Meditation for Psychosis I have psychosis.
I have no ability to understand reality from birth.
Can meditation give me the ability?
Or will I never be able to end my mental suffering?
Do you know how can I end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness?

Welcome to the site.

I can't give a complete answer; but maybe an outline of an answer in note form. Please feel welcome to ask follow-up questions (using comments or separate questions) when you want any further details.

I've looked for, but I haven't been able find, information related to your question -- i.e. I haven't found Buddhist meditation teachers saying that they have experience of teaching people with psychosis (I have found teachers who said they don't have that experience).

I don't know where you live or who you're in contact with: but I hope it might be worth your while to ask some 'professionals', for example asking ...

Your psychiatrists
Local meditation teachers

... whether they know any suitable meditation classes/programs, and/or teachers with that experience.

For example I found this video, Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void.

Buddhism is also known as the threefold training:

Virtue (morality)
Mind (concentration or meditation)
Insight (wisdom)

Virtue (morality)

The first of these is virtue/morality.  In Buddhism, morality might be summarized as "harmlessness" or (in slightly more detail), the "five precepts" which are:

Avoid killing
Avoid stealing (or "taking what is not given")
Avoid sexual misconduct
Avoid lying (or "false speech")
Avoid alcohol

There are many benefits to keeping the five precepts.

Note that "keeping the precepts" was the sum total of Dean's answer, and it's not a bad answer.

There's a sutta, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose?, which begins with,

  ... he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues?
  What is their reward?"

  "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."

  "And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

  "Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

I recommend you read the whole thing.

My point is that that skillful virtues, i.e. "virtues" or being harmless, which is called sila, result in a "lack of remorse".

My experience is that this is very, very important. Even if psychosis means that you can do nothing else, at least knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing no wrong, will mean that you have no reason to feel remorse, no reason to 'feel bad' about yourself. It makes a world of difference to you and to those around you.

So even if nothing else, do no harm: that's the beginning (of 'peace and happiness').

Mind (concentration or meditation)

The second part of the training includes concentration.

There are many, many types of concentration meditation. I'll mention two:

Breathing meditation ("mindfulness of breathing")
Loving-kindness meditation (called "metta bhavana" in Pali, this chant is an example)

The ability to "concentrate" might ultimately be developed into the jhanas,

  Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention. It is the cornerstone in the development of Right Concentration.

Maybe this too is what you're looking for, when you're asking about how to attain "peace and happiness".

Some people warn though that it's possible to get a little lost in "concentration" meditation, and that you ought to practice "insight" meditation. I think that's what's meant in the last paragraph of Suminda's answer ("excessive concentration is not advisable").

Insight (wisdom)

Suminda advocates a form of meditation called Vipassana. I think that the purpose of this form of meditation is to observe everything (including body, mind, feelings, and ideas) and to experience the fact that they're impermanent, that they come and go, arise and disappear.

I think that's connected with the so-called "four noble truths" of Buddhism, including the 3rd truth i.e. "cessation".

You'll find more about "Vipassana" if you search for it (I won't try to explain it in this answer), and/or maybe you can find someone who teaches it in person.

Equanimity

I think that one of the states-of-mind which people try to develop using Vipassana (or to put it more impersonally, a state of mind which is developed as a result of Vipassana) is equanimity.

I think that too is related to the four noble truths.

You say, "how can I end my pain and fear" but part of the point of Buddhism is that wanting something makes it worse; for example:

"I'm feeling pain and fear, and that's so bad, I wish it would stop, but it's not stopping, I don't know how to make it stop"

... compared with ...

"Oh that's an experience of a feeling, which in the past I used to label as 'pain and fear' ... there's the feeling ... oh, there's another feeling now, the previous feeling has gone (was impermanent, has ceased)"

I suppose that (equanimity, and knowledge of impermanence) is a result of insight or wisdom.

Love

Actually equanimity is one of the four Brahmaviharas -- of which, the other three are various kinds of love (called metta, mudita, and karuna in Pali).

Here's an essay about the Brahmaviharas.

Someone like the Dalai Lama recommends these kinds of attitudes towards other people. Not only can it be a skillful way to behave with other people (it may be better to feel compassion than anger, for example), but caring about people means caring less about yourself, and/or caring about yourself in the same way that you care about other people. The Dalai Lama has said that he would feel "imprisoned" within himself if he only cared about himself, and that he prefers to see himself as "like other people".

Maybe that's why meditations like the metta gatha include equally "may I be free from suffering" and "may each and every other person be free from suffering".

Psychosis

The OP doesn't mention what the specific symptoms of psychosis are.

Here are some of them as described in Wikipedia:

Hallucinations
Delusions
Thought disorders

Here is some of what I know about these symptoms and some guesses about how Buddhist meditation might be able to help with them.

Hallucinations might include the classic "hearing voices" which means "hearing" or perceiving a thought as if it were a voice. A simple example might be, you're waiting at a bus stop, and you hear a voice saying "that bus isn't coming" but there's no-one else there. So that "voice" was just a thought.

From a mundane point of view, this might be a symptom to discuss with your psychiatrist. I take it you know that there are anti-psychotic drugs, that they're more-or-less effective, that they have unwanted side-effects, that there are many types of them, and that it's guess-work or trial-and-error to find a prescription that suits a specific patient. For some people, the right drugs can relieve symptoms such as hallucinations: so if you experience hallucinations that might be something to tell your psychiatrist, in case they're able to (more or less harmlessly) adjust your prescription.

From a Buddhist point of view, I'd like to suggest that as long as you're able to do no harm, then it doesn't matter. For example, hearing a voice is harmless, whereas hurting someone would be harmful. If you hear a voice but don't hurt people then you're doing very well (and I respect and admire you).

In other words, that may be connected with the "virtue (morality)" part of the path.
Delusions might be, for example, paranoid (believing that others want to harm you), or grandiose (believing you have special power or skills).

To counteract paranoid beliefs, I guess that metta bhavana ("cultivation of loving-kindness") might be helpful. If you don't want to hurt others then they shouldn't want to hurt you. If you see others as suffering (or being freed from suffering) you're less likely to see yourself as suffering (or being persecuted).

To counteract grandiose beliefs, well, I guess I recommend "virtue" again. For example it's alright to see yourself as virtuous if you are virtuous, and alright to see yourself as helping people if at least you are not harming them.
Thought disorders are difficult to talk about, because it means for example that your ability to understand words (speech and writing) is disorganized.

It may or may not help you to know that Buddhism identifies like 12 links in the chain of existence, and that "words" are only one of these links (i.e. sankharas or "fabrications"), and they're arguably the least important and/or the most easily misunderstood link. People tend to be deceived by their own "fabrications". If you can't follow what they say then maybe you will be seen as disabled (and I think maybe you would be 'disabled', because it's typically better if you can say things that people understand) but it's not the end of the world: there are other aspects to reality (e.g. senses, consciousness, feeling, etc.).

I think it's possible to communicate even when there are thought disorders, for example, by being kind to people.

There's a story I remember of the Dalai Lama's meeting someone in the crowd who was disturbed, and holding his hand until he calmed down and found some peace.

Again, anti-psychotic drugs might be able to alleviate the symptom of "thought disorders", which then makes other forms of communication (and/or healing, helping, employment) possible.

Finally it would be amiss to talk about Buddhism without mentioning friendship and community.

One of the Three Jewels of Buddhism is the Sangha,

  Sangha is a word in Pali and Sanskrit meaning "association", "assembly," "company" or "community" and most commonly refers in Buddhism to the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns. This community is traditionally referred to as the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha. As a separate category, those who have attained any of the four stages of enlightenment, whether or not they are members of the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha, are referred to as the ariya-sangha or "noble Sangha".

Related to that is the "noble friend", for example the Upaddha Sutta. I'll quote it in full:

  Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the
  Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda
  went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the
  Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda
  said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord:
  admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable
  camaraderie."[1]

  "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship,
  admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
  of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
  companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
  noble eightfold path.

  "And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions,
  & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the
  case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion,
  dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in
  relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right
  action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness...
  right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion,
  dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a
  monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues,
  develops & pursues the noble eightfold path.

  "And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable
  friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth,
  that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that
  beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings
  subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained
  release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is
  through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life."

  Notes

  As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good
  qualities.

I hope that suggests another way to "end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness": i.e. have a friend, have several friends, be a friend, seek and be with friendly (harmless) people.

See also Kalyāṇa-mittatā or Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow.


