Buddha Always focused on voidness? I remember reading about the characteristics of the or a Buddha, and one of them was “a Buddha is always focused on voidness.” Sadly I did not save the website and don’t remember where this was written. Now to the question. What are the mental characteristics of a Buddha? Can you give me a list? I don’t mean the nine qualities. It is a different list, a less common one. It should include the point I mentioned and be of mahayana origin.

You've asked for a Mahayana text, which may or may not include MN121, in which the Buddha says:

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

Although "emptiness" is probably what you meant by "void", it's worth noting that Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) discuss several terms which can get conflated with "void." Let's look at some of these:

AN9.41:11.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space?’
AN9.41:13.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness?’
SN41.6:3.2: “But sir, how does someone attain the cessation of perception and feeling?”

The above three experiences are differentiated and transitional states leading to the experience and practice described in MN121:

MN121:3.3: ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’


What is the true meaning of Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara I am trying to find a right description of the word Sankhara in dependent origination which includes Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara.
I have not been able to understand what they mean. Would you please help me understand what each of them mean.

When it is said volitional activities from what I have read I think that means something that is done by intention and free will in the present moment (even if we are not aware that we are doing it with intention and free will) Now I have heard that they are kamma in what sense do they mean that they are kamma? I have also heard that they are product of our past actions so that contradicts the notion that they are actions one does with free will (volitional) beacuse they are a result of our past not an intentional action in the present done with free will. Where does Kaya Sankhara or breathing in and out come with all of this? How can that be intentional action in the present or as in the other theory the result of past kamma. Is vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara product of our past kamma or is it something that we we are doing with free will and volition in the present moment that can be stopped beacuse it is all free will? Does the past decide our present Sankharas or is it all done by free will and intention in the present and that would mean that it is in our control.

You see I have many questions and I hope someone can clarify that for me. But the most important is to clearly understand what do Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara really mean I have seen many different views and I am confused and therefor I would really want to know it to progress in my spiritual path.

Sankara is conditioning which puts together or makes or forms something.

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.
Vaci Sankhara - this is what sustains the formations of verbal throughs. Before speech thoughts need to form, without them one cannot speak.
Citta Sankhara - this is what causes a mind to arise. Feeling and perceptions are what causes a mind to arise.

How this is relevant in meditation is given here.


Is pīti physical and sukha emotional? I always read piti: joy is mental happiness and sukha is physical. But lately i have been reading pīti is physical, sukha is emotional. At first i thought this didn't matter but now for Jhana training I'm reading move from the piti physical sensation to sukha emotional sensation, which completely throw me off. Any help?

Can't separate like that. Mental-emotional-somatical is a continuum, not discrete. Or, more precisely, they are layers of the same, like different frequencies that can be isolated within the same signal function - not separate.

Sukha is that mental/emotional state/feeling when everything is just right. Everything is just the way it should be. It feels peaceful, subtle and sweeeeeeet. It also has somatic component. The breath becomes fluid, the body feels light, the movements are spontaneous. It's like that feeling when you just woke up after wonderful sleep and you feel refreshed and blissful, gentle and peaceful.

Piti is a much more coarse condition. It is like that feeling when you listen to a very inspiring lecture or a song and suddenly realize - and feel - profound significance and gratitude, and then you may get goosebumps or the tears may start rolling. Somatically at that moment, you may feel being aflame or tingling or orgasm-like waves going through your body. Unlike sukha, piti is kinda taxing, one can get tired of it.

So yeah, piti is coarser of the two and sukha is subtler - in this sense you could say, piti has a stronger somatic component and sukha is more focused on the mental/emotional end of the spectrum.


15 Un-written BrahmaLokas in Dhammacakkapavattana sutta I was wondering about Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. All i know is that when buddha turned the dhamma wheel for the first time, all of the residents of Devalokas and The Rupa-Brahmalokas came and claps their hands.

There's this 1 phrase which sounds:
"Brahmakayika deva saddamanussavesum"

As for Brahmakayika is the lowest of brahmaloka [1st Jhana Realm]. I don't think brahmakayika could represent all of the rupa-brahmalokas [Inculiding 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Jhana Realms]

The Question is, why other rupa-brahmalokas name were not included or unwritten in the text, did they forget to write it or is there any missing text during that time?

Thank you,
LomX

Footnote 200 on page 59 of Piya Tan's translation says,

  It is interesting and important to note that the list of exulting devas stops here with the Brahmās of the 1st dhyana.
  The reason for this is that, as there is still some level of mentation here—by way of initial and sustained applications
  (vitakka,vicāra)—these Brahmās are still in contact with the sense-world. In the realms beyond the 1st dhyana,
  thought-process as we know it ceases completely so that these beings enjoy the glory of their meditative state as
  pure light or profound peace for as long as their karma fuels it. See Bhava Ss 1-2 (A 3.76-77), SD 23.13 (3).


Ajahn Brahm stated that he ate snakes and frogs during his training, does this mean that it is acceptable to kill animals? It is famous solution to eat meat only if it is offered by somebody and when the animal was not killed specifically for the person receiving it.

Amongst the many videos of Ajahn Brahm on his youtube channel, he stated, in at least one, that during his training in thailand, he spend a few days or weeks, with other monks, in the forest and he boiled frogs and ate snakes. He added that this training was quite though, with the meals not pleasing.

Do we know more about the thai tradition when the monks go in the forest and eat there, in particular to know whether it is acceptable to kill animals, ourselves, directly for our personal consumption?

Here's an extract from an article by Ajahn Brahm, What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat,

Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians.The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them.
The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks. Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails, red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the villager's meal - frogs again.
Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!
May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

My understanding therefore is that "frogs" is what the villagers shared, as alms.
Wikipedia's Thai Forest Tradition article talks of a morning alms round (and not of monks catching animals and killing them and cooking their own food).
Other Google search results say things like, "Thai forest tradition monks cannot handle money or cultivate, cook or store ...", and "The monk does not store or cook food but daily enters the nearby village ...".


How exactly i can access my Astral body in meditation? Lord Buddha have access to unlimited knowledge, This information can be found in old Indian scriptures as well, that human body is capable to visiting to another planets with his/her Astral body (Suksham Sharir).

Is there some particular way or do i need Guru for this particular thing ?
Many Buddhist monk don't teach this, i am aware that Lord buddha himself have denied not to show any super powers.

These Siddhi's (powers) may lead to Ego, But going in universe have always been an interesting thing for anyone.

It is important to say that their is no meaning to aim for developing Siddhi. Doing so demonstrate that you are on the wrong way and therefore it will take much more time to reach them. Siddhi are fruits on the path.

Doing things with Astral body is possible for anyone, since it is just a part of yourself. The point is to get a part big enough of your conscience to go with it.

This as nothing to do with meditation or Buddhism.
To have a good mediation it is more important to be here and now, well centered, and therefore with your astral body inside. Nowadays, most of the person have their astral body somewhere else (high astral, low, or around).


Politics within the Sangha Where there is a group of people, there will be politics and organizational dynamics. This should be no different with the Sangha.

For example, monks trying to cause dissent or schism, monks who disobey instructions, monks trying to gain power over others, monks who are envious of others, monks trying to get the attention of the Buddha or their abbot etc.

How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time?

How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?

How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time?

There are two famous schisms in the time of the Buddha; the Devadatta schism and the Kosambi schism.

In the former case, new, inexperienced monks were led astray by bogus teachings and the Buddha sent his two chief disciples to explain the truth to them.

