How careful must monks be about their use of water? According to this list of the Patimokkha Rules,

Using water, or getting others to use it, knowing that it contains
living beings that will die from that use, is a pācittiya offense. (Pc
62)

So, does this refer even to microbes in water? If so, how would a monk boil water for food and/or tea without committing an offense? Or even drink water without committing an offense?

The common answer is that microbes and smaller life forms are exempt from Buddhist classifications of sentient life forms.

I'd like to make a more nuanced point.

At the time it was written, this rule probably had mosquito larvae in mind.

Practically speaking, even abiding by this ontological line in the sand is difficult if the only source of water is infested with mosquitoes or the numerous life forms of tropical Asia. Most monasteries therefore often rely on lay helpers to perform water boiling and several other life tasks that might break the vinaya if a monk were to perform it.

To an outside observer this can appear dogmatic or a farce, and depending on the individuals involved sometimes it is so, but not always so. It aids in cultivation of zeal, and respect for the expectation placed on the monastic.

The whole of the spiritual life is doing one's best in trying conditions.

The Bodhisattva vows reflect this,

  However innumerable sentient beings are, I vow to save them.
  However
  inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them.
  However
  immeasurable the dharmas are, I vow to master them.
  However
  incomparable enlightenment is, I vow to attain it.

In traditional Asian cultures the laity often view these small inconveniences the monks undertake, like waiting around for a lay person to give them potable water as resolve strengthening sacrifices the monks make in the pursuit of the holy life. It also gives the laity a meritorious role in the life of the monastic, and keeps them inter-dependant.

This can also be a very instructive exercise in patience and virtue when applied correctly.

For example, if a novice monk is alone and thirsty in the forest, it must be very tempting to drink a cup of water after pushing aside the larvae on top of the forest pool.

This simple physical act is not so simple in the mind of a monk, given the vinaya. It leads him weigh his life against that of the organisms in the water.

In this way the monk comes to directly feel the enormous burden human life places on the planet, and the numerous beings and life forms including plants that we inadvertently or unavoidably destroy or disturb in order to live.

Thus chastised, the monk will truly consider the cup of water a precious cup of life, and endeavour to uphold the ideals of the holy life so stiffly purchased.

The rules are meant to aid the holy life, not become obstacles or rituals. The Buddha reveals this pragmatic distinction here:

  AN 3.83: Vajjiputta Sutta — The Vajjian Monk {A i 230; Thai 3.85} [Thanissaro]. A monk who is having difficulty following all the Pāṭimokkha training rules can boil them all down to these three: the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment.


How does one keep oneself motivated to follow the path of dhamma? As a lay Buddhist, given that it is terribly difficult to attain to Nimmata or the Jhana and at point when Nirvana seems to be just a wishful thinking able to be attained by superhuman ability and exertion, how does one motivate oneself to continue?
Every single meditation seems like a postdated cheque in a non-existent bank, how to keep going?
I come from a non-Buddhist background and ask myself why should one continue if the path itself is full of suffering?

When I go to the doctor and he does a blood pressure reading, sometimes I am anxious about how the reading will turn out. This anxiety in turn makes the reading go higher, which is not what I wanted in the first place. To get a good blood pressure reading within a good range, I need to let go of my anxiety and expectation.
It's pretty much the same with regards to doubt and your practice.
More on doubt below ...

There are the five hindrances which can prevent you from progress in your practice. They are: sensory desires, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.
What you're experiencing here is doubt - "can I do this?", "is it possible?", "where am I going with this?", "is this the right way?".
The general advice for overcoming the hindrance of doubt is letting go and trusting the inner silence (see quote below).
Here's Ven. Ajahn Brahm's advice on overcoming the hindrance of doubt, from this essay:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
"Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
"How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
trust in the driver.

Also see his conclusion:

Any problem which arises in meditation will be one of these Five
Hindrances, or a combination. So, if one experiences any difficulty,
use the scheme of the Five Hindrances as a 'check list' to identify
the main problem. Then you will know the appropriate remedy, apply it
carefully, and go beyond the obstacle into deeper meditation.
When the Five Hindrances are fully overcome, there is no barrier
between the meditator and the bliss of Jhana. Therefore, the certain
test that these Five Hindrances are really overcome is the ability to
access Jhana.

Ven. Ajaan Fuang Jotiko gave a shorter version of the solution to overcoming the hindrance of doubt in  "Awareness Itself":

A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been meditating
for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His immediate
response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You meditate to let
go."

The answer to your inner doubts is ... just let it go!
Does it matter whether you gain Nirvana is 10 months or 10 years or 10 lifetimes? Is there a deadline?
Just keep practising with heedfulness, as the Buddha stated in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Then the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Come now, monks,
for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on
with heedfulness!” These were the last words of the Realised One.


Anatta & Atman the same thing? I read that atman is pure bliss
I read that anatta is pure bliss

-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?
-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why?
-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom.

As for 'Atman', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state.

  The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on
  this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the
  pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united
  and the ultimate sentient principle.

This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'.


How do you practice outwardly giving? Since most of you have neither much chances to practicing generosity toward the Sangha and aside probably not easy finding individual people worthy of gifts, how do you, living in outer lands, try to practice such to have a basement for further training toward path?

My person thought, aside of encouraging to help each other to do merits also in very gross form, to give some tips of what might be conductive for getting and staying in contact with good people and perform also some merits by things even if far off:

That you may have admirable people in your real of living near, at least internet:

Look that you can provide space, connection, accounts... without strings, but given by your effort and strength, keeping them away from getting bond by contracts and duties.

There are (a devoted Upasaka found out and informed) today even possibilities to fill up such as cell-phone credits if you can manage that people living on alms can access devices and maintain them.

If you have room, space... try to let them know that they are always welcome. Also if having joy in giving alms-food, medicine and clothes, let it be known and try to maintain places where it could touch those who do not ask or write wish lists.

My person encourages you not only to share ways but also to share the merits, because otherwise, how many theoretical input you may gain, the Gems would not prosper for one who makes no scarifies at first place. One is wise if being that selfish in this way and does not much doubt in it's benefit.

Don't act like a consumer or even a trader. When just giving out of owning something or just to get something later back of which is perceivable, such wouldn't make you glad to an extend that you gain real joy with your self and the found freedom and richness you actually would have all the time.

Try it, and stick firm to precepts while doing so, or preparing for such, since without it would not last that long, just like a sort holiday with a lot of debts when returning home again.

May a lot of rejoice-worthy and for you inspiring hints and tips follow and it's always best not only to share ones merits as much as possible but to also invite others to join this or that undertaking.

Mudita

(Note that this is given only for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that nourishes your secure way out of the bond where trapped)


Street art interpretation in predominantly Buddhist country I have wanted to ask someone who is not familiar with a Buddhist culture how they might interpret this street art, which is generating controversy in a predominantly Buddhist country.

Covid is attacking the world (represented by the globe/planet).

It's entering the world (like the virus enters a biological cell).

The world is suffering (represented by the crying face).

The doctors and nurses (white lab coats and masks) are pulling together (working/cooperating) to help pull the world away from death.

It looks like death by drowning, they don't appear to be winning at the moment.

The sea-weed-like tail and teeth on the virus make it look like a deep-sea fish. I'm not sure what the red eye is meant to symbolise, except it's "Breaking the fourth wall".

The flag is Myanmar's.

I don't know about "death" and/or "father time" there -- represented with a scythe, which is an agricultural tool for cutting long grass and wheat and so on -- that's western imagery/iconography, is it eastern too?

Giving it the same colour as a monk's robe in Myanmar -- i.e. coloured maroon -- it's that I guess which is the "controversy" you're talking about (in the west, Death's robe would normally be grey or black -- coincidentally about the colour of a Christian monk's cassock).

The figure's tall/straight back, and bowl, look a bit like a monk's also.

Perhaps it's being interpreted as a message that monks an/or Buddhism are spreading the disease somehow, and that modern medicine/medics are trying the save people?

Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(personification) does seem to imply that the Grim Reaper is or was typically western rather than eastern iconography.
My guess is that the artist didn't intend to be anti-Buddhist, but did a bad job of translating the Grim Reaper. In the West it's depicted dressed (if it's dressed at all and not just a naked skeleton) in the robes of a Christian monk. I think that's not intended as an anti-Christian message, but comes from medieval times when it was intended to be seen and understood by monks -- in that context, "monks robes" were simply the ordinary clothing which they all (all monks) wore, so Death was wearing the robes of a departed Brother.
Maybe tactless or controversial of the artist, though, to depict that as a Buddhist instead.


How does Nirvana fit into theory of evolution? Can nirvana be called as some sort of directed evolution? Can a Buddha or Arahat be considered as an evolved being as compared to the rest?

