Why I keep repeating the same mistakes? I am new to Tibetan Buddhism and I am fascinated by it. One thing that bothers me in general is that I keep making the same mistakes. For example, every now and then I find myself procrastinating which has harmed me a lot. I came to know how cognitive psychology and neuroscience explain this behavior. It's the neural patterns that is hard wired in my brain because how I have been reacting to situations for a long time. Neurons that fire together wire together. But how Tibetan Buddhism addresses this issue? I heard from Khenpo Sherab Sangpo understanding a teaching intellectually and experiencing the teaching is two different things which made me think that there must be a spiritual aspect of this problem. I would really appreciate it if someone can help me see the spiritual side of this. Thanks!

In essence, this is about the self wanting control, or more precisely, the illusion of self and control. I think this is exactly what Khenpo Sherab Sangpo meant when saying that teaching and experiencing are different things: nobody can just tell you that self and the control the self wants are illusions, it's something you need to experience.
This sounds extremely esoteric, but if you think about it, it's really not. You can't really convey any human experience to anyone else who hasn't had that experience, even something extremely simple like what coffee tastes like. You can only use words to try to convey the experience, but words are limited and often have associations unrelated to the experience you're trying to convey.
The first step I would recommend you to take is to stop labeling the process as a mistake, as this gives cause to negative feelings. Try to observe the chain of mental causation that leads to procrastinating or "mistakes". Do not judge or try to analyze, just become aware of the process. After a while, you will see that there is "space" between the arising thoughts and the feelings they invoke. Again, this is something you need to learn to experience, not just be told. The first phase of meditation is, in essence, to become aware of this process and learn to observe it without judging or reacting to it from those spaces in arising thoughts. Only after you've become comfortable with this can you turn to the "why" behind this process.
Hope this helps.


How should a theravada centre approach the lay people for support? I was planning to visit a centre, so first I checked their webpage, I thought they are a lit too pushy when it comes to donations, asking for money in a very explicit way to pay their bills. OK, let me be fair, they have bills to pay and utilities can be expensive sometimes.

I have more experience with Mahayana (eventhough I follow Theravada now) and in the two centres I have been to, I have never seen similar thing, so it makes me wonder, why? Maybe their funding structures are different, more robust, I dont know...

Is there anything in the Vinaya that can help? What are the limits when it comes to asking for money?

My favorite essay on dana is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "No Strings Attached:
The Buddha's Culture of Generosity".

In it Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out the main criteria Buddha himself set for right dana (AN 6.37):

  The donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is inspired; and after giving, is gratified. These are the three factors of the donor…

  The recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.

He then goes on to show that explicitly asking for donations goes against the above:

  In pressuring retreatants to give to teachers, it doesn't lead to gladness before giving, and instead sounds like a plea for a tip at the end of a meal. The frequent efforts to pull on the retreatants' heartstrings as a path to their purse strings betray a lack of trust in their thoughtfulness and leave a bad taste.

He mainly argues against putting hard dana amounts on dharma talks (making them paid lectures), but I feel it does apply to your case as well.

It's not clear what he proposes instead though, he does not really explain it at great details:

  The ideal solution would be to provide a framework whereby serious Dhamma practitioners could be supported whether or not they taught. ... a genuine culture of dana ...

I personally believe in membership fees. Those lay people who are associated with a given Dharma Center for a long time, could organize a sort of PTA club (with optional membership!), collect membership fees among themselves, and then donate them to the center.


Intensifying sensations during meditation after switching to an Ayuverdic lifestyle I've been a Vipassana meditator for some time (2 10-day retreats and regular meditation on a near-daily basis). I've found it tremendously helpful and life changing. I'm also a type-1 diabetic.

I sought the advice of a good Ayuverda doctor near me and started following his guidelines for what to eat/not to in accordance with my "prakriti".

I eat mostly vegetables and rarely ever touch meat. I've been eating very healthy and have noticed a lot of improvements in overall wellbeing.

However, I have been experiencing some bizarre things in my meditation. Extremely intense emotions and sensations began to arise in my body and it makes me wonder if a cleaner diet had anything to do with it. I feel a constant clenching and tightness in my whole neck which goes up to the left side of my head up the jaw. I feel much more from the left side of my chest. Various sensations have begun to arise from there and it makes me wonder if this is a natural evolution when one goes along the path.

I am constantly in touch with my healthcare team and have a clean bill of health even after many years with diabetes. I feel much more in my body, but cannot describe it to my doctors as i feel this has something to do with my awarenss gained from meditation. Unfortunately, I use cannabis (trying to quit) and feel that the cannabis greatly intensifies very unpleasant sensations, particularly in the chest area where I even feel some stabbing pain and burning.

Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation? Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis? I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.

First, good to hear that you have your health in check thanks to the medical care you mention. With their attention, we could likely rule out the medical aspect of your sensations. However, i can't tell from your description if they have been consulted about the tightness in the neck and head you describe.

  Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation?

It's more likely that eating vegetables keeps you from being dull or drowsy, by staying away from food that requires a lot of energy to digest. In fact, the sixth buddhist precept has this particular purpose.

  Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis?

According to buddhism, substances keeps us in an unbalanced way of life due to craving (tanha). If you manage to reduce your craving habits it will help you develop better karma for yourself, in turn helping calm and concentration in accordance with the fifth buddhist precept.

This goes primarily for cannabis, as it is altering your perception/concentration, but also to a lesser extent coffee, since caffeine can prevent you from developing samatha or tranquility during meditation.

  I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.

The experiences you have are addressed in many different traditions of thought. Buddhism very much provides a framework for understanding and dealing with your questions, but may/may not correspond to ayurvedic practice (i know practically nothing about those things).

Put shortly, what you are experiencing could be considered citta sankhara, or formations of perception as a result of your habits, generally speaking. Provided it's not a medical cause for your sensations, they will probably be stilled if you continue your meditation practice.


Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why? My preference would be a Theravada based answer to the following question:

Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and
why?

Thank you. :)

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the five most important texts within KN are:

Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")
Theragata & Therigata
Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")

The Dhammapada is hardcore and to the point.
The Itivuttaka is easy to read, heartwood and contains some important explanatory teachings that appear not found elsewhere (eg. Iti 44, Iti 49, Iti 96); even though these teachings are related to the core teachings of the suttas.
The Udana is fun but appears to contain some probably belated, miraculous yet amusing texts (such as new born children talking dhamma). It also contains lots of hardcore illuminating wisdom teachings.
The Theragata & Therigata are mature.
I listed Sutta Nipata on the bottom because, due to its nature of often being in "verse" (vs "prose"), the language is often more archaic thus vague. Also, it contains what appear to be belated texts, such as Metta & Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The other texts are best avoided, appearing to be belated texts loaded with superstition & wrong views, such as Jataka, other past lives books & Milindapanha. These texts do show however how quickly the Buddha-Dhamma degenerated. The Paṭisambhidāmagga commentary was obviously not composed by Venerable Sariputta and is often inaccurate.


Can you be a Buddhist if you don't believe in reincarnation? Can I still consider myself a "Buddhist" if I don't believe in reincarnation??

I think to call yourself a Buddhist or practice the buddhist teaching you should at least believe in cause and effect.Maybe not in past lives but in the here and now.When you can see cause and effect clearly in the present then you'll infer that the same principle applies after death.

Things you do  in this life will have some effect after.(Future rebirth)

There must be something you did before that caused you to be here now in this life.(Past Birth)

Note: Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation.Please search this site for more info.


Does Buddha bless all human beings? Unlike all other gods and deities, Buddha blesses everyone on this earth without caring who is believing in his techniques (Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). But god wouldn't bless someone unless he starts praying.

I read about Buddha and his Dhamma from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. God wouldn't bless unless you wouldn't pray. God is just like wanting bribe from the worshiper, god examines it's devotee. Also It wouldn't accept a person as his devotee unless he wouldn't convert his religion that god is made for.

But I'm sure Buddha blesses everyone and until now. Is Buddha still blessing us all human beings?

The Buddha's teaching continues to bless us so I suppose the Buddha is still blessing those that discovered his teaching.

The Buddha isn't magic. The Buddha's teaching blesses the one who practices the teaching. The teaching (AKA The Dhamma) isn't magic as well, it's practical and it's sober although magic can happen. Check this out:

Here from the Mangala Sutta are the concise answers given by The Buddha to the question,"What is a blessing"?

