Where did the hindrances originate from? So far I have been exposed to some frontier thinking (thanks for those who truly are helping).

Where did the "hindrances" originate from?

The question is, who or what transpired for us to have these negative  conditions?

For example, the Bible talks in mystery about "sin", which is a transgression of "divine law".

So in Buddhism, somewhere in the universe of mind, is the origin of the hindrances something like craving/desire that gave birth to suffering? From what was that born out off, and for what reason if any?

A new born child is born (refer to MN 64) with the underlying tendencies (refer to AN 7.11) to the five hindrances. The child is born that way.

  For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.

  MN 64

The hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, restlessness & remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt) are just more elements ('dhatu'). To quote MN 115:

  There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will
  element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he
  knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in
  the elements.”

The hindrances come from ignorance & are sustained by the three types of bad karma.

  "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."

  Avijja Sutta

~~~

  the five hindrances, too, have their nutriment ('food'), monks; they are not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of the five
  hindrances? 'The three ways of wrong conduct,' should be the answer.

  AN 10.61

In Pali Buddhism, ignorance is the 1st cause for the creation of the 'worlds' (of mental sufferings).

  And what is the origination of the world? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....from becoming as a requisite
  condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
  & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into
  play. This is the origination of the world.

  SN 12.44

What primitive religions such as Judaism call 'God', Buddhism calls 'ignorance'. For example, Genesis 6:5 describes how God regretted his creation, which shows how God has ignorance. Since 'regret/remorse' is one of the five hindrances, God also has hindrances. God also loves the smell of the the fatty parts of the meat (Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 3; etc), which shows God also has the hindrance of sensual desire.

More modern religions, such as Christianity, teach 'God is love' (1 John 4:8). In Christianity, God has no hindrances because it is said: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).

If the old Jewish God is the same as the new Christian God, maybe this God learned how to be free from the five hindrances from the Buddha, who is the "Teacher of Gods & men" (sattha devamanussanam).


Why is the Heart Sutra so important in Mahayana Buddhism? So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India.

Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism?

Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation.

http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/

It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra.

"Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and there is no attainment whatsoever"

Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth?

Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism:

http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling.

Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization.

Maybe because Clinging/Upadana is such a powerful destructive force even advanced practitioners still have a tough time dealing with. So the non-clinging theme reflected thru insight into Emptiness/Sunyata throughout the sutra would be a great way to remind us about it. That's why in many Mahayana temples, this sutra is usually recited at the end of any session, after other sutras have been recited, sort of a reminder to the practitioner of the Clinging elephant in the room. Anyway, don't worry too much about why it's the most popular or most important. It's a pretty common stock phrase in Mahayana to say this or that sutra is the most popular or most important. You'll see the same thing being said in the Lotus Sutra, the Amitabha Sutras series, etc. Afterall the spirit of the sutra doesn't seems to deviate from the Buddha's teaching about the 3 characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas: impermanence/anicca, unsatisfactory/dukkha, and non-self/anatta. And the sutra simply reminds us that it indeed holds true for all "conditioned dhammas", including the Five Aggregates, the Twelve Ayatanas, the Eighteen Dhatus, the Twelve Nidanas, and even the Four Noble Truths!


Is it good to tell awakening stories? My question to all my dear friend is why people use to share there stories of awakening ?
will it affect the mind of others those who are meditating to find the inner peace.

I think at times it can be helpful, and at times, harmful.

The teachings of the Buddha are his experiences. By sharing his atainments, he helps us all walk the path.

Unfortunately, if you are too descriptive, people will seek your experience in their practice. They may come to false conclusions that make guiding themselves toards the next attainment much more difficult.

I think it may be more helpful to others if someone with attainments focuses on another's practice, and asks them to answer questions that spark introspection that leads them toward their next fruition.


What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning? From Socratic questioning – Wikipedia:

Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems.
Examples of Socratic questions that are used for students in educational settings:

Getting students to clarify their thinking and explore the origin of their thinking
e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Could you explain further?'
Challenging students about assumptions
e.g., 'Is this always the case?', 'Why do you think that this assumption holds here?'
Providing evidence as a basis for arguments
e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Is there reason to doubt this evidence?'
Discovering alternative viewpoints and perspectives and conflicts between contentions
e.g., 'What is the counter-argument?', 'Can/did anyone see this another way?'
Exploring implications and consequences
e.g., 'But if...happened, what else would result?', 'How does...affect...?'
Questioning the question
e.g., 'Why do you think that I asked that question?', 'Why was that question important?', 'Which of your questions turned out to be the most useful?'

Does this sound familiar with any Buddhism teachings/suttas? In specific, I think this has the same idea with koans, but I'm not sure. My interest seems to be about zen and mahayana, however any schools are welcomed.

This meta-topic mentioned the Pañha Sutta, which includes,

There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.

Many of the suttas show the Buddha asking "leading questions", e.g. (the first one which comes to mind is) the Kalama Sutta

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."

I think I found this line of questioning persuasive when I read it for the first time (though I wasn't always convinced by Socrates' for what that's worth).
I'm not sure why the technique can be helpful, perhaps it lets the student experience working something out for themself.
As an aside, I wonder if the technique helps to bypass a student's resistance to dogma. If you made a claim like, "Greed is harmful!", then I might question that, "Oh yeah? Isn't that what makes people work for a living? Don't people say that's the best way to organise society?" Or saying "Greed is harmful!" would be saying that greed is always harmful (and I wonder whether that's true), whereas when the student answers they're admitting that it's generally harmful -- also the question supplies a little more context, e.g. that it's about what's "arising".

The example you quoted, from Wikipedia, isn't quite like that: that seems to be an example of questioning the student's thesis (or thinking), which assumes that the student has a thesis -- whereas the line of questioning in the Kalama sutta (for example, though iirc the "Socratic" dialog was similar) follows the Buddha's agenda and doctrine (unless the Kalamas' "They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?" is counted as a thesis).

The protagonist-who-asks-questions, and especially the story-which-ends-with-a-question, does seem of a feature of Zen stories -- of Nothing Exists for example ...

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

I think that one is (again) a question about doctrine, but this one is a bit practical too: i.e. "So there's some doctrine, more- or less-well learned ... can you practice it?"
When I learned Maths, for what it's worth, the lessons were half theory and half practice: the teacher would explain some theory or a new technique, and the second half of the class was student exercises in applying that technique to some problem.
I think that not all of the Zen stories are so obviously connected to a specific piece of of Dhamma (at least, that I recognise as such), e.g. there is some obvious "moral" to the story (or several orals) of Is That So? but the protagonist isn't so obviously asking a Dhamma question.


Mahayana-specific definition of "a buddha"? We all know the Pali Canon's definition of "The Buddha". The Buddha is one who discovers The Dhamma all by himself without external help, therefore by definition there may be only one Buddha until the teaching is completely forgotten and thus can be re-discovered.

In Mahayana, the situation seems to be different. When Mahayana texts speak about "a buddha" they seem to put a different meaning into this word. In Mahayana, a buddha is someone -- or indeed anyone -- who has attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi - the Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.

At the same time, it does look like in many Mahayana contexts, the term "buddha" may be used rather too liberally. I'm not talking about the precepts, or the laity (which is what I am, at best). We all know that the Dalai Lama is said to be a tulku of Avalokiteśvara, and is presumably a Bodhisattva on the 10th -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Bhumi, and very, very close to enlightenment. I don't know of any similar claims in Tantric traditions outside Tibet. But the Tantric teachings propagated to Tibet via certain Indian masters, ones that East Asian Buddhism claim to share lineage with. Similarly, I know that some contemporary Korean Son monks have claimed to be Buddhas.

  Seongcheol was widely recognized in Korea as having been a living
  Buddha, due to his extremely ascetic lifestyle, the duration and
  manner of his meditation training, his central role in reforming
  Korean Buddhism in the post-World War II era, and the quality of his
  oral and written teachings.

I do not believe this is a complete anomaly. Huineng (the 6th Patriarch in China), as well as writing a "Sutra", was said to be on the 10th Bhumi (at least -- though I have read some Western commentators say this is just impossible with standard definitions of the Bhumis) by his disciple Shen-hui, whom I believe all Soto and Rinzai Buddhists, in deed all Buddhists that base their teachings primarily on Huineng, claim is in their lineage.

I am aware that some Tantric traditions do teach "Buddhahood in this very body".

