What is the destination of unenlightened monk reviling Noble Layperson? I recall reading the Buddhist scriptures say those who revile Noble Ones are reborn in hell.
Does this also apply to an unenlightened (puthujjana) monk that reviles a Noble Layperson?

Sure. But they wouldn't risk much here in regard of touch Noble Ones, or? Even a fault couldn't be expected here, as not possible to trace it an area of Upasaka, Upasika, for the most.
How ever, even if a Noble One would act wrongly toward another, such would block his progress as long as not pardoned, brought to be solved again.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape frim this wheel]


Do thoughts create karma? This question is about a very specific situation, but there might hopefully be a more general answer.

We've had conflicts at work, to the extent that we had to get a psychologist help us! There are many reasons for the conflicts, but for me the problem is that many of my co-workers are kind of lazy, not very competent and spend their time not doing their job but knitting, chit-chatting, complaining about everything etc. This situation leads to conflict and I have spent too much time being annoyed and tried to change the situation.

Still, I sometimes think negative thoughts about these people. When I catch myself thinking negative ("lazy, incompetent people") I try to take a look at myself and see what causes the thoughts and what I really am thinking. This strategy also helps me to not take it out on them.

But the question is, does the thoughts in themselves create bad karma?

There is karma that is intention (an omnipresent mental factor) and karma that is intended actions.

Intended actions are defined by Je Tsongkhapa as:

  The actions of body and speech that are motivated by that intention.

Afflictions such as anger, jealousy, covetousness, and so forth are not the intention mental factor - but have their own entity as mental factors - therefore they are not karma. Anger manifests from a seed of anger and that seed is not a karmic seed, because it was "deposited" by a previous instance of anger (not by a previous karma - that is intention or intended action).

However, some qualify the afflictions as 'karmic path' or 'paths of actions' because they are likely to lead one to engage in negative actions (karma).


Realms : About a certain Deva's concubine's rebirth? I have heard a story in which a concubine of a certain Deva died while she was with him and other concubines of him in a park. She was born as a human in next life but she remembered who she was in her last life and so she wanted nothing but to return to her deva. So she lived a virtuous life and was born among the very bunch again.
Her death has gone unnoticed and her deva asks her where she's been. Here she tells him about her human life and he is amazed by the short life of humans as they are still in the very same park enjoying it's beauty, remaining there since the last time she was a deva (A whole human life spent in a single visit to a park)
I have often seen this story used as an anchor by monks to explain the length of life in higher realms saying

"It has only been a few days for them since the Parinirvana of Lord Buddha, so there is still thee purest of the teaching as there are ones who saw  and listened to lord buddha there still among them. Also there are enlightened one's from that era still living and advising there."

I can't help but think that no mater what no one will spend a human lifetime's length to have a  walk in a park.
Perhaps this is a time lapse that is here?
I know this is not a place to play with science and buddhism. but i'm asking this to get an explanation as i've seen many people listen to this and delay their efforts limiting themselves to hording only good karma but no other efforts on much arduous sections of the path.

Before you downvote or delete this please consider the kind of good or harm that can come of this as this is an interpretation that has rallied too many people behind it (At least in my country). And i'm not asking for opinions either
What can we make of this?
Is it a universal phenomenon like time lapse/ Einstein's reletivity?
Or a misinterpretation?

Your question is: is it scientifically and metaphysically true that there are different time scales for the devas, humans and other beings? If so, my answer is yes.

Metaphysically, there are different realms of beings. Those celestial beings have longer lifespans and their days and nights are longer than humans, depended on the layer of celestial realm they belonged. some's day and night is equal to a year in human's, or equal to thousand years of the human time scale.

Scientifically, these could be proved. In the Solar System, some planets take longer time to circulate the sun, compared to earth's 365.25 days (a year); some planets' self-rotation is longer, compared to earth's 24 hours (a day). It is estimated that the sun takes 25000/26000 years to circulate the galactic center, and the milky way is circulating another astronomical object. Only this will make the time scale different, not to say that there are Einstein/quantum level of force and phenomena.

Buddha also talked about the lifespan for human was co-related, from 84000 (I believe this figure equal to the meaning of numberless in Buddha's time) to 100. When in the 100, it will reduce to 10, as the karma of the kalpa going worser and worser.

This "time lapse" stories not only exist in the Deva stories (Indian), also told in Chinese myths.


Do the Theravādins believe in the Buddhaguṇas? In the Pāli Theravāda tradition, are there any specific guṇas that a sammāsambuddha has that an arhat has not?

According to the sutta below, the main difference between the Sammasambuddha and the Arhat is that a Sammasambuddha discovers the previously unknown (or forgotten) path, becomes an expert of the path and is able to explain and teach the path to others.

On the other hand, the monk freed by wisdom (and therefore an Arhat) does so, following the path taught by the Sammasambuddha.

The other qualities described in the suttas like psychic powers (e.g. Moggallana) or the ability to be an eloquent and articulate teacher (e.g. Sariputta), may also be obtained by an Arhat.

Please note that when I say Arhat above, I mean a non-Buddha Arhat. This distinction is important, because the Buddha is also an Arhat.

From SN 22.58:

  “Mendicants, a Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha
  is freed by not grasping, due to disillusionment, dispassion, and
  cessation regarding form. They’re called a fully awakened Buddha. A
  mendicant freed by wisdom is also freed by not grasping, due to
  disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding form. They’re
  called a mendicant freed by wisdom.

  A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha is freed by
  not grasping, due to disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation
  regarding feeling …

  perception …

  choices …

  consciousness. They’re called a fully awakened Buddha. A mendicant
  freed by wisdom is also freed by not grasping, due to disillusionment,
  dispassion, and cessation regarding consciousness. They’re called a
  mendicant freed by wisdom.

  What, then, is the difference between a Realized One, a perfected one,
  a fully awakened Buddha, and a mendicant freed by wisdom?”

  “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. He is our guide and our
  refuge. Sir, may the Buddha himself please clarify the meaning of
  this. The mendicants will listen and remember it.”

  “Well then, mendicants, listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”

  “Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

  “A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha gives rise
  to the unarisen path, gives birth to the unborn path, and explains the
  unexplained path. They know the path, understand the path, and are
  experts in the path. And now the disciples live following the path;
  they acquire it later.

  This is the difference between a Realized One, a perfected one, a
  fully awakened Buddha, and a mendicant freed by wisdom.”


What does Nonduality correspond to in Buddhism? There is not [was not] a tag for nonduality. Would someone please make a correspondence between nonduality and Buddhism as to "stage" or "attainment", qualifications, or whatever is applicable?

EDIT: I was thinking of Nonduality as a stage, but it is apparently seen more as a position or way of describing things? Mariana Caplan, in the book "Eyes Wide Open - Cultivating Discernement on the Spiritual Path" has this paragraph at the top of page 163 (paperback):

  Ngakpa Chogyam, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher from Wales, offers a
  perspective on nonduality that includes all of life as a direct
  expression of the nondual core of truth. He explains that nonduality,
  or emptiness, has two facets: one is empty, or nondual, and the other
  is form, or duality. Therefore, duality is not illusory but is one
  aspect of nonduality. Like the two sides of a coin, the formless reality has two dimensions -- one is form, the other is formless. When
  we perceive duality as separate from nonduality (or nonduality as
  separate from duality), we do not engage the world of manifestation
  from the perspective of oneness, and thereby we fall into an erroneous
  relationship with it. From this perspective it is not "life" or
  duality that is maya, or illusion: rather it is our relationship to
  the world that is illusory.

This accords with the Heart Sutra. So, I was actually asking about the Experience of this, rather than whether it is true or not. "Both is, and is not. Neither is, nor is not." (Buddha)

Second Addition: I find a correspondence between the formal / post-formal operations distinction and the observation that some people get stuck when thinking of abstractions like nonduality, and others do not. Some people are more literal and fundamental, and others are more mystical. I think this is the key to understanding differences, and post-formal thought is an ability that develops through use. Here is a link from a teacher's experience.

There's an article on that subject Dhamma and Non-duality by
Bhikkhu Bodhi.

The following is basically all direct quotes from that article, except very summarized (I'm extracting sentences and sentence fragments).

Non-dual system

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.

