Miracles of Gautama Buddha Following his enlightenment, the Buddha was said to have possessed and
discussed several supranormal powers attainable through meditation.
Such abilities include walking on water, walking through walls,
becoming invisible, levitation, and making copies of himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha
Just a doubt how could the abilities above is possible? Any details or proof on it especially walking through walls or becoming invisible. Sound like a magic?

You wrote, "just try to create some interests here and prepare to answer if someone challenges this" -- so I assume this is like your previous question, where you're looking for how to answer if a skeptical evangelical challenges the belief as being incredible.
Incidentally I asked a similar question about "rebirth" -- Is rebirth a delusional belief? -- not because the doctrine of rebirth is necessarily the first or most important thing to know about Buddhist doctrine, but because I thought it was one of the most famous aspects and difficult to understand, and so a reason why people might reject or not investigate the whole doctrine.
Anyway if you are asked about miracles, one way to answer might be by referencing the Kevatta or Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11).
First read for yourself the text of that sutta.
Then maybe read this answer which says, "most Buddhists [...] believe in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures literally" -- I think that the author (Sankha Kulathantille) saying "most Buddhists" means "in Sri Lanka" for example.
I think that (i.e. literally") is certainly one way to understand the sutta.
But perhaps also read what Piya Tan writes about DN 11 here (Piya Tan is a former monk, from Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand).

This discourse belongs to a rare category of religious literature: religious humour,
of which it is
one of the finest examples. Its import is nonetheless serious in terms of reflecting the true nature of
religion and of spiritual development. The discourse clearly does not advocate any feeling of awe towards
an inexplicably mysterious universe [etc]

There's a partial answer to your question in part 3:

3. The Buddhist attitude to miracles
3.1 MIRACLES ARE NOT A MARK OF SPIRITUALITY. Midway through the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha expresses to Kevaḍḍha his disapproval of miracles or psychic wonders (pāṭihāriya), especially the
wonder of miraculos power (iddhi,pāṭihāriya) [§§4-5] and of mind-reading (ādesana,pāṭihāriya) [§§6-7].
In fact, the Buddha disapproves of them in the strongest terms, using the well known stock phrase or formula, “I am troubled, ashamed, disgusted” (aṭṭiyāmi harāyāmi jigucchāmi).
Apparently, this is the
only time in the Suttas that we find the Buddha doing so in these words.
However, the Vinaya, too, records his unequivocal disapproval of such a display, in the story of Piṇḍola Bhāra,dvāja.
In the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha first defines the miracle [§§4, 6], and goes on to mention the reaction of one with faith and one without faith regarding it. The one who has faith in the miracle speaks of
it to an unbeliever, who is unimpressed, claiming that in the case of the wonder of miraculous power (or
thaumaturgy), he knows of the Gandhāri charm [§5], and in the case of mind-reading, he knows of the
Manika charm [§7].
In a contemporary or a futuristic scenario, this can be explained in this way. The unbeliever sees no
special merit in the talk of psychic power because it could be done with, say, holographic images, airplanes, antigravity devices, etc; nor any the merit in the talk of mind-reading because this could be done
by a mind-imaging machine. Or, as Luis O Gomez puts it: “they are not the exclusive property of the
enlightened, or other people could come into possession of these powers by other means, such as the
magical arts of Gandhāra (gandhārī nāma vijjā)” (1977:221). It should be added that, as pointed out in
the Susīma Sutta (S 12.70), there are also arhats who do not possess any psychic power,
and that their
spiritual status is in no way inferior to any other arhat.

I realise this doesn't exactly answer your question -- but I think it's a canonical answer, i.e. it's what the canon says about the topic, i.e. that it's like of the wrong question to be asking, the wrong topic to be interested in when you're asking about Buddhism.
Piya Tan's article then goes on, to say what a miracle is (i.e. how it's defined in the sutta), and to say what the Vinaya says about them.
It may be incidentally that your Christian evangelical friends seem to show a "black and white" kind of thinking, e.g. "either you believe or you don't", or, "either it's the work of God or the work of the Devil". Personally I suppose that "believing in miracles" is a kind of an "extreme", and "not believing in miracles" is another extreme -- Buddhism often offers a "middle way" between extremes, avoid either extreme, so maybe both of these two extremes aren't exactly right. By the same token though I don't want to say someone is wrong for believing or for not believing.
Similarly I think that "interpreting every sutta literally" might be a bit of an extreme (and "not believing what the suttas says" another kind of extreme). It seems to me that some suttas -- for example DN 27 -- is pretty clearly something I'm inclined to recognise as a parable or allegory.
You might find it informative to read the answers to this topic too -- Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?


Is there an intermediate state between death and rebirth in Theravada tradition? The Tibetan book of the dead is very famous and widely known, but how about rebirth in the Theravada tradition? Is there anything similar to an intermediate dimension or does death automatically lead to rebirth?

When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fueled by craving382. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.

  — SN 44:9 The Debating Hall
  (Bodhi, from SuttaCentral)

And another:

  Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.

  — SN 44:9 Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta
  (Thanissaro, from Access to insight)

Here's Bhikku Bodhi's note #382 in his printed edition of the Saṃyutta Nikāya:

  Tam ahaṃ taṇhūpādānaṃ vadāmi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Theravāda orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

So on the one hand, there's Theravadin orthodoxy which denies it. On the other, there are passages in the Pāli canon, as above, which could be taken to support it.

I personally take the passage above as literal and that the Buddha says some kind of state between death and birth exists, without being specific as to how long it is.

Other resources I found when searching:

Rebirth and the in-between state in Early Buddhism by Sujato
Dhammawheel.com post on the subject
Google cache of a thread on dhammawheel.net discussing the same subject

In this last link, one of the posts as dhammawheel.net mentions, very apropos of Bodhi's comment on Spk:

  The main reason the commentaries go to lengths to deny a bardo is because it's inconsistent with the scholastic Abhidhamma framework, and the associated notion of a single moment of rebirth-linking consciousness.


How does an ālaya-vijñāna work? And in particular, is it eternal, unchanging and like any other formulation for a soul that we might have seen, in say Christianity or Hinduism?

This particular idea, that ālaya-vijñāna is like a permanent self, is mentioned in "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", by Stephen Bachelor.

In no way alaya-vijnana is "eternal, unchanging". This is Buddhism after all and nobody will posit totally non-buddhistic concepts which could contradict basic teachings of Buddha. Unenlightened beings may mistakenly perceive alaya-vijnana as Soul, but they may perceive so about any skandha. (One interpretation of why skandhas are five is that it's five assumptions of Self.) Standard analogy for alaya-vijnana is violent current of a river (udakaugha), it may be perceived as solid (from a far) but it's highly changing (if looked closer). Alaya-vijnana is only remains to the end of sansara.


Can lay people acheive enlighment (Arahanthship) in this life by adhering to Buddhist principles? During the time of Buddha, it is said many people at one gathering attained enlightenment by listening to only one one of his sermons. How can a  mind develop such a achieving  within matter of hours.  There are millions of devoted Buddhist in the world now but I have not heard a single person achieving higher mental status. Are there any other explanation this other than karma?

If you analyse the Sutta, you will find those who became Arahants by just listening to discourse are people who have already perfected Sila and Samadhi. For instance Buddhas first disciples, five ascetics.


a good definition of consciousness I was having a conversation with a non buddhist about consciousness I was struggling to define some key aspects and it kind of led into not self,  but I was looking for a concise simple definition.

Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy.
Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied by awareness. Just as water has colour, temperature, etc., so too, consciousness has sensation and other mental concomitants.
Doctrinally, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy, which takes an experiential paradigm as the basis of reality (as opposed to the temporospatial paradigm of modern science). Each conscious qualia constitutes an atomic entity in the complex matrix of multi-perceptional reality.

cittena nīyati loko, cittena parikassati.
cittassa ekadhammassa, sabbeva vasamanvagūti.
By the mind the world is led, by the mind is it carried away.
Of the mind, the one thing, all indeed go according to its power.
-- SN 1.62


What does deathless mean? The word "deathless" is used sometimes.

What does it mean? Are there non-obvious or non-English meanings to the words translated as 'death' and/or 'deathless'?

Similarly what does "attaining the deathless" mean, in this Upatissa-pasine,  for example ...

  Whoever attains the Deathless first will inform the other

... how are they supposed to recognize when they "attain the deathless"?

Is "deathless" predicated on the idea that practitioners are trying to escape some dukkha associated with death, or escape death itself? Does that sutta conflate "deathless" with "sorrowless", or are the two distinct?

I notice there's also a word Timeless. Deathless is a different word (amata instead of akalika), does the word 'deathless' have a different meaning and/or different usage?

The expression is used in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

  So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained.

That suggests to me (I may be wrong) that deathless might be associated with an ultimate stage of enlightenment (or perhaps that it's specifically intended/designed for the five in that audience, e.g. perhaps the Buddha knew that they were seeking "the deathless").