Did Buddha say "this is the Middle Way"? Various Buddhist schools and traditions can have rather different outlooks. And they don't deny this. But most traditions seem to have at least one thing in common and that is calling themselves/their way "the middle way". Is "middle way" what the Buddha called his teachings? Can anyone point me to where and how Buddha formulated the middle way?

In the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha gives his monks a discourse on the "The Exposition of Non-Conflict". In here he mentions the Middle Way:

  "Here, bhikkhus, the Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both these extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. It is a state without suffering...and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict.

  That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.

  -- MN 139: Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta, p. 1085 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Samyutta Nikaya, The Buddha also mentions the Middle Way. Here in the "The Book of the Six Sense Bases":

  "There are, headman, these two extremes which should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth into homelessness: the pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.

  Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision . . . leads to Nibbana?

  It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view . . . right concentration. This is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.

  -- Samyutta Nikaya: IV. The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Saḷāyatanavagga), p. 1350 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Anguttara Nikaya, The Buddha mentions the Middle Way in relation to the practice of meditation:

  “Bhikkhus, there are these three ways of practice. What three? The coarse way of practice, the blistering way of practice, and the middle way of practice".

  “And what is the middle way of practice? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings . . . mind in mind . . . phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. This is called the middle way of practice.
  “These, bhikkhus, are the three ways of practice.”

  -- Anguttara Nikaya: The Book of the Threes: Ways of Practice, p. 372-373 - Bodhi, Trans.


Meditate about friend's death Someone I know is dying. If its death doesn't affect me much
 (Sadness, remorse...), I feel meditating about its condition as my own could be very beneficial.

But if its not taking advantage of him, I feel it's still taking advantage of the situation.
And even though I'm very thankful to him, I still feel unconfortable to practice about its death.

Would it be considered as a selfish way to meditate ?

We should meditate upon all ending of life, including the termination of the aggregates conventionally called 'me' & 'you'. For example, meditation upon death should also be done towards cute little children.

As for being "thankful", this is morally inappropriate and shows the mind is unable to truly let go and enter into the Emptiness of impermanence. Being "thankful" is similar to wanting to drink champagne at a funeral.

This said, meditating on the death of a friend is not selfish. It is reality. The scriptures instruct:

  Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? (1) ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’ (2) ‘I am subject to illness; I am not exempt from illness.’ (3) ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’ (4) ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (5) ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

  AN 5.57

  And what may be said to be subject to death? Wife and children are subject to death, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to death. These acquisitions are subject to death; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to death, seeks what is also subject to death.

  MN 26


Any ideas about the energy feel I constantly have? I'm going to try to describe this, but I'm honestly not sure how to. I have this vibration feeling just under my skin what seems like all the time. It's like a feeling of energy but it feels like it's vibrating. Oddly, if I get awoken abruptly, I actually feel the energy go CRAZY to the point my whole body shakes. Sorry in advance if this sounds crazy, as I really don't know the best way to describe it.

Sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito.

The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.

When meditating and you mind gets sensitive you will start feeling the vibration in your body. Also when meditating when old formation dissolve this creates different experiences including vibrations.


Choosing a Buddhist partner ain't beneficial to spreading Dhamma? Recently seeing questions on Buddhist stack exchange community I thought to ask this question.
My understanding that we can choose anyone as life partner the way Buddha said all about is kind of qualities and so on.
And Because of Buddhism is nothing but liberty that's why Buddha didn't impose this thing to followers just like in other religions.
So if it was like we should marry to Buddhist only then it were Dhamma's sake and would helpful to spreading Dhamma.
One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children?
May other partner have influence of it's own religion and may this would worse everything partner's child's and own life.
I seen in other religion they are super religious to choose a partner.
Even my own experience my ex was a Muslim and she has great impact of religion on her since my thinking is being like that.
See we Indian mostly choose Buddhist to marry but absence of practicing Dhamma.
So I'd choose the one who is Buddhist and practicing Dhamma as well then we could spread it well.
Finally since both are Buddhist then its kind of package we have got everything in it. All qualities and as Buddha's way to choose a life partner.
So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma?
Thank you.

Choose a person with compatible generosity, compatible morality, compatible faith and compatible wisdom. That means even among Buddhists, you still have to filter out the potential spouses.

Marrying a person of a different religion could be highly problematic if you are a practicing Buddhist. I have seen some people make it work, but those are mostly people who are simply Buddhist by birth and not interested in it much and don't care about what religion their children pick. So either you have to be that way or the other person have to be that way to make it work.


Illusion of continuity I read an article that included the following -
 "Through careful, mindful observation of this process of sensation overlaid with cognitive evaluation, it’s possible to tease apart the raw sense data from all the mental activity about it.

And when you do this, you may notice that the raw physical sensations, which until now you had always assumed to be continuous, are actually absent much of the time.

What’s happening is that raw sense data arise and pass away rapidly in little chunks, with gaps in between the passing away of one chunk and the arising of another.

Some of those gaps can be quite long, relatively speaking, but normally you don’t notice this because all that mental processing about the sense data fills them in, giving the illusion of continuity."

I have been meditating for about 6 years and attended several retreats but I still don't understand this on an experiential level. I dont think I have assumed them to be continuous.
It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there. I get an itch and then it's gone. I have a pain and then it's gone etc etc. maybe I'm misunderstanding this concept??
Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration? And same with a pain?   Perhaps my concentration is not strong enough to ever notice this. I try to examine a sensation sometimes but an itch just seems like an itch to me.
I feel I'm not making much progress,if any at all, with this stuff. I read about what is apparently supposed to happen, things you're meant to notice and experience, insights etc but my meditation just seems to be the same thing every single time. Sitting, noticing breath, thinking, noticing breath, itch, thinking, notice breath etc. It feels more and more pointless everyday. I don't seem to be learning to see the "true nature of reality" or heading toward "enlightenment" Why not? Where am I going wrong?

What they mean, is that our experience is assembled from hints presented by the sense organs. The eyes, ears catch glimpses of what's going on, esp. as we move around - and then build a theory from those hints, theory that we see as reality. There's a lot of assuming going on during that process, a lot of interpretation, and a lot of habit.

EDIT

Once you "let go" enough, you start seeing it. By "let go" I mean the unconscious process by which we maintain our contrived world. Nowadays I see it at both micro and macro level. For example as I hold the cup and look at it I can see how the mind "grasps" the "signs" - raw momentary snapshots of some distinct features, and how it "tells" itself what these signs imply by inferring the cup from them. I see how the mind goes over these "signs" again and again in circles, telling itself the story of the cup. Similarly, at the macro level, I can see how the mind grasps the facts of the world and builds the narrative of my life from these.

When some people practice mindfulness, they practice the opposite of letting go. They think mindfulness is when your observation is watertight. But watertight observation is really just a tighter version of the assembly process by which we contrive the world. Instead, as you stop trying to be in control of experience, you start seeing the gaps in the model. These gaps is what we are after - but you can't contrive your way into them, you can't control it - it only comes from letting go, which involves handling tremendous amount of insecurity.

EDIT2

What @xxxx means with his "looking for keys" analogy: normally the way our mind works is, we get a hint from sensory organs, we build a hypothesis of what we are looking for/at, and then we validate it by examining the evidence from sensory organs. If we approach meditation with the same attitude, we would say to ourselves: hey, I must be looking for gaps in experience, gaps in the modeling process, and here is how it's supposed to look like. But you can't see the real gaps with this attitude, this would be contriving gaps with your mind, like dreaming yourself a dream. Instead, it comes from letting go of the inner dialog, of re-telling yourself the story of what you see (micro), and the story of your life (macro).


Is modern capitalism inherently opposed to Buddhism? In the Dhammapada in the chapter 20 - The Path it says

  "I will make this my winter home have another house for the monsoon
  and dwell in a third for during the summer". Lost in such fancies, one
  forgets his final destination.

(translation by Eknath Easwaran)

Although it clearly can't have been written with this intent - to me this reads like very pertinent critique of modern consumerism and capitalism. A lot of us find ourselves practicing in societies where this is the prevalent ethos so this feels relevant.

Is there something about modern capitalism that inherently conflicts with Buddhism? Or is it possible to find quotes from texts or established teachers that are more supportive of the kind of capitalism//consumerism that we find ourselves in now?

I agree with @ChrisW. In addition to his answer:

Here is a quote from the Sigalovada Sutta that supports investment in business.

  The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Adiya Sutta discusses the five benefits that can be obtained from wealth.

