What is meant by unchastity is the taint in a woman? Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 say:

Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ / malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ

This is translated as:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman. (Buddharakkhita)
In a woman, misconduct is an impurity. (Thanissaro)
Misconduct is a woman’s stain. (Sujato)
A woman’s stain is misconduct. (Bodhi)

The above stain specific to women is found among other stains, as follows:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight stains. What eight?
(1) Non-recitation is the stain of the hymns.
(2) The stain of houses is lack of upkeep.
(3) The stain of beauty is laziness.
(4) Heedlessness is the stain of a guard.
(5) A woman’s stain is misconduct.
(6) Miserliness is a donor’s stain.
(7) Bad unwholesome qualities are stains in this world and the next.
(8) A stain graver than this is ignorance, the very worst of stains.
These, bhikkhus, are the eight stains.

Despite this focus on women above, the definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas is addressed to men, as follows:

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
flowers by another man.
AN 10.176

My question is why do Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 focus on sexual misconduct as the stain of a woman (when they are so many other stains, such as listed in MN 7)?

IMO "woman's stain" is a mistranslation (or at best gives the wrong impression).
The whole chapter (of the Dhammapada) is about ways in which the audience (e.g. you or me) may be stained (or are stained, were stained).
(It would be applicable to "a woman" only if she were the reader, the subject, the audience of the talk -- but in the AN 8,15 context, at least, the audience was all men, all bhikkhus).
I think that (i.e. that it's the audience's stain, or that the audience would be stained if they were blame-worthy) is evident from the context -- for example from the start of that chapter of the Dhammapada:

One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver.

... through to the end ...

Easily seen is the fault of others, but one's own fault is difficult to see. Like chaff one winnows another's faults, but hides one's own, even as a crafty fowler hides behind sham branches.

He who seeks another's faults, who is ever censorious — his cankers grow. He is far from destruction of the cankers.

It's meant as advice to you ... and is not a statement that's meant to censure "a woman" (itthiyā).
Similarly you may be stained by ...

Your being lazy in the presence of beauty
Your having a house and being negligent (or, possibly, being negligent because you have a house)
Your misconduct with a woman

The Pali (Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ or malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ) doesn't have all the prepositions which translators add to the English (at most the Pali nouns are declined, have a case ... I think itthiyā is declined like jāti, for what that's worth, so the syntax doesn't distinguish whether it's genitive, locative, dative, ablative, or instrumental; there's no verb).
I think the word-order in the Dhammapada is unreliable (it's highly condensed, to make it verse); but that the word-order in AN 8.15 i.e.

malaṃ, bhikkhave, itthiyā duccaritaṃ

... implies that the word itthiyā is there to qualify the type of misconduct, and not there to be the agent, owner, or object of the stain.

I cross-posted this to SuttaCentral -- Questioning the translation of AN 8.15, “Misconduct is a woman’s stain”.
I also wrote there that I think that the translations (or at least the interpretations) of most of the other stains are questionable too.


What is the name in Pāli and Sanskrit for the ‘body scanning’ meditation technique? I would like to research this method in historical texts, but any search on google for ‘body scan’ only returns results related to the modern vipassana movement.

Kayagata-sati Sutta.  Buddha was explicit that breathing is part of the body, so anapanasati is a sub-set of body scanning.


Animal sacrifices mentioned in the suttas or vinaya? Hindus believe that the Buddha opposed Vedic rites of animal sacrifice in his time, for example, on this page and on this page.
This apparently influenced later Hindus to abandon the practice of animal sacrifice.
In the suttas, we find the Buddha forbidding taking of a life, and this is the first precept.
But are there any sutta or vinaya references showing the Buddha explicitly opposing animal sacrifices as a religious practice?

AN 4.39, AN 4.40, DN 5 and also see MN 55

Then Ujjaya the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
“Does Master Gotama praise sacrifice?”
“Brahmin, I don’t praise all sacrifices. Nor do I criticize all sacrifices. Take the kind of sacrifice where cattle, goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, and various kinds of creatures are slaughtered. I criticize that kind of violent sacrifice. Why is that? Because neither perfected ones nor those who have entered the path to perfection will attend such a violent sacrifice.
But take the kind of sacrifice where cattle, goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, and various kinds of creatures are not slaughtered. I praise that kind of non-violent sacrifice; for example, a regular gift as an ongoing family sacrifice. Why is that? Because perfected ones and those who have entered the path to perfection will attend such a non-violent sacrifice. [AN4.39]

Also see: [DN 5]


How to cultivate Equanimity? Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.

Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta.;

  MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies "equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana.

As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana.

My question is, How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself?

The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as peaceful and exquisite, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

That's quite the complicated sutta!

MN137 has a very detailed and distinct progression. Thirty-six categories, with eighteen for non-renunciates folks and eighteen for renunciates. For both non-renunciates and renunciates, the path to equanimity leads from sadness through happiness to equanimity.

Let's take an example with non-renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon seeing a chocolate bar. They buy, eat it and the hunger is gone. The absence of hunger is seen as "happiness".  Then the candy companies realize that this is a good business and offer many many kinds of chocolate bar (technically, this is called "over-choice"). After eating many kinds of chocolate bars, one experiences a "meh-equanimity" to any particular brand of chocolate bar. This is lay equanimity.

Now let's take the same example for renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon the cessation of hunger after mindfully seeing and eating chocolate bar. They are aware of how hunger passes as food is ingested. They are also aware of a certain aftertaste and afterfeeling once the food is consumed. They are mindful of the changes to their body with each bite of every food. Mindful of the effects of sugar and its ill-effects, they become equanimous towards the sight of chocolate bars, accepting them when no other better food is offered. That is the equanimity of the renunciate in diversity.

The formless meditations lead to equanimity based on unity/singleness. Here one is not concerned about chocolate bars, since that is just a form of food. Instead, one establishes equanimity by the relinquishing of defilements by observing the origin, rise and fall of the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.

That is how I read MN137.


Can buddhists watch horror films/tv shows? I am just a little curious as I do not know. Would they be prohibited for buddhists or would they be allowed to watch?

In short, yes, Buddhists are “allowed” to watch horror films.
The more detailed explanation requires an explanation of Buddhist ethics. In Buddhism there are no “rules,” in the same sense as in other religions. In particular, there is no concept of sin, meaning that one does not commit infractions against a code enforced/created by a divinity or institution. Actions carry a moral weight in and of themselves, but only insofar as they result in certain fruits that either hinder or help liberation. There is no punishment for “breaking” the “moral code.” There are only consequences, so one is encouraged to develop wisdom, to be able to tell apart bad decisions and good decisions. Ultimately, one is responsible for one’s own actions, so one does not ask for permission, nor does one offend an institution or supreme being by breaking the precepts, but one does harm other beings and oneself by performing evil deeds.
So, in general, when approaching any situation in life, Buddhists are encouraged, as the Buddha encouraged his own son, Rāhula, to ask themselves, “Will this action result in harm to myself or others?” So in that line, will watching a horror movie result in harm to myself or others? The answer, depending on one’s tastes and whether one considers being afraid as harmful, is that probably not.


Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights and International Buddhist Ethics Committee Friends, I was surfing online on buddhist ethics and came across International Buddhist Ethics Committee and Buddhist Tribunal of Human Rights.
https://buddhistcourt-gov.net

The tribunal is based out of Hong Kong and conducts trials on countries like Indonesia, organizations like unesco and also Individuals like Ken wilbur,  pronouncing verdicts and publishing them online in general forums

http://www.integralworld.net/visser110.html

http://www.academia.edu/30820216/Judgement_of_Case_Indonesia

http://www.academia.edu/34125176/Ethical_Judgment_on_UNESCO

The President and Judge of Buddhist Tribunal of Himan Rights is Maitreya Samyaksambuddha

https://maitriyana.in/master-maitreya-samyaksambuddha/

Has anybody heard of this tribunal?  Is it a private organization or an affiliate of a legal Buddhist body?

Don't waste a penny on them

H.E. Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha (https://buddhistnations-gov.net/2018/08/01/president/)

Let me break down the name for you

H.E. - His Excellency - This shows Mana or pride. No matter what Buddhist text you follow Abhidharma or Theravada, it will teach that arrogance and pride are illnesses of the mind

Maitreya - Is the reincarnation of Buddha in the current times.