What does deathless mean?

The Deathless is a synonym for Nibbana. The Deathless state is the state where one is freed from birth and thereby death. Conditioned phenomena constantly arise and fall. In other words: They must die. Nibbana is unconditioned, unborn, it does not arise and fall and therefore must not die.

Here are some quotes from the Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya where the Buddha talks about The Deathless state in relation to Nibbana. There are also some notes from the author (Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi):

  "He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana"

  -- MN 64: Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, p. 540, Bodhi translation

Another quote:

  "Then at that point the Blessed One uttered this exclamation:

  The greatest of all gains is health,

  Nibbana is the greatest bliss,

  The eightfold path is the best of paths

  For it leads safely to the Deathless."

  -- MN 75: Magandiya Sutta, p. 613, Bodhi translation

Sutta notes:

  "The eleven "doors to the Deathless" are the four jhanas, the four brahmaviharas, and the first three immaterial attainments used as bases for the development of insight and attainment of arahantship."

  -- Notes to sutta 52, p. 1252

Sutta notes:

  MA: He "turns his mind away" from the five aggregates included within the jhana, which he has seen to be stamped with the three characteristics. The "deathless element" (amata-dhatu) is Nibbana.

  -- Notes to sutta 64, p. 1266

Sutta notes:

  "MA says that the arahantship of the dry-insight meditator is intended. MT adds that arahantship is called "the Deathless" because it has the flavour of the Deathless, being attained on the basis of Nibbana the Deathless."

  -- Notes to sutta 106, p. 1312

Here is a quote from the Samyutta Nikaya:

  "This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:

  "One who desires merit, established in the wholesome, Develops the path to attain the Deathless;
  He who has reached the Dhamma's core,
  Delighting in destruction,
  Does not tremble thinking,
  'The King of Death will come."

  -- SN 55: Sotapattisamyutta, p. 1829, Bodhi translation

Another quote:

  "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the taintless and the path leading to the taintless. Listen to that ...

  "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the truth and the path leading to the truth ... I will teach you the far shore ... the subtle ... the very difficult to see ... the unaging ... the stable ... the undis integrating ... the unmanifest ... the unproliferated ... the peaceful ... the deathless ... the sublime ... the auspicious ... the secure ... the destruction of craving ... the wonderful ... the amazing ... the unailing ... the unailing state ... Nibbana ... the unafflicted ... dispassion ... purity ... freedom ... the unadhesive ... the island .., the shelter ... the asylum ... the
  refuge ...

  -- SN 43: Asankhatasamyutta, p. 1378, Bodhi translation

Sutta notes:

  "The removal of lust, etc., is a designation for the unconditioned, deathless Nibbana element. The destruction of the taints is arahantship. The removal of lust, etc., is a name for arahantship too."

  -- Notes to sutta 45, p. 1893

The Dhamma Wiki has a list of "33 Synonyms for Nibbana".


Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement? Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement ?

Do people with better samadhi can think more than the people with less within short amount of time ?

  experiment of people with low IQ, and high IQ, put them in the same room, and you give them the same job. Rob a bank. You’ll find out that the low IQ people probably do a much better job of robbing a bank, plotting the bank robbery, than high IQ people, who get all messed up with legal implications and stuff like that. - Michio Kaku

Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

There's a big difference between wisdom and being book-smart. If you have a fish tank full of muddy water, and if you constantly shaking it, will you be able to see through the tank and detect the objects on the other side? How about letting the tank settle on a solid level ground for a while, then see through it? Sila is that solid level ground. Samadhi is the "settling" of the tank, Wisdom (or penetrating insight) is the "seeing through" to the other side.


Reasons against practicing insight meditation as a main (sitting) practice for medical or other recondite-subject majoring students? ("Recondite-subject majoring" is meant to mean the more challenging subjects, such as electrical engineering or a doctorate based major.)

If a student who has one hour to meditate, every day, and one more hour on the weekend, will practicing an insight meditation be counterproductive to concentration and calmness? The main aim is to be a better student. [This purpose may seem narrow minded, but I do not know where else to ask this question.] This question sprung from a recommendation:

  Although what I am about to say may cause some amount of sensation to
  arise in people who are attached to their insight meditation
  traditions, I would advice, from my personal experience, that you
  don't practise insight meditation exclusively (the anapanasati
  meditation that I recommend is not an insight meditation, it is a
  calming meditation) since it will cause many troubles, especially
  in a student life like ours. This is because exclusive practise of
  insight meditation will initially cause many defilements to come about
  (although the goal is the contrary) - for example, all kinds of
  craving will come about. This is not conducive at all to a successful
  student life.

  You can, however, practise [sic] insight meditation during daily life
  (rather than the main meditation practise) such as while walking and
  eating and so on, without getting into much trouble, ASSUMING that you
  have a solid practise [sic] of Anapanasati going on.

Does not insight meditation, such as Vipassana, involve anapanasati in the beginning? It just feels counterproductive to go back to doing anapanasati only for the hour available. Actually, it just seems hard to do that. (There may be a sort of attachment to the body scanning technique happening here?)

Research

Toward the integration of meditation into higher education: A review of research ~ What specifically are mindfulness-based interventions? What is a specific technique for a student (beginner)? Most importantly, is "mindfulness-based" the same as "insight" meditation?
Meditation, social change, and undergraduate education ~ authors informal attempt of Zen in group sits (no real help)
[Other studies will be listed in my answer. It is getting too lengthy here.]

I did my first longer vipassana retreat while I was a postdoc researcher (applied math and numerics), and did many more since then. I found it beneficial to have days/weeks dedicated for intense practice (which are tough, but you're in a protected environment) and then off-retreat time for work & other stuff. After retreats, I was mostly much more creative in work (especially after the first one; I finished within weeks papers I had been  writing for months), as retreats remove a lot of negative conditions which we carry around. Sometime there were difficult post-retreat states, true, but you want to learn to face those as well.

I would not be afraid that light (1 hours and such) daily practice will cause some substantial trouble in your life; it's more about seeing stuff which is happening anyway. If you have a competent teacher, he can help you to adjust your practice if you think there is some difficulty.

That said: if you have some serious psychological condition, don't forget to take care of it along the way, using also conventional means (psychotherapy, medication) as necessary. Traditional 3 Buddhist trainings are (1) personality (they call it "morality", but it is really about having a stable psycho-social basis, as I understand it) (2) concentration (3) insight; and the first one has to be strong enough to support the other ones.

Vipassana (=3) as such does not imply separate concentration training (=2). Some schools do that (e.g. Goenka which you seem to mention implicitly -- anapanasati, then bodyscanning) but the "dry vipassana" approaches (Mahasi and similar) don't; you do vipassana and build up concentration along the way.

Being a dry person, I personally do the dry vipassana. It is very important to include all 4 foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, mind objects) in the practice. High concentration is not necessarily good; I was depressive for years and had terrible (though successful) life as a result of being very concentrated and pushing stuff away without even knowing that. In fact if you are doing PhD, odds are that your concentration is rather high. You maybe hope that if you concentrate more, you will be more successful; maybe, but maybe you won't be very happy, and maybe you will run into burn-out. It is important to be flexible with concentration (to be able to release it), to not become its slave. Concentration sometimes causes people to be excessively serious.

PS (added): "Mindfulness-based" is sometimes used to refer to secular contemplative approaches often based on vipassana, such as MBSR (mindfulness-based stress reduction), MBCT (mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) etc. You will find both mindfulness/insight meditation used as translations of vipassana (meaning "seeing distinctly/clearly"); I personally find "insight" more appropriate, since insight is the goal and mindfulness (sati) only the means, though mindfulness might become prevalent, sounding perhaps less mysterious...


Can we rely on Buddha's quotes found on internet? I found many quotes on internet but if we'd think we do not find any reference in any scripture so do we need to ignore them as they are possibly fake quotes?

I found such:

  "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."

I can see search generate result by this site 'fakebuddhaquotes.com'

  “Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.”

So are we supposed to ignore if they are fake and if not, what is second quote's meaning?

On the same site -- http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/better-than-a-thousand-hollow-words-is-one-word-that-brings-peace/ -- the author identifies the second quote as a slightly inaccurate or poetic translation of the 100th verse of the Dhammapada:

  Sahassamapi ce vaca
  anatthapadasamhita
  ekam atthapadam seyyo
  yam sutva upasammati.

  Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed.

That too is not a literal translation into English -- http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/index.php says they refer to the commentary if the literal meaning is vague or unintelligible or perplexing -- they added to the translation the phrase "unconnected with the realization of Nibbana" to clarify the difference between what they called senseless and sensible, i.e. between anatthapadasaṃhitā and atthapadam.

