,
  I went to Mount
  Vulture Peak
  And saw the stainless Buddha
  By the Order of Bhikkhus
  revered.
  Then before Him my hands in añjali
  Humbly, I bowed down
  on my knees.
  "Come, Bhadda," He said to me:
  And thus was I
  ordained.
  Debt-free, I traveled for fifty years
  In Anga, Magadha
  and Vajji,
  In Kasi and Kosala, too,
  Living on the alms of the
  land.
  That lay-supporter — wise man indeed —
  May many merits
  accrue to him!
  Who gave a robe to Bhadda for
  Free of all ties is
  she.

the issue is dealt with at length in the Ven Sujato's book "White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes" (free)

the history behind the issue appears very misty to me, where the truth probably won't ever be found out


Mindfulness of Breathing, Mindfulness with Breathing I saw a comment in another post suggesting that these are two different things. Can anyone explain or refute?

Mindfulness ('sati') means 'to remember'. The breathing as a meditation object cannot be 'remembered'. Instead the breathing is observed, which is called 'anupassi'.

The purpose of 'mindfulness' in Buddhism is 'to remember' to keep the mind in a state of right view & right intention (refer to MN 117) or 'to remember' to keep the mind free from covetousness & distress (refer to MN 118; MN 10; etc).

Therefore, to practise 'mindfulness of breathing' is an impossibility because mindfulness (sati) means to remember rather than to observe (anupassi).

Instead, the practise is 'mindfulness with breathing', which means to remember to keep the mind free in right view free from craving, as instructed in the four noble truths. When this is properly done, awareness/observation of breathing will naturally arise due to the quiet & silence of the mind.

Thus, mindfulness with breathing is remembering to keep the mind free from craving with awareness of breathing arising automatically/non-volitionally as the 'sign' of this right mindfulness.

Those that try to practice mindfulness of breathing rarely progress because the mind must let go of craving to progress; which includes letting go of the craving or intention to watch the breathing.

Ideas about 'mindfulness of breathing' are yogic or Hindu meditation.

'Mindfulness with breathing' is Buddhist meditation.


Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal I suppose that there is (are) differences between the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha and anatta) and the so-called three dhamma-seals (anicca; anatta and nibbana). Can anyone help me?

This article, Four Dharma Seals, says:

  As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.

From that I get the impression that,

The tilakkhaṇa is the earliest doctrine (in the Pali canon)
Later someone added nirvana to that list (making the four Dharma seals)
Then, someone decided that if nirvana is in that list, then dukkha isn't permanent/inevitable, and so they removed dukkha from the list.


Not breaking the first precept vs. developing compassion In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments).

However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate?

Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant?

Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as:

  Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings
  in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of
  suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected
  in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid
  where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of
  reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is
  Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when
  one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two
  enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is
  cruelty.

Compassion is a wholesome quality, but compassion cannot take you to Nibbana. We use the practice of compassion to counter cruelty in the mind. But the goal of Buddhism is not about dedicating your life to the cultivation of compassion. If that is the case, you will have nothing else to do in life other than looking for beings in misery and trying to help them. How can you even eat, drink, wear clothes if all your actions are dedicated to compassion? There are always beings who do not have food, water etc. You should give all your food to them and starve to death yourself, if compassion is all that you should cultivate.

Vegetarian food production causes much killing as well. So why not starve to death to save any possible loss of life? This kind of thinking comes from Jainism. Buddhism does not fall into these extremes. The goal of Buddhism is the end of suffering and there are other more important qualities that one must cultivate to achieve that. Being vegetarian is not one of them.


Basic dharma theory tells me that it is definitely not possible to perceive both fingers simultaneously In MCTB (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha), Daniel Ingram describes the following exercise.

  I sit quietly in a quiet place, close my eyes, put one hand on each
  knee, and concentrate just on my two index fingers. Basic dharma
  theory tells me that it is definitely not possible to perceive both
  fingers simultaneously, so with this knowledge I try to see in each
  instant which one of the two finger’s physical sensations are being
  perceived. Once the mind has sped up a bit and yet become more stable,
  I try to perceive the arising and passing of each of these sensations.
  I may do this for half an hour or an hour, just staying with the
  sensations in my two fingers and perceiving when each sensation is and
  isn’t there.