The Dighajanu Sutta discusses how to maintain one's livelihood in tune:

  "And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'

  "These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.


Is mindfulness the path or the goal? Some of the reading that I have been doing recently makes me wonder what is the place of mindfulness in the Buddhist path. My previous (current?) view is that mindfulness is central and is in some way the goal of the Buddhist path. As one progresses one gets more and more mindful until at the end you are mindful all the time in a absolutely complete way. Mindfulness becomes almost synonymous with Nirvana (almost).

However I'm starting to think that mindfulness is just one tool among many and it may have a greater or lesser role as time goes on. It is just a way of seeing or helping us see more clearly and it is the clear seeing that is important.

So which view if any is closer to how things are? Is mindfulness a tool on the path or is its continuing refinement the entire point? Is it the path or the goal?

Mindfulness is very important, but it is part of the path, not the goal. It is the seventh of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, and the path can be grouped into three trainings. The wisdom training, the morality training, and the concentration training. Mindfulness falls under the training of concentration.

In MN 29, the longer heartwood simile discourse, the Buddha talks about the different reasons for practicing and compares them with different parts of a tree, and he warns against thinking that the parts of the path (including morality, meditation, and wisdom) as being the goal. It says:

  "Just as if a man in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering
  in search of heartwood — passing over the heartwood of a great
  standing tree possessed of heartwood — cutting away the sapwood, were
  to go off carrying it, thinking, 'heartwood.' A man with good
  eyesight, seeing him, would say, 'Ah, how this good man didn't know
  heartwood, didn't know sapwood, didn't know inner bark, didn't know
  outer bark, didn't know twigs & leaves! That's why he, in need of
  heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood —
  passing over the heartwood of a great standing tree possessed of
  heartwood — cutting away the sapwood, went off carrying it, thinking,
  "heartwood." Whatever heartwood-business he had with heartwood, his
  purpose won't be served.'

  "In the same way, monks, there is the case where a certain son of good
  family, out of conviction, goes forth from the home life into
  homelessness, [thinking,] '...Perhaps the end of this entire mass of
  stress might be discerned!' Having thus gone forth, he encounters
  gain, offerings, & fame. He is not gratified with that gain,
  offerings, & fame, his resolve not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that gain, offerings, & fame, not heedless about it, and does not
  fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  virtue. He is gratified with that consummation in virtue, but his
  resolve is not fulfilled. Because of that consummation in virtue he
  does not exalt himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with
  that consummation in virtue, not heedless about it, and does not fall
  into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  concentration. He is gratified with that consummation in
  concentration, but his resolve is not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that consummation in concentration, not heedless about it, and
  does not fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves knowledge
  & vision. He is gratified with that knowledge & vision, his resolve
  fulfilled. Because of that knowledge & vision he exalts himself and
  disparages others: 'I dwell knowing & seeing, but these other monks
  dwell not knowing & not seeing.' He is intoxicated with that knowledge
  & vision, heedless about it, and falls into heedlessness. Being
  heedless, he dwells in suffering & stress. This, monks, is called a
  monk who grasps the sapwood of the holy life, and with that he falls
  short.

  "Furthermore, there is the case where a certain son of good family,
  out of conviction, goes forth from the home life into homelessness,
  [thinking,] 'I am beset by birth, by aging-&-death, by sorrows,
  lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs, beset by stress, overcome
  with stress. Perhaps the end of this entire mass of stress might be
  discerned!' Having thus gone forth, he encounters gain, offerings, &
  fame. He is not gratified with that gain, offerings, & fame, his
  resolve not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated with that gain,
  offerings, & fame, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in virtue. He is
  gratified with that consummation in virtue, but his resolve is not
  fulfilled. Because of that consummation in virtue he does not exalt
  himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with that
  consummation in virtue, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  concentration. He is gratified with that consummation in
  concentration, but his resolve is not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that consummation in concentration, not heedless about it, and
  does not fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves knowledge
  & vision. He is gratified with that knowledge & vision, but his
  resolve is not fulfilled. Because of that knowledge & vision he does
  not exalt himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with that
  knowledge & vision, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves a non-occasional liberation.
  And it is impossible, monks, there is no opportunity, for that monk to
  fall from that non-occasional release. [1]

  "Just as if a man in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering
  in search of heartwood, cutting away just the heartwood of a great
  standing tree possessed of heartwood, were to go off carrying it,
  knowing, 'heartwood.' A man with good eyesight, seeing him, would say,
  'Ah, how this good man did know heartwood, did know sapwood, did know
  inner bark, did know outer bark, did know twigs & leaves! That's why
  he, in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of
  heartwood, cutting away just the heartwood of a great standing tree
  possessed of heartwood, were to go off carrying it, knowing,
  "heartwood." Whatever heartwood-business he had with heartwood, his
  purpose will be served.'
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

This Sutta makes it clear that it is incorrect to identify a part of the path such as mindfulness as somehow being identical with the goal. Mindfulness is a tool, not the result.


How do you handle a begar who want to stay in your temple? As a monk how would you handle a homeless person who wants to stay in your temple?
If you are not a monk just give the hypothetical answer based on your present knowledge assuming you are a monk.

I used to manage certain affairs of a monastery. I once gave a homeless penniless man food & lodging and he has been a monk now for over 20 years & is a well-known dhamma teacher.

The beggar must be able to live by the basic monastery rules for laypeople, which is not consuming drugs & alcohol; not disturbing other people; and doing his share of work.


Does the Vinaya forbid drinking while giving or listening to dhamma talks? Possibly the greatest thing in the world that makes my blood boil and my mind to become enraged in Cultural Marxist and SJW offendedness, anger and uncontrollable rage is seeing individuals drinking tea, water or anything else while giving a lecture; be it a secular lecture or dhamma talk.
To see someone set up their drink glass or other drinking receptacle simply to give a 30 minute lecture then start to slurp and gulp during the lecture sets my mind on fire as my mind forms the view this is the height of rudeness to the audience and arrogance, elitism and an utter total lack of discipline and self control on behalf of the speaker.
As I write this question, my mind is, right now, in this moment, spontaneously born (opapātikā) into Sīlabbata-Parāmāsa-Hell.
When Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was alive and a very old man, often on the verge of death, I observed him giving dhamma talks for 90 minutes to 2 hours and he never drink anything. During one series of talks over a number days, when it was reputed his death was imminent, he occasionally lost consciousness (when the translator was speaking) and had to be woken up (and he would continue to the dhamma talk right where he left off).
Anyway, after taking a breath or two to calm down, my question is, does the Vinaya forbid drinking while giving or listening to dhamma talks?
For example, I recall the Vinaya says things like listeners of dhamma talks should not wear hats, etc.
Thanks

Other then the aversive unfounded preoccupation here: it's actually one duty for monks to arrange drinking water for all participate at their gatherings.


The arising of arrogance I'd like to share a situation that happened to me and brought me a question about this arising of arrogance.

I was driving and another driver got mad at me for a not-so-correct maneuver I did. At first I felt a bit uncomfortable for making him angry, but quickly I felt more compassion for the fact that he was feeling anger than any other un wholesome state of mind.

Until a bit of arrogance arose, when a thought appeared: I was able to feel in peace even though the situation, while he let that unrest him and feel anger.

Is that arising of this kind of arrogance usual? How could I meditate upon it or think about the causes and consequences of it? The problem I have is that I do feel sometimes like I'm in a better path to happiness (that is buddhism) than others but that makes this arrogance appear.

The feeling of pride is okay in the sense that it is conditioned so long as you do not act following that feeling.

That you are able to notice the arising of the feeling shows some mindfulness and restraint.

Conceit is one of the 10 fetters to be abandoned by an Anagami, the last stage of the practice.

So long as you are not holding on to that pride or perpetuating it you are doing fine.

To stop pride & conceit from arising don't compare!


How are Buddhist Sacred Texts used in practice and historically, given the questioned authenticity of some of them I'm curious on how Buddhist Sacred Texts are used in teachings and in practice.

The Buddha often says not to solely follow transmitted tradition, instead Buddhists are "exhorted to know for themselves."
(Pg 2-3, of Scriptural Authority: A Buddhist Perspective by Shi Zhiru).
However, some sutras give sacred texts a much stronger authority (Pg 4).

Given that some sacred texts are not evidently authentic, some of which are written hundreds or even thousands of years after the Buddha's passing, what authority do practicing monks and the Sangha give to the sacred texts? How are these texts used? Are they used merely as a guidebook or as intensely analyzed, as say, the Christian Bible?