The scientific definition of evolution is as follows:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

There is no guarantee that the offspring of a Buddha or Arahat will be an enlightened being, i.e. these characteristics are not guaranteed to be passed on to their successive generations (Not a very rigorous scientific answer but I hope you got the gist of it).
Another way to think about it is that

Has it been experimentally proved that Nirvana fits into the theory of evolution? OR, Can we design an experiment that can show if Nirvana fits into the theory of evolution?

As far as I know, these questions can not be answered as of now (Perhaps no one has tried to do it). So from a scientific point of view, I would say 'no'.


Is meditating while on the bike at the gym an effective method of meditation? Walking meditation : http://www.meditationoasis.com/how-to-meditate/simple-meditations/walking-meditation/ is considered as "just as profound as sitting meditation". If we were to extrapolate this idea into a situation where instead of walking you were on a bike, would an expert's opinion consider this meditating on the bike at the gym an effective practice of meditation?

Short Answer: Yes.

Longer Answer:

The Satipatthana Sutra implies this.  Here's a snippet...

  Moreover, when a practitioner walks, he is aware, ‘I am walking.’ When
  he is standing, he is aware, ‘I am standing.’ When he is sitting, he
  is aware, ‘I am sitting.’ When he is lying down, he is aware, ‘I am
  lying down.’ In whatever position his body happens to be, he is aware
  of the position of his body.

  Moreover, when the practitioner is going forward or backward, he
  applies full awareness to his going forward or backward. When he looks
  in front or looks behind, bends down or stands up, he also applies
  full awareness to what he is doing. He applies full awareness to
  wearing the sanghati robe or carrying the alms bowl. When he eats or
  drinks, chews, or savors the food, he applies full awareness to all
  this. When passing excrement or urinating, he applies full awareness
  to this. When he walks, stands, lies down, sits, sleeps or wakes up,
  speaks or is silent, he shines his awareness on all this.

The gist of the above is that mindfulness should be applied throughout the day -- including time on the exercise bike.

However, I don't think this should replace formal meditation practice.  Setting aside time for meditation allows you to better control distractions, which in turn can allow you to go deeper. Meditating on the exercise bike should be done in addition to your regular meditative practice, and should be part of an attempt to maintain continuous mindfulness.


Respect, attachment to position and aversion to disrespect. (In Buddhism) One thing that is very easy to see in Buddhism is how respect is important. Respect for books, statues of Buddha and monks.

At the same time we learn that attachment and aversion are bad things.

Can't this respect for monks and traditions (sitting in a lower place, not pointing, etc) become an attachment to rules and reputation? At the same time, can't the disrespect for such rules become aversion?

Respect should first be given to the truth of suffering, to the truth of the cause of suffering, and the capacity of the dhamma to free you from that. Why? Because if you have no respect for the capacity of the fire to burn you, or the balm to sooth you, then you will only continue to burn.

Respect should be given to the Buddha, as a practitioner who accomplished something very profound and difficult, something noble and worthwhile, and then chose to share the wisdom of how he accomplished that with us all. He should be respected as someone who can teach us valuable lessons. When we see a statue or an image of the Buddha, we respect what it represents, the accomplishment and nobility of what was conquered.

Respect should be given to those serious practitioners who have set themselves out to follow the path laid out by the Buddha, to take it upon themselves to accomplish what amount of that great work that they can. It is hard work, arduous work that requires diligence, and is worthy of respect.

If we respect these good qualities, we will be likely to emanate them. If we do that, we may become free of our suffering. It is good to do so.

This is why.


Questions from 10 Days Mr. Goenka Vipassana Course? When I was trying to do Vipassana at home, I experienced vibrations in entire body. But there, in the Vipassana training centre, my face becomes so heavy that I could not focus on my body. Why was that happening?

Whenever I closes my eyes my entire face starts with vibrations.

When I was trying to focus on nose, automatically I felt something very strong between eye brows, but gradually I was able to neglect it.

One day my a certain part of my left arm was on fire (felt literally burning). Does that mean something?

For every question, teacher had the same answer: “These are previous birth mind’s Disorder which are healing now”.

On 6th day again face was so heavy, so I gave up and started talking with other people who were not so serious, bunked classes, went to the mountain near by, then I felt a bit normal; on lowering my diet I felt more normal; on 9th day I felt vibration flow in entire body only on surface of body.

In between, for 3 consecutive days (4th, 5th, and 6th days), I saw a Dog, Snake and Centipede before sleeping, as soon as I closed my eyes.

After attending this course I have more clear knowledge of how this technique works; but I want to know, is that all Buddha taught, or is there something else?

Give not importance to any of these experiences. They are just conditioning. If you give importance of have prejudice towards any meditative experience, you might end up generating aversion and craving.

What these experiences could be:

you are more sensitive to these vibration
Piti or sukha has surfaced
vibrations are part of the Mahābhūta and you mind is becoming sensitive enough to experience it
other past Sankhara manifesting itself as vibrations (above included)

When you get such an experience try to see the arising and passing nature of it! This experience, as with any other experience, in essential you your practice of equanimity. Whatever your experience be equanimous - this is the exercise and what you should be doing.

  I saw a Dog, Snake and Centipede before sleeping, as soon as I closed my eyes.

People have odd dreams / day dreams. I am not sure what this means. Buddhism does not deach how to interpret dreams.

Like anything else, do not give any importance. Be equanimous.

Also there is a lot more of what the Buddha taught than what is taught in a 10 day course. The Tipitaka is very vast. This contains all which what Buddha taught.


What leisure activities did the Buddha partake in? I find this guy fascinating but during that time I can only think that he may have played eye-spy on the banks of the river Ganges or flicked pomegranate seeds at the bodhi tree. I'm probably way off here though with my silliness.

In all seriousness, what was leisure to him?

I recommend a few words:

divāvihāra -- for example the page-long description of that here which starts ...

  an expression which ... I consider to correspond to the “day’s abiding”, divāvihāra, mentioned in MN 35 at MN I 229, 23, instead of intending a “heavenly abiding”.

It's used in many suttas to indicate what monks do (or at least, where or when or for what purpose they go somewhere) in the afternoon.

That footnote also mentions some activities like "the divine eye" -- which is mentioned in suttas sometimes, in the context of the Buddha seeing that someone somewhere might benefit from his help -- I'm not sure what the best example of that is, Ud 3.3 was the first I find ("Then, encompassing with his awareness the awareness of the monks staying on the bank...").
also, sukhavihāra (dwelling pleasantly)
suññatāvihāra -- e.g. from MN 121

  ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’
  ‘suññatāvihārenāhaṃ, ānanda, etarahi bahulaṃ viharāmī’ti.

Ditto in MN 151, which also calls that
Mahāpurisavihāra ("the meditation of a great man.")
Eventually, in DN 16:

  Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, [19] that his body is more comfortable.


Which is the best posture to Practice meditation? Does any one know, which is the best posture to be assumed for practicing meditation?

Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following the practice of my Teaching, having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree or to an empty, solitary place, sits down cross-legged, keeping his body erect, and sets up mindfulness, orienting it.
Then with entire mindfulness, he breathes in and with entire mindfulness he breathes out.
Maha-satipatthana Sutta

The above is the standard posture for meditation (i.e.: sit down cross-legged). Even though I can't remain in this posture for a long time due to back pain, I personally believe this is the best posture for meditation. Having said that there are many other postures suitable, depend on your situation (walking, sitting, etc.).


What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo? I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (daimoku - Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism) for about 4.5 years. I also regularly attend Soka Gakkai International (SGI) meetings. I have experienced a lot of benefits from the practice.

But, I have been unable to understand what  technically  happens when we chant. I have read in some of the texts that we create a good karma when we chant or some of the questions here answered that the "act" of chanting leads us to the path of enlightenment.

But, being a Physics student, I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when we chant. For example- when I chant, I generate sound energy. Now that energy would have some temporal variation as the words "Nam" , "Myoho" etc. would have different sounds but the ratio of amplitudes and frequencies would be almost equal for each person.

I would be happy if someone can give a technical explanation of what exactly happens when we chant.

The simple explanation is that you are practicing mindful concentration. The latter threefold division of concentration required in the Noble Eightfold Path. Whether you are doing sitting meditation, chanting sutras, calling the name of the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, or chanting mantras, or even following the monastic discipline Vinaya as a monk. You can't simply concentrate on anything though, importantly it must be Right Mindfulness that is skillful.

  Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

  — MN 117

Chanting holy names is within this criteria, as with Myoho Renge Kyo -the Sublime Dharma of Lotus Sutra, as they do not promote bad unskillful thoughts and encourage positive reverential emotions. (With the added possibility of divine intervention..) The practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is said to lead to liberation from mental afflictions by the purification of mind, speech and action.