What I found most curious about this, was the assumption that "it is definitely not possible to perceive both fingers simultaneously" and that this assumption is supported by "basic dharma theory".

I understand that sensations arise and pass, but I feel like I have experienced multiple sensations simultaneously and/or the sensations of multiple body parts have formed a single sensation. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

In the form of specific questions:
I can feel tingling in all of my fingers simultaneously. Does this refute his assertion that "it is definitely not possible to perceive both fingers simultaneously"? Or am I not understanding something? I suspect the latter and am hoping to be enlightened. I'm also curious what "dharma theory" he is most likely referencing?
Thanks in advance for any response.

That's kind of an advanced book.

There are no body parts within each of our own bodily experiece, only sensation.

Unless you are a natural you can't see how fast the mind works or see if awareness arises simultaneously in the beginning. It's all a blur until we have practiced long enough.

I guess your being taught to see things as they are in your own experience. While one does this kind of practice one sets concepts aside. Ideally even Dhamma theory could be put aside when one gets the hang of the practice.


What to do when it itching (according to suttas and your own experience)? I know the question may seems a little trivial and superfluous, but rather than being interested in the itching itself, I'd like to know what to do when any kind of unpleasent feeling rises.

I think itching is different from other unpleasent feelings, mainly because one can easily get rid of that feeling -at least temporarily- by scratching the zone (I mean, to scratch is an option when you have the means).

What would an arahant do when itch arises?
What do the suttas tell us to do in situations similar to this one?
What do you do when itch arises (apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution)?
Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch?

I ask this because I remember reading some blog entry about a meditation retreat. The blogger wrote that when meditating, itching was a common feeling, but the hosts told her to let go of the craving for scratching and to not get personally identified with the itch. I understand these instructions and they seem totally reasonable. But she didn't tell about instructions in between meditation sessions other than following the five precepts. Basically, she didn't tell if she was supposed to not scratch even after sitting meditation.

I hope you can see the point in my question, because it seems a little dumb in the surface.

Thanks for your time!
Have a nice day!

What would an arahant do when itch arises?

I’m not an arahant but I think an arahant would be just mindful of it without scratching it.

What do the suttas tell us to do in situations similar to this one?

I don’t think there is any suttas that talk about itch but in SN 35.127, the Buddha said we should guard the six sense doors.

  "It has been said, sire, by the Exalted One...: 'Come, monks, guard the doors of your sense-faculties. Seeing an object with the eye, do not seize hold of either its general appearance or its details. Because anyone dwelling with the eye-faculty uncontrolled could be overwhelmed by cupidity and dejection, evil and unwholesome states of mind, therefore practice to control the eye-faculty, guard it and gain control over it. [Similarly with ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), mind.] That is how these young monks... can practice the holy life... to the end of their days.'"

So I think you should just be mindful of it and not think about scratching it.

What do you do when itch arises (apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution)?

I just try to be mindful of the itch. I know that the itch is impermanent so I just try to be mindful of it without scratching. I scratch it if I’m not in a sitting meditation session but you should not scratch it during your sitting meditation session.

Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch?

Just try to be mindful of it until it cease. You don’t need to note “impermanent” or “not self” because when the itch cease then you will know that it is impermanence.


If one's inner monologue stops forever, is one necessarily an arahant? Question in the title. I'm looking for answers citing either canonical scripture or the position of any particular school of Buddhism.

The inner monologue in the question could also be read as mental chatter; mental noise; superfluous thoughts; extraneous thoughts; or the  unnecessary thoughts that normal people have every moment.

And I mean when the inner monologue has stopped for good; that is, the case when it never comes back.

Another way to read this question might be, Do arahants have an inner monologue?