Not a non-dual system

As for the Theravada tradition:

Virtue

Non-duality: the adept isn't bound by rules because "The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil"
Theravada: "the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults"

Meditation:

Non-duality: defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality
Theravada: hindrances are "causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana"

Wisdom:

Non-duality: concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew
Theravada: wisdom not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All

So to answer your question, if I understand the article, it's saying that "non-duality" in Buddhism includes statements like "nirvana and samsara are the same" and "everything is equally empty" ... but non-duality is not a feature of Theravada Buddhism (it's a feature of Mahayana Buddhism, and of Tantrayana).


Is it fine to learn Vipassana meditation online? Is it essential to go to SN Goenka centre for 10 days to learn Vipassana? Or is it fine to learn Vipassana online?

Doing an intensive course at a dedicated meditation centre is incomparably better than online learning, but doing an online course or something similar is actually better in my opinion as a first step.

Often when people come to our centre having never practiced or having practiced a different tradition, they spend quite a bit of time becoming accustomed to the practice and accepting it. They waste a lot of time doubting and fumbling, and given they often have a limited number of vacation days it often makes finishing a foundation course difficult.

Much of the doubt and fumbling is mitigated by online teachings - most people coming to our centre have little doubt and lots of practice based on static teachings they have found on the internet. Moreover, those meditators who have completed our online course (which just means they practiced at least an hour a day and we talked once a week, giving them new exercises weekly) veritably and invariably sail through the intensive course since they are very well prepared for it.

So, yes, online meditation is perfectly valid, but I think it serves better as a preparation, rather than a replacement, for intensive practice which is best done with a teacher at a centre.

You can check out https:/meditation.sirimangalo.org/ for our online course system. There are some testimonials you can read I think, but I can say myself the online courses have made a big difference in our community.


Satipatthana sutta in english AUDIO Is there a version of Satipatthana Sutta in English AUDIO . I have got the pali version but I do not understand the full meaning when I listen to it.The idea is to listen every day when I go to work and come home after work.

There are these audio Dhamma talks on the Satipatthana Sutta by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

There are 10 talks. You can see an overview of the 10 talks here.


Which sutta is this excerpt about Buddha's death from? An ordained Bhikkhu shared the following with me.

  "You have done what is good and wholesome, you have made a shelter
  from fear. You have not done anything to harm other. You have not been
  greedy and immoral. You have forgiven the world difficult life
  pleasure and pain with compassion and after death you will be reborn
  in a happy destination." … said Buddha before death when he invited
  all the monks and followers to come and watch how the noble one dies.

I do not know if he paraphrased and I could not find it with a Google search... he was saying the idea that Buddha died from eating bad pork was incorrect.

He was vaguely referencing mushrooms as a possible cause and then also mentioned that Buddha died through some supernatural phenomenon and this was in some Pali sutta.

I was wondering if anyone knew where this quote is from (and hence the rest of the story)?

The quoted passage sounds vaguely like the last paragraph of Ud 8.5 the Cunda Sutta. For example you quoted,

  You have done what is good and wholesome ... after death you will be reborn in a happy destination

Thanissaro's version of that,

  Cunda's remorse should be allayed ... it's well-done by you ... Venerable Cunda the silversmith has accumulated kamma that leads to heaven

However much of the rest of it doesn't match the your quote, e.g. "you have made a shelter from fear" sounds like it's addressed to people who have taken refuge (i.e. "all the monks and followers").

But then again it is a bit like the poem at the end of that sutta ("not greedy" -> "giving" and "You have forgiven" -> "no animosity").

For a person giving,
merit increases.
For one self-restraining,
no animosity is amassed.
One who is skillful
    leaves evil behind
and
 — from the ending of passion,
    aversion,
    delusion —
is totally unbound.

Anyway (whether or not this is the sutta which the Bikkhu wanted to share with you) this sutta too is from towards the end of the Buddha's life, and may or may not mention pork,

  The Commentary notes a wide range of opinions on what "pig-delicacy" means. The opinion given in the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā — the primary source for the Commentary we now have — is that pig-delicacy is tender pork. Other opinions include soft bamboo shoots or mushrooms that pigs like to nibble on, or a special elixir. Given that India has long had a history of giving fanciful names to its foods and elixirs, it's hard to say for sure what the Buddha ate for his last meal.


Is there really a story in the Pali Canon about a layman running away from home AFTER having attained arahantship? Today I stumbled upon a thread on Reddit. Deep down in the comments, I saw someone make the following claim:

  My personal opinion is probably they [lay arahants] will run away from society and die in a forest, which is what happened in the suttas to a prince who ran away from society when he attained Arahantship in his sleep, and woke up. The Buddha telepathically communicated with him to come to the Sangha, aka The Refuge, it's called a Refuge because it is a refuge for Enlightened people who escape the lay life.

When asked by another user where in the suttas this story was found, he replied that he didn't remember where he read it but that it was probably in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Of course I don't have time now to read the entire Khuddaka Nikaya, so I want to ask if anyone here is familiar with the story. On the one hand it sounds pretty improbable to me (if it were in the Canon, why have I never seen it being mentioned in debates about whether lay arahants exist?), but on the other hand I don't think the person who posted it has made it up all by himself.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

As you found out on Reddit, the story sounds a lot like that of Yasa, who didn't of course become an Arahant before meeting the Buddha, and certainly not in his sleep! But to your general question, stories of lay people who have become arahants and then left home do exist in the texts. A notable example that comes to mind is Khema Theri (see palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ku/khemaa.htm).

Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an arahant before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible.


How can I live life knowing other people work so hard for so little and people and animals suffer I cry, I don't know why.

I just feel things so deeply and want to solve everyone’s problems

I don’t know but I can’t help it, it’s just in me, I can’t distance myself from their suffering, because we all suffer.

It makes living life really hard. If I get too carried away I desire to deny being compassionate and having connections with people because they hurt. Then I picture my life as always worrying about sad things and the problems of others and then there’s no more me.

How can I live life knowing other people work so hard for so little and people and animals suffer?

What you are experiencing is too much empathy. Many people believe that empathy is a universal virtuous trait that should always be increased, but this is not so.

To be very clear, empathy is distinct from compassion. The two are not the same thing although they are often conflated and misunderstood. The definition of compassion is very simple: the wish for others to be free from suffering. That's it.

Empathy is different from compassion. Empathy is the capacity to put yourself in someone else's shoes and feel what it is they are feeling. To imagine what someone else is feeling and experience some amount of it yourself.

So what is the relationship between compassion and empathy? Well, to some extent you need to be able to recognize someone else's suffering in order to develop the wish for them to be free of it. However, once this recognition is accomplished it does not require you to keep feeling what they are feeling. To suffer with them. When people in the west talk about "compassion fatigue" they are really talking about empathy fatigue.

So in summary, empathy can be both good (allowing us to recognize the suffering of others) and bad (rendering us powerless/overwhelmed or biased towards those we empathize with) depending upon the context. It sounds like you are definitely experiencing the latter and should stop empathizing so much. In order to do so, you first have to become clear on the differences between compassion and empathy. Compassion is a universal good that should always be increased. There is no such thing as compassion fatigue, but there is such a thing as empathy fatigue.

Have a look here for a modern account of how a western psychology recently discovered something that Buddhists have known for centuries ;)

Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion

You can also find an interesting interview with the author here.


How to know who is a good monk? I'm a Buddhist and I want to know who is a good monk.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I think that monks

Do not request money/things
Follow the rules
Do not bless for to be rich... (Its passion)

etc...

But how do I explain to a non-buddhist how to recognise a good monk?

I see the original question as been modified when I went online again.  The original question included "hinting/asking"
I have included this under wrong livelihood.

How to know who is a good monk is a little more difficult to know than who is a bad monk.  People will judge differently on what factors makes one a good monk.  We can start with morality according to the monks rules which he has an obligation to follow. There are a few easy signs that one is a bad monk.

When he goes out into the village, if he has one shoulder exposed, this is a very clear sign that he breaks most of the rules.  If he has both shoulders covered, that means he follows this rule, but maybe not others.  This is just a quick way to throw out the majority of monks into the bad monk pile.  Unfortunately, most monks in Myanmar break this rule and that also means that most monks break most of the rules.