Here is maybe a more literal translation:

  Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

Note that's close to the version you quoted in the OP (it's so close that I don't see why what you quoted is listed as a "fake" quote, instead of being listed among the "real" quotes).

If you still don't understand it, I recommend the commentary/story which accompanies each verse (see here), and/or reading the whole chapter of the Dhammapada (see here).


A Monk Reborn in a Lower Realm for Breaking a Leaf Where does the story appear about a monk who was born in a lower realm for breaking a leaf of a tree?

Also there are some related stories (use generally alongside the above) where small transgressions leading to disproportionately large karmic results. What are they and where can I find references?

It's in the commentary to verse 182 of the Dhammapada:

  On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga.


What are the texts which say or imply what the Buddha looked like? My ignorance of Buddhism will show here, so please forgive me, but I've seen many depictions of the Buddha with hair, seemingly after his Bodhisattva form. I've also read that these might actually be snails which represent Buddhist philosophy rather than actual hair.

I've seen other posts on here, but none referencing the actual text. What do the texts actually say about the appearance of the Buddha?

The Marks of a Great Man
Lakkhaṇasutta

===========

The Buddha said this:
Bhagavā etadavoca:

“There are thirty-two marks of a great man. A great man who possesses these has only two possible destinies, no other.
“Dvattiṃsimāni, bhikkhave, mahāpurisassa mahāpurisalakkhaṇāni, yehi samannāgatassa mahāpurisassa dveva gatiyo bhavanti anaññā.

https://suttacentral.net/dn30/en/sujato

Further discussion.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=28550&hilit=Buddha+look+like


Were all Buddha's born in India? As per below List their was 28 buddhas with Gotama Buddha. so my question is did all the Budda's born on India (Jambuddeepa) in different times?

The names of the 28 Buddhas

Taṇhaṃkara

Medhaṃkara

Saraṇaṃkara

Dipankara

Koṇḍañña

Maṃgala

Sumana

Revata

Sobhita

Anomadassi

Paduma

Nārada

Padumuttara

Sumedha

Sujāta

Piyadassi

Atthadassi

Dhammadassi

Siddhattha

Tissa

Phussa

Vipassi

Sikhi

Vessabhū

Kakusandha

Koṇāgamana

Kassapa Buddha

Gotama Buddha

Accprding to the records, within a kappa (world period), sometimes only one Buddha appears. It's hard to imagen that such as "India" is either linguistig nor geological, in it's location, even within a imagenable period very constant and "existing" in a sphere of common perception. It can be not valid said that such as India could be regarded as a certain place, and it's for sure not possible to imagen reasonable that such as India would appear for other Buddhas. Now think how the planet rushes even now through the worlds and minds of beings. Such as "India" was even at the time of our Buddha not "existentk in the sense it might be today common defined.

But let that question be a matter of stories, historical grasping and philosophy. How ever one feels common with, one might regard it who ever it might not cause one stress. To remind that form as well as perception are subject to change, would the wise remind not to grasp it otherwise, so that it will not unavoidable hurt.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How is forgiveness defined in Buddhism? I am new to this topic so I may be asking a silly question. I have watched a lot of monk movies and after watching those movies to me it appears that forgiveness means if anybody does some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you. I tried to find out the meaning of this word got a similar answer.

Question: How is forgiveness defined in Buddhism?

You said, "Forgiveness means if anybody do some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you."

This is called "Kshanti-paramita", the perfection of patience.

In Buddhism, patience does not mean that you put a lot of effort to keep yourself calm. In Buddhism, patience means you do not have attachments. Because you have no attachments, you can not be offended.

The biggest attachment is Ego, the feeling of self-significance in the world. When you feel you are significant, and people do something that shows that you are not, you can easily feel insulted and lose temper. So Ego is like a big sore, very sensitive, that makes you very vulnerable.

Other types of attachments are attachment to religion, attachment to "we", attachment to some sort of theory, attachment to intellect, attachment to purity etc.

When you have no attachments, no Ego, no self-significance - you become very patient. You become unmovable, invulnerable. This is called perfection of patience.


I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say? I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say? What about Rinzai zen?

I don't have any questions about it, but I'm sure there's answers I haven't contemplated at all.

Quotes would be necessary.

Dogen quotes from Goodreads on the internet

Life and death are of supreme importance. Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Each of us should strive to awaken. Awaken! Take heed, do not squander your life.

This dew-like life will fade away; avoid involvement in superfluous things.

There is a simple way to become buddha: When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate toward all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not excluding or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you will be called a buddha. Do not seek anything else.

One must be deeply aware of the impermanence of the world.

It's too late to be ready.


Is there a way to help us remember our previous life? There have been claims that some people can remember their previous life, their life before they are reborn. I can't say these are true or not.

Is it possible to remember our previous life?

If so, is there any method to help us remember our previous life through meditation or any other means?

The Visuddhimagga provides a pretty comprehensive explanation of how one obtains this and all the other psychic powers mentioned by the Buddha. Briefly, the method is as follows:

Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas
Exit the fourth jhāna and remember the last thing one did before one sat down.
remember the last thing before the thing remembered in the last step. If at any time, one is unable to remember a given experience, one should revert to step one, and after leaving the fourth jhāna attempt to continue where one left off.
repeat step 3 until one is able to remember the first moment of conception.
Attempt to remember the last moment before conception (i.e. the death moment).

At this point, the Visuddhimagga says:

  25. But the mentality-materiality in the previous existence has ceased without
  remainder and another has arisen, and consequently that instance is, as it were,
  shut away in darkness, and it is hard for one of little understanding to see it. Still
  he should not give up the task, thinking, “I am unable to remove the rebirth-linking and make the mentality-materiality that occurred at the death moment
  my object.” On the contrary, he should again and again attain that same basic
  jhāna, and each time he emerges he should advert to that instance.

  26. Just as when a strong man is felling a big tree for the purpose of making
  the peak of a gable, but is unable to fell the big tree with an axe blade blunted by
  lopping the branches and foliage, still he does not give up the task; on the
  contrary, he goes to a smithy and has his axe sharpened, after which he returns
  and continues chopping the tree; and when the axe again gets blunt, he does as
  before and continues chopping it; and as he goes on chopping it in this way, the
  tree falls at length, because each time there is no need to chop again what has
  already been chopped and what has not yet been chopped gets chopped; so too,
  when he emerges from the basic jhāna, instead of adverting to what he has
  already adverted to, he should advert only to the rebirth-linking, and at length
  he removes the rebirth-linking and makes the mentality-materiality that occurred
  at the death moment his object. And this meaning should also be illustrated by
  means of the wood cutter and the hair-cutter as well.

  Path of Purification (XIII.25-26)

I know a man who undertook this practice without really mastering the four jhānas, and he claims to have remembered bits and pieces of what he thinks was a past life. Not really reliable, but interesting nonetheless. Maybe you can let us know how it goes!


Money to monasteries Is it right for a monastery or a temple to take money donations, having donation boxes and selling a lot of different things to worship or get luck from?
Or shouldn't a monastery use money just like the monks?
I feel if I want to give to a monastery is better to give food to the monks, give the things they need not the money so they can get it themself.

Yes it is OK for monastics to sell things. Sư Trưởng (Head Nun) Như Thanh started the Huế Làm Nunnery and nine other nunneries by selling food and in a few cases businesses like rice sales, making soy sauce, printing sutras and a tailor shop. (1) She was in many ways the Mother Teresa of Vietnam but refused to travel saying she would just give the money to the nunneries thus she remains unknown. In her life she raised over 5000 nuns and 13 Dharma masters including Sư Cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt, PhD sited above. A large reason 90% of the monastics in Vietnam are now nuns can be traced back to her works. I do not know of another person that made such a big change to Buddhism in one country (and by extension the US because her disciples are here) in the scant span of 100 years like Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.

Her book "Path of the Bodhisattva" (Vietnamese only 1989) might be the crowning achievement out of her extensive literary works. Without a doubt she was one of the most stunning people of this world and few know her name. But those that do she is seen as a true bodhisattva.

"Looking up, I seek enlightenment. Looking down, I liberate sentient beings." - Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.

So when you go to a Vietnamese-American temple run by nuns and see food being sold you'll know who started it [so please buy some]. Also any temple named "Huế Làm" will quite likely have her picture hanging around somewhere. She is that important.

Eminent Buddhist Women, p. 88 "Fostering Self-sufficiency" written by her Dharma daughter and personal care attendant of the last 22 years of her life Pháp sư và Sư cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt ("moon"), PhD. http://goo.gl/TKNxns.  She is the apex between intelligence and compassion. Her pháp danh should've been Minh.

Also http://giacngo.vn/lichsu/2009/01/15/7FC650/

As for giving just food I'm someone who's office duties includes cutting checks to pay the electricity, heat, Internet, phone and the myriad of other bills and can say at our nunnery (note: I'm laity and a white guy) money is always accepted with gratitude and is needed. Gratitude was something Sư Trưởng Như Thanh taught should always been shown.