Thoughts are one of the six sense objects; there is no reason to think that they stop when one becomes an arahant. It is quite clear that both the Buddha and arahants did indeed have thoughts after becoming enlightened. E.g.:

  And the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘Āḷāra Kālāma died seven days ago.’ I thought: ‘Āḷāra Kālāmaʹs loss is a great one. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.’

  -- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

What does stop forever is uddhacca or restlessness.

  Restlessness (or agitation) has the characteristic of disquietude, like water whipped up by the wind. Its function is to make the mind unsteady, as wind makes a banner ripple. It is manifested as turmoil. Its proximate cause is unwise attention to mental disquiet.

  -- Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

  In the case of the defilements, [false] view and uncertainty are eliminated by
  the first knowledge. Hate is eliminated by the third knowledge. Greed, delusion,
  conceit (pride), mental stiffness, agitation, consciencelessness, and shamelessness are eliminated by the fourth knowledge.

  -- Vism. XXII.65 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The only case in which the inner monologue could possibly stop forever is at the moment of parinibbana, since that is the only event that could be said to be permanent. How else could one understand the word "forever"?

Even if one were to suddenly go without an inner monologue while still alive, there is no reason to infer that the monologue would not start up again; clearly both arahants and Buddhas still have some mental monologue as long as there is still the arising of sankharas.


What were the last word of Lord Buddha according to different schools of Buddhism? I am a Theravada Buddhist.i am curious to know about Lord Buddha's Last words according to different schools of Buddhism.

I believe the Buddha expressed the Dharmaparyaya of the True Law (the Lotus Sutra) before becoming completely exctinct. Best regards.


Where can I learn more about cita niyama? In What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/suminda-sirinath-salpitikorala says that law of attraction is part of citta niyama.

Where can I learn more about it? How come thinking about something affect the outcome that I am thinking about? I know of many ways actually. However, are there complete listings on how this come to be?

Following is a link to the Niyama Dhammas in Wikipedia. Following is a translation from Pali Sources. Also this is a text by Ledi Sayadaw called "THE NIYAMA-DIPANI: The Manual of Cosmic Order".

If you have the power of deep Jhana and make a strong determination (which is part of the perfections) then there is a possibility that the something similar desired outcome materialises based on the power of your mind (depending how deep the absorption Samadhi is). This can be done to a more limited extent without Samadhi also as this moment influences the next as per Dependent Origination.

But this is not recommended as this may generate bad Kamma as this practice can lead to covetousness. See Kammapatha. Also such use of Samadhi will not be Samma Samashi.

Matter of clarification, these are two concepts but there are much similarities.

I hope this helps. Comment if you want more information.


How are "all types of beings originally formless"? How are "all types of beings originally formless"?

p100 The Sutra of Hui-neng, Grand Master of Zen: With Hui-neng's
Commentary on the Diamond Sutra

I'm asking because this page [quoting His Highness the Dalai Lama] says

  Immediately thereupon, the intermediate state begins—except for those
  reborn in the formless realms of infinite space, infinite
  consciousness, "nothingness" or peak of cyclic existence, for whom the
  new life begins immediately upon death

If we all are originally formless, then our original nature has no intermediate state, while our unenlightened state does.

How can that be?

The pull downwards into form, into the unenlightened craving for identity, is driven by craving. Craving leads to grasping and then to rebirth.

  SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition.

  SN12.23:4.7: And what is it?

  SN12.23:4.8: You should say: ‘Continued existence.’

  SN12.23:4.9: I say that continued existence has a vital condition.

  SN12.23:4.10: And what is it?

  SN12.23:4.11: You should say: ‘Grasping.’

In contrast, moving upwards skillfully, we have practice that leads to the formless and beyond:

  SN46.54:15.9: The apex of the heart’s release by equanimity is the dimension of nothingness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.”


Minimal nutritionally complete diet In college, I vaguely recall my instructor mentioning it was possible to live on beans and rice alone. When put together, all the essential amino acids can be obtained. I've also heard that it is possible to live on brown rice alone though I'm not sure.