Monks need to follow all of the rules 227 rules and also the rules in the Culavagga and Mahavagga.  Likewise, they need to follow according to the commentaries as well in most cases.
Most Western Bhikkhus do not like the commentaries.  That is where "interpretations" can come.
Most of the information below, is from the BMC The Buddhist Monastic Code

Summary:
A Bhikkhu cannot use money.

A Bhikkhu cannot point out a kappiya without someone asking, "Who is you kappiya?"

A Bhikkhu cannot accept envelopes presumably with money inside.  It is an asannya offence (in the root text).   Which means, no perception is necessary for it to be unallowable.  That means the monks should not be intentionally ignorant.  The BMC debates and allows the modern use of "checks."

A Bhikkhu cannot ask for things from "Just anyone". He needs an invitation from a non-family member ( blood relation)

A Bhikkhu cannot hint to "Just anyone" (as above)

A Bhikkhu cannot do the above for another bhikkhu(s) either.

The BMC says checks are not money but a "promise to pay."  Sri Lanka and Myanmar Vinaya traditions call this money.  Money is defined as anything accepted as used in trade.  A US dollar is a mere bank note too.  Google "A Life Free From Money pdf"
The same as above is judged with signing checks.

A bhikkhu can ask for a bowl from anyone if it is broken or stolen.

A bhikkhu can ask for a single robe from anyone if he is left with only one (of three).

A bhikkhu can go for alms in the evening for "extra items," usually medicine or oil for light. The donors will offer food and he will refuse.  Then the person may ask, "what do you need?" Then he can say.

Lay people or committees can ask "just anyone" for things or money, etc. for monks if it is their own idea.   This might be what you are seeing on brochures and websites, etc.
A Bhikkhu cannot ask his helper, committee etc,  to ask others for money for himself.
A bhikkhu must be invited by a committee or kappiya before he asks them for things.

The above list is followed correctly unfortunately by a small minority of monks, known as vinaya monks, or forest monks.  Often the other (majority) monks do not know what proper behavior is.  They may memorize the rules, but do not think it is something to be practiced since corruption is so wide spread.  One of my monastic friends told me he cried when he found out that he was never supposed to touch money.   A monk may purify himself at any time.
Often, they just do not know.

Traditions often have interpretations which makes items seem "allowable.". Sometimes this is allowed and sometimes one can just be fooling oneself.  In the end it is up to them.  Often bhikkhus do not reflect or question questionable practices in a tradition because of the wide spread use.  Money and medicines are often such topics.

  "Monks, strive with heedfulness.  Rare is it that Buddhas arise in the
  world.  Rare is it that [one] it that [one] obtains a human [birth].
  Rare is it to have the good fortune of [being in the right] time [and
  place].  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to take the Going
  forth.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to listen to the
  True Dhamma.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to associate
  with good people." (c.f. D.32.33 & A.8:29)

BMC I, 2009 ed. pdf
Monks must also practice right livelihood according to not doing things from the list below:

  Wrong Livelihood The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the
  same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), treats the
  banishment transaction in full detail, saying that a Community of
  bhikkhus, if it sees fit, has the authority to perform a banishment
  transaction against a bhikkhu with any of the following qualities:

  1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the
  Community.

  2) He is inexperienced, incompetent, and indiscriminately full of
  offenses (§).

  3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders.

  4) He is corrupt in his precepts, corrupt in his conduct, or corrupt
  in his views.   5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or
  Saṅgha.

  6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both.

  7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both.

  8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both.

  9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood.  This last category
  includes such practices as:

  a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state,
  householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in
  political campaigns.

  b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of
  material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in
  hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments
  in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make
  donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see
  Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)

  c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling,
  astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing
  ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining
  propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.),
  interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or — in the words of the
  Vibhaṅga to the Bhikkhunīs' Pc 49 & 50 — engaging in any art that is
  "external and unconnected with the goal." The Cullavagga (V.33.2)
  imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and teaching worldly arts or hedonist
  doctrines (lokāyata).

  For extensive lists of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted
  in BMC2, Chapter 10.

  BMC I Lists wrong livelihood extensively starting on page 518 PDF ed.

"Medicines"
There are some things in the BMC which I think are very misleading, especially concerning, "medicines" and how "Any Reason" is defined (p232).  I could not find any pāli evidence that mentions "hunger and fatigue" as a valid medical reason.  I could be wrong, but I asked a couple of knowledgeable monks to verify this and they also agreed with my findings.  This would exclude many things which are considered medicines.

I will not cover further with lists of the "medicines."  Only that there should be a valid reason for taking them and justifying their use after Noon.
The reflection and criteria are below.  It is in every monastery chanting book and should be chanted every day.  (Nauyana chanting book source)

"Medicine Reflection"

  Whatever requisite of medicine for treating illness has been used by
  me today without reflection was only to ward off painful feelings that
  have arisen, [and] for the  maximum freedom from disease.


Who/what/how is the keeper of karma? I have seen multiple references to karma on this site, varying in its descriptions dependent on the question.

Most answers appear to have the same answer e.g. Whereas Karma is what happens as a result of your actions or your choices. - Source

If karma is the result of my actions or choices and it has a bearing on one's life now and in the next, who/what is the keeper of such actions and choices? Another way to ask the question is how is a record of my actions maintained and kept?

The Sanskrit word karma means action. It was used in Brahmanism to refer to those physical and verbal acts that were considered to bring positive results to the individual performing the acts (or on behalf of whom the acts were performed by Brahmin priests).

The Buddha denounced this idea. In his teaching, that which was potent for the individual was the state of mind (cetana):

  cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi

  It is cetana, monks, that I call karma.

  -- AN 6.63

Either way, anyone who tells you that "Karma is what happens as a result of your actions or your choices", doesn't understand the meaning of the word. What they are referring to is vipāka (result); karma is that which brings vipāka.

Either way, your question still stands:

  who/what is the keeper of such actions and choices?

This is a common question, but it mostly stems from a lack of clear understanding that karma simply means action. It isn't a thing, it doesn't last from life to life or moment to moment, and it certainly doesn't come back to reward or punish the doer.

The law of karma is simply an observable pattern or regularity that exists between ethical acts and the results that follow them. I don't know of any explanation for why the universe works this way, but that it does is readily apparent.

We don't question, for example, whether torturing others is bad for the person doing the torturing (or at least we shouldn't). Obviously doing evil corrupts one's mind, destroys one's reputation, cultivates enmity, etc. (c.p. MN 129)

The real question, I guess, is why this doesn't end at the moment of death. Of course, given that death of the individual is a concept (as is the individual), there really isn't as much trouble explaining this as one might think. One's rebirth is conditioned by one's death and the events leading up to one's death; a murderer is likely to be reborn entangled with the murdered, because murdering others involves karmically potent mind states that change one's future mind states including those involved with one's death.

  Another way to ask the question is how is a record of my actions maintained and kept?

It isn't. Nothing that arises lasts more than a moment, and nothing that has ceased ever returns. Karma is simply a natural law, like the law of gravity or conservation of energy, that:

  “yādisaṃ vapate bījaṃ, tādisaṃ harate phalaṃ.
  kalyāṇakārī kalyāṇaṃ, pāpakārī ca pāpakaṃ.

  Whatever sort of seed one plants, that is the sort of fruit one will reap;
  A doer of good good, and a doer of evil evil.

  -- SN 11.10


Proper way to address a bhikkhu? I have seen many ways to address a bhikkhu, and I'm wondering about the proper way to address a bhikkhu, in writing?

Bhante is the preferred mode of address if you are addressing the bhikkhu respectfully; note that it is masculine, so for bhikkhunis, Ayye is correct (mostly they use ayya, but I don't think that is technically correct). In English, Venerable x and Reverend x would also be suitable expressions of respect.

If you are addressing them as an equal or as an outsider to the religion, Venerable x and Reverend x would still be proper, I think, but even Brother x would be okay. In Pali, words like bho and ayasma were also used, meaning something like "good sir" or "friend" by those who didn't hold the bhikkhus in any special esteem.

In writing, using the nominative endings (e.g. o for -a stem names) is not technically correct when addressing the bhikkhu in the second person, e.g.:

  Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo,

should really be:

  Dear Venerable Yuttadhamma,

In Thailand this distinction has been pretty much lost, whereas in Burma and Sri Lanka they prefer the a endings for all references.

