The Buddha And The Beggar Story I was watching this YouTube Video about the The Buddha And The Beggar

My question as mentioned in the comment of that video is why is that the beggar can have only 8 items in the possessions and what are those 8 items?

One of the commentator mentioned that the story in thai its  8/100 (eight-one-hundred). It,s not 8 items and the other mentioned that it has something to do with the The Eightfold Path. I have a fair understanding of The Noble Eightfold Path but I do not understand it's relation to my original question.

Can anyone shed more light here? What am I missing here? If there is no relation then what is the answer to my original question?

Presumably the "8 requisites" of a monk, i.e. the 8 items that a monk is allowed and needs: 3 robes, an alms bowl, a waistband, a razor, a sewing kit and a water strainer.


Be like water - but what if i fail Be like water - but what if i fail

i really like the quote "be like water"  and wanted to live by it  -  but the problems was what happenes when i fail - when i cant meditate or more truly too lazy to meditate - and always take a few days break no matter what ?

because water don't fail - they don't take a break -  so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water"    theory doesn't work cause water don't stop and get back up

can someone here help me find some explanation to make the "be like water" quote reasonable to failing as well

This is not a buddhist connected idea directly - but i ask this to help my practice - and its very very important for me if i get a good reply  - very wholsome kamma    +++  plus its more related to the practice than   other questions ive seen here before

If "be like water" is Buddhist, it sounds to me like an Eastern form of it (i.e. Chan or Zen).

One view/aspect of Chan or Zen is that it's the result of Buddhism's mixing with Taoism.

If you want to know more about "be like water", one place to find that might be in the (Taoist, not Buddhist) Tao Te Ching, for example,

  The supreme good is like water,
  which nourishes all things without trying to.
  It is content with the low places that people disdain.
  Thus it is like the Tao.

  In dwelling, live close to the ground.
  In thinking, keep to the simple.
  In conflict, be fair and generous.
  In governing, don't try to control.
  In work, do what you enjoy.
  In family life, be completely present.

  When you are content to be simply yourself
  and don't compare or compete,
  everybody will respect you.

For example, you wrote,

  because water dont fail - they dont take a break - so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water" theory dosnt work cause water dont stop and get back up

The Tao Te Ching has imagery of water occupying the low places, the valleys:

  All streams flow to the sea
  because it is lower than they are.
  Humility gives it its power.

I'm not sure I understood your question, but if you find yourself in a low place, maybe that (where you are, in the low, in the place) is where you meditate: without self-striving to get back up before you do.

Also, water has three states: vapour rises, water flows, ice is more solid. When you wrote, when I read, "I fail", I thought of that as being more like ice than being like water: because it sounds like a fixed/solid view of "I" ... instead of a natural/flowing view (I'm not sure how water could be said to fail).

Also I think that Zen meditation posture includes being solidly planted/rooted on/with the ground.

Also, on topic, a different example of being like water, here is one story: Great Waves. I'm not sure what "bashful" means in the story, I suppose it's a harmful or confused or ignorant form of being 'self-conscious'.


Were the Buddha's earliest followers bhikkhus? What is the proper name for the Buddha's earliest followers such as Ananda and Sariputta - the ones that followed the Buddha during his lifetime. Would the term be bhikkhu and  bhikkhuni or does this only apply to settled monastics?

There are 4

Bhikkhu - Male monk
Bhikkhuni - Female nun
Upasaka - Lay male follower
Upasika - Lay female follower

Also note that in the Suttas all of the above are referred as Bhikkhus in addressing.


The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment: does it have a Buddhist term for it? Pejorative or otherwise.

So I've heard of beginner's mind, but I doubt it covers it.

That feeling correlates to different mental states.
For instance, if you believe yourself to be privileged because you (unlike others) are only one step away from enlightenment, then the basic affiliated mind is one of 'pride'.

However, if it stems from your aspiration to enlightenment, and your aspiration itself is rooted in renunciation where you - having recognised the universal pervasion of the three marks of existence - are thereby determined to make use of every moment of your entire being to achieve liberation (and, in the Mahayana, all beings) then that feeling is of great benefit, and is a mark of 'effort'.  The 'three efforts' in Mahayana (not disparate from Right Effort in the eightfold path) are:

Unflagging energy in enlightening activity
Unfailing confidence in enlightening activity
Complete joy in enlightening activity


Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata? Questions in the title. What is the significance of this term and how it is used by the Buddha in the suttas?

Tatha means "truth", "reality" or literally "so", "such".

gata is often translated as gone, however from my research it looks like it is a suffix that means "firmly grounded in" or "rooted in" -- as in kayagata smrti "mindfulness rooted in the body".

Together this would make Tathagata mean "Firmly established in reality".

I personally associate this word with two other terms: sugata and duggata.

Sugata is a person who fared well, a lucky one, and therefore an optimist.
Duggata is an unfortunate person, a loser, and therefore a pessimist.
Tathagata would then mean neither a pessimist nor an optimist, but realist.


Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena? Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

Your question is an interesting philosophical investigation, if you can break or crack a concept, it will bring you closer to enlightenment, at least. In fact the Gōng'àn (Jap: Koan) is doing the same thing but in the Eastern style, more intuition, and 觀.

I do not think that I can answer you with a word or few sentences to define what is tathata, or suchness. In fact no one has ever been able to do so, else why we left fumbling it but the Buddha not defined it definitely like he did to the aggregates, karma... or paramita?

But perhaps I can help to unknot the knot in your question.

  Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

No. Parted from phenomena there is no tathata existed independently, parted from tathata neither phenomena. It's like, you cannot say the ocean or a droplet existed independently parted from the water, and vice versa.

Therefore you cannot say "something in addition to". Is the water in addition to the ocean that make the ocean an ocean?

  If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

I do not know where does this "suchness of phenomena" phrase come from? Perhaps reading some bad writings on Buddhism by Teacher XYZ? At least, in the Chinese text materials this phrase doesn't exist; this phrase construct is invalid and ludicrous.

In Chinese Buddhism, tathata is 如, or 如如. The
Western civilization doesn't have equivalent concept, but I try to bring it closer for contemplation. The English words if, as it is, such as, as... could be close; or thisness/thatness the textbook one but really a bit misleading though. Hence, while your "the qualitative experience of a taste" is just an "as it is", "if", "as"; how more you can say about an "as it is" for giving the qualitative favor?

  But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

Again, you cannot put this 'no experience of taste amounts to its "true state"'; same as, is the true taste of the ocean the amount of all the taste of all the water, or just a drop of water? If it's the former, no existing being has ever known the taste of the ocean (perhaps it's sweet with caramel and orange tang? )

  Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?

I can only say, tathata and svabhava are closely related but they are not the same.

Again, you cannot say "phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves", simply phenomena, or anything, cannot have two contradictory qualia(s). You cannot say the rat is in the mammal class also the mammal class is excluding rat.

This last paragraph quoted is clouded with bubbling blurbs perhaps is unhelpful to understand the core teaching. Suggestion, drop it. Sometimes words and the mind's ability to construct syntax is a hindrance.

To answer your real concern,

  I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

This saying is an erroneous error. Tathata does NOT mean qualia. If it is that simple to define, why the Buddha has to spend another 20-30 years to teach the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning Sutras?


Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this?

I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and  meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things?

I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice.

And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

OP: Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, ...

The whole sphere of experiances are either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral and all such experiences are unsatisfactory

  pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
  painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
  neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

Each type of sensation corresponds to the 3 categories of dukkha:

Unpleasant feelings - Dukkha-dukkha, the duḥkha of painful experiences. This includes the physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying; distress from what is not desirable.
Pleasant feelings - Viparinama-dukkha, the duḥkha of pleasant or happy experiences changing to unpleasant when the causes and conditions that produced the pleasant experiences cease.
Neural or neither pleasant not unpleasant feelings - Sankhara-dukkha, the duḥkha of conditioned experience. This includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

  OP: And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

One should use

pleasant feelings to abandon lust,
unpleasant feelings to abandon aversion
neutral feelings to abandon ignorance

by being

equanimous to them and
seeing their impermanence

For more details what needs to be done see this answer.

This is condensing the instruction of more than 10 days into above. Best is attend a course to get to know the exact details of the practice. For that you can try a course at:

Vipassana Meditation: As taught by S.N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin or
International Vipassana Meditation Centre: In the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin and Mother Sayamagyi


How does Buddhism explains rebirth and law of Karma? As per my readings on Buddhism it doesn't accept the notion of soul or Atman, but at the same time it accepts the law of Karma.
How does Buddhism explains rebirth and law of Karma?