From a Buddhist perspective, regarding choice of ingredients what is the minimum number of ingredients that one can get by and still be nutritionally complete, preferring plant and dairy sources, if possible. Recently a soy drink called Soylent[1] has been available which claims to be nutritionally complete but I was hoping to find a natural, fresh alternative. It's also discussed on SE Skeptics [2].

I do understand that eating the same dish every day can become bland, but it seems like the right thing to do from a Buddhism perspective, valuing simplicity.

There is a research article on pubmed which used the Campbells Wellness plan but seems to take include non-vegetarian ingredients.

An article on NPR [4] takes on the issue but still leaves the reader guessing.

[1] http://www.soylent.me/

[2] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17347/is-soylent-a-nutritionally-complete-shake

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10491676

[4] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/03/151932410/man-cannot-live-on-rice-and-beans-alone-but-many-do

I interpret this as a modern science question about nutritional completeness (so I don't see how adding "from a Buddhism perspective" changes the the nature of the question).

Some lay Buddhists prefer to be vegetarian, in which case I could recommend Wikipedia's Vegetarian nutrition article as an introduction to the nutritional aspects of that choice.

In summary, some of the nutrients which a naive vegetarian/vegan diet can eventually lack include protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12, and calcium.

You may find that you must deliberately include, in your diet, substances which the average person is warned they have too much of: for example (iodized) salt, and oil.

Conventional scientific advice includes that you should have a varied diet (even if that diet is vegetarian).

IMO, beware that the diet which sustains you for a week or month or year might not be adequate to sustain you for decades. Vitamin/mineral pills might help. If your doctor knows you're vegetarian, he/she may help to monitor your health (e.g. measuring serum ferritin and whatnot occasionally).

The dietary rules for monks might be different (e.g. perhaps they eat whatever they're given).

I suppose there are other aspects of diet that are important:

How much?
When?
For what purpose?
With whom?

You presumably know that the Middle Way suggests you don't get too heavily into asceticism.

On the subject of "rice and beans" here's a recipe I use:

cooked (optionally canned) of beans, well rinced (or iirc lentils have more iron than other beans)
cooked rice (quantity depends on your caloric need)
tinned sweet corn, well rinced (ditto)
plenty of chopped raw vegetables: red or green pepper, onion, apple, celery
oil (e.g. olive oil), lemon juice, and salt

The vegetables in this dish are robust (adding e.g. sliced cucumber would make it more perishable) so IMO you can keep it in the refrigerator for 2 days (and thus prep it once and eat it for 3 days in a row).

What you were saying about amino acids is called the "complementary protein" theory. Here is a claim about that:

  While the idea that we need to combine proteins from different plant sources at every single meal has been refuted, it is still important to stress that in order to get proper nutrition one needs to eat variety of different plant foods every day, so that in each 24-hour period one gets all the essential amino acids.


What does "I worship the Lord of the Thunderbolt" mean, in a translation of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara? Quoted below is from  Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara.

  I cry aloud, looking for protection.
  And I worship the Lord of the Thunderbolt. When they have seen him,
  the messengers of death and the other evil beings are frightened and they flee to the four directions.
  I now go terrified to you for refuge—after having neglected your instruction,
  because of beholding fear. May you quickly extinguish fear.

What is the Buddhist explanation of this text?

Considering the list of excellence such as compassion, wisdom etc. mentioned prior to this text in the form of Bodhisattva, is it right to understand this as a personification of courage? or is it literally worship of the Lord of the Thunderbolt, be it Zeus or Indra, to extinguish fear?

I would think it refers to the author's main Vajrayana teacher. As ChrisW rightly notes: Thunderbolt is a translation of Vajra. the lord The student-teacher relationship is very important in Buddhist tantra and Santideva was an Indian practitioner of Buddhist tantra.

There are several reasons to think that it refers to his personal teacher:
1) in tantra one is supposed to see the teacher as one with the highest Buddha
2) in the text here it says that the author has neglected 'his instructions' - that is, the instructions of the Lord of the Thunderbolt. That makes most sense if it does refer to his personal teacher.