In Pali, when referring to someone in the third person, you would use the nominative endings, but in the case of corresponding in English, the dictionary stem form is certainly acceptable, as it is with 'buddha', nibbana', etc. Just as we don't say:

  The Buddho was staying in Savatthi.

we really shouldn't be saying:

  Venerable Yuttadhammo was staying in Florida.

As for regional honorifics, e.g. Ajaan (Ajarn, Ajahn) in Thai, Ashin in Burmese, Hamuduruvo in Sinhala, Lakhun in Khmer, etc., I would suggest they only be used by members of the specific ethnic community; I wouldn't think them appropriate for non-members to use to refer to members (e.g. Westerners calling Thai monks Ajaan) unless speaking in the language from which the word comes. In practical usage, however, Ajaan for example has become so widely used by Thai people (even for monks who clearly aren't their or anyone's teacher) that they often insist that non-Thais use it to refer to Thai monks, which of course would be the wise choice when among such people.


Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language Could you describe to me what all the Jhanas mean in everyday language because I couldnt understand it by reading the sutras. I couldn't understand what they meant by reading the sutras describing them like neither perception nor non perception and nothingness and I didnt understand the others either so could  you tell me the meaning of all the Jhanas so I can understand what they actually mean.

Also in Buddhism conciousnesss arises dependently so how is it possible for there to infinite conciousness when conciousness arises dependently.

Thanks

I recommend this book: Ajahn Brahm: The Jhanas; where a description of each form jhana & each formless sphere should be summarised, somewhere. Ajahn Brahm's description of vitakka & vicara as the "Jhana Wobble" is very helpful for discerning the difference between true jhana and the fake jhana often declared on Buddhist chatsites by shameless egotists.

In the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives infinite consciousness as the salient/ primary experience of the meditation. Also, the physical body continues to exist, even though the physical body is not experienced. Therefore, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the other aggregates, such as perception, feeling & physicality (plus the subtle intention to remain in that meditation experience), continue to exist & dependently support consciousness.

Related to this, MN 43 describes the 9th stage called "cessation of perception & feeling". Here, consciousness ceases to operate because there is no perception, no feeling or any other sense object to support the maintenance of consciousness. However, note, the life force of the physical body continues to remain alive.

In the suttas, each jhana & sphere is described with the salient/primary experiences of that jhana & sphere; even though other phenomena may be experienced or may be functioning. MN 111 is a sutta offering a more detailed description of each jhana & sphere.

Reply to comments:

Each consecutive jhana & sphere represents a refining of the mind and the objects in the mind.

The feelings of rapture, happiness & equanimity of the four jhanas are based on bodily feelings arising in the physical body that has been profoundly relaxed & purified (even though the body itself, including the subtle breathing, is not experienced in jhana). This is probably why the four jhanas are called "rupa (form, material) jhana".

In the arupa spheres, only mental feelings & mental phenomena are experienced. However, as said, each arupa jhana is a refinement of the salient object perceived/experienced. Thus, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives or classifies that experience as 'infinite consciousness'. But as the mind continues to refine, that PERCEPTION "INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS" ceases. Since there is no salient object left to PERCEIVE, the mind perceives "there is nothing". Then when this PERCEPTION "there is nothing" also ceases, the perceptual framework of the mind starts to breakdown before entirely ceasing. This breaking down of perception, where something akin to perception is occurring & non-occurring is the sphere of neither-perception nor non-perception.

What is important to understand here is perception & its dependent objects are refining, becoming more & more subtle, until there are no more objects to perceive. When there are no objects to perceive, perception & consciousness must cease (even though the physical body remains alive, as described in MN 43).

From Ajahn Brahm:

  THE MIND-BASE OF UN-LIMITED CONSCIOUSNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited space lies the perception of
  no-space, of space losing its meaning. When the mind attends to this
  feature within the First Immaterial Attainment, space disappears and
  is replaced by perception of absolute one-pointedness of
  consciousness. As indicated above by the common experience of
  one-pointedness of time, in the state that perceives one-pointedness
  of consciousness, consciousness simultaneously feels infinite and
  empty, immeasurable and undefined. One has entered the second
  Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of unlimited consciousness.
  This is the perception that fills the mind completely and persists
  without wavering for even longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NOTHINGNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited consciousness lies the perception
  of no-consciousness, of consciousness now losing it meaning as well.
  When the mind focuses on this feature within the Second Immaterial
  Attainment, all perception of consciousness disappears. Perceptions of
  material form and space have already disappeared, and so all that one
  is left with is the one-pointedness of nothingness. One has entered
  the Third Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of nothingness. This
  is the concept that fills the mind totally, persisting unchanging for
  yet longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION

  Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even
  nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the
  perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception
  of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about
  this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception
  (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state
  is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all
  the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost
  a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps
  within its gossamer fabric the famous "Jewel in the heart of the
  lotus," Nibbana.

Note: Ajahn Brahm's idea about Nibbana often appear questionable.


How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion? I am looking forward to develop 7 factors of enlightenment. The 7 factors of enlightenment are factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquility (passaddi), immersion (samadhi), and equanimity.
I have understood how to develop factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles and equanimity.

However I am not sure how to develop the following:

Energy (viriya)
Rapture (piti)
Tranquility(passaddi)
Immersion (samadhi)

(I guess Tranquility can be developed by becoming independent. If the answer to samadhi is to enter the first Jhana then my question will be how to enter it?)

So my question is: How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion? If you know answer to only one or few of the above factors then please post that as an answer. I will combine them.

There's a whole samyutta dedicated to the description and analysis of the Bojjhanga in the Connected Discourses (see Bojjhanga Samyutta). Also check out Ven. Piyadassi's great "Seven Factors of Enlightenment"


How do monastic rules differ in each tradition? Theravada monks have to follow the 227 Patimokkha rules and the Vinaya Pitaka from the Pali Canon.

But how is it for monks from the other traditions like East Asian Mahayana, Zen and Vajrayana traditions?

I read online that Tibetan monks have dinner after 5pm, which is clearly not allowed by Theravada rules. They don't seem to have to do alms rounds, and they can take Tuesdays off.

In certain traditions, can monks receive raw cooking materials and cook food themselves? Can they grow their own food? Can they manage the finances of their monastery?

And why are they different? Do different traditions decide for e.g. that the rules should be made more relaxed, more strict or more adapted to their local circumstances or to modernity?

In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha did say:

  "The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline,
   ... so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish
  the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training
  (Vinaya) laid down"

But the Buddha also said:

  "If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the
  lesser and minor rules.

All Buddhist traditions including the now extinct ones derived their rules from the original Prātimokṣa (path to liberation).

A number of prātimokṣa codes are extant, including those contained in the Theravāda, Mahāsāṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda vinayas. Prātimokṣa texts may also circulate in separate prātimokṣa sūtras, which are extracts from their respective vinayas.

The Wikipedia article on the Prātimokṣa covers the current and extinct derivatives in a little detail.
The monastic rules aren't inviolable, though generally through the ages their importance has been largely respected, and only modified in exigent circumstances. Philosophical stances of the founders have often influenced how closely they stayed to the original.
For example,

The Dharmaguptaka sect are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarvāstivāda pratimokṣa rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.

When the Buddha began teaching there were no rules, the rules were added on as the need arose. For example, the prohibition on alcohol began when there was an incident of drunkenness that reflected badly on the monks.
Given the organic growth of these rules, as times and cultures changed some might have felt the need to change the rules to keep the tradition living and not turn into an anachronism. As Buddhism spread to new cultures the original rules as they applied to the Gangetic plains of India may not have made sense. For example, in lands with snowy winters like Japan obviously the robes needed to be warmer and with more layers than in India.
One other example would be the leave to allow monks to cook for themselves when Buddhism had just entered China. There was no Chinese precedent of donating food to mendicants and beggars like in India, so in order to maintain the respect of the monks in the eyes of the community, cooking was allowed. This continues today in modern Zen monasteries, like Plum Village in France, for much the same reason.
Some other times it may have been corrupted transmission or interpretation as the religion traveled across hundreds of years, several thousand miles and cultures.

The Buddhist scholar Tripitakamala felt the overall goal of Buddhahood overrides concerns for monastic vows.
cite: Gray, David (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra. New York, NY: Columbia University. p. 124.