In the latter case, the Buddha tried to invoke the seventh means of settling disputes (adhikaranasamatha), called "covering over with grass" - i.e. agreeing to leave the past transgressions behind and start fresh. The monks refused and the Buddha abandoned them.

To some extent, it's not very instructive to ask "how did the Buddha handle X", since he was fully enlightened and knew how to best deal with every specific situation. Better to ask is how the Buddha taught one should deal with sangha politics. In this instance, he left fairly specific procedural teachings on how to avoid and deal with such affairs.

Briefly, the seven adhkaranasamatha for dealing with disputes and legal cases are:

Settling in front of the transgressor
Settling based on a confirmation of enlightenment
Settling based on a confirmation of insanity
Settling based on an admission of guilt
Settling by a vote of the majority
Settling on punishment for evil-doers
Settling by covering over with grass

Beyond this, there is specific and lengthy instruction in the vinaya regarding schisms, and there are various teachings on dealing with power struggles, envy, disobedience, etc.

How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?

Rather poorly, for the most part. But "the sangha" is a huge and diverse conceptual body that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist as a single entity. Various sects, traditions, and even countries have their own sanghas now, and each sangha has its own means of dealing (or not) with such problems. For the most part, it is far more difficult to actually deal with monastic transgressions in modern times; without the stability of a large body of enlightened beings, it's much more "every monk for himself", unfortunately.


What is the historical origin of Vajrapani? I've always found the imagery of Vajrapani (a wrathful Bodhisattva) very evocative. I'm reading a little bit about him and how his form is to do with energy and power in service of the Dharma so he is of course a positive figure.

But I'm just wondering if anyone knows about the history of this figure and wrathful deities like him. Is he from the Tibetan culture and does he predate Buddhism coming into that country. Also is he a deity that perhaps had negative connotations (a demon perhaps) that Buddhism has co-opted?

Longchen Rabjam's Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems (tr. Richard Barron) says:

  Traditionally, Manjushri is renowned for having compiled the tantras of enlightened form, Avalokiteshvara the tantras of enlightened speech, and Vajrapani the tantras of enlightened mind, qualities, and activity.

A footnote fills this out:

  In the sutra teachings, ''the lords of the three families" -- Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, and Vajrapani -- are among the eight great bodhisattvas in the retinue of every nirmanakaya buddha such as Shakyamuni. In the ... context ... of the Vajrayana teachings, they are emanations who are not separate from the expounder of the tantras, whether Buddha Shakyamuni or the primordial buddha (usually referred to as Samantabhadra or Vajradhara, who expounded tantras considered to predate the historical Buddha). In the tantras, these emanations are part of the naturally manifest retinue that appears in the sambhogakaya realm of Akanishtha. In the sutras, these bodhisattvas are peaceful manifestations; in the Vajrayana, the emanations may appear in either peaceful or wrathful forms.

So, no negative connotations I'd say! I know Vajrapani appeared in Sanskrit first because he's mentioned in Ch. 10 of 'Way of the Bodhisattvas,' by the 8th century Indian buddhist monk Shantideva. Wiki mentions the earlier sutra that may have been Shantideva's reference (see link in comment).


Why is focusing on the breath more difficult than focusing on Mantras, and how important is it before vipassana? I have been doing mantra meditation for years and saying "Aum" for a few minutes makes me go deeper in meditation within like 10 minutes.

But focus on the breath is difficult compared to the mantras.

What is the difference between the results of breath vs vipassana?

I can hardly do 10 conscious breaths (feeling peace). Any suggestions for betterment?

On the other hand doing vipassana makes me feel very strange (like perceiving vibrations) in my entire body.

In mantra meditation, it feels like something (kind of waves) is coming out of my body.

Am I on the right path or is it hallucination?

When reciting a mantra you have vitakka and vicāra which helps you get close to the 1st Jhana. But this is also accumulation of Fabrications (more particularly Verbal Fabrications) which should be avoided.

Vitakka and vicāra without the constant awareness of arising and passing inhibits the ability to see impermanence. That is why when you are doing Vipassana you become aware of vibration but not when doing mantra meditation.

To aid you breath meditation you can use vitakka and vicāra to your advantage. Be aware that your are aware of breathing then periodically assess whether you are actually with the breath, but at the reducing frequency. Start with even in breath and out breath and when you notice you can stay a while then do it after each breath and then after few breaths and you your mind just sticks to the task then drop it altogether.

Vitakka and vicara in initial application and sustained application. 1st your bring your mind to the breath then this is the initial application followed by trying to keep the breath in mind.


Form in the formless realms Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there also have a form of some kind.
Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama were most probably born in formless Brahma realms after their death.
But Buddha didn't visit Alara-Kalama and Uddakka-Ramaputta which means that they couldn't understand the Dhamma which must have been a problem with the senses or something similar (My first question) because they already had superior mental ability to understand the Dhamma (MN 21),

Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little
dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He
will quickly understand this Dhamma.

Dust here implies the 5 hindrances.

This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had
little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first?
He will quickly understand this Dhamma.

I would like to get an answer to either or both (if possible) of the below questions,
Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama.
Question 2: What is the difference in form between the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

OP: Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and
Alara Kalama.

The reason for this is that they had already passed away at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment.
From MN 26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He
has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the
Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came
to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And
knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days
ago.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Alara Kalama
suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly
understood it.'
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent,
intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were
to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this
Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died
last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka
Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great
loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he
would have quickly understood it.

The sutta proceeds with the Buddha selecting the five monks at the Deer Park at Isipatana, to be his first disciples. They are the ones who attended to him when he practiced extreme asceticism.

OP: Question 2: What is the difference in form between
the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

If you mean the traditional Buddhist cosmology of the 31 planes of existence, please see the AccessToInsight page on The Thirty-One Planes of Existence:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless
jhanas.
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees
of mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have
attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed
to (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to
possess extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these
realms, the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have
attained to "non-returning," the third stage of Awakening. The
Fine-Material World and the Immaterial World together constitute the
"heavens" (sagga).
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five
senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include
our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The
lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the
animal and hell realms.

The details of all 31 planes are on that page.

OP: Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is
implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there
also have a form of some kind.

If you look at that page, it says that unconscious beings (asaññasatta) who are on plane #22 have body but no mind. On the other hand, the top four types of beings in the arupa-loka have mind, but no body.
Doesn't that conflict with the definition of name-and-form in Dependent Origination?
My take on it is that the Dependent Origination taught in the Pali suttas applies to humans, and any beings with both body and mind. The Buddha, being a pragmatic teacher, targeted this teaching only at those who are able to listen to it and understand it. This does not include the unconscious beings (asaññasatta), those beings in the arupa-loka, and also the beings who are in the state of deprivation (apaya).
There may be more to Dependent Origination as in how it may apply to those beings with mind and no body, or with body and no mind, but this is one of those things which the Buddha did not teach us because it is not useful to us.
As we see in SN 56.31:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.

There is an alternative view to this.
The alternative view is that the 31 planes of existence are just different states of mind, that is to say not a literal physical rebirth into those planes, but rather the momentary rebirth of one's personhood into those planes i.e. entering different states of mind. This is usually supported by the association of the 4 rupa jhanas and 4 arupa jhanas, as well as brahmaviharas with different planes.
This is like a more subtle perspective into the teachings, compared to the one previously mentioned, which is gross.