I appreciate any answers with any sources if used! Thanks

From a more secular perspective the Pail Canon has the definite merit of being closer to the time of the Buddha so could (controversially?) be argued has the greatest authenticity. However there is an enormous canon of Mahayana literature that from a historic point of view was written hundreds of years after the time of the Historical Buddha. To the adherents of these forms of Buddhism these texts most certainly don't lack authenticity. In fact the ones that I'm familiar with go further and insist that they are higher teachings that build on more provisional early texts.

A couple of examples

The Perfection of Wisdom sutras are early Mahayana texts. The tradition goes that the Buddha entrusted the texts to the Nagas (water snakes or dragons). Hundreds of years later Nagarjuna rediscovered these from the nagas then redistributed them to the world. So according to tradition the texts are authentic although they were only available much later on.

Another Mahayana text the Lotus Sutra goes to great lengths to point out that the text is the authentic word of the Buddha even though it was written after his death. It asserts that it is a higher teaching that augments and to some extent supersedes the early texts. In this case the Buddha is still teaching the text but in this work the Buddha is seen more as existing throughout time and takes on a more cosmic aspect so the words been written afterwards become less of a problem. This quote illustrates the timeless aspect of the Buddha in the Lotus sutra

  Suppose all these worlds, whether or not a particle was left in them,
  were reduced to particles, and each particle represented a kalpa. The
  period of time since I became a buddha would exceed this by hundreds
  of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of incalculable kalpas.
  Since then I have constantly been residing in the sahā world,
  teaching the Dharma and inspiring sentient beings. I have also been
  leading and benefiting sentient beings in incalculable hundreds of
  thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of other worlds.

Use of the texts

As to how people understand of use these texts - since the later texts are still seen as the authentic Buddhist text they will be used in that manner. Bear in mind also there are texts that do not make the claim to be the authentic word of the buddha such as Santideva's Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra. A huge number of people, past and present, find these texts hugely rewarding spiritual works in the same way as people have an enormous regard for Christian works such as An Imitation of Christ. It doesn't need to the the direct word of the the Buddha to be a valuable spiritual work.

I have personally read (a reasonable portion of) the Pali canon and the Mahayana works listed here (Diamond sutra and Heart sutra from the perfection of wisdom) and I would urge anyone who is interested to spend time with the Mahayana texts as well as the Pali Canon texts. It's my belief that these works aren't (just) instructional manuals - the reading of them is an act of devotion and Buddhist practice in and of itself. Read the Lotus Sutra and allow the great swirling cosmic vastness of it all transport you somewhere else.


What is the best strategy to confront Non-Buddhist ideology? I am sure everybody in this world thinks that 'my religion is the only true religion' etc and its variables. As we live in a diverse society, in today's age of information we invariably bump into people or places, online or offline, with ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs.

What is the best strategy to deal with such situations? Should we keep silence and ignore and let them live in their ignorance or should we confront and try to explain the Dhamma to them?

In the latter situation, it always ends up in heated debates about the existence of god and its near impossible to explain a non-Buddhist that soul doesn't exist and that self is an illusion.

What do you do?

There's an apocryphal Christian story, that I heard or read long ago -- where somebody asks someone else (possibly a Buddhist):

  Have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?

... to which the person replies:

  If you mean a good Christian, like your Christ -- I don't have the courage.

  But if you mean being a bad Christian, like you -- I wouldn't want to be!

If you want to be persuasive (about the benefits and/or truths of Buddhism) perhaps it's important to be a good Buddhist.

I don't want to criticise but "ending up in heated debates about the existence of God" doesn't sound attractive or persuasive to me.

I'm particularly afraid of someone's thinking, "if being a Buddhist means being like you, I wouldn't want to be!"

I once tried to explain Buddhism (not in a "confrontational" way) -- see How to explain what Buddhism is? -- and I don't think I was very successful.

Still I hope I learned from that, that there are many different aspects of Buddhism: and different aspects appeal to or make sense to different people.

The Buddha was especially skilled at knowing different people and speaking accordingly.

It may be that the topics of God, Soul, and Self are especially important to you -- for what it's worth or for example, I don't see that as the most important doctrine.

A friend once told me a bit about communication theory, saying that when people choose a topic of conversation, then talking about what's far away (distant) is less intimate than what's close (here); that what's in the past or future is less intimate than what's now; and that talking about people we don't know, and/or talking about friends, is less intimate than talking about ourselves.

It seems to me that talking about "God" is very distant. Perhaps it's too easy to argue about something you can't see!

If you want to talk about Buddhism maybe it's better to consider aspects of Dharma like Ehipassiko, perhaps like the Kalama sutta.

Five more things.

One is that I tend to assume "good faith".
My parents professed Christianity when I was young. I don't think they were doing that in order to deceive me.
I assume they had some reason[s] for their belief[s] and that the words they spoke had some meaning[s] to them, even if those words didn't wholly make "real" sense to me.
So if I were going to engage in a conversation about God and Soul and so on, I think my participation ought to include my being interested in finding out or understanding what those words mean to someone, and why they use them and so on.1
Conversely, if I'm not interested in doing that, then it's maybe not a topic of conversation I should engage in.

The second is that (when I was young and they were trying to indoctrinate me) I was willing to believe all kinds of doctrines. Or if not believe, at least not dispute. "So, God wants us to love our neighbour as ourself? Well sure, why not. Good doctrine, more or less. And God loves us? That's nice to know, thanks for saying so. And there's a resurrection and an afterlife? Well, OK: if you say so." There was one bit of doctrine though that I couldn't manage. The way it was taught at that time was, "The Church has a monopoly on the Truth: what the Church teaches is true, and everything/everyone else (including every other religion) is wrong." And I thought, that bit of doctrine was just too much: "So, 'the Annunciation', OK, 'the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Heaven' ... whatever, OK: if you say so. But 'everyone else is wrong'? That's incredible! Impossible!" And I think that maybe Buddhism too warns against being a sectarian who argues in this way ("This alone is true") about the dhamma.

The third is that I guess (if you'll excuse my saying so) that your "heated debates" are motivated by some form of conceit, specifically comparing yourself to others: "I'm Buddhist and they're not. My being Buddhist means I know the Dhamma, whereas they are living in ignorance." That's maybe not something you want to perpetuate (even when the debate is whether 'self' is an illusion).

Fourth, if you are arguing online that's maybe even less sensible/effective than face-to-face (xkcd).

Fifth, IMO the "ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs" are for example the ideologies which involve killing -- or lying, and so on. If you understand that kind of doctrine to be the "bottom line", you might decide most people are agreeable or "very civilized".

1Maybe you can see this sort of attitude here, i.e. I like to assume that I'm at least a little ignorant about another person's views.


Is there a ninth fold to the Eightfold path or is it just eight? For the longest time, I never had much to question about it but I've taken to wondering about an extra one, one that wasn't there before. I get to feeling that "right spirit" should be another fold. Can Buddha's spirit be tested for this?

There is the:

8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna, and
10 Fold Path for full enlightenment

The Noble 8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna.

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta intorduction

To go beyond Sotapanna one must add 2 more elements under liberation/release which are:

right knowledge
right freedom

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta


What are metta and karuna? I'm wondering what these terms, mettā and karuṇā (loving-kindness and compassion), mean.

Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from?
Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing?

The words in the metta chant are translated into English as being "free" from various forms of suffering. I think the Pali is just saying things like, "May I be with no-emnity" etc.

Given these definitions, is "free from suffering" more a type of karuna rather than a type of metta, if so why is it in the "chant of metta"? Are they simply exact opposites, therefore the same thing?
In a translated phrase like "May you be well" or "May all beings be at ease", is that always the word Sukha being translated? Or are there other adjectives (states of being) that are wished for?
How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity?

These Dhamma Lists warn that "indifference" is the "near enemy" of "equanimity"; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with metta?

  Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred
  Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
  Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison, hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy
  Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

How is metta compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't metta imply that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite?
Do you agree with the following statement, copied from here:

  People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?

The answer below draws from early buddhism material: from the four nikayas/agamas and ven. Analayo's studies on the subject (Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation, CEEBM from now on).

"I'm wondering what these terms, mettā and karuṇā (loving-kindness and compassion), mean."

First, on matters of translations, while mettā is frequently translated as "loving-kindness", alternatives include "benevolence" and "amicableness"1. According to CEEBM, etymologically, it's root is mitra, "friend", thus conveying the idea of being friendly (and it favors "benevolence" over "loving kindness").