But equally, there is a tradition of great humility in Mahayana Buddhism. The great Tientai (which mutated into Japanese Tendai) master Zhiyi claimed not even to have the appearance or semblance of enlightenment to his practices. Zongmi, who I believe may still be important in Korea, was of a similar, Hua-Yen and Ch'an, mind.

So, where is "the bar"? E.g., are all genuine masters Buddhas -- or near as darn it. That may seem crazy. But are all Buddhas, according to the Mahayana, reborn from the Tusita heaven?

Traditionally in Mahayana (esp. Zen and Tibetan) the student considers the teacher to be a perfect expression of the Eternal Buddha-Nature, "eternal buddha" in short. While the teacher himself traditionally downplays his realizations, sometimes as far as "These are the words of my perfect teacher and I'm just a dumb guy" etc.

The first point goes in line with the idea that all Teaching about ultimate Reality is by definition an expression of said Reality. Therefore anything or anyone that teaches Sat-Dharma is a continuation of Dharmakaya of Buddha - a continuation of Buddha in short - hence "the eternal Buddha":

  I, Kuntuzangpo, am the original Buddha of all, and through this prayer
  of mine, may all you beings who wander in the three realms of samsara
  realize this self-arising awareness, and may your great wisdom spontaneously
  increase.

  My emanations will continuously manifest in billions of unimaginable
  ways, appearing in forms to help you beings who can be trained.

The second point goes in line with the Mahayana realization that Enlightenment is attainment of no-attainment, and so does not represent anything special to be proud of:

  Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, is it true that when you attained Complete Perfect Enlightenment, nothing have been attained?”

  The Buddha replied:

  This is right, this is right, Subhuti. As to Complete and Perfect Enlightenment, there is absolutely nothing that I attained, and this is why it's called Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.


How does metta sutra develop loving kindness Metta sutra says "May all living beings be happy minded." This seems illogical to me as all living beings cannot be happy minded at a particular moment of time. I also feel that contemplating on anything that is false will not lead me to the ultimate truth. In my view loving kindness should be better cultivated by knowing the true nature of things because if we get insight into real nature of things then we will automatically develop kindness by clearly seeing dukkha and we would be able to understand the suffering of others in a better way. Note: I do not intend to offend great Buddhist scriptures. I asked this question to clear my ignorance.

When you understand the suffering of others, this would result in you developing your compassion (karuna) and not exactly loving kindness (metta). So, compassion is a bit different. Compassion is how one deals with others' suffering (dukkha) while renunciation is how one deals with one's own suffering. Of course, there may be some overlap between the two.

Then what about loving kindness (metta)? This term metta has also been translated as benevolence, friendliness, amity, good will and universal love.

You're perfectly right that all beings cannot be happy-minded at once.

Cultivating metta is about changing YOUR state of mind, and not actually changing other people's state of mind.

Loving kindness is about you changing your thoughts, emotions, intentions, attitude, outlook and conduct, in such a way that it radiates with benevolence and friendliness to all beings (including yourself). It is so that you become the true friend who wishes everyone, without discrimination, to be happy and at ease with themselves. Loving kindness is a cure for one's ill will towards others.

On the other hand, compassion is about you trying to understand the suffering of others and trying to alleviate the suffering of others, or at least not make it worse. Compassion is a cure for one's contempt for others.


Total number of beings in the entire space as we know is constant? Increases? Decreases? I am a being. So are you. According to Buddhism there is not soul and maybe there is nothing called myself which makes this a very tough question to ask. I am living my sansara. A never ending thought processes taking different forms (Human, Deva etc). This thought process or sansara does not overlap with any others or does not branch out. My theory is that the total number of beings (may not be the best word to use) or sansaras of different thought processes (again maybe wrong use of terminology but I hope you get the picture) does not change unless someone attains nibbhana/ becomes an arahath. Is this correct? or can it reduce without it being due to the passing of an arahath? Can it by any chance increase?

In DN 9, the Buddha advised not to speculate on certain types of questions:

“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that the cosmos is finite … the cosmos is infinite … the soul & the body are the same … the soul is one thing and the body another … after death a Tathagata exists … after death a Tathagata does not exist … after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist … after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“But why hasn’t the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are not conducive to the goal, are not conducive to the Dhamma, are not basic to the holy life. They don’t lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I haven’t expounded them.”
“And what has the Blessed One expounded?”
“I have expounded that, ‘This is stress’ … ‘This is the origination of stress’ … ‘This is the cessation of stress’ … ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’
“And why has the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are conducive to the goal, conducive to the Dhamma, and basic to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I have expounded them.”


How many Buddhas are there? If you believe in Shakyamuni Buddha the answer is No, because Buddha
  was clear about the previous Buddha Kassapa and the next Buddha
  Maytreia

If that's the case, then buddha must be very few in numbers. Why so many want to be a buddha and reach nirvana if only very few would win the lotery?

I've heard that there are many buddhas. Sidartha is buddha sankyamuni. That there are many buddha that are simply less famous.

If that's the case, is there any living buddha in the world now?

There had been infinite number of Buddhas before and there will be many more.

In this Kalpa, We already have four Buddhas and there will be one more Buddha. That's why this Kalpa is called Bhadda-kappa.

Extracted it from here.

  In the current kalpa, it is said we are fortunate to have experienced
  five Buddhas. Kusanda Buddha, Konagamana Buddha, Kasyapsa Buddha and
  Buddha Shakyamuni. The Buddha of the future is called Maitreya Buddha.

Read more about Bhadda-kappa from here. At Page 12


How important is motivation in determining the virtue/non-virtue of a karmic action? I ask this question because I assumed the importance of motivation being paramount in determining the virtue/non-virtue of karmic action was widely shared among all traditions. Anyway, I'd like to know if this assumption is correct from practitioners of other traditions.

So how important is motivation in determining whether a particular action is virtuous or non-virtuous?

Are there any actions where motivation is not important? Are there any actions where it is the only thing that is important? Something in between?

Intention is indeed the most important element of karma.

From Dhammapada 1:

  On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have
  no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked
  why Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told
  the following story:

  Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 1: All mental
  phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
  chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
  'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
  that draws the cart.

Also showing the importance of intention is Dhammapada 124:

  At Rajagaha there was once a rich man's daughter who had attained
  Sotapatti Fruition as a young girl. One day, Kukkutamitta, a hunter,
  came into town in a cart to sell venison. Seeing Kukkutamitta the
  hunter, the rich young lady fell in love with him immediately; she
  followed him, married him and lived with him in a small village. As a
  result of that marriage, seven sons were born to them and in course of
  time, all the sons got married. One day, the Buddha surveyed the world
  early in the morning with his supernormal power and found that the
  hunter, his seven sons and their wives were due for attainment of
  Sotapatti Fruition. So, the Buddha went to the place where the hunter
  had set his trap in the forest. He put his footprint close to the trap
  and seated himself under the shade of a bush, not far from the trap.

  When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the
  footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let
  cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the
  bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap
  and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the
  Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained
  fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found
  their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he
  must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and
  arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and
  remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his
  sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the
  forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all
  her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her
  hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."

  When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my
  father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather";
  and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to
  them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father".
  The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and
  his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to
  move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their
  bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha
  expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons
  and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti
  Fruition.

  Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and told Thera Ananda and
  other bhikkhus about the hunter Kukkutamitta and his family attaining
  Sotapatti Fruition in the early part of the morning. The bhikkhus then
  asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a
  sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting
  things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out
  hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the
  sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
  wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
  him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
  also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
  evil."

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 124: If there is no
  wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one
  who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
  intention.


What would be a secular interpretation of animal rebirth For people who don't believe in literal rebirth as animals,(secular or non)  how would they describe the mental state associated  with rebirth in the animal realm?  E.g, if stress is associated with hell rebirth, what mental state is associated with animal rebirth .

'Animal birth' is described in many places in the suttas. It refers to ignorance (stupidity), lacking reflective reasoning (ayoniso manasikara), immorality & the merciless devouring of other beings, including mutual devouring.

Animals merely blindly follow & act upon instinctual drives & desires without having the capacity to reflect upon the consequences. This is the meaning of 'animal birth'.

Below are some quotes.