Within Tibetan Buddhism, are the Lamas always the same "soul"? It's my understanding that the belief in Tibetan Buddhism is that when a Lama is reborn he (not meaning to be sexist, but I know of no female Lamas - please let me know if I'm wrong) becomes that same Lama again.  From a western viewpoint, it might be said his soul is put into a new body and he returns as the same Lama in the new body.

However, recent comments by the  Dalai Lama have me wondering about this.  It seems he wants to be reborn in order to continue helping others, but without becoming the Dalai Lama again.  (It has been speculated that there may be political motivation to this, as the Chinese want to designate the next Dalai Lama.)  However, wouldn't the 14th Dalai Lama become the 15th Dalai Lama if he is reborn?  Would a Lama be able to end a series of Lamas even though he is reborn? (I have heard of Lama lines ending, but it's my understanding that the belief is that the Lama chose not to reborn.)

Or is my understanding here completed off base?

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self", it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of the same "self".

Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and experiences of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.

Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.

The case with your specific question, any person, and even multiple people, regardless of status or title or role, could be designated as Tulkus of Dalai Lama, but to truly qualify as such, the person would need to seriously work on their identity as an embodiment of Dalai Lama's heritage.


Are there any scientifically validated practices for Buddhists? We know there are already hundreds of studies with promising results. State of enlightenment is already documented and can be measured.

So I am asking whether exists some resources or even a curriculum of best practices that lead enlightenment and are supported by scientific research.

The Buddha himself advocates the scientific method:

  the teaching realizable in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves --SN35.70

The practice of Buddhism is essentially endless lab experiments with reproducible results. The results are subjective and difficult to measure externally. For example, what meter can one buy to measure "tranquility"? A heart rate monitor that measures tranquility as low BPM? Maybe not, since dead people are quite tranquil at 0 BPM.

Because science prefers instrumented measurements over self-reported assessments, a scientist interested in measuring the results of Buddhist practice objectively (i.e., vs. "are you tranquil?") must do so a bit indirectly. For example, there is interest in MRI scans of meditators.

Although the reliance on instruments is fascinating, it's also a bit more than what is actually needed. If we experience a cessation of suffering, do we really need external instrument validation? And what would convince someone more to try the Noble Eight Fold Path: a scientific paper, or a friend with a clear heart?


Why would the Buddha refrain from instructing? Namo Buddhaya
In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2
The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers

Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.

And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views.
I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ?
Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views.
With metta.

I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ?

It's difficult to exactly know what was going on without being there ourselves to see the specific context and background situation while they were talking. One thing we do know is that the Buddha was not only a master of Dhamma knowledge but also a master of how to best convey the idea to his audience in the most effective way that which brings real radical transformation in the listener. Maybe this three-attempts approach had something to do with that, to rouse up the actor's curiosity, his persistence, his attention, etc. to a degree sufficient enough to receive and absorb the Teaching in the most effective and beneficial way.


Difference between "mythology" and historical "facts"? In this video, a monk tried to draw a distinction between "mythology" and "history facts" ...

Ajahn Sujato - Buddhist Mythology - The Sacred and the Profane - Part 3

... saying that "Mythology" just has a community (identification) purpose.

Yet my person's thought was, "and how is that different to 'factual' history (aside that it faster changes)?"

How can "mythology" (Anussava), and "history" (perhaps thought as Itivea?), be seriously distinguished, if possible? And how should the past be seen, grasped, in accordance with the path, practice?

What kind of mythology, history, and anussati (bringing into present) is conductive for one's way, toward long-time happiness and beyond?

(Note that this is not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for good undertakings toward release from this wheel)

All we can know to be "facts" is the following:

  Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī

  The teaching (of Suffering Ending Truth) well explained by the Buddha — visible in the here-&-now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading onwards (to Nibbana), that
  sensible people can know for themselves.

This is the Dhamma Refuge taught by the Honest Awakened One (The Buddha); adhered to by Honest Noble People. This is all we can know as "fact" and this is all the Buddha expects or asks of us to know.