What am I doing wrong? I was introduced to meditation many years ago through a short course and a book. Essentially I tried the mindful breathing meditation. I kept at it for a couple of years after which different circumstances resulted in me forgetting all about the meditation. Maybe it was due to my not noticing any discernable effects. But now I am trying to pick it up again. Currently I am following the book "Wherever you go, there you are" by Jon Kabat-Zinn.
However, I have a few questions:

1) Everywhere I keep reading stuff of the kind "Observe your thoughts without judgment". What does that really translate into in practice? How do you observe without judging? I mean, if you get sad thoughts, you get sad too. Thats why they are called sad thoughts. I never understood how to actually follow this advise.

2) Again, I keep reading "Observe this particular moment", "be in this moment" etc. What other moment are we normally in? What special tasks do we need to undertake to be in this moment? I mean, as long as you don't daydream about the future or wallow in the past, you're in the moment, right? This is something I again fail to comprehend clearly.

3)"Observe the breath". Do I feel the breath? Or note that I am breathing? Or count the breath? It just feels like more thinking.

4) How do you ever "know" that your meditation is working right? Or how do you even know your practice is headed in the right direction? I got tired after 2 years of it and nothing in return. Okay maybe I did it wrong, but how would it have been had I done it right? Is there a time frame within which you can expect some sort of result if you do it right?

5) There seem to be many kinds of meditations, each with its own set of fanboys. Are these different types simply different paths to the same goal? Or are they meant for different goals? Moreover, are their learning curves different? How do I know what is right for me? Does this analysis even matter at all or am I just complicating things needlessly? My aim is to be able to concentrate and think clearly without getting overwhelmed.

Clearly I am doing it wrong, for I feel no difference. The meditation books are full of hollow cliches and deep-sounding mumbo-jumbo which isn't helping at a practical level.

Just to put the facts out: I am a mathematics grad student deeply interested in algebra and computing, and a Hindu by birth. I find religion and mythology fascinating from a historical perspective though am not spiritual or too keen on the underlying philosophies. I have also faced recurrent issues with OCD and clinical depression and insomnia, but medication, therapy and most importantly, time, have made things better. I am, and have always been curious about meditation, but have not been too successful or consistent with it. I am not opposed to religious imagery or artefacts in the meditation practice, though I'd prefer it to be as objective as possible.

Any advise/suggestions would be great. Thanks!

I think you did a really good job of breaking down your doubts into individual points.

    1) Everywhere I keep reading stuff of the kind "Observe your thoughts without judgment". What does that really translate into in practice? How do you observe without judging? I mean, if you get sad thoughts, you get sad too. Thats why they are called sad thoughts. I never understood how to actually follow this advise.

In Buddhism we separate the initial thought from the emotion which we apply to it. The thought isn't a bad thing until we start to apply our ideas to it, we call it sadness and we want to get away from it, we start to think of how good life would be if we could avoid sadness. It is only after we apply our ideas that this thought becomes bad.

As humans it's very hard not to see sadness as a bad thing, we cannot immediately control our reactions to avoid labeling sadness as bad. When beginning with meditation we practice allowing the sadness to be present in the mind and not try to get rid of it.

    2) Again, I keep reading "Observe this particular moment", "be in this moment" etc. What other moment are we normally in? What special tasks do we need to undertake to be in this moment? I mean, as long as you don't daydream about the future or wallow in the past, you're in the moment, right? This is something I again fail to comprehend clearly.

You're right that thoughts about the future and past are not part of the practice but sometimes we get distracted without going to the future or past. For example if we see a bar of chocolate we have sight in the present moment; then we might get distracted and start to think "Where are these chocolates made?" or "How many calories are in the chocolate?". These thoughts aren't about the past or future but we are now lost in thinking and we are not in the present moment.

As an extra note, if you change from seeing chocolate to thinking "How many calories are in the chocolate?" then the present moment changed from sight to this thought about calories, you could remain in the present by observing the thought but observing a thought is different from just thinking it.

    3)"Observe the breath". Do I feel the breath? Or note that I am breathing? Or count the breath? It just feels like more thinking.

Some of the suggested techniques do involve more thinking than others. One aim of meditation is to reduce the amount we get caught up in thoughts. Just feeling the breath involves less thought than counting the breath, in that way feeling is better than counting. You know from meditating that it is difficult to stay aware of the breathing, some people are so stressed that they have to count their breath, it is too difficult to only feel the breath. For these people counting is a good idea until they are calm enough to just feel the breath.

    4) How do you ever "know" that your meditation is working right? Or how do you even know your practice is headed in the right direction? I got tired after 2 years of it and nothing in return. Okay maybe I did it wrong, but how would it have been had I done it right? Is there a time frame within which you can expect some sort of result if you do it right?

If you are doing meditation correctly then you should notice an improvement in your reactions to things. Maybe before when a person shouts at you then you get angry and shout at them, after meditating for months when a person shouts at you then you notice your anger and you don't immediately think that you have to shout.

    5) There seem to be many kinds of meditations, each with its own set of fanboys. Are these different types simply different paths to the same goal? Or are they meant for different goals? Moreover, are their learning curves different? How do I know what is right for me? Does this analysis even matter at all or am I just complicating things needlessly? My aim is to be able to concentrate and think clearly without getting overwhelmed.

Largely the different meditations are different paths to the same goal. Any meditation which involves observing an object (the breath, the body, a coloured disc, a flame) the object is unimportant because eventually in deep meditation you will not be able to see/feel the object. Because breath meditation is so popular there are many many variations of how to watch the breath but you just need to find the one that works best for you. The only way to know what is right for you is to experiment with different types, a month should be long enough to know if you like it. None are perfect so just find one that is good enough for you.

Last bit of advice: Meditation involves letting go of what is happening. If you are trying very hard to follow your breath then you are preventing yourself from being relaxed. Ideally you should not require effort to remain aware of the breathing, you just won't get distracted by other things because you are calm.

I hope that some of these answers help you to develop a fruitful practice.


Choose option in suffering? Hair fall suffering..
Breakup suffering.
Self criticism suffering.
Separation suffering .
Not to  get what is want .
....................................................................................................
Option:
1.run from suffering.(escape from suffering)( drink alcohol)
2.face suffering..
3.Effort to overcome suffering.
4.Accept what is suffering..
Your opinion

According to SN 56.11 e.g. as summarised on page 46 of this analysis:

  Suffering should be known
  Craving should be abandoned
  Nirvana should be realized
  The path should be cultivated

I think that means something like,

Experience suffering (or sufferings plural)
Understand that suffering co-arises with (and ceases with) with craving and attachment
Abandon (don't attach to) cravings

Perhaps "accept what is suffering" isn't a good description of what to do. More specifically something like, "accept without craving so that suffering doesn't arise".


What arises first - feeling of object or visual representation of object? I'm wondering what do other meditators see when they analyze closely the arising of a visual representation of an object in their mind?

Please do this experiment: go into meditation and think of a visual representation of an object of your choosing. Look carefully how that visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please describe here what do you see, from the moment there is "nothing" in your mind, to the moment when the visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please also give an estimate how many hours of meditation have you practiced in your life.

Here's what I see when I do the above experiment:

What I'm seeing is that first, there arises the wish/want/decision/effort (I use different words here, but I'm referring to the same thing). Then, there arises a subtle subtle subtle feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the stronger is the feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, when I wish/want/decide/effort even more, an incomplete/dimmed/unclear representation of the object can be seen. Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the more complete is the visual representation of the object in my mind.

In my life I practiced meditation for about 450 hours.

UPDATE:

I know that in Buddhism this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights" ... the reason I'm asking you to describe your personal insight in the experiment above is to see it first hand why this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights". I personally don't know any experienced meditators, thus I have nobody to ask this same question and see how personal insights of others differ from mine ... that's why I'm asking here. Hope some experienced meditator will give some description of his personal insight by answering this question.