The Kamma can be understood as a seed in put in your mind, what goes to the next life according to Buddhism is the mind, not a soul, the mindstream does not stop when the body dies.

There is a great video on Kamma by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on youtube, I recommend you watch it, it is full of details and at the same time easy to understand, I will paste the link:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih0moT0bvgM


Is there a ritual free form of Buddhism? Is there, aside from Secular Buddhism, a sect or tradition of Buddhism that does not include rituals and chanting as a part of it's liturgy?

Yes. The "original tradition" i.e. of the time of the Buddha himself, did not have a lot of the rituals and customs that are practised today.

There was some recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya, but it did not amount to liturgical chanting in the Buddha's time. Certainly, monks did not chant for blessing, in the Buddha's time. Recitation was just a form of recollection, as it was initially an oral tradition. Recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya did not have mystical effects.

There were no statues or idols or images in the Buddha's time, and certainly no rituals were performed to those idols or images. There were stupas, as we could find in DN 16, but those were just memorials for inspiration and not for worship. In fact, the tradition of making Buddha images originated centuries after the Buddha, influenced by ancient Greek art.

There were no Buddhist temples in those times. Only monasteries and some stupas.

The Buddha strongly criticized astrology, palmistry, divination and such practices in DN 2.

Prayer beads or rosaries, mandalas, incense etc. all came much later and was not part of the original tradition.


Suggestions for observing Uposatha on this coming Christmas I've been very good about observing the Uposatha days this year, this year it falls on Christmas (US calendar). Any thoughts on observing while spending time with friends and family who are non Buddhist, or should I just just stay to myself?

You should be able to observe it without much difficulty. Everyone's family and friends are different, but at the same time there are many similarities. You should pause to reflect on how you will observe it, and consider reactions you might receive in advance so you can prepare kind responses (to keep everyone comfortable).

For most of the precepts observed on Uposatha, this shouldn't be a problem. Your friends and family likely won't be upset with you for not killing or stealing, for instance. :-)

Precepts five through eight could be a little tougher, depending on the people around you. But they're probably already used to you not drinking, so the fifth precept shouldn't be an issue.

The sixth precept might raise some eyebrows, especially if you're attending a party or family gathering where it might seem odd that you not share a meal with everyone. But you can explain it however you wish, from "I'm already full!" (if you really are; don't break the fourth precept!) to sharing your observance of Uposatha and what it means to you. You should do what feels right, and what makes you comfortable.

I hope you enjoy both your Christmas and Uposatha!


Are the bodhisattva vows better suited to the lay side of Buddhism? As a practical observation, if one were staying below arhat for the initial aeons, could monastic living limit the efficacy of a bodhisattva? Since that goal heavily rests on seclusion, and both the wandering and monastic models were developed to enhance seclusion, shouldn't a different, more open model of monkhood exist? They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings.

As a practical observation, per AN4.99 there are four kinds of people found in the world:

  One who practices to benefit themselves, but not others;

  one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

  one who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others; and

  one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.
  ...

  And how does a person practice to benefit both themselves and others? It’s when a person doesn’t kill, etc. … and encourages others to do the same. That’s how a person practices to benefit both themselves and others.

The best is one who practices to benefit both themselves and others (see AN4.95):

  But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Note that this advice applies to all people, not just monastics. Therefore it would also apply to people who take Bodhisatta vows. It would also apply to people who have or do not have children.


Do all Buddhist schools give dharma names upon ordination? I was glad to read in MatthewMartin's answer to another question that he'd be interested to know if dharma names are common to all Buddhist groups/schools/sects, or if there are any that don't give monks new names on ordination. This is something I've also been curious about.

In addition, I believe the usual practice is for the teacher to select the name for his newly ordained pupil, which might represent a lesson to learn, or an encouragment, or a trait to focus on during the new monk's future growth. So my question is whether this practice is universal amongst Buddhists, or if there are any schools that follow a different tradition or refrain from dharma names completely,

An interesting twist is that at least one school of Buddhism does not have monastics but does give Dharma names to lay followers at a ceremony called Affirmation. For example, from: http://bffct.org/bff/resources/shin-buddhism-in-a-nutshell/

  In the Shin religion, there are no monastics, monks or nuns, but there are teachers both ordained clergy and certified lay instructors. They are not seen as above everyone else or holding the secret keys to spiritual liberation, but are ordinary people, both men and women, who are just more learned or experienced spiritual seekers.

In the particular American group referenced above, lay followers are invited to participate in an Affirmation ceremony upon completion of a number of requirements including general Buddhist studies and participation in a retreat. The lay follower selects their own Dharma name from a Zen tradition list such as:

http://www.ciolek.com/wwwvlpages/zenpages/ZenNames.html#H

The names range from lovely to self deprecating, which might be desirable for someone who wanted to keep the idea of humility close to heart.

I saw some scattered informal references to laity in Zen traditions receiving Dharma names (not sure of the extent of this practice) and even a mention of the deceased receiving a Dharma name in Japan:

  In Japan, other than the standard usage of dharma names for monastics and laity, it is also tradition for the deceased to receive a dharma name (戒名, kaimyō; lit. "precept name") written in Kanji from the priest. This name supposedly prevents the return of the deceased if his name is called.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name#cite_note-3


Is there any such thing as a bad meditation? I've always been told that there is no such thing as a bad meditation. No matter what happens it is OK. In fact the meditator is a bad judge of the effectiveness and efficacy of any sit even if those concepts did have meaning. However I was reading Everyday Zen by Charlotte Joko Beck and she said that she encounters people who have been meditating who are frankly wasting their time. She says they may as well have been practicing their golf swing for 20 years. Ooohhhh harsh.

So what's going on here? Is there really no such thing as a bad meditation and every sit is just grist for the mill. Or is it possible to waste your time and potentially waste years. Is 'there is no such thing as a bad meditation' just something you tell beginners to motivate them - a kind of expedient means?

In the Gopaka-Moggallana Sutta (MN 108), Ananda points out that the Buddha didn't speak in praise of all types of meditation:

“The Blessed One, brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation, nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind [14] of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust, a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. He abides with his mind obsessed by ill will, a prey to ill will … with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor … with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse, a prey to restlessness and remorse … with his mind obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation."
(Bodhi, Trans.)

This seems like an obvious answer; just because something is called meditation doesn't make it wholesome. A hunter may spend his time meditating on how to catch a deer (pre-meditated murder), or one may spend an entire sitting meditation fantasizing about sensual pleasure.
A common example of this is the case where a meditator gets stuck on the ten vipassanupakilesa (imperfections of insight), like visions, rapture, quietude, etc., and mistakes them for the path. As a result, as you have read, a meditator can spend years basically going nowhere, just using meditation as an escape into these pleasant but meaningless experiences.
What isn't so clear cut, perhaps what you are really asking, is whether there is any condition that arises in meditation that one should avoid when cultivating wholesome meditation (proper samatha or vipassana). In this case, the answer is generally "yes" for samatha and generally "no" for vipassana.
In samatha meditation, where the object is absorption, one should avoid a great number of things; anything that is an obstruction to calm. Noises, pain, sickness, even indigestion, can all get in the way of your attainment of calm. Sitting in the wrong position can be an impediment, so the Buddha recommended the full-lotus with one's back perfectly straight. When one's mind enters into unwholesome thoughts or emotions, one should avoid such mental activity, replacing it with its opposite or coaxing the mind back towards wholesomeness.
As catpnosis points out, one should also not practice samatha against one's character type; a person of angry character should avoid asubha (loathsomeness) meditation, for example.
In vipassana, where the object is insight into reality, almost every experience is a valid meditation object; almost, because there may be cases where an experience may be physically harmful to the meditator (e.g. dangerous situations or physical injury) or a cause for cultivating unwholesomeness (e.g. getting caught up in obsessive thoughts or emotions). In some cases it is necessary to change one's posture from sitting to walking or vice versa to deal with these situations.


Nature of Direct Experience I have observed that during contemplation, there are periods where attention is on the object, a kind of basic awareness. Then, there are periods where thoughts emerge, based on the object, a kind of cognition of the object.

Then, there seems to be periods where cognitions unrelated to an object within experience occur; these would be be as mind-wandering or speculation.

My question is: Are those cognitions and fabrications unrelated to direct experience precisely what one tries to counter in Buddhism?

I have the impression that if I cognized only direct experience through awareness, and produced only object-related cognitions, that I would diminish wrongness and inefficiency in the mind greatly.