This contrasts with karuṇā/compassion which is a desire for others [in suffering] to be free from suffering. More on that below.

"Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from? Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing?"

It seems there's no sutta that really defines compassion. The essence of it is the "concern for others to be relieved from suffering and affliction" (CEEBM). A simile that illustrates it (in the context of a teaching on how to subdue hatred) can be found in AN 5.162:

  Just as when there is a sick man — in pain, seriously ill — traveling along a road, far from the next village & far from the last, unable to get the food he needs, unable to get the medicine he needs, unable to get a suitable assistant, unable to get anyone to take him to human habitation. Now suppose another person were to see him coming along the road. He would do what he could out of compassion, pity, & sympathy for the man, thinking, ‘O that this man should get the food he needs, the medicine he needs, a suitable assistant, someone to take him to human habitation. Why is that? So that he won’t fall into ruin right here.’

In terms of practice, while contemplating other people's suffering would be contemplation of dukkha, contemplating the wish for others to be free from dukkha would be contemplation of compassion and both "should be undertaken with a positive or even joyful mind [and] steer clear of sadness" instead of "commiserate to the extent of suffering along with the other" (CEEBM) -- as the Visuddhimagga formulations of "near enemy" indicate.

Furthermore, it's said in the suttas that it is "impossible, it cannot be that cruelty remains pervading the mind of one who has practiced, cultivated, and made much of the concentration of the mind by compassion" (AN 6.13). That is, cultivating the desire for others to be free from suffering eliminates the desire for others to suffer.

Ven. Analayo, in CEEBM, further clarifies that:

Moral conduct is an expression of compassion

For example, abstaining from killing beings.
Right speech is an expression of compassion

For example, evaluating if something to be said is benefical.
Both learning dhamma (seeking freedom from dukkha) and teaching dhamma can be expressions of compassion

  If one does not think of harming oneself, does not think of harming others, does not think of harming both; and instead ... one thinks
  of benefiting others, benefiting many people out of compassion for the affliction in the world, seeking what is meaningful and of benefit for devas and humans, seeking their ease and happiness; then in this way .. one is bright, intelligent, and with vast wisdom

  -- AN 4.186 (Analayo trans.)

Also see AN 3.60 where the Buddha counter-argument a Brahmin who says that one who goes forth on the dhamma only benefits oneself.

Finally, ven. Analayo concludes that, in early buddhism, teaching dhamma is the compassionated action par excellence.
Accordingly, going into seclusion can be an expression of compassion

  [ven. Mahakassapa]: "Considering two benefits, venerable sir. For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have compassion for later generations, thinking, ‘May those of later generations follow my example!’ For when they hear, ‘The enlightened disciples of the Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling … were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy,’ then they will practice accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Considering these two benefits, venerable sir, I have long been a forest dweller ... and have spoken in praise of arousing energy."

  -- SN 16.5

...and seclusion, being a necessity to build a strong foundation and practice, is then a requirement for correct teaching: "if one is not tamed oneself and wishes to tame someone else who is untamed, that is impossible" (MN 8). Also "One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others." (Dhp 158)
Early buddhist discourse on compassion practice does not focus on a specific person (as elaborated on Visuddhimagga); instead, it's a practice of "boundless radiation in all directions" (MN 7).

On mettā, ven. Analayo comments on a passage of the Mettā sutta (Sn 1.8) that uses a simile of the love of a mother for her only child to illustrate the practice of mettā: "Her love of her son is not the main theme here -- the main point is protection. The providing and receiving o protection is in fact a recurrent aspect in the conception of mettā in the early discourses. [...] In contrast to the bounded love of mother for her child, which easily comes with an admixture of attachment, mettā should be boundless and free from attachment." (CEEBM).

In MN 104 we also find mettā associated with cordiality:

  "Here a bhikkhu maintains bodily acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity."

Thus, mettā has a broad role in the daily activity establishing the modes of interactions with everyone around toward wholesome actions of body, speech and mind mind with a sense of appreciation for them (MN 31 illustrates it beautifully).

Furthermore, mettā is the very antidote for subduing (and is the opposite of) ill will, anger and aggression (MN I 424). It's also related to physical/mental beauty (and lack of it, associated to ugliness). Finally, it seems to have a proeminent role compared to other seemingly compassionate practices ("If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will, that would be more fruitful than...",AN 9.20).

So, briefly, I understand mettā to be the desire for others to be well and attitude that promotes wellness, in contrast with compassion: the desire for others to be free from dukkha -- and attitudes that extinguish existing dukkha.

"How is mettā (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity? These Dhamma Lists warn that 'indifference' is the 'near enemy' of 'equanimity'; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with mettā?"

In CEEBM, ven. Analayo writes: "Equanimity or equipoise, upek(k)ha, from the etymological perspective suggests a mental attitude of 'looking upon', not an indifferent 'looking away'. The term thus conveys an awareness of whatever is happening combined with mental balance and the absence of favoring or opposing" and also "equanimity is [...] a mental equipoise that rounds off a systematic opening of the heart which has been brought about through cultivation of the other three divine abodes".

As an illustration of the function of equanimity, consider teaching dhamma with the attitude of compassion to an uninterested audience. In such situations, equanimity (or lack of it) comes into play. The same could be said about the role of equanimity when we treat others with mettā and find ourselves being treated with aggression (and, conversely, when we find ourselves being praised). In this way, equanimity helps with subduing aversion and lust. Moreover, it helps putting compassion "on track", which can steer out to unwholesome mental states (by being affected by the suffering of others, or by being inflated with sense of superiority for others, etc).

The suttas have the Buddha reacting equanimous in many of these situations (see MN 137, MN 65, MN 128 and SN 7.2).

"How is mettā compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't mettā imply that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite?"

Other related questions I found here:

Conceptual reality, mettā, ignorance
Do mettā practices and anatta contradict each other?

As I understand, mettā is not the idea that "other beings should be happy" (opposing dukkha), not does it reify a conceptual construction of a (everlasting) person. From mettā alone, I don't think we can infer anything, doctrinally or otherwise, about someone else (or any "object" of mettā), it's about us. It is the inclination and attitude that promotes wellness (freedom from suffering) for all beings. Like cleaning up a bathroom after using it to have it ready for the next person that need it.

The way I see it, "whishing for others to be well" is just a practice, a way to create the mental habit of such inclination and attitude -- culminating with one actually becoming a friendly, kind, "easy to be with", person.

1 from http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/


Is it possible to describe nibbana? This Dhamma Wiki article, Nibbana, says that "Nibbana (Pali), nirvana (Sanskrit), is the highest spiritual state and the ultimate goal of Buddhism."

Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana?

How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?

It is possible to describe the nibbana, but non ariya practitioner can't understand the description.

In abhidhamma taught that the non ariya practitioner can't know the real nibbana, until he will be ariya. Because he has not enough ability.


Is it forbidden in Thai/Buddhist religion for a woman to perform consensual oral sex on someone? Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

The Buddhist path is followed by those who voluntarily choose to, i.e., by those who take refuge.

Dhammapada 242 says: "misconduct is the taint in a woman" (malitthiyā duccaritaṃ). Traditionally, in Thailand, monks interpreted this to mean the only allowable sexual partner for a Buddhist woman is her husband. In traditional Thai culture, the sexual purity of a woman & a mother was considered very important. Thus, while the mother remained sexually moral, often it was acceptable for men to occasionally have sex with those women who were outcastes from mainstream society, namely, prostitutes. (Yes - this appears to be a typical characteristic Thai "double standard").

Also, the idea of "consent" has no relevance to the Buddhist path because a "consensual action" may still be an unskillful action that brings harm & suffering. For example, many people consent to have uncommitted sex with eachother yet often such sexual interactions bring suffering, such as anger, blame, addiction, regret, feeling used or heartbreak. The emotional reactions of lonely desperate people (called "hungry ghosts" in Buddhism) searching for sex is often unpredictable. Often people that engage in promiscuous sex have hidden psychological issues.

All religions, including Buddhism, include sex in their moral guidelines because sex is not 100% pleasure and can bring suffering. The Buddha said about sexual pleasures: "They bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater". For example, some individuals even commit suicide due to the loss of a lover. Many men angrily lose their financial wealth when their wife revengefully divorces them. When promiscuous women "hit the wall" due to age & menopause, they often appear susceptible to depression.