Not being around fools
Being around the wise
Remembering the honorable
Having one‘s abode in a suitable place for safe practice
Having done meritorious actions
The pursuit of higher understanding
Being rich in knowledge
Being rich in skill
to be highly restrained ethically
Using only well-spoken words
Supporting one's parents
Caring for the family
Unconfused actions
Generosity
Right living
Caring for one‘s relatives
Refraining from unskillful things
To abhor unwholeseome things
To avoid unwholesome things
To avoid intoxicants
Diligence in righteousness
Reverence
Humility
Contentment
Gratitude
Hearing the Dhamma at the right time
Patience
Compliance
Seeing the monks
Discussing the Dhamma
Self-restraint
A holy life
Seeing The Four Noble Truths
Realizing Nibbana
A heart not trembling, unshaken
A heart not trembling, sorrowless
A heart not trembling, stainless
A heart not trembling, secure
(from Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Nipata 2.4)

The Buddha probably does bless even people that have never heard of the Buddha. The good karmic actions of Dhamma practice should have a ripple effect on many people. :) metta


Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism? The question says it all.
I'm not much familiar with either. I've read the book of Tao a few times and have read a few Buddhist scriptures.

To me they seem so different and so alike at the same time, but I barely have any surface knowledge to draw any conclusions.

There are many different kinds of Daoism and many different kinds of Buddhism. All with different views on important issues. Generally speaking Chinese Daoism and Indian Buddhism are different in their worldview, aims, and methods. However, Chinese Buddhism is massively influenced by Taoism and vice versa, over the entire history of Buddhism in China, so they can sometimes seem related.

The most salient different might be with respect to nature. Daoists aim to be in harmony with nature, through balancing out opposites, and through this to attain physical immortality. Indian Buddhists saw nature as the problem and escaping from rebirth in the world as the answer to this problem. On the other Buddhist these days are quite interested in environmental issues as an extension of Green politics and notions of compassion and are thus also quite interested in nature these days.

Daoists believe in a soul that survives death; Indian Buddhists believed that nothing like a soul can exist. Though arguably Buddhists capitulated to a soul when they invented "Buddha nature".

The methods of Daoism aim to bring about balance of the elements. The methods of Buddhism aim to help us see that our views about the elements are wrong and through seeing them correctly we can be free from being composed of them.

And so on.

However the massive influence of Daoism on Chinese Buddhism means that an understanding of Daoism is very relevant for understanding East Asian forms of Buddhism. The influence began at least with the earliest translations of Buddhist texts into Chinese. For example the character 道 was used to translate dharma and marga (way); and the character 神 is a term from Daoism that generally means “spirit”, “soul”, (sometimes translated as ‘divinity’). It is also used to translate Sanskrit ṛddhi “supernatural power”, anubhava “power, majesty”, or deva.

Later Daoism was profoundly influential on Zen Buddhism, and Zen has been one of the most influential forms of Buddhism in America (less so in Europe). According to one source Daoim introduced "elements like the concept of naturalness, distrust of scripture and text, and emphasis on embracing 'this life' and living in the 'every-moment'." Dumoulin, Heisig, & Knitter. Zen Buddhism: A History (2005).

Re spelling: "Daoism" uses the modern Pinyin system of transliteration for the Chinese character 道 i.e. dào; whereas the older and largely deprecated Wade-Giles system transcribes it tao. Apparently there is much discussion over which is "correct". I prefer Pinyin, but one can argue that Taoism is an existing Anglicisation that ought not to be affected by fashions in transcription.

The question has some crossover with others questions:

Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism?
Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma.
Was the influence of Taoism on Buddhism responsible for the development of Mahayana?


"Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence" "Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence"
I'd like to listen to your opinion about this.

The desire to live a good life with ambition, and be reborn into another good life, is due to the craving for existence (bhava tanha).

The desire to die as soon as possible, and not be reborn, is due to the craving for non-existence (vibhava tanha).

The idea of rebirth or non-rebirth is different from the desire for rebirth or non-rebirth. Ideas are merely mental formations (sankhara).

Also, what "rebirth" actually means, depends on the definition.

Some people see it as the rebirth of the same consciousness (or some other kind of unchanging thing like a "soul") from one lifetime to another. This type of rebirth was refuted by the Buddha.

The other type of "rebirth" is a chain of the succession of related changing processes that are dependently originated based on conditions. This type of rebirth was taught by the Buddha.

The Buddha also taught that suffering is ended only by ending craving and attaining Nibbana, not by death or suicide.


Buddhism broke up my marriage The title is provocative but sums up my problem: when I am immersed in Buddhist thought, I can no longer love my wife.

Buddhism clearly contradicts romantic love. It tolerates it up to a certain point: but in the absolute, the practitioner is invited to (or naturally abandons) his wife to become a monk.

To love one's wife romantically: it is to discriminate, it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbour for example, it is therefore to judge and prioritise. It is also to become attached: not wanting to share his wife, wanting to be with her, being sad when she is not there. It is impossible to love your wife romantically without becoming attached and/or without discriminating, putting her on a pedestal.

In the end, Buddhism invites us to be indiscriminate and have only unattached love (metta). From this point on, how can one continue to be married if one is sincere in one's practice? Love your wife in this way, unattached and loving her as much as anyone else, and tell me that she is satisfied.

The Buddhist ideal love is not romantic. Even if in theory the disciple can reach the sotapanna stage by staying married, isn't it hypocritical to stay married with that in mind? To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards? How can you love your wife romantically, find her attractive, desirable and endearing, when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain and dissatisfaction and come to an end?

I'm not clear, I'm mixing everything up, but I'm really frustrated and angry. If I had realized all this before I got married, I wouldn't have done it. But here's the thing, now I'm married, and I feel trapped. Either I stay with her and make a cross on the Nibbana, or I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha did and I make her suffer. How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever and you directly perceive the dukkha of this relationship?

As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously. I hope that I am clear, I expect the usual answers "it is not all black and white, a married disciple can reach sotapanna" etc., but this kind of arguments do not work with me, I live them as pure hypocrisy. I should forget the impermanence and the dukkha of our relationship, stay in the sweet reassuring illusion of our romantic love and tell her that I love her knowing that I should abandon her after sotapanna?

I love her, that's not the problem, I'm angry that my commitment contradicts the absolute truths of Buddhism and is an obstacle to my progress. I hope I am clear and that you understand me...

In short: how do you succeed in loving your wife romantically and not abandoning her when you know that you will need to abandon her after sotapanna, that you will never be able to reach Nibbana by loving her, when you see directly the dukkha of your marriage, when you know that it is touched from the start by the seal of impermanence, when you know that it is an attachment from which you will have to free yourself, and so on?

To put it plainly: how can one love one's wife romantically when this act contradicts all the truths of Buddhism? By deliberately remaining lukewarm and settling for half-truths?

I don't suppose that any of us are qualified to advise you on your marriage or the optimal duration of it.

In theory, I really don't think it's fair to say that Buddhist love is non-romantic.  The Nakulamata Sutta (AN 4:55) is a perfect counter-example; it is a promise the Buddha gave to a blissfully married couple to be united again in the next life.  The text is certainly much sappier, I would say, than any Hallmark movie or Valentine card.

I would say that even with a complete embrace of, and transformation within, the Buddhist dharma, one still has whatever karmic obligations in this life that one had before.  Nobody can say, well, I wouldn't have accumulated this credit-card debt if I were a Buddhist, so now that I am a Buddhist I won't pay the debt.  And likewise a convicted felon will still have to serve a prison sentence, even after taking refuge; a recovering alcoholic will still struggle with health problems in the short term; etc.  Being bound to a spouse with wedding vows is a very mild form of karma, all things considered.

I would think that if you really are a Buddhist, than upholding the reputation of the Enlightened One, the Teaching, and (more to the point) the Community should be a much higher priority than your own purity and practice.  Would it cause pain, if you simply announced to your wife, "I don't need a wife anymore.  I'm a Buddhist now"?  Would it (somehow) make her more likely to take refuge and discover the benefits of the Way for herself?

I would advise that Buddhism, like many other non-mainstream philosophical movements or self-help doctrines, tend to attract seekers and people struggling for answers.  Even in the Buddha's own time, recent converts were regarded with a healthy skepticism.  If you really are growing apart from your wife, the reason is much more likely to lie within yourself than simply following the dharma to the letter.  Perhaps you feel that your wife is holding you back and lacks the potential to help you live your best life; and phrasing it as an issue preventing progress in the Buddha path sounds holier and gives you permission to voice your true feelings?