Thank you

You might want to study the Structural Defferential. It is a map of the process of abstraction of our nervous system. It was created by Alfred Korzybski, a pioneer in the field of General Semantics.

The basic awareness you're mentioned in your question refers to the silent levels of awareness. This experience of direct awareness of the whole is also called Gestalt.

In Buddha's spiritual path one tries to see and stop the process of "I" making and "mine" making in his mind. That's what I know theoretically.


Wholesome is absence of passion? A person told here, that wholesome (kusala) means absence of passion (desire, will..., raga, lobha, chanda...).

Is that right? If, why. Is it wrong? If, why?

No need to have passion to answer the question, of cause.

(note: this is not for entertaining, trade, exchange or stacks that binds, but to get attached to liberation and for a leave.)

The way I understand, any action which benefits you and the other person or both are wholesome.


What is the role of thinking in Buddhism? Practitioners and scholars from various schools of Buddhism differ a lot on how they view (conceptual) thinking.

For example Tsongkhapa/Gelug put a lot of emphasis on thinking because it is vitally important to “identify the object of negation”, as Tsongkhapa would put it. (The object of negation Tibetan: dgag bya, eg. inherent existence, self-existence).

On the other hand, Zen scholars and practitioners I have asked are more explicit in making the point that conceptual thinking is in itself a hindrance and “part of the problem”.

If there is a "goal" or "point" of conceptual thinking in Buddhism, what is that "goal/point"?
What are the biggest problems of either too much or too little   thinking?

This is a question related to Lo-Rig, the study on valid cognition, 'epistemology'. An authoritative and simple text on the topic is Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, by Lati Rinpoche.

To answer in a practice-oriented fashion: when one is subject to anger (a conceptual consciousness that is also a wrong consciousness in that it engages its object erroneously), one comes to tell himself stories about the object. For instance, one comes to think “This person is detestable; how could have I been fooled and even like her? How could anyone love her? If they knew her for who she is, they would understand; she really wronged me...”. Finding all the more reasons, if not to be angry, at least to justify one's anger. As practitioners we engage in analytical meditation on impermanence & death, karma, refuge, precious human rebirth, and so forth, on a daily basis. It is called “Meditation on the Lam Rim”. We do it for two reasons:

So as to tell ourselves factually concordant “stories” in order to generate, for instance, patience and dwell in there, familiarizing with being patient, and so forth
So as to be able to pay attention to facts that we are so often blind to. For instance, after meditating a great deal on buddha-nature, it will be easier to find / see reasons not to despise any sentient beings.

Even when engaging in Calm Abiding, one needs to alternate between (1) analytical meditation and (2) placement, because one has to analyze the object he means to achieve Calm Abiding with in order to (1) familiarize with the object and (2) cultivate the clarity factor with regard to it.

Once our eyes are fully open, once we see reality, there is no need for these anymore. But in our (Geluk, Madhyamika-Prasangika) presentation, only a buddha is free from [the need for] conceptual consciousnesses, and is therefore called 'a valid person'. Also, since even direct perceivers in the continuum of a sentient being are not free from the appearance of true existence, abandoning conception [even the conception of true existence] is not sufficient. That is a unique Tenet of the Prasangika school, though.

To answer in a more technical fashion: a conceptual consciousnesses apprehends its object by way of a mental image (also called 'meaning-generality' or 'generally characterized phenomena'). All conceptual consciousnesses are mistaken [with regard to their appearing object, a mental image] in that they mistake the appearing object for the object of engagement. However, a conceptual  consciousness, even mistaken, can be valid. For instance, an inferential cognizer (which is a conceptual) is always valid because it necessarily arises in dependence upon a correct sign that has been realized [and which pervasion in relation to the predicate as well]. This accords with Purbuchok's presentation (in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers).

We often present the gradual process of generating valid consciousness as follows: Having doubts turning away from the factual [in relation to a slightly hidden phenomena, such as for instance subtle impermanence], one listens to the teachings – listening also comprehends reading – and comes to generate equal doubt. He keeps on listening to the teachings and comes to generate doubt tending towards the factual. He keeps on listening to the teachings, gives it a thought, and comes to generate a correct assumption. Most positions we hold as true without being able to establish by way of reasoning are such. Doubt and correct assumptions are not 'realizing consciousnesses'. Therefore, strictly speaking, someone having generated a correct assumption with regard to a slightly hidden phenomena has not 'realized' anything yet. From there, he engages in reflection and/or in meditation in an analytical fashion and, in dependence on a correct reason, comes to generate an inferential cognizer. That is why we engage so much in debates, familiarizing with reasoning itself, but also with reasons and their pervading such and such predicates (and therefore establishing thesis). An inferential cognizer i is the first realizing (and valid) consciousness in this scenario. It is valid because it engages its object correctly, but it is mistaken with regard to its appearing object, a mental image, because it is a conceptual consciousness. Although a buddha is free from inferential cognition, [valid] inferential cognizers realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, and so forth are to be cultivated on all the path of learning. It is taught that a slightly hidden phenomena – such as subtle impermanence, and so forth – can be realized directly after having familiarized realizing it inferentially. For instance, subtle impermanence or emptiness are directly realized for the first time in the context of a meditative equipoise (which is a union of calm abiding and special insight) on the path of seeing. Such a realization is preceded by several instances of inferential realization, that is conceptual cognition, also being unions of calm abiding and special insight. A wisdom directly realizing emptiness is not conceptual but is analytical because it is a union of calm abiding and special insight, and special insight has the function of analysis. Only a buddha is free from conceptual consciousnesses.

Wrong consciousnesses (ex.: doubt turning away from the fact, afflictions, etc.), non-realizing conscioussnesses (such as wrong consciousnesses, all types of doubts, inattentive awarenesses, etc.) mistaken consciousnesses (conceptual consciousnesses, including [valid] inferential cognizers) are objects of abandonment. However, they are not to be abandoned by any practitioner. The process of abandonment is gradual... and that which is to be cultivated by one is to be abandoned by another. For instance, inferential cognizers are not to be abandoned by those who still have afflictive obscurations.


Does the concept of evil spirits occur in Buddhism? Some of the western religions have evil spirits like devils and demons.  Does the concept or belief in evil spirits occur in Buddhism?

It's not always as clear as 'good' or 'evil'. Angry, vengeful spirits also exist in forms of Buddhism. Sometimes also seen as protectors, they can be a source of controversy.

More common is one's own belief in (or, more practically, fear of) something that is indefinitely, and irreparably, sinister or evil. We subscribe to all sorts of interesting notions as children, some things tend to persist. Ultimately, it's what your mind manages to trick you into into feeling; there are plenty of Christians that don't believe that demons exist so it really does depend on the individual.

So, yes to the concept (with emphasis on what neubau mentions about indigenous spirits), but belief is a little more complicated; belief coupled with a healthy dose of ambivalence can be quite common.

For children, I think the boogeyman is rather universal :)


Tibetan Buddhism:Recieving inititation in India/Tibet I recently read an introductory book on Tibetan Buddhism and intrigued by Tantra & Kalachakra practice. I have been practicing meditation for the last 2-3 years but not under the guidance of a guru. After struggling for 2-3 years I have finally realized the need of a guru so that I can start practicing seriously. Next year, I have 3-month vacation and I'm thinking about going to a monastery in India/Tibet (I live in India) where I can be initiated into tantric practice.

Which are some of the places in India and Tibet where Tantra/Kalachakra initiation is possible ?

I think you should search for vajrayana buddhist temple

  Vajrayana Buddhism is one of the most important and most followed Buddhist tradition in the present states of Buddhism in the whole world. Also known as the Tantric Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism is also represented as the Diamond Way or Thunderbolt Way and Indestructible Way. source

Not sure about India but I think in Nepal you would find a master of Vajrayana. Maybe you can start by taking up a course in Kopan Monastery in Kathmandu. They are not vajrayana of course, they are Gelug branch of Mahayana but when you go there and meet the Monks you  can ask about what you want and they'll guide you.


How does extinction fit in the 12 links? I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased; that with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links. Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy?

Or is that silly, like saying that the there exists the non existence of a crow's teeth?

In Buddhism, there are many kinds of causation. See this link about the five 'niyama' or 'laws of causation' (physical, biological, mental, moral & dhamma/spiritual).

The twelve links are the conditions leading to suffering; the cessation of which leads to Nirvana. They are 'dhamma niyama' or 'spiritual causation'. The twelve links are not mental causation (citta niyama).

Therefore, sense objects can be experienced without ignorance because mere sense objects (which are mental causation) are not suffering in themselves.