As exactly how the exact mechanics of this works, I can't say for certain, but it does work. Abandoning negative thoughts does wonder for the mind and body. At certain level of concentration you enter what is called the Jhana/Chan/Zen where feelings of bliss and peace arise, and is also a state where you can make many realizations. This is certainly possible through chanting.


In satipatthana, how does mindfulness lead to nirodha? What is the difference between "cessation" and "nirodha"? How would it be experienced during meditation?

The between cessation and nirodha is "cessation" is an English word and "nirodha" is a Pali word that often does not literally mean "cessation" although often it does.

In meditation, the important "cessations" to be experienced are:

Cessation of craving.
Cessation of attachment.
Cessation of I-making & my-making.
Cessation of suffering.
Cessation of ignorance.
Cessation of ego-birthing, ego-aging & ego-dying.

In summary, all of the above "cessations" amount to the cessation of suffering (dukkha-nirodha).

Therefore, often, when the Pali teachings refer to "consciousness-nirodha"; "nama-rupa-nirodha"; "sense-contact-nirodha" and "feeling-nirodha"; what this means is consciousness, nama-rupa (mind-body), sense contact & feeling are no longer imprisoned by ignorance, craving, egoism & suffering.


How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings? In Mudita meditation or Joy Meditation I am supposed to experience Joy for all beings. But I don't know which aspect of living beings is worth celebrating.

My question is : How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings?

EDIT: To support my mental dilemma I quote Maiterya.

  Just as there can be no pleasant fragrance in a cesspit There is no
  joy among the five classes of beings.

  – Maitreya

  Uttaratantra Shastra, IV, 50

The aspect that I celebrate: that despite all the difficulties, suffering, dirt, cynicism, pain etc. people still find strength to be positive, to love, to forgive, and to create beauty. Especially people who have seen difficulties are often the kindest and the most understanding of all. I think this is very beautiful.


Did the Buddha ever say excessive meditation is bad? I believe that I remember once reading that the Buddha abandoned excessive meditation. Is this true?

the buddha says that ''with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration.''
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi
same thing with ''excessive energy'' https://suttacentral.net/mn128/en/sujato

he says meditation must be ''made much of''
https://suttacentral.net/arv12/en/anandajoti


Nature of Spiritual Writings When I write certain texts, in the presence of inspiration, the topic turns towards high ideals, for example beauty. The phenomenon is odd and prevalent in my life: I have written hundreds of such texts, where the topic of beauty appears almost spontaneously. It usually generates a strong awe.

I'm unsure what is going on in these cases; am I generating some archetype? Am I engaging in a spiritual process? I even write beauty as 'Beauty', with a capital 'B', to suggest its ideal nature, which was common in western history.

Or, in the context of Buddhism, am I generating more attachment? Basically, despite me not feeling attached, I consistently and inevitably return to the topic of beauty and high ideals, almost in an obsessive manner. People I've shown these texts to say they don't quite follow what I'm saying in them.

For such a somewhat spiritual experience, how can I know whether I'm doing something meaningful and legitimate, or just causing more attachment?

In sum, I'm asking how this experience -- or other spiritual experiences -- are evaluated in Buddhism.

When doing your writing see what feelings you get and does it lead to:

a decrease in unwholesome states and/or increase in wholesome states
an increase in unwholesome states and/or decrease in wholesome states

“What now, bhikshus, haven’t you known me to have taught the Dharma in this way:

THE 2 KINDS OF PLEASANT FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of pleasant
feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF PAINFUL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF NEUTRAL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.’?”

... [more detail description of the above follows in the Sutta]

Kīṭā,giri Sutta
If what you write increases lust, fantasy/delusion, greed, etc. then this is unwholesome.
Since ou writing is spiritual it might be wholesome if you write is in line with the Dhamma.
One way to discern how unwholesome states arise is as follows:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta
Dealing with sensations at a more granular level can be found in: Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta


What can go wrong in Mindfulness Therapy as used in Clinics? I just stumbled across the article Mindfulness therapy comes at a high price for some, say experts. Even when mindfulness is practiced correctly, side effects may occur, like feeling lost or disconnected from the world. What could be the cause of the side effects? Do these techniques deviate a lot from the Suttas or orthodox practice? Do the staff have the necessary training and awareness required to give meditation advice (Kammaṭṭhāna)? Can something be wrong with how the clinic administers the training / teaching?

This is a real phenomenon and it is discussed in the Visuddhimagga and the writings of the Mahasi Sayadaw. Some of the stages of insight knowledge can potentially manifest themselves in this kind of way. I think for most people these stages are relatively easy, but I suppose for some they could be much more difficult. Just from my own practice I can say that these particular knowledges can be very mild

It really is just the result of seeing impermanence on a direct level. When one has a lot of attachments this is not a fun experience because one is holding onto things while at the same time seeing the suffering involved in clinging. The answer to this is that one needs to accept that this is part of the practice and a part of giving up attachment, and continue to practice. Eventually one will let go and move on and progress.

This is actually one of the reasons why I personally have reservations about practicing mindfulness meditation in a purely secular context. The teacher probably won't know about this and without understanding general Buddhist doctrine it isn't possible to understand how to move on.


Did the Buddha say that practitioners inclined towards hate rather than greed are closer to nibbana? I have heard more than one Dharma teacher say the Buddha claimed that practitioners who are more strongly inclined towards hate than greed are closer to nibbana.
Is there any evidence from the suttas to support this claim?
If true, did the Buddha offer any hints as to why this might be true?

I have seen this discussed at length in a traditional Buddhist text, but I don't remember in which one
To be precise it was not "hate" vs "greed" but "aversion" vs "attachment" ( or "indulging").
Basically, the logic went as follows: aversion is by its nature unpleasant and so the person naturally wants to get rid of the feeling it generates, while indulging is pleasant and so is more difficult to abandon, because there's no motivation to do so.
That's the basic logic, I'll try to find the text but can't promise.


Why didn't Buddhism become Popular in India in Lord Buddha's time? In Ancient India when Prince Siddhartha became Lord Buddha, Buddhism started. After that so many people in India followed Buddhism.

As per this Map in India shows very little stats having Buddhism, so my question is if Buddhism is a very good religion why didn't it go all over India, Why is Buddhism not popular in India in Lord Buddha's time?

Okay, let me start by saying I'm not a super religious person but having lived in Srilanka, right next to India and a Buddhist country qualifies me to answer this.

Indians at the time of Gautama Buddha were mostly Hindus and had a caste system where the Brahmans, the teachers of Hinduisms were on the top and the poor was at the very bottom. The poor literally had to jump in to the drains when people of higher castes were traveling on the same road. The Buddha, however, opposed the caste system and he was very ambiguous about the creator deity Brahmans and Eternal self Atman and rejected them both.

So, there were somewhat of a tension between hindu brahmins and buddhist monks. The Buddha however did not deny the existence of gods (devas) and said that the did exist in other worlds that is better than our world but are subjected to the same samsaric sufferings as humans. They too die but they have much larger life spans compared to us. Humans can go to these heavens if they do enough good deeds and when it runs out, they will be reborn depending on their karmas.

Buddhism attained prominence as it was supported by Royal courts and virtually disappeared from India after the fall of the Guptas. By the 8th century Shiva and Vishnu.

However, Emperor Ashoka who ruled most of India from Afghan mountains to Bangladesh was greatly responsible among other kings for spreading Buddhism around the world. He created Nalanda a huge library containing Buddhist documents and even some Hellenic people turned to Buddhism during his reign as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan. He sent his own son and daughter to Srilanka with a branch from the tree that the Buddha attained Nibbana and ordained the king and the royal court at the time.

Troops from the Muslim Malmuk Dynasty later destroyed Nalanda, along with a huge number of Buddhist scriptures and eventually the Boh tree the Buddha attained enlightenment was cut down. The one in Srilanka is still there and is the oldest tree in the island. Events like these and Hinduism coming back to the royal courts gradually decreased the number of Buddhist followers in India.


Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned? Is the experience of jhana considered dukkha because of its impermanence? If yes, is it still considered dukkha after attaining Nibbana?

Is the experience of jhana conditioned? Is it still considered conditioned after attaining Nibbana?

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

Kind regards!

The word "dukkha" has three meanings in context:

Unpleasant/painful feelings (dukkha vedana), which Arahants have.
Unsatisfactoriness of impermanent conditioned things, which Arahants must experience for dispassionate enlightenment.
Suffering of attachment (1st noble truth), which Arahants do not have or experience.

Jhana is certainly something "conditioned" & something "unsatisfactory" but jhana is only "suffering" if attached to.

Note: The Western translators (Bodhi, Thanissaro, Sujato, Anandajoti, etc) all translate "dukkha" incorrectly in relation to impermanence. Refer to the Mendis translation of SN 22.59, the Buddharakkhita translation of the Maggavagga or Buddhadasa's Anapanasati for the proper translation in this 2nd context.