Again, you still owe some amount of fealty to your spouse simply because you took a spouse; but if you no longer feel "attached" then it's okay to respectfully discuss that with her.  But I would talk to a therapist first.


Possible for "Hungry Ghosts" to gain path? Possible to help them out? Is it possible for states/beings of that of hungry ghosts to gain path? Is it possible to help them?

Or is providing food, in the case they had done merits before, all what one could do for them in their state?

For context and understanding, see also: Escape possible for internets “hungry ghost”? and What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?

In the traditional presentation, pretta (hungry ghosts or shadows) are stuck in a (subjective) world where everything is fake, particularly food - including the metaphorical food of love - but also anything of value: gold, gems, everything. Even friendship is fake. Even Dharma is fake.

They see something that looks like it might be real, and being extremely under-nutritioned, they run and eagerly jump on that promissing source of happiness - but alas, as everything else in their world it turns out to be fake.

What's interesting about a pretta state, in their world they have the same sun, same moon, same rain etc. as we have. However, because of their distorted perception, the sun does not warm them, the moon rays burn them, and the rainwater appears as pee.

It is said that the predominant emotions of prettas are those of frustration and disgust, with regular swings of momentary hope and bitter disenchantment mixed in. Because they are ever energy-hungry, they're constantly looking for something, anything (they don't know what), they see something that gives them hope, but when they come closer it looks as fake as everything else.

It is said, that in order to help hungry ghosts, Buddha must lure them with metaphorical gems, lure them with something shiny and valuable. So when Buddha descents to pretta worlds, he wears his best clothes, carries along a very rich entourage, and in general creates a rather strong impression. The goal is to give them confidence in the Buddha (and by extension Dharma) by being rich, happy, satisfied, strong, and stable.

When presenting Dharma to prettas, Buddha emphasizes that Dharma is the only reliable, infallible, invariably true teaching, and the only real, satisfying, nutritious, healthy food.

Prettas crave something real to rely on, so the way to lure them out of their misery is to give them something firm they can hold on to, something that works - but also something that will keep them busy for a long time, so they don't get tired of it and switch back to seeking new food.

Which is why when going to pretta world and teaching prettas, Buddha emphasizes gradual step-by-step practice. Every step must be directly verifiable and practice must have visible outcome, so students have a sense of progress. This sense of progress and pride then becomes their food that finally gives real nutrition.

For example, the first step for pretta may be a vow to not kill dragons. Of course, there are no dragons in the pretta world, so they can't kill them - but by taking this vow and feeling good about successfully keeping it, they start the good cycle. Small wins like this are the kind of steps that provide energy to move in the right direction.


Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea? Are there ever situations where practicing mindfulness is not recommended during Buddhist practice. Could it ever have undesirable side effects or cause hindrances on the path. Or is it always the case that the more one practices mindfulness the better?

The motivation for this question comes from my own practice. I've really felt recently that mindfulness can have a negative effect on me. Perhaps swelling the ego and a lot of time contemplating what my emotions are, what I am doing and what I am thinking. This has ultimately seem very inward looking and counterproductive.

I don't really expect or want someone to diagnose my own particular quirks (you can have a go if you really want). But I do want to know if there is general advice from established teachers about the possible negative side effects of mindfulness practice and when it might be contraindicated.

Yes, practicing mindfulness can be a bad idea.

When one practices mindfulness, he opens his eyes and comes to see more and more things that were previously unnoticed. That is the reason why beginners tend to think "When I sit on a cushion, there's a fireworks of thoughts, images, etc. coming to my mind. It seems like an endless waterfall of thoughts, etc.". This is a mistaken conception, though, since these "fireworks" were actually already present, but merely unnoticed. Thus, cultivating mindfulness (along with vigilance) helps one understand better what delusions are the master of him. He also comes to feel that he is enslaved by these afflictions (which is a necessary step in Dharma practice, since it leads to generate the wish to abandon afflictions, recognizing them as the origins of suffering).

All this is painful and stirs the mind quiet a lot. Through cultivating mindfulness, we exhume "demons" that we might not be able to face yet, or to understand. We might shed the light on things we are not able to look at yet. That is one of the reason it is necessary to rely to a teacher who gives you practical (and boring) exercises and with whom you have interview every so often. Moreover, opening one's eyes is necessary but not sufficient. We have to change what we pay attention to and the way we pay attention to them (these are usually part of the exercises). This is difficult because karma drives us to pay attention to always the same things that feed our deluded mind more and more. In addition to relying on a teacher, one must study, because by way of studying the teachings of the Buddha, you will come to know what to pay attention to, where to look, and how.


What's the difference between remorse and shame of evil? Remorse or regret (kukucca) is supposed to be unwholesome, while shame of evil (hiri) is wholesome.

What is the difference between the two? Why is one wholesome, while the other isn't?

The answer below is according to the Abhidhamma.

Hiri and ottapa are both universal wholesome mental factors or universal beautiful factors.

There are in total 25 of those universal beautiful factors. Universal means that they all come together in one bunch. So, if there is hiri in the mind, then there is also ottapa in the mind together with all the other 23 universals. Other universal beauties are for instance: sati, faith, non-greed, non-hatred, tranquility and so on.

According to the Abhidhamma each factor can be defined by 4 things: it's characteristic, it's function, it's manifestation and it's proximate cause.
The function of hiri and ottapa is not doing evil. They manifest as shrinking away from evil. The Buddha called them the guardians of the world. Because they protect the world from immorality.

In short: hiri and ottapa prevent you from doing evil deeds in body, speech and mind.

Now to the unwholesome factors of which kukkucca is one.

There are 14 unwholesome factors. To name a few:

ahirika = shamelessness
anottappa = fearlessness of wrongdoing
kukkucca = worry in the sense of remorse
uddhacca = restlessness

As with the beautiful factors the unwholesome ones know some universals. In this case there are 4 universal unwholesome factors, meaning they appear as a group. These 4 are: delusion (moha), shamelessness (ahiri), fearlessness of wrongdoing (anottappa) and restlessness (uddhacca).

So, in any and every mind state with moha, there is also ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca present.

Worry/remorse (kukkucca) on the other hand is not universal, it's part of the aversion group. Meaning that worry appears only in mind states that are rooted in aversion.

So, whenever you experience kukkucca there is also moha there and ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca (since they are all universals). But if there is moha there, together with ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca, worry doesn't have to be present.
Think for instance of a mind state rooted in greed. That does know restlessness, but not worry/remorse.

Kukkucca comes up after you have done something wrong.

So, not only will moha, ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca not protect you from doing wrong. On top of that you will be rewarded with kukkucca arising. And then you are in double trouble.....

Hope this helps to clarify things.


What is the difference between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya? Within the Trikāya doctrine (the bodies of the Buddha) I've never felt very clear about the differences between the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya. I believe that the  Nirmanakaya is the physicality of the Buddha (happy to be corrected on this) but I'm vague about what Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are and how they relate to each other.

I'd appreciate if anyone can summarise the differences and the relations between them. I'm interested in answers from all traditions - I'm unsure if there are variations in interpretations of the doctrines across Buddhist schools and traditions to be honest.

Chogyam Trungpa explained dharmakaya as the experience of the ultimate, nirmanakaya as coming at peace with the relative, and sambhogakaya as an ability of practitioner-turning-teacher to skilfully join together the ultimate and the relative, to keep a foot in both worlds and facilitate communication between the two:

1. Dharmakaya

  "Dharmakaya has no categories; dharmakaya is simply being awake. It is the first achievement of a buddha; the first glimpse of vajra-like samadhi. Vajra-like samadhi means cutting through everything, completely and thoroughly. You cut through psychological and spiritual materialism and you cut through the notion of perfectionism as well."

  "[At this stage] there maybe uncertainty as to how perceive things, and you don't know how to make a particular situation graspable. Our reaction to the world is uncertain and bewildered, and strategies and planning have not yet formed."

  "The dharmakaya aspect is basic openness or ambiguity. We could say that a buddha actually sees the world from a nonreference point of view. They see that the world can exist without a reference point, that reference points are no longer applicable. When you possess such an enlightened view, you attain dharmakaya, the body of nonreference point. Dharma means "the highest norm of the universe", which is nonreference point. Kaya refers to the achievement of that particular experience."

  "With no praise and no blame, we accept and realize our thought process as it is -- but with a touch of nonfixation and without holding on to thoughts."