Edit: In hindsight I would recommended making donations for specific needs. If a monastic needs a car fixed you show pay the mechanic. If they need to pay a bill you should it the company directly. Advice I received from a very good monk.


Are there any strict Soto Zen teachers online that I could listen to? Recently, I have become interested in Soto Zen. I would like to go to a Soto Zen center, but I live to far away from one. This leaves me with the option for listening to online talks. Are there any free online dharma talks given by reliable teachers known to the Soto community. Dogen explains the features of a reliable teacher but I haven't been able to find one. Can you guys help?

Soto Zen Dharma talks: http://livestream.com/SFZC

Shunryū Suzuki
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4867F3D9F795268A


How old was Buddhism/Shinto before Shinto began to adopt aspects of Buddhism Before Shinto began to adopt aspects of Buddhism i am wondering how old the 2 were as to which of the 2 was the older. by age i am referring to from when they started to become a following and not from when their creation myths occurred.

Buddhism originates with the historical Buddha:

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][10] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][11][note 4] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.

The historical Buddha lived in or near what is now northern India, i.e. far from Japan.
Re. the Origins of Shinto, recorded history dates to circa 700 CE (i.e. about 1000 years later than Buddhism) but archaeology shows a "pre-history" that "significantly" earlier than that:

Shinto has very ancient roots in the Japanese islands. The recorded history dates to the Kojiki (712) and Nihon Shoki (720), but archeological records date back significantly further. Both are compilations of prior oral traditions.

The BBC's short History of Shinto says,

Periods of Shinto history
One of the standard classifications of Shinto history reduces it to
four major periods:

Before the arrival of Buddhism in Japan

Shinto and Buddhism together in Japan

And,

Shinto and Buddhism together
From the 6th century CE the beliefs that are now known as Shinto were
greatly altered by the addition of other ingredients.
Shintoisms were the only religions in Japan until the arrival of
Buddhism in the 6th century CE. From then on Shinto faiths and
traditions took on Buddhist elements, and later, Confucian ones. Some
Shinto shrines became Buddhist temples, etc.

And,

Before the arrival of Buddhism
During this period there was no formal Shinto religion, but many local
cults that are nowadays grouped under the name Shinto.
Like many prehistoric people, the first inhabitants of Japan were
probably animists; devoted to the spirits of nature. In their case
these were the Kami that were found in plants and animals, mountains
and seas, storms and earthquakes, sand and all significant natural
phenomena.
The early Japanese developed rituals and stories which enabled them to
make sense of their universe, by creating a spiritual and cultural
world that gave them historical roots, and a way of seeming to take
control of their lives, in what would otherwise have been a fearful
and puzzling landscape.
Other cults that are grouped together into Shinto probably arrived in
Japan from Korea with the Korean tribes which invaded Japan in late
prehistoric times.
These religions were highly localised, and not organised into a single
faith. Nor were they seen as a single religion; the realms of Earth
and the supernatural were so closely integrated in the world-view of
the early Japanese that the things that modern people regard as a
faith were seen in those times as just another part of the natural
world, albeit a part of enormous power.

So "prehistoric Shinto" was (as well as being pre-historic) not necessarily a single religion. As such I suspect it may be impossible to define exactly when it began.
If you want to know more about what archaeology says about the origins of pre-historic Shinto, that seems like an appropriate question to ask on the 'History.SE' site.


looking for citation, pīti and sukha of 4 jhānas compared to dying of thirst, seeing water in distance, and drinking it There's an excellent simile in the Theravada non canonical literature explaining the difference between piti and sukha in the first 3 jhanas, reminiscent of the lotus pond in this sutta MN 40. (citation?)

As I remember it:

Piti = you're in a desert, dying of thirst, as you're approaching oasis/pond, you realize there's water in the distance, that you're not going to die, and you're going to drink that water soon. The thrill and excitement of that is piti.
sukha = you've arrived at the oasis/pond, now you're drinking the water. The pleasure from actually drinking the water is sukha.

Three questions:

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?
might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?
What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

MN 40 excerpt here:
MN 40: what is the meaning of the lotus pond simile?

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?

It's from the Visuddhimagga-Ch IV.100 (pg. 139):

  And wherever the two are associated, happiness is the contentedness at getting a desirable object, and bliss is the actual experiencing of it when got. Where there is happiness there is bliss (pleasure); but where there is bliss there is not necessarily happiness. Happiness is included in the formations aggregate; bliss is included in the feeling aggregate. If a man, exhausted31 in a desert, saw or heard about a pond on the edge of a wood, he would have happiness; if he went into the wood’s shade and used the water, he would have bliss. And it should be understood that this is said because they are obvious on such occasions.

.

  might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?

Possibly. But notice the context is different between MN 40 and Vism IV.100. In MN 40, the lotus pond simile was used to illustrate the benefits of cultivating the Four Divine Abodes and how it benefits everyone; while the Vism's simile was for describing the Piti/Sukha absorption factors of the Jhanas concentration practices.

  What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

The Four Divine Abodes.


Is there a specific practice that leads to a "rainbow body" First of all is the "rainbow body" almost similar in the different lineages of Tibetan Buddhism? Then the above question.

Thanks

Here is a quote about the practice from the Wiki:

"Rainbow body (Tib. འཇའ་ལུས་, ja lü; Wyl. 'ja' lus) — fully accomplished Dzogchen practitioners can dissolve their body at the time of death."
"Through the practice of trekchö, the practitioner can attain the so-called ‘rainbow body’, in which the body becomes smaller and smaller as it dissolves, emanating rainbow light, and finally only the hair and nails are left behind."

Here is a quote on The Rainbow Body from the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia:

"The rainbow body phenomenon is a third person perspective of someone else attaining complete knowledge (rigpa). Knowledge is the absence of delusion regarding the display of the basis.
Rigpa has three wisdoms, two of which are kadag and lhun grub. Kadag (primordial purity) is the Dzogchen view of emptiness. Lhun grub (natural formation) is the Dzogchen view of Dependent origination. Throughout Mahayana, emptiness and Dependent origination are two sides of the same coin. Kadag deals with tregchöd. The lhun grub aspect has to do with esoteric practices, such as (but not limited to) Thödgal, that self-liberate the dependently originated human body into the Sambhogakāya (rainbow body phenomenon). The symbol of Dzogchen is a Tibetan A wrapped in a thigle (see picture to the right). The A represents kadag while the thigle represents lhun grub. The third Wisdom, thugs rje (compassion), is the inseparability of the previous two wisdoms.
The ultimate fruition of the thodgal practices is a body of pure light, called a rainbow body (Wylie 'ja' lus, pronounced Jalü.) If the four visions of thogal are not completed before death, then at death, from the point of view of an external observer, the following happens: the corpse does not start to decompose, but starts to shrink until it disappears. Usually fingernails, toenails and hair are left behind (see e.g. Togden Urgyen Tendzin, Ayu Khandro, Changchub Dorje.) The attainment of the rainbow body is typically accompanied by the appearance of lights and rainbows.
Some exceptional practitioners such as Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra are held to have realized a higher type of rainbow body without dying. Having completed the four visions before death, the individual focuses on the lights that surround the fingers. His or her physical body self-liberates into a nonmaterial body of light (a Sambhogakāya) with the ability to exist and abide wherever and whenever as pointed by one's compassion."

Lanka


Meditation and body scan I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something. I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasised and mentioned.

I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by part ie crown of head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc.  But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind.

I don't feel anything anywhere except for the air going through the nasal passages, sometimes the eyes flutter a bit, the abdomen rises and falls and the hands sometimes tingle or pulse. Everywhere else feels completely dead. Maybe I'm completely out of touch with my body and its sensations. I know they must be there but why can I not focus on them?  Also sometimes I'll start at the head and then I realise I have wandered off for so long that the mediation is nearly over so I cannot even manage to scan the body at all!

Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me. I'm not a religious person.  They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep, and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.

I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something.

You are practicing for 5-6 years but was it like 1 hour sitting every day for 5 years? Did you do any 10-day retreats? In all those years did you spend any days solely for meditation? If you have been doing it for that long, let's assume you have learnt the instructions and you are doing it right.

I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasized and mentioned.

The path of spirituality does not work like ordinary marketplace logic. Besides only doing insight meditation will not bring any significant change. Meditation or 'Right Mindfulness' is just one of the fold of the eightfold path of the Buddha. If you want to see a significant change then you have to follow the eight-fold path, you don't have an option of being selective.

I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by a part ie crown of the head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc. But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind.

After 5 years of practice, if you are still unsure and having difficulties with practice I will suggest you change the meditation you are doing. Samatha meditation is relatively easier and  Zazen is what I will recommend to you.

Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me.I'm not a religious person. They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.