How to Proceed By Right Effort I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort, which involves aspiring to what is skillful and abandoning what is unskillful.

Yet, I wonder:
How do practitioners proceed in terms of order or in terms of determining what to do next? How does one determine what is most important?

Thank you

Not just my own understanding, but a standard teaching is to approach things gradually, from coarse to subtle.

First, we have to stop creating major sources of trouble for ourselves. How do we do that? By following five precepts. Then, we stop creating medium-sized issues, by following the behavioral parts of the Eightfold Path. Then we stop creating subtler types of problems, by learning to control our emotions. Then, we get to subtle problems, by engaging in Samatha meditation to learn to stop compulsory thinking and inner dialog. Then, very subtle problems, by getting rid of egoistic perspectives. Then, ultrasubtle problems, by letting go of attachment to perfection and spirituality. Then extremely ultrasubtle problems, by practicing groundless suchness. These are just examples, you get the idea.

This is taught in many schools, and by many teachers. One thing at a time, by size, do the bigger stuff first. Stop creating large problems first.


How to accept things as-is and live according to as-is? In the search for meaning and purpose of life, it seems that Buddhism is silent on this issue that many modern people are concerned with. The way to reconcile seems to be "accept things as it is".

However, I personally know people who have trouble living without a "meaning of life". They ask themselves questions like "Why do I need to do this? Why can't I do that instead?". They are not nonconformist, but just does not see the point of doing anything at all. These thoughts can actually lead some of them to become suicidal as a form of release.

What does Buddhism teach about how lack of meaning of life can make someone so negative, and the method, procedures and way of thinking that can help people to "accept things as it is"?

Notes to my personal understanding to help with better quality answers.

"Meaning of Life" and "Purpose of Life" are not necessarily the one and same thing.
Not finding the meaning/purpose does not mean it doesn't exist

Clarification:
I am not blaming Buddhism for "lack of meaning/purpose of life", although some of those troubled people claim to be Buddhists themselves. Instead, I am exploring the real Buddhist way of managing this anxiety. In other beliefs and religion, the meaning is prescribed and the troubled people find peace in that. But my views are similar to the Buddhist view, so I hope to find a way to cope without resorting to those religions or "artificial comfort".

As I answered in the other question, meaning and purpose are artificial assignations from external sources. It is impossible for anything to have more meaning than is intrinsic in its nature; therefore, the meaning of something is its nature, and the purpose is subjective and relative.
As to how this makes one feel, it almost sounds as though you are blaming Buddhism for what is really just the nature of reality. That would be akin to blaming climate change researchers for exposing the dismal truth of climate change. Which is better - to live in denial of reality or to be forewarned and actually able to act logically and rationally in accordance with that reality?
It is true that some truth often seems to cause depression in people, even leading them to suicide. In reality, though, it is not the truth that leads to depression or suicide, it is delusion and ignorance in the face of what is feared and abhorred. Just like any other unwelcome phenomenon, the truth of suffering is met with horror by those who do not understand it. This is the case whether it is explicitly related to them in advance or whether they find out by themselves when they get old, sick, die, etc.
Truth itself leads to freedom; truly realizing that the meaning of life is nothing more than life, that there is no set purpose in life, and that the only logical path for one seeking happiness is to become free from suffering, leads only to peace and contentment. Depression and suicide, on the other hand, are caused by a desire for meaning and purpose fuelled by delusion.
As to acceptance, this is not exactly what I understand to be the prescribed "goal" in Buddhism; rather than acceptance, the goal is understanding (specifically of the four noble truths) and subsequent rejection* of rebirth (and thus life).

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth.
-- DN 16 (Vajira, trans)

This rejection does indeed lead to a sort of apathy towards what is therefore seen as meaningless; such apathy is a necessary bi-product of the understanding of meaninglessness. Depression and suicidal ideation are, as stated, not - they come, rather, from the inability to accept the truth, which is in turn born of desire and craving, which is in turn born of the ignorant belief in purpose / meaning.

* On the use of the word "rejection" in regards to rebirth and life:

But if this [knowledge] sees Nibbāna, the state of peace, as peaceful, it rejects the occurrence of all formations and enters only into Nibbāna.
-- Vism. XXI.64 (Nyanamoli, Trans)

and

“Bhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of feces is foul smelling, so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence, even for a mere finger snap.”
-- AN 1.328 (Bodhi, Trans)


Why does 'thoughts' and 'memories' not part of aggregates? In MN:44 it is said,

Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and
consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
identity.”

If feelings are included in identity forming aggregates why 'thoughts' and 'memories' are not included. Afterall, what I think, like, what I feel, makes my self-identity. To quote Rene Decartus, 'I think therefore I am'. Isn't the constant chattering of mind generate a sense of self.
Also, memory of things I did have a powerful effect on sense of self.
So, why not included them?

It's all included, it's just a slightly different structure.
Latent memories just sitting there are included in "samskara" (what's incorrectly translated as "choices" in your copy).
Active memories you are going over now are included either in "perception" (as associations to whatever you perceive)
Or in "form" if, for example, you are visualizing a piece of memory, creating forms in front of your mind's eye.
The way mental stuff is organized in Buddhism is a bit more technical than in our civilization. So instead of calling bunch of different things "thoughts", Buddhism gets more specific and classifies things according to how they work.
Thinking is going through a chain of associations, so each thought is a (mental) form, then it goes through perception (supported by latent memories), which finds next association, which then becomes the new form etc.


Should modernization of the environment lead to renewal of teaching texts? We now have a global network, where English language is used as a primary language  and American culture has its own culture codes (you saw that rainbow flag, etc). Shouldn't Buddhist texts be rewritten with the goal of being easily understandable? If texts use modern vocabulary and describe our surroundings with everyday words, then the spreading of Buddhist ideas will be wider than it is now.

I think this is already happening but we perhaps don't recognise it. While I've not heard of any move to completely rewrite a Buddhist canon, it is easy to find examples of books that help the reader access Buddhists texts. These could be simple primers, commentaries or retelling of traditional stories.

Breath by Breath is an example example of the extension of the commentarial  tradition of Buddhism. Larry Rosenberg picks apart the Anapanasati Sutta and really goes into each stage. I've read this twice and find it extremely useful

The anapanasati sutta isn't the only modern commentary. There's a lot more. Analayo has written Satipatthana The Direct Path to Realization which is a commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta. It's a real drill down into the sutta and is a bit more thorough and analytical than Breath by Breath.

But you don't need to get all academic to enjoy Buddhists texts. My 4 year old daughter loves the Jataka Tales as retold in the Buddha at Bedtime. It's a modern simplified version of canonical Buddhist texts - with lovely pictures and a summary from a cartoon Buddha at the end of each one. What's not to like.


The Conditions of Lying in Fiction I'm a writer, and I tend to write parts of factual information, such as insights or impressions, mixed with other fictional aspects. Therefore, I am worried about what constitutes a lie, and what isn't. My intention is never to deceive, but I feel others may gather things in my writings that I didn't mean, or that are untrue. They could easily conclude stuff which isn't factual through them.

What are your thoughts? Thanks.

Edit: I make many claims in my writings, grandiose or vast claims, which I cannot be truly certain of. Yet, I don't mean them to be taken literally. I'm unsure what is considering lying, or pride, or boasting: is fiction really a realm wherein these things are considered, or is fiction free of judgment? Thanks.

As long as you do not make claim of function being non fiction then you are OK.
For something to be a lie the following conditions must be fulfilled.

i) The statement must be untrue.
ii) There must be an intention to deceive.
iii) An effort must be made to deceive.
iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Souce: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) at https://www.urbandharma.org
In writing non fiction, you would not be having the second condition as you would know and also making know this is fiction.


Is it possible and good to know and/or talk about other/more details about the way out of suffering than the Buddha did? (One of the reasons for asking this question is that I thought that maybe some people needed some extra/other knowledge/insight in order for the Noble Eightfold Path to become more accessible to them.)

Not necessarily to be "better" in knowledge and understanding than the Buddha overall, but to have a better understanding or additional explicit knowledge of some things or see certain things in more detail or accuracy with regards to certain aspects about the way out of suffering, and that may also address particular, "extreme" types of ignorance, mental illness, psychosis.

To be able to answer other questions related to the way out of suffering that the Buddha was never asked.

In the parable of the Simsapa leaves in SN 56.31, the Buddha took some Simsapa (Indian rosewood) leaves in his hand and said that the leaves in his hand were far less in number than the leaves in the forest. Similarly, he had realized far more than he taught. However, that which he taught is all that is needed for the path to end suffering. That which he did not teach is not relevant to the path to end suffering.

Meanwhile, in DN 16, he declared that he did not hide (in a "closed fist") any teachings from his disciples. He said he did not separate some teachings as being exotic or esoteric.