2. Nirmanakaya

  "In the niramanakaya aspect, the second stage of this process, there is clarity. You develop a clear idea of the situation and how to organize things. According to my tradition, that is the realistic way of looking at things. Even if you are a great teacher or a buddha, you still have a body and that body behaves more or less the same as other people's bodies. The necessities of eating, shitting, wearing clothes, and combing your hair are basically the same as anybody else's."

  "It is in that acceptance of the universe, within that particular frame of reference, that the nirmanakaya buddha functions."

3. Sambhogakaya

  "Third, you begin to make a relationship between the two. In order to make a link between the openness and clarity, we have the third aspect, or sambhogakaya. The sambhogakaya bridges the gap between the basic openness or ambiguity of dharmakaya and the very specific organized clarity of nirmanakaya. So the three kayas are the subtle world, the direct world, and that which goes back and forth between the subtle and direct worlds in order to survive on earth."

  "Sambhogakaya means 'complete joy', it is beyond any kind of inhibition. Having gone through constant struggle and discipline of practicing the bodhisattva's work of compassion, whatever you feel can be communicated or taught. There is a need for articulation... You have to do something, you have to proclaim."

  "[However, ] you can't just say, 'Come and look at me'. You have to be very skillful, particularly if you proclaim yourself as an enlightened person, for then you have a heavier burden. So the sambhogakaya involves a sense of relationship (as in, being able to relate -- AV). You know the place, you know what kind of crowd you're going to get, and you know what you are going to say."

  "This communication between your non-manifested and manifested levels ... includes all forms of communication, such as physical gestures, facial expressions, and how you present yourself in all kinds of ways."

4. Svabhavikakaya

  "The fourth kaya, svabhavikakaya, is the whole thing, the total panoramic experience. When we realize the link between the three kayas, that totality is known as svabhavikakaya. The svabhavikakaya is a state of mind that is known as transcending birth, cessation, and dwelling."

  "Since you have no fear, you seem to know everything in the very highest sense. You know how to handle things."


What does love means? Buddhism teach to love , but when we love someone it's lead to craving , we wanted they must love us too but when things get worse it lead to sorrow. Another thing is we can love ourselves but does it selfishness ? Dose love , kindness , affection lead to sorrow ?

Buddhism explains there are at least three kinds of love:

raga: lust
pema: affection
metta-karuna: unconditional love and compassion.

The first and second kinds of love lead to sorrow, but not the third kind of love.

Some readings are:

Piyajatika Sutta: From One Who Is Dear (MN 87), which starts with:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"

Piyavagga: Affection (from the Dhammapada), which starts with,

  Giving himself to things to be shunned and not exerting where exertion is needed, a seeker after pleasures, having given up his true welfare, envies those intent upon theirs.
  Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha's Words on Loving-Kindness (SN 1.8)
Brahmavihara Sutta: The Sublime Attitudes (AN 10.208)


How cognition can be explained in Buddha's Abidhamma? Cognition, how it happens on one's mind? Is there any comprehensible English explanation about it?

According to the Abhidhamma, a single cognitive experience consists of 17 continuous thought moments. Here is a useful Abhidhamma manual which explains those 17 thought moments. Look for the "Mind in its passive and active forms" section.


What is the learning sign "uggahanimitta"? In the jhana meditation book I'm reading, Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas, it is stated that to suppress the Hindrance, you first focus your mind on a jhana meditation object. Once you mature you will be able to see the object clearly, it will become a visual object in your mind. So is (uggahanimitta) a visual representation of my breath? Where I can see my breath flowing?

Also they stated that this stage will mature the 5 jhana factors. That once you reached uggahanimitta, the 5 jhana factors start to mature and become stronger? I thought that to supress the hindrances you must change your life and incorporate the 5 factors. Sorry I'm just so lost.

The Pali term nimitta,  means a “sign," i.e., the idea or image conceived,  or an object perceived. The keeping in mind of a nimitta, and maining it is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta (i.e., that of the breath), and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face. The ‘nimitta’ is your main object of focus. When the hindrances are being overpowered by the jhana factors inwardly, on the side of the nimitta too certain changes are taking place. The original object of concentration, i.e., in the mindfulness of breathing the touch sensation of the breath, with the strengthening of concentration the breath gives rise to another object called the "learning sign" (uggaha-nimitta).

For the breath it will be a reflex image arisen from the touch sensation of the air currents moving around the nostrils. When the uggaha-nimitta appears, the meditator leaves the breath nimitta and fixes his attention on this new object. In due time still another object will emerge out of the uggaha-nimitta. This is called the "counterpart sign" (patibhaga-nimitta).  It is a purified mental image many times brighter and clearer than the uggaha-nimitta.

These nimittas can be either beneficial or harmful, true or false, so we shouldn't place trust in them. That is why before getting into meditation, one should be very clear of the purpose for the meditation. It should be solely for the aim of attaining Nibbhana. Then you will not give into these distractions.  When meditating alpha brainwave is produced in you when your body calms down and your mind is completely relaxed. Your brain's thinking is slower, your mind is clear and you may even feel slightly drowsy. If you are not firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta you tend to cling in to these without contemplating the impermanency of these. If we're thoroughly mindful and alert, they can be beneficial, as you are firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. But if our powers of reference are weak or if we lack strength of mind, we're likely to follow the drift of whatever images appear, sometimes losing our bearings to the point where we latch on to the images as being real.

The uggaha-nimitta can be experienced in some peoples normal life too. The worldly knowledge is of two types – one that comes from studying books or ones that comes from thinking things through. This second kind of knowledge arises within the mind itself. People who are trained in the theoretical sciences work with their thinking. They think to the point where an idea appears as a picture in the mind, like an uggaha-nimitta (spontaneous image). When the picture appears in the mind, they may sketch it down on paper, and then experiment with physical objects to see if it works. If it doesn't work, they make adjustments, creating a new idea from their old idea — keeping at it until they find what works in line with their aims.


In terms of reliability of understanding reality, how does the scientific method compare with Buddhist insight practice? Posted based on a requested edit to this question

The modern "scientific method", perhaps as espoused in Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", is seen today by many, especially in the West, as the "gold standard" for reliable investigation into the nature of reality. However, Buddhism -- in particular insight practices -- appears to propose an alternate approach to a similar goal. How do these methodologies compare, in terms of approach and reliability?

The main focus of this question is on "understanding reality", which is the domain of science. So, the first question is whether Buddhist insight meditation practice even qualifies as a science (i.e. a means of understanding reality).
From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

So, the criteria for calling something science (at least by Wikipedia standards) are:

it is systematic
it builds and organizes knowledge
it relies on testable explanations and predictions as a basis for knowledge
it takes the universe as its frame of reference
it can be rationally explained and reliably applied

Buddhist insight practice fits all of these criteria; insight meditation is entirely systematic, it builds and organizes knowledge (more on knowledge later), its explanations and predictions are testable, it takes the universe (from a phenomenological POV) as its frame of reference, and it can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
So, Buddhist insight practice can at least be considered scientific.
Rather than focus on "which is better" (and get close-voted again), maybe we can agree to compare the two systems of "investigation into the nature of reality" objectively:
Approach
Buddhist insight takes as its paradigm a form of phenomenology or phenomenography, wherein:

there is only one world, one that is ours, and one that people experience in many different ways
Wikipedia

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of so-called "subjective" reality, i.e. one's own realm of phenomenological experience.
The modern scientific method, on the other hand, generally takes a stance of philosophical materialism, wherein:

matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of impersonal material qualities from an "objective" (i.e. impersonal) point of view.
Reliability
Here's where the controversy arises, so hopefully we can avoid it to some extent by comparing the individual claims of reliability (somewhat) objectively and leaving the reader up to their own conclusions.
Material science relies upon quantity and quality of empirical data that is independent of an individual frame of reference (i.e. it must be reproducible in all circumstances, not affected by experimenter or subject bias). The certainty of its claims are therefore dependent on the perceived likelihood of the objectivity of the data supporting them. For all intents and purposes, this provides a fairly good understanding of the nature of reality; the ability to build upon and modify prior understanding has allowed for incredible breakthroughs in our ability to interact with the material world.
The potential downside to this reliance on impersonal data is that it can and often has led to dogmatic refusal to accept new methodology or even evidence (e.g. Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics).
It also has as a limitation its own ability to perceive the universe as a whole (so far, for example, it can't).  This sort of limitation is what Rupert Sheldrake gets at in his discussion of scientific dogmas. He lists ten dogmas currently held by the modern scientific community that may very well turn out to be false:

That nature is mechanical.
That matter is unconscious.
The laws of nature are fixed.
The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
That nature is purposeless.
Biological inheritance is material.
That memories are stored as material traces.
The mind is in the brain.
Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2012/8/Biologist-Rupert-Sheldrake-Explains-the-Ten-Dogmas-Holding-Science-Back
The point here is that the modern scientific method has led us to many of these dogmas through its locality - i.e. it can't say anything about the universe as a whole, except by inference, which may and often is proven wrong as new evidence is found.
A third point is that the modern scientific method tends to confuse data with truth and thus discard data that doesn't fit with a theory as statistical errors, etc. This is very well-documented (if somewhat outdatedly so) in The Book of the Damned, written in 1919. The author points out quite well the difference between what is commonly held as scientific knowledge and what is absolutely true, saying:

It is our expression that the flux between that which isn't and that which won't be, or the state that is commonly and absurdly called "existence," is a rhythm of heavens and hells: that the damned won't stay damned; that salvation only precedes perdition. The inference is that some day our accursed tatterdemalions will be sleek angels. Then the sub-inference is that some later day, back they'll go whence they came.