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

  Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

The follow quote is important because it shows 'animals' can realise the Four Noble Truths, which also show this quote cannot refer to real animals but to people:

  Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) are 'reborn' (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

This video might help understand, which shows Angulimala, the mass-murderer, as a 'animal', being reformed or changed into a 'human' by the Buddha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzrKAzxipY

  THE FIRST OF the Four Woeful States is hell. Hell is anxiety (in Thai, literally “a hot heart”). Whenever one experiences anxiety,
  burning, and scorching, one is simultaneously reborn as a creature of
  hell. It is a spontaneous rebirth, a mental rebirth. Although the body
  physically inhabits the human realm, as soon as anxiety arises the
  mind falls into hell. Anxiety about possible loss of prestige and
  fame, anxiety of any sort — that is hell.

  Now rebirth in the realm of beasts is stupidity. Whenever one is inexcusably stupid about something: stupid in not knowing that Dhamma
  and nibbāna are desirable, stupid in not daring to come into contact
  with or get close to Buddhism, stupid in believing that if one became
  interested in Dhamma or Buddhism it would make one old-fashioned and
  odd. That is how children see it, and their parents too. They try to
  pull back and move far away from Dhamma and religion. This is
  stupidity. Regardless of what sort of stupidity it is, it amounts to
  rebirth as an animal. As soon as stupidity arises and overwhelms one,
  one becomes an animal. One is a beast by spontaneous rebirth, by
  mental rebirth. This is the second Woeful State.

  The third Woeful State is the condition of a peta...

  Buddha-Dhamma For Students

Please note: this is not a 'secular interpretation' but, instead, the true meaning of the suttas.


Meditation for Work Anxiety I started a new job, and when I get anxious my cognition turns to pure incoherence. I second-guess everything, doubt, double-check unnecessarily, make more errors, etc.

What is the best type of meditation to deal with such anxiety-related problems?

If the anxiety is light yet bothersome, gentle restrain anxiety by relinquishing attachment to outcome:

  This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. MN62

If the anxiety is heavier and a bit overwhelming, a firm restraint can be achieved by slowing the breath--rapid breathing promotes anxiety. Regular practice of mindfulness of breathing helps.

  When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial. MN62

Generally, the more you practice the Noble Eight-Fold Path, the more equanimity emerges with the fading away of attachments to identity view. However, that practice and its fruition are gradual. For the longer term, precepts can be enormously helpful.

  A mendicant might wish: ‘May I prevail over fear and dread, and may fear and dread not prevail over me. May I live having mastered fear and dread whenever they arise.’ So let them fulfill their precepts … AN10.71

Also consult with your doctor for additional recommendations. Some anxiety disorders can be quite crippling and medical assistance can be of great benefit.


Do you experience presence of self now? Many of us have been trying hard to understand the Dhamma which essentially teaches impermanence,unsatisfactoriness & nonself.
Buddha famously did not give answer to Vacchagotta's direct question "Is there a self ?" However Buddha definitely said that "all phenomenon are nonself".

Suppose I ask you : Do you experience presence of self now?

What would be the honest reply?

I think that a Buddhist answer is "There's nothing that should be viewed as self".
For example I experience (or "there is a perception/recognition of") "looking at the computer screen", however "looking at the computer screen" shouldn't be viewed as "self" ... it's not permanent.
The "Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN 22.59)" is maybe the most famous sutta about "anatta", but my favourite is the "Alagaddupama Sutta -- The Discourse on the Snake Simile (MN 22)" which I mentioned in this answer, i.e.:

there was no view of self that would not lead to suffering

Or in more detail:

Bhikshus, you may well cling to the self-doctrine that would not cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair to arise in one who clings to it. But do you see any such possession, bhikshus?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikshus. I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it.

See also the topic How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?: where people talk about the difference between a fixed/permanent "view", and a temporary/transient "thought, feeling or emotion".


What must be done before rebirth in the hell realms becomes inevitable? I once read a commentary by a Rinpoche talking about how the karma of killing a single fly grew at an exponential rate.

Since negative karma grows so quickly, what actions, and what amount of those actions, makes rebirth in a hell realm inevitable?

Five offences in Buddhism which are said to irrevocably propel the offender into hell are:

patricide,
matricide,
killing an Arhat,
injuring a Buddha,
creating schism in the Sangha

Smaller offenses like common murder, adultery etc. can still be "repaired" even if with great difficulties.


Buddhist origin of tobacco and its relation to Native American use Can anything wholesome, helpful, wise and skillful be mentioned about the (Chinese and/or nearby regions) origin(s) of tobacco and how it may and/or may not relate to tobacco use among Native American people — especially the types of tobacco Native Americans approve of now and throughout the known past?

Context from https://bodhiactivity.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/the-defects-of-tobacco-and-smoking-dudjom-rinpoche/ on this topic:

Approximately a hundred years after Buddha Shakyamuni’s parinirvana, a Chinese demon, maddened with obsession, spoke these dying words:

“Through my body I wish to lead the beings of this earth to lower realms. Bury my body intact and eventually a plant, different from all others, will grow out of my remains. Merely by smelling it, people will experience pleasure in body and mind, far more joyful than the union of male and female. It will spread far and wide until most of the beings on this earth will enjoy it.”

And a description from a talk https://www.pathgate.org/index.php/audio-teachings-by-lama-dondrup-dorje/18-old-audio-teachings/104-old-the-buddhist-perspective-on-tobacco on the topic:

Lama Dondrup Dorje gives a teaching based on the Terma and prediction of Chogyal Ratna, Sangay Lingpa, Rinzin Godem, Dundul Dorje and other great masters. The teaching explains the origin of tobacco and other drugs, the negative influences of the Four Maras, and the harm caused by tobacco, which brings war, famine, disease and chaos to the world, and separates those who are users of tobacco from ever attaining any understanding of the Dharma, leading them to take rebirth in the lower realms.

Householder Vimutti, interested,

Only that far, as possible related (not so much in folk-culture relation):

The Buddha allowed his monks to make use of allowed medicine to be inhaled via smoke trough nose or moth, as well as using pipes for such treatment, incl. even to hold one fr each of the seven week days and a bag to keep them good.

What is not allowed is using medicine for simple sense pleasure and to take means which cause heedlessness (indoxicants causing lose of moral shame and fear of wrong doing)

There are many sorts of "tobacco", plant-leaves, other plant medicine used in ways of inhalation of their smoke till today and this being so the usual name for this "tobaccos", plants for inhalation, is "medicine" (smoking medicine). Many monks and Yogies, till this days, smoke, of course not always just for medication.

As not really violating the Vinaya, outwardly aspects, smoking tobacco is not regarded as break of precepts principle and very common under monks in SEAsia, at least also because sense pleasure that does only harm possible one self and no other beings.

As for normal smoke tobacco, used this days in most cigarettes, it easy leads to addiction regarded to strong sense-pleasure-addition, so one is not at all encouraged to make use of such.

Medicine, one of the four requirements to practice and maintain the body for that, bas to be taken in this manner:

  Wisely reflecting I will make use of medicine only as an aid to eliminate bodily pains that have arisen, and also to maintain that important condition, freedom from disease. (The Fourfold Reflection of a Monk )

Medizine, in and of itself, is no direct means of practice, while it's use and how to gain it, is.

Smoking of things not causing carelessness (lack of moral shame, fear of wrong doing), for lay people (5 Silas, is no breaking of any precept. When observing Uposatha, use at wrong time, not as just medicine, might be, in regard of mental factor, intention, if for just sense pleasure.

At least: if humans only sense addiction whould be tobacco, there would be no harm of others, no war, no conflicts and nature destruction in this world. People who enjoy other sense-pleasures, stating from using vehicles of nice clothers, even in regard of air-pollution, are no match in harming others at all.

(my person has not investigated the links and teaching given in the comments to the question)

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


What is the minimum I need to do to advance? I practice for something like at least two years--maybe more I don't remember when I started.  I did one 16 day retreat Mahsasi style - as well as two  10 day retreats.  I did periods of meditation at home where I meditated every day. I also keep the 5 precepts

But I don't see my practice advancing. Maybe it's because I don't do a constant practice and sometimes I stop and don't meditate for a month or two.

But I can't be sure that if I decided to meditate constantly that I won't stop in two or three weeks so it also makes me not want to try.

Now because I don't see results or at least not strong ones--and I'm aware that results can be less anger, etc--I'm very skeptical of the practice. I don't have motivation to practice. When I thought I am advancing than I was ready for a long road  but I'm not sure I'm advancing.