I see your problem is not as much as of the practice as much as it is about the frame of your mind. You have failed to understand the context of Buddhism and you have directly jumped to practice and expecting results. From your overall question, I understand you have missed studying the practice of, 'let-go', of not having 'Expectations', the importance of getting instructed about Dhamma along with meditation.

I agree that if you start reading the scriptures of Pali canon it's repetitive and at times boring, but there is an option available, and that is reading the commentary. I reckon you read the book, 'In the Buddhas words' by Bhikkhu Bodhi, that will put you in a greater context of Buddhism which will guide you towards the experiences you want.

If this is still boring to you, I will suggest that you read a few books by Ajahn Brahm, he is a Cambridge graduate in Physics, his words might resonate with you. And if you are hell-bent on having spiritual experience only through the medium of instructions on Meditation, in that case, I will suggest you read, Ajahn Brahm's book, 'Mindfulness, bliss and beyond', no boring scriptures straightforward instruction manual which takes you to la-la land.

About the teacher part, you really don't have to deal with real world people now that the internet is there. There are a plethora of videos on youtube teaching you the basics of Buddhism putting you in the right context. Watch Ajahn Brahms videos on youtube.

You don't have to approach anybody and ask to become a teacher, it doesn't work that way. A teacher is usually a highly ordained monk who professes to be a teacher, by himself or herself. Don't rely on people if they are not around you, the internet is there.


Recommendation - Book for beginner I am interested in knowing more about Buddhism especially the pursuit of happiness.
Which book would you recommend me for introducing me to Buddhism philosophy on this subject?

I would recommend:

In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (alternate download link)
Art of Living by William Hart


Pali Canon and Agama I have a question regarding the early texts the question is : am I right to say that the Pali Canon is exclusively considered the Thervada text, while the Agama is the Mahayana Sutras or am I wrong maybe the Agama is also considered Thervadin. Do Thervadin scholars accept Agama as part of Thervada??.
Thank you I appreciate your answers.

A more useful way of looking at it is to see both the Nikayas and Agamas as Early Buddhist text rendered in different languages (Pali for Nikayas, Sanskrit for Agamas). If you've read Ven. Analayo's work on comparative studies between the two systems, you'll see they are very very similar. Now, Theravada pretty much focuses on the Nikayas as their go-to sutta sources, while Mahayana, due to its vast number of sub-schools or sub-systems, has various focuses depending on the particular school. Some pay more attention to the Agamas, while others more on the later additions (Amitabha collections, Avatamsaka, Lankavatara, Prajnaparamita, etc...).


Judges passing the death sentence The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying:

  When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
  seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
  struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
  exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
  striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
  slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
  slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."

What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law?

Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why?

Is it right livelihood?

Yes, and it's good to compare it to that quoted story, as many think that for a "higher, nobler" aim, doing wrong is ok. Or out of duties, like moderators and "responsible" often think.

Not only doing by oneself, but also order by words or sign and mental approve (which is the heaviest) are the doors of action (kamma).

Not even the judge, but also those who install such as death sentence inlaws, order death sentence, or mental agree face the results of the kamma of killing. So one should be careful also when voting or watch news of "bad-mens-hunts".

Always good to address here is the Dhanañjani Sutta in regard of duties.

  "What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

  "No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

Is it right livelihood?

Ordering death is no right livelihood, spoken in regard of the main question.

"But": There is nothing total wrong which the work as judge, althought surely not very conductive for the practice. Remember the devoted King who gave up judging and passed it to his servants, having faced than "noble" people are capable to lie for sensual pleasure.

The work as someone who orders the physical harm or even depriving from life, or depriving of own, is of cause wrong livelihood, at least at the moment he makes use of the power for such. So it might depend much on the law he has to execute itself as well.

Same as doing soldier is not perse wrong, but only if not firm abstaining from killing.

(Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and notorious doubter by for those after firm stand upwardly and toward liberation)


Does hosting guests at home with meat and alcohol (because they are fond of it) amount to aiding the guests break their Sila? I'm a strict vegetarian and non-alcoholic. But all my friends are non-vegetarians and alcohol consumers. So, when I host a party at my place, it becomes obligatory of me to host them with alcohol and non-vegetarian food (bought from a restaurant). Although, I have done this in the past, I have started to think if it is really right of me to do so, since I may be aiding them in breaking their Sila. But, coming from a culture where guests are to be treated as Gods, I also wonder if it will be rude of me to call them home and not serve to their liking.

So, should I, at the cost of hosting a boring(for them) party, appearing rude and risk losing their company, help them keep their Sila intact (if at all it does) at least for an evening? Or should I not bother about trying to combine preaching and hosting and keep my ethics limited to me?

P.S. I'm convinced that consumption of meat and alcohol is breaking of Sila in the true spirit of the Buddha's teachings, irrespective of how certain sects or traditions of Buddhism may justify alcohol and meat consumption.

"So, when I host a party at my place, it becomes obligatory of me to host them with alcohol and non-vegetarian food (bought from a restaurant). "

I don't see how it is obligatory. You could serve delicious vegetarian food and non-alcoholic drinks. If you take your Buddhist precepts you are not supposed break them yourself or encourage others to break them. I think your instincts on this are correct.

Would it be so boring? Have you spoken to your friends about this? Why not raise the subject and see what they say?


State of mind corrected by anti anxiety or anti depressants How does karma apply itself to an incarnation with a predisposition to aniexty who acts and reacts differently on no anti depressants , to the same incarnation who is not on mind control drugs.

Here are some thoughts on the topic, and i want to be clear that i'm not looking to argue for either of the alternatives of medication/no medication. Also, any question regarding the effects of medicine and the proper ordination has to be consulted with the doctor prescribing the medicine first hand.

If by karma you mean sila/moral consequences of medication, i don't believe a buddhist perspective differs from a layperson perspective on moral. Generally speaking, drugs that affect our actions in a way that risk being harmful to ourselves or others are illegal, and are not prescribed by doctors (I realize this is debatable).

On the other hand, if you're wondering about any form of consequence from a buddhist perspective one could argue that the use of medication is a form of tanha - desire for pleasant feelings, alternatively a desire for eliminating negative feelings - and as such can be a hindrance to develop a buddhist understanding of dependent origination, anatta or anicca, for instance.

However, one may argue that medication really doesn't do any difference to the fact that vedanas/skandhas are continually transforming independent of the choice of medication or no medication. One may very well be able to develop mindfulness and concentration in the buddhist sense either way, provided that the medication (and eventual side effects) doesn't affect your concentration or perception.

The aspects mentioned above regards medication, and could also be weighted against the option to live with unmedicated anxiety or depression, and deal with these things according to the buddhist noble eightfold path. I would argue that this is a matter of severity of symptoms, or the intensity of emotions, and that a buddhist approach to life is easier done in cases of lighter forms of negative emotions or mental illness. Also, the karmic effects of actions based on more severe emotional states of anxiety, depression or illness may very well be more concerning compared to how one goes about ones life with a prescribed and carefully planned medication.


Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to somewhat different future physical consequences (the physical aspect of the kamma-vipaka) I.e

Mr A and Mr B are virtually identical (only their names, positions in space etc. are different).

Mr A intends (x) and does x
Mr A receives y

Mr B intends (x) and does x
Mr B receives z

(I imagine that y and z are similar.)

❓Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to different fruit-of-kamma (kamma vipaka)?

❎ No, a specific cause has it's effect. But one may experiance it different and it's nearly impossible to act, in dependance in- and outwardly, in similar circumstances.

Cetana A has quality X followed by effect y
Cetana B has quality X followed by effect y

A x X = y - B x X = y => A=B

[Note: this gift of Dhamma has not be thought, is not dedicated, for any trade or wordily exchange or stacks]


What kind of mental state does the meditation on four elements generate? In the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN22), the mindfulness about the elements is taught:

  “There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the
  fire element, the wind element.”

  Just as though, monks, a clever butcher, or a butcher’s apprentice,
  after slaughtering a cow, were sitting down at a crossroads after
  dividing it into portions; even so, monks, a monk in regard to this
  very body, however placed, however disposed, reflects by way of the
  elements:
  “There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the
  fire element, the wind element.”

However I am unable to understand why we have to look at the elements from the clever butcher's point of view. What kind of mental state does the meditation on elements generate? Please explain the analogy in detail.

I don't know but maybe this passage about a skilled butcher from chapter III of the Book of Zhuang Zi is a clue.

  Prince Hui's cook was cutting up a bullock. Every blow of his hand,
  every heave of his shoulders, every tread of his foot, every thrust of
  his knee, every whshh of rent flesh, every chhk of the chopper, was in
  perfect harmony,—rhythmical like the dance of the Mulberry Grove,
  simultaneous like the chords of the Ching Shou.

  "Well done!" cried the Prince. "Yours is skill indeed."