By damned, he means facts that have been ignored because they don't fit with contemporary scientific theory.
Again, practically speaking, the potential non-universality of modern scientific knowledge is inconsequential; for all practical purposes, it works.
Buddhist insight knowledge, on the other hand, is in a sense terribly "impractical", since it can only ever be "known" by the individual. As the Buddha said, the dhamma is "paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi" - to be realized by the wise for themselves.
It is also obviously unable to say anything about impersonal phenomena, since such entities are outside of its realm of observation and thus considered mental concepts.
On the other hand, it claims to provide a certainty of knowledge that material science does not (material scientists consider such certainty meaningless, since their frame of reference is impersonal). For example:

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five? Here, monks, a monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the mind as liberated. When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.
AN. 5.95 Akuppa Sutta

So, from a Buddhist point of view, insight meditation is preferable in the sense that it is not subject to alteration. The reason for this is it is also considered to be universal (from a point of view of one's own experience) - i.e., it is understood to be applicable to all entities in the universe (one's own universe of experience).
As someone pointed out in the earlier question, the two types of investigation are fairly non-competitive; material science focuses on material, Buddhist mental science focuses on the mind. The former is more useful for conventional purposes like curing disease and blowing stuff up. The latter is only useful for limited purposes like freeing oneself of all suffering.


I want to leave my mother As I just starting to learn about Buddhism and the methods of be free from samsara. I have confusion about my relationship and my mother. I am 24 yo now- I feel like I have enough of being used by my mother. When I was 1 week old she gave me to another family to look after. She paid them tho. She never taking care of all my siblings inc me. She is sex worker and my dad was a lazy man who did nothing but spend my mother money. Instead of saving money for her kids, she went to another island with young guys to spend the money from properties etc. she sold me (not technically) to 50yo man who is her client,but he didn’t know that I was her daughter. She asked me to go there AGAIN after the sexual assault happen a day before, just to get a phone that he willing to give for an apology of his behaviour, but he did it again. My mom laughed and disgust when i told her what happened.

When I started to build up my life on my own, she know I have more money than all my other siblings so she asked me to send and give her money(weekly or monthly). The money goes somewhere, I dunno where but it’s a lot for food expenses. Now I am in Australia studying with my hard work and she still depend on me to live, just like what she did in her whole life. Instead of giving up on her, I show her the good path n to become a better person but she always says “I was born like this, it’s a habit, don’t tell me what’s wrong n right, cause I know” over and over again.

Last month, she asked for my help and I don’t have anything cause I just pay my school but she doesn’t understand so I asked my friends for help, and she said “it’s embarrassing to have a daughter who live in another country, but can’t support her mother” so I just said to her,”enough, enough doing this to me, if you believe what you believe is right then keep doing that, but I don’t want to be part of it” and I never call or text her since.

I truly don’t want to be in her life anymore, she is 50yo. She had 3x stroke and she stil doesn’t changes. I accept the way she is but I don’t her to be part of my life, I don’t care if someday I live on the street again, as long as she stop to using me.

What should I do ??? Try again ?? I forgive her. Should I back and apologise because I choose my happiness?? I need a spiritual answer ! I’m lost.

The last paragraph ("she is 50yo. She had 3x stroke") reminds me of the first few verses from the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

I say this because it's possible that, after she has died, or when you are dying, you'll prefer it if you made peace (or even tried to make peace) with her.

I think that Buddhism says that ethics are important; and it recommends against bad (immoral) companionship. So I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt whether) Buddhism would recommend that you help to "enable" her to behave immorally ... for example by buying her drink (enabling her substance abuse) and doing whatever/everything she tells you to do.
If one extreme is to "leave her" (i.e. "no relationship") and another extreme is to "obey her" (i.e. a "bad or abusive relationship") perhaps you can find a "middle way" between those two extremes.
I imagine that perhaps there are some things that are good to offer her, and some things that aren't. So try to clarify in your own mind what the difference is, where the boundary is.
Also I guess to some extent you have already left your mother, i.e. you're in another country. Maybe what you ought to want is the best relationship you can have, and not to have a bad relationship.

Speaking of boundaries (and the following is personal advice now, based on personal experience ... the above was more-or-less loosely based on Buddhist suttas), you may want or need to say "no" to certain requests of hers. I assume she tries to make that (your saying "no") difficult (by arguing with you), which is why you want to say "no" to the whole relationship.
You (and she) might be able to have something of a relationship, if you say "no" when you must.

Also, well done for going to school and so on, working hard, having friends, and starting to learn about Buddhism. I hope that works out well for you.


Popular culture portrayal of Buddha statues I have seen Buddha statues in western pop culture that portray an obese man as the Buddha. During my experience with Buddhism I have seen many more statues of the Buddha as a slim man, usually with one hand up, palm out.

Two pictures to illustrate:

Western pop culture portrayal:

More typical eastern portrayal:

I seek an explanation as to the reason for the difference in portrayal, if they are even of the same person.

The first statue is not Gautama Buddha (commonly referred to as "the Buddha"), but is Budai, a depiction of a loving and jovial Chinese monk, who is often considered a depiction of Maitreya, the next Buddha who will come into the world eons from now.

Even some of the "skinny" Buddha statues may or may not be an image of Gautama Buddha. It mostly depends on the mudras (position of the hands) and the symbols used in the depiction. For example, usually Gautama Buddha has at least one palm facing inward with his fingers pointed towards the ground, but often today, commercialized statues sold in the west depict him in any kind of way because they do not understand the mudras and symbolism.


How do time and space exist? I have a questions and I hope someone could help.

Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)?

I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently?

I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence?

In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe?

In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation?

If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.

In the original Pali scriptures, the term "dependently arisen" is used to refer to conditions related to the arising of "suffering" or "sorrow & grief". It is not used for any "causality" related to the laws of physics.

Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent
co-arising for you.
And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite
condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/.. From clinging as a
requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
& death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
suffering.
SN
12.2

As for the idea of "time", this can obviously relate to "craving" or "mental wanting" (such as thinking about the past & having expectations of the future, as described in MN 131). However this "mentally constructed time" (in MN 131) is obviously unrelated to the "time & space" of physics; as found in the following verse:

‘As the days and nights flit by, what sort of person am I becoming?’
AN 10.48

As for "space", it is one of the six elements (dhatu):

There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air,
space and consciousness.
When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements, they’re qualified
to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
MN 115

The reason a teaching about "space" is provided is so "space" is not clung to, as follows:

And what is the space element?
The space element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior space element?
Anything that’s space, spacious and organic that’s internal,
pertaining to an individual. This includes: the ear canals, nostrils,
and mouth; and the space for swallowing what is eaten and drunk, the
space where it stays, and the space for excreting it from the nether
regions. This is called the interior space element.
The interior space element and the exterior space element are just the
space element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like
this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the space
element, detaching the mind from the space element.
MN 62

....................


Keeping in mind impermanence, suffering and non-self If one doesn't know the notion of "impermanence, suffering and non-self", can one see it by one's self?

I know that I don't need to "force" myself to see impermanence: but do I need to keep in mind "impermanence, suffering and non-self" when practising?

EDIT: How much do i need to keep in mind "impermance..", because if it is to low, one can see it but not realise it, if it is to high, one can intellectualize it.

According to my present (non-sectarian) teacher, the way the Three Marks are to be used is not simply as dogma to be mindful of, but rather as a tool for enquiry into our psyche -- our attachments, or preconceptions.