The optic nerve first goes to the amygdala where emotion resides and then to a large processing area to the back of the head where the image is formed.

So indeed feeling is first but still this knowledge must be realized for oneself by oneself through meditative attention or else it is just intellectual knowlegde.


What are stories on awakening while practicing teaching the Dhamma? Teaching the Dhamma (Dhammadesana), having heard the good, is one of the higher meritorious deeds, practiced by instructed, not regarded as useless question & answer ways, as from outsider often thought, but after hearing the Dhamma, one of the five ways to gain release, awakening.

...“Further, it’s not that the Teacher or a fellow person leading the holy life teaches the Dhamma to the monk. But the monk teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it. And in whatever way he teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it, in just that way the monk, with regard to that Dhamma, is sensitive to the meaning, is sensitive to the Dhamma. In him—sensitive to the meaning, sensitive to the Dhamma—joy is born. When he is joyful, rapture is born. In one who is enraptured at heart, the body grows calm. When the body is calm, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated. This, monks, is the second opening to release… Vimutti Sutta

Maybe one or another likes to teach about such occasions, as he had heard, shares stories of how it came to release.
What are retelling of occasions where the one who taught gained paths and fruits?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, excange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

One example comes from the Khemaka Sutta:

That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted
in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of
sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from
fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's.

Before he taught them, Ven. Khemaka was not an arahant. But after he taught them, both he and his audience became arahants.


Teaching Buddhist concepts to a child The post here specifically refers to introducing Buddhism to a child as well as meditation and recitals.

The question i am seeking to answer though is the introduction of concepts such as clinging, letting go, intent, self, no-self and the like.

Being surrounded by children under the age of 4, i can observe that certain behaviors are starting to take root e.g. clinging. If a particular toy is lost or not available, the child senses a deep loss which results in emotional and physical distress.

The kids also identify with themselves with the things they are surrounded by e.g. friends, physical objects, etc

Try the videos under the section of Children on this website.

There are some ebooks for children here.

There's a simplified introduction to Buddhism for kids here.

There are websites on Jataka Tales for children here, here and here.

I think a great way of teaching Buddhist concepts to children is through stories. Stories are entertaining to young children who need their creativity and imagination stimulated, in order to learn things happily and efficiently.

Instead of trying to teach very young children concepts like anatta which may be too difficult for them, it might be better to teach them virtues and good moral values, which are available through the Jataka Tales and some Dhammapada stories. This is the foundation to inculcating sila.


What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger? What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger? Does Buddhism suggest any specific attitude when we are facing angry people, especially when they are unable to control their anger and/or unaware of their anger?

Intuitively I try for example to listen to the person, understand him/her and remain calm myself as much as possible.

What kind of recommendations or advice does Buddhism offer to help us in such situations?

A very apt verse in the case of anger is this one from Dhammapada - Na Hi Verena Verani - Hatred is never appeased by Hatred. It is appeased only by loving kindness.

Here is the Dhamma talk by Ven. Yuttadhammo on that particular verse.

Although there are certain differences in anger and hatred, the basic approach will be the same - Remain equanimous by knowing Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta at the level of your body and then based on your sensations cultivate Loving Kindness towards the person.


Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism? Buddhism begins with The Truth of Suffering. That seems like the best point to get someone's attention, and is basically indisputable. The Truth of Impermanence is fairly easy to accept, because we see things change, and everyone dies. But the Truth of Not-Self - no separate, permanent self - is the major departure from Hinduism, and all other religions, as best I know. Realization of this truth amounts to nonduality.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching? With the large number of Self-Inquiry groups and websites devoted to nonduality and the many interviews and books about it available, it seems like a more direct path to realization, and more accessible than Buddhism (in its many forms). Is it?

EDIT: I seem to be drawing fire for my phrase "the whole teaching". OK, disregard that but the point is: if you "get" Anatman, doesn't everything else have to fall in to place over time? With that one realization, you can realize everything, and without it, you will never make it all the way. Is that not so?

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It's certainly a great step forward on the path, but it is not the whole teaching.

This is the whole teaching.

That was a joke! But seriously, there is no truly objective answer to your question. Anattā is just one slice of one of the many pies of Buddhism. As a "mark of existence" it holds equal importance alongside the other two, dukkhā and aniccā.

  If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

What about saṃsāra, kamma, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Middle Way, the Four Immeasurables, dependent origination, emptiness, and The Three Jewels? And a bunch of other stuff?

I too crave simplicity in Buddhism, but the more you look around, the deeper and broader the teachings become. There are 43 volumes in the Pāli Canon. The teachings are vast.

  If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It could be your whole teaching. Buddhism is a highly individualized practice. Our paths may run parallel, or at times criss-cross, or at other times go in entirely different directions: but in the end, we can all reach our own way to the end of suffering, and each way may be truly unique.


Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as

  "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore,
  the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the
  stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated
  (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the
  auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the
  amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted,
  dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter,
  the asylum, the refuge, the destination."

Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying

  "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
  nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
  base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,
  nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
  world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
  no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says

  "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be
  named is not the eternal Name."

while chapter 7 says,

  "The Tao is
  infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can
  never die."

And chapter 14 says,

  "Look, and it can't be seen. Listen,
  and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't
  bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the
  realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an
  image, subtle, beyond all conception.  Approach it and there is no
  beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you
  can be it ..."

The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2,

  "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.",  "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging."

And in 12.3,

  "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.

From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent.

My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?

Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

The Hindus had developed Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind) up to the the 8th Jhana, and also had a strong moral basis, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced Wisdom and Insight to the practice. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.

So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on the Buddhist path also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.

Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in Hinduism.


Does Anyone know quotes relating to Once-Returners / sakadagami I desperately need quotes from either scripture or from scholars.

The Sakadagami is mentioned in SN 55:24 - Sarakaani Sutta:

  "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters and weakening lust, hatred and delusion, he is a Once-returner, who will return once more to this world and put an end to suffering. That man is entirely freed from... states of woe."


Buddhism and misanthropy Is it possible to be Buddhist and a misanthropist?  I've realised I actually despise humanity and sometimes I fantasise about the sun exploding  and wiping us all out. I believe that the majority of humans are undeserving of this life. So much stupidity and ignorance that I just cannot bear people most of the time. The other night my neighbours just decided to have a loud party on their balcony at 2:45 am. What kind of self centred stupid people would do that? The people in my apartment block are so lazy and dumb that they just dump their garbage in the recycling bins.  It's things like this that I see on a daily basis that lead me to despise people. I've tried and tried metta practice but I just don't feel like people deserve kindness. They're idiots, selfish iPhone addicted idiots. Especially people like Trump. He deserves nothing but suffering in my view.
Thanks for the answers but still not sure what I'm supposed to do. I just don't like most people and I can't tolerate them. I don't have friends because of this and I don't see my family because I can't stand them either. People are just insufferable. I can sit there till I'm blue in the face repeating rote metta phrases but it makes not a shred of difference. I don't feel any empathy or sympathy for a species of creatures who behave the way humans do. The Earth would be a much better place without us. Leave the animals to live in harmony instead of raping and pillaging the place for money. I'm sick of it. I don't feel any love for anyone. The USA has a narcissistic bigoted moron as its leader. What does that say about the people? It's says that half the USA are delusional idiots.

Buddhists meet all the same problems as other beings. If not these problems, there would be no need in Buddhism.

So the question is: what do you have to do to solve them?

If our view on the world leans to aversion, it means our thoughts were focused mainly on unpleasant things.