  "Sire," replied the cook; "I have always devoted myself to Tao. It is
  better than skill. When I first began to cut up bullocks, I saw before
  me simply whole bullocks. After three years' practice, I saw no more
  whole animals.

  And now I work with my mind and not with my eye. When my senses bid me
  stop, but my mind urges me on, I fall back upon eternal principles. I
  follow such openings or cavities as there may be, according to the
  natural constitution of the animal. I do not attempt to cut through
  joints: still less through large bones.

  "A good cook changes his chopper once a year,—because he cuts. An
  ordinary cook, once a month,—because he hacks. But I have had this
  chopper nineteen years, and although I have cut up many thousand
  bullocks, its edge is as if fresh from the whetstone. For at the
  joints there are always interstices, and the edge of a chopper being
  without thickness, it remains only to insert that which is without
  thickness into such an interstice.

  By these means the interstice will be enlarged, and the blade will
  find plenty of room. It is thus that I have kept my chopper for
  nineteen years as though fresh from the whetstone.

  "Nevertheless, when I come upon a hard part where the blade meets with
  a difficulty, I am all caution. I fix my eye on it. I stay my hand,
  and gently apply my blade, until with a hwah the part yields like
  earth crumbling to the ground. Then I take out my chopper, and stand
  up, and look around, and pause, until with an air of triumph I wipe my
  chopper and put it carefully away."

  "Bravo!" cried the Prince. "From the words of this cook I have learnt
  how to take care of my life."

Since the elements are really expressing states i.e. water is not really water but liquid, wetness, changing, the idea is perhaps about the composition (and decomposition) of bodies. Individual bodies like yours and mine but also the larger structures we belong to: our families, our nations, the international community etc., which also function like bodies, where different people playing different roles and where mind work is at the top and support work is at the base. In starvation, the human body will take food from itself to feed the brain and keep it going and will only take from parts of the brain to feed the most important parts of the brain when it has no choice. And what is an ox/bullock in the ancient world? The source of work/energy. Hence harnessing/yoking and the plough.


Hereditary illness and kamma Many physical and mental illnesses are genetic or hereditary, whether partially or completely, the contributing factor is genetic, nevertheless.

For example, you are born into a family that has genetic illness e.g. anxiety disorder, compulsive disorder, cancer, diabetes, to name a few.

The question is, since genetic or hereditary illness will then pass down to your children.
If you get married and have children, as parents, are you doing bad kamma?

Hereditary illness or not...the offspring you will produce will become old, fall ill and die. The dukkha is inevitable. We may as well say that dukkha is hereditary to all humans so  should we have kids?

If your intention in having a child is good, if the child is born out of love and not lust, if child is born not out of any form of sexual misconduct...then you will be fine...there will be no bad kamma.


What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko"? I was reading through some Suttas and a word solitude was found. I looked up the original pali sutta for the word and found that word "Viveko" is getting translated as solitude.
I have a sanskrit background and I studied sanskrit when I was in 8th standard. The word Viveko seems to have been derived from the sanskrit word vivek.
Vivek means discretion , wisdom , true knowledge,investigation , consideration etc..but it does not mean solitude.(Solitude means privacy)
Here is the sutta which uses the word solitude :

  Two thoughts occur to him, The Tathāgata, the Awakened One Who endured
  what is beyond endurance: Security (for beings) was the first thought
  spoken of, Solitude was the second announced.

Its pali version is as follows :

  “Tathāgataṃ buddhamasayhasāhinaṃ,  Duve vitakkā samudācaranti naṃ;
  Khemo vitakko paṭhamo udīrito,  Tato viveko dutiyo pakāsito.

My question is : What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko" ?

According to this wisdomlib.org page, "viveka" in Pali means:

  viveka : (m.) detachment; seclusion.

  (Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

  Viveka, (fr. vi+vic) detachment, loneliness, separation, seclusion;
  “singleness” (of heart), discrimination (of thought) D. I, 37, 182;
  III, 222, 226, 283=S. IV, 191 (°ninna citta); S. I, 2, 194; IV, 365
  sq.; V, 6, 240 sq.; A. I, 53; III, 329; IV, 224; Vin. IV, 241; Sn.
  474, 772, 822, 851, 915, 1065; Nd1 158, 222; J. I, 79; III, 31; Dhs.
  160; Pug. 59, 68; Nett 16, 50; DhsA. 164, 166; ThA. 64; PvA. 43; Sdhp.
  471.—viveka is given as fivefold at Ps. II, 220 sq. and VbhA. 316, cp. K. S. I. 321 (Bdhgh on S. III, 2, 8), viz. tadaṅga°, vikkhambhana°,
  samuccheda° paṭippassaddhi°, nissaraṇa°; as threefold at Vism. 140,
  viz. kāya°, citta°, vikkhambhana°, i.e. physically, mentally,
  ethically; which division amounts to the same as that given at Nd1 26
  with kāya°, citta°, upadhi°, the latter equivalent to “nibbāna. ” Cp.
  on term Dial. I. 84. See also jhāna. Cp. pa°. (Page 638)

  (Source): Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

There is a sutta by this name, Viveka Sutta, or the sutta on seclusion.

According to Palikanon.com on viveka:

  viveka

  'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds:

  (1) bodily detachment (kāya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free
  from alluring sensuous objects;

  (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from
  sensuous things;

  (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka).

  In the description of the 1st absorption,

  the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kāmehi) refer,
  according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment';

  the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca
  akusalehi dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment';

  the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5
  hindrances.

This book excerpt discusses "viveka" and its different meanings in Pali and Sanskrit. It's too long to quote here.


Is understanding a phenomenon? Buddha says all phenomenon are nonself. If understanding is a phenomenon then my understanding of Dhamma will fade away and I will again fall into ignorance.
So my question is: is understanding a phenomenon?

At least yes, the Dhamma as a stand, or "my" understanding of Dhamma, all stands/views (diṭṭhī) have to be abounded at least, whereas the Dhamma (teching), the raft, will be abounded when having reached the other shore, see the "raft - simile". Note that it is the very last, and in no way good to abound fist or in the middle of the ozean.

Having layed down all views, seeing knowing as unreal as well, one then might reach what is called paññā-vimutti knowing-release, where all kinds of stands or views are abounded, would no more related to.

The word under-stand-ing it self shows well that it is a matter of "holding on it" (upādāna), yet there are Dhammas, there is a Dhamma, that is useable to get free of unreal, insecure (anicca) things.

The first step here is to distinguishing right understanding from wrong understanding: Micchatta Sutta: Wrongness, and after having developed the path completely, one, by abounding it also, gets free of troubles:

  Among those who live above confrontation
      not pitting view against view,
      whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?

  To Pasura

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


Why did the Buddha touch the earth at his enlightenment? At the Buddha's enlightenment, he pointed to the earth or touched the earth, meaning the earth (or world) was adequate witness to his spiritual accomplishment or new status, or, perhaps the only witness that would be acceptable to Mara. Mara accepted the witness. I do not understand the principle or truth of this event. Earth or the world seems to be personified in some way, or endowed with a capacity to accept or reject a plea for witnessing. Explanations and clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Thx.

PaPa, I believe touching the earth is a later addition to pali cannon, but i could be wrong.  Bodhirajakumara Sutta is one of the best sutta of autobiography of Bhudda.  Buddha also told Ven Anuruddha in dozens of sutta about himself from the history of sakaya clan, when he came down from Dusita into his mother's womb and so on to after the evening of enlightment.

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Bodhirajakumara_Sutta


What makes "Dhamma" worthy of worship? We as Buddhists consider "Dhamma / Dharma" to be holy.But do we know the reasons that make it holy?

Bodhidharma is the legendary founder of Zen in China. He is said to have arrived in China about 520 CE. (Buddhism had by then been known in China for about 400 years.) He was soon summoned to the emperor, who had questions for him.

  "I have endowed hundreds of temples and monasteries, and endorsed the ordination of thousands of monks and nuns; what is my merit?" -- the emperor asked.

  Bodhidharma, usually depicted as a scowling, hooded, bearded figure, shot back: "There is no merit."

  "What then is the main principle of the Holy Teaching?" the emperor asked.

  "Open, empty, nothing holy!" (廓然無聖) replied Bodhidharma.


Meditate mindfully instead of sleeping Often around 2:00 p.m. after eating, my body falls tired. So I have to stop studying. I am myself a long term meditator, but I rarely meditate when I am tired. Is meditation a good substitute for sleep? In other words, around 2:00 p.m., if I am going to meditate mindfully for an hour instead of sleeping, will this meditation be able to replace sleep?

Often around 2:00 p.m. after eating, my body falls tired.