The way to use Three Marks for enquiry into preconceptions is to try accepting one Mark at a time and see what resistance it causes.

For example, you may spend a week trying to accept the truth of impermanence with all its implications. Does it highlight the cases of you trying to solve any problem "once, completely, and forever"? Knowing that a stable state can't be realized -- does it make all your efforts seem futile? Can you get at peace with doing your best despite this futility? Keep saying "everything is temporary" and keep watching yourself in real situations. All kinds of preconceptions, imprints and deep-lying assumptions will come up.

Similarly, spend a week applying the truth of suffering to your situations at hand. Can you see micro-suffering hiding in millisecond-level activities? Frustration of having to apply effort. Unmet expectations. Do you secretly crave for perfect ease, with reality always matching your wishes? Do you secretly hope existence can ever be effortless? Same thing here, keep telling yourself "life is suffering" with regards to real life situations and see what reaction it causes in you. Is there an area that rebels against the inescapable universal suffering? If so, that's the preconception you need to go through.

The same way, spend another week contemplating the truth of corelessness or no-I amidst real situations. If there is no "I", where do my choices are coming from now? What is the source of my thoughts now? Are my convictions and my values really mine or could this thing called "I" be an accumulations of formulas picked up over time? Am I really as all-important as I have always assumed to be? Do people really care what I do, how I do it and even whether I exist? What if free will is illusion and all my actions are predetermined? What if life is completely pointless and has no purpose and no meaning? Watch yourself as you try these thoughts on. In your mind, is accepting pointlessness of life connected with fear of ambiguity, essentially fear of taking responsibility? Is there deep-lying conviction that something you deem of value is trully of absolute importance? If so, that's your preconception, a piece of your ego, look at it carefully.

So, try each of these on for a week: "everything is temporary", "life is suffering" and "in the grand scheme of things I don't really exist, what I think is my life is just a ripple on the surface of reality" and see what comes up. When Buddhism talks about "attachments" that's what these are, now perhaps for the first time you can meet them face to face.

Eventually, the Three Marks should be fully accepted, with all their implications. Interestingly, accepting each Mark has a surprising effect, almost the opposite of what you'd expect:

Accepting Impermanence awakens you to the eternal Now.
Accepting Suffering makes suffering disappear and turns all existence into bliss.
Accepting Pointlessness aka losing self-importance gets us in touch with unconstricted creativity and the endless energy of the absolute.

Altogether, accepting Three Marks of Existence liberates us from Samsara and connects with Spontaneous Perfection of Unconditioned Nirvana.


Is attachment to the word "Meditation" a problem? I like to Meditate, I like to read about Meditation, I like to think about Meditation; but the word ...

  "MEDITATION.. MEDITATION.."

... is always in my mind, I am attached to it.

How can I avoid this attachment?

I don't want to make Meditation as a PROBLEM. I just want to use it as a Solution. I think it will lead me to SUFFERING.

How I will meditate but remain unattached to it?

You'll grow out of it eventually.  What you are experiencing right now is the honeymoon period.  Everyone goes through it.  It's no different than the start of a new relationship.  Everything is fresh, exciting, captivating.  The word discipline is meaningless.  How could you not want to sit!  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.  Use this opportunity to learn as much as you can.  Sit as much as you'd like.  Work on developing your concentration.  Just like working out, the gains that come in the beginner phase have no equivalent at any other point in your practice.  Things are easy now.  Take advantage of them.

But everything fades in intensity.  Eventually, you are going to come to a point in your practice where maybe your sits aren't going so well.  Maybe progress isn't coming as fast as it was.  Perhaps you want to jump over and try a different tradition.  Who knows.  You might even find yourself getting bored from time to time.  All of this is also normal.  In fact, it's where the real practice begins.  From here on out, you will learn that while sitting reaps unimaginable rewards, they don't come without work.  Here, you get to stare face to face with the obstacles that are holding you back.  This is where you truly understand why one Zen koan calls "sitting long and getting tired" the heart of Buddhism.  These difficulties are all to be embraced.  They are what cause real transformation to occur.


Do visual objects have karma? According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations)
  and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through
  which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the
  Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles.

The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana:

  Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory
  sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual
  sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant,
  unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal
  sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the
  associated consciousness.

So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana.

Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned?

I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

Vedana and Sañña arise only if three conditions were present in he first place: sense organ/faculty, sense-stimuli and consciousness specific to that organ/faculty. These three conditions are what is known as 'contact'.

Kamma can be understood as intentional deeds and as the continuation of habitual intentions underlying thoughts, words and bodily actions.

As far as we know with our current understanding of physics, biology and psychology, in order for something to have intentions, that something must have the capacity to sense, to interact, to respond, to interpret, to learn, to modify its behavior according stimuli from the surroundings and from its inner world. According to what I've said, "visual objects" (if understood as entities belonging the outside, "objective" world) only would create kamma if they present the capacities above described.

I'm not sure if this answer your questions, but at least it may provide some lines for future thoughts.

Kind regards!


How can all dharmas have no intrinsic reality logically speaking? There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):
1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.
2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).
any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.
Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:
a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma
A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.
Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.
If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.
Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.
Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata.
When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html


Does rebirth conflict with evolution? I'm trying to understand how modern Buddhism deals with our current scientific understanding.

Science indicates that life began on this planet with a small set of life forms. So there was a point in time where only a few life forms would be capable of rebirth. Now, however, there are over 7 billion humans and immensely more other creatures which can all be reborn. Where did all the souls/consciousnesses that exist now come from? How does the idea of rebirth fit with the evolution of life on Earth?

I am very curious as to how modern Buddhism deals with this question. Please forgive me if it is a dumb question, my understanding of Buddhism is very minimal. Thanks in advance!

There are an infinite number of beings in all the places of existance and also an infinite number of universes. The earth being one of the humanoid worlds.  [Kosala Sutta 1] In some of the higher planes the number of beings are finite. In lower planes this might not be the case. As life span decreases the merit required to be born in the human plane decreases hence the population increase. Sometimes conflicts and natural disasters do reduce the population.
Aggañña Sutta does mention about evolution from being in higher plane and how the deteriorate incidentally occupying the lower planes. (At the start of the cycle there only a higher plane)

Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to be exhausted. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.
After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to be exhausted, replaced by cassava or turnip-like plants. They also began to devour them night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied between each other, the concept of difference arose. The concepts of the beautiful and the ugly were born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant because of their appearance.

Sourced from: Aggañña Sutta
Also see:

Buddhism and evolution
Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school
Buddhist cosmology


What would be the motivation for an arahant to perform generous deeds? In the early stages of the gradual training, the instructions point out to perform generous deeds out of compassion. Knowing that a arahant has no more any trace of desire or self-identification and that compassion is a desire to other beings be happy, what would be the motivation underliyng generous deeds performed by a arahant?

"Compassion is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering. Its function resides in not [enduring] others' suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside, and it fails when it produces sorrow." -Visuddhimagga

Compassion is a wholesome quality of the mind. It's not eliminated when one attains enlightenment. So when an Arahath's mind focuses on the suffering of a being, compassion arises naturally.

Craving is what is eleminated when one attains enlightenment. Craving is of 3 kinds.

Desire for sensual pleasure
Desire for becoming
Desire for non-becoming


What are Kusala roots? What are Kusala roots, how are they determined, what effects do they have? And where in the Buddha's teaching are they mentioned? Thank you.

The 'three poisons', or three 'unwholesome roots' (akusala-mūla), are named as ignorance, attachment, and aversion — and the "wholesome roots" are their opposites:

  Opposite wholesome qualities

  The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are:

  amoha (non-bewilderment); prajna (wisdom)
  alobha (non-attachment)
  adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness)

  The principal aim of the Buddhist path is to cultivate these and related positive qualities.

They're mentioned in for example, the Sammaditthi Sutta:

  "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.


What is Indra's Net, according to Mahayana Buddhism? I have heard a lot about "Indra's Net". A wiki says that it describes how emptiness and dependent origination are creating the universe. Can anyone provide me a link and book which I should read, to understand this more?

There are two sets of Mahayana sutras:

The seventeen Perfection of Wisdom sutras (Prajnaparamita Sutras), and
The other sutras, of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation.

The first set does not present Indra’s net while the second does. Tibetan traditions posit the first set as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the second. They do not study the sutras of the Wheel of Differentiation except through commentaries refuting their presentations.

On the other hand, most Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese traditions such as the Huayan school, Chan, Tientai, etc. posit the second set of sutras as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the Perfection of Wisdom sutras.

