Can knowledge of suchness or emptiness be achieved through cessation of conceptualization? Inspired by this comment and this answer I wonder, can the first bhumi be gained via the complete cessation of conceptualization? ie, if one achieves the complete cessation of all concepts is this equivalent to the direct realization of emptiness? If so, then what of someone who arises from meditation and continues to have no conceptions... is this a Buddha?

Is the complete cessation of conceptualization equivalent to complete and perfect enlightenment? If not, then what has been achieved with the complete cessation of conceptualization? Anything?

It is my understanding that at least Je Tsongkhapa does not agree that this is equivalent to realizing suchness. From the Lamrim Chenmo Volume 3 page 16:

  It is said that the Chinese master Ha-shang (Hva-shang), having seen
  this sutra’s very clear and undeniable explanation that insight is
  discerning wisdom, exclaimed, “I don’t know how this can be a sutra!”
  and kicked it. He did this because the sutra’s statement did not agree
  with his claim that since all conceptualization of any sort involves
  an apprehension of signs, you should dispense with discerning wisdom
  and meditate on the profound meaning by not bringing anything to mind.
  This approach has a great number of adherents.

There are many other places where Je Tsongkhapa points out sutras that seemingly do not agree that the complete cessation of conceptualization is the same thing as discerning wisdom or the direct realization of emptiness which is said to unlock the first bhumi.

In my understanding, the direct realization of emptiness is a mental direct perception that does not involve conception. Perception is defined in contrast to conception where the latter is elaboration, proliferation of an object that generally takes place subsequent to perception. Still, it is said in my tradition that even with the complete cessation of conception and engaging only in direct perceptions that the appearance of inherently existing objects persists in sentient beings. It is said that other than a Buddha, only in an Arya being's meditative equipoise on emptiness does the non-perception of inherent existence occur.

Is this a matter of disagreement within modern traditions of Tibetan Buddhism? What are the other viewpoints?

"Thought" is a rather vague concept. When two people say "cessation of conceptualization" they could mean two completely (or partially) different things.

When I wrote that comment and that answer, I did not mean that one has to stop all thinking. My teachers and my books all agree that complete suppression of thinking is not the target state nor the path to the target state. One Lama said: "we're not training to be a rock or a donkey".

Instead, cessation of reification is more like going from "discrete" thinking to "analogue" thinking. Meaning, you no longer have a notion of particulars, everything becomes fluid and somewhat ambiguous but also multidimensional and "quantum". As Dogen said: "Enlightenment is ambiguity".

Something like this (in different words) is described in e.g. "Mahamudra: The Moonlight" by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (Chapter 3).


What are the karmic consequences of writing horror / fantasy fiction? Once I heard that Edgar Allan Poe is still being "haunted" by his creation, his Raven, because countless readers all over the world keep feeding energy to it, like a tulpa that never dies.
Many terrible things might happen from works of art/fiction, and they're quite unpredictable.

I believe that the bad karma comes from how you react to the work of fiction, just like how one reacts to videogames, but still, I'd like to know if there's some obscure karmic concept concerning expressing the "evil parts of our soul / mindstream" through art.

For example, Dario Argento created some pretty horrible movies, but might be a nice person. Similarly, Chih-Hung Kuei directed a pretty horrible movie about Wu / chinese "Black Magick", but had some touching / beautiful buddhist principles on it.

Is it ok to write / create horror fiction if it has a "good ending"? Does it generate bad karma for having no "good ending" whatsoever? Is it terrible only when the creator feels "haunted" by it? (This last one seems quite obvious, but anyway). Does the fact of giving life for a terrible concept / idea / tulpa by itself generates bad karma upon the creator and/or the viewers/readers? Does a sad song generates bad karma on the composer if the listener commits suicide listening to it? etc etc etc.

What are your views concerning art creation and bad karma resulting from it? (Not considering profit out of the work of fiction, necessarily).

You reap what you sow. If your motivations was to frighten people Karmic consequence might be to be the author gets frightened also. If your motive is profit as expence of reader getting deluded, start craving, being lustful, being averse or frightened (aid the arising of the unwholesome roots) the expected karmic consequences may not be so good.

If your motivation is to send a constructive message then it might not be bad Karma after all. It might not be the ending that matters buy what motivates you to do it.

Perhaps a book to teach Karmic consequence in the lower realms may not be a bad idea after all if you are thinking about writing. Khuddaka Nikāya's Petavatthu (and even perhaps Vimānavatthu) section may be a motivator for such stories.

Also the working of Karma is complex so it is not possible to give a definitive answer.


Buddhist ethics & hydroponics: ethical issues? AFAIK, in Theravada, ordained monastics are prohibited from growing their own food. Even hydroponics would likely be prohibited by vināya due to probability of harming small unseen life (algae, etc) in maintaining a hydroponic system.
Are there any ethical concerns for Buddhist laity, including those moving towards but not yet fully ordained, especially from a Theravada perspective?
As a side issue do ordained monastics maintain houseplants or gardens, or outsource this work to laity?

There is no prohibition for laypeople to involve farming activities. There are some wrong livelihoods for a layperson, but farming is not one of them.
Theravada monks are prohibited from involving in any farming activity.


In Buddhist ethics, where does personal responsibility end? Regarding the teachings on virtue, not considering the more advanced teachings (such as Dependent Origination), did the Buddha ever speak of where the sphere of personal responsibility ends?
The Buddha seems to be clear that what determines the moral quality of one's volitional actions is the intention behind them. But other times, such as when discussing wrong livelihood, it seems that one is responsible for second-order effects as well (e.g. the harm that might result from the weapons that one has sold).
So is there something exceptional to trading in weapons to qualify it as wrong livelihood? Or is there more nuance to the teachings of virtue, and one is responsible for some second-order effects as well? If the latter is true, then in which cases is one responsible?
Are there any Suttas I can read about this?
Thank you, and Metta.

MN 61 is the most basic sutta about ethics, which refers to not harming oneself or another.
SN 55.7 is more extensive, as follows:

Reflecting this way, first, he gives up killing beings. Second, he
encourages others to abstain from killing beings, and third, he
praises the act of abstaining from killing beings. So, his bodily
behaviour is purified in three ways.

Therefore, not engaged in the wrong livelihood of selling weapons, poisons, etc, is an example of: "encourages others to abstain from killing beings".
Then there is AN 4.62 similar to DN 31), which extolls the virtue of blamlessless in relation to livelihood. If you sell weapons then learn your weapons were used by others to kill people, you might feel blame.


May I Still Take Refuge In the Triple Gem? If one is expected to have unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha and there is concern that an Ajahn's teachings may be inaccurate, is it still possible to take refuge?

Sangha here means the monks who preach inline with the teachings of the Buddha. So if a certain monk teaches something that goes against the teachings of the Buddha, it doesn't prevent you from taking refuge in  the Triple Gem. You just have to find an authentic member of the Sangha to teach you. Even if you can't find one, you still can take refuge in the enlightened monks in the past.


What is the object of Faith in Buddhism I am quite new to Buddhism. One of the reasons for starting practice was that I don't believe in God. But I belive in the four Noble Truths. I believe it because the more I think about it, the more I see it is true. And practicing accordingly strenghtens my faith.

My question is, is the four Noble Truths the "correct object of faith" in Buddhism?

Faith in Buddhism has many function. Also faith in upon which wisdon is built.

Firstly you listen to the Dhamma and see that this sounds right
Secondly you see this is logical when you think and analyse it
Lastly you should practice and see for your self then you know that in fact it is right by direct experience hence faith becomes unshakable

You might have past 1 and 2. Now is the time to put some serious effort into meditation to realise 3.

  And practising accordingly strengthens my faith.

At a more mundane level you can increase your faith by recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

  Noble Truths the "correct object of faith" in Buddhism?

This is what you should realise at the experiential level to cement your faith.

You should have:

you have to have faith the teacher knows what he is teaching
some faith to lean the teaching and training properly and put it to practice according to instruction
you have to have faith in your ability practice accordingly and gain results
you have to have faith that the time is always right to practice (it worked in the past, it works not and it will work in the future) if practice properly


Is Buddha a source of suffering? Buddha said he taught only the suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path to cessation of suffering.
He also said whatever arises must perish and that is why whatever arises is a source of suffering.
However Buddha arises too.

Therefore is it correct to say that Buddha is also a source of suffering?

The Buddha is a source of suffering if you cling to his form, but not his teachings. By understanding the Buddha's teachings, you understand what is great and important about him. His form or voice or personality is not considered as great or important as his teachings.