The only absence of causation is Nirvana, when the twelve links stop creating suffering.

As for the other four kinds of causation, they keep rolling on (unless human life becomes extinct, which would make extinct moral causation & leave three laws of causation).


Does the fifth precept refer exclusively to chemical stimulants? The fifth precept is

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that
  causes heedlessness

but I have read interpretations that translate it as

  I undertake to abstain from intoxicants

Are there any references in the Buddhist scriptures about the fifth precept having a broader interpretations that refer to intoxicants of different forms - not just chemical stimulants?

I'm interested in views of any schools as I imagine the interpretation of the precept may be different between them. I'm also interested in any references to more modern teachers who take this broader approach if anyone knows of them.

A modern teacher who takes a very broad approach is Thich Nhat Hanh. I became familiar with his "Five Wonderful Precepts" at a Seon temple where his translation of the precepts is used regularly. This is his translation of the Fifth Precept:

  Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I vow to cultivate good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family and my society, by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming.  I vow to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society.  I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant, or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations.  I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations.  I will work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practicing a diet for myself and for society.   I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.

These are from his book "For a Future to Be Possible: Commentaries on the Five Mindfulness Trainings"

From "The Mindfulness Bell" newsletter, dated Spring/Summer 1990, Thich Nhat Hanh gives an in depth interview about his translations of the 5 precepts (which were in a slightly less detailed version back then).

  Someone who practices the Fifth Precept could not say "This is my body, I can do anything to it. I have the right to." They cannot say that because they know that their body belongs to all their ancestors, themselves, and the future generations.

He talks about the interconnectedness of all things; how the grain used in the production of whiskey and meat can lead to starvation in the world when people don't have enough grains to eat. That particular idea may be arguable to some. But I think his statement below (also from The Mindfulness Bell) is really a key point for those who aren't quite ready to accept the Fifth Precept:

  So mindfulness is the base of all precepts. Drinking a glass of whiskey with mindfulness is already practicing the precepts, because if you drink with deep mindfulness, you will live with the reality of the world and you will stop drinking very soon.


Has lord Buddha ever told something like this? Once lord Buddha pointed at a glistening star and asked a monk, "Do you believe that star still exists where we can see it?"
The monk answered yes.
Then lord Buddha said, "You are wrong. That star was destroyed few years ago. What we can see is the light it has emitted."

I saw people sharing something like this in social networks saying lord Buddha knew many things about the universe thousands of years ago. But they dont reference to any Sutta or Atuwa or anything where I can find this. I want to know if this is true ? Has lord Buddha ever said something like this ? And which Sutta is it ?
Thanks :)

This is the origin story of Sattasuriyuggamana sutta. During Buddha's time there was a monk who was indulged in astrology and auspicious times. Once he asked Buddha whether the stars or planets have any effect on humans as it's told in astrology. Buddha didn't answer that straight away but chose the night to answer this question. During the night he pointed at the sky and asked the question from that monk.

  Do you believe that star still exists where we can see it
  ...

As a result of this discussion Sattasuriyuggamana sutta was taught by Budddha to show that these planets and stars have no effect on humans and these are just natural phenomena.

I wasn't able to locate this origin story in English in the web, although it's available in Sinhalese here.

  Sattasåriyasuttaü- Seven suns.

  007.02. I heard thus. At one time The Blessed One was living in Ambapali's mango orchard. The Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus from
  there:

  ßBhikkhus, determinations are impermanent not stable, there is nothing
  to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn away from,
  get disentangled from and be releasd from all determinations.

  Bhikkhus, the highest peak of the Himalayas, is eighty four thousand
  yojanas high from sea level. (a yojana is seven miles) Eighty four
  thousand yojanas in breadth. It is eighty four thousand yojanas deep
  down in the sea. Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many
  hundreds of thousands of years there comes a time when it does not
  rain. When it does not rain, all seed and vegetation born plants such
  as medicinal grass, plants trees and forests dry up and wither and are
  no more. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable,
  there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should
  turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a second sun rises. When a second sun
  rises whatever streams, rivulets dry up and wither and are no more.
  Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable, there is
  nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn
  away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a third sun rises. When a third sun
  rises, the great rivers such as the Ganges, yamuna, Aciravatie,
  Sarabhu and Mahi dry up and wither. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are
  impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is
  suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be
  releasd from all determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a fourth sun rises. When a fourth sun
  rises, the great ponds mintained by the great rivers such as Anotatta,
  Sihapapata, Rathakara, Kannamunda, Kunala, Chadanta and Mandakini dry
  up and wither, they become no more. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are
  impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is
  suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be
  releasd from all determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a fifth sun rises. When a fifth sun
  rises, the water in the great ocean recedes one hundred yojanas, two
  hundred yojanas three hundred yojanas, five hundred yojanas, six
  hundred yojanas and seven hundred yojanas. The water recedes to the
  height of seven, six, five, four, three, two palms and even one palm.
  The water recedes to the height of seven, six, five, four, three, two
  men, or even one man. It recedes to half the height of a man. It
  recedes to the knee depth of a man, to the ankle depth of a man. When
  the fifth sun rises there would not be water in the ocean to wet the
  fingers up to the knots. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent
  not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable
  that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd
  from all determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a sixth sun rises. When a sixth sun
  rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas smokes, and gets
  filled with smoke. Like when something made by a potter is cooked. It
  smokes and gets filled up with smoke. In the same manner when a sixth
  sun rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas smokes, and
  gets filled with smoke. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent
  not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable
  that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd
  from all determinations.

  Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a seventh sun rises. When a seventh sun
  rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas blazes and catch
  fire. When the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas blaze and
  catch fire, flames tossed by the winds reach upto the world of Brahma.
  When the peak of the Himalaya mountain burns, peaks as high as a
  hundred yojanas, two hundred yojanas, three hundred yojanas, four
  hundred yojanas and five hundred yojanas crumble. Bhikkhus, when the
  earth and the Himalaya peak is burning ash or cream of ash is not
  evident. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable,
  there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should
  turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations. Bhikkhus, when the earth and the Himalaya peak is
  burning, whatever divine sayings and beliefs be, they also get burnt
  and are no more, would attained right view remain?

  Bhikkhus, in the past, there was a Teacher called Sunetta, one free of
  greed who helped to cross the ford. The Teacher Sunetta had
  innumerable hundreds of disciples .Bhikkhus, this Teacher taught, to
  be born in the world of Brahma. Those who completely knew the
  dispensation of Sunetta, after death, were born in a good state in the
  world of Brahma. Some of those who did not know the complete
  dispensation of Sunetta, after death, were born with those attached to
  the creation of others. Some attached to creation, soome with the
  happy ones, some with the Titan gods, some with the gods of the
  thirty-three and with the guardian gods. Others were born with high
  clans of warriors, Brahmins and householders.

  Then it occured to the Teacher Sunetta. `It is not suitable for me to
  be born in the same plane as my disciples, after death, what if I
  develop loving kindness further.'

  Then the Teacher Sunetta developed loving kindness for seven years.
  Having developed loving kindness for seven years, he did not come to
  this world for seven forward and backward world cycles. During the
  forward world cycles he was born a radiant god and during the backward
  world cycles was born in an empty Brahma paradise. There he was Brahma
  the supreme Lord, not conquered with sure insight wielding authority

  There, he was Brahma, Brahma the great, the unconquered lord and
  master with sure insight, holding authority for seven timesòhirty six
  times he was Sakka the kng of gods. Innumerable hundreds of times he
  was the righteous universal monarch, winning the four directions and
  establishing states. Bhikkhus, he was endowed with these seven jewels,
  such as the jewel of the wheel, the elephant, the horse, the jewel,
  the woman, the householder and the advisor. Bhikkhus, he had over a
  thousand courageous sons with valiant figures, for crushing foreign
  armies. They lived ruling over the earth righteously, without weapons
  as far as the limit of the ocean. Bhikkhus, that Teacher Sunetta with
  long life and long standing was not released from birth, decay, death,
  grief, lament, unpleasantness and displeasure, I say not released from
  unpleasantness.

  What is the reason? For not realizing and experiencing four
  things.What four?

  Not realizing and experiencing the virtues, concentration, wisdom and
  release of the noble ones. Now he has realized and experienced the
  virtues, concentration, wisdom and release of the noble ones. The
  craving to be is uprooted, the leader of being is destroyed. Now he
  has no more birth. The Blessed One further said:

  Famous Gotama, has realized noble virtues, concentration, wisdom and
  release

  And declaring the Teaching to end unpleasantness is mindfully
  extinguished. (Source: Sister Uppalavanna from Galla)


Is there a defined counting system in Pali? ‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,
  Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni;
  Yamariyagarahī nirayaṃ upeti,
  Vācaṃ manañca paṇidhāya pāpakan’’ti.