How is the doctrine of no-self compatible with reincarnation? The term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings.

If this is the case, then what exactly is being carried over from one life to the next in the cycle of reincarnation? And against which entity are Karma points being increased or decreased?

When you light a candle with another candle, nothing transferred from first candle to the second candle.
When you copy a CD nothing physical transferred  from first CD to the second CD.
In cell division nothing physically transferred from first cell to the new cell.

The same way when one life end another life is crated.
Depend on the first the second is crated.


What are other peoples minds according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra? I read that everything is just my own mind from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. If everything is my own mind, what about other peoples minds? Are they also my own mind? How can this be understood?

For instance in Chapter 7 of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra there is this passage:

  The Blessed One replied: There are four things by the fulfilling of
  which an earnest disciple may gain self-realization of Noble Wisdom
  and become and Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: First, he must have a clear
  understanding that all things are only manifestations of the mind
  itself; second, he must discard the notion of birth, abiding and
  disappearance; third, he must clearly understand the ego-less-ness of
  both things and persons; and fourth, he must have a true conception of
  what constitutes self-realization of Noble Wisdom, provided with these
  four understandings, earnest disciples may become Bodhisattvas and
  attain Transcendental Intelligence.

If all things are manifestations of my own mind, doesn't this mean Buddhism as expressed in this Sutra is the equivalent of solipsism? How do we understand the problem of other minds given this Sutra?

Thrangu Rinpoche once said that everything we see (all phenomena we experience) is our own projection - except other people's minds. Only other people's subjective experience is not our projection and therefore exists independently of us.


Did Gautama Buddha exist? Is there any historical third-party evidence that the Gautama Buddha actually existed?

Is there historical third-party evidence that Prince Siddhartha or the Gautama Buddha existed outside of the writings of Buddhism?

There are lot of archaeological evidence align with Buddha's life story. I think those can be considered as the most trusted third party evidence.
Here I am listing some of the web search findings.

  Archaeologists working in Nepal have uncovered evidence of a structure at the birthplace of the Buddha dating to the sixth century B.C. This is the first archaeological material linking the life of the Buddha — and thus the first flowering of Buddhism — to a specific century.

You could find the full story from here and here

Apart from that, king Ashoka built Pillars at Buddhist monasteries, many important sites from the life of the Buddha and places of pilgrimage. This was done around 200 -300 years after the Buddha parinirvana. During that time those important sites and monasteries should have left some sort of evidence to support Buddhas existence that convince King to build the pillers. So it also can be considered as good indication.

Further:

  The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away such as Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was religious Teacher in India known as Gautama the Buddha. Ref: here


After the Buddha's enlightenment, did he receive any teachings? There's not much background to this question. Did the Buddha ever receive a teaching after his enlightenment; a teaching that he accepted and made use of, either his own or another - or perhaps a teaching from another being other than a human.
Please provide sutta references.
I'm asking because of this term commonly found near or at the end of suttas: 'the job has been done, there is nothing more for this world'
Another way to put it: can one be independent of the teachings? If not, what situations would call forth the remembering and practising of the teachings for an enlightened mind?
Thanks
ADDITIONAL EDIT:
In my quest to answer this question I had found a sutta in which the Buddha had asked Venerable Mahacunda to give him a teaching on the enlightenment factors. You can read it here.
Also, the second part of the question  is answered here which references this sutta here.

I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching

Consider this

Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks."
"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him.
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].' - AN 5:165

He whose victory cannot be undone,whose victory no one here approaches, the Buddha, whose range is endless,by what path can you lead the pathless one? - Dhp


Past life regression techniques Is there anyone knows and has experience in past life regression? How can I do to recall my past life memory? Thank you.

There are two methods for seeing past lives:

Through phenomena, and
Through time (or chronologically)

The 'through phenomena' method is not exactly a method. It is more of a chance thing, but it is also easier. In this case, a sight (or other sense-stimulation) occurs and one has a deja vu experience ("I've done this before"), but without the doubt. At this time bending down the mind (or focusing on, or concentrating on) the feeling and the phenomena, a previous occasion when this phenomena occured will come to mind. If pressed further details will appear.