I still procrastinate the same as I did before, which is a big problem for me. The most important thing is that I don't see that I am more mindful in daily life than when i started! I don't notice more things. I don't label more things. I usually don't label a single thing all day and not only not label but not notice them as well.

EDIT : still would like to get answers - just saying that for now i started trying tthe idea of "tiny habits" of doing AT LEAST 5 minute walking than 5 minute sitting meditation after i wake up and after i eat - if i feel like more than i will do more

i did try 5 minute meditation in the past - but i didnt try to attach it to an existing habit -   adn i raised the time very fast and i got disapointed when i didnt do the full meditation so i gave up on the 5 minute meditation  - so this time i hope i will keep the 5 minute as the basic

got inspired by this video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKUJxjn-R8

While heavily focused on by western practitioners - meditation is only one aspect towards the cultivation of the mind. If unsupported by the right morality and faith, your mind will be too troubled and unfocused to concentrate on the object of your meditation. In the case of Anapanasati and Vipassana, your object is your breath - but even as you're practicing under Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings, you probably notice that you start off focusing on your breath and noting phenomenons as they arise, but somewhere down the line you realize you've been swept away by a stream of consciousness. Only after the arising of many thoughts, do you even realize this has happened and you try to steer your concentration back to your main object and start once more with the noting. Before you're swept away again...

Thus even if you are able to sit there for a long period of time with the initial intention of practicing meditation, it is difficult to advance.

The keeping of the 5 precepts is a good place to start. But perhaps by investigating the conditioned reality brought forth by the 5 precepts, you can realize for yourself their effects on morality and their qualities of non doubt, non remorse, and arouse sufficient investigative faith to progress.


Felt sense vs visual sense Meditation instructions generally reiterate focusing ones attention on the sensations of breath but attention can mean several things. It can mean placing attention on what you feel but what about what you see?  What I notice a lot is, what I can only describe as my "inner eye", wants to see or visualise something so it generally sees various images either from the past or fantasises about the future etc which is very distracting. Where am I meant to place this eye? I don't know how to just not see anything.   I can place my attention on the sensations of my abdomen rising and falling but that is a felt sense not a visual sense. I have not come across any instruction about this.   Do I place the visual sense on the abdomen? Or do I visualise an object or Buddha etc?

What you see, in this case, are visual thoughts- they're the same as verbal thoughts. They arise due to untraceable prior causes that are outside of your control, and they can't really be stopped. Mental and verbal thoughts are both "sankhara", conditioned formations. We are all VERY strongly conditioned in our lives to grasp on to these formations, to "believe" them, and turn them in to ideas and visions and further thoughts.

When you focus on your breath (or any other meditation object), you're focusing on something real- something you "feel", like you said- but, unlike thoughts and visions, it's something that doesn't feed more grasping.

Each time your attention goes to your object, you slowly loosen the grip that these conditioned formations have on your attention.

So there's no need to place the attention of the "inner eye" anywhere. Acknowledge and accept that these visual images arise, then put them aside.

Later on, you'll start to see how visual and verbal thoughts are both the product of the same movements of the mind. These movements mean nothing in themselves- they're just disturbances, like swirls of milk in a stirred-up cup of coffee- but our storehouse of memories and perceptions fill those swirls with powerful symbolism and apparent meaning.


Bodhidharma leaving for china What prompted the great BodhiDharma to go to China to spread his teachings- why not at home in the first place. Was he the founder of kalari payattu which has become somewhat unknown to us?

This is a long-standing mystery, described in many Zen Koans.  Here are two Koans from the Gateless Gate that mentions it:

Kyogen said: "Zen is like a man hanging in a tree by his teeth over a precipice. His hands grasp no branch, his feet rest on no limb, and under the three another person asks him: `Why does Bodhidharma come to China from India?' If the man in tree does not answer, he fails; and if he does answer, he falls and loses his life. Now what shall he do?"
A monk asked Joshu, "With what intention did Bodhidharma come to China?" Joshu answered, "The oak tree in the front garden."

And here are three Koans from the Blue Cliff Record that mention it:

A monk asked Kyorin, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the West?” Kyorin said, “I am tired from sitting for a long time.”
Ryuge asked Suibi, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the west?” Suibi said, “Bring me a chin rest.” Ryuge brought one and gave it to him. Suibi took it and hit him. Ryuge said, “You may hit me as you like. After all there is no meaning to the Patriarch’s coming from the west.” Ryuge also asked Rinzai, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the west?” Rinzai said, “Bring me a sitting cushion.” Ryuge got one and gave it to Rinzai. Rinzai took it and hit him. Ryuge said, “You may hit me as you like. After all there is no meaning to the Patriarch’s coming from the west.”
A monk asked Great Master Ba, “Apart from the Four Phrases, beyond one hundred Negations, please tell me directly, Master, the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from the West.” Master Ba said, “I am tired today, I can’t explain it to you. Go and ask Chizo.” The monk asked Chizo about it. Chizo said, “Why don’t you ask our master?” The monk said, “He told me to ask you.” Chizo said, “I have a headache today, I can’t explain it to you. Go and ask Brother Kai.” The monk asked Brother Kai about it. Kai said, “I don’t understand nothing about that question.” The monk told Great Master Ba about it. Great Master said, “Chizo’s head is white, Kai’s head is black.”


why the disciples of the buddha introduced the buddism? I read that the buddha had not wrote anything. He was used to speak Magadha language. Then sanskrit and pali language appeared when his disciples wrote down his life & experiences. I have already asked a question on language. This time i have a question that states 'why buddha didn't wrote anything ?'.

(I'll assume the actual question is in the body, not in the title).

Naturally, no one can answer why someone didn't do something but that specific someone (but if you really wanted to know from the Buddha, you wouldn't be asking this here...). But there are practical reasons that could explain.

Writing is not teaching.

While you are writing, you are not doing anything to anyone. Being in a cave for years writing a lot about something, and then having a flood take all your sheets away can render all those years useless.

Writing is not teaching, and it is visible that the Buddha was primarily interested in helping the actual people he actually met and guiding those interested to become masters of the subject, and then, teachers themselves. As any educator can attest, this is the highest form of education.

There wasn't a broad "reading culture" -- though there were written texts -- at that time and place. Thus, there were not many readers.

To be of great value, writing requires an author who knows how to write and many many readers who were trained to read certain language(s). Moreover, writing is taking a chance that not only someone trained to read that language will meet your texts, but also that he will be interested and he/she will understand as it is -- an unreasonable expectation -- since there is no possibility of real dialogue.

Not only that wasn't common as it is today (nor there were any alphabetization goals that I know of), but understanding (and teaching) the dhamma is hard as it is. It is even harder if, before teaching dhamma, one would have to teach how to read. So, it's just a major distraction and the benefits were hardly guaranteed.

Instead he advised people to memorize discourses (real discourses, to real people with real problems) and always welcomed any questions they had -- the suttas are full of FAQs from disciples to disciples, and disciples to the Buddha. That's a real learning setting. And the discourses were texts, though not in written form. Orality, in any case, is not a poor-man's "literacy".


What are the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation? I would like to have a detailed list of the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation.

What is a good suggested duration?

Steps differ by every teaching lineage. But a basic outline would look like this:

Focus on the breath and recognize it as breath, without the thought, this is me, this is mine, this is what I am, this is good, this is bad, etc.
If the mind wanders from the breath, acknowledge the thought in some system of categorizing objects that arise in the experience. The Satipatthana Sutta outlines a neat and tidy system for categorizing such objects.
Return to focusing on the breath.
Repeat 1-3 for duration of practice.

As for duration of practice, do what your body and mind can handle, and work upwards from there. Start with 5 minutes, and if that's easy, try 10 or 15. Try 30 or 60 minutes. But there's no substitute for having a teacher.

On a meditation course, my teacher had me practice 50 minutes of walking meditation, then 50 minutes of sitting meditation, repeating indefinitely. Back in the ordinary world I tend to keep it at 30 minutes (15 walking, 15 sitting).

If you study under a teacher, you will find that every teaching lineage has their own specific steps. For example in the Mahasi Sayadaw school we don't just focus on the breath. We start with rising and falling of the abdomen, and then as skill develops we include recognition of sitting, and then recognition of various points on the body. Out of respect for the teachers I don't want to go into too much detail as I am not a meditation teacher, just a practitioner.