Even his teachings (the Dhamma) are meant to be a raft that carries one to the other shore (Nibbana) but one should not cling to it, as one might cling to a raft after crossing the river.

From the Vakkali Sutta:

  "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."

  "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."


Is the Pali Canon the only canon in modern Buddhism? This is inspired by a comment on this meta post.

Is the Pali Canon the only canon in Buddhism as it currently stands today? So would the term canon be completely synonymous with Pali Canon in the context of Buddhism? If that is true then what is the status of texts such as Bodhicaryāvatāra which aren't in the Pali canon?

1. Is the Pali Canon the only canon in modern Buddhism?

No. Additionally, as far as I know, there are also many versions of the Chinese Canon which contain the Āgamas (parallels of the Nikāyas from the Suttapiṭaka of the Pāli Canon), Mahāyāna sūtras & Vajrayāna sūtras.
There is also the Tibetan Canon which contains the Kangyur (material which is similar to the Chinese Canon) and the Tengyur (Commentarial works, Abhidharma and additional treatises).

2. So would the term canon be completely synonymous with Pali Canon in the context of Buddhism?

Bearing in mind what was said above, no.

3. What is the status of texts such as Bodhicaryāvatāra which aren't in the Pali canon?

That text is present in the Chinese Canon1 & Tibetan Canon2.


Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there For years I've been trying to find the source of a quote, but I've only been able to get so far.

The quote is "Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there."

This seems to come from some verses titled, "Samantabhadra's Admonition to the Assembly".

My research indicates that it's part of the evening service for Pure Land schools of Buddhism.  I've even found the Chinese for it.

是日已過，

命亦隨減，

如少水魚，

斯有何樂；

大眾當勤精進，

如救頭然，

但念無常，

慎勿放逸。

I can read and understand Japanese, but Chinese is only half a guess for me since I'm only using my understanding of Japanese to read it.  But, I'm having a hard time finding Japanese sources.  Most of my searches pull up Chinese sources.

It seems it's from a sutra, but I don't which sutra it comes from.  I have figured out that it's not from the Flower Garland Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra), nor is it from the Lotus Sutra.

Could anyone help me out?

Absolutely. Sn 4.15 Attadanda Sutta:

  "When embraced, the rod of violence breeds danger & fear:
  Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay.
  Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles,
  competing with one another — as I saw this, fear came into me.
  The world was entirely without substance.
  All the directions were knocked out of line.
  Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to.
  Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent.
  And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart.
  Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions.
  But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink.

In Pali this reads like a poem, 8 syllables per line. Sometimes the authorship is attributed to the Buddha himself. Apparently at one time the poem was a standard part of the ritual for new person joining the early Sangha.

The line you're interested in says something like "I saw people crowding like the fish in shallow puddle, getting in each other's way, this really had scared me."


How to work for liberating ALL living beings? I am given to understand that a true Buddhist seeks tirelessly to liberate from the suffering (dukkha) of existence all living beings, and not only humans. Attainment of Buddhahood depends on such actions on an ongoing basis, I am told. Based on this, my question is:

1) Apart from generally showing compassion and benevolence towards all living beings, in what ways do accomplished Buddhism practitioners work for the liberation of living being as diverse as, say, ants, pine trees, salmon and e-coli bacteria? What do the scriptures say, and what do the more recent writings say on this matter?

2) How do accomplished Buddhism practitioners liberate from dukkha the beings of non-earthly nature of other lokas, such as angry deities and hungry ghosts? What do the scriptures say, and what does recent literature say?

As per the "Heart Sutra in 8000 Lines", you liberate all sentient beings by attaining direct realization that in fact there are no any such "sentient beings" to talk about. "Sentient being" is only a nominal designation. Two keywords to study are anatta (sanskt., anatman) and shunyata.

Now, as a practice of paramitas (of generosity, forbearance, renunciation, loving-kindness, and equanimity), the commitment to staying in samsara and deferring one's own liberation until all sentient beings attain nirvana, requires complete surrendering of one's antipathy to samsara and craving for peace, complete surrendering of one's ego - which (the surrendering) paradoxically becomes the gate to Realization.


All kammas have to be experienced or not? It's said that some kammas are not to be experienced, some kammas have to be experienced. Not all kammas have to be experienced. For example Angulimala story, the bad vipaka of killing many people could not come into fruition because he had cut the cycle of birth and death.

  Seeds ripen only if they meet the right conditions. But if they do not
  meet the right conditions they remain as seeds; if they are destroyed
  they can never ripen at all.

As mentioned here: Questions on Kamma

But in Karajakāyasutta, it says:

  I do not say that there is making an end of suffering so long as one
  has not experienced the results of volitional kamma that has been done
  and accumulated.

Which one is the correct one, do they contradict each other?

Not all Pali suttas are the words of the Buddha, which is why there are contradictions. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, this is addressed by the Four Great References.

The Karajakāya Sutta can appear a contradiction due to the Pali language, which often can be interpreted in two ways: (1) in mundane (lokiya) language, which will result in contradiction; and (2) in supramundane (lokuttara) language, which will not result in contradiction.

In mundane language, it seems the Karajakāya Sutta would make enlightenment impossible in a lifetime because the doer of bad kamma would keep being reborn in (an external) hell for each past unwholesome action.

However, in supramundane language, the results of kamma are experienced in the mind, such as the Buddha explained: "I recollected my manifold past dwellings, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand...There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure & pain..."

This said, the context of the Karajakāya Sutta is important. The section in the Anguttara Nikaya it is in are mundane (lokiya) teachings of morality rather than supramundane (lokuttara) teachings for enlightenment. For example, AN 10.217, which has the same teachings, is about the ten kinds of bad kamma that laypeople do.

Therefore, the Karajakāya Sutta appears to not be for enlightenment. It is mundane (lokiya) morality dhamma for laypeople or householders.

If we do not understand the principle of 'two kinds of right view' found in MN 117 and in the commentary quote below, suttas such as the Karajakāya Sutta may appear in contradiction.

For example, on a supramundane level, when Angulimala was in the stream to Nibbana (for arahantship), his mind would have been free from 'self-view' therefore free from suffering. However, this mind would have probably experienced the results of past kamma in the form of painful feelings & residual defilements (per SN 36.6).

When we are non-returners practising for arahantship, we might fully understand the Karajakāya Sutta (rather than theorize & speculate, as I have done).

  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The
  conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.

  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account
  of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which describes
  what is ultimate is also true, characterizing dhammas as they
  really are.

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise
  in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks according
  to conventions.

  Mn. i. 95


What is meant by statement "the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination"? In MN 28 following was said :

  Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
  origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.”

My questions are :

What is meant by the above statement? &
Is dependent origination not a Dhamma ?

This very question is exactly the topic of The Rice Seedling Sutra (Salistamba Sutra), one of the earliest known post-canonical sutras that can be classified as a missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana:

  [...] Venerable Śāriputra then said to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, here today, the Bhagavān, gazing at a rice seedling, spoke this aphorism to the bhikṣus: ‘Bhikṣus, [just like this seedling was born from causes and conditions, the twelve nidanas occur in succession to one another. Verily,] whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.’ [...] Maitreya, what is the meaning of this aphorism spoken by the Sugata?

  1) What is dependent arising? 2) What is the Dharma? 3) What is the Buddha? 4) How does one see the Dharma by seeing dependent arising? 5) How does one see the Buddha by seeing the Dharma?”

  The bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya then replied to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāriputra, you want to know what dependent arising is in the statement made by the Bhagavān [...]

  Well,

  the phrase dependent arising means that something arises because something else already exists; something is born because something else was already born.  [...]
  what is the Dharma? The Dharma is the eightfold path of the noble ones [...] This eightfold path of the noble ones, combined with the attainment of its results and nirvāṇa, is what the Bhagavān has called the Dharma [...]
  who is the Bhagavān Buddha, [the Dharma-Born]? A buddha is so-called because of comprehending all dharmas; is endowed with the wisdom eye of the noble ones and the body of Dharma [...]
  how does one see dependent arising? On this point the Bhagavān said, ‘One who sees dependent arising as constant, without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled, [...] clearly understands the Dharma of the nobles ones, and
  by thus acquiring such right knowledge, sees the Buddha -- the body of unsurpassable Dharma.’

  [...]

  [...] there are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links? Namely, 1) ignorance, 2) craving, 3) karma, and 4) consciousness.

  Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives the six elements [earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness] as a unit, a lump, permanent, constant, eternal, pleasurable, a self, a being, a life force, a creature, a soul, a man, an individual, a human, a person, me, and mine, along with the many other such variations of misapprehension, is called ignorance.  [...]
  The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. [...] three types of [karmic] tendencies accumulate: those that lead to meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to neutral states.
  Karma [resulting from karmic tendencies] and afflictions [i.e. ignorance, craving, and pursuit of objects] cause the seed of consciousness to grow [...] [Consciousness dwells in the impressions produced by karma which are then deposited in the consciousness as representation of objects]
  That which distinguishes between individual objects is consciousness.  [...] When the seed of consciousness grows, planted in the field of karma, moistened by the water of craving, and strewn with the manure of ignorance, the sprout of name and form manifests.

  [...] there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born elsewhere, and yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma nonetheless manifests [...] although things are devoid of owner, devoid of ownership, ungraspable, space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the seed of consciousness born of karma and afflictions will nonetheless produce the sprout of name and form [...]

  [...]
  “Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and from several different conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, rolling along like a flowing stream.

  [...]

  Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by the Bhagavān, as it actually is — as always and forever without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled — whoever fully and truly sees it as unreal, vain, hollow, unsubstantial, as a sickness, a boil, a thorn, as miserable, impermanent, painful, empty, and no-self, [thereby restricting the power of ignorance-produced karmic tendencies] -- such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future thinking, ‘Will I exist in the future, or not? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the present thinking, ‘What is this? How is this? Being what, what will we become? Where does this being come from? Where will it go when transmigrating from here at death?’
  Whichever dogmas mendicants-and-brahmins hold throughout the world, whether they involve belief in a self, belief in a being, belief in a life force, belief in a person, or belief in rites and rituals -- such dogmas, prone to agitation and dullness, are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never to arise or cease in the future.

  [...]

The meaning of this, as I understand it: just as someone looking at a moist seed in the ground sees the potential sprout - same way someone looking at the seeds of ignorant consciousness in the ground of karma sees the inevitable arising of individual experience, and someone who understands this dependent origination of individual experience - necessarily understands ignorance, craving, and origination of suffering. Since s/he understands how it originates -- s/he understands how it can stop. S/he understands the ground, the goal and the path. This understanding is called "seeing the Dharma".

Seeing the Dharma, there is no more ignorance, no craving or aversion, no attachment, no selfish goal-making, no I-projecting, no conflict between "is" and "should", no suffering, no birth and no death. Whatever remains is suchness.

Seeing the Dharma is seeing Buddha, because Buddha is born from the seeds of Dharma and Dharma is spread by Buddha, just like with rice plant and rice.


Where does one get basic notions of Buddhism when starting with Mahayana? Maybe it's better to use an example. I believe one of the very first Mahayana sutras one is expected to learn is the Heart Sutra. But when you read it, you immediately see things like 'skandhas' and 'dharmas'. If you start with Pali Canon, you can basically find all about them in the Sutta Pitaka. But if you know nothing about Theravada, where in the Mahayana teachings do you find those basic notions? What will tell you about karma, dependent arising, dharmas, worlds structure and so on?

In Mahayana these kinds of things are learned from the encyclopedic compendiums summarizing the basic concepts by categories, known as "Mahayana Abhidharma" and its predecessor "Sarvastivada Abhidharma".

The main idea to understand here is how Mahayana emphasizes passing-on the intended meaning behind the scripture. So even though the original sutras were available in Mahayana in form of Agamas, the schools almost always preferred to study various summaries trying to organize the Dharma and distill it to its key principles. Lineage-specific commentaries then were used to "unpack" the meaning stored in the summaries and present it in form comprehensible to a contemporary student.

The tradition even has a poetic image for making these summaries. It's called "churning butter from the milk of Dharma". From Mahayana viewpoint the best butter was made just around time when Yogacara school was emerging from Sarvastivada, because that's when this kind of summarizing work was "in vogue", so many best minds spent lots of effort on doing this, resulting in texts some of which are still unsurpassed even to our days.

The exact texts vary by lineage, but the most popular evergreens are:

Abhidharma-samuccaya ("Compendium of Abhidharma") by Asanga
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa with Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya (the autocommentary)

Also, one of my personal favorites - not so popular but in the same genre - is an early work called Tattvasiddhi Śāstra.

In the past, there were many other summary texts, like "Śāriputra Abhidharma Śāstra", "Abhidharma-hṛdaya-sastra", "Jnanaprasthana", "Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra" - but they all slowly fell out of active use, although many of them still exist in Chinese translations.

Anyway, back in the day when it was written, by the time someone would read the Heart Sutra, they would be very familiar with one or more of these works, so all the references to "Shariputra, the five skandhas are empty, and so are the six realms, and the four truths and so forth" - would make immediate sense, because they would speak exactly to the typical "bullet point" lists found in Abhidharma literature.


Understanding Rūparāgo and Arūparāgo In the Theravada tradition, the fetters model makes reference to rūparāgo and arūparāgo found in the higher fetters.
I've never been a jhana follower, but I can clearly recognise that the rupa jhanas and the arupa ayatanas move into me from time to time and sometimes in sequence, one after the other. From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms. I found this to be a suitable motivational incentive to move away from desire for worldly form but soon saw the drawbacks of having too much emphasis on rupa jhanas and rupa ayatanas. As such, I developed an indifference about their perceived feeling-tones, but I was still able to utilize the benefits they bring concerning insight and wisdom. My main practice is satipattana.
There is an interpretation I came to naturally understand using the aggregates model alongside my here-and-now experience, that one craves either the perception of form or the perception formless both through objectification of mental ideas born from the study of dhamma and the motion of practice. One could use the term spiritual materialism as an umbrella term. I find this practice helpful but too tricky to compile into words. To summarise, it's just a granular way of watching the rise and fall of the aggregates.
My question is, what other interpretations can be given to rūparāgo and arūparāgo from within Theravada traditions and also other Buddhist traditions?

From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms.

Jhana is not considered "sensual", including when craved for.

Rūparāgo and arūparāgo

The above appears to be lust for the blissful and equanimous feelings of rupa jhana and formless spheres, such as rapture, happiness, equanimity, spaciousness, etc, such as described in AN 9.36:

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first
absorption.... If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with
the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously,
because of their passion (dhammarāgena) and love
(dhammanandiyā) for that meditation. They are extinguished there,
and are not liable to return from that world.

Apart from the above, I do not know of any other sutta explanations.
For a personal opinion, Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

The next defilement, the sixth of the fetters, is desire for the bliss
associated with the various stages of concentration on forms (rupa -
raga). The first three grades of Aryian are still not capable of
giving up attachment to the bliss and tranquillity obtainable by
concentrating deeply on forms, but they will succeed in doing so when
they move up to the last stage, that of the Arahant. The fully
concentrated state has a captivating flavor, which can be described as
a foretaste of Nirvana. Though it differs from real Nirvana, it has
more or less the same flavor. While one is fully concentrated, the
defilements are dormant; but they have not evaporated away entirely,
and will reappear as soon as concentration is lost. As long as they
are dormant, however, the mind is empty, clear, free, and knows the
flavor of real Nirvana. Consequently this state can also become a
cause of attachment.
The seventh subtle defilement is desire for the bliss associated with
full concentration on objects other than forms (arupa - raga). It
resembles the sixth fetter, but is one degree more subtle and
attenuated. Concentration on an object such as space or emptiness
yields a tranquillity and quiescence more profound than concentration
on a form, with the result that one becomes attached to that state. No
Arahant could ever become fascinated by any state of pleasant feeling
whatsoever, regardless of where it originated, because an Arahant is
automatically aware of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
nonselfhood of every state of feeling. Other hermits and mystics
practicing concentration in the forest do not perceive the hidden
danger in these blissful states and so become fascinated by and
attached to the flavor of them just as immature people become attached
to the flavor of sensual objects. For this reason the Buddha used the
same word "desire" for both cases. If you think this subject over and
really come to understand it, you will be full of admiration and
respect for these individuals called Aryians.


What concordances are there for the Pali Canon? I am amazed at how quickly folks on this SE find detailed quotes from the canon.  Are folks using a concordance?  (That's what Christians call it for the Bible--it's a dictionary of topics cross-referenced to the source text so that it's easier to look up passages by subject.)

If there is a concordance for the Pali Canon, where can it be found?

Here's a list of terms in the Pali Canon that can be used to quickly find particular suttas:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html


What are the benefits of practicing Sila? I need incentive; what's in it for me? Also please don't answer with there's no self or I or me to get incentive, its just that I'm not enlightened yet.