~ Cited from: Paṭhamakhatasuttaṃ, Bhaṇḍagāmavagga, Catukkanipātapāḷi, Aṅguttaranikāya, Tipitaka. (English translation: Paṭhamakaṭasuttaṃ)

  ‘‘Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho. Tato puriso vassasatassa vassasatassa accayena ekamekaṃ tilaṃ uddhareyya; khippataraṃ kho so, bhikkhu, vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho iminā upakkamena parikkhayaṃ pariyādānaṃ gaccheyya, na tveva eko abbudo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati abbudā nirayā, evameko nirabbudanirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati nirabbudā nirayā, evameko ababo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati ababā nirayā, evameko aṭaṭo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati aṭaṭā nirayā, evameko ahaho nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati ahahā nirayā, evameko kumudo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati kumudā nirayā, evameko sogandhiko nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati sogandhikā nirayā, evameko uppalanirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati uppalā nirayā, evameko puṇḍariko nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati puṇḍarikā nirayā, evameko padumo nirayo. Padume pana, bhikkhu, niraye kokāliko bhikkhu upapanno sāriputtamoggallānesu cittaṃ āghātetvā’’ti.

~ Cited from:  Kokālikasuttaṃ, Brahmasaṃyuttaṃ, Sagāthāvagga, Saṃyuttanikāya, Tipitaka (English translation: Kokāliko II –– The Bhikkhu Kokālika II)

According to the above two texts which I have highlighted in bold, it seems there should be a counting system in Pali. Sometimes the lifespan of sentient beings in certain realms used as numbers.

My questions are:

Are there any equivalent numbers which can be written in Hindu-Arabic numerals for numbers used in Pali (like Abbuda, Nirabbuda, Paduma, ...)?
If there is a different counting system in Pali other than I've mentioned, please explain.
What is the time period mentioned in ‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,
Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni"

Are there any equivalent numbers which can be written in Hindu-Arabic numerals for numbers used in Pali

I found one here by Googling for "pali numerals": Pali Numbers - Ancient Buddhist Texts

  This is a list of commonly found Pāḷi numbers which occur in the literature.

What is the time period mentioned in ‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ, Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni"

The reference I cited above says,

  1 + 63 zeros: nirabbutaṁ

Ven. Sugato's translation of that sutta says,

  For more than two quinquadecillion years,
  Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,

  and another five quattuordecillion years,
  Chattiṃsatī pañca ca abbudāni;

I don't know if those are the same numbers; I can't count that high in English!


Why are Jhanas controversial? I have heard that some teachers do not teach the Jhanas, others do. Yuttadhammo mentions the great debate about Jhanas. What is the controversy about? Whether they are useful towards realizing Nibbana/Nirvana? Is the debate relevant to all Buddhist traditions, only some, or are traditions split up in their views about Jhanas?

The debate centres around the Theravada commentarial interpretation of the suttas along with the teachings in the Abhidhamma, Patisambhidamagga, and Visuddhimagga.

Basically, there are two schools of thought, one which subscribes to the above teachings and one that rejects them.

The teachings in question are those that describe two potential paths:

jhānalābhi - one who obtains at least the first jhāna
sukkhavipassaka - one who only obtains momentary concentration.

For example, in the Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, “purification of view” is the correct seeing of mentality-materiality. One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity, should
  emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhāna, except the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception, and he should discern, according to characteristic, function, etc., the jhāna factors consisting of applied thought,
  etc., and the states associated with them, [that is, feeling, perception, and so on].

  ...

  But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements (XI.27ff.).

  (Path of Purification, pp. 609-10)

Those who reject this split point to various teachings to support the idea that the samatha jhānas are necessary for attainment of the path.

An article that looks interesting from an academic point of view (I only read the abstract) is here:

http://www.tkwen.theravada-chinese.org/A%20Study%20of%20Sukkihavipassaka%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism_final.pdf

From the abstract:

  This thesis reveals that the concept of arahants who lack the first form-sphere jhāna is accepted not only by the Theravāda but also by the Sarvāstivāda, the *Satyasiddhisāstra, and the Yogacārabhūmiśāstra. Since various Buddhist schools in India unanimously advocate the idea that there are arahants who have not achieved the form-sphere jhāna, this research concludes that the dry-insight meditative approach and dry-insight arahants are not an invention by Theravādin commentators, but a common heritage which was most probably handed down from the time of the Buddha and then shared by various Buddhist schools.

I imagine reading through the thread I linked to in the other question would give you a good idea of the controversy. There was a heated debate many years back between a Burmese and a Sri Lankan monk on the topic that was highly academic, but still a fun read:

http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Satipatthana%20Vipassana:%20Criticisms%20and%20Replies.htm


Are the movie Fight Club, and Project Mayhem in it, buddhist? Is the movie Fight Club, and the Project Mayhem idea at all buddhist? Since it predicates detachment from material possesions there's a neat point. I believe in the end it's not, but wanted to ask here for a more argumented answer

I don't think so.

it predicates detachment from material possessions

That's not enough to call it Buddhist.

Buddhism might be known for what it is, rather than for what it isn't. Maybe Buddhism isn't material possessions, but, what is it?

That ("what is Buddhism?") is addressed e.g. in many other topics on this site, for example:

What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
New to Buddhism
How to explain what Buddhism is?

I think that these topics describe elements of Buddhism, and that you'd find it difficult to identify any of these specifically Buddhist element in the movie ... not only difficult to show that the movie identifies these elements but even that it doesn't contradict these elements.
There are other (non-Buddhist) common belief-systems which de-emphasize or criticize material possessions -- e.g. communism, christianity, anarchy, and nihilism -- but these are not Buddhism ... which, is proof (a "proof by counterexample") that critiquing material possessions isn't even nearly sufficient to identify an ideology as Buddhist.
Buddhism isn't entirely or necessarily against material possessions, at least in lay society (and lay society is relevant to the topic, in that I assume you won't try to argue that the movie represents Buddhist clergy). I don't know a Zen example off-hand, but for example I'm thinking of the Sigalovada Sutta which talks about not squandering wealth, and about protecting and making peaceful and secure, etc.

There are books and essays you could read about the behaviors and attitudes recommended to Buddhist lay-folk, in summary I don't think I see these (generosity, non-violence) in the movie. I think that Buddhism was in many ways meant to co-exist with lay society, and not meant to destroy it (which, destruction, is I think more inline with what the movie is suggesting).

My impression is that the movie isn't written by a Buddhist nor written for a Buddhist audience, not intended to teach a Buddhist message. Furthermore I think it arouses passion in its audience, rather than arousing a dispassion (or compassion) which might be more characteristic of Buddhism.

To address some of the points you made in your other question ...

Narrator does bunches of haikus

Here is the haiku from the movie:

  worker bees can leave
  even drones can fly away
  the queen is their slave

Apart from anything else I think that this isn't a good, Buddhist haiku e.g. as described in What Makes Haiku a Zen Art (I mean, "yes it's a haiku but is it Zen?"):

  Haiku is an expression of direct experience, not an expression of an idea about experience. Possibly the most common mistake western haiku writers make is to use the form to express an idea about experience, not experience itself. A haiku does not present metaphors or try to explain meaning. It provides no concepts or opinions. It does not reflect on the past or anticipate the future. It is just this moment, right now. Plop! It is this directness that makes it a Zen art.

  So, for example, this is a really bad haiku:

    A rose represents
    A mother's kiss, a spring day
    A lover's longing.

  It's bad because it's all conceptual. It doesn't give us experience. Contrast with:

    Wilted rose bouquet
    Left in new grass
    By the gravestone.

  The second haiku is not great, perhaps, but it brings you into a moment.

The haiku in the movie is conceptual: the queen bee represents a slave, which represents the alleged slavery of the fictional character's colleagues, which represent human office workers, which supposedly represent the movie's audience?

This isn't just a criticism of the poetry, it's a criticism of the way in which the words are or are not used to connect the audience with reality (or unreality).

Narrator's home intends to be zen-like looking

Well now you seem to be making a religion of Ikea's minimalism, which is actually one of the things the movie complained about.

Car crash scene Tyler says Stop trying to control everything and just let go!

If it's true that there's a time and a place for everything, IMO that's inappropriate (even potentially suicidal or murderous) behavior for a car driver.