Buddhism continues to evolve even today. The spread of Dharma in the West has brought with it changes to meet the unique challenges of the West. For example many modern Zen roshis in the US have dispensed with their robes except on ceremonial occasions, and wear every day lay person clothes. Chogyam Trungpa, the Tibetan master was a firm believer in such pragmatic change when he set up Naropa University and wore suits to lectures.


Vajra Posture vs Lotus Posture -- the same or male vs female? I always thought that "Vajra Posture" and "Lotus Posture" were simply two names for the same thing. But recently somebody told me that Vajra Posture is for males and Lotus Posture for females, though without explaining any physical difference.

Searching turns up mostly interchangeable usage, and a few instances that confirm the male/female difference, though without explanation -- for example https://goo.gl/fxIi2Y and https://goo.gl/U0KKb1

Anybody know the story? Is there a male vs female difference? If so, is it the same physical posture, differing only in the gender of the practitioner, or is there an actual physical difference? Does it vary by tradition? (I suspect the difference is mainly found in the Tibetan / Vajrayana tradition, where the vajra symbolizes a male genital organ and the lotus a female organ.)

Addendum 8/30/2015. I wonder if what's called "half lotus position" in yoga is lotus position in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism vajra position is both feet up on opposite thighs, lotus position is just one foot up with the other on the mat. Evidence for this comes from this web site -- http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/glossary.cfm -- which is associated with the Rubin Museum (http://rubinmuseum.org/) -- this entry:

  Asana (Skt.): seated or standing postures of which there are a variety
  of prescribed forms arising from iconographic descriptions found in
  religious texts. The names of the postures differ between religious
  traditions. For example the lotus posture in Hatha Yoga is called
  vajra posture in Buddhism. The half yoga posture in Hatha Yoga is
  called the lotus posture in Buddhism.

A problem here is that the term "half yoga posture" is not a standard yoga term (according to a web search). But perhaps they meant "half lotus".

Here, by the way, is a site showing both, using the names from yoga: lotus and half-lotus -- http://www.wildmind.org/posture/lotus.

If my conjecture is correct, these are what's known in Buddhsim as vajra and lotus position respectively. Even if this is correct, however, it does not address the gender connection. Maybe that is just a Vajrayana (Tantric) convention -- male figures use the vajra position and female figures the lotus position. But even if so, I'm sure there is a story behind it.

There is both no gender difference in the Lotus Posture and Vajra Posture or any other difference whatsoever as far as I'm aware. These are interchangeable terms for the same posture - the former has its root in Hatha Yoga and latter in Tibetan Vajrayana. There is, however, a gender difference in the Sattva Posture which is often recommended in Tibetan traditions if full lotus is not possible. This is maybe where the misunderstanding may have started? In the  'The Tibetan Yoga of Breath: Breathing Practices for Healing the Body and Cultivating Wisdom':

  Sattva posture is done differently for males and females, but both can begin by sitting cross-legged on the floor. Elevating the hips so that they rest above the knees makes the posture easier to hold, so we need to sit on a pillow or cushion. For males, the left leg is tucked in closer to the body and the left foot placed on the inner right thigh, while the right leg rests in the front. For females it is the opposite: the left leg rests in the front and the right leg is tucked, with the right foot resting on the inner left thigh. This posture is similar to a half lotus posture, except that one leg rests in front of the body for balance.


Can trying to control the mind also lead to attachment? When we become attached to our body, we do workouts, wear make-up and do lots of other things to gain good looks.

When we become attached to our money, we work to get more and more money.

Similarly, we would like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire? (like wearing make-up for the mind?).

Here is my opinion: to understand advanced topics like "enlightenment", we have to have a workout for the mind. Is this workout a kind of attachment and if so is it a good thing? Isn't that a seeming contradiction since we are instructed to abandon attachments?

OP: Simillary, All we are like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire ?

This is the case if you react with attachment and pleasure when the mind calms down and react with aversion and displease when it does not.

In meditating on should not get attached to the outcome. So regardless of your mind gets calm or not one should be equanimous.

But to meditate one needs the "desire to act" which is not desire per se.


Is society the follower of Mara? In day to day interaction, people treat me as if I exist. They say "'Dheeraj' would you like to see a movie?" They say "'Dheeraj' you are
    married." They say, "Would you like to eat spicy food or non spicy food?"
    Socially I am acceptable as an individual called 'Dheeraj'. If society is
    not collectively wrong in their view, then I exist. If society is
    collectively wrong about me, then myself is an error, illusion or
    dream, not just for me but for the entire society... Therefore if there is an escape for 'Dheeraj' from Self then it necessarily means that 'Dheeraj' has to escape from the society which believes that 'Dheeraj' exists. From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self.
So my question is: is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

If society is collectively wrong about me then ,myself is an error , illusion or dream, not just for me but for the entire society...

Yes. Correct. The Buddha said:

174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
Lokavagga

From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self.

Yes. Correct. This is the Buddhist view.

44. Who shall overcome this earth, this realm of Yama and this sphere of men and gods? Who shall bring to perfection the well-taught path of
wisdom as an expert garland-maker would his floral design?
45. A striver-on-the path shall overcome this earth, this realm of Yama and this sphere of men and gods. The striver-on-the-path shall
bring to perfection the well-taught path of wisdom, as an expert
garland-maker would his floral design.
46. Realizing that this body is like froth, penetrating its mirage-like nature, and plucking out Mara's flower-tipped arrows of
sensuality, go beyond sight of the King of Death!
47. As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village, so death carries away the person of distracted mind who only plucks the flowers
(of pleasure).
48. The Destroyer brings under his sway the person of distracted mind who, insatiate in sense desires, only plucks the flowers (of
pleasure).
Pupphavagga

The Buddha taught individual people have different dispositions & inclinations (MN 12). This means people should find a religion that suits their disposition and to not harass other religions. For example, the Buddha did not harass other religions.

So my question is : Is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

Of course society is the follower of Mara. In India, for 100s of years, there has been the evil caste system, with millions of people living in condemned institutionalized poverty. For thousands of years, there is war after war. Only 70 years ago, 50 million people were slaughtered in a world war, including fire & nuclear bombings of civilian cities. The current world has technology to be able to feed & house every person, but there remains war, poverty, greed, abuse. Nations & peoples lives are destroyed in unprovoked wars, such as in Iraq, Libya & Syria. The public internet has evil pornography on it, which governments allow & the people do not object to. The word is full of broken families. Slavery and slave labour has returned. A mafia of billionaires has just become the USA govt; which replaced a murderous war mongering government. Yet most of the American people agree with one of those governments. Of course society is the follower of Mara.

Note: Christianity appears to have the same view:

Question: "How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)?"
Answer: The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions,
goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also
encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The
thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are
under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.
Satan is also called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These
titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for
example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to
signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in
it.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html


Does rational thinking avoid dogma and enhance our wisdom? Rational - decisions and thoughts are based on reason rather than on emotion.
Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Wisdom - ability to use your experience and knowledge in order to make sensible decisions or judgements.
Experience - practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
Knowledge - the facts, feelings, or experiences known by a person or group of people

As per above definitions, "rational" thinking is nothing more than stick to "cause and effect"; and if someone says "rationalism can't provide answer to all the phenomena in nature", that's true due to the complexity of nature and limitations of our perceptions. So here come "wisdom": it says usage of our observation of facts (experience) lead us to reach realisation and understanding (to get free from ignorance or avijja).

As per above:

Is rational thinking wrong thing to do? (or thinking stick to cause and effect)
Does it help us to enhance our wisdom and free from avijja?

Note: I have expressed with my limited knowledge in English so all are free to edit without distorting main idea. Thanks.

There are 3 kinds of knowledge.

knowledge based on thinking (cintā-mayā-paññā). Rational thinking comes under this.
knowledge gained by learning from others (suta-mayā-paññā)
knowledge based on mental development or meditation (bhāvanā-mayā-paññā)

Only the third kind of knowledge leads one to freedom from suffering. One can never attain enlightenment by thinking up theories.


How is Cakkhupālattheravatthu pronounced exactly? I read stories about the monk called Cakkhupālattheravatthu, but still don't know how this name is pronounced? Can anyone please tell me the exact pronunciation of this name or word?

How is Cakkhupālattheravatthu pronounced exactly?

In the video "Dhammapada Verse One: Mind Precedes All Things", by Ven. Yuttadhammo, the pronunciation can be heard at 5:21 min. into the video.