This is a selfish question but I need to know what's in it for me if I do practice sila?  I heard that you  can get wealthy? Is that true? Because I noticed that I saved more money when I started practicing sila. Any other benefits?

Just like a house needs a strong foundation to last a long time, one would need sila as the foundation upon which the entire Path is built:

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship." ~~ AN 11.1 ~~


What is the meaning of “birth, becoming, old age & death” in the 12 links? Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me.
The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk.
2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination
In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me.
1: ignorance
the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable
(i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.)
ignorance is the condition for
2: unwise intention
is the condition for
3: unwise attention
is the condition for
4: unwise mobilization of body and mind
is the condition for
5: the 6 sense bases
directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely)
is the condition for
6: contact
the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely
is the condition for
7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral)
is the condition for
8: craving (to pull towards or push away)
is the condition for
9: clinging
is the condition for
10: birth
is the condition for
11: becoming
is the condition for
12: old age and death
The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity
associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering.
This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding.
I think this means
The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it.
So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended.
“Old age and death” however does not make sense to me.
If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”.
My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

Aging & death are defined as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various
beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness
of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality,
degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away
of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their
perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of
time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass:
this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together
called aging-and-death.
SN 12.2

The most important word in the above definition is "beings" ("satta"). "A being" is merely a "view" or "convention" (SN 5.10) founded in "strong clinging" (SN 23.2).
For example, "aging" in SN 12.2 above is not the greying of the hair and the wrinkling of the skin. Instead, "aging" above is when you look into the mirror and start to lament: "My hair is greying; my skin is wrinkling; I am getting old". "Aging" is the aging of "a being" rather than only the aging of a physical body.
Aging & death are a type of suffering, as follows:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.
SN 56.11
‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by
aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what is its
origin, from what is it born and produced? When what exists does
aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
aging-and-death not come to be?’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
aging-and-death does not come to be.’
SN 12.66
And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as
condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition,
consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mind-and-body; with
mind-and-body as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense
bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with
feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging;
with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition,
birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death plus/and sorrow, lamentation,
pain, displeasure and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent
origination.
SN 12.1

In short, when aging & death occurs, suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair) will inevitably/simultaneously occur.
For example, if you have craving (ordinary love), attachment and identification with five aggregates you call "my mother"; when the aggregates of "my mother" end, this is the "death" of the "mother" identity. Due to the craving & attachment, causing the sense of "loss", there will simultaneously be suffering. This is most simply explained in SN 22.1.
For example, if you watch TV and see some lifeless bodies on the TV news in an earthquake in Iran, you do not suffer at all or, otherwise, suffer much less than seeing the lifeless body of "my mother". Why? Because there is no attachment to those lifeless bodies in the Iranian earthquake.
In summary, the word "death" means the death of "an attached to being" or "identity". As SN 12.66 says, the cause of the suffering of aging & death is "acquisition" ("upadhi"; "attachment"). Thus, the idea of "death" will always simultaneously cause suffering.


Best type of meditation for attention I struggle tremendously with ADHD despite years of exploring traditional and nontraditional treatments. There are certainly many different kinds of meditation one can practice, so I was wondering what kind of meditation works best for creating lasting focus and a higher attention span in the mind.

You might want to try Samatha meditation. This type of meditation would have you fix your attention on a single object of meditation over a period of time. The common object is your in and out breaths. The point of focus is usually the tip of the nose or the upper lips where you could feel the in and out breaths making contact. Since this training requires you to stay with a single object over a long period of time, it could help your mind maintains a higher attention span and lasting focus on a subject. Sutta reference is available here and a detailed analysis is available here. Good luck..


What exactly are the last two of the Arupa Jhanas? How can we transcend them and for what? In the words of Buddha, the world in which we are living is generated as the following:

  From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form...

And, additionally, the following loop is also expounded:

  "From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..."

The full understanding (awakening) of this knowledge is given through the eight jhanas (particularly the last four Arupa Jhanas;) which relates to what was said precedingly as follows:

From the complete transcending of each following states, the bhikku enters & remains in the dimension of:

Infinite space
Infinite consciousness
Nothingness, then at last
Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception.

My question will be about the last two. What are they exactly, the Sphere of Nothingness and the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception? How can they be transcended, and what for?

Nothingness is transcended by seeing the relative coarseness of perception even of nothingness. By observing the perception repeatedly, one sinks into a state of quasi-perception. As per the Vism:

  When, however, he wants to develop the base consisting of
  neitherperception nor non-perception, he must first achieve mastery in
  the five ways in the attainment of the base consisting of nothingness.
  Then he should see the danger in the base consisting of nothingness
  and the advantage in what is superior to it in this way: “This
  attainment has the base consisting of boundless consciousness as its
  near enemy, and it is not as peaceful as the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception,” or in this way: “Perception is
  a boil, perception is a dart … this is peaceful, this is sublime, that
  is to say, neither perception nor non-perception” (M II 231). So
  having ended his attachment to the base consisting of nothingness, he
  should give attention to the base consisting of neither perception non
  non-perception as peaceful. He should advert again and again to that
  attainment of the base consisting of nothingness that has occurred
  making non-existence its object, adverting to it as “peaceful,
  peaceful,” and he should give his attention to it, review it and
  strike at it with thought and applied thought.

  Path of Purification X.40

Transcending the sphere of neither perception nor non perception is not directly accomplished in the same way as the others; it is considered the height of tranquility meditation, there is no further one can go with that type of practice. To transcend it means to switch to insight meditation; since insight meditation is considered higher than tranquility, it can be seen as the "next step", even though it is in a new category of practice and attainment.


Mindfulness improves academic performance? I have just started a PhD in Mathematics. Can serious mindfulness practice (i.e. vipassana meditation at least 2 hours a day) help improve academic performance? If so, can you attach any reliable studies on this?

This question appears not answerable. For example, if your vipassana practise is highly successful, your mind could become "dispassionate" towards mathematics. Instead of earning a PHD, you might become a monk & spend your life wandering among peasants in Cambodia.


Where to get the genuine e-book on "Jataka Tales" in English? I have been looking for an e-book on "Jataka Tales", I got one in Marathi by Ven.Dharmanand Kosambi which I feel is good and the another one I got is in English by Todd Anderson which is totally different from the Marathi version. The stories here are different from the Marathi one.

Can somebody please tell me somethig about the Jataka tales and the place / site where I can get the genuine e-book on the same in English?

Thanks in advance!

See: The Jataka by Robert Chalmers ed. E.B. Cowell in www.sacred-texts.com. The index is found here.


How should a monk address subjective questions? Suppose a monk is invited to a house for food and the lay person asks how the food is? How does a monk reply to such a question. I am sure a monk in his lifetime comes across many such subjective questions. How should he deal with them? Does he:

Just reply something to satisfy the lay person
Give him/her a teaching on impermanence of everything

From the stories in Buddha's life, it is clear that he laid great emphasis on timing his teachings to someone. Many a time he would say that this is not the right time for him/her to learn the Dhamma. Having this in context, does it make sense to impart teaching at every possible opportunity.

Please incorporate any stories if any to showcase the tradition.

Being attached to some rule about how to answer certain questions isn't the point.
Good answers come out of being present and aware.

The same question will be answered differently at different moments depending on what the moment calls for.

"Every possible opportunity" is an interesting phrase. If someone isn't ready to learn something there no opportunity to teach him something. Being a good teacher means to know what someone can learn and then give him that lesson. It's not about throwing a lot of spaghetti on the wall and hoping that something sticks.

Christian missionaries do thing that it's the intention that counts. Christian missionaries will lecture someone whether or not there an opportunity to teach something. For them the act in itself is important.

Buddhism is different. It's about being skillful and only teach when the student can learn. Teaching requires patience and waiting for a possible opportunity.


Is hate meant to be useful in any way? I am pretty confident that the act of hating is bad, no matter the situation/problem you are facing.
Now, does hate have any intrinsic purpose? I am thinking that maybe it was useful to hate in some step in the evolutional chain. Probably as an unconscious triggering method to keep us away of danger.

To what extent is this idea compatible with buddhism?

I am sorry if my question is not precise enough.

Your question is clear. I have not read anything in Buddhism that explicitly states that hate is a survival instinct. This is because Buddhism concerns itself with ending suffering & hate is something that is not peaceful (SN 35.28).