Based on these statements, we can say that more details regarding the path is unnecessary. Also, since the Shakyamuni Buddha was the last Sammasambuddha (or Buddha with full perfection), it is unlikely that anyone else coming after him would know more of the path than he does, unless they too achieve the same level of perfection.

Hence, it is plausible that primarily relying on the Buddha's original words (Buddhavacana or the Buddha's Words) in most of the Sutta Pitaka (and the corresponding Mahayana Agamas) is sufficient for understanding his teachings and the path. I say "most", because there are parts of the Sutta Pitaka which contain teachings or writings from other people e.g. Sariputta, Ananda, Mogallana, elder monks, elder nuns, a few advanced householders etc. Some parts of the Sutta Pitaka like some books in the Khuddaka Nikaya even come from later periods, like the Milindapanha. You can find more scholarly information on the authenticity of the Buddha's original words in the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.

But this does not mean that it's wrong to elaborate or expand on the Buddha's teachings, while not contradicting the original teachings. In fact, I think teachers over the ages would definitely try to explain the teachings using new methods and analogies. However, such elaborations or expansions should be considered secondary sources, which are less important compared to the Buddha's original teachings.

Many traditional Theravadins say that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha, but academic scholars say that this is a later work by disciples. To me, I would consider the Abhidhamma as a secondary source, that explains the Buddha's original teachings in the Sutta Pitaka. The many carefully collated lists in the Abhidhamma are useful.

The Visuddhimagga (or Path of Purification) written by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century in Sri Lanka is another useful secondary source that expands on Buddhist meditation practice and doctrine. It can be downloaded here.

Also many traditional Mahayanists say that the Mahayana sutras were taught by the Buddha in the second and third turning of the wheel, but academic scholars say that these are later works by Mahayana authors. To me, I would consider these as secondary sources too. Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā contains an expansion on the Buddha's original definition of emptiness. I tried to analyze the link between Madhyamaka emptiness and Theravada emptiness in this question.

Of course, I understand that there will be traditional Theravadins and traditional Mahayanists who will disagree with some of my opinions above.


What impact has the Chinese Government had on Chinese Buddhism so far? State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) and the Buddhist Association of China are in charge of regulating religion in China.

So far, what effect have they had on doctrine for Chinese (non-vajrayana) Buddhism?

It's already well known that the Chinese government is hostile to the Dalai Lama.

(Also, as a side note, for those skeptical of any government's ability to regulate belief and practice- some percent of American Zen's doctrine and practice can be traced to Meiji era government initiated reforms)

I've seen quite a few news reports that focus on the huge growth of Christianity in China so naively I would have expected that this would now have overtaken Buddhism. However this report states that

  The growth of Christianity is impressive, but Buddhist growth is
  extraordinary, especially with the country's history of official
  ideology of atheism

The figures are

18% identify as Buddhist
15% identify as Atheist
3.2% identify as Christian

Considering the vigorous supression during the cultural revolution (all monasteries closed, lands confiscated) it's notable that Buddhism has remained a substantial religion within China. However the attitudes of the Chinese authorities does appear to have softened and Buddhist are seen as a source of societal good. The Chinese government is clearly still very capable of suppressing religious movements (e.g. Falun Gong) and cultures (Tibetan) it finds threatening. Fortunately Buddhism doesn't appear to currently be a focus for this suppression.

As a reference note: This is a summary of the section on Buddhism in China from An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey (pp 409 - 410 in my copy).


Evidence of determinism in DN 2 Samaññaphala Sutta? Was the King already a faith follower? Near the end of the Samaññaphala Sutta it says this:

  "The king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat." DN 2 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

Now in the English language to my knowledge when one uses the word "would" it means something definite. By my understanding it seems that the Buddha according to this sutta is saying that if King Ajatasattu had fulfilled certain conditions such as having not committed such an offense + coming to the Buddha and inquiring etc. as he did in this sutta then the "dustless, stainless Dhamma eye" would have definitely arisen.

So this particular statement seems entirely deterministic unless I am misunderstanding or translation is wrong.

Was the King already a faith follower or wisdom follower?

I think the Buddha does (supernaturally) know the condition[s] in which someone might become enlightened.

Like (I don't know if this is a good example) this isn't "deterministic" but I know that "if I hit something with a hammer then it will break".

A more explicit story like that is, for example, The Weaver's Daughter from the Dhammapada commentary:

  Now one day, as the Teacher surveyed the world at early dawn, he perceived that this maiden had entered the net of his knowledge. When he saw her, he considered within himself, "What will happen?" And he became aware of the following, "From the day when this maiden heard my discourse on the Dhamma, she has practiced meditation on death for three years. I will now go to Alavi and ask this maiden four questions. On each of the four points she will answer me correctly, and I will congratulate her. I will then pronounce the stanza, This world is indeed blind. At the conclusion of the stanza she will be established in the fruit of stream-entry. By reason of her, my discourse will be profitable to the multitude besides." So the Teacher, with his retinue of five hundred monks, departed from Jetavana, and in due course arrived at the Aggalava monastery.

I'm pretty sure there are other examples of stories like that in the suttas.

I think that's part of what makes the Buddha "a Buddha" -- i.e. insight into other people so as to know how best to teach them.


Transferring merit to someone living who isnt open minded to receiving it I have read previous posts on this topic here but wanted some clarification. I want to transfer merit (I am familiar and have great faith and practise with the Therevada tradition, and so am interested in this strand of Buddhism...), to someone who is currently experiencing great difficulties and is not open to buddhism or really anything that can help. If I were to transfer merits, it would have to be done without the person knowing and I was wondering if this would give any benefit to the person. Any advice given to this person directly would definitely be unwelcome.....and I want to help in whatever way possible.

It was once said that...

  If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. --SN42.13

A more effective approach to merit is given in AN5.45:

  When a mendicant enters and remains in a limitless immersion of heart while using a robe …
  alms-food … lodging … bed and chair …
  medicines and supplies for the sick, the overflowing of merit for the donor is limitless …
  These are the five kinds of overflowing merit, overflowing goodness. They nurture happiness, and are conducive to heaven, ripening in happiness, and leading to heaven. They lead to what is likable, desirable, agreeable, to welfare and happiness.

Merit flows as gifts are used towards progress along the Noble Eightfold Path.


What is the exact Age Limit that Buddha can live? Does any one know what is the exact Age Limit that Buddha can live? i heard that one of previous Buddha lives His Life for 40,000 year.

A Buddha can live as long as he wants – even an aeon, as the Buddha potentially have the age or lifespan of an aeon.  – but this decision depends on the others. If an arahant that is closest to a Buddha makes a formal convincing request for a Buddha to live for many thousands of years, he will do so. But always the Mara gets in the way, and asks the Buddha to attain Parinibbhana, no sooner His Dispensation is fully established. In our Gautama Buddha’s time, this happened when he was 85 years of age.

Buddha once said that anyone who had developed the Four Bases to Success (iddhi-pada), and is firmly rooted in these four bases, if he wishes, could live until ones full age - in our times until 100 - 120 years. Four bases to success (iddhi-pada) are Chanda Iddhipada (great desire to practice); Citta Iddhipada (Will); Viriya Iddhipada (effort or perseverance -repeatedly applying the mind); Vimansa Iddhipada (examination leading to insight).

The Buddha asked one of his ten chief disciples, Ananda, about this, once He knew that He has achieved the goal of fully establishing his dispensation. He asked not once or twice, but sixteen times. But every time Mara got in the way. Mara had power over Ananda, as he had not yet fully purified himself. So Ananda never heard what Buddha said, as he was not himself. And it was Mara who asked the Buddha, not Ananda. If Mara had not intervened, Ananda would have asked the Buddha to live a prolonged life, out of compassion for the world.

Mara appeared before the Buddha and reminded him of a promise the Buddha made to him forty-five years before, immediately after the enlightenment. At that time, Buddha said that he would not attain Parinibbhana until he had established and well taught the Doctrine. Now that had been accomplished, Mara said that it it was time to fulfill the promise. In reply The Buddha said that he would attain Parinibbhana in three months. A Buddha sees that this mortal body, with its six sense faculties, as belonging to Mara. This shows the detachment of an Arahant to the ways of this world. Buddha kept this body until the Dhamma was fully established, and as promised, and as invited by another, left this earth  than live a prolonged life.


Why vinaya forbids monk to ordain physically handicapped? Isn't this a kind of "opposite to empathy, compassion, metta"?

Nowdays, householders(not all) have cruel behaviour towards handicapped ones. If monk also declines to help, would that be called as compassion?

I do not believe the Vinaya rules prohibiting such ordinations are punitive in nature. They are in place to protect the Sangha jewel. Often monks and nuns need to care for each other in old age as householders will not. As such, many communities will not ordain older or enfeebled people simply because it will place too much of a burden on the healthy monks and nuns and which will result in more suffering not less.