The phrase ("Stop trying to control everything and just let go") sounds interesting but I'm not sure that it corresponds to what Buddhist might know as Right Intention, for example:

  And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.

I don't think the movie does teach renunciation; for example it advocates acquiring a harder body:

  A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough. After a few weeks, he was carved out of wood.

Nor is it, IMO, especially good at teaching freedom from ill-will.

Detachment is a major theme since first conversation between Narrator-Tyler

Yes the whole movie is about "detachment", which is arguably a psychological pathology ... see for example Wikipedia articles like:

Emotional detachment
Dissociation (psychology)
Dissociative identity disorder
Dissociative disorder
etc., etc.

I don't think this is necessarily "Buddhist".

Buddhism teaches non-attachment, which isn't quite the same thing (as "detachment"). The opposite of non-attachment is clinging.


Are feelings (vedana) always caused by ignorance? The Pali suttas often refer to feelings or 'vedana', as follows:

  There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. MN 74

  There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling
  born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of
  mind-contact. MN 9

Are such feelings always caused by ignorance?

Passa Pacchaya Vedana ~
  Paticca Samuppada

Feeling is caused by contact


Escaping alone is not enough I am attached to my parents, children and other close family members quite heavily. Me alone escaping the suffering is not enough. I want to make sure they are on track to escape suffering as well. What are my options?

I don't have a complete knowledge in Buddhist teachings.

There is a quote which says,

'No one can save us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.'

So we can just help them show the path, but they have to walk their own path.


Buddhist cannon database s there an online database that either contains the Buddhist canon in either English or Chinese?

I've had a difficult time tracking down first hand sources other than the usual suspects (Heart Sutra, Prajnaparamita sutra, etc). I've been looking for anything related to pratityasamutpada in the abhidharma, but I don't even know where to look, or even if English translations exist.

Does anyone know where to look?

There are several large scholarly collections you can access freely:

Organizations:
International Association of Buddhist Studies

Sanskrit:
Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon

Chinese:
WWW Database of Chinese Buddhist texts
Digital Database of Buddhist Tripitaka Catalogues

Japanese:
The SAT Daizōkyō Text Database

English:
English Translation of the Buddhist Canon and Publication Project

hope this helps


Does teaching Buddhism work? Why did the Buddha bother to teach? Why does anyone teach today? Is there evidence (a charged word) or scriptural support that it really does any good? I read here many things that accord with my experience, but it also seems to "multiply entities" and so we wind up with lots of words when perhaps fewer would be better. Perhaps it would be more effective to simply have places of teaching, and those who wish to know would go there. A friend was saying to me recently that describing advanced experiences or ideas to family or friends only makes them think that one is deranged, it does not "light the way" for them if they are not looking.

To use your own analogy, if you were trying to learn how to implement an OO design pattern in JavaScript, would it be more expedient for you to try and figure it out for yourself or to learn it from someone who had already mastered the concept?  Buddhism can be a very technical religion.  There are some problems that will arise (and meditation alone is chock full of them) that you just won't be able to get past without someone there to guide you along.  What's worse, sometimes you don't even know what questions you should even be asking!  You might be doing something totally wrong, but without a teacher there to point it out, you'd never be the wiser.  You likewise might master somethings, but not know where to turn your attention next.

I don't think the importance of a teacher can be overstated.  One of the qualities of the Buddha is that he is an anuttaro purisadammasarathi - an unsurpassed teacher of persons to be tamed!  That wouldn't be in the Buddhanussati Gatha if it wasn't important!


Are there different experiences of equanimity? Specifically, is there a difference between equanimity as a corruption of insight and the insight stage "equanimity in regards to formations"?

On an ultimate level, equanimity is simply a feeling associated with a mind state; it is the quality of the mind state itself, independent of the equanimity, that determines the ethical nature of the state.

For example, lobha (greed) can arise with either a pleasant or a neutral feeling, both of which are unwholesome of course. Purely delusional mind states (moha-mūla-citta) arise only with equanimity - there are two of these, worry and doubt, and they are both unwholesome.

On the other hand, beautiful (sobhana) mind states also can arise with either pleasant or neutral feelings, and they are purely wholesome.

In the middle, there are the six sense resultant consciousnesses that are always accompanied by a neutral feeling (except physical, which can be associated with painful or pleasant feeling, IIRC). None of these are wholesome or unwholesome.

As to your specific question, equanimity as a defilement of insight is not necessarily qualitatively different from equanimity at the 11th stage, since the defilements of insight are none of them "bad". It is only the clinging to the states as the path to enlightenment that causes the true path to be neglected, hence "sullying" one's insight. Ostensibly, the equanimity itself is a positive sign of progress, but it is not the path - the four satipatthana are.

That being said, the equanimity that arises prior to the eleventh stage of knowledge, even if based on insight (it is often based rather on tranquility), is immature and unstable, whereas at the 11th stage it is lasting and firm, unshakable, and universal. It is the culmination, or maturation, of any insight-based equanimity that may have arisen previously.

As to equanimity in general, the Visuddhimagga (IV.84) lists ten types of equanimity, some of which are of the same quality:

six-factored equanimity - equanimity of an enlightened arahant
equanimity as a divine abiding - as a specific samatha meditation practice
equanimity as an enlightenment factor - having to do with relinquishment of desire
equanimity of energy - neither lax nor overexerted energy
equanimity about formations - 11th stage of knowledge, having overcome hindrances, regarding all formations as impermanent, suffering, and non-self
equanimity as a feeling - refers to the basic quality of neutrality common to many mind states
equanimity about insight - investigating states with objective intent
equanimity as specific neutrality - the balance of mental qualities as neither deficient or excessive
equanimity of jhāna - through being absorbed in an object to the point of abandoning pleasure and displeasure
equanimity of purification - describes the purification of the mind of partiality through various means.

Most of these just refer to different ways in which the concept of equanimity is used in the suttas and abhidhamma; in ultimate reality, as stated, most are called equanimity simply due to their shared quality of being associated with a neutral feeling. The difference is rather in their other specific qualities like wholesome or unwholesome roots, and the cause that brought about the equanimity - insight, tranquility, delusion, etc. More specifically, numbers 1-3 and 8-10 are all qualitatively the same as each other, as are 4 and 6 with each other. 5 and 7 are unique.


Does Jukai imply a student commitment to the preceptor? I'm sitting with a bunch of people (and have been for quite a while now), and I want to deepen my practice. I want to make a commitment, primary to myself, to stay on track and want to take Jukai (refuge).

Situation:

Our group is quite heterogeneous and a mere "sitting group". Our common denominator is Soto-Style Zen, but we are lay, lay-ordained people, and monks. Some style themselves Buddhist, other Christian.

We have no common teacher, head temple, center or any authority on site. That leaves me with a few options, all a few hours driving away from here, to commit to a master.

First there is the teacher of most/all of our lay-ordained members. Naturally, that would be the prominent choice, but that would be logistically the most challenging one.
Then there is a temple, which is nearer, but not so closely coupled to our group. That would be a more convenient choice.
Last there would be a main temple of the all over arcing organisation, the both former options are incorporated. But that one is a longer drive, again, and it is the most "unpersonal" option, since it is an higher organisation.

Personal Consideration:

I want to make the commitment more for my self. From my point of view, my shanga is my local group. I would want to get to know a teacher quite well, before I would choose him for a monk ordination. But with Jukai, as a first step, I won't consider it that important.

Questions:

Who can actually gives Jukai? Who's entitled to?
What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)?
How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it?
How to ask for Jukai?
How to prepare for that event?
Any other points, I may miss and should think about?

Edit 2015/10/30, after Andreis Answer:

His answer moves into the direction of "taking refuge in the three nobles truths".
I realize, that I'm already taking refuge on a regular basis by chanting the Shigu seigan mon (The Four Bodhisattva Vows).

Therefore I changed title and tag back to Jukai. I want to focus the question on Soto-Style Jukai as a lay-ordination with committing to the 10 precepts to reinforce my practice.

PS: I want to thank Chris for the proof-reading. English is not my first tongue and I am constantly make mistakes while writing, unable to see them myself.

Who can actually give Jukai? Who is entitled to?
Anyone can give, but you will receive more benefit if you get it from a realized master you have a feeling of connection with / admiration for. Realized masters transmit Sat-Dharma in their every move and having a sense of connection and admiration makes you more receptive to that subtle teaching.
What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)?
To quote Chogyam Trungpa:

By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security. We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway. We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.
The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path, and in the sangha as companionship.
At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that point.