Samyaksambuddha - Is someone who has attained nirvana (there is a lot more to this)

So yes the claim of being the promised Buddha goes a long way in explaining the trait of a teacher which lacks humility

Now, there is nothing wrong on calling oneself H.E. Buddha himself and presiding over a university with rate card without classrooms or any qualifications or lineage whatsoever or anything remotely close to zen or Buddhist values. Some people may choose to do business in the name of Buddha and that’s a moral wrongdoing.

But let's put attention to other things that you asked for.

International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights

These 2 organizations are affiliated to the same university via United Buddhist Nations Organization (buddhistnations-gov.net) registered in 2017

Starting with the domain you can say this site has been created to falsely promote the university as a GOVERNMENT unit.

They conduct trials on individuals for reasons ranging from war crimes to un Buddha-like behavior.

The Tribunal

buddhistcourt-gov.net - A domain registered in 2017

This tribunal - uses a proton mail id and claims to be a legal body that has rights internationally to prosecute anyone it deems fit from United Nations to World Leaders to a common man

They send out notices in legal language accusing vaguely of things like waging war, fraud, and 100s of such things with a threat to malign and defame people. Which Buddhist in his right mind would do this

Just look at some of the cases online and you would see so many cases posted on educational portals and academia.

If they get offended by you, they will put a case on you :) I am doing this at the cost of being at the receiving end of one such notice

Above all, the cases are judged by Mr. H.E. himself - Now if that's not a fair trial, then what is?

So to answer your questions - As someone who has devoted her life to meditation, I can tell you don’t waste your time on this. There is no university, there are no classes and there is a massive scam of scaring people with -gov in the urls

Put that money to buy a big tub of ice cream and stare at it instead :D


English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon Perhaps this should be closed as a 'shopping' question, but maybe translations take a long time to make and therefore there are not too many of them, and they don't go out of date quickly.

The English texts I use seem unreliable. For example:

One book I have (using a 1925 CE translation) has a translation which (because it uses an abstract noun "the lovely") I had thoroughly failed to understand.
In that case, the 'Access to Insight' translation was clearer (using concrete nouns like 'with people' and 'with friends' instead of abstractions like "with what is lovely").
So I have been using Access to Insight.
However when I wanted the Samuddo Sutta, the Access to Insight version is (in my opinion) relatively very inadequate compared to this Buddha Vacana version.

I only found these using Google, i.e. I have no expertise about what translations exist.

Can you recommend any (single) specific translations?
Can you give any survey of what (many) is available?
Or should I ask about translators instead of translations (I'd prefer 'the best' translation rather than the 'historically-first' translation)?

Even if there are too many, are there great/classic resources that any Anglophone should know?

Printed books would be on-topic, though I'm warned that such things might be ten times the size of a bible.
Online or (at least) digital references might be convenient. For example the side-by-side (hyper-linkable) translation feature found on the Buddha Vacana site helped me understand (by linking to the Pali word) what it meant when it said "mental phenomena".
A resource for any European language (English, French, German, etc) would be interesting
Google Translate doesn't do Pali or Sanskrit, but if there's a (free or affordable) semi-competent machine-based translator (accurate although not poetic or idiomatic), that might be good (though it may be hoping too much, to hope for the existence of such a thing yet).

I personally use the following translations:

Paper copies of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations of Nikayas (for example Majjhima) for nice smooth English rendition.
Access To Insight for quick and convenient search.
Dharmafarer for in-depth analysis.

When in doubt, I do my own translation with a dictionary (Sanskrit, Pali, I also use a number of Pali-Russian dictionaries). For this, Sutta Central is a good source of well-formatted Pali texts (it also has translations but I don't like their renditions).


How to Know the Knowing of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta Anicca, dukkha, anatta. I've listened to plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis talk about these characteristics at length.

Take for example anicca. I am asking the same thing about dukkha and anatta.

Suppose one has not yet seen for oneself how all phenomena are impermanent, but has an intellectual understanding of it from listening to the Dhamma.

Is it possible that such a person could, for instance, recognize anicca, but not understand that they have recognized it, thinking, "Anicca is yet to be grasped", when in fact anicca has already been grasped? To clarify, the person might even reap the benefits of understanding anicca. They don't fret about illness, nor about building a career, nor about global warming, for instance. (I have picked a few things from my own life that I am still learning to deal with). Yet the person still thinks, "Anicca is yet to be grasped."

If it is possible, how is it possible and what should one do about it? If it is not possible, why not?

As a guess, does the answer lie in the person's actions?

As another guess, is this a more specific case of asking how to know one's own mind?

There is knowing of Anicca, knowing of Dukkha, and knowing of Anatta, separate from each other. And then there is knowing of all three together, or rather the knowing of vision behind these three designations, in all its implications.

In my experience, it is seeing all implications, top to bottom, is what makes all the difference in the world. I had intellectual understanding of the three marks for years. I even understood shunyata, or thought I did. I even knew that Enlightenment can't be a state. And I still missed the point.

It's all about implications, of all three, together. When you know reality behind the three, and all implications of this reality, then you can be sure you know what is there to be known. Until then, to think "anicca (etc.) is yet to be grasped" would be a valid thought. Why? Because if you don't see how it fits together, or do see how it all fits together but not its implications -- then your knowledge of individual components is obviously not 100% complete yet.


How To Keep Loving Without Reward? Changes can easily come about in all of us, even those we love and trust.
When this happens, how do we keep loving them without expecting anything?

I think this is a question we all ask ourselves at some point
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/attachment.htm

  What Is Attachment?

  In order for there to be attachment, you need two things -- the
  attacher, and the thing to which the attacher is attached. In other
  words, "attachment" requires self-reference, and it requires seeing
  the object of attachment as separate from oneself.

  The Buddha taught that seeing oneself and everything else this way is
  a delusion. Further, it is a delusion that is the deepest cause of our
  unhappiness. It is because we mistakenly see ourselves as separate
  from everything else that we "attach."

  Zen teacher John Daido Loori said,

  "[A]ccording to the Buddhist point of view, nonattachment is exactly
  the opposite of separation. You need two things in order to have
  attachment: the thing you’re attaching to, and the person who’s
  attaching. In nonattachment, on the other hand, there’s unity. There’s
  unity because there’s nothing to attach to. If you have unified with
  the whole universe, there’s nothing outside of you, so the notion of
  attachment becomes absurd. Who will attach to what?"

  Because we think we have intrinsic existence within our skin, and
  what's outside our skin is "everything else," that we go through life
  grabbing for one thing after another to make us feel safe, or to make
  us happy.

Living without attachment is a lot like living without trying to get some outcome in the world. It is living life but not defining ourselves essentially as a companion or a worker or a studier or being just the body.

So not being attached or not having expectations involves loosening up our own self identity that is wrapped up in the world and how it appears. If we are totally comfortable in this moment it is far easier to accept the relationship we have with that person.

Keep practicing meditation every day and have meditation be part of your relationship could be a good start.

Thank you


The 12 links and the womb I think I remember reading that the an unborn child or fetus exemplifies the nidanas in a different way to children and adults.

Am I right that for Buddhists life begins at conception, but this "life" isn't fully conscious, because nama-rupa has not yet developed and so the concomitant links likewise?

Or is the difference between a fetus and a baby more like the difference between a child and an adult?

DO starts with Depending on Ignorance, mental volition arise, depending on volitions consciousness arise, depending on consciousness, name & form, depending on name & form 6 sense base, depending on 6 sense base contact..etc..

It is commonly accepted (?) that the re-birth linking consciousness(patisandhi) descends into the foetus around 6 months.

At that stage of DO the resultant(vipaka) consciousness from previous existence give rise to name & form, which give rise to 6 sense base. These stages are when our form and senses are conditioned according to our resultant consciousness. The quality and characteristics of our senses etc...

Until the 6 sense base become functional and there is a sense object then only is there contact, feeling and the rest of DO.

So things like people playing music for the yet to be born baby to listen to, do make sense when the ear base is developed.

That's my take on it.


What are some resources on Mahayana forms of Meditation? Are there any sources about Meditations of Mahayana Schools?

For example, a great classical source on zazen would be Bendōwa by Dogen, which people jokingly pronounce bend over.