Then you will have to fight your programming and half the other Buddhists in the world who tell you that there is no such thing as rebirth and that you are just imagining things. Would that I had a mind with such an imaginative power!

The chronological method is by way of a yonisomanisikaro=like tracing back of the events of this life from the present moment back to birth, back through one's time in the womb, the time of one's conception, to the previous life. This is rightly an aspect of your setting up of mind (satipatthana). It is also exactly similar to Casteneda's Don Juan's 'recapitulation' method where you start in the present moment, and review every detail to extract yourself from all attachments found there and then move back in time.

More or less unrestricted chronological viewing Past Lives is one of three 'visions' that are obtained by the Arahant, but anyone can experience awareness of past life events through phenomena.

In Buddhist studies you will find that viewing past lives is to be accomplished from the fourth jhāna. But this is just the optimal method.

The formula for the Buddhist seeing past lives can be found in multiple suttas worded similarly to:

He recollects a variety of former habitations,
that is to say

One birth,
two births,
three births,
four births,
five births,
ten births,
twenty births,
thirty births,
forty births,
fifty births,
a hundred births,
a thousand births,
a hundred thousand births,
and many an eon of integration
and many an eon of disintegration
and many an eon of integration-disintegration:

'Such a one was I by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I came to be in another state
where I was such a one by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I arose here.'

Thus he recollects divers former habitations
in all their modes and detail.

A helpful and cautionary Sutta which discusses the method for this and other powers is AN 9.35 (Hare's translation linked-to here:)
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.035.hare.pts.htm


Relationship between karma and science How can science support or challenge the concept of Karma?

They are perfectly compatible. The teaching of Karma is about latent (potential) result of our actions and choices. Science is in complete support with the idea of potential energy, latent results etc. It's just normal causation, albeit its subtle/hidden aspect, nothing magical.

It's like, when you act like a jerk, it leaves aftertaste with people, and then it comes up in the middle of other situations sooner or later. Or, you keep rushing in your daily life and leave simple things not taken care of, like taking out garbage or paying bills - and then these little things accumulate and really interfere with your life. It is stuff like that. Our actions, our intents leave residue, they create some little tensions in our mind, in other people mind, in the fabric of everyday things - and that stuff eventually comes up as some funky result downstream. I repeat, it's not magic, it is totally normal stuff - just hard to see because it's subtle.


How can I end my attachment to holidays? Every day I look forward to the day when there will be a holiday. Holiday brings a sense of relief to me. However I know this is a false sense of relief as after every holiday there will be a working day. I am attached to holidays. If there is a work on holidays I feel greatly stressed. If there is a holiday on a working day I feel greatly relieved. (Some people experience Monday blues which is a specific case of my generic experience. )

My question is: How can I escape the mental affliction I bring upon myself by getting attached to holidays ?

As Japanese Zen Master Dogen said in Genjō Kōan:

  We get nostalgic when the blossoms wither but hate it when the weeds blossom.

This is a typical example of The First Noble Truth. We look at the beautiful cherry blossoms and morn their transience. We get attached to the experience of beauty and want it to go on forever. But because we know it won't last long we get nostalgic even before they wither. And once they actually dry up and fall, we feel the sadness. This is an example of attachment-based-dukkha.

At the same time, when the weeds grow high in our yard, when they thrive and bloom - we do not feel the joy of beauty. On the contrary, we feel joy when the weeds wither and die. We'd rather kill the weeds with a lawnmower or a herbicide chemical than see them flower. When the weeds thrive despite our efforts to kill them, we feel frustration. This is an example of aversion-based-dukkha.

In both cases, a plant grows flowers which bloom and then eventually wither and fall. But we think that the cherry blossoms are good because they are beautiful and the weeds blossoms are bad because they are ugly. It is our attitude (aka "attachment") that determines whether we experience dukkha or not. But what is the nature of this attachment and how can it be removed?