theravadasatipatthanamahasibreathing


Should I consider multitasking while listening to audiobooks? Is it a danger to mindfulness? One of the several advertised benefits of listening to audiobooks is that it is an ideal activity to accompany those many chores, such as washing the dishes, doing the laundry, running outside etc., that considered all together subtract a considerable amount of free time.

For normal people doing this may look like a great idea, but as a meditator and buddhist practitioner I also see which dangers are there in relation to the mindfulness practice. In particular, I am afraid that by listening to audiobooks or, more generally, by conducting too many activities all at once, I may easily undo the effects of concentration meditation and mindfulness or lead my mind too astray.

Even though I'm planning to do the experiment myself, I would nevertheless like to ask: have you ever been able to integrate your mindfulness practice with doing multiple activities at the same time? What have been, specifically, the results regarding listening to audiobooks, provided you have ever tried this?

In my experience, though I'd hardly call myself a mindfulness expert, I don't feel audiobooks and the small level of multitasking they allow me to take on really negatively affect my mindfulness.

I guess, truly, the challenge is to resist the temptation to multi task or listen to books when you SHOULD be being mindful.  I suppose everyone's mileage varies, but I became an avid audiobook listener before beginning my mindfulness practice.

Mostly I listen to these while driving or if I'm doing some menial tasks like cleaning.  These aren't exactly places and times I find myself practicing really being present anyway.

Just my 2 cents.  Hope it helps someone. :)


Compassion for all sentient beings In the Tibetan tradition, and as far as I understand, the Mahayana in general, there’s a lot of emphasis on compassion for all sentient beings. Compassion for all sentient beings sounds great. But I sometimes wonder about this all-encompassing compassion in practice.

An example: I was attending a two day meditation and reflection session this weekend. We did meditation on compassion for all sentient beings. The teacher did not get tired of underlining how importance of no exceptions. It all sounds very nice. At the end of the first day we were discussing meditation on the skhanda’s and I asked if we could repeat this the next morning. Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot. This made me wonder. You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”? Is it a risk that you may slip in to a state where you meditate very “big” and think about you compassion for all the universe(s), but forget “thy neighbor”?

Does the Buddha address this directly anywhere? This tendency to be compassionate when you’re on the cushion but when the chips are down in real life it isn’t that much mindful compassion left?

Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot.

The teacher saying "yes" could be a manifestation of compassion. But the teacher forgetting what he said he would do sounds like a manifestation of heedlessness (the opposite of mindfulness) -- these are two different things.

Also both saying "yes" and forgetting could be heedlessness. It's hard to guess one's mind state even when one is answering a simple thing with "yes".

In any case, "compassion" can be a tricky term to understand. It's generally understood as "the desire to see other beings free from suffering". Sometimes is useful to emphasize it does not mean to actively do what other people ask one to do -- compassion may manifest even as harsh actions.

  You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”?

I see two things here. First, doing or teaching compassion meditation does not make one flawlessly compassionate onwards. Second, that meditation can have a short term goal (as a path to samatha) and long term goal (as a means of transforming one's mind and strengthening the habits of compassion). Out of the cushion is hard to be always compassionate (or always benevolent, or always mindful, or always equanimous, etc), hence the practice.

Having said that, yes, students are included in "all" -- stuff like that happens.


Information on string ceremony I once attended a puja at a Sri Lankan temple where a string was passed around during chanting. Afterwards the monks tied string around our wrists and poured water over our heads. What is the string called? Any explanation on the significance. I notice some people kept the string on for months, others said to cut it off at the end of the day.

While the recital continues there will be found a pot of water placed
on a table before the monks. On this table there is also a sacred
thread (pirit nula). For an all night pirit ceremony the casket
containing a relic of the Buddha, and the Pirit Potha or The Book of
Protection written on ola leaves, are also brought into the pavilion.
The relic represents the Buddha, the "Pirit Potha" represents the
Dhamma or the teachings of the Buddha, and the reciting Bhikkhu-Sangha
represent the Ariya-Sangha, the arahant disciples of the Buddha.
The thread is drawn round the interior of the pavilion, and its end
twisted round the casket, the neck of the pot of water, and tied to
the cord of the ola-leaf book. While the special discourses are being
recited the monks hold the thread. The purpose is to maintain an
unbroken communication from the water to the relic, to the Pirit Potha
and to the officiating monks, (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, the Ti-ratana,
the three jewels.) A ball of thread connected to "The Three Jewels"
and the water, is unloosened and passed on to the listeners (seated on
the ground on mats), who hold the thread while the recital goes on.
When the recital in Pali of the entire book is over at dawn, the
thread sanctified by the recital is divided into pieces and
distributed among the devotees to be tied round their wrists or necks.
At the same time the sanctified water is sprinkled on all, who even
drink a little of it and sprinkle it on their heads. These are to be
regarded as symbols of the protective power of the paritta that was
recited. It is a service of inducing blessings. It has its
psychological effects.
Dr. Bernard Grad of McGill University in Montreal painstakingly proved
that if a psychic healer held water in a flask and this water was
later poured on barley seeds, the plants significantly outgrew
untreated seeds. But — and this is the intriguing part — if depressed
psychiatric patients held the flasks of water, the growth of seeds was
retarded. Read more...

The practice of giving Paritta threads was even done by Pacceka Buddhas in the past.
It's basically used as a symbol of protection. There's no real time limit to how long you have to wear it. If it's clean, you can keep it as long as you want. It can be helpful in many ways. If you feel afraid, you can look at the thread and remember the Paritta chanting event. Remember taking refuge. And feel confident that you are able to handle any situation since you have the protection of the Triple-gem. Wearing the thread can make you disinclined to break precept. ex: "Am I really going to kill while wearing this which represents the Triple-gem?", "Am I really going to misbehave while wearing this sacred thread?" etc.
Wearing a thread or a band for such reasons is much more wholesome than wearing bands/bracelets to make a fashion statement.


Can the body be stuck in a state during practice? So I've been doing vipassana meditation more regularly after my second 10 day regularly. I try to do 1hr to 1.5 hr per sitting and meditate as much as possible during my commute.

I've been feeling many more sensations lately as well as having a deeper feeling for where they reach in my body. I've also had strong emotions regularly coming up and I've had some things that have been happening as well.

I try my absolute best to be equanimous but at times during my meditation my body will automatically tense up And twitch. My main concern is my neck / throat area. Lately when I swallow, I don't feel a bump per say but I feel a spot of tightness which even feels like a ridge that I have to get over when I swallow sometimes. It only happens sometimes.

I've been feeling a ton of tightness in my neck and I've never felt this before since the neck sensations are fairly new. Could it be that something is arising which is causing a shift in the state of my body like increased neck tightness and constriction? Generally after meditation this feeling gets much better so I'm not sure if it's a sort of transitioning state.

I'm not sure. Saw a doctor and they couldn't find anything after feeling my  neck. I don't smoke. I am active and a healthy weight.

Past sankhara and sanna create bizarre experiances when meditation. Don't get alarmed, just look at the sensations and keep meditating.

To rule out any sensations due to medical issue, it is also best to see a doctor when pain or tightness arise. If there is no medical issue then don't fret about it too much and do meditation as usual.


What is Buddhism's view on divorce? In some religions, marriage is perceived as eternal and is a bond that can not be broken.

I believe I have read that marriage in Buddhism is not a formal or well-defined institution as it is in Christianity or other religions, but I am not sure.

In Buddhism, is divorce permitted between lay people ? Is it frowned upon ?

It is frowned upon in cultures influenced by Buddhism depending on the situation. If you are abandoning your family because of your sexual desire or craving towards wealth, fame, power of another person, it's frowned upon. If you are getting divorced simply to get away from responsibilities, it's frowned upon. If you are leaving the lay life to become a monk or a hermit, it's accepted. If you want a divorce because you don't get along well with your partner, you are first expected to try to correct yourselves. Be more tolerant of the differences and resolve your problems according to the Dhamma. There's very good advice on how to lead a successful marriage life in the Singalovada sutta.

There's no 'soul-mate' concept among Buddhists as they don't believe in a soul. But the general advice is to stay celibate until you get married and limit yourself only to one partner afterwards.

There's no encouragement to get divorced in Buddhism. You can make a case with the verse in the Dhammapada Balavagga which says:

  Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him
  resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the
  fool.

But that's for finding friends in general. In case of marriage, it should be applied in the first place, when you are looking for a partner to get married to.