If you include Vajrayana under Mahayana umbrella, then there are bits on tantric meditation in Introduction to Tantra on Lama Thubten Yeshe, or Guru Yoga by Tsongkhapa, which is a manual. In the same subject of Samatha there is great treatise commentary in Alan Wallace's Stilling the Mind: Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence from perspective of Dzogchen. There will be companion book by Alan Wallace Fathoming the Mind: Inquiry and Insight in Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence that takes on another section (Vipassana) of Vajra Essence treaty.

Apart from that, many references directly pointing at texts can be found in this section of Buddhist meditation on Wikipedia.


What are the things to do get large amount of merits? I'm new to this forum.
What are the most merit receiving things in Buddhism?
I already know donating or charity is a good way to earn much merits.
What are the other ways to earn merits?
Thank you.

It is a very important question. Accumulating merit.
If you can undo all your past wrong doings then that will accrue merit.
For example if you have lied in the past and now you have taken an oath to never lie again that brings merit.
If you have collected money by wrongful means and now if you decide to donate all your money then that brings merit.
If you have hurt someone and now you decide to help him by applying balm to his wounds both metaphorically and literally then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to be punished for your past misdeeds then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to self sacrifice for the benefit of mankind then that brings merit.
If you have decided to deeply love the ugliest creature on the planet then that brings merit.
If you have decided to look at all beings with deep love then that brings merit.
If you have decided to fulfil wishes of others then that brings merit.
If you have decided to surrender to Buddha or any other equally compassionate being then that brings merit.
If you have to decided to make others happy then that brings merit.
If you have decided to provide solutions to entangled beings then that brings merit.
If you have decided to face every situation with courage then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to follow the path of Truth then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to maintain integrity then that brings merit.


Work, Love, and Buddhism in the modern setting I am curious as to what the stance of Buddhists would be towards a couple of issues.

Would it be possible to maintain a career, one that you dedicate a lot of time towards and that you actively pursue, while still devoting your life to Buddhism?

Would it be possible to maintain a physical and emotional relationship with someone?

On both of these issues I want to make a clear distinction between applying Buddhist principles towards life, and being a practicing Buddhist. I am concerned with the latter, treating the Buddhist teachings as your primary goal and giving it the utmost importance.

In essence, I am wondering if one can gain true enlightenment while remaining an active participant in the modern workspace and relationship environment, just with different principals?

As an additional tidbit, would pursuing other education or outside pleasures be possible as a monastic Buddhist?

Thank you for any help!

Would it be possible to maintain a career, one that you dedicate a lot
  of time towards and that you actively pursue, while still devoting
  your life to Buddhism?

Vanijja Sutta - On Business
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

Even if one is very busy with work, try to incorporate generosity, even encouraging words, an uplifting smile, live a harmless and balanced life, speak kind and truthful words, devote some time to dhamma study (say even 15 mins of reading the suttas), practice and develop even one of the four factors of mindfulness, or even one of the four right efforts, occassinally reflect on one of the three characteristics, or the dependent origination, such a person can be said to be devoted to the Dhamma.

  Would it be possible to maintain a physical and emotional relationship
  with someone?

Suttas in relation to Nakula Matha and Nakula Pita will be helpful. They wanted to be husband and wife in the next life as well and the Buddha instructed them how to do so :)
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5.2-Nakula-S-a6.16-piya.pdf

Hope this helps even a little.
May you be happy


Is Uposatha on full moons or specific days? I want to start observing Uposatha, but I'm a little unclear on what days it is. I'm finding calendars that it is the days of full moons in Sri Lanka or other countries. Should it just be celebrated on full moons then? For example, I'm in the Midwest of the USA, the full moon in September is September 6 but I'm seeing Uposatha to be August 5 on calendars. Which dates should I observe on? Also, am I correct that the eight precepts to be practiced on Uposatha are:

Do not take life
Celibacy
Do not speak false, no lies
Do not steal
Do not use any intoxicants
Only eat one meal between dawn and noon (does this need to be vegetarian to fit in with the first precept?)
Do not use a luxurious bed that night, so sleep on a sleeping mat on the ground

Are these correct?

I want to start observing Uposatha, but I'm a little unclear on what days it is. I'm finding calendars that it is the days of full moons in Sri Lanka or other countries. Should it just be celebrated on full moons then?

You can use the calendars from e.g. Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar etc.
More importantly is the practice itself, ie. the deepening of ones practice on special days of the months. Its really that which is essential from a practical Dhamma perspective.
The Wikipedia describes it as;

The Buddha taught that the Uposatha day is for "the cleansing of the defiled mind," resulting in inner calm and joy. On this day, both lay and ordained members of the sangha intensify their practice, deepen their knowledge and express communal commitment through millennia-old acts of lay-monastic reciprocity. On these days, the lay followers make a conscious effort to keep the Five Precepts or (as the tradition suggests) the Eight Precepts. It is a day for practicing the Buddha's teachings and meditation.

You can use full moon days in your country or you can use the traditional calculated calendar days.

Also, am I correct that the eight precepts to be practiced on Uposatha are. Are these correct?

The Eight Precepts are:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.

Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Vikalabhojana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).

Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

Uccasayana-mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

In the comments you asked about the 1st precept;

And should the meal before noon be vegetarian to coincide with the first precept?

Several factors must be fulfilled in order to break the 1st precept.
The five factors of the first precept are:

pano -- presence of a living being.
panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

If one of these factors are not fulfilled, the precept is still intact.
For more information, please see "Ask A Monk: Mark Zuckerberg, Vegetarianism and Killing" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.


Suttas which explain how to deal with unwholesome habits Are there any suttas where the Buddha gives advice how to change one's behaviours, like eating addiction,  mindless eating, addiction to entertainment, laziness and all that? Basically giving in into worldy pleasures.

Thanks

Although the Noble Eight-fold Path is the all-encompassing way, one often wants specific advice on "defilements". For example, searching SuttaCentral, we have AN6.58 Defilements describing six factors of dealing with defilements.

  Mendicants, a mendicant with six factors is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a teacher’s offering, worthy of veneration with joined palms, and is a supreme field of merit for the world

The question you've asked is actually quite broad. In fact ALL the suttas answer your question. For example, simply consider that identity view is an unwholesome habit. In this case, one would consult MN8 Self-Effacement. As individuals, we each have our own set of unwholesome habits and it would be best to conduct such a search on a Buddhist Sutta site such as SuttaCentral.net according to your own needs.

Inevitably, one realizes that relishing is the root of suffering (MN1). Sometimes that is enough to let go and deal. Sometimes we need other suttas for more leverage.


How/Why to be moral without believing God or any supernatural entity? Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally Bankrupt? Being devotee I'm automatically moral & lovingly but When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings. How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God? What are the ways to become independent because I want to be moral without being devotee or dependency on the God?

Fire

In Buddhism, fire is used to describe the destructive & harmful mental defilements of greed/lust, hatred/anger & delusion/ignorance, such as in the Fire Sermon.

Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally
Bankrupt?

Yes. Buddhism explains immoral (harmful) mental tendencies occur due to ignorance, not-knowing or cluelessness, as follows:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an
unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In
one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve,
wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of
wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong
effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong
mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
Avijja Sutta

The rationale here about needing God is similar to a violent dog that needs to be kept behind a fence or in a cage; or a evil person that must be isolated from society in a prison.
In Buddhism, it is taught people have an evil disposition due to nature. We can observe the tendency to merciless violence in animals. People have obviously evolved from animals (rather than were created by & in the image of a god).
Buddhism teaches the minds of people can dwell in different mental states called:
(i) human (moral);
(ii) godly (powerful);
(iii) animal (immoral);
(iv) hungry ghost (addicted); and
(v) hell (suffering).
People who are immoral in nature & behaviour dwell within a mind in the animal world & eventually end up in hell (suffering).

When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings.