To explain that Buddha used to speak about six realms of samsara:

Gods
Asuras (titans)
Humans
Animals
Hungry ghosts
Hell beings

Paying attention to faults, we gradually find so much hateful things around that they make our world to be hell.

That's because our mental processes involve "selective amplification", exaggeration of some details.

Likewise, if we develop greed and insatiable wish to have some things, our world becomes the world of hungry spirits, and so on.

The same river is seen

by gods as healing nectar of pleasure,
by humans as water,
by hungry ghosts as pus and blood,
by hell beings as torturing flames.

So in order to heal our world ultimately, we have to drop amplifications and discover the world in its original form. There's always something to cry about, and there's always something to laugh about.

If you imagine how many possible thoughts and attitudes are there, imagine yourself as one with all that space,

then you might find that all the possible mass of thoughts and attitudes have silenced, and your attention is free for this here-and-now.

Be free right here, not captured by attachments to particular ideas and views.

Also to balance our perception we can pay more attention to positive qualities of people.

Pay attention when they do kind, virtuous things,
dedicate merit
and rejoice.

The practice of joy for good qualities of others is one of the most powerful spiritual practices, especially helpful in your case. We can practice it even in dreams!


Is there is anything which is not a phenomena? Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is not a phenomena ?

Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent?
If yes then how we know this?

I think the dharma says,

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"

So not "all phenomena", but specifically "all saṅkhārās" -- see Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

This might be paraphrased like, "Everything that has a cause (or, 'has a beginning' or 'arises') has an end".

It's especially relevant for sensual phenomena -- i.e. sights, sounds, thoughts, and so on -- because these are conditioned by contact.

There may be some "phenomena" which are not saṅkhārās and not impermanent -- nibbana for example is said to be not-impermanent. I suppose reasons for that include its being unconditioned (it doesn't depend on something for its existence, in fact it's explicitly independent), and timeless.

I think that some schools of Buddhism identify other not-impermanent (unconditioned) phenomena too: for example, "space" and others (see Two unconditioned dhammas?); and possibly Buddha-nature or Dharmakaya (see Ignorant mind and Buddha nature).


What is the importance of intention in Buddhism? Do any scriptures discuss the importance of intention? Why is intention rather than action important?

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

Also from Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38) below, we see that intention (cetana) provides a landing point for the continuation of karmic consciousness.

[the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what
one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for
the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a
landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that
consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of
this entire mass of suffering & stress.

The story of blind elder monk Cakkhupala from Dhammapada 1 shows the importance of intention:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
intention of killing and so was quite innocent."
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

Also the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 shows the importance of intention:

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has
been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he
goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus,
the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
evil."
Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison;
poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for
one who has no evil intention.

So, intention is kamma. You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
But does this mean that intention without acting upon the intention can result in kamma?
According to the Yodhajiva Sutta:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle.

Here, the warrior has the intention. But when he strives and exerts himself based on the intention, then the fruit of the kamma reaches its peak.
Despite this, thoughts are also kamma that can result in suffering. From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

Also the Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

OP: so how do these teachings influence Buddhists?

You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
Another example is the case where if you give money to a beggar, he might use it to buy alcoholic beverages. Some people may have the idea that if the beggar uses the money to buy alcoholic drinks, then they would share in the kammic consequence. However, in this case, the kamma is based on the intention of the giver. If you gave the money with intention to help the beggar buy food, then the result will be good (assuming that the beggar hid his intentions from you).


Is HH Dalai Lama conceited? I heard that Theravada presupposes HH Dalai Lama is not even reached initial bodhisattva enlightenment and that His existence is mocked. Is it not so?

Its often best to avoid comparing Theravada to Mahayana.
For example, in Theravada there is no notion of 'bodhisattva enlightenment'. In Theravada, the word 'bodhisattva' is never used, apart from referring to Gotama prior to his Awakening. For example, in the Pali suttas, there is the stock phrase:

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me:...
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi

As for HH Dalai Lama, his former political role as leader of Tibet is somewhat alien to Theravada monasticism. Therefore, occasionally, Theravada people criticize the Dalai Lama; including for some of his political decisions & actions.
This said, if HH Dalai Lama has inwardly realised not-self (anatta) & eradicated identity belief (sakkaya ditthi) then he has reached one of the four levels of enlightenment according to Theravada. Personally, I believe he has enlightenment.


What is the difference between a Vipassana Jhana and a Samatha Jhana? Definitions of the term Jhana tend to emphasize the 'mind state' quality it refers to in various states of meditative absorption:

The jhanas are altered states of consciousness which are produced from periods of strong concentration. Dhamma Wiki
In Buddhism, it is a series of cultivated states of mind, which lead to "state of perfect equanimity and awareness (upekkhii-sati-piirisuddhl)." Wikipedia

So in the context of Samatha (concentration) meditation, Jhana states naturally arise as a consequence of concentration. What I'm struggling to understand is the term 'Vipassana Jhana'. Is it a state of mind that arises from insight or a state of mind conducive to insight?

There is no samatha jhana nor is there vipassana jhana mentioned in the suttas, I may have missed it!
There are the 4 rupa jhanas mentioned with each containing various jhana factors and 4 arupa jhanas.
IMHO, the distinction is made to rationalise some meditation practices which dispense with the development of jhanas as a necessary step.

Vipassanā jhanas are stages that describe the development of "vipassanā"meditation practice as described in modern Burmese Vipassana meditation.[31]
 Mahasi Sayadaw
's student Sayadaw U Pandita
 describes the four "vipassanā jhanas".

Origins

In the sutta pitaka the term "vipassanā" is hardly mentioned:
If you look directly at the Pali discourses — the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings — you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and vipassanā to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassanā — a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassanā," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassanā with any mindfulness techniques.[8]


Was is the difference between "uparujjhati" & "nirujjhati"? In the Pali, nirujjhati (ni + rudh + ya) appears to be a verb for the noun "nirodha".

nirujjhati
ceases; dissolves; vanishes.
to be broken up, to be dissolved, to be destroyed, to cease, die

Uparujjhati (upa + rudh + ya) appears similar in etymology, however differs in the prefix.

uparujjhati
stops or ceases
to be stopped, broken, annihilated, destroyed

I have done some examination of the usage of these words in the Pali suttas and, for now, I think their meanings or usages are contextually different.
How can these two words be linguistically distinguished?

They are not synonyms, they have different meanings derived from the same root and different prefixes.

Nirodha means stop, suppress, not allow to go on.
Uparodham means enclose, blockade.

So aparisesa nirujjhanti means "completely stopped".

But asesam uparujjhati means "fully enclosed".

So in DN11 the guy was asking about place where the physical processes are completely stopped (aparisesā nirujjhanti).

But Buddha said, that's not what we are talking about. It's about "place" where the physical elements have no footing, place inside which all concepts like beautiful, ugly etc., all namarupas, all conceptual discriminations are fully enclosed or fully en-scoped (asesaṃ uparujjhatī).

It is the universal space of information, the universal space of mind, is where they are all enclosed of course. When all discrimination is stopped and this "space" is seen in its original undivided way, is when the unborn/deathless is attained. It is this space is what we in Mahayana call Shunyata.


Why island and not light? There are some phrases in the suttas where it is said "be your own island".

The word for "island" is "dvipa" in Sanskrit, meanwhile "dipa" means "light" or "lamp" in Sanskrit. However, in Pali, "dipa" means both "island" and "light" / "lamp". Due to this, it is quite common for the phrase to be mistaken as "be your own light", especially among speakers of Indian languages.