4 stages of enlightenment? Wikipedia currently describes the 4 stages of enlightenment thusly:

A Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna) is free from:

Identity view (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi), the belief that there is an unchanging self or soul in the five impermanent skandhas
Attachment to rites and rituals
Doubt about the teachings

A Once-returner (Sakadāgāmin) has greatly attenuated:

Sensual desire
Ill will A Non-returner

(Anāgāmi) is free from:

Sensual desire
Ill will

An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five higher fetters, which are:

Attachment to the four meditative absorptions, which have form (rupa jhana)
Attachment to the four formless absorptions (ārupa jhana)
Conceit
Restlessness
Ignorance

I find this to be very confusing because, from personal experience, I believe that it is possible to

liberate oneself from "conceit" and
liberate oneself from "ignorance" and yet
for the compulsions to "ill will" to still arise very strongly.

It seems that I am missing something big and perhaps obvious to others who have a superior understanding of the 4 stages?
To aid in clarity of communication, I will precisely define the terms I am using:
By the extinguishment of "conceit", I mean
training the mind to detect the arising of conceit and
to reflexively respond forcefully to never allow it to arise again and give rise to suffering.
And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter.
By the extinguishment of "ignorance", I mean
training the mind to recognize the arising of the compulsion to avoidance and
to reflexively respond forcefully to turn towards the discomfort in search of understanding instead.
And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter.
By the "compulsion to ill will to arise very strongly", I mean
recognizing the arising of "ill will",
recognizing that it originates in clinging to a desire for a particular sensory experience,
but allowing it to arise and be transformed into a form of skillful aversion that is more appropriate for the circumstance.

The four stages are not related to "reflexively respond forcefully to never allow it to arise again and give rise to suffering". To volitionally not allow defilements to arise is called 'mindfulness & clear comprehension' and also 'sense restraint', as follows:

Thus associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing
the good Dhamma. Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up
faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention. Careful
attention, becoming full, fills up mindfulness & clear
comprehension (satisampajañña). Mindfulness & clear comprehension, becoming full,
fill up restraint of the sense faculties (indriyasaṃvara). Restraint of the sense
faculties, becoming full, fills up the three kinds of good conduct.
The three kinds of good conduct, becoming full, fill up the four
establishments of mindfulness. The four establishments of mindfulness,
becoming full, fill up the seven factors of enlightenment. The seven
factors of enlightenment, becoming full, fill up true knowledge and
liberation (vijjāvimutti). Thus there is nutriment for true knowledge and liberation and in this way they become full.
AN 10.61

The four stages occur due to direct insight or "true knowledge (vijjā) leading to liberation (vimutti)".
Other Pali terms for "direct knowledge", of which there are many, include:

Vipassanā

Yathābhūtañāṇadassana

Sammāñāṇa

"Vipassana" means the mind constantly experiences the impermanence of sense phenomena. When constant impermanence of sense phenomena is experienced, the mind becomes "disenchanted" ("nibbidā") with sense phenomena because it sees nothing (except non-attachment/Nibbana) can provide stable happiness & security. The mind also ends ignorance because it sees the truth of impermanence (aniccam), the truth of lack of happiness (dukkham) and the truth of not-self (anatta). This disenchantment plus its associated "dispassion" ("viraga") and direct seeing of not-self causes craving and conceit to end via direct seeing.
Compare the above, for example, to constantly seeing images of the consequences of war, such as destroyed buildings; dead, burned, injured, raped, thin, sick and homeless people; etc. Merely seeing these images results in a lack of desire towards war. No forceful effort is required to give up enthusiasm for war because the mind sees directly the horrors of war. Vipassana is the same. The mind directly sees the horror of impermanent not-self conditioned sense phenomena and loses desire & identification towards these phenomena.


How much does the Bodhisattva way influence Theravadan practices? I've read Walpola Rahula on this, and so I think I already understand that the frequently held view that the Bodhisattva concept is far less a part of Theravada than Mahayana, etc. is at best an over-simplification and at worst simply wrong. But I'd really like to hear it from the horse's mouth -- i.e. a knowledgeable, practicing Theravadin (hint hint, calling Canada, calling Canada).

The simple fact is, even a slightly more than superficial reading of Tibetan practices (for example) places the Bodhisattva way front and center of all practice. Developing compassion for all beings isn't just a practice off to the side; it seems to permeate everything they do. With Theravada, OTOH, it really does seem to have a different (i.e. lower) emphasis. It's not unimportant, it just seems to be something that tags along, alongside the core meditation practice.

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, but how? How exactly, if at all, is the daily life of a Theravada practitioner influenced by compassion for others and, again if at all, by the Bodhisattva way as exemplified by, for example, Shantideva in the Bodhicaryavatara.

Compassion and the Bodhisatta path are two different things; compassion is a quality of mind, the Bodhisatta path is a determination.  The latter is based, one could say, on a high level of compassion, but it is not equivalent to compassion. It is the determination to not enter into freedom from suffering until one is able to (in Theravada Buddhism) become a fully-enlightened Buddha, one who can teach others without having been taught oneself. From the Jataka Commentary:

  62.   Then loosened I my matted hair,
  And, spreading out upon the mud
  My dress of bark and cloak of skin,
  I laid me down upon my face.

  63.   "Let now on me The Buddha tread,
  With the disciples of his train;
  Can I but keep him from the mire,
  To me great merit shall accrue."

  64.   While thus I lay upon the ground,
  Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire,
  I my corruptions might consume.

  65.   "But why thus in an unknown guise
  Should I the Doctrine's fruit secure?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And be a Buddha in the world.

  66.   "Or why should I, a valorous man,
  The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And men and gods convey across.

  67.   "Since now I make this earnest wish,
  In presence of this Best of Men,
  Omniscience sometime I'll achieve,
  And multitudes convey across.

  68.   "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest,
  Destroy existence's three modes;
  I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship,
  And men and gods convey across.

  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits001.htm

Compassion, on the other hand, is just a mind state that can be cultivated by anyone; we say a Buddha has great compassion because of his sacrifice, but anyone can cultivate it as a meditation practice. See Wikipedia on Karuṇā.

The reason why karuṇā is considered a side practice is because it cannot itself lead to enlightenment, taking as it does concepts (living beings) as its object.

  Now, zeal consisting in desire to act is the beginning of all these things. Suppression of the hindrances, etc., is the middle. Absorption is the end. Their object is a single living being or many living beings, as a mental object consisting in a concept.

  Path of Purification, IX.102

So the best it can lead to directly is worldly absorption (lokiya samatha jhana).

Since the goal of Theravada Buddhism is enlightenment here and now, meditation based on concepts takes a back seat role to meditation on the five aggregates, four foundations of mindfulness, etc., which take ul

karuṇā can play an important role in quelling cruelty in the mind, which is a hindrance on the path, just as metta can play an important role in quelling anger. They are useful practices, just not enough to lead to understanding of reality.

As for the Bodhisatta path itself, Theravada Buddhists in general tend to favour not reinventing the wheel; the path has been opened, why not walk it and encourage others to walk it as well? The only way the path will stay open is if people continue to practice and follow it to its goal; once everyone decides its better to wait until one can become a fully enlightened Buddha, the path will be effectively closed; the question then arises, what was the point of becoming a fully enlightened Buddha in the first place?

The Mahayana, if I'm not mistaken, gets around this quandary of everyone wanting to lead and no one to follow by suggesting that the arahant is not actually enlightened and still has further to go. Or something like that.

So, while there are many notable examples of Bodhisattas in Theravada Buddhism (the king of Thailand, I think, may have hinted at it), for the most part the idea is to keep the path that is already open open long enough to get as many people across to safety as possible. This seems preferable to waiting countless more eons and letting those people undergo untold suffering before the path can be opened again (assuming one is successful in attaining Buddhahood at all).


Is dhammakaya a synonym of 'real nature of things'? Is it correct to say that dhammakaya (the sum of all Buddha's teachings) is a synonym of 'the real nature of reality'?