Genesis 6.5 of the Bible states:

the Lord saw how wicked everyone on earth was and how evil their thoughts were all the time, he was sorry that he had ever made them
and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret

This seems to show following the Abrahamic god creates an evil nature. In other words, the immoral feelings are due to how your religion created you, as explained in Genesis 6 of the Bible.
The history of the world seems to show people who believe in a supernatural entity like God are more evil than those that don't. For example, Christians have been at war among themselves & with others for hundreds of years & have destroyed many indigenous cultures with their imperialism. Even today, the American prison system contains more theists than atheists. I would suggest this is because God-believers want to exercise violent power over others; following the example of God as depicted in various scriptures that show God excising violent absolute power. Even the evil of atheist dictatorial Communism was created by Jews, with a violent dictatorial yet classless ideology similar to Judaism. Thus theistic religions have a tendency to attract evil people who lust for power and who want to act on this earth towards the humans as though they are gods.
Unfortunately, the good human people of this earth have to endure these wanna-be gods, like we must do, such as endure the evil politicians who today run the USA and are God-believers, both Christian & Zionist; who finance & arm Saudi terrorists that murder people while screaming: "Allah U Akbar" or "God is Great".

How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God?

In Buddhism, morality equates with harmlessness. Morality is not a commandment or doctrine but, instead, harmlessness. To understand morality, one must comprehend harmlessness. If harmlessness is not comprehended, it is difficult to maintain morality.
Buddhism explains when you are moral, you no longer harm yourself. Being moral is a method to love yourself & benefit yourself.
If you examine with reason & intelligence the behaviours Buddhism considers to be immoral, such as killing, stealing, promiscuous sex, lying, drug taking, gambling, etc, you will find people who engage in these actions bring suffering & problems to their own lives (and, of course, suffering to the lives of others).
For example, men go to war, return with PTSD & even commit suicide. People who steal, end up in prison or lose their jobs. People addicted to promiscuous sex end up with broken relationships & mental disorders. People who lie are not trusted (even though they make money as evil politicians or business leaders). People who take drugs destroy their lives with bad health. People who gamble & borrow money greedily end up ruined.
Therefore, in Buddhism, we reflect or think deeply about the harmful consequences of immoral behaviour.
In addition, in Buddhism, another method to become moral is to develop 'empathy', namely, 'putting oneself in the place of another'. For example:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.

When the fool commits evil deeds, he does not realize (their evil nature). The witless man is tormented by his own deeds, like one burnt
by fire.

Dandavagga: Violence

What are the ways to become independent?

To become independent, the Buddhist scriptures (SN 56.120) explain an 'animal' mind must realise the Four Noble Truths & practise the Noble Eightfold Path to become 'human'.
The full development of moral empathy is explained in the Veludvareyya Sutta, as follows:

"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to
oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."
"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The
Blessed One said this:
"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?
Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who
wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am
averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not
wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if
someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable
to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes
to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse
to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from
the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the
destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to
commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I
were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit
theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either.
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from
taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified
in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with
the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the
other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is
displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon
another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected
thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to
abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence
from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would
not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the
welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and
agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to
me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict
upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having
reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others
to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three
respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that
would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide
another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech,
exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise
of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his
is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with
harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh
speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus
this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter,
that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to
address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not
be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter,
exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of
abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is
purified in three respects."


Why meditate? want a truthful answer without spiritual terms? What I think of meditation is sitting with a good posture and concentrating on breathing and thinking about nothing. How does this help a person with anything? The only plus point that I can think of meditation is that, during the time you meditate, you forget all the distractions around you and become calm and stress free. Why do people talk about enlightenment?

I saw this definition of enlightenment on Google:

  Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. (Kant, 1784)

Doesn't that imply "Enlightenment" equals "being disciplined, mature and independent"? How does meditation achieve this? Don't we become mature through experience and growth, disciplined through hard work and independent by accepting yourself?

Hence why do we meditate? Why do we say things like "enlightenment can be achieved through meditation" when it can be achieved without it?

Stop spreading non-sense. Both of you. Please refer to AN 10.1

“Sir, what is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?” “Ānanda, having no regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?” “Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of joy?” “Rapture …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of rapture?” “Tranquility …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of tranquility?” “Bliss …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of bliss?” “Immersion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of immersion?” “Truly knowing and seeing …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing?” “Disillusionment and dispassion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion?” “Knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion.
So, Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics is not having regrets. Joy is the purpose and benefit of not having regrets. Rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy. Tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture. Bliss is the purpose and benefit of tranquility. Immersion is the purpose and benefit of bliss. Truly knowing and seeing is the purpose and benefit of immersion. Disillusionment and dispassion is the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing. Knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion. So, Ānanda, skillful ethics progressively lead up to the highest.”

@dhamma4life: Meditation is never forced concentration. Please refer to MN 118

I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.


Does Buddhism teach an apocalyptic cosmology? I've noticed in several places about a coming of another Buddha in the future and a kind of apocalyptic teaching about space and time.

Does Buddhism have an apocalyptic cosmology of space and time?  Will Maitreya Buddha usher in a cosmological transformation of the universe?

Another Buddha -- Metteyya (Maitreya) -- will gain Awakening, his
  monastic Sangha numbering in the thousands
  Digha Nikaya 26 ref- http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=29

I had to look up apocalypse, "the complete destruction of the world." That doesn't seem to be a theme in the Buddhist cosmologies where the universes have no beginnings and no ends.

(EDIT: Hmm, looks like I'm wrong-- the universe periodically falls to pieces and then rebuilds itself.  But it isn't immanent-- a Mahakalpa is a long time from now, and a new universe rebuilds itself every time.)

Mappo, the time when the Dharma is forgotten and no longer taught is a Buddhist catastrophe, but more of a moral one.

Digha Nikaya 26 ag

  Monks, a time will come when the children of these people will have a
  life-span of ten years.  And with them, girls will be marriageable at
  the five years old.  And with them, these flavours will disappear:
  ghee, butter, sesame-oil, molasses and salt.  Among them,
  kudrusa-grain will be the chief food, just as rice and curry are
  today.

  And with them,  the ten courses of moral conduct will completely
  disappear, and  the ten courses of evil will prevail exceedingly:  for
  those of a ten-year life-span there will be no word for "moral",  so
  how can there be anyone who acts in a moral way?

  Those people who have no respect for the mother and father,  for
  ascetics and Brahmins, for the head of the clan,  will be the ones who
  will enjoy honour and prestige.

  Just as it is now the people  who show respect for mother and father,
  for ascetics and Brahmins,  for the head of the clan, who are praised
  and honoured,  so it will be with those who do the opposite.

Mappo also leads to interesting consequences for current times, such as questions on if traditional forms of practice are effective anymore if we don't have a Buddha in the world. This is a big theme in Nichiren Buddhism.

When the Maitreya Buddha returns he is a like the historical Buddha, but in some accounts, much better. For people who care about the future Buddha, it is sort of like Pure Land Buddhism, where you wait to be reborn in a universe with an active, living, teaching Buddha. In Maitreya's case, that happens to be the same universe as our own. By the logic of Pure Land Buddhism, it seems like it would be more expedient to be reborn in the next life in the Amitabha's Pure Land.

Also interestingly, Maitreya played a big role in the White Lotus Rebellions, a political-religious movement in ancient China that lasted several hundred years that predicted Maitreya was returning right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus


In Buddhism what is love meant to be and how is it shown and can two people love each other? In some denominations in buddhism there is a conventional and an ultimate reality. So from the conventional point there could be, to begin with, two people so they could love each other. But in the ultimate reality there is only one, so it looks like that there aren't two people moreover there can't be love between people.

But if I think about that it seems to be strange that there isn't love in buddhism. So what is love meant to be in buddhism and how could love be practised in the ultimate reality?

The Piyavagga & elsewhere refer to at least three kinds of love, namely:

(i) raga (lust);

(ii) pema; piya (affection; endearment);

(iii) universal or divine love & compassion (metta-karuna).

This is similar to the three kinds of love in Greek-Christianity, namely:

(i) eros (lust);

(ii) phileo (affection);

(iii) agape (self-sacrificing love).

People that realise the selfless ultimate reality love others with metta-karuna.


Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect? I read the following verbal kamma on the internet:

Karma can be expressed like the magnetic push or pull that defines the
universal law of 'cause and effect'. Karma follows a similar rule as
le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and in physics Newton's third
law of motion

What is the universal law of cause & effect in Buddhism?
Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect?
Does kamma also involve an equal and opposite reaction?