How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it?
It is not like that, it is between you and Dharma:

The refuge ceremony is a formal acknowledgement that you have become a Buddhist. This is not a matter of institutional affiliation, or of belonging to a group. Refuge means that you have recognized the fundamental principles of Buddhism as an accurate reflection of reality and that you intend to live according to them. Refuge is only meaningful if you understand those principles and have experienced their application in your life.
One takes refuge in Buddhism, not in a particular school, lineage, or teacher. Taking refuge at [particular temple/school/teacher] does not imply any continuing commitment to [that temple/school/teacher], only to Dharma at large.


bKa’gyur , words of the Buddha? According to accredited scholars like L.Brown, the bka’gyur is a collection of the translation of the pronouncements.

Are the bk’gyur the words of the Buddha transcribed?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bka-gyur says,

Bka’-’gyur, (Tibetan: “Translation of the Buddha-Word”), also spelled Bkaḥ-ḥgyur, Kagyur, Kan-gyur, or Kanjur, the collection of Tibetan Buddhist sacred literature representing the “Word of the Buddha”—as distinct from the Bstan-’gyur (“Translation of Teachings”), or collection of commentaries and miscellaneous works. This body of canonical literature contains more than 1,000 works, most of them originally written in Sanskrit and most translated (with great care) after the 8th century. They were gathered together in the 13th century, and the collection has been published in 100 volumes.
The Bka’-’gyur begins with a vinaya (“monastic discipline”) section, the only group of works having much in common with the Pāli literature of southern Buddhism. Then follow a few hundred sūtras, mostly of the various Mahāyāna schools but including a number of Sarvāstivāda (“Doctrine That All Is Real”) works, and several collections of avadānas (legends of “noble deeds”). Finally, there are several hundred Tantras, the special ritual and meditation texts of the Vajrayāna form of Buddhism characteristic of Tibet. These latter are divided into four groups, containing, respectively, worldly rites, religious rites, traditional yogic practices, and the esoteric forms of Tantric yoga.

You asked, "All perspective are well accepted if these scriptures are part of the canon" -- but the answer may depend on which canon (e.g. the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon).
I read a while ago on this site that the question of whether a text is "Buddhavacana" is a subject of debate or argument, disagreement, between schools.


What Ahosi kamma really is? The definition of ahosi kamma is defunct kamma which no longer bears fruits. As we know every action has its consequence. From Buddhist point of view, AFAIK, it's impossible to remove any vipaka completely. If an "old-kamma" can become exhausted, then what is the difference with no consequence?

If a kamma is inhibited by a more powerful one, then the consequence is still there, maybe it is minimized or delayed. But if an action has no consequence, I think it's hard to understand it from the law of cause and effect point of view.

What Ahosi kamma really is?

Imagine you have a seed. That seed has the possibility to turn into a tree but only if the right conditions are met.

For example, the seed needs water, fertile soil and maybe a little fence around it so that people will not step on it. If the seeds grows into a small young tree, then again it needs certain conditions to continue growing. For example it needs fertile soil, sunlight, water and again a little fence around it, so that cattle won't eat its leaves.

Its exactly the same case with Kamma. Kamma needs the right conditions to ripen and thereby come to fruition. If these conditions are not met, then the Kamma will not ripen and it will instead become Defunct (ahosi) Kamma.

For example, in the case of an Arahant. All their accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives, will become defunct when the Arahant passes away, since he/she will not get reborn. The Arahant has destroyed all fetters and cut all roots and thereby all causes and conditions for the past kamma to ever come to fruition.


Relationship between Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga? All these 3 philosophy/religions are born across Tibet/Nepal/India and they all share numerous concept and practice.

Some points of connections could be:

Noble Eightfold Path are very similar to Yamas in Yoga
Concept of Reincarnation
Karma
Meditation approach as technique to reach enlightenment
Meditation positions: actually the lotus posture, usually used in Buddish for meditation, is a yoga asana
Yantra
Mudras

More in general:

Hinduism and Yoga are almost on the same line, they born in the same time and are based on same concepts.
Buddhism, instead is more "modern", Buddha is dated between 563 BCE to 483, Hinduism/Yoga are thousand of years older, and in someway it is a consequence of the first two:
it is born in an environment where Hinduism/Yoga concept were the basement of the culture.

One of the main difference is:

Buddhism doesn't speak about God but speak about "life and how to live" or better how to stop to suffer. ( so it is basically the oldest psychoanalytic method known )

Personally I believe that the reason behind this (non speaking about God) is because Buddha is like saying "Before speaking about God, you need to be ready and stable and find your self" or better "you don't need to speak about God, you have to find it and the shorter and safer path is inside you."

Main Point of the question:
Define a relationship between the above entities as they are strictly related and so point out the elements of difference that Buddhism philosophy introduces.

I think that this can be helpful to anyone that is approaching to Buddhism.

Hinduism & Yoga aren't 2 different things. They are the same.
Yoga is one of the 6 main Darshanas of Hinduism. I.e it provides it's own path for liberation. Other Darshanas(Advaita, etc) too use Yoga as a valid means but not the only valid means.

Can't really say Buddhism is modern. It evolved along with Yoga both of which can be traced to around 4th century BCE.

Both Hindu Darshanas & Buddhism evolved influencing each other. For example Advaita borrowed some of it's elements from Nagarjuna. Tibetan Buddhism incorporated Tantra which is considered 'Hindu'.

Tibetan Buddhism has it's own version of Yoga called Trul khor.

Hence to answer your question, they all belong to the same family, the Dharmic family and have influenced each other.


What is the difference between Satipatthana and Vipassana? In short, if i practice Vipassana meditation does it means i practice Satipatthana?

Satipatthana is the name of the actual practice, and Vipassana is the name of the quality of clearly seeing reality which Satipatthana produces.


Cyclical time in Buddhism I've been learning about time and the varyous perspectives that it is viewed through, and it seems like there are two main ways of thought. The first, generally associated as a western mindset, is that time is linear. The second, and this is generally considered more eastern, is that time is considered cyclical. I'm pretty sure that this is also a common way-of-thought in Hunduism, but I'm, in particular, wanting to learn more about the nature of time from a buddhist perspective. Of what I have read sutra-wise (pretty much just the Lotus Sutra), I have only seen time's cyclality being alluded to once, when Shakyamuni Buddha is saying that, at the end of a kalpa, when the world is consumed by fire, his pure land will, although appearing to burn with the rest of the world, stay safe and untouched. I assume from this that at the end of kalpas, it was considered that the world would burn (maybe signifying the start of a new cycle). Anyhow, I'm just wanting to know more about the nuances of Buddhist-cyclical time and how one can comprehend/view the world in such a way.

Cyclicality and Linearity are both alluded to in Buddhism. Essentially many beings are trapped in Samsara living their lives and doing similar things over and over through the aeons because they are chasing after the same endless desires and suffering the same afflictions. However, it is also linear in the fact that progress is possible, you can transcends Samsara by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path. The future is by no means fixed that you are required to repeat the past. The world have many internal cycles but it is also moving forward. You can see day turn into night into day, and each day we do many similar things we have already done before, but it is also not quite the same day, and you will certainly be a different person 10 years from now.

The ultimate goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to liberate all beings, turning the world into a Pure Land of peace and joy. Yes, such a goal is very distant but never the less they strive towards that goal.


Arguing of Buddhists? Q:

  Do Buddhists argue over topics? Wouldn't that be unwholesome and view
  clinging?

Arguing depends upon person to person. Buddha always forbid arguing. Even at time of buddha , few of his disciples used to argue & he ,by many Upmas(lessons), used to forbid everyone to argue.

By wearing a tag of buddhism or any other tradition , doesn't mean person has become an enlightened one. If somebody is not ready to accept , it's good -let this go otherwise ,if accepts ,it's good ,still ,whatever the case is ,one must be ready to learn(if same is unenlightened) ,mustn't stick to blind-faith.

Moreover , dhamma-discussion can be done peacefully , buddha never restricted dhamma_related_discussion. You are your own master , you cannot force anyone to accept your views ,if you are forcing or arguing that means you are clinging & this is unwholesome.

Above is for full_time meditators.

For house holders::

Sometimes ,it becomes necessary to argue ,not to fulfill your desire but saving someone's life ,taking important decisions for benefit of large amount of people,etc. In such cases , arguing becomes necessary ,still this must be done while maintaining basic 5 Percepts at body & mental level.


Impermanence is Buddha nature / Buddha nature is impermanence Can anyone please explain these aphorism / these aphorisms?

Thank you in advance.

I don't know, so the following is a complete guess, and I hope someone will give a better answer.