Definition of perception How do I describe this?

  It is the formulation of a conception of an idea about a particular object of experience.

What I am wondering is what the difference is between the above and:

  It is the formulation of an idea about a particular object of experience.

Buddhism teaches there are five aggregates. Consciousness (vinnana) is one aggregate; feeling (vedana) is another aggregate; perception (sanna) is another aggregate; and mental formations (sankhara) are another aggregrate. A 'conception' is a 'sankhara' ('mental formation') and is not a perception.

'Perception' is distinguishing differences in conscious sense impressions (such as different shades of color) and is inseparable from consciousness; as follows:

  Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?" 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus,
  friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It
  perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives
  white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be
  'perception.'

  Feeling, perception & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
  to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

  MN 43

Where as a 'conception' is a subjective idea or thinking that is added onto a conscious perception, as follows:

  Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one
  thinks about.

  MN 18

  He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he conceives himself as fire, he conceives himself in fire, he conceives
  himself apart from fire, he conceives fire to be ‘mine,’ he delights
  in fire. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

  MN 1

The difference between 'perception' and 'conception' is (when conscious sense experience occurs) perception is unavoidable; where as 'conception' is avoidable.

Right now, my mind cannot avoid perceiving the 'shapes' & 'colours' that make up my computer. However, my mind can choose to not make 'conceptions' about those 'shapes' & 'colours'. In other words, those shapes & colours can be observed without the conception of the thought or word "computer".


Disenchanted with Buddhism Im nearly 50 years old and so far in my life I have never found a sense of belonging or any sense of purpose. I haven't found a way to work that offers any sense of contribution or meaning. I have worked in low skilled low paid jobs struggling to make ends meet for over 30 years and going nowhere.  Now I'm at a point where I feel I just cannot do what is required of me in this society any longer. It's soul destroying. I have no motivation or desire to get out of bed and go to some mindless crappy job just so that I can eat and pay my bills while other people make billions for doing nothing and live in the lap of luxury. There has to be more to life than this. I have tried to find other things to do that are more rewarding such as creative endeavours but failed to find the confidence and determination to go out and make it happen and so I just end up back in the same crappy jobs.

So how does this relate to Buddhism you might be wondering. Well I guess I turned to Buddhism in desperation. I felt so bored and disenchanted with life that I thought there must be another way to see things. Buddhism seemed to offer that. So I begun meditating and went on some retreats. I begun learning how to watch the mind.

I have had a lot of psychological insight into the how I am the way I am because of my family etc over the years but this is more from reading than from meditating.
I thought that Buddhism would give me some sense of freedom  and help me to push through and change my life in a positive way but after 6 years I haven't really changed much and now I feel disappointed and disenchanted with Buddhism because it seems to promise so much but deliver so little. The only thing I can say is that I have learnt to react a little less. To notice impatience, anger and other difficult feelings and not react to them. Isn't there more to it than this?
I guess right now I am experiencing a range of difficult feelings and Buddhism would say notice how they are impermanent, notice how averse to them you are, notice how they are not self etc. So I do this but it doesn't make it any easier. They still keep arising and they are still really difficult, uncomfortable and painful and I still want to not feel this way. So then what?

Buddhism is not the answer. Buddhism is not the problem, either.

You turned to Buddhism looking for a quick fix to your life, and now that you haven't found that quick fix after 6 years you are lashing out. I get the impression there is a lot of pent up anger in you. Anger at the world, anger at your job, anger at the so-called "better off" people who earn millions for doing nothing, and now anger at Buddhism for not fixing it for you.

Buddhism is not a quick fix. It is not the answer.

Buddhism is merely a toolkit which enables you to fix yourself.

Meditation is not Buddhism. Going on retreats is not Buddhism. Reading the Pali Canon is no Buddhism. You can meditate all day every day for the rest of your life and not find happiness. You can read every Buddhist work ever written and not find happiness.

Turning to any religion or philosophy and expecting it to put right everything that is wrong is not how to make things better. All you are doing is finding a new target to point the finger of blame at when it doesn't "do it for you".

Meditation doesn't create happiness. It merely calms and clears the mind washing away the unimportant cares of the world and allow you to focus it on what really matters. The mind is "like a rampaging elephant". Only when it is calmed and tamed can you sit on its back and make it go where you want. Meditation calms and trains that elephant.

You can read and learn every bit of musical theory you can get your hands on, but it won't make you a concert pianist. Only practice will do that for you. It's like that with Buddhism. You can know all about it, but if you do not practice it (and by that I don't mean meditating every day), Buddhism will not do anything for you.

The majority of people's problems with the world - not finding their place in it, not being happy with their role in life, not liking what they are doing, etc - is not because the world is at fault. It is their view of the world that is wrong. "With our thoughts we shape the world" is one of the truest phrases ever uttered. You cannot change the world. You cannot even change other people. The only thing you can change is yourself, and that starts with changing how you view the world.

No, it's not an easy task. But that's what meditation is for - to help you keep focused on that task.

As an example:

"You have been in a succession of low-paid menial jobs and don't earn enough to make ends meet."

There are two things wrong with that statement, and both highlight the problems of your world view - of your perception of life. You are not in a "menial" job. You have the good fortune to be in a job that is free of stress and responsibility. Do you really want to be paid lots of money for doing next to nothing? No one is paid lots of money for doing next to nothing. They are paid lots of money to take the fall when things go wrong. They are paid lots of money to make the business decisions that affect the lives of thousands of employees. I for one wouldn't want the stress and responsibility that rests on their shoulders, not for all the tea in China.

You don't have a menial job. You have an easy, care free, job.

If you aren't happy with where you are it is through a desire to be something you are not. A desire to be someone else. You are who you are, not who the media says you ought to be. In the words of Crosby, Stills and Nash: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Most misery in life comes from wanting what you can't have - and if/when you get it you then want something more. That wanting, that craving, is, as Buddha taught us, the cause of all suffering in the world. When you let go of that craving for something else and accept who and what you are, that is when peace and happiness begins.

And you can't make ends meet? So move the ends. Some people get a longer piece of string, and you know what happens to long pieces of string: they always end up in a tangled mess. Some steal someone else's string and tie it to their own.

Or you can try tying it around something smaller. Do you really need a new fancy mobile phone? Do you need that pair of earrings?

A Buddhist Monk has nothing except a razor and a spare robe. My favourite teacher, Ajahn Brahm, tells a story (one of many, he does love his stories. You should look him up on Youtube, his way of teaching will open your eyes). I forget if it was actually about himself or another monk, but it basically goes like this (I am no story teller, so forgive me):

A monk, it may have been Ajahn Brahm, or his teacher, Ajahn Chah, or someone else, I forget, had been giving a talk to the lay people. It was a good inspiring talk, and afterwards one of the lay people came up to the monk full of gratitude and wanting to do something in return. Monks aren't allowed to have money, so he said to the monk "I have $100 here for you. I know you can't have it, but if you tell me what you'd like I'll go and buy it for you."

So the monk starts thinking: what would I like? The first thing that comes to mind is "a piece of paper to write a list on". Then he thinks "And a pen to write the list with". It starts to get dark, so he thinks "a torch so I can see at night would be good too". Before long his list has grown and grown and grown, including such things as a cushion to sit on while meditating, a new bowl for the alms round, etc.

The next day the lay person comes back to see what the monk would like him to buy. The monk says to him:

"Don't you ever do anything like that to me again! I was in torment all night, tossing and turning, making a list of things to get. It was hell!"

... Or something to that effect anyway. The point is, when you start becoming attached to the world like that it only breeds more attachment. And that attachment breeds suffering. It leads to a desire to have more, a desire to change who/where you are through the accumulation of "things".

It is only when you start being a Buddhist, instead of learning about Buddhism, that your life will change - and that change will be instantaneous and surprising.

I myself rarely sit and meditate. However I am almost constantly meditating. Meditation isn't just about sitting in the lotus position going "Om". It's about being still within yourself. I am meditating right now whilst writing this. My mind is calm, my thoughts are clear. I'm financially broke. Both Trump and Kim Jong-Un have silly hair. Life is great.


Why must the goal be everylasting? (Anicca) Why must someone strive for something which is everlasting, e.g. Nirvana? It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent.
It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting. One doesnt need to cling to a belief that there is something which lasts forever. Did anyone come to the idea that everyone cling to the buddha and the idea of liberation?