In Buddhism, the laws of nature based in cause & effect are said to be fivefold, namely:

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of
natural law, or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results."

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Therefore, kamma is only one example or subset of the "principle of cause & effect", called "idappaccayata".
Per MN 136, the results of the same kamma can vary. Per MN 117, the law of kamma is not any kind of absolute truth or law and is only a general law.
For example, two heedless people may engage in sexual misconduct, by having thoughtless aimless sex outside a clear mutual plan of marriage; where one individual falls in love with the other person and the other person loses interest in the first person due to non-mutual attributes.
The heartbroken individual may suffer for many years while the other person may realise the heedless interaction was sexual misconduct and then attain enlightenment via the abandonment of heedless behaviour.
This shows kamma does not involve any equal and opposite reaction. In the Lonaphala Sutta, it is said the results of kamma for a wise person may be trifling; while for an unwise person the results of the same kamma cause 'rebirth' in hell.
In conclusion, Le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and Newton's third law of motion in physics have zero application to the Buddhist law of kamma because the results of the same kamma for each person will have differing degrees.


How to evaluate hindrances? As a meditator, are there categories of hindrances which may occur during meditation practice? If yes, can you please elaborate it.

Perhaps, you're looking for the five hindrances, namely, sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. These definitely hinder meditation, but they also appear habitually in the mind even at other times, for those who are not yet advanced on the path.

This essay by Ajahn Brahm provides useful info:

  Sensory desire refers to that particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste
  and physical feeling. It specifically excludes any aspiration for
  happiness through the sixth sense of mind alone.

  In its extreme form, sensory desire is an obsession to find pleasure
  in such things as sexual intimacy, good food or fine music. But it
  also includes the desire to replace irritating or even painful
  five-sense experiences with pleasant ones, i.e. the desire for sensory
  comfort.

  The Lord Buddha compared sensory desire to taking out a loan. Any
  pleasure one experiences through these five senses must be repaid
  through the unpleasantness of separation, loss or hungry emptiness
  which follow relentlessly when the pleasure is used up. As with any
  loan, there is also the matter of interest and thus, as the Lord
  Buddha said, the pleasure is small compared to the suffering repaid.

  In meditation, one transcends sensory desire for the period by letting
  go of concern for this body and its five sense activity. Some imagine
  that the five senses are there to serve and protect the body, but the
  truth is that the body is there to serve the five senses as they play
  in the world ever seeking delight. Indeed, the Lord Buddha once said,
  "The five senses ARE the world" and to leave the world, to enjoy the
  other worldly bliss of Jhana, one must give up for a time ALL concern
  for the body and its five senses.

  When sensory desire is transcended, the mind of the meditator has no
  interest in the promise of pleasure or even comfort with this body.
  The body disappears and the five senses all switch off. The mind
  becomes calm and free to look within. The difference between the five
  sense activity and its transcendence is like the difference between
  looking out of a window and looking in a mirror. The mind that is free
  from five sense activity can truly look within and see its real
  nature. Only from that can wisdom arise as to what we are, from where
  and why?!

  Ill will refers to the desire to punish, hurt or destroy. It includes sheer hatred of a person, or even a situation, and it can
  generate so much energy that it is both seductive and addictive. At
  the time, it always appears justified for such is its power that it
  easily corrupts our ability to judge fairly. It also includes ill will
  towards oneself, otherwise known as guilt, which denies oneself any
  possibility of happiness. In meditation, ill will can appear as
  dislike towards the meditation object itself, rejecting it so that
  one's attention is forced to wander elsewhere.

  The Lord Buddha likened ill will to being sick. Just as sickness
  denies one the freedom and happiness of health, so ill will denies one
  the freedom and happiness of peace.

  Ill will is overcome by applying Metta, loving kindness. When it is
  ill will towards a person, Metta teaches one to see more in that
  person than all that which hurts you, to understand why that person
  hurt you (often because they were hurting intensely themselves), and
  encourages one to put aside one's own pain to look with compassion on
  the other. But if this is more than one can do, Metta to oneself leads
  one to refuse to dwell in ill will to that person, so as to stop them
  from hurting you further with the memory of those deeds. Similarly, if
  it is ill will towards oneself, Metta sees more than one's own faults,
  can understand one's own faults, and finds the courage to forgive
  them, learn from their lesson and let them go. Then, if it is ill will
  towards the mediation object (often the reason why a meditator cannot
  find peace) Metta embraces the meditation object with care and
  delight. For example, just as a mother has a natural Metta towards her
  child, so a meditator can look on their breath, say, with the very
  same quality of caring attention. Then it will be just as unlikely to
  lose the breath through forgetfulness as it is unlikely for a mother
  to forget her baby in the shopping mall, and it would be just as
  improbable to drop the breath for some distracting thought as it is
  for a distracted mother to drop her baby! When ill will is overcome,
  it allows lasting relationships with other people, with oneself and,
  in meditation, a lasting, enjoyable relationship with the meditation
  object, one that can mature into the full embrace of absorption.

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
  The Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark
  cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In
  meditation, it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even
  lead to falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.

  The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.

  Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first
  signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and
  take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in a
  road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

  Restlessness refers to a mind which is like a monkey, always swinging on to the next branch, never able to stay long with anything.
  It is caused by the fault-finding state of mind which cannot be
  satisfied with things as they are, and so has to move on to the
  promise of something better, forever just beyond.

  The Lord Buddha compared restlessness to being a slave, continually
  having to jump to the orders of a tyrannical boss who always demands
  perfection and so never lets one stop.

  Restlessness is overcome by developing contentment, which is the
  opposite of fault-finding. One learns the simple joy of being
  satisfied with little, rather than always wanting more. One is
  grateful for this moment, rather than picking out its deficiencies.
  For instance, in meditation restlessness is often the impatience to
  move quickly on to the next stage. The fastest progress, though is
  achieved by those who are content with the stage they are on now. It
  is the deepening of that contentment that ripens into the next stage.
  So be careful of 'wanting to get on with it' and instead learn how to
  rest in appreciative contentment. That way, the 'doing' disappears and
  the meditation blossoms.

  Remorse refers to a specific type of restlessness which is the kammic
  effect of one's misdeeds. The only way to overcome remorse, the
  restlessness of a bad conscience, is to purify one's virtue and become
  kind, wise and gentle. It is virtually impossible for the immoral or
  the self indulgent to make deep progress in meditation.

  Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
  "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
  even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
  that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
  at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
  clarity.

  The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.

  Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
  map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
  territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
  one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
  teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
  team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
  will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
  follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
  also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
  is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
  the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
  highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.

  The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.

  The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
  trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
  Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
  trust in the driver.


Tirokudda Kanda: Do the dead really benefit from the gift given by the living? Tirokudda Kanda briefly out line the benefits the dead receive from the gifts given by the living.. and there are many more injection in the Pali Cannon with similar tone. My question is are we to read these as alogorical or literally? Do the dead benefit from the offering given by their relations?

I have seen these practices in Cambodia, but never had a chance to ask why and how these are done.

Many thanks.

In the Milindapañha the benefit of dedicating the merit of a gift to one's deceased relatives is limited to those who have been reborn as just one of the four sub-species of peta. It's explicitly denied that there can be any benefit to those reborn in hell, heaven, as animals or in the other three peta sub-species. Curiously nothing is stated one way or the other about those reborn as humans.

Rhys Davids' translation:

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/mil6.3.4

I.B. Horner's:
Pubba-peta-panha.pdf

Above post appeared in Dhamma Wheel.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32595&hilit=Merit+transfer


How can I become less affected by politics? since I started my buddhist practice some five years ago, I have made great advancements. I think I've become much more accepting and loving towards others. I used to be cynical and arrogant and I suppose I've since reached a point where I can claim to be free of both. All in all I am quite happy with my life nowadays. I feel no hatred anymore and have become tolerant towards more or less everybody and every aspect of life.

There is one exception however that is really nagging on me: I am an avid follower of politics and can get stirred up by political events, decisions or politicians themselves that are opposed to my own political convictions. Sometimes it is enough for me to see a certain politician to become filled with - I don't know if you might call it hatred - but at least a feeling of great antipathy, even disgust. I know that the person behind the political façade might very well be likable and live a normal life with her or his own needs and worries, personal shortcomings and qualities, just like anybody else.