I would say no, not a synonym, but related. The Dharmakaya (in Sanskrit) is the Truth Body of Buddha. I believe it has the most significance in Mahayana Buddhism where it refers to the purified very subtle body which has the nature of bliss and is mixed inseparably with emptiness.
The real nature of reality is that phenomena lack, or are empty of, true, independent existence.


what is Sakkayaditti whats it meaning I have read about sakkayaditti

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkayaditti

Sakkayaditti means something in Buddhism, Pali.
please help me to clarify

This is a key concept in the Early Buddhist Texts:

MN 64: Anusetvevassa sakkāyadiṭṭhānusayo.
MN 64: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

Identity View is the view that "I am". For example, we say, "I am Chinese" or "I am educated" or "I am poor", etc.
These personal perspectives contribute to suffering. If "I am poor", then "I want to be rich". If "I am ugly" then "I want to be beautiful". Through study and practice, we step away from personal perspectives and abandon Identity View as not satisfying, not conducive to happiness. To be an Arahant, to be a Realized One, Identity View is abandoned entirely.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the heresy of individuality
To be clear, that does not mean that Buddhists are all alike. The Buddha in fact insisted that each of us find the truth for ourselves. What it means is that Buddhists are alike in dismissing personal cravings as unskillful and unwholesome.


What is the difference between Karma and Sanskara Karma and Sanskara seam to be very much related. How are they related and how are they different.

Saṅkhāra refer to all conditioned phenomena. That means everything else apart from Nibbana. Karma refers to volitional acts which is only a subset of Saṅkhāra. All Saṅkhāras come under the first noble truth, i.e. Dukkha. All Saṅkhāras are impermanent. All Saṅkhāras are non-self.


Can anyone recommend some guided anapanasati resources on the Web? I'm trying to take my practice back to the beginning in the hopes of energizing it and I think this might be helpful.I currently don't have access to a teacher so some Web resources would be great particularly some guided mediations that I could follow.

The best is to go to directly to the Sutta or what the Buddha directly had to say about it. There are 2 good translations by Piya Tan:

Anapanasati Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta, Trilinear edition

A more detail explanation of the Sutta is available in Mindfulness with Breathing: a Manual for Serious Beginners, 2nd edition which does a wonderful detailed explanations. (Don't use the 1st as this is a poor translation.) In addition there are some lectures by Budddhadasa Bikkhu: Anapanasati by Ven. Buddhadasa.

For the very basics have a look at: Mini Aanapana.

Also

Anapana Sati Sutta by Bhante Vimalasiri
Anapana Sati Sutta by Ven. Bikku Bodhi

would be helpful guides.

Also you can try to locate a more formal retreat like through: http://www.dhamma.org/en/index or http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ which will solve the issue that you do not have a teacher.


What are the toughest thoughts to 'catch'? While meditating, it is not always clear whether you mind is clear of thoughts or not. Some seems to be more emotions or visions. But if all emotions and visions are accompanied with thoughts which are the toughest to recognize that they are there in your mind?

While BonnWarapol's five higher fetters would be the most difficult to eradicate for all non-arahants, for a beginner in meditation, the hardest to eradicate would be the five hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni):

Sensual desire (kāmacchanda)
Ill-will (vyāpāda)
Sloth and torpor (thīna-middha)
Restlessness and remorse (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Sceptical doubt (vicikicchā)

The commentaries by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera here or by Ven. Ajahn Brahm here, would provide more information on these. This video by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu would also be helpful.


In today's perspective is it possible to practice mindful meditation except bhikkhus? Mindfulness: the Vipassana Meditation is a great methodology to reduce suffering, avoid attachments and gain pure happiness. But in present education, competition, living needs, relationships, responsibilities, duties etc too much are mandatorily attached to a single person. So is it really practical to practice this except bhikkhus?

I don't think it is all that different than in past times. The distractions and duties might have been different, but there were surely many obstacles on the way.

The texts always mention householders and lay people for a reason.

The degree to which you practice or are able to practice may vary on your circumstances; many of those might not be that fixed as one may think, though. Too many possessions to look after? Too many duties that need your attention? If you need more time to practice, change the elements of your life. Downsize.

Most things that we think are necessary or "needs" are really useless if you think about them. With every excess you remove, life get's a whole lot easier.

Also, mindfulness can be practiced in many contexts. You could say: the harder the environment, the better the training.


Severe sensations in throat during Vipassana I have had very strong sensations in my throat since I started practicing Vipassana 2 years back.

They keep changing shapes and sharpness - they started like a picket fence and now are like hard pokey stone(s). They get overwhelming at times and am not able to focus on other body parts.

Has anyone experienced something like this ?
Have you managed to be equanimous in the face of sensations that seem
to be communicating with you?

I haven't had the "throat" experience, but it's not uncommon to have long or recurring periods of some kind of weird painful or uncomfortable physical/somatic sensation. Teachers that I know of link it to the "knowledge of the three characteristics" phase of the Theravada "progress of insight". It's a sign of maturing insight into the non-self nature of your physical and mental sensations.

It's not a reflection on you or the state of your practice- in fact, it may be a sign that your practice is healthy and getting results.

However, if it starts to be accompanied by disturbing imagery or strong negative emotions, especially if it seems linked to memories of past potentially-traumatizing experiences, then reduce your meditation periods and look for professional psychological support before continuing intensive vipassana practice. However, if it stays purely physical/somatic, then it's not that unusual.

You just won't feel equanimous about it in the short term, but your non-equanimous feelings about it can be part of your vipassana practice. Examine the sensations in terms of "vedana" - the quick arising and disappearance of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant feelings.


How is prayer different in Buddhism when compared to theistic religions? We all know the concept of kamma-vipaka and that we should strive and create the causes of our happiness.

I understand the Buddhas only point the way, they teach the Dhamma and we are responsible for walking the path. In this context, why it is so commom for Buddhists to pray? For example, does prayer in Buddhism have a different meaning when compared to for example Christianity?

I can understand why praying is so important in religions with a creator God, because that is the way you ask for all sorts of blessings, but in Buddhism it is not so clear, does praying have a different meaning or purpose?

Why is it so common for Buddhists to pray?

Generally speaking, before going into the specifics of Buddhist practice, people pray because they are looking for a support, because they want to be happy and free from suffering; they pray when things are out of their control, in order to help bring about desired results. Ordinary Buddhists are just people looking for a good future.

As in all things, one can't judge a religion by what is "common" among its followers; it stands to reason that the majority of practitioners in any religion will  not be serious about their religion and practice it only insofar as it supports their worldly pursuits. Hence the popularity of prayer over say meditation.

The Buddha's attitude towards theistic supplication is well-summarized in the Jaataka commentary:

  These greedy liars propagate deceit,
  And fools believe the fictions they repeat;

  He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not God set his creatures right?

  If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

  Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?

  Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?

  I count your God one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.

  Jāt. 543

He also implicitly pokes fun at the concept of supplication in the Ratana Sutta, acknowledging the prevalence of prayer and encouraging higher beings to respond positively:

  O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html

Does prayer in Buddhism have a different meaning when compared to for example Christianity?

In Theravada Buddhism, the word used is adhiṭṭhāna, which means "determination" or "resolution", in the sense of setting one's mind (ṭhāna) firmly (adhi) on something, e.g. "May I be free from suffering". Though the translation makes it sound like a request, it is actually just a means of reaffirming one's commitment to something - one's own happiness, the happiness of others, the attainment of enlightenment, etc.

An example of a core Buddhist determination, one made by the Buddha himself, is:

  ‘Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.’

  MN 70 (Bodhi, trans.)

In other Buddhist traditions, prayer may actually be used as a means of supplication, e.g. to a bodhisatta or even a presumed Buddha.


Anapanasati and Metta Background

Hi all, i have been practicing Metta and self-compassion meditation for a while but have just switched (back) to following the first couple of exercises in the Anapanasati Sutta (translations: Thich Nhat Hanh, Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

I can successfully practice exercises 1-4, but when i come to 5 and 6 i have a hard time to feel joy and happiness (i have a low-grade depression and also anxiety and maybe this is interfering with my practice)

Question

Can we (is it recommended to) integrate Metta practices in the 5th and 6th exercises of the Anapanasati Sutta?

(And how can this be integrated? We may not want to switch the phrases since these are already provided in the Sutta, but thoughts can still be filled with Metta and help us that way)

I'd like to find a way to successfully practice these two exercises so i can continue in my spiritual development and practice of the Sutta

Please provide references if you have!

Grateful for help!