That said, from an evolutionary perspective, your idea is compatible with the fundamental Buddhist principle of 'cause & effect' (conditionality) since Buddhism studies 'natural law'.

Buddhism explains hate is an underlying tendency (AN 7.11) that exists within the (subconscious) mind/brain from child birth (MN 64) (even before a child can express hate).

Buddhism states hate is a natural element or dhatu (MN 115).

  The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
  things about it, namely:

  (1) What are the characteristics or properties of the object?

  (2) From what does the object arise?

  (3) What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its
  allurement?

  (4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
  that lies concealed in it?

  (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by means of which we can get the
  better of it?

  Question
  45 page 59


Does skillful means include meditation? I've tried a few different Buddhist groups and they are quite prescriptive when it comes to meditation practices. They have their own system and everyone does it. But the Buddha used skillful means when teaching which I understand to be tailoring the teachings to his audience - for instance I've heard that the Kalama Sutta is an example.

So did the Buddha teach meditation practices as skillful means? - i.e. give one person one practice and another one a different one. Not so much one person gets the beginner practice and the other one the advanced but people get different practices irrespective of their 'level' i.e. two advanced practitioners get different ones to suit them.

It would be great if you could give references to standard texts for this (i.e. Pali Canon, Diamond sutra etc....)

Many Thanks as always

It is my impression that the instructions are mostly seen as methods for development of;

Perceptions
Factors of Enlightenment

The perceptions include and are not limited to;

Perception of Mindfulness of Breathing
Perception of Inconstancy
Perception of Not-Self
Perception of Danger
Perception of Compassion
Perception of Altruistic Joy
Perception of Unattractiveness
Perception of Mindfulness of Death
Perception of Old Age
Perception of Sympathy
Perception of Abandoning
Perception of Drawbacks

It is a fact that all these methods are referred to as development of perceptions, this is seen in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html

Apart from the unusual use of the term "perception" one can see that each of these developments sheds light on the overall development of faculties(discernment, concentration, effort, mindfulness and conviction).

As for development of the factors of enlightenment their development is explained as timely and untimely, wherein it is explained that there is a proper and unproper time to develop the enlightenment factor of concentration... of joy... of tranquility... of effort ... of equanimity.

IE when one is restless it is wrong time to develop the factor of energy and a good time to develop the factor of concentration.

The way to develop the various factors is also explained in variety and detail, ie;

There is a development of concentration which leads to Pleasant
Abiding in the here & now
There is a development of concentration which leads to Knowledge and Vision
There is a development of concentration which leads to Persistent Mindfulness
There is a development of concentration which leads to leads to the ending of the effluents
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

Returning to the development of perceptions, as it seems to me, they are associated with the various factors of enlightenment and faculties and have their own expected results and timely application, here are examples;

  If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations.

  Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of lacking a self in unpleasantness and abiding much in it, whatever distinctions arise as superior, inferior or equal in the sixfold conscious body and all external signs, are appeased and well released.

  Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of impermanence and abiding much in it, gain, honour and fame keeps away, it shrinks and rolls away. The mind stretches out and gets established in equanimity or loathing

The comprehensive breakdown of all the perceptions is too much to get into in a post here but it is all encompassing training for all situations for the proper attending to reality as it occurs.

IE consider the Perception of Abandoning;

  "And what is the perception of abandoning? There is the case where a monk doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of ill-will. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of harmfulness. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This is called the perception of abandoning.

To do this there are guides in the Sutta, in particular https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

wherein there are given 5 steps for mastering thoughts and crushing the unwholesome thought formations as they occur.

Therefore if one has a teacher he would ideally just tell you what to do from time to time but if one was one's own teacher relying on the Sutta one would develop wholesome qualities all of the time in as far as there is an opening and opportunity.

One would develop what is lacking and is favorable, be it to counter some unwholesome tendencies or achieving pleasure not associated with sensuality in order to achieve contentment with the holy life, one would constantly develop the good by "skillful means".


Question on Dhammapada Verse 30 I am trying to understand the meaning of the verse below: Verse 30 from Dhammapada.

Appamadena maghava
devanam setthatam gato
appamadam pasamanti
pamado garahito sada.

"By Heedfulness did Indra become the overlord of the gods. Heedfulness
is ever praised, and heedlessness ever despised." - Acharya
Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhammapada 30.

In above verse the word "maghava" is a Vedic word which means Lord Indra of Vedic times.
During "Vedic Brahmanism", Lord Indra is superior of all gods.
Does this verse means that Buddha accepted the existence of Gods?
Also the verse mentions that because of appamada, Indra become the overlord.
Does it mean Lord Indra has the insight of Nibbana ? Appreciate your answer.

There is no evidence the Buddha himself spoke any sutta, apart from suttas that can be verified by meditation to accurately diagnose & end suffering. Therefore, we cannot know if the Buddha accepted the existence of Gods or what the Gods exactly were or meant to the Buddha. For example, in the suttas, Iti 106 says the Buddha said parents are the gods of their children; therefore gods in this context is obviously not supernatural.
It appears "Maghava" refers to "Sakka" in the Pali suttas, where eventually Sakka becomes a disciple of the Buddha. The following suttas are mere examples:

MN 37 - Sakka inquiring about Buddha's Dhamma then being warned by Buddha's chief disciple for being heedless in respect to sensual pleasures. Here, Sakka lives in a palace with many female nymphs.

SN 11.4, where Sakka is called "Maghavā" (bhayā nu maghavā sakka) when questioned by an asura about how to respond to & manage ordinary people.

DN 16 where Sakka expresses Noble or enlightened understanding to the Buddha's passing away: "Transient are all compounded things, Subject to arise and vanish; Having come into existence they pass away; Good is the peace when they forever cease.".

While each of the above may simply be religious propaganda written in religious scriptures (to propagate the Buddha is superior to Indra, Brahma & other Vedic & Hindu gods), each of the above shows Sakka is not eternal, not omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, MN 37 & SN 11.4 give the impression Sakka is the leader of the rich & powerful, such as an Emperor of Rome, Genghis Khan, Suleiman the Magnificent or Lord Rothschild.
As for "heedfulness", this may not include the higher teachings of Buddhism such as not-self (anatta) that lead to Nibbana. For example, the word "heedfulness" or "carefulness" is found many times in the Jewish & Christian Bible. SN 11.4 shows how Sakka won the debate among the different gods by having heedfulness in relation to being patient. This does not show he was close to Nibbana. It only shows he had morality & was thus only heedful in respect to maintaining his patience & virtue.

Matali
‘When face to face with Vepacitti, is it, Maghava, from fear or
weakness, that you endure him so patiently, listening to his harsh
words?’
Sakka:
‘It is neither through fear nor weakness that I am patient with
Vepacitti. How can a wise person like me engage in combat with a
fool?’
Of goals that culminate in one’s own good
None is found better than patience.
One who repays an angry man with anger Thereby makes things worse for
himself. Not repaying an angry man with anger, One wins a battle hard
to win.
‘He practises for the welfare of both, His own and the other’s, When,
knowing that his foe is angry, He mindfully maintains his peace.
‘He achieves the cure of both— His own and the other’s.’


Confusion about the word 'dhamma'? What does the word 'dhamma' mean when the Buddha said 'sabbe dhamma annatta'.
I am being confused here. I looked through the translation. It reads 'all conditioned/unconditioned things are not-self'.
Isn't the word sankara used for conditioned things.
The word dhamma in my native language literally means 'religion'. Also I checked Wikipedia for the word dhamma. The Wiki gives similar meaning as 'religion' in context of Hinduism but not clear on Buddhist use of the word.
My question is whats translation of word 'dhamma' and in what context is it used in line 'sabbe dhamma annatta'?

Dhamma encompasses sankhara[created] but it also encompases the cessation principle which is not included in sankhara as it is asankhata [not-created].

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."sn22.86

There are these famous lines;
 Sabbe sankhara anicca
 Sabbe sankhara dukkha
 Sabbe dhamma anatta

Translated;
 All formations are impermanent
 All formations are suffering
 All Dhamma [teachings] are not-self

Then reconciled with;

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

It makes sense because;

Stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]
Cessation of stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]

The semantic referent of #2 is the unconditioned; is neither impermanent[anicca] nor suffering[dukkha]; but it is likewise not-self[anatta].


Does our conventional body belong to the external sense bases? There are six internal sense bases named eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are six external sense bases named visible form, sound, odour, taste, and mental objects.
I have two parts in my question;

If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all these belong to the external sense bases?
If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which form elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

OP: If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all
these belong to the external sense bases?