I am not even talking about today's great "evildoers" like Kim Jong-un  or even less contested politicians like Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán. It's mostly politicians on a national or even regional level that are able to cause those bad feelings in me.

My wish is on the one hand to see and accept those people as being regular living beings like you and me that need to be loved and understood just like everybody else. Something that I nowadays don't find hard to see in virtually everybody else, even (bad) criminals. In some ways I even find it easier to feel compassion for somebody like Kim Jong-un than for some of Germany's or France's politicians, i.e. the countries that I feel most closely connected to. To be quite frank, I don't have the slightest idea why I find this so hard to achieve.

On the other hand I would like to be less affected by political issues in general. I know that it might not be the wisest stance to take, but I sometimes think I wouldn't mind losing interest in the local and international political scene altogether because I have the impression that I can't distance myself from it and that it is in some way poisoning my thoughts.

Has anybody else on here made similar experiences or has got some advice on how I can "fix" this strange condition? I already practise metta meditation and it does have a very positive effect on me, like I described above. It just does not seem to achieve much in this regard.

Thanks!

This is an easy one. Stop looking at the media so much. The media is not reality. It's a small negatively skewed snippet of it. There is so much more to life than the perpetual negativity we see in the media.

It's only in recent times that the media has become way more invasive.
We now have 24/7 news cycles and people walk around addicted to and staring at devises all day. All that negativity is going into your mind and colouring your world view. It pretty much works the same way as porn. People are addicted to the dopamine/adrenaline hit they get when something in the media fires them up.

The politicians thrive on dividing people. Refuse to play into their game. Stop watcing it just for a few days and notice how much calmer you feel.   It's good to stay informed about important world issues but that but does not mean habitually checking the media every 5 minutes or even everyday. If Kim Jung is about to launch another missile what can I do about it?? Nothing!! So why do I need to know about it? So I can go on Facebook and rant? I don't need to know. It's pointless. Far better to use your energy in effecting real change where you can.

You will need to break the habit. It's the only way. If you continue to look at that stuff on a daily basis it will continue to colour your mind in that divisive angry way that only politics can do.  Let go of it. You don't need it.


Passion or Meditation I have a silly question following...

I have a passion for film making and also I like to meditate to attain peace. I am the cat on the wall right now. I have just a single life, so what should I choose between these both.

Go out and follow my passion or just be calm and meditate????

Mumonkan Case 35: Seijõ's Soul is Separated

  Goso recounted:
  'During the T'ang dynasty, there lived a girl named named Seijo. Seijo
  was enamored by a boy named Ochu who lived in her town. The people of
  her village used to call them the "old couple" for everywhere that
  Seijo and Ochu went, they held hands and were inseparable. As Seijo
  grew up her father turned his attention to the question of a suitable
  husband for her and eventually selected a good and strong young man.
  But Seijo had no interest in him. She and Ochu had already promised
  their selves to each other.

  The wedding went on as her father had planned and Ochu, unable to bear
  the prospect of witnessing the loss of his beloved, left the village
  without saying farewell. He took his boat and rowed into the night. As
  he rowed he noticed the outline of a figure running along the bank. He
  put into the shore to see who it was; and there was Seijo, tear
  stained and adamant. Together they traveled to a distant land where
  they lived as man and wife. Five years went by. Seijo gave birth to
  two girls. But though she loved Ochu and the children, she was weighed
  down by the dishonor she'd done to her father. All this she told to
  Ochu. And he admitted that he too longed for his homeland.

  "Let us go back and beg forgiveness," he said.

  And so they returned. At the port, Ochu left Seijo and the girls while
  he walked to the village. He went directly to Chokan's house,
  confessed the whole story, and bowed his head at their ungrateful
  behaviour. Chokan received him kindly.

  "Which girl do you mean?" he asked.  "Your daughter Seijo," Ochu
  replied.  "That is not possible," Chokan said. "Seijo is here in the
  house with me. Since you left the village without bidding her farewell
  she has lain here; she lies here now."

  Chokan took the mystified Ochu into the house. "She has not spoken
  since you left," he said. "It is as if she has been absent in mind, or
  drugged. Now I see that her soul left to follow you."  So saying, he
  showed Ochu into Seijo's room. Hearing the story, Seijo rose from her
  bed, still without speaking, and walked out into the village just as
  Seijo and her children stepped from the cart that had brought them
  from the port. The silent Seijo moved forward to greet her, and as she
  did, the two Seijos were united.'

  Goso then said to his monks, "Seijõ's soul is separated from her being. Which was the
  real Seijõ?"

  Mumon's Comment
  When you realize what the real is, you will see that we pass from one
  husk to another like travelers stopping for a night's lodging. But if
  you do not realize it yet, I earnestly advise you not to rush about
  wildly. When earth, water, fire, and air suddenly separate, you will
  be like a crab struggling in boiling water with its seven or eight
  arms and legs. When that happens, don't say I didn't warn you!
  Mumon's Verse
       The moon above the clouds is ever the same;
       Valleys and mountains are separate from each other.
       All are blessed, all are blessed;
       Are they one or are they two?

So this is the koan that ends marriages, gets people to quit their jobs, and even results in others giving up their practice entirely.  Luckily, in your case, you probably haven't yet made a decision that'd force you into a similar situation.  Hooray!  :-D

A lot of people are drawn to Buddhism because they value a life of calm and peace.  I can't say I blame them.  Who wants to go around getting beat up in samsara with all of it's ups, downs, disappointments, and intense passions when an alternative is available!  But this is kind of a lie, isn't it?  Buddhism really doesn't work that way.  The real purpose of sitting isn't to find calm, but rather to open ourselves to our Buddha nature.  Sometimes that will result in peaceful states of mind, but more often than not, the more we open ourselves up, the more intimate we become with our own internal obstacles.  Instead of calm, we find turmoil.  Instead of peace, a storm rages within.  This can be a little disheartening at first.  When the peace dries up and we are left on the cushion, steeped in sweat and facing down all our internal bullshit, there is always a feeling that we must be doing something wrong.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The question I'd ask of you is which of your two choices really rips open your heart and puts you in touch with your Buddha nature?  Is it the path of following your passion, of facing the headwinds of samsara straight on both on the cushion and in your day to day life, or does your Buddha nature lie waiting at the end of the path of peace and calm?  Down which road can you hear the singing of your heart?

Which Seijo will you be?  If the path you take is the one that opens you up to your Buddha nature, you have the opportunity never to be separated.


In what timeframe was Jataka tales added to Kuddaka Nikaya? I am trying to see whether the presence of certain characters and stories in the Jataka tales can be taken as a proof for them (stories and characters) being known in that form in the time of the Buddha. So, the question is different from the other thread on this forum Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? though related. I would assume that even the commentary portion of the Jatakas are based on some authentic source. Yet, is there a way to know by when these stories (the prose portion of the Jatakas) were added to Kuddaka Nikaya?

Was it by the first council, or later?

Does the author of the prose portion affirm that his commentary is based on an oral linage of the narration coming all the way from the Buddha?

Since some of the characters in the Jataka tales (such as Dasaratha Jataka and Ghatapadita Jataka) are seen in non-Buddhist literature in India, and often developed into dramatic stories later, the scholars in India are divided in three ways:

a) Independent folklore of the time inspired such stories in both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources.

b) Buddhist sources, just like the Jain sources are re-interpreting stories from the epics that were already fully developed and existent, and using it to support their respective philosophies. (I would not like to take this position because the Buddhist versions of the stories are much less dramatic and have not taken an epic-like narration. I don't see any motivation for the Buddhists to make the story less attractive if a more dramatic version was already available.)

c) The Buddhist Jataka tales and other unrelated stories would have inspired some others to later connect them together, modify the characters and develop grand epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata. And, some characters were glorified later through they were ordinary characters in the Jataka tales. (Most people do not think in this line. However, I find this more justified. However, to prove this, it is important to know what is the general consensus within Buddhism and particularly Theravada regarding the date of origination the Jataka commentaries.

While I have not studied these matters greatly, the Jataka appear of a similar genre to the belated Buddhāpadāna & Apadānas, each found in the Kuddaka Nikaya.