Therefore, to attempt to answer this very broad question:

If a Thai adult female living in the western world is a Buddhist that has taken refuge in Buddhism by voluntarily choosing to observe the five precepts; then to perform consensual oral sex on someone apart from her husband or her (same sex) wife would be sexual misconduct.
Regardless, random acts of performing consensual oral sex outside of committed relationships leads to 'rebirth' in the hungry ghost (addiction), animal (shamelessness) & hell (suffering) realms. It is quite obvious the significant amount Western women over 40 years of age using antidepressants is probably largely due to their former sexual promiscuity & broken relationships.

Note: Most Thai people consider themselves to be "Buddhist", even if they have not taken formal vows (refuge) and even if they do not live a moral life. Therefore, if a Thai woman performs oral sex on many different people, she may still consider herself to be a "Buddhist". Even Thai prostitutes may consider themselves to be Buddhists. When I lived in a monastery in Thailand, a renowned corrupt politician ordained as a monk after he was stood down from parliament & lived in the hut next door to me. Therefore, we should be careful not accuse a Thai of not being a (cultural) Buddhist if they do not follow the Buddhist moral precepts.


Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect is never its cause? Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect can never be conceived of as its cause?

I'm asking because it would neatly fit my own views on how to understand science, as well as I think rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty (for reasons other than that thesis assuming a person).

See "Mula-madhyamaka-karika" by Nagarjuna:

  Neither from itself nor from another,

  Nor from both,

  Nor without a cause,

  Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Later Chandrakirti wrote detailed explanations of these ideas.

The purpose was to demonstrate the middle way between extremes of eternalism and nihilism regarding causes.

Otherwise causes could be viewed as "substance of self" of phenomena.

For practical purposes, we can meditate thusly:

Realize that all things depend on causes,

and therefore they lack independent existence.

For example, my feelings depend on causes. All my thoughts depend on causes. Also my wishes and my actions all depend on causes.

Therefore, is there anything in "me" this moment, not dependent on something else?

Then realize also that causality itself is illusory.

For example, we can contemplate that causality is rather our assumption than reliably known truth.

We guess that this is the cause of that. But it's just our guess, conventional truth. In the absolute sense, we can not ultimately know it.

"Absolute truth" is understood here as something that appears directly (phenomena, dharmas). Any judgments - e.g. views about causality - are just guesses.

For practical purposes, we take such guesses to be "true", but we should realize that's just a convention in our mind.

This understanding helps to see the selflessness of phenomena, and thus to liberate from samsara.


What are we supposed to do while meditating? Yes I have meditated and I have searched the Internet this question before landing here, what I describe below is a mixture of what I have read of what one should do during meditation and what actually happens when I actually meditate.

Most of the articles I have found say that try to keep focus but here I want to ask is what do I focus upon  ? My problems, my desires or just how do we keep focus without a subject to feed upon ? And while meditating I have found my thoughts wander away and keep reminding myself by repeating mentally "no I am meditating, no I am meditating". Is that the right method ? but the biggest question is when we say focus(in any other field apart from meditation) we understand it in general context as to improve our performance or invest ourselves more in that field but what does it mean in meditation,  is it repeating a thought continuously in our head or something else ?

While some other articles say watch the thoughts as they occur , I mean okay I could watch the thoughts that occur during a meditation session but then doesn't that seem a little contradictory ? You are producing the thoughts and then you are seeing that occur so then actually we could guide our thoughts then, why does it then say stay and observe ?

I know above I have asked my questions in a hodgepodge manner so let me sum it up succinctly:

What are we supposed to think during meditation or we do not need to think at all ?
Generally do we set timers for meditation sessions or do we get an intuitive feel that I can't focus or meditate any more for today ?

There are many kinds of meditation, and as many ways of explaining them as there are people. After years of study and practice, here is a meditation I recommend. I call this "the coming to one's senses meditation" :)

Sit any way you want, as long as it's not too uncomfortable nor too comfortable as to put you to sleep. You can change your posture any way you want. Don't worry about it at all.

Bring your attention in front of you. Not literally "in front", but rather "to the room". It is the same kind of attention you need when you were busy for too long and neglected your room, and now you are finally coming back to the present and taking a good look at your room - and noticing the overall disorder. It's a similar feeling to awakening. "Hiii, present moment! Long time no see! I was waaaay too busy lately." Finally the Sinbad is back from yet another travel. This is why it's called "coming to one's senses".

Look at your body. Look at your hands. Feel them. If you are like most people, it's been long time since you gave attention to your basic being. Feel your entire body, as presence, as energy. It feels so good to finally stop running like a hamster in the wheel and come back to one's body and one's room. At the same time, you may have a feeling of anxiety. It feels like you are wasting time doing nothing. You've been running on for too long, and it became a habit. Feel that anxiety in your body. Drop it. It's okay to waste time. In fact, this is a precious way to use time, you are reconnecting with your basic being.

Don't worry about the clock. If you do do worry, put a timer for 15-20 minutes, and test it first - it will help you relax knowing you won't "waste" too much time ;) So in this case the purpose of the timer is the opposite of normal. You use the timer for its silence, not for its alarm. If you do trust yourself and don't worry about time - then you don't need a timer.

Come back to your senses. You've been driven for too long by all those goals and problems, now is time to gather your thoughts. It's a same feeling like you are on vacation, or actually it's like you added several days after vacation, to stay home and gather your thoughts. That's it! So you sit and you're like "pheew!" Finally. It's that state of mind when you can finally think "Alright, what should I do next?". You are reconnecting with your inner core and sending a silent SQL query to your guts: "give me the top 5 things I wanted to get to but never had time".

Now, this moment is when there is departure between meditation and regular thinking-and-gathering-your-thoughts type of sitting. Normally, you get absorbed into the first of those 5 things, or maybe the second one - and go on creating new plans, and that's it, vacation is over. Instead, with meditation, you stay in that query mode, and let your guts keep on finding more and more things that you have been previously deferring. Remember those old stories about a student tasked with reciting prayers in a church all night long, while all kinds of horror creatures come up but the student should keep his cool? They are the echo of this meditation.

The trick is to stay fully present in the room, just like you were in the beginning. Maybe 65% of your CPU is staying in the room and feeling the presence of the body & the freshness of the current moment, 20% is running the deep query, and 15% is the control circuit ("you") aka mindfulness. The role of the control circuit is to gently restore the balance when it skews too much towards thinking. Meaning, when the query comes up with a result, your role is to take it, bring it fully into your present moment, and take one good look at it while keeping at arms length. Then gently dismiss it, while leaning fully on the visual awareness of your presence in the room and the feeling of aliveness of your body. Don't rush to do anything at this moment. Wait until your mind fully comes back to the room and the initial "gathering your thoughts / what should I do next" state is restored. This is the critical moment! Don't rush into the next cycle. Let yourself waste time! When you get present and stable enough, your body will automatically send the next query to your subconscious. Don't think about it at all, just come back to the initial state. That's it! -- Repeat like this until you feel super-awake. I call this process "thought laundry" or "mind washing machine". This is the vipassana element.

You don't have to obsess with the laundry cycle either. Sometimes you may feel like not waiting for query results at all, and focusing on your overall inner comfort instead. This is also a valid mode of "coming to one's senses meditation". Perhaps you feel like your body was crumbled and now you want to open it up. Perhaps you feel like your aura was burning with anxiety and now you would like to apply the metaphorical aloe of contentment. Sometimes you may feel like you want to uphold a kingly posture or stretch the face muscles or open the chest etc. As long as you don't go too far into the sport exercises, and your main activity remains sitting in the room, gathering your thoughts, and coming back to your senses -- all kinds of psychosomatic comfort motions are very valid. May be you'll realize you've been drowsy all this time and you want to make an effort to awaken your mind. All these are good. I call this "conditioning the mind". This is the samatha element.

The most important point is: it's not about doing anything. It is about coming back to your senses. Both conditioning the mind as well as coming up of the deferred thoughts are just aspects of coming back to your senses.

So as you see, in this version, it's not really thinking, nor is it no-thinking. It's not mindfulness of any one thing, but it's not no-mindfulness either. It's coming back to one's senses. If you do it right it should be quite enjoyable! Although every time you still need to overcome the tendency to continue worrying about the things that worried you that day or the previous day. Also, on some days you may have trouble doing this at all, if thoughts or emotions are too strong. In that case, don't need to force yourself. When you force it, your heart will start hating it - and then you won't do it at all. But if you're doing it right, it feels like finally finding time for your most precious friend. Over time you should be able to extend the sitting from 15-20 mins to maybe 40 mins. Maybe in the future you will want to sit for 2 hours, like the monks do. Maybe one time you will be encouraged to sit for entire weekend, with only snack and bathroom breaks - who knows.