Yes, if we see, hear, smell, taste or feel parts of the body, then those are experienced, hence they are a part of the external sense bases. They are part of "form".

OP: If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

No form elements are part of the internal sense bases, because the internal sense bases are part of "name", not "form" - they are related to feeling and contact.
The internal sense bases are the mental interfaces to the physical senses, from my understanding.
From MN 137:

‘The six interior sense fields should be understood.’ That’s what I
said, but why did I say it? There are the sense fields of the eye,
ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields
should be understood.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
‘The six exterior sense fields should be understood.’ That’s what I
said, but why did I say it? There are the sense fields of sights,
sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts. ‘The six exterior sense
fields should be understood.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I
said it.

From SN 12.2:

And what is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling. Feeling
born of contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
This is called feeling.
And what is contact? There are these six classes of contact. Contact
through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. This is called
contact.
And what are the six sense fields? The sense fields of the eye, ear,
nose, tongue, body, and mind. These are called the six sense fields.
And what are name and form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact,
and attention. This is called name. The four primary elements, and
form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form. Such
is name and such is form. These are called name and form.


Letting go in day to day life How to let go your own children. They are giving  hard time for me. I can't  go even . Because  they are young.but have problems.

What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

  "For reflection, sir."

  "In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

  "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

  "While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.

  "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.

Majjhima  Nikaya 61

Concentrate on whether your behaviour is beneficial to you and them, and if not, adjust it accordingly.

This is by Kahlil Gibran, not a Buddhist, but the jist of his thought is not un-Buddhist!

  And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of
  Children.
       And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you
  but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to
  you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have
  their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls,
  For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot
  visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but
  seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries
  with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living
  arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the
  infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift
  and far. Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness; For
  even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that
  is stable.

My child is very stubborn, he is 5, and mostly learns through his own errors, not my translation of my errors to him - in my hope he avoids them for himself a-priori. People learn from their own errors for the most part, we can only guide them if they accept guidance. If they don't, guidance will only push them away or to rebellion, better accept if they demand distance, and wait until they see their errors, and return.


No insight happening I'm not sure why but insight practice isnt feeling very insightful to me. I've been practicing for over half a decade every day and I'm not having any profound insight into reality as I have read about many times. Goenkas method they talk a lot about dissolution of the mind and body and seeing the ultimate reality of the subatomic particles etc and Sayadaws method they talk a lot about anicca and the rising and falling always being different etc. maybe I'm missing something but after all this time I still have not really had any profound insight into anything.  When I was on retreat I had some pretty freaky and blissful experiences but I had no clue what occurred. All I knew was that it felt good and I wanted more of it. When I spoke to the teachers they also seemed clueless about what occurred. For all I know it could have just been a combination of sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation causing me to go slightly insane. Sometimes I just get really bored of being told to keep watching the rising and falling. So the breath is impermanent, big deal.  How long am I meant to keep doing this before I have so called "insight". It seems a bit like Christianity the way they tell people you aren't getting results because you just need to pray more. I also feel like I cannot be really honest about how I feel without others kind of wagging their finger at me in a condescending way and saying its my fault for not doing this or that properly.  I feel like I need to have insight into the so called true nature of reality pretty soon or I'm not going to continue. I can't just keep on doing this based in blind faith that what I'm being told is true..

IMHO, you should stop this nonsense. Sitting and waiting for insight is not going to work.

Insight meditation is not meant to be waiting. Instead, it is meant to be examination of the elements of your immediate experience:

Look at your thoughts. Where do they come, how do they switch. Who is watching? How do you get distracted and how do you recover focus? Examine these for a long time, until you really see it.

Look at your emotions. Where are they located? What triggers them? How do they subside?

Now, think about this insight you are looking for. Assume at some point you'll get it. Now what? Why do you need it? What's wrong now? What do you want?

Now, think about dukkha, suffering. They say, "suffering comes from craving". What does this really mean? Try remember something that you really really want (or really really don't want). What happens? Now, force yourself to think about something else. What happens now?

Now, think about causes and results. Take objects and events and trace all causal forces that bring them together and then take them apart. Think how this works on the global scale.

Now, think about yourself in terms of causal chains. How many different things come together to make up you and your immediate experience? Were you made once or are you being made daily? What causal elements contribute to that?

This is insight meditation, in my opinion. Sitting and watching how your experience comes together - for hours and hours, until you clearly see how it works. Not sitting and waiting like a log.


Objectification in Buddhism Is there such a thing as objectification in Buddhism? Namely, objectification here means treating someone else as an object, or for their appearance. However, it means also many other things, so I'll just leave the question open. Hence:

What does Buddhism say about objectification?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu equates papanca with objectification:

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/ArrowsThinking.pdf

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SkillInQuestions/Section0008.html#sigil_toc_id_14


What words in Pali are correctly interpreted as rebirth/reincarnation? In comments to this question I saw a disagreement over the proper translation of various Pali words in suttas commonly translated with the english word rebirth or reborn.
According to Ajahn Sujato various Pali words are correctly translated as rebirth/reborn. However, another very detailed and extensive analysis by 'Element' on the linked website comes to the conclusion that none of the Pali words in the suttas are properly translated as rebirth or reborn. It appears implied that the english word 'rebirth' is synonymous with the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha.
The question arises: if none of the Pali words in the suttas cited in the links above are suitably understood or translated as 'rebirth', then what Pali words in the suttas were used to describe the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha?

One strong impression from the Pali suttas (due to the lack of discussion with Brahmins on the subject in the suttas) and the little I have read of the Vedas is the Vedas did not contain any systematic teachings on the subject of reincarnation.
The impression (from the little i have read) is the Vedas taught about two worlds, namely, this world & the other world, which i imagine was the heaven of Brahma. Otherwise, three worlds, here.
For example, I recall recently reading (somewhere) Sariputta & Moggallana were formerly disciples in a sect that believed in going to heaven with Brahma after death.
My vague recollection from chatsite banter, including by the Ven. Sujato himself, is systematic doctrines of reincarnation began forming in the later Upanishads; which 'reincarnation' aficionados, such as Sujato, who appear to go for refuge in non-Buddhist scholars, attempt to date prior to the Buddha; even though there is no account of any Upanishads in the suttas.
My recollection is the Ven. Yuttadhammo has posted on these matters, here and here.


What do secular Buddhists say about Nirvana? What is 'secular Buddhism', and what does it say about Nirvana?

While there is considerable variety of views amongst people who identify themselves as secular Buddhists, they all seem to converge in rejecting what is often loosely called "metaphysics". This means that they reject all forms of belief that are not rooted in science and/or common sense. Thus they reject any and all supernatural entities, forces, or states, not so much from an ideological point of view, but because of a long history of such things being debunked; because of the exposure of many, many hoaxes; and because the theories of science are so very successful and the supernatural is ruled out by these theories.

Secular Buddhists seem to identify with the European Enlightenment which aimed to free people from the despotism of the Church, the oppression of superstition, and general ignorance. Secular Buddhists take nothing on faith, whereas traditionalist Buddhists take a great deal on faith.

Some answers to these specific questions can be found on the Secular Buddhist Association Website. http://secularbuddhism.org/. Doug Smith, who holds a PhD in philosophy, has written a number of essays on these and related subjects, for example he says:

  "Nevertheless from my limited perspective on the path it would seem as though nibbāna is not, should not, and cannot be entirely beyond our ability to comprehend. If it were, it would be of correspondingly scant interest to us. Therefore we are to take expressions of its ineffability as a kind of poetic attempt to express the extremity of its greatness. Nibbāna is the extinction — or perhaps the near extinction — of greed, hatred, and certain forms of ignorance. And parinibbāna does not amount to some “diffuse, indeterminate” way of being, but rather is the simple death of an enlightened person, without remainder." - Two Issues With Nibbāna.

Elsewhere (Can a Layperson Attain Nibbāna?) Smith discusses the traditional view that only monastics can attain nibbāna and gives a response from a secular point of view.

Perhaps the most prominent secular Buddhist is Stephen Batchelor, a former monk and translator of Buddhist texts. He has downplayed the issue of nibbāna

  I am a secular Buddhist. It has taken me years to fully “come out,” and I still feel a nagging tug of insecurity, a faint aura of betrayal in declaring myself in these terms. As a secular Buddhist my practice is concerned with responding as sincerely and urgently as possible to the suffering of life in this world, in this century (our saeculum) where we find ourselves now and future generations will find themselves later. Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth. – Stephen Batchelor, “A Secular Buddhist,” Tricycle Magazine, Fall 2012.