Therefore, if you want to know more about Indra’s net, you have to look on the side of Zen, etc. because they are more likely to comment sutras that speak of Indra’s net. Among the various sutras of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation, the most well known are:

The Lankavatara Sutra (remember that Chan masters were first called "Lankavatara masters" before the "Chan" designation came into being),
The Avatamsaka Sutra (Garland of Flowers), that became popular after the Lankavatara was found too complicated for lay people
The Lotus sutra,
The Tathagatagarbha Sutra, and
The Vimalakirti Sutra.

Most of them mention Indra (just as the Prajnaparamita Sutras do) but do not mention Indra’s net. For instance, the Vimalakirti Sutra merely mentions Indra. Even the translator's footnotes do not say more than:

  Kausika, Sakra, and Indra all refer to the same god, who, in Buddhist cosmogony is regarded as the king of gods in the desire-realm.

This helps you understand that it is not that common a notion.

Of these scriptures, only the Avatamsaka Sutra (a 1’500 pages sutra) does. It says:

  Far away, in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net’s every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude. A wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one the these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewels is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite.

Thích Nhất Hạnh is a Vietnamese Zen master in the lineage of Huineng. The Caodong Chan school in China and the Soto Zen school in Japan also proceed from Huineng. In Understanding Our Mind (Chapter 13, Indra’s Net), Thích Nhất Hạnh refers to the Avatamsaka Sutra:

  Indra's net is a vast, cosmic lattice that contains precious jewels wherever the threads cross. There are millions of ewels strung together to make the net, and each jewel has many facets. When you look at any facet of any jewels, you can see all the other jewels reflected in it. In the world of the Avatamsaka, in Indra's net, the one is present in the all, and the all in the one. This wonderful image was used in Buddhism to illustrate the principle of interdepedence and interpenetration.

And he explains the meaning:

  In our ordinary world, we see a teapot as a single, independent object. But if we look deeply enough into the teapot, we will see that it contains many phenomena – earth, water, fire, air, space, and time – and we will realize that in fact the entire universe come together to make this teapot.

From this Vietnamese Zen perspective, this is analyzing dependent-origination.


Causes of downfall of a Man, pointed by Buddha in Mangala Sutta As, pointed out by Buddha in Mangala Sutta, the causes of downfall of a man. Among those following is the one among them;
1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall!

Question remains, How if pursuing the goal of Nibbana, one abandoned the all relation and property. Including that of old age mother and father, won't have Downfall.
How, if that 1st statement is assumed valid, there was not a downfall of Buddha, although abondened his old age parents?
Please answer the above correctly!

Among those following is the one among them; 1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall!

Philosophy aside, just by going with plain simple logic and there's no contradiction here. The statement and the premise is clear: those who have ample wealth who do not support their aging parents will face downfall. The Buddha and His noble disciples did not have ample wealth and hence did not satisfy the condition for the downfall. Now including the philosophy, one can safely say that what the Buddha did at the end for His parents, siblings, son, their many relatives, and countless many people was an extraordinary kind of support no other worldly support was able to match:

  "I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.” ~~ AN 2.32 ~~


Feelings and kamma and sankhara , am I bound for the rest of my life Are my painful feelings, that I feel now, result of my past kamma (I have for a long period felt extremely painful feelings which I couldn't stop and therefore I am helpless and trapped by them)? Or is it something I am generating by doing something with free will in the present moment, that I am still not aware of that I can stop? Because it seems like I have no way chance against painful feelings and they are controlling me. It seems like it's something there whether I like it or not, it is there autonomous. I am confused, and I am not in control over my feelings, and feeling trapped and helpless to them, because I can't solve them, they feel like a must for me with no way out. Is this kamma what Buddhism talks about, and does this mean I can't solve this? I read that Sankhara are subconscious tendencies. Is that the same as my feelings that keep me trapped? I really want clear understanding what my situation is, and what is my possibility. Will I have to experience this painful feeling the rest of my life?

Also is kamma and Sankhara the same thing that keeps me trapped? If not what is the difference? I really need to understand that.

Thank you for reading this post.

Focus on the here and now - your current moment is no trap but choices you make.

If you are depressed, you are trapped in your memories.

If you are anxiety, you are trapped in the future.

You are NOT supposed to control your feelings, because your feelings are nothing but a result of external circumstances, which you can never really control; instead, you are supposed to observe your feelings, observe the causes of your emotions, and understand the fact that all external circumstances are naturally...impermanent.


New Year to Buddhists on 1st January? Buddhists have a new year ,But it is not January 1st.What is the reason they celebrate the new year of January 1st.It is based on a religious basis or something else...

You can choose to celebrate new year any day you like but you have to find many people to agree with you. Otherwise, you have to have an one person party.


What to expect from meditation? First - this is a question directed towards advanced practitioners of mindfulness or similar meditation.

I have been meditating and practicing other transformational work for about 17 years.  Throughout the work, I've had many peak experiences, many "aha" moments, and I've experienced the deepening and expansiveness of my awareness and understanding.

I've learned to be suspicious of any type of insight or experience that presents itself as "the answer" - in other words;  I've had thoughts like "this is finally it!  I got it!" So many times that I pretty much ignore that type of noise as soon as notice it.

Lately while meditating, I've become increasingly aware of  physical sensations (neither pleasant or unpleasant) in my body, particularly around my upper chakras; and the overall - for lack of a better word - intensity of my experience is elevated.

As I allude to - I've never had a transformational experience that I considered "real" that came about with a bang - the worthwhile experiences are usually quite subtle - if fact my sense is that the essence of transformation is increasingly subtle rather than the other way around.

My question is, what do I make of my recent experiences?  It carries with it an intensity that seems well, intense.

I recognize that more information is probably necessary to answer this; but in general terms, is this par for the course?  Is it just something to notice, and let pass?  Is it a symptom of something and/or, is there anything to do about it?

Is it just something to notice, and let pass? Is it a symptom of something and/or, is there anything to do about it?

Treat the object according to your practice, i.e. for

Samatha meditation:

when mind wanders, bring it back to the breath.

Vipassana meditation:

every object is treated in the same way, there is no discrimination, i.e. no object is more or less important than the other. Note the object and return to the rising and falling of the abdomen.


What are good resources to study the historic evolution and comparative studies of Abhidhamma What are good resources and references (ideally online) to learn historic evolution of Abhidhamma. Also comparative studies on different Abhidhamma schools.

NB: I am aware of BPU BPhil 3rd Year Lecture Notes. So I am looking for resource other than this.

Hope this helps.

Abhidhamma Studies III: Origins of the Canonical Abhidha(r)mma Literature

Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time;
and Abhidhamma Studdies--Introduction, both by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera

Studies in Abhidhamma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philoposhical Systems by Erich Frauwaller. At Sunypress.edu

Similar books and/or articles:

Karl H. Potter (1970). Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D.

In The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Motilal Banarsidass
Chandra B. Varma (1992).

A Concise Encyclopedia of Early Buddhist Philosophy: Based on the Study of the Abhidhammatthasaṅgahasarūpa. Eastern Book Linkers.
Jay Garfield, Translation as Transmission and Transformation.
C. L. A. De Silva (1937/1988).

A Treatise on Buddhist Philosophy, or, Abhidhamma. Sri Satguru Publications.
Gustav Roth (ed.) (2009).

Stupa: Cult and Symbolism. Aditya Prakashan.
H. W. Bailey (ed.) (2010).

Buddhist Poetry, Thought, and Diffusion. International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan.
Richard King (1998).

Vij Aptim Trat and the Abhidharma Context of Rarly Yog C Ra. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):5 – 17.
Noa Ronkin (2005).

Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making of a Philosophical Tradition. London ; New Yorkroutledgecurzon.
Herbert V. Guenther (1976).

Philosophy and Psychology in the Abhidharma. Distributed by Random House.
Eli Franco (2004).

The Spitzer Manuscript: The Oldest Philosophical Manuscript in Sanskrit. Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften.


What is the buddhist way of responding to compliments? "Hey David you're a genius!" "Hey David you look so fine!"

I think blushing and feeling a little nervous isn't really buddhist... But sometimes if you don't react this way you might look as if youre being rude

What exactly do the scriptures say of how one should respond in these situations? I've seen quotes about the Buddha saying the brahmin is "indifferent to compliments and indifferent to criticism".

I'd like to know what the scriptures say about its possible harms, etc.  I think it is an interesting question that deserves some thought as it is part of our lives.