Well now one could argue that you can enjoy something  which is impermanent and not get attached to it, but that is never really mentioned in the suttas.. it's not about enjoying but always to renounce. Now, I thing that it's not  good to base one's goal PRIMARLY to self oriented ones, i.e. only achieving enlightenment. I know that this is not a good motivation and that one rather focus on others or on much  measureable goals like.. meditating twice per day or showing forgiveness or to apologize for one's wrongdoings.. Agreed on that? I think you all do but still the main goal in Buddhism is to escape Samsara and the cycle(s) of rebirth. Which leads to my second question:

Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again?

I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent. It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting.

That sankharas are impermanent seems to be an observable fact as well as theoretically plausible.

Whether that seems "unfortunate" is more debatable. (reference)

Also FWIW I think that the Buddha defined "unfortunate" (in the first and second noble truths) without mentioning "impermanence".

Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again?

I think it's better for everyone, isn't it -- better for you, for me, for everyone else -- if for example I have metta towards you than if I were to hold ill-will. And better now, not just in the future.

There's the eightfold way, which starts with right view (i.e. wisdom). And there's the three-fold training, which starts with virtue and ends with wisdom. It's a bit like a chain, you can see how it works by examining it from-front-to-back or from-back-to-front ... it seems to me that metta is associated with virtue and wisdom, i.e. it's "right" and "wise".

But I think it's practical. There are many articles written about the brahmaviharas, for example:

  These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

That article says quite a lot while hardly ever mentioning karma and samsara.

I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

I mentioned it in a previous answer yesterday, but in case you didn't catch it there, I think the idea of "greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving" might be addressed in this sutta: Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).


Buddhist view on out of body experience (OBE) Wikipedia defines this as,

  An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience
  that typically involves a sensation of floating outside one's body
  and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place
  outside one's body.

There are numerous studies on people having this type of experience, and I remember Ven. Yuttadhammo once said he also experienced this when he was young.

I think interpretations like astral body projection do not quite adhere with Buddhism.
Are there possible explanations on this from the Buddhist perspective with regards to Five Aggregates?

Why it does not adhere to Buddhism? It does! In all the cases of astral body projection, they were able to see things. What is seeing? Seeing is the union of the light, the eye and the eye consciousness. They had thoughts about what they were seeing and they were aware of what they were seeing. In other words Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, Vinnana. Which means both Nama and Rupa were present. Astral projection does not mean that the mind wanders out without a body. There is a subtle body that goes with the mind. One can't have sensations, if there are no sense doors. Nama cannot be without Rupa except in Arupa realms. That's why beings in the Arupa realms can't see, hear, taste, smell, feel anything.


Which suttas in the Pali canon are relatively early or late? Do people (monks and/or scholars) have a sense of how old (or relatively old) each sutta is in the Pali canon: i.e. which suttas are considered "earlier" or "later"?

If not for individual suttas, how about for whole Nikayas: are some Nikayas viewed as being probably earlier and/or later?

If the answer is "yes", is there a reference on this subject suitable for a non-expert ("suitable" meaning "readable" and "not controversial, generally accepted by other experts" and preferably "identifies the evidence on which it bases its conclusions" ... and preferably also translated into English)?

How does this (notion of some progressive history of earlier and of later suttas) fit with the Buddhist councils? Were different suttas adopted at different councils? The Wikipedia article about the councils gives me the (perhaps wrong) impression that all suttas were recorded in the first council. Do differences arise from when the suttas were transcribed as translated rather than from when they were accepted into the remembered/oral canon?

Piya Tan's analysis of DN 30 includes text like the following:

  Historically,
  the Buddha has none of these superhuman marks, but his authenticity and spirituality are in no way
  diminished or affected. They are at best mythical marks of the fruits of his past good karma, as detailed in
  the Lakkhaa Sutta (D 30).12 We will now examine how and why these marks arose.

  The earliest sources of a full list of the thirty-two marks are the following
  suttas: ...

  Earliest allusions: ...

Should I take that as implying that he has a reference that tells him which are the "earliest" suttas? Or is he saying there that all suttas are the earliest source?

Taking this paper as an example, should I infer that the current state-of-the-art is that some scholars try to decide what's early and late by comparing different versions (e.g. Pali and Chinese) of a sutta: but that though with a lot of work they try that for one sutta, such hasn't been done for most suttas and there's no reference of dates (of specific suttas) nor even generalization (e.g. about Nikayas).

I think I've read various people mention other examples too, of topics evolving: for example that earliest suttas talks about fewer than five lay precepts.

I can't translate the whole of question, however I tried to answer as I can do.

Layers of pali literature already being in buddha-living-period.

There are many pali literature in buddha's time, such as buddha's literature, sāriputta's literature, mahākaccāna's literature, upāli's literature, etc. Because every mahāsāvaka have there own students.

But the most influential literature are buddha's literature and sāriputta's literature.

4 nikaya are buddha's literature, most of the others cannon are sāriputta's literature, because he is the one who buddha said "sāriputta is the best teacher who can teach like me". So everyone always go to meet sāriputta to listen his teaching, in his literature. But if someone need buddha's literature, they will go to meet buddha or ānanda, who is the best in sutta memorizing.

So, abhidhamma is difference from sutta, because commentary said "abhidhamma is memorized by sāriputta". And the other buddha's sāvaka book also have literature look like sāriputta's literature because everyone in buddha-living-period often go to learn dhamma with sāriputta (see:mahāgosiṅgasālasuttaṃ).

7 Vinaya-pitaka, is  memorized by  Upāli and his students. He also author some path of parivāra because buddha said in tipitaka (a.n.) "Upāli is the best vinaya-memorizer" (vinayadharānaṃ yadidaṃ upāliฯ).

Suttanta-pitaka is memorized by Ānanda. But in 1st saṅgayanā, 500 arahanta decide to separate whole sutta to 4 nikya.Then they gave each nikya to a group of 4 etadagga and his student to especially memorize it.

Who are the members, of group of 4 etadagga?  Ānanda and his students (tn), Sāriputta's students (mn), Kassapa and his students (sn), Anuruddha and his students (an). (The others have learned and memorized dhamma, too, but buddha said "ānanda is the best", so everyone need him in 1st saṅgayanā).

Abhidhamma-pitaka, paṭisambhidāmagga, niddesa, buddhavaṃsa, cariyā-pitaka, except kathāvatthu of moggalliputta, is learned by Sāriputta, But then they are memorized by every arahanta, because everyone in buddha-living-period often go to listen Sāriputta (see:mahāgosiṅgasālasuttaṃ).

Origin: http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0101a.att0.xml


What are the main differences between the different Zen schools? What are the main differences between the Rinzai and Soto Zen schools? Is it right that koans are only used in one of the schools? Also are there other Zen schools and if so what distinguishes those schools from the other Zen schools?

The most important differences between the two schools have to do with their style of meditation and ideas surrounding the attainment of enlightenment.  Soto takes a more gradual approach - kind of like a flower opening.  Just like a flower coming into bloom, it makes no sense to force anything.  Under the right conditions, and when cultivating tenderly, the mind will open of its own accord.

Conversely, Rinzai puts more emphasis on the possibility of sudden enlightenment.  One of the easiest ways to consider how koans work in this process is to think of samsara like a brick wall.  Investigating koans is like knocking a brick out.  A certain amount of light shines through once you see into an individuals koan's 'meaning'.  Eventually, like a brick wall, once you knock enough bricks out, the whole thing just suddenly collapses.  It's kinda like going broke - it happens gradually and then suddenly!  ;-)

Of course, a lot of Zen schools do incorporate elements of both practices.  Sometimes, a school with a more Soto emphasis may assign a student a koan.  It might also go the other way too, but that hasn't been my experience.


Do any Buddhists say that everyone's Buddha nature repeats an infinite number of times? Do any Buddhists say that everyone's Buddha nature repeats an infinite number of times? To be specific, I mean that everyone's -- including Sakyamuni's -- life, or perhaps just karma, is repeated over and over again, timelessly and forever. I'm asking, because I think that's what I believe [that's all].
The Fan Wang Ching says that Sakyamuni manifests billions of times, but does anything claim he appears an infinite number of times, or eternally [I don't mean permanent].