Why does the sutta say "be your own island" instead of "be your own light"?

What is the significance of "be your own island"?

From SN 22.43 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

  “Mendicants, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other
  refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other
  refuge.

  Attadīpā, bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā
  dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.

From this footnote by Maurice O'Connell Walshe:

  Atta-diipaa. Diipa means both "island" (Sanskrit dviipa) and "lamp" (Sanskrit diipa), but the meaning "island" is
  well-established here. The "self" referred to is of course the
  unmetaphysical pronoun "oneself"

There's a footnote in What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Sri Rahula:

  Dipa here does not mean lamp, but it definitely means 'island'. The Digha-nikaya
  Commentary (DA Colombo ed. p. 380), commenting on the word dipa here says:
  Mahasamuddagatam dipam viya attanam dipam patit/ham katvd viharatha. 'Dwell making
  yourselves an island, a support (resting place) even as an island in the great ocean.'
  Samsdra, the continuity of existence, is usually compared to an ocean, samsarasdgara, and what is required in the ocean for safety is an island, a solid land, and not
  a lamp.


What do Buddhists do to prevent sexual desires? Does Buddhism do anything to prevent sexual desires?

Do they do anything to lower sexual desires?

Prevent eating certain foods or something similar?

Yes, they do something to lower sexual desire. Sexual desire is a form of sensual desire which is the first of the 5 Hindrances to meditation practice. The commentaries to the Satipatthana Sutta list 6 antidotes for sensual desire:

Learning how to meditate on impure objects
Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure
Guarding the sense doors
Moderation in eating
Noble friendship
Suitable conversation

The first two methods refer to the practice of Asubha Bhavana (the meditation on the foulness and impurity of the body), which explicitly counteracts sexual lust and is one of the Four Protective Meditations. In this technique you examine your own body by looking at  each of the 32 body parts individually. The purpose is to see the sign of the unattractive nature of the human body.

"And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body hemmed by the skin and full of manifold impurity from the soles up, and from the top of the hair down, thinking thus: 'There are in this body hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, fibrous threads (veins, nerves, sinews, tendons), bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, contents of stomach, intestines, mesentery, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, solid fat, tars, fat dissolved, saliva, mucus, synovic fluid, urine.'
"Just as if, O bhikkhus, there were a bag having two openings, full of grain differing in kind, namely, hill-paddy, paddy, ...; and a man with seeing eyes, having loosened it, should reflect thinking thus: 'This is hill paddy; this is paddy, ...' In the same way, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body hemmed in by the skin and full of manifold impurity from the soles up, and from the top of the hair down, thinking thus: 'There are in this body: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, ...' - MN 10

A very good practical guide is in the video series of Bhikkhu Bodhi's course of the 4 protective meditations


How is semchen (sentient being) defined? Semchen is typically defined as a sentient being.  What does this mean?  What is sentience?

This question about killing bacteria indicates bacteria are not sentient, but I distinctly remember a guru say dust mites are sentient.  Am I imposing my evolution-based viewpoint onto a ladder of sentience?

It depends on the school. Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

  The Diamond Sutra teaches us that it is impossible to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient beings... In Buddhist monasteries, we chant, "Both sentient and non- sentient beings will realize full enlightenment." The First Precept is the practice of protecting all lives, including the lives of minerals.

(Source: http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts/precept-1.html)


How to emotionally cut free from an individual? My friend meditates daily (non-Buddhist). He finds that from time to time a very annoying person tries to seemingly drag power and energy from him like a magnet.

Can any one explain how he can escape from this seemingly difficult situation? How can I advise him to emotionally cut free from this individual in his life?

The problem described here is all within the mind of your friend. The Sigalovada Sutta explains, in our lives, we will encounter 'true friends' & 'false friends'. The Sigalovada Sutta describes in detail the characteristics of 'true friends' & 'false friends'.

The method of escape is two-fold:

Discern clearly with wisdom the other person is a 'false-friend'.
Ensure this clear discernment is free from hatred & established in equanimity & concern (compassion).


How to get to Nirvana? I am very new to Buddhism.
What would be the most accurate way to practise and reach to Nirvana?
Did Lord of Buddha show us?

The fourth noble truth states that the path to ending suffering is the noble eightfold path.

Right view
Right resolve
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

1 and 2 are the foundations of wisdom. 3, 4 and 5 are the foundations for virtue, 6, 7 and 8 are the foundations of meditation.

This is a very broad outline of the path to nirvana. You should be wary of people who give a simple precise description with promises of results like "Just follow my practice for 10 years and you'll be nearly enlightened".


There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation I am a beginner and I stumbled upon the sentence in a video given by a monk.

There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a
pleasant sensation

I will give you the context

We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about
the happiness. This is probably mind  blowing for most people if
they've never studied things like Buddhism. But really what objective
and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically
"What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ?
What is positive about it ?" And you know you can simply you can give
a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant
sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both
meaningless of course.
And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an
intellectual trick of sorts. It's actually true that there is no
benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant
sensation.  (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for
pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive.

As the monk said, it is a bit mind blowing for me. If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat more.
And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy.
So my question is: what does the monk really mean ?

It's really simple. (Long-term) benefit and (immediate) pleasure don't always go hand in hand, and more often than not they are in the opposition to each other.
Life can be lived with pleasure as one's guide, always choosing what's pleasant now regardless of its long term harm or benefit.
Or life can be lived with long term wellness, health, and happiness as one's guide - regardless of whether it is immediately pleasant or unpleasant.
Guess which method actually leads to more pleasure down the road?
This is the basic idea, that pleasure is a bad advisor. Children and naive people pursue pleasure over benefit. Wise people pursue benefit over pleasure.
Now, not all pleasure is misleading. There's a category of pleasure that accords with Dharma. A pleasure of peace, a pleasure of simplicity, a pleasure of laying down a burden of attachment, a pleasure of understanding the Teaching, a pleasure of recognizing one's attainments.
But if you are looking for a simple rule of thumb as a beginner, then the easiest way to practice is by separating all your thoughts, impulses, and motives in two classes: ones that lead towards peace, harmony, enlightenment, Nirvana - and ones that lead away. Pursuing long-term benefit you'll attain both benefit and pleasure. Pursuing just pleasure you'll attain none.

That's the main idea, and the second, more subtle idea, is that the pleasure in and of itself is an illusion. Sweets that seem tasty to young children are awfully primitive  to most adults - but try to explain that to a kid. Experiences seem pleasant when the observer is naive enough to evaluate them in a superficial way.
It is with other experiences like it is with the tastes - they are only pleasant in contrast with each other and only in certain combinations and only when you're hungry. Sexual act is only pleasant when you are "hungry" but quickly becomes a burden when you are satisfied and your partner begs for more. Not to mention the sexual disgust of having to share a bed with a person you don't find attractive.
If you carefully examine a pleasant sensation such as taste, smell, touch,  or even a more subtle pleasure of looking at a beautiful picture - you will notice your brain hard at work making the experience pleasant, comparing and contrasting it with other experiences and memories of experiences - all to convince itself that this sensation is in fact pleasant.
To a lucid observer pleasure is insubstantial like a lens flare and so is pain. However bright it's just a reflection.


Why does my mind feel slow to think nearly half day after my meditation? I would like to know if I should expect any problems after I have done my meditation in the morning for a half hour? For the whole morning afterwards, my mind felt very slow to think of anything. Is that a good or bad sign?

Re: mind feeling "very slow", "very slow to think of anything" -- when someone tells you something, can you reply immediately without thinking? That's a sign of good meditation.