If you look at your mind directly, you will see that you have this fixed preconception - "holiday is good and work is bad, because _______". Just like with flowers and weeds. You need to look at your mind directly and see the formula that you are stuck on, e.g.: "work is stressful, because at work I'm continuously bombarded by endless requests and don't have time to even use the toilet" - or something like that.

These type of formulas often come from some implied social stereotypes that we subconsciously absorb from the social interactions. For example, if most people around you assume that hard work is for dummies and that the "smart/successful" people do not work much, you may internalize this attitude as "hard work is for losers" - which may lead to the kind of aversion to workdays and attachment to holidays you're talking about. The exact formula will be different for everyone, but there is always some kind of formula involved, you just need to see what it is.

Once you see your formula directly, you can get rid of attachment/aversion by simply letting go of the formula. If your vipashyana is not strong enough yet to do it directly, you can use a counter-fabrication like seeing peace in effort and stress in rest - or as Buddha have said, "see doing in not-doing and not-doing in doing". In other words, you can analyze the two situations (holiday-time and work-time) upclose, find the elements that go contrary to the attachment, and upadana those element-signs - to fuel the counter-fabrication by going over the signs again and again.

An internalized preconception - what I called "the formula" - is an example of reification at play. We generalize some description ("There is a hard line dividing weak and successful people => The weak people are forced to work a lot => The successful people are smart enough to avoid hard work => Overtime work is for dummies => If I work overtime, I'm a loser => Attachment to holidays, feeling stressed when there is work on weekends => Dukkha") and then we reify this description into a wordless formula that contains all of that description in a highly condensed form. Every time we think about working overtime, we feel stressed, with the entire description quickly replaying in our heads.

The technique that Buddha taught -- "seeing the non-pleasant in pleasant and seeing the pleasant in non-pleasant" and "finding the not-doing in doing and finding the doing in not-doing" -- works by breaking the generalizations we make about the components of the formula. We can attack the formula that "Overtime work is for dummies" by finding factual evidence that makes the formula false, for example: "Successful people actually work a lot, they work crazy hours - in fact, that's how they become successful!" -- Here, we have found an example that goes contrary to the generalization we have internalized (that "Successful people do not work hard"). By thinking about this counter-fabrication over and over again we can weaken the original reification and destroy the formula that leads to suffering.

Or, in the other example, one where "I" felt that "work is stressful, because I'm continuously bombarded by endless requests" - we could approach it like this: "Why do I think that being bombarded by requests leaves no time for anything else? Indeed, it is up to me to control my work pace. Why don't I slow down a little to make it more comfortable?" In this case the unquestioned generalization was the formula that "being bombarded by requests leaves no time for myself". We have internalized an assumption that we must handle every request as soon as possible, with no regard to our own comfort level. Identifying and deconstructing that assumption allows us to change our behavior and our perception of the situation - eliminating the source of aversion that leads to suffering.

Holiday is holiday and work is work - but you don't have to love one and hate the other. You can learn to be at peace in the suchness of here-now, whether it's work or holiday. You just need to understand how dukkha comes from reification and how reification can be dispelled by challenging one of it's underlying assumptions.


Where does the Buddha compare the Dharma to leaves on a tree? There is a story in the Pali Canon where the Buddha compares the Dharma to leaves on a tree. If I can give a very approximate quote to what I remember

  The dharma that I have taught is just a handful of leaves. The Dharma
  is actually all the leaves in all the trees

So the point been that there is a lot more to the Dharma then what the Buddha is teaching at that point. Can anyone give the exact reference for that story - I'm fairly certain it is from the Pali Canon.

From the Pali canon perhaps it's the Simsapa Sutta (see here and here).

The main message I get from that story is a bit the opposite of what you suggested: i.e. not that "The Dharma is actually all the leaves in all the trees", rather that the central doctrine is only the four noble truths (stress; origin of stress; cessation of stress; path of practice leading to the cessation of stress).

I think there are other suttas in which he said, "I have taught one thing and one thing only, i.e. dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.