Based in those suttas where the Buddha is shown to be extremely strict about the purity & accuracy of his teachings (eg, MN 22, MN 38, MN 62, etc), it seems probable after the Buddha passed away, the Brahmanistic elements were entered into Buddhism (such as depicting jhanas as Brahma gods and the gods of the 33) for the primary purpose of spreading the religion, particularly under the zealousness of King Ashoka.

I think it is important to keep in mind Buddhism became extinct in India due to the Hinduisation of the doctrine; that these ideas about past lives ultimately destroyed Buddhism in the land of its birth.

SN 22.79 is the only sutta that explains precisely & clearly what is meant by the term 'recollecting pubbe nivasa', which is erroneously translated as 'past lives'.

SN 22.79 unambiguously states recollecting 'past abodes' means recollecting when in the past the mind mistakenly & ignorantly regarded one or more of the five aggregates to be 'self'. This is perfectly consistent with the essential Buddhist doctrine of 'anatta' ('not-self').

Given the Jataka are totally contrary to the instruction taught in SN 22.79 & SN 22.59 and given the Jataka were so destructive to Buddhism, it would appear probable they have no relationship to anything taught by the Lord Buddha.


Visualization and visualized meditation I've come here many times for meditation on the breath. I've come to understand this meditation better, but I encounter problems unrelated to meditation.

I've noticed that my memory is rather bad, and that my thought process relies mostly on verbal means. However, I remember being extremely visual at an early age, scoring quite well on visual aptitude tests, and these days I can sometimes visualize complex things. Yet, I fail to use visualization in every day life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication. I am thus very focused on exterior reality, either sensing reality or thinking abstractly.

I'm wondering if visualization meditation would help me with memory and conceptualizing. I must also mention that I have a mood disorder, and though I doubt visualizing could affect this, I am still worried of the possibility. Thus, my questions are:

Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?
Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?
Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?
Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?
Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

I am thankful for any replies.

I'm familiar with visualization meditation, in the context of Tibetan Buddhist meditation.

Those specific meditations were good for my mood as well as a training in concentration. For me it was a very useful start into meditation, though I have stopped doing it for now.

I think it's a mistake to avoid something you're good at, just because you heard that the Buddha is against mental fabrication. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively (though not exhaustively) and I have not heard that one before.

It is a Buddhist truth that thoughts can be misleading, but that should not stop you from thinking. It is merely a useful hint that not all your thoughts are true.

One difference between fantasy and visualization is that in visualization you take control of your mental processes and visualize what YOU want to visualize (or what the instruction is).
Fantasies are basically day-dreams: you let your mind go where it will. Observing those thoughts can also be meditation - but then it becomes mindfulness.

What makes it meditation is that it is deliberate.

So if you are doing visualization meditation - you focus on (in two steps)

making the image clear
concentrating on that image.

If you're doing mindfulness meditation, you will simply note you are fantasizing when you are in fact fantasizing. The noting itself will take you out of the fantasy for a bit, by the way.

There is also Buddhist analytical meditation: it means analyzing a Buddhist truth from all sides. It does go back all the way to the Buddha. And if that is a good thing, then surely ordinary analysis ought to be OK too. It falls under the heading of seeking wisdom.

More about Buddhist meditation: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/thought.htm


How do I practice ' see things as they are'? Further to the answers to this question, I want to understand what literally is 'see things as they are' or as the sutta states, Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana.

My questions are,

I understand that if I am looking at a beautiful woman, I am obviously not seeing as she is, but what when I am looking at a clear blue sky, not clouded by ignorance, lust, and greed, am I seeing things as they are? Or I should necessarily have to have insight into Three marks of existencece? Can I see things as they are without Enlightenment?
If so, can only an enlightened being see things as they are?
Sometimes when we look at a flower we can see something transcendental, something which is greater than the sum of the parts. (Not a concept from Buddhism) but some people have an aura around them, even the Buddha in pictures is shown with an aura around His head. So does seeing this metaphysical reality constitute seeing thins as they are?

In my understanding of the explanations I received:

As many Buddhist concepts, "seeing things as they are" is a pointer to something happening in real life, but not necessarily in a sense we assume. Its meaning is more practical than strictly technical.

Most of the time we are "in our heads". We have so many preconceptions, thoughts, and inner chatter going on, that we can barely see what's going on in the real world. Instead, our vision is limited by our thoughts and preconceptions to such a degree that we barely notice things outside of our frame of reference. We tend to ignore them for two reasons: either

A) in our frame of mind they are not cohesive phenomena, they seem illogical (because we don't understand their inner logic) - and so we tend to ignore them as noise, or

B) they go against our emotional attachment to some sort of theory or ideology, and so we semi-subconsciously dismiss them as fake / illusory / insignificant.

When we learn to suspend our judgement and lay aside our attachments and preconceptions (this is what Mahayana's realization of Emptiness entails in practice), and stop our never-ending inner-monologue, and lose solidity of this heap of overgeneralizations we call "ego" -- then and only then we start seeing things "as they are".

In my experience with it, this vision liberated from preconceptions can be allegorically called "quantum" or "multidimensional". Because we are not limited to one theory and one interpretation of what's going on, we see them all, or rather, we directly see the entire "space of interpretations". There is an element of ambiguity, but it's not regular ambiguity which is hazy vision - instead it is a very clear kind of ambiguity.

It's a very practical, very direct kind of vision. We are simply not in our heads, are eyes are open and we really look around, and see things we have not seen before.

This is the critical point of the explanation.

And then on top of that, as we develop prajna, we begin to "see" "hidden connections" between things. These are not as much some magic properties as abstract relationships of (latent) influence and causation.

Combination of this "quantum" vision and seeing the latent influences is called "seeing things as they are" - in my understanding.


Tradition and purpose of prostration practice In the triratna Buddhist community (who I practice with) there is a prostrations  practice for those going through the ordination process. I'm sure we have taken this practice from another tradition.I'm fairly certain it is Tibetan but can anyone give details of the exact place in the Tibetan practice this comes from and also what is the purpose of this practice. How does it fit into the system of practice and what effects this practice has on the practicioner.

Some texts attribute the original authorization of prostration to the Buddha himself, although they are clear to differentiate between the Hindu Bhakti and guru worship.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html

  However, He did lay down three forms of reverence for bhikkhus;
  wearing the robe with the right shoulder bared, kneeling down, and
  holding the palms of the hands together in the gesture of reverence.
  Prostration at the feet of the Buddha is also mentioned many times in
  the Suttas. Lay people are free to show their reverence in any
  suitable way and people of those times were recorded in the Suttas as
  expressing their reverence variously:

  So the Kalamas of Kesaputta approached the Lord. Having approached
  him, some prostrated towards the Lord and sat down at one side; some
  greeted the Lord politely, and having conversed in a friendly and
  courteous way, sat down to one side; some raising their hands in
  añjali to the Lord sat down to one side, some called out their names
  and those of their clans and sat down to one side; while others saying
  nothing sat down to one side.

  — Kalama Sutta, Anguttara-nikaya iii 65 (PTS edition). See A Criterion
  of True Religion, Mahamakut Press, Bangkok, and The Kalama Sutta,
  Wheel No. 8, BPS, Kandy, Sri Lanka.

And additional evidence of the Buddha accepting prostrations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostration_(Buddhism)

  In the Pali canon, laypersons prostrating before the then-living
  Buddha is mentioned in several suttas.[3] In Theravada Buddhism, as
  part of daily practice, one typically prostrates before and after
  chanting and meditation. On these occasions, one does typically
  prostrates three times: once to the Buddha, once to the Dhamma, and
  once to the Sangha. More generally, one can also prostrate before "any
  sacred object of veneration."[4]

But is there evidence of prostrations by religions previous to Buddhism?
http://www.chayas.com/qidah.htm

  Bowing, kneeling, yoshev la'areS, qidah & prostration [to the one G-D]
  originated in authentic Torah Teachings (the Torah of Moses). It
  certainly preceded Islam and Christianity. It is still practiced (to
  some extent) today and is/was retained by a minority of Jews, even
  during the Middle Ages. And while portions of this original practice
  may (or may not have) been copied by other religions, anyone familiar
  with ancient practice knows we still preserve the original method of
  prostration. In my opinion, a popular return to proper Jewish
  prostration or qidah, (which brings about focused, meaningful prayer)
  will result in a greater level of shifa for the Jewish people (and the
  world). This translates into a greater level of Divine protection
  (based on concepts in 'The Guide' / Moreh Nevukhim).