The Vinaya rules may are there to preserve the Sangha jewel which is one of the three hopes of the world. Compassion and metta are foremost in the creation and maintenance of such rules.

Here is an explanation from an Abbey in the West:

  Why does the Abbey have an age limit for ordination?

  The Abbey age guideline is a practical consideration. Many monasteries in Taiwan
  have an age limit, as does Thich Nhat Hanh’s sangha.

  In the Vinaya, ordaining preceptors are directed to provide the
  requisites—food, clothing, shelter, and medicine—for their monastic
  followers. Sravasti Abbey commits to lifelong support for monastics
  who ordain here for as long as they live at the Abbey.

  At the Buddha’s time, Dr. Jivaka provided free medical care to all
  monastics. There was no health insurance, and if you needed a tooth
  extracted, the barber in the bazaar did it.  Nowadays, medical and
  dental care are costly, insurance premiums are uncertain, and there
  are still out-of-pocket expenses.

  Looking long term, we need to be sure that the Abbey can financially
  and emotionally support the monastics we ordain, thus we need a good
  balance of ages in the community. If there are too many elderly
  monastics, it will be a burden on the younger monastics and hiring
  full time care is impossible to afford.

  The Abbey is happy to have sangha of all ages visit and train for
  periods of time. The possibility of anagarika ordination remains. We
  also encourage people with monastic aspirations in many other ways,
  including through the annual Exploring Monastic Life program and by
  offering the material in the Monastic Life section of
  thubtenchodron.org.


How does cause depend on its effect? This philosophical treatment of Nagarjuna by Westerhoff talks about how a cause depends on its effect.

I think that this point is a stumbling block for me but in my philosophical interpretations of Buddhism and of life and death per se.

He says:

  There are three different ways in which we can make sense of
  Nāgārjuna's assertion that the cause depends existentially on the
  effect.

And then proceeds to argue about them (which I cannot make complete sense of).

Is the idea that a conditioned cause must be conditioned by its effect, in the sense of having it as a part?

Approaching causal and effectual reliance through "times"

Past, Present, and Future are the three times.

Future, Past, and Present equally depend on each other.

If you try and draw a triangle with only one line or two lines, it is impossible.  All three need to be in place for the totality of "time."

In this way, it might be possible to reason more clearly about how causes depend on effects.

Approaching co-emergent phenomena via phor

Your question seems to be "okay causes lead to effects, but why do causes depend on effects?"

Two people high-fiving requires a silent clap from both sides.

The beach (of sand) and the shore-line (of water) depend upon one another.  To say there can be a beach without water is to have a desert.  To have water without a shore-line is not a shore, but an ocean.

Thus, investigating

The nature of where they meet

Noble Nagarjuna, in Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way states

  Forms do not meet and they do not part.

Dogen-ji made a statement of similar magnitude by saying "Space has no gaps."

I will stop there, at risk of becoming too philosophical.  The teachings are meant for experiential understanding.  Words will help, but like reading a menu or eating a meal, the actual experience is what counts.

For now, know that the present is dominant and that both future and past must borrow from Now in order to even come into question.


What is dry insight? Following up from this answer - What is 'dry insight' exactly and how does it work. Is it a practice that someone will activity engage in or is it something that just happens to someone - a flash of inspiration out of the blue? I'm confused about how one could practice insight independent of any samatha practice if that is the meaning of it.

Dry insight or bare insight (suddha-vipassana) is the 'direct' way (Pali: ekayano maggo) to insight (nibbana), without jhana meditation practice (i.e. without 'upacara samadhi' or 'appana samadhi').

This direct 'momentary concentration' is called in Pali parikamma samadhi. This is the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw; U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka and others. The practitioners are called 'bare insighters' or 'dry' insighters.

You can find more information in 'The Progress of Insight (Visuddhinana-katha)' by Mahasi Sayadaw (1994): 'This approach to the ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation is called ‘bare insight’ because insight into the three characteristics of existence is made use of exclusively here, dispensing with the prior development of full concentrative absorption (jhana).’


Understanding uncertainty of thoughts and the mind It's quite easy to see the changing behaviour of the things we see, hear and feel.

Appearence between a child and an old man.
Good smell and bad smell
Having a wound and not

Those things are quite easy to see. But it is hard to see the changing behaviour of mind and thoughts.
I'm aware of

I may angry now. But I will be grateful in next five minutes. (Changing thoughts). (But I'm also getting repitative thoughts)
I have different prespective than in my childhood.
Knowledge that I have is changing.
If cut down the body into pieces, we can not find any "I"
I and I in the previous life shoud be totaly different (Can see this clearly if I was an animal.)

Even thoughts are changing, It feels like source of it remains unchanged. How to understand this clearly? What are the practises that I should do? What meditation practises help to understand this?

What you describe is the phenomena of the monkey-like mind, which changes more quickly than the body.
From SN 12.61:

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take
as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the
mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great
elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three,
four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years,
for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest
grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets
that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night.
“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and
carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists,
that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this
does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this,
that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional
formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition,
consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance
comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of
volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the
cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

OP wrote:

Even thoughts are changing, It feels like source of it remains
unchanged. How to understand this clearly? What are the practises that
I should do? What meditation practises help to understand this?

Please try the meditation practice taught by Ven. Yuttadhammo in his booklet "How To Meditate" and also taught in this video playlist.
I quote from Chapter One of "How To Meditate":

The basic technique of meditation that we use to facilitate this
change is the creation of clear awareness. In meditation, we try to
create a clear awareness of every experience as it occurs. Without
meditating, we tend to immediately judge and react to our experiences
as “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, etc., which in turn gives rise to
stress, suffering, and mental sickness. By creating a clear thought
about the object, we replace these sort of judgements with a simple
recognition of the object as it is.


Through which medium does kammic information travel after the break-up of the body? If we understand kamma-vipaka as the process of creation and perpetuation of habitual volitional deeds, we can see that, in a living being, there's a medium through which behavioral information is stored and expressed: the nervous-system and its constituents. Information is stored through the reinforcement of synaptical conections. If we agree on that, it seems that there's no need for additional explanations for the arising and ceasing of behaviors.

How does this happens after the break-up of the body? How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA?

Do the buddhist texts offer any clue to understand this process? Do you know something that could help me to understand this process?

I know DNA and the role of the nervous system are recently known and understood (at least in part) phenomena. I'd be happy to learn about any hypothesis or tentative explanation for this process.

I don't know if this question is a valid one for this site. If it's not, feel free to close it; I'd understand.

Thanks for your time and patience!

Kind regards!

Questions of King Milinda say, "it is nama-rupa that is reborn". When the King asks whether it is the same nama-rupa, Nagasena says, it is not the same, but this nama-rupa arises in causal continuity with the previous nama-rupa, and thus we talk about "rebirth".

Questions of King Milinda also compare rebirth to a memorized verse passing from one person to another, and to a flame passing from one lamp to another. It is clear that rebirth is about causal continuity and the passage of (some) information.

Japanese Zen patriarch Dogen explained that the underlying nature of mind is not separate from the underlying nature of the rest of material world. In numerous explanation in Zen and Vajrayana there is a rather clear consensus that the nature of mind are dynamically interacting relationships, both inside the person, and between the parts of the world.

So when we are talking about rebirth we are talking about continuity of interacting relationships implicitly "stored" or "encoded" in the fabric of activities happening in the world at large.

So the media that carries the karma after the break-up of the body is the world itself. People, things, activities, relationships carry the imprints of the previous existence into the next.

At least, this is my understanding.


How do visualisation meditation practices relate to insight? A while ago I attended a Tibetan Buddhist group. They were very nice but I just couldn't get on with the visualisation practices. I find it reasonably clear how mindfulness of breathing becomes an insight practice and metta bhavana. But I just couldn't see how an intricate visualisation practice would lead to an understanding of conditioned existence, suffering, no fixed self or any of it really. How do visualisation practices relate to insight?

Additional detail - the practice involved the Buddha in a bright blue sky on a throne and I remember there were snow leopards under the throne and light was going out of the Buddha.

1)
Ultimately, the "core" of Tibetan Buddhism is the Mahamudra system of practises, where they also include the Samatha and Vipassana systems/methods as described in the Theravada texts.

The practise of visualizing "Buddha on a levitating throne flanked by snow lions" (paraphrase) is an overly-promoted for-absolute-beginner entry practise mainly because it could be taught under 15 minutes. Having said that - under the guidance of a qualified teacher, it can lead to results similar to those of the kasina practises.

For a variety of psychological reasons, most individuals find it more exciting to visualize some made-up super-beings instead of pieces of earth or colour discs.