Apparently the aphorism come from Dōgen.

Dōgen has a perhaps-non-standard view of Buddha-nature, which he calls Busshō.

My guesses are:

If according to Dōgen everything (real) is Buddha-nature then (because everything real is impermanent), therefore everything (i.e. Buddha-nature) is impermanent.
So for example any description of Buddha-nature and anyone describing Buddha-nature and anything to which the term Buddha-nature could be applied is impermanent.
As for the converse (i.e. impermanence is Buddha-nature), is that related to the third noble truth, or to rise and fall?


Sati-Sampajañña and a quiet mind Is it the case that a quiet mind can best execute Sati-Sampajañña because there are no interfering thoughts disturbing it?

If the answer is yes, should the main concern in day-to-day life be to tranquilize the mind, to think and keep wisdom in mind, or even both?

Regards

The quiet mind is ideal but not a forced quiet mind. It is only the quiet of jhana that is ideal. If jhana is too difficult,  and unlikely for us, then best not to waste time and practice momentary samadhi instead by becoming aware of the busy, unclear mind when it arises. If there is an urge to fight it or if there is disliking it, be aware there is disliking. Mindfulness impartial to the defilement, the defilement is automatically abandoned, disappears for that moment. Train this way for those who aren't clearing the mind correctly or easily.


How to recognize stream entry? Have disappeared the body and thoughts,there is remaining awareness with the knows during practice.what is this stage of practice?how to know whtere this is stream entry?

Stream-entry is to have verified confidence in the Dhamma, which is seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.

What this means is to fully realise the abandoning of craving, attachment & self-view brings peace (and the opposite brings suffering & disturbance).


Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma? Should a lay Buddhist teach the Dhamma in a dhamma centre? Can a lay person teach just as a monk does? If so, are there any differences (e.g., should they sit on a different level, should the audience pay respect in a different way, etc.)?

Lay practitioner ==> monk is not a one way street. Some monks renounce their vows for various reasons (not always bad). A famous example in Western Tibetan Buddhism is Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who ordained in 1947 and renounced in 1970, but kept teaching in lay status all the way until 1987. He still sat on a high platform and enjoyed the same honors as an ordained teacher. This is less about your official status and more about your spiritual achievements and realizations.

As Buddha himself said (AN 5.166),

  Why should an elder be honored, respected, held in esteem, and venerated? On account of his broken teeth, grey hair, and wrinkled skin?

...

  Possessing five qualities, bhikkhus, an elder is respected and esteemed:

  He is virtuous; he dwells restrained by the Patimokkha, possessed of good conduct and resort, seeing danger in minute faults. Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them.
  He has learned much, remembers what he has learned, and accumulates what he has learned. Those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing, which proclaim the perfectly complete and pure spiritual life -- such teachings as these he has learned much of, retained in mind, recited verbally, mentally investigated, and penetrated well by view.
  He is a good speaker with a good delivery; he is gifted with speech that is polished, clear, articulate, expressive of the meaning.
  He gains at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhanas that constitute the higher mind and are pleasant dwellings in this very life.
  With the destruction of the taints, he has realized for himself with direct knowledge, in this very life, the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and having entered upon it, he dwells in it.

From this we can see that it is not whether you are a lay person or a monk that is important for you being a teacher, but your spiritual achievements and realizations, plus communication skills.


Where does Gautam Buddha say so? I want details of following quote by Gautam Buddha. Can anyone tell where (reference) & what completely he said?

It's introduced, briefly, on this page of the "Fake Buddha Quotes" web site.


Attainment of enlightenment without desire The Noble Truths make us aware that the cause of suffering is desire. Isn't it a desire to become enlightened and attain Nirvana; thus, causes suffering? If you drop the desire, will it be possible to attain Nirvana, or for that matter, do anything at all?

  "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." -The Buddha (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta)

Desire is used to fabricate all the needed conditions to abandon desire once and for all.
Desire should be dropped at the right time, after all the conditions for attaining Nibbana are generated. But it is used until that point.
So desire is used to abandon desire.
Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."
"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."
"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life."


Possible to attain happiness without support, through art? Is it possible to attain happiness without support, through art, not overt meditation?

I'm not really an expert on any art, but take the question (somewhat) seriously.

Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, developing a family, nurturing a child, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.

Here, I'm guessing that art could be your hobby or career.

But the point is that these types of happiness would not last forever.

The goal of Buddhism is to find the sort of happiness that would be permanent.

On another note, please see this answer on why actors may go to hell and this answer which elaborates on the point that music and entertainment is not allowed for those undertaking the training of the eight precepts, ten precepts or ordination into monkhood.


What are the texts of Vajrāyana Buddhism? And where can I get? What are the scriptures of Vajrāyana Buddhism? Or texts related?
Where can I get scriptures or texts on Vajrāyana Buddhism?

This person – Andrea Pema will be able to help you on this. If asked just say that Saptha Visuddhi referred you to him.
Andrea Pema has translated many of  Vajrāyana Buddhism text to English. The follow are few of his notes:

The Progressive Stages of Meditation. From Shamata to the Beginning of the Mahasandhi

An Excerpt from my Book “Buddha Dharma”: Introduction to the Vajrayana (for Advanced Yogis and Yoginis as well as for Beginners)

On the three Buddha Bodies - the Buddhist Sutra and Tantra on the Qualities of Enlightenment

The Guru Yoga Practice of Padmasambhava, for Beginners and Advanced Practitioners

A short advice on how to do Deity Yoga in Buddhist Tantra

What is “Bodhicitta” in the Tantra ?

A Gem of Compassion from the Mahayana; The Practice of Tonglen, a “must” for those that follow the Bodhisattva Path

The Dharani of Lapis Light that generates the Power of the Tathagatas Meditative Absorption

On Shunyata ( Emptiness)

On meditation and sacred outlook

The Path of Bliss in Buddhist Tantra


Prohibitions against eating certain animals? I sometimes see rules suggesting that monks (at least Theravadan) should not eat various animals. The lists vary, but includes to varying degree: elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, slugs, cows, and humans.

When I try to find something authoritative about this, I've come up short. Can anyone shed light on: (1) is there a list of animals that monks are prohibited from eating, and if so, (2) where does this appear in the canon, and (3) how/why were the particular animals listed?

Page 308 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  The Mahavagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human
  beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas.

  To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable
  types, a dukkata. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too
  noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on
  grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread
  it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome,
  disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the
  jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).

  The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) These prohibitions cover
  not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide
  (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4.113). (b) The prohibition
  against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but
  many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this
  point). The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden.
  (c) The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings.
  Thus eels would not be allowed.


Would the Buddha Shelter us from being offended? Would the Buddha shelter one from being offended by people? If so, how would he shelter one? If not, then why not?

Being offended is the very opposite of Buddhist practice. In the Assalāyana Sutta, the story is told about the seer Asita Devala, who was of dark skin, where the more the seer Asita Devala was insulted & reviled by others, the more radiant & beautiful his complexion became.

Being offended requires attachment of ego. No ego or no attachment = no being offended. The goal of Buddhism is to end "I making", "my making" & egoism.

Therefore, Buddhism does not offer us shelter from being offended but, instead, offers shelter to those who try to offend us.

For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, the Buddha exhorted a monk who was attacked by insults & rocks to: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it!".

  Then, Assalāyana, the seven brahman seers put a curse on the seer Asita Devala, saying: ‘Become a vile cinder.’ But, Assalāyana, the
  more the seven brahman seers cursed the seer Asita Devala, the more
  lovely became the seer Asita Devala, the more good to look upon and
  the more charming. Then, Assalāyana, it occurred to the seven brahman
  seers: ‘Vain is austerity for us, fruitless the Brahma-faring.
  Formerly when we put a curse on anyone, saying: Become a vile cinder,
  he became as a cinder; but the more we put a curse on this one the
  more lovely he becomes, the more good to look upon, the more
  charming.’

Also, MN 2:

  And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There
  is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He
  tolerates cold, heat, hunger & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. The
  fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to
  tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them.
  These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.

And MN 21:

  Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’

  This is how you must train yourselves, monks.

  Monks, as low-down thieves might carve one limb from limb with a double-handled saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he,
  for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching. Herein, monks, you
  should train yourselves thus:

  ‘Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’

  This is how you must train yourselves, monks.

  If you, monks, were to attend repeatedly to this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw, would you, monks, see any way of speech, subtle or
  gross, that you could not endure?”

  “No, Lord.”

  “Wherefore, monks, consider repeatedly this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw; for a long time it will be for your welfare and
  happiness.”

  Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said.