So there may be evidence of your particular Buddhist sect deriving the tradition, but if your question is where was prostration first introduced there is evidence that others preceded Tibetan traditions.


Which Buddhist schools give importance to cultivation of Jhanas? Which schools/lineages in Buddhism give importance to the cultivation of Jhanas before entering Vipassana, and which schools focus entirely on Vipassana?

This is not an exhaustive or scholarly answer, but:

Lineages or traditions don't necessarily predict how this is taught. I believe Ajahn Brahmavamso, who teaches that it's very important to master jhanas first, comes from the Thai Forest Tradition, but not all Thai Forest teachers emphasize that as strongly. Pa Auk Sayadaw in Burma is also a proponent of jhana mastery before vipassana.

On the other side of things, the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage in Burma emphasizes vipassana from the outset.

All traditions would agree (I think) that a certain degree of samatha is a prerequisite for attaining vipassana knowledges. The difference is in how one teaches the practice, and how strictly one defines 'jhana'. There is always a dynamic interplay between samatha and vipassana, so jhana factors can emerge in formal vipassana practices, and insight wisdom can develop during formal samatha practices.


Where can this story be found? In the story the Buddha creates a golden lotus and gives it to a monk who soon after attains arahantship.
Story is in attached screenshot taken from the book "Fundamentals of Insight Meditation", by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

In the commentary story of Dhammapada Verse 285, good householder.

Cut off your craving as one plucks an autumn lily with the hand. Nibbana has been expounded on by the Buddha; cultivate that Path which leads to it.

Withering...... old-age, sickness and decay...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape from the wheel]


is it possible to send merit for a future action ? is it possible to send merit for a future action ?

may the merit i do  donating the 100$ - help this old lady cross the street etc  go to X person ?

what about may the merit i do today go to X

what about the merit i do tomorrow go to X

Your giving are your merits, it's not possible to share ones merits in such way as thought. Even if giving the money direct to the lady to get a taxi to cross the street, the merits are yours. Taking (a gift) will be a debt, sometimes a debt torward Nibbana, torward those pulling in that direction, but mostly a debt binding to the world, and those after it.

But if the old lady, sees your deeds of sacrify, is able to rejoice with it, to take mentaly part on good deeds, then she has a share on you merits, and it's solvely up to her to take on the opportunity to take parts on your merits.

You good deeds will follow, as well as bad, there is no need to worry about that. Just a matter of crossing the right soil to ripe.

See more in regard of sharing merits and dedication:

[Q&A] Transfering merits - Can one transfer the merits from ordination?
How can merit be transferred?

Invitations like:

  "may the merit i do go to X"

Are your merits. If those who are dedicated are worthy of gifts, even very benefical gifts and wishes.

Anumodana, sharing of merits, is a way to fight ones stingyness and very seldom praticed by "modern Buddhist" since incapable to overcome stingyness. Only a person with firm confidence and those who have overcome maccariya (stinginess), e.g. noble ones, are really able to let others always take part on their good deeds. Many are thoses being slaves of envy of all kinds.

Places and people lacking in deeds of generosity and sharing merits, not used to mudita, for one after a better, should avoid such places, seek for association where such of doing and dedicating merits is practiced, jet hard to find in your grasped world, out of cause.

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


Buddhist chant from video game In the old game, Afterlife (Lucas Arts), there is a song that features a chant. The song is the most peaceful of the soundtrack, in my opinion, and I have always wondered what the chant was. The song can be found here: http://youtu.be/g3bXez65Fx0.

It seems that the song is Buddhist or Hindi inspired. It is similar to the chant played when founding buddhism in Civilization IV. A video of that chant can be found here: http://youtu.be/rUGH7x-i6ww.

If anyone can help me figure out what the mantra/chant of the song is, I would be eternally grateful. I cannot find an answer via Google.

I puzzled out a similar problem on the Thai Angulimali soundtrack which did turn out to be Pali.

As you say, there seems to be two chants; one at the beginning, and another at 1:44. The on at the beginning sounds familiar; I bet it's Tibetan, maybe even Om Mani Padme Hum. I'm pretty sure you'd hear it on one of the movies about Tibetan Buddhism like Kundhun, Little Buddha, etc.

The second one sounds vaguely Indic, but nothing rings a bell. The best I can sound it out to be is something like:

asabha savana namehe

MobyGames (linked from Wikipedia) says a man named Peter McConnell did the music for Afterlife. His email is info@petermc.com. Probably the best lead.


Where can I find video Dharma talks? I'm looking for videos with Dharma talks and am hoping that the community here can help me. Grateful for any links to online talks and DVD recommendations.

Yuttadhammo, one of the moderators on this site has done a lot of youtube videos that people find very useful and you might too. All freely available.


What is the word in Pali that is translated as being by some and as becoming by others? I'm referring to translations in accesstoinsight.org; what is the word in Pali that is translated as "being" by John D. Ireland and "becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu? For example, in Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos -  49. Held by Views.  links and sample translations are given below.

John D. Ireland translation

  "Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings
  hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.

  "And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
  delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Overcome by two viewpoints, some human & divine beings adhere,
  other human & divine beings slip right past, while those with vision
  see.

  "And how do some adhere? Human & divine beings enjoy becoming, delight
  in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When the Dhamma is being
  taught for the sake of the cessation of becoming, their minds do not
  take to it, are not calmed by it, do not settle on it or become
  resolved on it. This is how some adhere.

The word is "bhava" and in my understanding it refers to a particular state of individualized existence: "being a living being", "being a human", "being a person". So it's not about just the mathematical fact of existence, it is about your subjective position of identifying with this particular organism and its personal story, its narrative.

So when Buddha says "devas and humans enjoy being", and "Dhamma is taught for the cessation of being" - it does not mean, Dhamma advocates death or annihilation, it advocates transcending identification with an individual living being.

Does not mean Dharma advocates identitying with Universe  either, that's another wrong view. Instead, the right view is to see the unhealthy outcomes of any and all identification and to abandon identification altogether.

P.S.

As @ChrisW noted, bhava is also notably mentioned in the Second Noble truth as classification of tanha (craving) into bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā. In that context, again, bhava refers to a particular sate of existence - in this case a state of existence that we crave for: "I want to live in a certain way, I want to be X, I want to be surrounded by Y, I want my life to look like Z". Vibhava then refers to not being in a particular state: "I want to stop being poor, I want to stop being sick, I want to stop being lonely" etc.

In all cases bhava seems to always be connected with an idea of self in a broad sense - self not as subject of experience or agent of actions, but rather as one's state of existence.


How does the force of ones karma determine where the mind stream goes? "On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents".
-- Reincarnation by The Dalai Lama

So Superior Bodhisattvas can choose where to take rebirth, but the rest of us can't. So, what chooses where the rest of us get to take rebirth?
How does "the force of karma" determine where the mind stream goes after physical death?
In the case of the Bodhisattvas, is it their mind stream that makes the choice? And when they make this choice, do they choose from available alternatives and just pick what suits them best or do they have the power to create their ideal rebirth?

This question is very similar to another: Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana? In my answer to that question I explained how the bodhisatva who post-pones enlightenment developed.

  How does "the force of karma" determine where the mind stream goes after a physical death?

Many different answers have been proposed and adopted by Buddhists of different schools at different times to try to account for how karma determines where the mind stream goes after death. But no one really knows. We say that this is what happens, but a satisfactory explanation of the process is entirely lacking. We sometimes use analogies to try to explain, but they don't really tell us anything about the reality of this process.

The bodhisatva choosing their rebirth is simply an article of faith.


How do we break an attachment with the Buddha Himself? We Buddhists talk about non-attachment in our relationships, but after breaking all the samsaric attachments, how do we break the last attachment with the Buddha and may be also His teachings?
When the Buddha said 'appo-dipo bhava' ('be a light unto yourself') is that what he is pointing towards?

For those attached to the form or personality of the Buddha, he taught to focus on the Dhamma (teachings) instead.
From Vakkali Sutta:

“For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the
Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
“Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees
the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.