Of course this rejection of the supernatural, and nibbāna in particular, has wide ranging doctrinal consequences. Secular Buddhists de-emphasise traditional Buddhist theories of the world which seem to revolve around supernatural concepts such as karma, rebirth, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and focus on the experience of maintaining ethical and meditation practices.


Where in the Vimalakīrti Sutra is this stated? I was reading some of the writings of Nichiren Daishōnin, and I came across this part where he says that it states in the Vimalakīrti Sutra that, "if the minds of living beings are impure, their land is also impure, but if their minds are pure, so is their land. There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds" (On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime 4).

I assume that he was paraphrasing, but I couldn't find any footnotes about were he got this from. I've never read the Vimalakīrti Sutra, but if there is a passage where this message could have been taken from, I'd be happy to see it.

Thank you!

In this translation, the text quoted below exists about 10% of the way through the text, towards the end of the first chapter ("1. Purification of the Buddha-Field"), a few paragraphs before the start of the secod chapter ("2. Inconceivable Skill in Liberative Technique"):

Thereupon, magically influenced by the Buddha, the venerable Sariputra had this thought: "If the buddha-field is pure only to the extent that the mind of the bodhisattva is pure, then, when Sakyamuni Buddha was engaged in the career of the bodhisattva, his mind must have been impure. Otherwise, how could this buddha-field appear to be so impure?"
The Buddha, knowing telepathically the thought of venerable Sariputra, said to him, "What do you think, Sariputra? Is it because the sun and moon are impure that those blind from birth do not see them?"
Sariputra replied, "No, Lord. It is not so. The fault lies with those blind from birth, and not with the sun and moon."
The Buddha declared, "In the same way, Sariputra, the fact that some living beings do not behold the splendid display of virtues of the buddha-field of the Tathagata is due to their own ignorance. It is not the fault of the Tathagata. Sariputra, the buddha-field of the Tathagata is pure, but you do not see it."
Then the Brahma Sikhin said to the venerable Sariputra, "Reverend Sariputra, do not say that the buddha-field of the Tathagata is impure. Reverend Sariputra, the buddha-field of the Tathagata is pure. I see the splendid expanse of the buddha-field of the Lord Sakyamuni as equal to the splendor of, for example, the abodes of the highest deities."
Then the venerable Sariputra said to the Brahma Sikhin, "As for me, O Brahma, I see this great earth, with its highs and lows, its thorns, its precipices, its peaks, and its abysses, as if it were entirely filled with ordure."
Brahma Sikhin replied, "The fact that you see such a buddha-field as this as if it were so impure, reverend Sariputra, is a sure sign that there are highs and lows in your mind and that your positive thought in regard to the buddha-gnosis is not pure either. Reverend Sariputra, those whose minds are impartial toward all living beings and whose positive thoughts toward the buddha-gnosis are pure see this buddha-field as perfectly pure."

I hope you'll get a better sense of it if you read that whole first chapter.


Is there such a thing as craving for enlightenment and would it be unwholesome? I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by some sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

A strong craving (Taṇhā) for enlightenment would not get you there as it is unwholesome.

You need some desire or motivation (Chanda) to get to enlightenment. But when you get there this desire is also no more. Say you want to go to the park you need some desire to get there. When you are there you no longer have the desire to go there.

Craving for enlightenment would be unwholesome, the intention to achieve enlightenment would be wholesome.


Why is the problem with the personal pronouns 'I, me and mine'? 9 Attitudes of mindfulness - Jon Kabat Zinn

Jon describes these pronouns as problematic because who we actually are is far greater than that. How so? Please detail why the problem lies with the personal pronouns 'I, me and mine'.

Begin with these 3 characteristics which are true of all things:

impermanence (also called change): nothing ever stays in one state or eternally the same. Use things like flowing rivers and growing plants, or the effects of time/gravity/erosion to visualize this constant growth, decay, transformation, evolution.
unsatisfactoriness: although we may feel for brief moments that some things are "perfect" (wonderful), we quickly begin to realize that there are imperfections, flaws, difficulties, and obstacles in all things/situations.
non-self (also called unsubstantiallity):

When you refer to something as "mine" you are labeling it as something stable and unchanging. That's nicca (permanence). But it is truer to say that it is momentarily (at best) "yours", because your hold on it is impermanent. Even (as an example) if you call land "yours" it was there for an unmeasurable time before you arrived, and it will outlast you by an even greater period of time. It is also changing constantly, and it is unaware of you.

A human is the sum of :
1. Body,
2. Feelings,
3. Perception,
4. Thoughts/Mental Formations,
5. Consciousness.

I numbered them because you will often hear them referred to as “5 aggregates” that means that everything you can list about your ‘self’ can be put into one of these 5 categories.
Although you may feel that each of them are solidly “you” if you take a little time you will begin to see that all of them are constantly changing. For example, your thoughts feel as though they are “you”, but just because you had a negative thought doesn't mean that's who you are. You are not that thought, and it is not you.
Observing these 5 parts of “you” changing during meditation will help you achieve the understanding of their impermanence. Buddhism is mainly concerned with experiential knowledge and through meditation you may achieve this insight.  The practice of mediation is where the conviction of non-self (anatta) grows. These 5 are always changing in response to continuously changing conditions and this makes them unsubstantial, also described as without a "solid core".

Often these 5 aspects give us the impression that we are them, and they are us. But try meditating on the question:

How can it be "you" or "yours" if you can't really grasp it?

In the beginning you may feel that you are grasping (one or all of) these aspects, and there may be a sense of attachment to one or all of them, but gradually you will perceive that it's futile because they are changing and not completely under your control.


What is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation? In my readings of Buddhist commentary there is a distinction drawn between rebirth and reincarnation. But to me it is unclear what is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation--the explanations are rather abstruse. Is there a simple one-sentence explanation of this difference?

Reincarnation implies a soul that takes a body; rebirth does not, so it is preferred.

Note that neither term has a widely used cognate in the Pali texts, perhaps because the concept of "re-" anything implies the continuation of an entity. Buddhism tends to talk about birth and death in a more linear fashion; rather than being reborn, it's "being born again" (e.g. dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ).

Further, the focus in Buddhism is on individual mind states and ultimate reality rather than the conceptual reality of birth and death, so it's not really a core teaching. Death is a concept; at the moment of a being's death, one body/mind experience ceases and the next one arises, just as it did through the entire life.


Sanditthika Sutta: Visible Here-&-Now In the Sanditthika Sutta,

  "The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you"

A similar description is also given in the Satipatthana Sutta. The second part, "to know when something is not present inside of me", is to be understood how? Do I literally acknowledge at any point in my daily life that I have currently no defilements in me? And if the answer is yes, what do I do with that acknowledging?

The four right efforts in the noble path are:

effort to prevent unwholesome mental states.
effort to abandon unwholesome mental states.
effort to develop wholesome mental states
effort to maintain & increase wholesome mental states

Therefore, when the mind without delusion is discerned, the effort is made to maintain the mind without delusion, which requires governance or supervision by mindfulness.


Compassion is a result of knowledge. But what about Courage? We are all suffering. This knowledge results in compassion. Buddha was compassionate. And courageous too.

My question is : Is there any aspect of knowledge which results in courage?

Which types of knowledge results in courage?

Emptiness. Realizing Emptiness leads to courage, because when you have nothing you have nothing to lose. Abidelessness is the ultimate courage. Abidelessness is having no conceptual home, no warm stinking lair of the ego to defend, no territory to call your own. You are a "wanderer" in the ultimate sense of the word.

Understanding Emptiness conceptually is not enough though. This aspect of vidya is active spontaneousness, sincere unforced action without calculations. Of course before you can be like that you have to remove all guilt first, hence the practice of sila, morality. As Buddha said in suttas, dirty mind has many fears, pure mind has none.

Then you have to "leap off the cliff", metaphorically speaking. This means, expose yourself, with all your imperfections. Become open and vulnerable in the world. You jump right into fear, the fear does not stop, but you ignore it, defy it, and keep going. You setup the intent to keep going, no matter what your doubts tell you. You make your own mood, instead of your mood making you.

You no longer rely on the expectations of the world to set your direction. You don't even rely on your Buddhism teacher and Dharma anymore. You have to figure out your path by yourself, which is like the baby learning to walk for the first time.