Just because you're Buddhist doesn't mean you can't say "thank you" :P

All facetiousness aside, Buddhism is clear about the practice.  For instance, it stresses compassion and non-attachment, so evaluate your course of action against those two.

If someone compliments you and you don't politely acknowledge the
compliment, this person may be offended.  That isn't compassionate of you.
If someone compliments you and you let it get to your head, you could
be fostering attachment towards self, the thing about which you were
complimented, and the praise of others.

So how can you approach compliments in a way that takes the above into account?  Well, you could thank the person while remembering that you are thanking them out of compassion and consideration for their feelings and not because they gave you some validation you needed.

Ultimately, it's about skillful means.  Don't seek every possible situation in Buddhist texts; rather, make sure you understand the principles and use that understanding to guide your actions.


What does Buddhism say about pragmatic retribution? I'd really like to buy into the ideas of understanding and patience even for those who hurt us. However my concern is that sometimes failing to engage in the tit-for-tat teaches that there are no consequences. Two different examples:

1) If a diplomat is expelled, should the other side expel also?

2) In a post divorce situation, if one side initiates legal action should the other side withhold previously allowed concessions?

It's not clear to me how one can avoid engaging in retribution in some cases.

There are countless examples of non-retaliation being depicted as admirable.

One that comes to mind is this one: Is That So?

Not that you'll necessarily find the mere fact that it's "admirable" is necessarily a good or sufficient reason -- instead a good reason includes to minimize suffering, allow the cessation of suffering, of those involved.

I don't want to answer the part of the question about diplomats (that seems to me a matter of politics rather than Buddhism).

"Pragmatic retribution" is what I'd call, Tit for tat. It's a popular game (or model, strategy, game theory), but simplistic to the point of stupidity, and I think not Buddhist.

On the subject of divorce, I'd suggest (from experience) that maybe both parties in a divorce should have legal counsel, and perhaps avoid making agreements and concessions without legal counsel (or at least, I think that's the way it works in "my country"). That's not a matter of retribution though, it's a matter of being equitable and finding a division (a "separation agreement") that's fair or as beneficial as possible to both parties.

Also I'm not sure that I agree with the premise of "understanding those who hurt us". Apparently there's a proverb that "to understand is to forgive", but maybe Buddhism has a different take on that subject. I'm thinking of the opening lines of the Dhammapada:

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

The first line is about intention: your intention matters (for example whether you intend to hurt someone, or don't intend to hurt someone).

The third verse seems relevant though. Rather than "understanding those who hurt us" maybe it's better to understand (i.e. maybe "Buddhism would recommend" that you understand) yourself (or the things which you take to be yourself): how and why you're "hurt", what the nature of that hurt is, maybe what "views" you might change (or "abandon") to not be hurt in future. Maybe hurt can be caused by attachment (to something impermanent); considering something (or someone) as "yours"; hurt "pride"; and so on.

I recommend the truth of the sixth verse to you.

It's not clear to me how one can avoid engaging in retribution in some cases.

That's one of the reasons to have a lawyer each, or a mediator in common (or even two lawyers and a mediator). They can be a bit more dispassionate, professional, in dealing with the other party (and you can be more professional when you're dealing with them).


Details when practice vipassana I have a few questions:

How far do i need to be mindful? In the Satipatthana Vipassana by Mahasi, he said: "On meeting with a person in the imagination, it should be noted as "meeting, meeting", can i just say "imagine, imagine"?
If i taste something, i always want to "deconstruct" the aliment (it's sweet, salty, sour ...), it is a good thing to do (for Vipassana meditation)? Or I need just to say "tasting, tasting"

Do I need to be mindful of details? (I'm a thinking of my mother, cat...)

Sorry for my English. o/

I'm guessing it sounded better in the original Burmese. "Imagining" seems more reasonable than "meeting", since the latter is not real. On the other hand, it is not so important whether the experience is "real", but that the experience is occurring, so it could potentially be beneficial to remind yourself of what is going on in your head as "meeting".  Still, I wouldn't encourage it.

My teacher recommends against "sweet", etc., though I don't imagine it would be particularly harmful, since it seems fairly "real".

Acknowledging "mother" or "cat" is not appropriate, since they are concepts and can't lead to insight into reality.  "Thinking about my mother" wouldn't be terrible, as long as the focus was on the thinking and not the mother. Focussing the mind on the concept would likely lead to either samatha jhana in the case of simple objects or distraction in the case of complex ones.


How do Buddhists handle mental illness such as depression or bipolar disorder? How is mental health dealt with by Bhuddists? Is it believed to be a tangible issue e.g. imbalances of chemicals in the brain? Or an issue of the spirit (not sure if spirit is the right word)?

Is treatment with western medicine (i.e. antidepressants/mood stabilizers, talk therapy) condemned or accepted?

Is there stigma surrounding these illnesses like in the western culture?

Is depression thought of an extreme form of dukkha or similar?

How are hypomania/major depressive episodes handled?

I hope this makes sense, thanks :)

Bipolar and depression are both very serious mental illnesses and should be treated accordingly. Too often dharma teachers who are unprepared try to resolve what are true clinical issues. As I was once told "sometimes meditation is the answer sometimes medication is the answer." That of course does not mean that practice can not help with these problems but the appropriate tools should be used at the appropriate time and instance.


Shaolin Legandary Elders Great Power Comes with Great Responsibilty - Buddhism Zen According to the Chinese History, subject refers are the 5 survivor of Shaolin legendary grand masters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei
In history, Ng Mui was escaping from temple to temple while Bak Mei joined the military and lead the troop to kill/eliminate other shaolin Temple.
What if those 5 elderly grant masters put down status as Monk/Nun, join the military with righteous intention and good deed/win win term and condition with Emperor. In this case, path to Nirvana likely unable to achieve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Kshitigarbha
"Until the hells are empty (of suffering beings), I will not become a Buddha."
(「地獄不空，誓不成佛。」)
The intention is to influence the Emperor/General to minimize the damages and at the same time not losing the Empire base on Buddhism teaching? By right those grand masters should equipped with Buddhism/Taoism super natural abilities then should not be difficult.?  If it doesn't work and disagreement from Emperor, then quit the military.
If influence to the emperor was success and damages was minimum say 50k killed instead of 500k. So it saved 90% lives and many of them inspired and follow grand master learning Buddhism. Then Buddhism get greater influence and follower multiples.
In this case, can the 50k person killed is waived from Bad Karma?
Those grand master should have high Buddhism wisdom power to influence and change ?
This might applicable to corporate working life now or politics world.

"Proper means" has nothing to do with the Buddha-Dhamma, good householder, as Shaolin hasn't. To call oneself Buddhas monk, yet not even serious in regard the precepts and dedicated to win and gain, actors for trade, is simply a thief. May no one get fooled by fools.
Wrong deeds stay wrong deeds, precepts are simple and no go, as well as kamma doesn't argue around.
But in regard whether a mass-murder could become a saint, Arahat, reaching Nibbana in present life: yes (as long as not killed mother, father or an Arahat). One may get familar with

Angulimala: A Murderer's Road to Sainthood, by Hellmuth Hecker (2007; 12pp./37KB)
A biography in the BPS's "Lives of the Disciples" series. A brief biography of Angulimala, the notorious bandit who was transformed by the Dhamma and eventually became an arahant.

Results of actions are still arising for Saints, but taken with ease, impersonal untouched by Arahts.
[Note that this isn't given for trade binding to the world, stacks, exchange... but for rekease from this wheel]


Could meditation help with reducing memory and concentration problems? As with ADD or ADHD? There have been studies showing that meditation can help dealing with depression, stress and anxiety. But are there meditation techniques that help with ADD and ADHD problems? And if there are, which ones?

Since three of the unwholesome mental factors seem to coincide with ADD/ADHD symtoms:

Muṣitasmṛtitā - forgetfulness

Asaṃprajanya - non-alertness, inattentiveness

Vikṣepa - distraction, desultoriness

One of the problems you're going to find with answering this is that most published studies focus on short duration meditation -- 4 to 8 weeks and the like. I personally have an ADHD diagnosis (although I'm not convinced it's a real pathology), and an issue I've faced is that my ADHD (if that's what it is) is an obstacle to actually getting a practice underway for any length of time; i.e. for more than 4 to 8 weeks at a time. Therefore, if benefit is to be had, but it arises only in the longer term, then few if any of the studies would see it.

That said, there was some work done at UCLA, and a lead in that direction could be Lydia Zylowska. A few pubs are mentioned at the bottom of this page.