2)
The Visudhimagga prescribed and recommended different Samatha meditation objects depending on the individual's intellectual and habitual dispositions. While anapanasati works for most people, kasina works for the others. In a meditation retreat, the teacher may not prescribe the same practise for everyone.

3)
Samatha meditation practises is not unique to Buddhism, and they have been around even before the historical Buddha. The main difference is that the Theravadin's Samatha practises are stripped of all mysticism (incantations/rituals/super-entities) - leaving only what truly matters.

4)
Vipasana is what sets Buddhism aparts. It is vipasana that leads to genuine insights and liberation from dukha. The Theravada texts tell of bikkhus who obtained final liberation just on vipasana practise alone, but the same texts strongly recommended the cultivation of Samatha skills to support and to "supercharge" the practitioner's vipasana experience.


What are conditioned as opposed to unconditioned phenomena? I have come across the term 'conditioned phenomena'; what is meant by the qualifier 'conditioned'; are all phenomena conditioned, or are some phenomena unconditioned?

All things are conditioned (matter, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness itself). Conditioned in that their arising, form and duration are influenced by other things. Only nibbana (nirvana) is unborn, unaging and unconditioned in the original Buddhist teaching. It is because such a state exists that escape is possible from all that is born, changing and conditioned (which is ultimately unsatisfactory and the cause of suffering anyway). See Udana text, sutta 3 for more.


Scholarship and Buddhism What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism? Should Buddhists be concerned with what scholars say, or can we safely ignore them? How should we resolve conflicts between tradition and academia?

For specific conflicts I can cite some of my own work. See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules? and Sarvāstivāda Approach to the Problem of Action at a Temporal Distance. I have subsequently discovered that Nāgārjuna also thought so (MMK 17.1-6). Or my discover that all theories of karma are internally inconsistent: ; or the conflict between metaphysics and morality; or the assertion made by Sean Carroll that no afterlife of any kind is possible (including rebirth).

One of my teachers explicitly warned me: do not put too much trust in books written by Buddhist scholars unless they were authorized to teach by a lineage.

In hindsight, having attained "independence of others in regards to Buddha's message", I now see why: Buddhist texts are ambiguous enough that correct interpretation of the points made (as opposed to the literal meaning) requires understanding of Buddhist path as a whole, in context of personal practice -- what's known as "ground, path, fruition".

Back when I was a baby-Buddhist, I used to study all kinds of materials, written by both practicing teachers and scholars alike. Now I see that most of the monographs that focused primarily on translation have been pretty useful, while those that ventured into analysis and elaboration were mostly a waste of time.

Not that translation is quite possible without some measure of interpretation. But there seems to be a difference between following a preexisting text and following your own train of thoughts. If you think about it, the purpose of writing is very different between the two cases. A realized teacher does not write to express his or her understanding. That's not the goal. A teacher writes in order to "deliver" the students (professional slang for "to get them to Realize"). Whereas a scholar writes to explore and explain a particular thread of reasoning they discovered that seems to explain Buddhist artifacts in a cohesive and logically consistent manner.

It is not unheard of for a scholar to slip into metaphysics (how things supposedly are) as opposed to soteriological methodology (how to achieve the Goal in practice). The tradition refers to this difference as "Buddha-eye" vs. "Dharma-eye". Buddha-eye is the enlightened perspective. The elements of it may or may not be helpful to a given student at a given point in time. Whereas Dharma-eye is the perspective presented to student by the teacher, whose concerns as I said above, are primarily didactic.

Now, don't get me wrong, many lineages have professional scholars within the tradition. "Traditional" does not always equate with "sloppy" you know. I've known of teachers in both Theravada and Mahayana schools who did care about careful choice of words, precise phrasing, and clear reasoning. It is just that in the world of realized teachers conveying information is always secondary to the real objective. To entertain you with a metaphor, not every student can handle pure spirit, so teacher ought to mix in the additives according to student's capacity. Such additive, known as upaya or skilfull mean -- basically a useful simplification -- is something non-existent in the work of a pure scholar.

Let's not assume scholarly works are 100% truth either. I've seen so many cases of misrepresenting evolution of Mahayana as progressive loss of the original meaning -- that every time I see a new one I don't even cringe anymore :)

I'm telling responsibly, unless one clearly sees that elusive Truth the Buddha has found under the Bodhi tree, one should be very careful making assumptions about a particular Buddhist school or individual teacher being authentic or a "mere religion".

To conclude this post which is already getting too long, the answer to your question I'm afraid is "it depends". The further the scholar is from putting the teaching to his or her personal practice, the likelier they are to misunderstand what Buddhism is really about, the more they're prone to skewing the message, the less we can trust them. The more the scholar is also a practitioner, the more credibility they can have in our eyes. After all, the proof is in the pudding - and how can you trust a cook who's never tried his own recipe?


In what Sutta(s) is there a References to Imagine the Body Inside Out and What is Below the Skin In a Sutta there is a reference to imagine the body inside out, in which case you will be chasing animals from pecking at you.

Also perhaps in the same Sutta or another you imagine what is beneath the skin.

What are these 2 references?

Could it be the Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh SN 12.63 that you are seeking?
In this Sutta, Buddha speaks of four kinds of nutriment: edible food, sense-impressions, volitions, and consciousness. Under Sense-impression there is this simile of a skinned cow that points out that wherever she stands, will be ceaselessly attacked by the insects and other creatures living in the vicinity.

"And how, O monks, should the nutriment sense-impression be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at it.
"In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment sense-impression be considered. If the nutriment sense-impression is comprehended, the three kinds of feeling are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of feeling are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

Like a skinned cow, man is helplessly exposed to the constant excitation and irritation of the sense-impressions, crowding upon him from all sides, through all six senses.


Is it easiest to pursue/attain Nirvana as a human? Is earth the ideal condition to achieve Nirvana; advanced enough for a being to discover and teach the universal truth of reality but not so advanced that beings won't care enough to strive for it?

According to the Buddhist cosmology, a human being has the best advantages to become enlighten.

  It is not intrinsically marked by extremes of happiness or suffering, but all the states of consciousness in the universe, from hellish suffering to divine joy to serene tranquility can be experienced within the human world.

For being in the lower realms:

  Among the lower realms, Pretas (aka hungry ghosts), and dwellers in the Narakas (Buddhist hell(s)) are gripped by pain and fear, and can only endure their lot but cannot better themselves. Animals are intellectually unable to understand the Dharma in full.

For being in the upper realms:

  Most of the Brahmas and Devas simply enjoy reaping the fruits of their past actions and think that they are immortal and forever to be happy and so they don't try to practice the Dharma.

However in addition, when the Dhamma teaching is no longer available in the human world, some of the upper realms may still abundant with being knows Dhamma and still possibly attend nirvana.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_beings_in_Buddhism


Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal? Why do some Buddhists regard nirvana as an important goal while other want better rebirth?

Do all Buddhists have the same goal and if not why?

Traditional Mahayana answer is: because of different "capacities". People of "lower capacity" only care about fulfilling basic desires, perhaps just the animal instincts, - then going up the ladder we get those that want material happiness in this world (e.g. comfortable family life), then those who aspire to greater immaterial (but still this-worldly) achievements and realizations, and then those who aspire to rebirth in a better world.

Then we get to the next level, that of spiritual practitioners, who aspire to find the truth, become saints, attain supernatural abilities etc. like e.g. immortality, then those who strive for Enlightenment/Nirvana (this is considered the middling capacity) - and then, according to Mahayana, the higher capacity, which entails desire to attain Enlightenment in order to help all the rest of sentient beings. Finally, in Vajrayana, we get to people of "highest capacity" who directly see Great Perfection of Everything As Is and do not have any goals or desires.

This is the traditional answer (retold in casual simplification). Now if you ask my personal opinion, I would beg you to notice that all these goals are not really in logical opposition with each other. If you think about it, all goals represent various visions of Happiness, or "The Way Things Should Be" - as it appears to each respective type of person. It's not that the lower levels are wrong about their idea of happiness, it's just that they don't quite realize how much hidden suffering is inherent to success on each of the levels.

So really what Buddhism is after, is realization of one's highest aspirations. And on every level of this pyramid Buddha-Dharma provides very rational, methodical, consistent framework for achieving success. What makes Buddhism cool though, is that the practices for achieving success on every level are not just in no conflict with other levels but actually help the levels above and below it.

For example, if one practices emotional intelligence, one will not only have greater control over events of one's life, but also become able to help others still overwhelmed by stress, and also get a step closer to Enlightenment through understanding the nature of mind-made phenomena.

So, to summarize, it seems like Buddhism has multiple goals - but that's just the way it looks from the perspective of different individuals. In reality there is One Goal ("peace"/"happiness"), and Buddhism is the rational method for achieving it.


Metaphors in and out Buddhism One of the questions / answers recently posted here was about "storing" mental states for later.