But even if you only do it 15 minutes a day, you should feel much more stable and awaken throughout the day. It works like sleeping, just 10 times more efficient.


Is the Avatamsaka Sutra the only Buddhist scripture that talks about multiverse? I know the Avatamsaka Sutra teaches about a multiverse flower garland, which represents all of reality, is made up of infinite universes which all reflect one another.
Is this the only scripture that talks about multiverses?

The Avatamsaka Sutra speaks of "worlds" or "realms", not of universes, and certainly not about the scientific theory of the multiverse:

In all atoms of all lands Buddha enters, each and every one, Producing
miracle displays for sentient beings: Such is the way of Vairocana....
The techniques of the Buddhas are inconceivable, All appearing in
accord with beings’ minds.... In each atom the Buddhas of all times
Appear, according to inclinations; While their essential nature
neither comes nor goes, By their vow power they pervade the worlds.

The characters written in the text for this are usually 境界 (Jìngjiè), where 境 means "territory" and 界 means "world", usually rendered in English as "realm".
For "universe", the characters 宇宙 (Yǔzhòu) would be used. These do not appear anywhere in the Chinese text.


Please Recommend Pure Land / Other Power Buddhism Books I have gradually become a Pure Land Buddhist. I chant as I cycle. But I would also like to read, in English or Japanese. Recently I read the book below (Not generally available I am afraid) and it made me feel good. Please would members recommend some other power Buddhism books.

別府信空上人（2015）『現物者の喜び』法然寺

I'm not sure if you would like some academic literature but here goes:

T’an-luan’s Theory of Two Kinds of Dharma-body as Found in Shinran’s Wago Writings has a detailed description and great diagrams on this topic.

The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine: Ching-ying Hui-yuan's Commentary on the Visualization Sutra


What are examples of identity-view? Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is the first of the ten fetters.
The "eradication" of identity-view is important towards enlightenment.
Presumably, "eradication of identity-view" is more than simply claiming, "Yes, there's no self anywhere!!"
So, how should one understand what "identity-view" is, and whether it's eradicated?
If "eradication" of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)?
Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated?
Is "eradication of identity-view" synonymous with having no habits?
Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic?
If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones!

Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that Culavedalla Sutta for example seems to describe it:

As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the fourth fetter"?
Also, questions about the self come with a warning: "This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc." -- so I have not been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?

Well, here's my take on Identity view.  I think it's relatively compatible with the Sutras, but should not be considered an exposition of them.

First, what is this "self"?  One answer is that it's your reaction when contemplating the following questions...

1. When you feel pride in an accomplishment, what is the recipient of this pride?
2. When you feel offended at being insulted, what was insulted?
3. Who is the "star" of your narrative?
4. What is the agent that wills and acts and controls thought?

Identity views cause pain since this self is something that can come under attack and hence becomes a source of worry and regret (see #3) and conflict (see #2).  Further, suffering continues because experience becomes filtered and emotionally laden because of how it's seen to relate to this "self" (see #3). Then there's the fact that desires are in reference to a "self" -- when you seek desires, you seek to feed this "self".

So the goal is to suspend belief in a self.  This doesn't mean claiming it doesn't exist -- but rather, letting all beliefs about it go.  That's the only way the apparently contradictory claims of the Sutras (and the various view fetters) make sense to me.

You suspend these beliefs by inquiring into the nature of this self.  Be mindful and present to your experience, especially when confronted with 1-4, and inquire deeply into this "self" that seems to present itself.  During meditation (or in quieter times) try to focus on this sense of "I" and go through the Skhandas to see if you can find any self there.  You can even look at it logically; if the self is "you", the thing behind your consciousness (not that I'm claiming it is), then how can you be aware of it, as to be aware of anything means its an object of consciousness and not the subject?

As for Western approaches to the self, I think the most systematic treatment is Derek Parfitt.

After that, there's David Hume.  Here's a PDF outlining his identity views.

And here's a passage from Hume (from here) about his views on a self.  This may make a good object for meditation, and the relationship to Skhandas is clear:

  For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I
  always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or
  cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can
  catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe
  any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any
  time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may
  truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions remov’d by
  death, and cou’d I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor
  hate after the dissolution of my body, I shou’d be entirely
  annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a
  perfect non-entity. If any one upon serious and unprejudic’d
  reflexion, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess
  I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may
  be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in
  this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and
  continu’d, which he calls himself; tho’ I am certain there is no such
  principle in me… But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I
  may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing
  but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed
  each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux
  and movement.


Where is the story that Buddha was worried about a monk who meditated with a straight back? I'm trying to find a story in the Pali canon (or maybe not) reportedly told by Ajahn Brahm that goes like this (copied from here):

  Buddha was wandering along with Ananda when they came across a monk
  sitting under a tree in meditation. The monk was sat on the ground
  with a straight back, his hands were folded, and his head and neck at
  just the right angle. He was deep in meditation and had been for some
  time. The Buddha turned to Ananda and said “I’m worried about that
  monk.”

  A few minutes later they came across another monk sitting under a tree
  in meditation. He was on a comfy cushion, his back was bent forward
  and he’d fallen asleep. Every now and then he’d wake up only to nod
  off again. He was even snoring. The Buddha turned to Ananda and said
  “this monk I’m not worried about at all, he’s doing just fine.”

I've been googling around but found nothing.

I've heard Ajahn Brahm tell this story during a lecture which was recorded on YouTube, so I can confirm it's definitely told by him; however I don't remember which one it was.
The story is not (strictly) in the suttas. It is probably (very loosely) based on AN 6.42, and deals more with the disturbances of nearby lay life as opposed to the wilderness.

Nagita, there is the case where I see a monk sitting in concentration in a village dwelling. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon a monastery attendant will disturb this venerable one in some way, or a novice will, and rouse him from his concentration.' And so I am not pleased with that monk's village-dwelling.
But then there is the case where I see a monk sitting, nodding, in the wilderness. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon this venerable one will dispel his drowsiness & fatigue and attend to the wilderness-perception, [his mind] unified.' And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.

So in this sutta it looks more like he's worried about the auspiciousness of the environment rather than the current condition in which a monk  dwells, and his being pleased is based on his assumption that the monk will soon generate right effort, and not that he'll be heedless.
However, I think it's important to stress that Ajahn Brahm's purpose for telling this story, regardless of where he had heard it, were probably that he has many lay followers which come to the practice with high expectations for quick results. He has to teach people how to give themselves some breathing space first - and that, I believe, he does very well.


Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object I noticed that if I set an intention to avoid some behaviour, I rarely follow through. I feel perhaps a mere intention based on willpower doesn't have much strength.

Is it more effective to direct one's thoughts to a virtuous object whenever fantasies and cravings, or worries and rumination, occur? Are these cravings/worries causing the problems?

Is just setting an intention mentally sometimes not adequate?

You might want to consult Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

It explains how one deals with unwholesome thoughts in several ways and 'Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object' is one of those ways.


Buddhism in Kerala, India? I want to know if Buddhism was practised in Kerala, India around 500CE. When did it lose popularity and why?

No it was not practiced. In Kerala very minor group of people follow the Buddhism. Buddhism probably flourished for 200 years (650-850) in Kerala. The Paliyam Copper Plate of the Ay King, Varaguna (885-925 AD) shows that the Buddhists benefited from royal patronage in the 10th century.
Hope this helps..


How should I respond to people who fake suffering? Namo Buddhaya.
Yesterday a person came to me and said he was bit by a dog and then he asked for money to buy medicines as he had none as he was poor. I gave the money to him.But I wonder whether people fake suffering to win sympathy and/or money ? Should I compromise my pride in honesty to help these fake people ?

How should I respond to people who fake suffering ?

Your honesty was not compromised. And don't let your pride grow on you because of these incidents.

Money comes and go. If the money is yours it will eventually come back in any possible way. Be more careful/mindful next time too, of course.


If Theravada doesn't posit the selflessness of phenomena, then how to interpret SN 22.95? This question is closely related to this question and this question and this question.

There is a Sutta in the Pali Canon that seems to explicitly reject that any of the aggregates is real or substantially existent, but instead likening them to a lump of foam, a water bubble, a mirage, a plantain trunk, or an illusion:

  “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception
  is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk, And consciousness
  like an illusion, So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.

  “However one may ponder it And carefully investigate it, It appears
  but hollow and void When one views it carefully.

  “With reference to this body The One of Broad Wisdom has taught That
  with the abandoning of three things One sees this form discarded.