If your "very slow to think of anything" just means you are going around basically without thoughts, and you can respond to anything spontaneously with no blockages / no doubts - that's good. While, if your "mind very slow" means you can't respond - that means your meditation was basically cultivation of sloth/torpor.

It is said, if your meditation is wrong it can be a cause of being reborn in an animal world! Meaning, if in your meditation you generate "laxity", then you are only training in making your mind dull, like the mind of a cow or sheep! So you need to know what is laxity in real experience, and must be able to recognize it when it arises. Laxity is when your mind is not sharp and bright during meditation. Meditation mind should be very sober, not like a drunk mind or sleeping mind.


Is rebirth a delusional belief? I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'.

Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real:

Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs"
Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics
Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions"
The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?
If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?
This web site (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" in this life.

I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about this life."

Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?

And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint?

The article Two Main Schools of Buddhism says,

  The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows:

  Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
  The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
  The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
  The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
  Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
  Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list.

I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief.

I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn.

I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

"Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs""

A little context: I assume the 62's mentioned above are the same as found in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta) translated as "The sixty-two kinds of wrong views" by Walshe (MN 102 also develops on these wrong views).

Now, "wrong view" is understood as either "not according to the damma" or simply "not in accordance with reality". In this sutta, we read the Buddha say:

  There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, having fixed views about the past, and who put forward various speculative theories about the past, in eighteen different ways [...]

And he proceeds explaining the many ways in which a person may mislead him/herself into concluding something false about the past. The first, for example, is this:

  Here, monks, a certain ascetic or Brahmin has by means of effort, extortion, application, earnestness and right attention attained to such a state of mental concentration that he thereby recalls past existences -- one birth, two births, ... ten births, a hundred births, a thousand births [...] Thus he remembers various past lives, their conditions and details. And he says "the self and the world are eternal, barren like a mountain-peal, set firmly as a post. There beings rush round, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. Why so? I have by means of effort, extortion, attained to such a state of mental concentration that I have thereby recalled various past existences...That is how I know the self and the world are eternal"

Above he is denouncing the fragile leap of conclusion: a person remembered many past lives [and contractions and expansions of the universe] and without identifying an origin, he/she concludes there is none, "so it is eternal". Now, the buddha, when confronted with this particular question, simply declares there is no discernible beginning (SN 15:3) -- something very different from "it is eternal" and "it is not eternal".

Another example of misleading conclusion:

  Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: "The self and the world are eternal"

In these ways, he alerts about the delicate trap of drawing wrong conclusions based on what one believes to be careful examinations (either by some experience or by some abstract reasoning) but that weren't careful enough. Moreover, he illustrates flaws using as example contemporary theories (eternalism, annihilationism, and the spectrum in between) pushed by other sects.

With these things in mind, he did not claim rebirth or views/knowledge of past existence to be false. Quite the opposite, he declares himself to have the ability to recall his past existences (and often describes episodes from them). Finally, exploring this ability is also part of an often-repeated formula for arahantship (and arahants are also described developing this ability). In MN 39, after exposing the Fourth Jhana:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, [...], many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance

Furthermore, he used to announce the rebirth of disciples who have died -- though not of the ones who reached the supreme goal (SN 44.9).

"Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions""

Yes. But it is important to emphasize it is "unanswered"; not a negative or positive. Even if we put aside the fact that this is a question about a Buddha, it is hard to use this to develop a trust on either view.

"The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?"

As far as I can tell, in the [pali] canon it is not said "there is no self". Rather, mostly we read instructions to observe several [conditioned] things in order to directly see "this [the thing] is not self". Additionally, we read declarations such as "All phenomena are non-self" ("sabbe dhammā anattā" -- AN 3.134).

An important point to consider is that it appears something very particular is meant by "self" which does not fit well with our common understanding of this word. In SN 22:59:

  Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

And:

  Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself? -- No, venerable sir.

Often times, when a challenger debates with the buddha claiming a self/eternalist view, he is debunked with questions such as "if that is so, can you change your form?". Therefore, I guess we need to, first, understand what is meant by "self" from propositions extracted from such discourses.

As for "birth" instead of "rebirth", though it's not clear to our reasoning "what re-borns" (all things above considered), the minimum takeaway of the use of this word in the discourses is that it denotes continuity.

"If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience"

Difficult indeed. But the texts support the possibility of personally testify it.

"is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)?"

I guess it depends on what you mean by faith. I find it difficult to recall important claims made by the buddha that weren't suppose to be verified by one's effort in this lifetime -- so, as far as my knowledge goes, yes it would be unusual. From the canon alone, I wouldn't say this is a matter of faith in the devotional or "Belief" way, where one just take it as it is and assign a special value to it, often developing an emotional dependency towards it -- the clinging buddha frequently alerted about.

But faith as in a trust we give to something or someone while we are applying ourselves to personally verify it, I think it fits pretty well with everything else.

"Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?"

I honestly don't know how I would proceed to scrutinize an experience of recalling my past lives.

"is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?"

One thing we can see explicitly in the texts is that he discouraged speculations, and this subject draws speculations easily, giving its such a puzzle for reasoning and concerns the mystery of our future. Having said that, I think its safe to say it wouldn't make much sense for him to require listeners to believe and internalize "the fact of rebirth", to consider it something central to the training (if it was that important, he could have made an extra noble truth out of it :).

There are a lot of aspects of the Dhamma that receive special attention and frequent emphasis. Urging people to believe rebirth as some sort of requirement or at face value is not something I've seen (MN 60 illustrates how the buddha approached this specific matter).

Now to the specific question: from the canon alone, rebirth is important (though, arguably not an urgent concern in the most practical sense). And, to say the least, the Buddha apparently considered worth talking about, so widespread this subject appears in the suttas, fulfilling roles therein, either as an aspect of the Dhamma, providing a broader exposition of our condition, or simply used to inspire and help us take the road to do something about it, etc. In the case of Dhamma, and this is significant, "no rebirth" does feature in wrong view.

But again, one thing is saying rebirth is important in buddhism. Other is saying (the belief of) rebirth is important to the practice. Other is saying rebirth is important to some buddhists ...

Edited to include a few more references (thank you @Unrul3r) and provide more direct answers to the questions


Suppose World War 3 occurs and manages to wipe out all humans and animals. Is the cycle of death and rebirth broken? Or will human beings be magically reborn again in order to continue their journey to Nirvana?

'Humans' are people who have a moral conscience & are humane.
'Animals' are people driven by instinct (such as survivalism, tribalism & terroritalism), emotion, without reflective wisdom.
'Human' & 'animal' are states of mind rather than physical qualities.
For example, the 'human state' is described as follows:

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

AN 6.39 says:

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

As for Nirvana, the suttas described it as the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion. There is no 'journey' to 'Nirvana'. To 'journey' is to 'wander & roam'. 'Wandering & roaming' is called 'samsara'. 'Nirvana' is found in the present. 'Samsara' is not 'Nirvana' and 'Nirvana' is not 'samara'.


Meditation in day to day life I lost my interest in things,I just do only day to day life.Is it depression?This  happened some months  back. I think it is related to my vipassana meditation. Now in meditation saw the sadness and negative  thoughts comes ,stays and goes. But only see the sadness not happiness. So what shall I do to pass this state?

Perhaps you should augment your vipassana with other meditations intended to cultivate virtuous minds. I would suggest meditations on the four immeasurables : https://thubtenchodron.org/2002/11/love-compassion-equaminity-joy/


How do I prevent non-buddhists from going against fourth precept? As we know fourth precept is the one precept that the Bodhisatta has never said to have broken since he started cultivating Paramita.
When I need to prevent a Buddhist person form lying, I state the above statement. And that is the reason that I was also prevented by telling lies.