Infinity is surprisingly complicated, so let's look at what the Buddha said:

SN15.14:1.2: “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. …  It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.  Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

Given this understanding of transmigration leading back to "infinity" (or more precisely, "with no known beginning"), it is natural to ask about all the various Buddhas. So let's see what the Buddha says about the Buddha:

DN1:3.73.1: The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.  But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

In this way, Buddhas appear and disappear, never to be seen again.
Regarding "Buddha-nature", one might perhaps refer to this:

MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.


In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is written? In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is found to be written?
 This text was written how many years after death of Buddha?

See also Which suttas in the Pali canon are relatively early or late? -- I'm not sure we know the sequence in which suttas were written -- so we can't say for sure which time is "the first time", though some people guess or assess via textual analysis that some bits might be later or altered somehow -- and/or maybe all suttas were written at the same time (i.e. at the 4th council).
If they were first time recorded in fourth council, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Buddhist_council says it happenned in 1st century BC. And Gautama was in fourth century BC. So can we deduce that first time, it was recorded 200-300 years after him?
I think we're meant to understand that the suttas were remembered when they were first spoken (e.g. spoken by Gautama) ... and "recorded" in the First Council ("a gathering of senior monks of the Buddhist order convened just after Gautama Buddha's death in ca. 400 BC").
By "recorded", I mean that they agreed on what to memorise, what to consider as "canon".
They were later written in the Fourth Council:

The council was held in response to a year in which the harvests in Sri Lanka were particularly poor and many Buddhist monks subsequently died of starvation. Because the Pāli Canon was at that time oral literature maintained in several recensions by dhammabhāṇakas (dharma reciters), the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing it down so that even if some of the monks whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Canon for later generations died, the teachings would not be lost.

I don't know in which texts "Yashodhara" (or Yasodhara) is mentioned by name -- there are some References in her Wikipedia article.
One the sources (the main source?) of the detailed story of Gautama from before his "noble search" started (i.e. the story with details of his leaving his wife) is in the introduction to the Jataka tales (e.g. here) -- perhaps she isn't mentioned by name though, though his son (named "Rahula") is:

Within the chamber was burning a lamp fed with sweet-smelling oil, and the mother of Râhula lay sleeping on a couch strewn deep with jasmine and other flowers, her hand resting on the head of her son. When the Future Buddha reached the threshold, he paused, and gazed at the two from where he stood.
"If I were to raise my wife's hand from off the child's head, and take him up, she would awake, and thus prevent my departure. I will first become a Buddha, and then come back and see my son." So saying, he descended from the palace.

I'm not sure what the provenance is of the Jataka Tales. They're included in the Khuddaka Nikāya of the Sutta Pitaka but somehow not exactly suttas (I'm not sure whether or when the Buddhist councils were involved with them).


I have some people coming over who practice Buddhism, what should I know? My family is helping two people from Nepal to come to the United States to study, and their family will be visiting us temporarily.  I was told that their family practices Buddhism, but I find myself somewhat lacking in knowledge on the religion/philosophy/culture that surrounds Buddhism.  I don't wish to offend them or to put them into awkward situations, are there any significant things I should know?  I've been reading online and I seem to get the impression that Buddhists do not eat beef.  But do they eat meat at all?

I have a little statuette of the Buddha that a friend gave to me as a gift once when I was going through a phase with eastern philosophy,  due to an inside not quite joke that I share with this friend she had drawn a geometrical symbol on the belly of the statuette.  Would this be something they would find offensive?

To sum up my question:  What do I need to know about Buddhism to interact with Buddhists from Nepal in a way that is respectful of their beliefs?

I have been to Nepal on a retreat, it is a Hindu country, but there are many Buddhists.

The main Buddhism there is Mahayana by far, with a large influence from Tibet (monks who escaped after the situation with China).

Most of them do not eat meat (I spent days without eating meat there), but they used to eat eggs. You should ask, they will not be offended.

Most Buddhists take seriously how we treat a Buddha statue, so do not put it on the ground, do not put it on the bathroom or too close to shoes, treat it and buddhist books with basic respect, as if it were a guest in your house. Incenses are very common in Nepal, if you want to be extra nice you can put some together with the statue.

Most Nepalis I met (not monks) were very curious about technology and other cultures, internet there is very bad and slow, also it is a very, very poor country, so most of them dont know much about America, they will probably appreciate a visit around the city with some background stories :)


How to regain Enlightenment? I had the most profound experience after what felt like a near death experience. I believe I was having a heart attack, and after focusing on my body for 20-30 minutes I ceased being aware of signs of a heart attack for a moment after my body felt slightly better and less like I was dying. At this point what felt like a veil covering my perception was lifted, I had the most profound feeling. I can try to conceptualise what the feeling was like in words but it won't do it justice because that is not how it came to me. But suffice to say it was similar to many instances of 'enlightenment, satori, entering the kingdom of heaven, satchitananda etc etc etc.

Some of the attributes/things I experienced for the next 3 weeks were: non-duality, no judgement towards others or myself (no categorising things as good or bad), Falling in love with the present moment, falling in love with every person I met, Feeling the world was perfect, being able to face any fear, being indifferent(apathetic) to new stimuli (however I could turn it on, I was able to get happy about things if I wanted to, but bad news did not affect me). I was no longer looking for a future moment to fulfil me. I felt as if before this experience I was playing a character of myself, I still felt the same after it, however, much more connected to my self.

This state lasted for 3 weeks and did not lose any of these attributes the entire time, except for the 'non-judging of things' I noticed slightly lessened towards the end (I noticed a few  times me judging but could catch myself and stop it).

At the end of the 3 weeks, I drank at a party, Since that time I have not felt these effects.

Paradoxically I want nothing else but to get back to that perceptive state, however, it felt almost as if there was nothing to 'get back to' when I was in it, more so like I was always there but just blind to what was there. Some of the words that seemed to ring true after the event were 'nothing is hidden from me, enlightenment is the only constant, the present moment is the only constant, consciousness is all there is, you are everything, the world is perfect, the present moment is perfect'.

A part of me thinks that because it felt that by letting go of trying to control my awareness this view opened up to me, so I'm scared that now that I've lost it I will not get it back.

It has totally possessed me for the last 3 weeks (6 weeks ago the experience happened) I really would do anything to get back there. Does anybody have any advice on how I could regain and sustain that perception if any glimpses of it re-emerge?

Additional questions:
I have adhd and have been prescribed ritalin ( i have not taken yet) will this affect me getting back there.

This awakening happened during the night after drinking large amounts of alcohol, however losing it was from drinking alcohol.. I am oscillating between drinking a lot to try and get back there and never drinking again. (please note, my symptoms of ADHD go away the morning after drinking and im worried that I could only focus enough to view reality(awakening) because of that).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Ramana Marhashi's experience appears to be similiar to mine except for him expressing that he died but his physical body did not. Wherein my awakening appeared to me not from 'dying' but from the relief of not dying and giving up trying to control my intention/desire/awareness. Part of me is interested in Dzogchen for the phrase 'the self perfected state' as it felt during this period like it was nothing being 'added' to my experience that I was always enlightened but could not see it.

There's soooo many books on these topics, its hard for me to grasp. And I fear that I will spend the rest of my life trying to get back to a point i'll never re experience (like so many other people who have chased enlightenment).

It sounds like you had some kind of realization! Rejoice!

Now let it go. That's the only way to continue on the path.

Reflect on the moments leading up to where you, "ceased being aware of signs of a heart attack" and, "felt slightly better and less like I was dying." How did those moments feel? Did they feel something like:

"I want nothing else but to," ... stop feeling this heart attack and
to stop dying.
Were you, "scared that now that I've lost" my life and, "will not get it back"?
Did it feel like those moments where you felt like you were dying "totally possessed" you?
Would you have done, "anything to get back" your life?

You say that, "my awakening appeared to me not from 'dying' but from the relief of not dying." Is this true? Are you sure? Or did you give up at some point and let go to the inevitability of your dying? Did you give up the struggle to stay alive? And then discovered you were not dying after all ... and attributed the euphoria you felt to the not dying rather than that state of having given up?

Those quotes in the list above are from how you currently describe your mental state. How does your current predicament of wanting to get back to your euphoria so much that you'd "do anything" compare to your past predicament of wanting not to die? How are they different?

I'm just a Buddhist patzer, but I hope this advice helps: analyze in detail those moments before you had this euphoric experience and analyze your moments now. And just let go of this realization you've had. Develop your wisdom and your compassion for other sentient beings. Continue on the path. Slowly, slowly.