Might be a good idea to investigate and tackle the root cause to your tiredness first. Is it because you don't get enough sleep at night? or you usually eat a big lunch? or the workload is too stressful?...etc. It's actually not a bad idea to take a brief afternoon nap for 20-30 minutes to recharge your battery so you can come back to work all fresh and ready. Anyway, you should listen closely to your body. Try test it out/experiment with both of them, and see how your body reacts..


Downfall of the Buddhist religion? I feel that Buddhism is not what it used to be (the original teachings of Lord Buddha). It has got corrupted and what is left mostly relates terminology and worldly-matter and excuses. For-example: recently I came across a question in which someone said Buddhism teaches it is okay to eat meat, drink wine, etc. with various excuses such as it's okay as long as the animal isn't killed particularly for you and so on. I think, like Christianity and Hinduism, the teachings of Buddha are mis-interpreted for one's own benefits and the discipline with which Buddhism started out has long faded. Neither remains the atheism which Buddha preached, for example see: this. People have forgotten the abstract concepts and the Buddhist way of life and instead focus on miracles, folklores and powers that Buddhists monks possess. The question: Do you think so too? If so, provide references of Buddha's teachings being mis-interpreted. If not, tell me then what was it that Buddha forbade, and if it was nothing, then why is Buddhism a religion? Shouldn't it be just living your life the usual way?

First, we can't tell with absolute certainty what is the original teachings of the Buddha -- unless we were there. In principle, any buddhist who says "this is the absolute original teachings of the Buddha" is putting forward a belief. A belief that may have varying degrees of proximity with the real facts. But that belief can be quite different from another buddhist living in a different buddhist culture.

So a question here is how can we tell what is original and what is not? People who misinterpret something think they interpret it right. How are these people different from "us", those who think interpret things right -- maybe we are the ones misinterpreting it. And what is the source of the information misinterpreted? A text? A teacher's word? A feeling?

Five hundred years after the Buddha, there were over 18 distinct names identifying distinct buddhist groups. These already disagreed with each other in some topics, so of course two thousand years later buddhists still disagree with each other over topics.

But also, there are buddhists and there are buddhists. For example, Brazil has a large percentage of catholics. Most likely, the great majority never read the bible. It's reasonable that many buddhists are buddhists due to being born in a culture of buddhism, but this does not mean such a person is familiar with the entire doctrine -- or with any word believed to be said by the Buddha. The general case is they don't know. There are even buddhist monks who didn't even know scriptures quoting the Buddha existed.

Moreover, just because there's a large population who are not quite engaged with their religion doesn't mean the religion is declining. After all, there are the buddhists who take it seriously, who dedicate their life to it.

Also, some people come here with varying degrees of knowledge of Buddhism and very distinct interests on Buddhism (e.g. super powers), who may not even be buddhists themselves, and may ask questions that are perceived as strange to some buddhists. But these questions are not evidence that buddhists are going bananas.

It seems to you Buddhism comprises some abstract concepts and way of life that you claim have been forgotten. But other Buddhists are following their traditions -- which they claim to be genuine -- or are reading old scriptures -- which they believe to contain the words of the actual Buddha. To them, Buddhism is being practiced. They think themselves to be genuine monks when they follow what they read in the scriptures, e.g., that the Buddha instructed them to not eat meat if they know the animal has being killed for them to eat it.

And to answer your question: yes, the Buddha forbade, in the sense that he instructed people to abstain of many kinds of actions.

But forbidding is inconsequential for a doctrine to be a religion or not. One could still spawn a religion by just saying what people should do or how people should understand their lives, etc.


Vipassana texts and books references request I just read Allan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" book. He cites vipashyana (or vipassana, vipassanā, vipaśyanā, lha-thong) but he doesn't deepen much on it.

Can you refer to some texts and books regarding this meditation?

Buddhanet contain a lot of meditation related ebooks on the topic which you can read. A good introductory book would be:

Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice
MINDFULNESS IN PLAIN ENGLISH
Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path

Also following questions on the site might be of interest also:

Introductory books to Buddhism
Beginner academic text recommendation
Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon


Kamma and the Physical Does kamma bind or work with the physical realm? Such as a tsunami will kill you, but you will also die in such a way due to past kamma?

Previous & current kamma can only effect(bind) if mind is impure.  It doesn't mean that such kammas are of no effect rather these form a certain pattern which generates sankharas at subconscious state. If Ignorance still remains, clinging affect is generated due to sankharas, if not then there is no clinging affect.

This is the reason why arhants don't get disturbed by previous kamma ,cause they have no ignorance left(as only full awareness) hence sankharas cannot affect their mind rather their subconscious mind starts cleaning itself by 'letting go & to never let them come back'.

Regarding punishment through nature , if Arhant has made a commitment to do something , no nature or power can stop ,otherwise ,Arhants always remain ready to give-off their body to remove all suffering a.s.a.p. ... Still whatever the punishment is given to such Noble ones , that doesn't let their mind fickle by even a single bit. They remain at peace.
 That's why , effect of kamma within body remains to the degree/amount of  Ignorance present.


Which suttas in the Pali canon give instructions for how to cultivate equanimity? Which suttas in the Pali Canon give flat out instructions for how to develop equanimity?

Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 1

Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 2 with commentary


What are the bad kammas that cause the person to go to hell? Is there any kamma that will definitely cause the guilty to go to hell, except the five anantariya bad kammas?

You can find some references in suttas of SN 42.
From Talaputa Sutta:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with,
who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on
things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin
with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more
aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage
in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion
to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even
more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on
stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
& heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

From Yodhajiva Sutta:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his
mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May
these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or
destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay
him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called
the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as
this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others
then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting
himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he
is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong
view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I
tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

From Kula Sutta:

"Headman, there are eight causes, eight reasons for the downfall of
families. Families go to their downfall because of kings, or families
go to their downfall because of thieves, or families go to their
downfall because of fire, or families go to their downfall because of
floods, or their stored-up treasure disappears, or their mismanaged
undertakings go wrong, or in the family a wastrel is born who
squanders, scatters, & shatters its wealth, and inconstancy itself is
the eighth. These are the eight causes, the eight reasons for the
downfall of families. Now, when these eight causes, these eight
reasons are to be found, if anyone should say of me, 'The Blessed One
is practicing for the ruin of families, the Blessed One is practicing
for the demise of families, the Blessed One is practicing for the
downfall of families' — without abandoning that statement, without
abandoning that intent, without relinquishing that view — then as if
he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell."

From Sankha Sutta:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this
doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a
state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal...
All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are
destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A
disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him,
'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take
life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell."
There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a
state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that
view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state
of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be
carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds
this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit
sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of
deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told.
I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.'
He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine,
doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then
as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.

From the Dhammapada:

Just as a border city is closely guarded both within and without, even so, guard yourself. Do not let slip this opportunity (for
spiritual growth). For those who let slip this opportunity grieve
indeed when consigned to hell.


Does the middle way apply to objects as well as the skandhas? Does the middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way?

  The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of
  practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and
  self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the
  extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism.

That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'.

Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

The middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- does apply to objects. Objects are neither existent nor not existent. They are interpretative imputations made on the basis of multiple causes and conditions temporarily coming together in their non-stop motion, transformation, and interaction.

Objects we have consciousness of are not "made of" substance, according to Mahayana Buddhists. Objects are interpretative imputations made by the observer. The so-called material substance is but a small part of all conditions, combination of which leads to arising of this particular delineation and designation.


How to practice mindfulness during job hours Is there any way to stay mindful when your mind is busy at work?

It is not an easy task to stay mindful as a software developer. I am one myself, and I even wrote a book on that matter.

There are three things I consider important for myself.

First: I practice meditation when I am not working. This gives me the roots I need.

Second: I need to interrupt my daily workflow so I can remember my practice and what I learned from it.

Third: I need to focus on work when I am working and focus on the rest, when I am not working. Which means: no Facebook at work time. But when I become tired at work, I interrupt my workflow and practice.

For interruption, I use several tools which change from time to time. Influenced from Zen, I sometimes walk mindful: Kinhin. Or I cook the best cup of tea possible. Or I just meditate in my chair.

When you have interrupted work and you feel you are mindful, go back to work and hack. Give yourself "focus times". Don't waste your time with other things.

Working as a software developer means, your mind is occupied by a technology problem. Sometimes you cannot feel your body, because you are concentrated on the problem. I don't think this is bad. Just interrupt when your mind/body demands it, and go back to the analogue life. Sticking with the digital life is as bad as sticking with the analogue life alone (at least for us programmers).

You may also want to read another Zen programming related blog post of mine, in which I wrote about some of my thoughts on working.


Is there a mudra associated with renouncement? For meditation purpose, and for appeasing suffering, I think I need a symbol associated with renouncement.

Is there a mudra that would particularly fit with this idea ?
Or a symbol that would come to your mind ?