Of course this isn't Buddhist, in the sense that it does not literally describe a selfless person.

But it could be metaphorical, couldn't it? The idea that the mind is like a computer, even though there are dis-analogous elements to that term, there are overlaps - like the way that persons have access to the past in memory, as if they were "stored".

So my question is: are any of the Buddhas actual teachings only metaphorical?

This city (body) is built of bones, plastered with flesh and blood;
  within are decay and death, pride and jealousy. - [Dhp. 150]

The Dhammapada is full of metaphors, similes and comparisons. It is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures. Here's a good article on that.


Contemplation versus meditation Is there an obvious or well-understood difference between "contemplation" and "meditation"?

I'm reading a book -- modern, probably Tibetan-language originally, translated into English -- talking about the "lack of fixation" and "realization of the nature of the mind". It says that all the Buddhas have taught this and,

  There are two ways we can come to know it: through study and inference or by knowing it directly. The way we need to know it is through direct yogic experience in meditation. We need to develop the discernment that knows this. This discernment is not the intelligence of either listening or contemplation; it is the intelligence of meditation.

I don't know how to distinguish "contemplation" from "meditation" -- or "direct yogic experience" as opposed to an[y] other mental experience or phenomenon.

One way I've seen this difference defined was in a text about Dzogchen "meditation of non-meditation". They said that traditional meditation involves conditioning or shaping the mind, while contemplation involves watching without trying to manipulate. Dzogchen non-meditation was characterized as a type of contemplation, rather than regular meditation. Incidentally, the Zen meditation I was taught (a Korean type of Shikantaza) had also emphasized this non-manipulative aspect.

I don't think this is what "contemplation" means in your text though. It seems like when they refer to "contemplation" they mean "mulling over" as opposed to "seeing" directly. So it seems your book is making the same point as my sources ("just watch what's here") while confusingly using the opposite words to convey it.


English translation of the Samyutta Nikaya Looking for suggestions on an English translation of the Samyutta Nikaya in printed book form other than Bhikkhu Bodhi's version.

SuttaCentral has translations by Ven. Sujato (and other translations).

And there are Piya Tan's translations with his commentaries hosted on a site called "The Minding Centre" (formerly called "The Dharmafarers").

Also (according to this answer), Obo's web site links to several translations if you want to compare them.

And the Buddha Vacana web site is one of my favourites, it only translates some of the suttas but translates in depth, i.e. with the English and Pali in parallel (which you can also get with Ven. Sujato's translations, especially if you enable "Activate Pali word lookup" and "View original text with translation" in the Text settings).


What is bodily formation? Does it refer to the breath or the body? 'I will breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation'; he trains thus: 'I will breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation.'" ---Satipatthana (Bhiku Bodhi's translation)

What is bodily formation? Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

OP: What is bodily formation?

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.

OP: Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

  To do this, you should decide to make the breath tranquil, and go on being continuously aware of the breath from beginning to end. You should
  do nothing else, otherwise your concentration will break and fall away.

  The Visuddhi·Magga gives four factors for making the breath tranquil:

  ...

  Concern (ābhoga): you pay initial attention to the breath, you apprehend the breath, you advert the mind towards the breath, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
  Reaction (samannāhāra): you continue to do so, i.e. you pay sustained attention to the breath that way, do it again and again, keep the breath in the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
  Attention (manasikāra): literally ‘deciding to make the breath tranquil’. Attention is the mental factor that makes the mind advert towards the object. Attention makes the mind conscious of the breath and know the breath.
  Reviewing (paccavekkhaBa): you review (vīmamsa) the breath, make it clear to the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’

p35/36 Knowing and Seeing by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw


"Take joy! I am your guarantor for getting 500 dove-footed nymphs." The Nanda sutta seems contrary to what the Buddha teaches with regard to sensual desire. Therefore, I don't understand how this was a wise approach in the case of Nanda even though Nanda acquired arahantship afterwards.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious (it's still morning here!) but how did the Buddha's promise become a catalyst for Nanda's ultimate realization?

Imagine you are going to a car shop to buy a station wagon only because that's the best car you know and then your wise relative comes to you and shows you ferraris and lamborghinis, saying that if you give up the station wagon and follow his advice, you will soon be able to afford these much superior cars, what would you do? You would take his advice, especially if you trust him and have the ultimate respect for him.

That worked for venerable Nanda. It may not work for everyone. But then the Buddha knows what a person needs to hear to get him inclined towards the practice. The Buddha redirected his craving towards a woman by altering his goal to something superior to get him to follow the path that actually eliminates craving. Even parents do this with their kids. They promise to buy a gift the kid likes very much if he passes the exam well. So the kid studies hard to get the gift and as a result passes the exam.


Meditation Without References I have previously asked questions on this forum, and now I have gained some familiarity with meditation. I am primarily doing breath meditation. When I practice, my thoughts are barely distractions at all. I can easily stay focused, but I cannot narrow my attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose. What occurs in meditation feels like a clear, yet imprecise awareness.

I know from reading on the subject that the sharpness I am looking for comes with gladdening the mind, or applying effort. Yet, neither seem fruitful in my practice. I remain very weakly focused on an imprecise object, more or less the face and nose area.

Similarly, it often happens that while meditating my thoughts dissipate completely, or to a near absence. I keep hearing different types of advice, some people experienced in meditation advising me to not use the breath, some people advising sticking to it.

Given that I am very avoidant towards experience, I am doubtful towards centring my awareness on a single object. I would like to be more alert and aware, as well as awake, in general. Yet, I cannot visualize anything at all, am mostly emotionally barren, and feel unmotivated in general. I remember applying meditations on emptiness quite intensely in earlier years, and now I feel without much suffering, but also without much enthusiasm.

Any thoughts?

I can easily stay focused, but I cannot narrow my attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose.

If you are craving when you manage to get the attention, or being averse when you cannot, you are not doing the meditation right.

Early on, the results are not due to the fact that you were (or weren't) able to keep your attention: they are due to whether you had sustained effort, to keep your attention, by bringing your mind back to the middle of the upper lip of the nose area. This is what Vitarka and Vicara are.

  Yet, neither seem fruitful in my practice. I remain very weakly focused on an imprecise object, more or less the face and nose area.

You seem to be craving to be able to do this.

Initially say you mind stick to the chosen object, nevertheless you should continuously try to bring it back. At the start of the breath, see if the breath is on the chosen spot: if not, bring it back, if it is on the breath still redirect it back to the chosen spot as when you would bring it back when the attention had gone away.

When your mind goes away to another object, or just thinking and pondering, there are three sensations which come by: i.e. sensations are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Try to see the thing's sensation before bringing your mind back. For example if you get a leg pain, see the pain and some aspect of its impermanence. Then bring back your mind.


Are people who say “not my problem” delusional? I often hear people make use of the defence “that’s not my problem”. Is this a delusion in the form of rejecting no-self and denying or not seeing interdependence? Or are these people right and should we remain equanimous about other people’s problems? Should we be careful not to assume other people want the best for us so we take more responsibility in solving our own problems?

Householder Dweezahr, interested,

first helping oneself to increase and gain, renew refuge and gratitude toward real helpers who owe all credits here:

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

yes, helping oneself in wrong ways or refuse to help someone else if able is grave delusion, yet total common in this world of people heading downwardly in high speed.

"help your self first" is what everybody would hear since child very often in Buddhist countries, yet not so many understand what it means to help oneself first.

What ever conductive for happiness in this world, the next and beyond, has/had giving as it's cause. Starting from material, to time, skills, not harming... virtue and all ones bad desires.

So it's very importand to focus on ones own happiness in right way and a person open to give what ever he/she can is a person headed toward prosperty, longlife, honour, happiness and power.

Knowing this the wise seeks after what ever good possibility to make merits.

  So when the world is on fire
  with aging and death,
  one should salvage [one's wealth] by giving:
      what's given is well salvaged.

  What's given bears fruit as pleasure.
  What isn't given does not:
      thieves take it away, or kings;
      it gets burnt by fire or lost.

  — SN 1.41

Understanding that right, that the usual investments in what is regarded as own, is just food for the flames, one understands this warning rightly, since just kammas effects will stay yours till the point of liberation, awakening, is reached:

  "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."

Fools, when seeing a burden, or asked to give, say off good cause: "not my problem" (and not seldom argue such with misinterpretation of the teachers advices)

Having followed from the raw giving material things, to giving happiness and freedom of fear by ones keeping of precepts, one will sooner or later surely arrive at the point where the most refined, of which needs to be given any, comes as ones last burden, having fallen to one: the five clinging aggregates, which are the root reason hindrence from liberation and becoming one who is really able to give and help: another Bhagavato, real liberal.

So it is good if you, being touched by it and able to understand, don't waist even more time in invest of what is already lost and focus on helping your self first.

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)