But if we need to prevent a non-Buddhist person from telling lies or  going against fourth precept, how can we do. How can we motivate him/her not to lie?

Simply ask him whether he likes to be deceived and cheated if some one else did it to him. If someone cannot be trusted would you act on what he says. How comfortable would he be to have to put up or deal with a person who is trying to deceived him. Lies cannot always be kept under wrap and if it surfaces what might happen. This would be a better way to a Buddhist also.


Meditation and family life I started meditating regularly four years ago, about an hour daily. Then, three years ago, my son was born, and since then it's been really difficult for me to be constant with my practice. It's hard for me to make time to meditate. Only during the night I find some time to be alone, but I'm so tired...

Do you have any advice on how to rebuild my practice amidst family life?

Be mindful of everything you do. That is meditation. Distractions are meditation objects. Not showstoppers. Showstoppers are mostly your strong wrong views like God, soul or nihilism.


Theravada buddhism and Mahayana buddhism What are the main differences in theravada and mahayana buddhism?

The main difference I'm aware of is that the Therevada school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the individual. The Mahayana school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

If I remember correctly, for those who believe in the literal Western interpretation of reincarnation, according to the Therevada school, when someone attains Enlightenment they will cease worldly rebirth. Alternatively, the Mahayana school believes that a fully-awakened buddha can choose to be reborn, and even choose their rebirths.

From my understanding, there are a lot of other differences--many of them relating to monastic life.


Multiverse in Buddhism? According to this answer:

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are
infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be
similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of
beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally
rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be
reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places
every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live
in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the
lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such
being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The
cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the
same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would
believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the
universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a
few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

I think that at least in one place the early Sutta say that there is one Brahma (primary god) in a world system but they also speak of a world system which is thousand or manyfold but i can't recall if it is said that these do not have a Brahma god in them, they don't as i understand Buddhisms and are rather spoken of as comprised of earths & suns like our immediate environment complete with it's human kings, godly retinues & mount Merus.
I think this entire world system with it's thousandfold systems can be thought of as a single system of conceivable points of reference or observers as in special relativity.
So Brahma is max power which is a constant position and Tathagatha is occasional superpower.
At any given point there is only one ruler of the world because it's all one one conditioned system which changes as it persists.
Texts do say that there is also only one Buddha in a world system simultaneously and that a world system contracts & expands in cycles.
Unfortunately the texts do not always differentiate between a world system as to greater or lesser (they do sometimes) and therefore it is a controversy.
Some people think there can be several Buddhas in what we normally refer to as a universe, others think it cannot happen. Ie some hold that it's 1 Buddha per solar system or galaxy simultaneously.
The idea of 'sharing a world simultaneously' when analyzed in terms of electromagnetic radiation gives a clue as to how this can and how this can not work.
Ie if 'one' is thought of as 'teleporting around the universe in terms of physics' then one is traveling faster than light but one is still in what is spoken of as 'a space' where one travels at a constantly infinite/instant speed.
One such as this can not travel "in time" as one is getting old as one's perception changes as one discerns a before & after.
On other hand this teleport power opens up for being seen in multiple places because one can having emitted radiation here, disappear & teleport, faster than that radiation, to a 'there' so that one can perceive that formerly emitted radiation, as visible light there and thus even seeing or feeling oneself let alone others seeing you as radiation from here and there hits simultaneously:)
I think this is the only way one can become many.
Therefore one can see that all locations are conceived locally and are immediately accessible to a Buddha; therefore another Buddha cannot exist even a trillion lightyears away nor in any other conceivable location for as long as the life-force of a Tathagatha is a factor in the world. That is because, as i explained, all locality is immediately accessible to a Buddha as it is conceived and that obv faster than light as quantum entanglement demonstrates.


Is there another term than "Mahayana"? Though my practice is "Mahayana" (in quotes), I have a great and abiding respect for the Theravada school and consider (as many do) the term "Hinayana" (Sanskrit for Smaller Vehicle) disrespectful of that tradition.  My question is, using the term "Mahayana" (Sanskrit for Great Vehicle) has a built-in comparison and seeming insult to that other tradition.  Therefore, is there another term for "Mahayana" that can be used to discuss that remarkable tradition without bringing in that un-needed and negative comparison to another school? Thanks, greatly.

As a fellow 'Mahayana' practitioner, I share your great respect for Theravadin buddhism and appreciate your sensitivity to the polemical origins of the term 'Mahayana' (I've used it many times myself, hopefully without causing offense; but try not to ever use the term 'Hinayana'). Because the term 'Mahayana'covers an extraordinary diversity of paths, you may want to just name your specific  tradition if the implication of this general term troubles you.

Another possible approach: 'bodhisattva-yana' is sometimes suggested as a general substitute term. In historical terms (according to Buswell's Encyclopedia of Buddhism), it apparently refers to a development in India that preceded Mahayana. However, it seems that for practical purposes, referring to yourself as a follower of the bodhisattva way would give fellow practitioners in any school of buddhism enough context to understand where you were coming from, without any derogatory implications.


Theravada Monks and meat in daily meals Can I assume that Theravada monks are to eat any kinds of food given to them during alms round?

What if they are given food with seafood or any meat? Is it considered breaking the 1st precept? Cos in order to have the seafood, somebody has to do the dirty job of catching them then make them dishes, same applies to meat.

This article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero discusses this topic. But the comments are not from him.

  Majjhima Nikaya 55:
  After paying homage, he said: “Venerable sir, I have heard this: ‘They
  slaughter living beings for the monk Gotama (i.e. the Buddha); the
  monk Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared for him from animals killed
  for his sake’….”; and asked if this was true. The Buddha denied this,
  adding “Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat
  should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the
  living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say
  that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is
  not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”

This means that meat (already dead) that was purchased from the supermarket does not break the first precept. But if you see, select the animal to be killed or if somebody purposely killed a particular animal for you, then it breaks the first precept.

This is discussed in this question.


How similar or different is Tantric Buddhism from Vijnana Bhairava of Kashmir Shaivism? Tantra exists in certain traditions of Buddhism (I guess mostly in Tibetan and certain Theravada schools as well). It also exists in Kashmir Shaivism, as explained in the Vijnana Bhairava.

Can someone please help me understand how the schools Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism differ (and are similar) in their approaches as well as goals for Tantric practices.

Load Buddha was enlightened by understanding  the eternal law (of patichchasamuthpada)
OR four Noble truth, and Moksha.
OR delusion and how to avoid it.
OR Life is a dream and how to awake from it.

For explaining this he (and his followers) used several methods according to what the listener already believed.

Tantra-meditation and ritual practices that seeks to channel the divine energy of the macrocosm or godhead into the human microcosmThantra

Bhairav Tantra-it briefly presents 112 meditation methods or centering techniques (dharanas). Bhairav Tantra

These include several variants of
-breath awareness,(Ānāpānasati (Pali; Sanskrit ānāpānasmṛti, meaning "mindfulness of breathing") is a form of Buddhist meditation now common to Tibetan, Zen, Tiantai and Theravada Buddhism as well as Western-based mindfulness programs.)

-concentration on various centers in the body,(Sathipattana)

-imagination and visualization and contemplation through each of the senses.(Five Aggregates)

Moksha - Identity with Shiva(the deity who represents Universal Consciousness) - Link Kashmir Shaivism

Dilution is I - (My Self) concept. To remove this need systematic process. Tantra images are intermediate steps of some traditions.