  “When vitality, heat, and consciousness Depart from this physical
  body, Then it lies there cast away: Food for others, without volition.

  “Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools. It is
  taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.

  “A bhikkhu with energy aroused Should look upon the aggregates thus,
  Whether by day or at night, Comprehending, ever mindful.

  “He should discard all the fetters And make a refuge for himself; Let
  him fare as with head ablaze, Yearning for the imperishable state.”

Depending upon the answers to the previous questions I'd be very interested in how Theravada interprets this Sutta. Generally, I'm confused how Theravada interprets these Suttas into a coherent and non-contradictory whole:

SN 22.85 seems to say that regarding a Realized One as real or genuine is incorrect.
Itivuttaka 44 seems to say that (as per Ruben2020's answer here) the body is real and genuine.
SN 22.95 seems to reject that and say the body is to be considered like foam as "void, hollow, insubstantial."

Finally, Mahayana monastics train believing that the substantial difference between Theravada views of anatta and Mahayana views of shunyata is that Theravada regards the aggregates and all external phenomena as real and possessing intrinsic nature or essence.

How do Theravada proponents reconcile all of this?

Piya Tan in his commentary on the lump of foam sutta, quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary below:

  This sutta is one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature
  of conditioned phenomena; its imagery (especially the similes of the
  mirage and the magical illusion) has been taken up by later Buddhist
  thinkers, most persistently by the Madhyamikas. Some of the images are
  found  elsewhere in the Pali Canon, eg at Dh 46, 170. In the context
  of early Buddhist thought, these similes have to be handled with care.
  They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view of the world but
  to show that our conceptions of the world, and of our own existence,
  are largely distorted by the processes of cognition. Just as the
  mirage and magical illusion are based on real existents — the sand of
  the desert, the magician’s appurtenances — so these false conceptions
  arise from a base that objectively exists, namely, the five
  aggregates; but when seen through a mind subject to conceptual
  distortion, the aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their
  actual nature. Instead of being seen as transient and selfless, they
  appear as substantial and as a self. (Bodhi S:B 1085 n188)

I think the above commentary discusses the Theravada view accurately. The sutta does not talk of an illusionist view of the world. It does not imply that the five aggregates are not real. It simply points towards the five aggregates as being transient and without a self.

Also, please see the Suñña Sutta, which explains this more literally, as the five aggregates being empty of a self.


Should I judge the efficacy of Samadhi based on the ethical qualities of the meditator? As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.
I've read a lot of discussions where one meditator states that only his/her method is the true method, while all the other methods are worthless and wrong. There are multiple arguments for such beliefs, and one might agree with them in some degree.
There are a lot of criteria that can be used to know whether one method is right or not; for instance:
Does it follow the instructions found in the suttas? Does it interpret correctly those instructions? Does it lead to a temporary peace of mind? Does it stops during the extention of the sitting the arising of the hindrances? Can the steps followed be replicated with consistency? Can those steps be followed by everyone else? Does it lead to the arising of the factors of jhana? And so on...
But, how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?
If a reknown meditator (even openly self acknowledge) shows little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom, should I suspect that his/her meditation method is wrong?
I think the above question could be especially important since it is stated in multiple suttas that Right Samadhi leads to the development of Wisdom, which I understand as a form to be more in harmony with how things are (i.e. not desiring circumstances to change), and how be prudent, intelligent and skillful when acting upon and communicating with others. If an individual shows itself as a very experimented meditator, but shows none (or little development) of these qualities, is that a sign of choosing some method not conducive to the goal as proposed by the Buddha?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience!
Kind regards!

As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.

All factors of the N8P have the same purpose, they just operate on the different levels of coarseness. Their purpose is to first reduce and then completely eliminate creation of causes for the arising of dukkha. Generally speaking, some factors operate at the level of external circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in regular life. Other factors operate at the level of inner circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in your mind. The boundary between the two is not entirely black and white, and some factors are kinda both external and internal, but you get the idea. It is the same principle of "discord is dukkha, concord is sukha" applied at all levels. Samma samadhi is the most refined level of this progression from coarse to subtle. What we do on this level is shepherd our own mind to see where we habitually create/maintain discord, and try to stop that and create/maintain concord instead.

There are a lot of criteria that can be used to know whether one method is right or not;

The chief criterion, I think, is whether it's going in the right direction. And the right direction is less discord. It's very simple, really.

how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?

Since we are saying, it is the same principle applied to everything from coarse to subtle, it becomes super obvious, that if the meditator keeps creating discord at the coarser levels, let alone in their external life, it probably means they do not understand the key principle behind the Four Noble Truths. If they do not understand the principle, how can their meditation be right?

ethical qualities of the meditator ... little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom

It is important to understand that our "worldly" ethical qualities are not 100% identical with Buddhist skillful qualities. They match 95% of the way, but not 100%. The Buddhist skillful qualities serve single purpose, progressive reducing of discord until complete and perfect "Nirvana". The worldly ethical qualities serve the purpose of reducing the discord between the members of society pursuing their individual worldly objectives. The principle is the same but the end goals are slightly different. This is why you can't simply assume that if someone is not perfectly ethical by the worldly standards, they are a bad Buddhist. They maybe optimizing their behavior for the pursuit of Enlightenment and Nirvana vs. being a good citizen. That said, because both objectives involve management of causes of discord, you can't really pursue one without taking care of the other, at least 95% of the way.

So, regarding empathy, someone may show little empathy to a Wall Street banker crying over his lost fortune, or a lady crying over the wrinkles around her eyes, because these are not the objectives leading to Nirvana.

As for prudence and wisdom, in Mahayana it is assumed that the practice of creating no discord at some point necessarily leads to an understanding that all conceptual constructs are simplifications. When someone understands this point (called "Emptiness") very deeply, it very certainly manifests in their worldly behavior, making them less prone to taking one-sided positions, and more inclined to be prudent, nuanced, multifaceted, and analytical, which are the characteristics of wisdom. So in this sense, it is absolutely expected that someone with a decent level of Buddhist realization should show some amount of worldly wisdom as well. Mahayana even has an official term for this. It's called "coemergent wisdom" (sahaja-jnana).

The two takeaways from all this are: 1) not creating causes of discord, and 2) seeing through conceptual simplifications -- are the two qualities that operate along the entire N8P from ethics to meditation.

In summary, you are right to assume correlation between one's meditation and ethics, and as long as you understand the principle underlying both, and all the caveats I described above, you can use someone's skill in one to infer their skill in the other, which is a good rule of thumb for evaluating potential teachers and spiritual friends.


How is one reborn as a chakravartin? Chakravartin (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is a Sanskrit
  term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler who rules ethically and
  benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called
  sarvabhauma.

How does one achieve such a venerable state ?

I think that what is taught to children about a "universal monarch" -- together with The Legendary Account of the Four Sights, in the Introduction to the Jâtaka -- is that the prince Siddhattha might have been one (and that his father wanted him to become a ruler), and that he chose not to be:

Seven of these raised two fingers each, and gave a double interpretation, saying, "If a man possessing such marks and characteristics continue in the household life, he becomes a Universal Monarch; if he retire from the world, he becomes a Buddha." And then they set forth all the glory of a Universal Monarch.
But the youngest of them all, a youth whose clan-name was Kondañña, after examining the splendid set of marks and characteristics on the person of the Future Buddha, raised only one finger, and gave but a single interpretation, saying, "There is here naught to make him stay in the household life. He will most undoubtedly become a Buddha, and remove the veil of ignorance and folly from the world." For this Kondañña was one who had made an earnest wish under former Buddhas, and was now in his last existence. Therefore it was that he outstripped the other seven in knowledge, and saw but one future; inasmuch as a person possessed of such marks and characteristics would never stay in the household life, but would undoubtedly become a Buddha. So he raised only one finger, and gave that interpretation.

So at least one of the requirements for that "achievement" is to "stay in the household life".

Wikipedia says,

The first references to a Chakravala Chakravartin appear in monuments from the time of the Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE), dedicated to Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka. In Buddhism, the Chakravarti came to be considered the secular counterpart of a Buddha.

I guess that the conceit (of comparing "universal monarch" and "Buddha") might have been consolation and/or flattery for the emperor, or perhaps just good advice for the emperor.
The biographies (including birth, achievements, etc.) of Chandragupta Maurya and of Ashoka are also linked on Wikipedia -- see especially Conquest of Kalinga & Buddhist conversion but also Buddhist kingship.