Kind Regards, Tord

We cannot integrate Metta practices in the 5th and 6th stages of the Anapanasati Sutta because the 5th and 6th stages of the Anapanasati Sutta arise naturally from the calming of the breathing at the 4th stage. Metta practises can be done separately.


Can everything be explained as the result of Kamma or not? In his brief introduction to Sivaka Sutta, SN 36:21, Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Sutta has been misinterpreted as saying that there are certain things not explainable as the results of Kamma. His argument, it seems to me, is that because the body is a result of Kamma (through rebirth), necessarily, the illnesses of the body are also encompassed as results of Kamma. But I’m not sure I understand his argument, as in my view, though the body is a result of Kamma, that doesn’t necessarily explain the arbitrary functions and conditions of the body.
Am I missing something? Does anybody have an alternative explanation for Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument?
Furthermore, I read this other translation of the Sutta by Nyanaponika Thera and the meaning seems to change slightly. In this translation, it seems that the Buddha is censuring the Brahmans who fall into the absolutism of saying that everything is the result of Kamma because they haven’t attained that knowledge for themselves, and are instead just following the common views of the time. This would seem to be more in line with MN 101, in which the Buddha refutes the views of the Nigaṇṭhas through a series of very compelling logical arguments.
I am somewhat confused at the moment, and I would really appreciate it if someone could provide some clarity regarding this. I understand that the results of Kamma are not equal to predestination, and that it’s a very important component of the Buddha’s teaching, but how exactly it is that the law of Kamma allows for freedom of choice and variation is what I don’t understand.
Thank you, and Metta.

This is a very good question.
Ven. Thanissaro translated SN 36.21 as saying very clearly below that not everything that happens to us is caused by that which was done before. The sutta gives examples like bile, weather, harsh treatment etc. As you have said correctly, MN 101 reinforces the message of SN 36.21.

So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither
pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip
past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the
world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
wrong."

And yet, in his commentary to the translation of SN 36.21, he wrote that this is not the correct interpretation of this sutta, citing SN 35.145 as stating that the body and mind is old kamma.
SN 35.145 states that the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma, capable of being felt. But, it doesn't say WHOSE old kamma it is.
The suttas below (SN 12.17 and SN 22.85) answer that question.
So, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind definitely arise due to old kamma. After all, they cannot arise spontaneously - they definitely arise due to old kamma. But we cannot ask WHOSE old kamma it is. It is dependently originated - with ignorance as the condition.
This is in line with sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self).
Based on the following sutta quotes, if we say that OUR body and mind arises due to OUR own past kamma, that's an indication of self-view and it's also the view of eternalism.
If we say that the old or new kamma is not done by anyone, that's annihilationism. But this is also a type of self-view.
Instead, the Buddha taught dependent origination. That the self is impermanent, changing and dependently originated.
So, there is volition and there is suffering, but we don't connect them to a specific permanent self identity.
In AN 5.57, it is stated that one should have the view of "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do". But this is only skillful means (upaya) to cultivate hiri and otappa (shame and fear of wrongdoing).
From SN 12.17:

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself
and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created
neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know
suffering, I see suffering.”
“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.”
“Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism.
But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”

Also from SN 22.85:

"And so, my friend Yamaka — 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, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful (suffering). That which is stressful has
ceased and gone to its end."

Also SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’


I had peace initially while meditating and then lost it? I set up a routine to do my meditation where i just watch my thoughts. After some days i found a peace after meditating which continued through out my day. I enjoyed the calmness inside me. Following a stressful period for 2 or 3 days my peace was lost but i am continuing my meditation still. I try to be detached from the results of meditation but the peace was so good, i am searching it now. Did anyone felt this kind of experience ? Any suggestions for me or encouragement to continue on the path ?

States of higher bliss (like Jhanas) might be addictive and therefore, it may become a hinderance in practice in the long run.

Important part is not to feel too attached to such states as they arise by letting go of desires. If they arrive, fine, but if they aren't there, it is fine too. In each of these states of feeling "good" and "bad" there is contained the opposite of it.

  Not seeing what is pleasant brings pain; seeing what is unpleasant
  brings pain. Therefore go beyond both pleasure and pain.

  Don't go selfishly attached to anything, for trying to hold on to it will bring you pain. When you have neither likes or dislikes, you will be free.

It is a hint conveyed there, in Dhammapada, that to achieve states of unconditional higher bliss, freedom and peace in the long run is to go beyond the desire for good, and aversion for not-so-good experiences.


What is it that is re-incarnated ? I have been reading Mahayana philosophy.
It proposes non-self and that self does not exist in the 5 aggregates.

If the self/atman does not exist, what is that is re-incarnated?

How can nothing reincarnate ?

Forget death! Nothing goes from this moment to the next, even when you are alive. Hold one end of a spoon with your left hand and tap at the other end with your right.Your left hand will feel the vibrations as you tap. Now, do you think you felt it because the atoms at the right side of the spoon travelled to the left? Or is it because the particles at where you tapped vibrated 1st and caused the adjacent particles to vibrate as a result and that caused the next set of particles to vibrate and so on? Likewise, life/death/rebirth are just causes and effects. Nothing goes from preset to the future.
.


Question about Vipassana After focusing on my breath during my meditationsessions a couple of years I desided to start practisiing Vipassana. I will like to add that I have never been on a Vipassana-retreat (yet). Im still very interested of practising it, but after some months of doing it I have some questions about my practise:

I tend to struggle to be aware of my tougths as they ocour and when I become aware of that Im following a train of thougths later I "Choke" them or supress them(?). They will stop instantly. This will go on and on during my sessions and it leaves me confused if I am practising this in a productive way.

I guess I still have alot to learn about this way of meditation, but Im still interested to see what you think about this and if you got some advise.

Thanks!

Take a look at Mindfulness Meditation (MN10). This is one of the key meditation suttas. MN10 breaks down meditation as a progression of 16 steps, grouped in four tetrads. The first tetrad is the body tetrad. Your current practice is breath awareness, so you are already doing part of the body tetrad. The following should be familiar to you:

  Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out

Notice that you're not forcing anything. You are simply being aware. This is very important. Just be aware without grasping or rejecting. In particular, do not "choke your thoughts". Instead, invite the mind towards an awareness of and engagement with the steps of the sutta. Following the steps, we eventually see:

  They practice breathing in experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing out experiencing the whole body

And so the sutta proceeds through feeling and thence to mind, etc.

Don't skip ahead, especially if your concern is agitation of mind. Although awareness of mind is a tetrad, it's later, after awareness of feeling. First take care of the stuff that makes sense and is doable. For example, you could spend years doing just the first tetrad. I did. Eventually, your own insight will prompt you to the next step when you are ready. It's not a race to be won. It's more like tending a garden--you can't rush this.

If your current awareness of body stops and skips, be aware of the body in the context of your breath. The breath is already smooth from the prior step, so a gentle consideration of the body while breathing will naturally become smooth. In other words, maintain the breath connection (aware of in/out/heavy/light) as your awareness touches the body.

When agitated, we breathe quickly, sometimes 6 or more times a minute. As meditation deepens, you will find that breathing slows on its own and everything settles. Perhaps you may find yourself breathing 3 times a minute. Or even 2. Effortlessly. As the breath calms, so does everything.


Sanskrit and Pali roots What is the Best , online Sanskrit-English dictionary. I want to do research on the early root meanings and usage of certain Buddhist words in early India. Say 5,000 years ago, or at least, 3,000 years ago.

Personally, the relatively few times I have examined Sanskrit, I have found it more useful than the Pali dictionaries. It is important to be aware Buddhism became totally corrupted in India in its attempt probably under King Ashoka to convert India to Buddhism. Straightforward words such as "jati" ("social identity") were changed by the later Buddhists to mean "physical birth"; which, from a Sanskrit perspective, is ridiculous. This ridiculousness was then exported to non-Indian lands, such as Sri Lanka, Burma & Thailand. The Pali dictionaries were far more superstitious than the Sanskrit I have examined. Fortunately, the Dhamma is preserved due to the excellence of the Buddha's teachings. Words are understood in their contextual use (rather than from the Pali dictionaries).


In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking.
And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

No effects can arise without multiple causes. The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes.
Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must cause by other various origins definitely. The doctor, practitioner, should find the other else instead.
That's why aggregates is called "sankhata (being caused by causes)".