I refer you to the following articles:

Facing Yourself by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and Pema Chödrön
Bravery: Taking a Leap by Sakyong Mipham

As well as this book by my beloved teacher Chögyam Trungpa: "Smile at Fear. Awakening the True Heart of Bravery”


How is samsara nirvana? How is samsara nirvana? I have heard this mentioned in a couple books recently, but they never go into much detail.

From a Zen standpoint, the unification of samsara and nirvana cannot be comprehended by the discriminating mind.  Don't worry if you are having problems!  In fact, the more you try to rationalize it, the farther away you will be from truly comprehending it (to paraphrase Seng T'san's Hsin Hsin Ming).

If you aren't a Zen student, this is going to sound a lot like the mumbo jumbo the school is famous for.  Apologies in advance!  All the same, putting samsara up against nirvana, and trying to see the distinction, is a product of the small mind.  Likewise, trying to intellectualize how they are the same is to miss what is meant by nirvana (and samsara too for that matter!).  Thinking will get you nowhere.  Only direct insight will show you the place where the boundaries between the two break down.  Emptiness must first be apprehended.  One then looks deeply into that emptiness.  Coming out of profound emptiness, and back to world of form, one directly perceives how the two are not distinct.  This is enlightenment.  And it takes years on the cushion to get there!  It also takes deep faith and trust.  Once that realization is reached, however, you know it just as well as the feeling of the shirt on your back.


Is stock trading a wrong livelihood? Does stock trading count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117?

Sure active stock trading is very destructive, especially nowadays it's like trading the weather, but does it count as pursuing gain with gain even for passive stock traders?

Thanks a mil

In my humble opinion, "pursuing gain with gain" refers to any purely speculative business activity that involves creating no added value whatsoever.

This is confirmed by Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain (lābhena lābhaṃ nijigīsanatā)?
  It is when one bent on gain/esteem/renown, one of evil wishes, a prey to wishes
  carries there goods that have been got from here,
  carries here goods that have been got from there,
  fishing out material goods by means of material goods,
  seeking, searching, looking, hunting, trying, sniffing out.

According to commentary, this describes the process of aggressive deliberate speculation, buying low, selling high, with no other mission than making profit.

According to this, and in my own opinion, stock trading is indeed a wrong livelihood, unless it also has a charity element or is used as a way to fund some other constructive enterprise.


Mendicants in the 21st century Is a life of begging and poverty well suited to the modern world (21st century capitalism)? Not just the will to give it up, but to not suffer for it.

Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?

A bhikkhu is literally 'one who lives by alms'. However, it is not the same as a beggar because the laity that provide the alms get something in return - access to the wisdom and insight of the bhikkhu. Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta gives the Buddha's words to a confrontational Brahmin who refuses to give alms to the Buddha because he does not believe the Buddha 'works for it'.

The conditions for surviving on such alms depends on a laity that is interested in learning about the Dhamma (and hence supporting those that strive to gain direct knowledge of it). Really, the world is much more interconnected, there are far more people, and finding some who would be interested in your message would not be that tough imo! Finding a quiet and secluded spot would be more difficult imo! Here's a story I found: https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/alms-round-in-america/ I guess if the cultural knowledge is not there, it is a matter of educating your laity and getting them into the practice!


what to do, when you can't meditate? I am meditating on a daily basis since a couple of months. I noticed having ups and downs in my meditation, probably mostly caused by the amount of sati or (on the other side) stress I had during the day.

But I am also experiencing sittings, where I am just overwhelmed by the hindrances and not even able to recognize them properly.

What is the best way to deal with these extreme states of mind (in meditation)?

You are certainly not alone. Sounds like what you describe is a situation I have been in many times.

In order to find more balance, I would stay sitting still and try to remember that I could just be with the tension, fuzzy lack of clarity, confusion, anger, desire for the practice to go my way and whatever else arises. Usually this would lead to a better practice session.

This problem is mainly about unbalanced   faculties. A good teacher can help yogis balance the faculties. A good teacher can be a wonderful help when yogis are tangled up like this.


Textual reference vs. Direct insight Somewhat loaded question... According to Buddha, what is more reliable -- textual reference or one's own direct insight that came from experience?

If one's own insight is in conflict with a text, should one trust the text or one's own insight? Is there anything Buddha said about this?

The Kalama Sutta says that you should "know for yourselves".

It also suggests that one should consider the opinion of "the wise". Elsewhere too it's said to be important to have admirable people as friends.

Something like the Sarakaani Sutta suggests that faith (faith in the "text", perhaps) is beneficial; but that it's also possible to "destroy three fetters". The commentary says,

  These are the first three of the five lower fetters, i.e., sakkaaya-ditthi "personality-view" or belief in a permanent, really existing self; vicikicchaa "doubt" (once the "personality-view" has been shattered, there can be no further fundamental doubt about the Dhamma); and siilabbata-paraamaasa "attachment to rites and rituals" (siila + vata).

If you reach the state of "lack of doubt" I think that implies you trust your own insight.

There's a long definition of Vicikiccha (perhaps several definitions).

Some of the things you shouldn't doubt include the Buddha, Sangha, and Dhamma (which might mean, "you shouldn't doubt the text", i.e. "insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching"). But then the last paragraph i.e. ...

  Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners...

... implies that a stream-winner is defined by the ability to "distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken".

Also the Kaccayanagotta Sutta says that right view is a knowledge that is independent of others

  By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.


Were different parts of the Pali Canon intended for different audiences? I read somewhere that the Middle Length and Long Discourses in the Pali Canon were intended for different audiences. I think it was that the Long Discourses were intended to convert people to Buddhism and the Middle Length discourses were targeted at experienced practitioners. I could have got that the wrong way around or just generally wrong but I do remember that someone said they were intended for different groups of people.

Does that ring true with anyone? Can anyone give any further details of whether these parts where for different people and if any of the other parts of the Pali Canon would also be intended for different people. I'm more thinking about the Sutta Pitaka. Clearly the Vinaya Pitaka was for monks and the Abhidhamma Pitaka would have been more advance.

Each Sutta was intended for a specific audience to address a specific issue. This is one of the reasons why there was a need for an Abhidhamma that consolidated the messages from all of the Suttas into a overarching framework.

You are absolutely correct that each Nikāya has a different "character". The Dīgha Nikāya tends to include a lot of mythological material and complex arguments. The Majjhima Nikāya tends to include clear explanations of fundamental doctrines. Because of these differences, the different Nikāya appeal to different people for different reasons.

I think that it is important to view the Sutta Piṭaka as collections that evolved over hundreds of years. There was no "master compiler" who said, "Okay, let's put that here for this reason...".

Recent scholarship has compared the Pāḷi Suttas with the Sutras from other schools. Schools started to diverge about 100 years after the Buddha's parinibbāna. In general, the core messages contained in the Suttas and the core messages contained in the Sutras are almost the same, suggesting that the core messages predate the split. Some of the details contained in the Suttas and the details contained in the Sutras are different, suggesting that some of the details were added / deleted / changed after the split. In many cases, the organization of the Suttas is different from the organization of the Sutras, suggesting that the final compilation into Nikāya / Āgama was not determined until after the split.

BTW, the Abhidhamma and the Abhidharma are quite different, suggesting that these were not "fully baked" at the time of the split.

So getting back to your main question... I do not believe that the different "character" of each Nikāya was by grand design, it was more "evolution" rather than "creationism" :-)

Actually, the Suttas (MN 22) mention nine ways of presenting the Dhamma:

  dialogues (sutta), narratives of mixed prose and verse (geyya), explanations (veyyakaraṇa), verses (gāthā), spontaneous exclamations (udāna), quotations (itivuttaka), birth stories (jātaka), amazing events (abbhutadhamma), question & answer sessions (vedalla)

Looking at this list, it appears to be grouped according to style of presentation rather than by intended audience. Some of these (udāna, itivuttaka and jātaka) ended up being separate texts in the Khuddaka Nikāya.


Did aliens come to meet Lord Buddha? In lord Buddha's daily routine, divided into five parts as follows.

the morning session
the afternoon session
the first watch
the middle watch (10.00 P.M. TO 2.00 A.M.)
the last watch

So the 4th part is The Middle Watch, from 10.00 PM to 2.00 AM.

In that time Lord Buddha will answer the questions from "Devas", and these Devas come to see Buddha by flying Machine called "Wimanas" (or Vimana).

So my question is, does "Devas" here means Aliens? Did Aliens came to see Lord Buddha, and learn about Buddhism?

Devas are buddhist celestial beings. They don't have to mean aliens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)