Perhaps there's one called the shramanamudrâ (see also Śramaṇa).


can I become a monk with schizophrenia? can I become a monk if i have schizophrenia?
I have to take a shot every two weeks and I do hear voices every once in a while

Householder Goudakid, interested,

whether a Bhikkhu gives one ordination as Samanera (Novice monk) or the Community of a particular Sangha of Bhikkhus also higher ordination is aside of some limitations the Buddha gave, total up the Bhikkhu(s), an act of compassion and not something anybody whould ever have a right to. Thats importand. And the Sangha should be never seen as common social institution for a living.

Whether one goes for and gets ordained, even at good or bad communities is, how ever a matter of Upanissaya (strong conditions = dependent on strong paccaya, kamma, of past and present).

There would be limitations for higher ordinations in regard of grave illness since hard for the community to look after sick and not pleasing for supporters. But even if the case that one gets ordained, such would be not invalid, yet a wrong doing for the one who gives ordination.

As for novice, there are less formal questions which would limit aside of the always invalid criterias.

My person could not even generally say that hearing voices might be an illness at all categorical.

As long as not real "stupid" or holding grave wrong views, there is less limitation and the best way to get ones own possibility and the possibility of the Bhikkus known is simply to start (if allowed) to live with them and serve at monasteries, taking min eigth precepts.

Usually good monks would not close any possibility and seek for the best way for one, yet are limited in suggesting and it requires all that one would ask for what ever one desires. So own initative is needed and wrong shame (to do good things) may be strong hindrance, since nobody would invite you to make good choices and ask for accessing good areas and giving.

The more honest one approaches and speaks, the more wise people have possibilities to help and such is needed for the grow into the holly life.

Illness, if even a "real" one, are not for sure and nothing heals more than precepts and the holly life and my person would nothing but encourage to such, even if "only just" in white and serving the Tripple Gems. Don't householder wast long time and struggle around with doubts and go after a blessed good mindstate and seek for it, since good mindstates are seldom and not lasting.

Much success and if having further questions he may also feel welcome here, where are also not so public areas.

There are some related answers als well:

[Q&A] Meditation for Psychosis - Can Dhamma help for mental problems
When is the best time for ordination?

  Now. Don't waste time. Also good Intentions are not for sure.

Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms

(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment but as means for kusala deeds out of this wheel)


Which aggregate (khandha) is or generates 'suffering'? When the mind or person experiences 'suffering' ('dukkha'), which 'aggregate' ('khandha') is producing this suffering or which aggregate does this suffering fall into?

I don't have the complete meditative experience or knowledge of the Dhamma to be able to fully comprehend the intents behind the teachings of the Five Aggregates and Twelve Nidanas, but I think I have some insights. I suspect that they are observable abstracted analysis of the complex working of the mind rather than actual entities within the mind itself - just as the body is only labeled 'form', but can be further analyzed in it's components such as the organs, or states of solidity, liquidity, gas and heat (earth, water, wind, and fire in ancient terminology). In this sense I believe the mental aggregates overlap in functions.

For example, the mind and mental activities in normal daily linguistic usage can be divided into feelings/sensation, thoughts, emotions, memories. Psychologists can probably further divide them according to various theories.

So Vedanā - commonly translated as sensations, is the observable feeling of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral when our internal sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the associated consciousness.

Sañña - typically translated as "perception" or "cognition." Interestingly in Chinese this is translated as 想 - "thoughts". So this is our thinking mind

Saṅkhāra - 'volitional formations' mental formation etc. I think this generally the emotional response. The Chinese translation 行 has a meaning of 'action'/'execution'.

And finally the Viññāṇa 'consciousness' seems to be the catch all bucket for the general 'state' of the mind. You can have a pure consciousness, defiled consciousness and so forth.

As we can see, some functions of this overlaps, but the division help us focus our attention of where to comprehend things from.

In the Satipatthana.
The four domains are:
mindfulness of the body
mindfulness of feelings or sensations
mindfulness of mind or consciousness
mindfulness of dhammās.

  Satipaṭṭhāna  Ānāpānasati

  Contemplation of the body

  Breathing long (Knowing Breath)
  Breathing short (Knowing Breath)
  Experiencing the whole body
  Tranquillising the bodily activities

  Contemplation of feelings

  Experiencing rapture
  Experiencing bliss
  Experiencing mental activities
  Tranquillising mental activities

  Contemplation of the mind

  Experiencing the mind
  Gladdening the mind
  Centering the mind in samadhi
  Releasing the mind

  Contemplation of Dhammas

  Contemplating impermanence
  Contemplating fading of lust
  Contemplating cessation
  Contemplating relinquishment

The last one contemplation of the Dhamma is essentially a contemplation of all phenomena and of Truth.

The division of the mind into the four aggregates allow you to focus and observe the phenomena of impermanence, suffering and selflessness within them.

This is useful because we commonly suffer due to attachment to our feelings, thoughts, emotions, memories, consciousness.

The Buddha reminds us that all the aggregates are impermanent and hence subject to cessation, and hence attachment to all of them is suffering. They are not self because we don't have full control of them. But a positive way to look at it would also be that each of them is caused and conditioned, and we can try to create good causes to have good results. For example having good thoughts and enjoying the pleasant emotions and sensations resulting from that, without being attached to the loss of those sensations when the conditions ends.


Reference for the teaching of not-self I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one?

Not-self (Anatta) is a teaching which is difficult even to understand by an advanced practitioner. Anatta Lakhana Sutta is the direct teaching of this doctrine.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html


What is mental phenomenon? Every internal sense organ comes along with corresponding external organ. For example eye comes along with form, ear comes along with sound, nose comes along with smell , mind comes along with mental phenomenon.
I am aware of the meaning of form or sight , sound , smell etc .. but I am not sure what is meant by mental phenomenon?
When eye and form/sight come together eye consciousness arises.
When nose and smell come to together nose consciousness arises.

In both the statement above it is clear from my experience what is sight and smell. But when we say mind and mental phenomenon come together mind consciousness arises, it is not clear from my experience ,what is the mental phenomenon? Is mental pehnomenon the memory of past or the simulation of future or is it the dream or is it the speech ?
There are different types of tastes ,colors ,odours, touch etc... Are there different types of mental phenomenon also?

Phenomena source is one of the twelve sources. It is apprehended only by mental consciousnesses: In Commentary to the Middle-Length Lamrim, Geshe Jampa Gyatso says:

  The twelve sources are the six object-possessors (the eye source, ear
  source, nose source, tongue source, body source, and mental source)
  and the six objects (form source, sound source, odor source, taste
  source, tangible object source, and phenomena source).

There are two types of mental consciousnesses:

Conceptual consciousnesses
Non-conceptual mental consciousnesses

An example of a conceptual consciousness is a memory-consciousness. Examples of non-conceptual mental consciousnesses are the five clairvoyances, and dream-consciousnesses. The five clairvoyances are: minds apprehending minds in the continuum of other persons, the divine eye, and so forth.

If it is a phenomena source, it cannot be apprehend by a sense consciousness. However, if it is a mental consciousness, it does not necessarily apprehend phenomena source. For example, the divine eye apprehends actual form (i.e. form which is form source).

Furthermore, an example of a mental consciousness apprehending phenomena source is a dream-consciousness. A dream-car is called 'form that is not form source but phenomena source', it is not fully qualified form. In Commentary to Lorig, Geshe Tenzin Tenphel says:

  The blue of a dream is a phenomena source, an object of mental
  consciousness, whereas actual blue is a form source, an object of eye
  consciousness.

An example of a valid conceptual consciousness is a memory-consciousness remembering one's mother. Its appearing object is a mental image, and the actual mother is the object of engagement. A mental image is a phenomena source, and therefore a conceptual consciousness apprehends its object of engagement by way of a phenomena source appearing.

According to Asanga and Vasubandhu's Abhidharma texts, here are five examples of phenomena source:

Dream-objects
Kasinas (such as the water or earth kasina to the perspective of a yogi)
Appearances of hair falling, etc. appearing to an eye that is subject to disease.
The appearance of two moons when there is one moon in actuality.
The appearance of an actual face when we look at the reflection of a face in the mirror.


Unable to sustain mindfulness on subtle breath I noticed in my practice that I was unable to sustain my attention on breath when it became relatively subtle . Is this because my mindfulness is not mature enough to hold on to subtle objects of meditation? What sort of action could help me to overcome this?

There is nothing wrong with losing your focus of the breath, as long as wherever the mind goes, you are aware of that moment. That is, in my view, perfect practice. You are not restricting yourself to the breath or anything. Which is correct! Wherever the mind goes, it goes... you can't control it. So by simply watching where the attention of the mind falls upon, you are fully focused in the moment. Just like watching a butterfly gently landing onto different flowers, being carried by the wind. We have no idea how strong the wind will blow nor do will know in which direction... but, you can still watch the butterfly attentively, as it lands.

But that's just my view. My understanding of correct practice.
Metta.