Is Buddhist insight non-conceptual? For me, until recently, an insight was this: having been mindful of some phenomenon that I contemplated, I then have a spontaneous idea about that phenomenon. For example, I might be contemplating suffering and then get a cognitive insight, a thought, comprehending and summarizing suffering and its nature.
Is this what is meant by insight in Buddhism? I have been considering that maybe Buddhism means insight in an altogether different way. I know that in insight meditation, in vipassana, one examines specifically non-self, suffering and impermanence.
But:

Is there such a thing in Buddhism as general insight, that is an insight into any type of phenomenon?
And as I mentioned, is there in Buddhism some other type of insight than a conceptual thought, an insight that might require mere awareness without thought?

Question 1:
Many different Buddhist words are translated as "insight" or "enlightenment" (the latter being a terrible Victorian choice of word). The following list is by no means exhaustive:
Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". But the "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.'
A synonym for vipassanā is paccakkha "perceptible to the senses" (Pāli; Sanskrit: pratyakṣa), literally "before the eyes," which refers to direct experiential perception. Thus, the type of seeing denoted by vipassanā is that of direct perception, as opposed to knowledge derived from reasoning or argumentation.
Kenshō (見性) is a Japanese term from the Zen tradition. Ken means "seeing", shō means "nature, essence". It is usually translated as "seeing one's (true) nature", that is, the Buddha-nature or nature of mind. Kenshō is an initial insight or awakening, not full Buddhahood. It is to be followed by further training to deepen this insight, and learn to express it in daily life.
Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding" (thus: insight)
Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajñā and Buddhahood.
Bodhi (Sanskrit, Pāli), from the verbal root budd, "to awaken", "to understand", means literally "to have woken up and understood".
Prajñā : In Theravada Buddhism pannā (Pali) means "understanding", "wisdom", "insight". In Mahayana Buddhism Prajna (Sanskrit) means "insight" or "wisdom", and entails insight into sunyata. The attainment of this insight is often seen as the attainment of "enlightenment".
Wu (Chinese: 悟) is a concept of awareness, consciousness, or spiritual enlightenment borrowed from the Chinese folk religion.
Many of these terms have a gradual quality to them, implying that insight in most personal cases is a journey (like the Buddha's own journey). Even in Chan/Zen (often called the Sudden Teaching) the "sudden" refers to the insight "striking like lightning" after considerable time walking the path. This is perhaps best illustrated by the "Oxherding Pictures" detailing the stages of insight.
Question 2: yes, but this is generally not regarded as the end of practice. This is generally associated with the 9th step in the "Oxherding Pictures":

Reaching the Source
Too many steps have been taken
returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf
from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode,
unconcerned with and without -
The river flows tranquilly on
and the flowers are red

The final step is to learn to apply this insight in daily life (i.e. to conceptualize it) to help others. You can interpret this in two ways:
a) If this insight was purely non-conceptual, no sutras or books from Masters would exist to "point at the moon".
b) All writing and conceptualization is allegorical, i.e. "pointing to a reflection of the moon in a pond"


Will most people go the three lower dimensions (hell, animal womb, ghost realm)? "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)

According to this quote most humans go to the lower realms. This doesn’t make sense to me because majority of humans though imperfect are ethical and moral. How true is this? How strict should we live our lives so that we can be reborn to a higher dimension?

In Buddhism, the 'human' realm does not always refer to something biological. The word 'human' ('manussa') in the Pali language means 'high minded'. For example, AN 6.39 says:

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident
  from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.

It appears the Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 are about what happens when the Four Noble Truths are realised and when the Four Noble Truths are not realised. The sutta quoted in the question is only an excerpt. The complete sutta is:

  Few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are
  reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the
  domain of the hungry ghosts

  Why is that?

  It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.

  https://suttacentral.net/sn56.131/en/sujato

The message of the Pansu Suttas appears the same as the message of the Lonaphala Sutta. The message of the Pansu Suttas appears to be when a non-Arahant enlightened person who has realised the Four Noble Truths falls away (cutā) from being human, such as if they are unmindful and perform an unmindful skillful action, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, they won't fall into the lower realms because they realise there is no self that did the unmindful unskilful action. Instead, they know the doer of the unskilful action was the element of ignorance. Therefore, their human status/coming-to-be (paccājāyanti) is not lost.

The Pansu Suttas can be contrasted with ordinary suttas about kamma, which are about the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

It is important to note, in the ordinary suttas about kamma, proceeding to (upapajjati) 'heaven' ('a happy state') due to a skilful action is not permanent. 'Heaven' is not permanent in Buddhism.

In summary:

The Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 appear to be about, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, how the human or godly state (paccājāyanti) does not change significantly despite unmindfully falling away temporarily from that state.
The ordinary suttas about ordinary kamma are about  the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

Note: The word two Pali words 'paccājāyanti' & 'upapajjati' commonly translated as 'reborn' are different. The word 'upapajjati' means 'to proceed closely to the former' (for example, from performing an action causing pain, one proceeds to a painful state). The 'paccājāyanti' appears to refer to the attainment of a realm status.


Reconciling anātman and ancestor worship/veneration Buddhism teaches the concept of anattā or anātman. In short:

  There is no "soul" or "essence", only "processes" within the framework of the five skandhas. This gives the illusion of the individual self/soul.

NOTE: This is just an approximation. I'm sure it can be put more elegantly, but you get the picture.

With this understanding, what is the basis for ancestor worship/veneration? Who/What is being honoured or worshiped? Basically, how do practicing Buddhists reconcile the two world-views?

Is it about remembering shared experiences? Or a way of remembering family traditions and history? Any insights are appreciated!

Perhaps ancestor worship began as a cultural overlay, but it is possible to use this as an important Buddhist tool.

The Buddhist teacher, Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh often points out that he meditates on the cloud in his tea cup whenever he drinks tea. That is, the water in the tea was a cloud at some point, thus all things inter-are. Cognising the interbeing nature of reality is important to develop compassion and respect for all beings, plants, minerals and elements.

Training the mind to see connections that aren't visible to the senses is important to realize the interbeing nature of reality.

Like a cloud makes tea, ancestors make us. Ancestor veneration in this sense develops in us compassion for beings we can't see or normally perceive and reduces our selfish existence.

In the ultimate reality there is anatta, but in conventional reality we do have ancestors. One must not abandon norms of conventional reality merely because one has understood ultimate reality. It is not nice to live in ultimate reality alone, just as it is not nice to live in conventional (materialistic) reality alone.

We must transcend the conventional and the ultimate, not be attached to either end.

Edit:
Growing very strongly attached to emptiness produces a wisdom that is devoid of compassion. Compassion is most certainly a conventional truth. When the Buddha passed away, many Arahats objected to the first Buddhist council for they believed it was impossible to set down the teachings on emptiness in conventional language. Those who were in the presence of the Buddha could feel the boundless affection and compassion with which the words regarding emptiness were delivered. How can a Sutta even hope to convey that compassionate presence of the Buddha, they bemoaned?

Thus the teachings on emptiness were guarded like a secret, and monks and dharma teachers only revealed the truth of emptiness to a select few when they believed the student was ready. I believe teaching emptiness to someone who isn't ready is a valid ground for expulsion from the order.

See also,

The Integrity of Emptiness
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Emptiness in Theravada Buddhism


Does meditation increase sensitivity to sense perceptions and why? Each morning, I meditate for 30 minutes. Within 45 minutes to an hour after, I commute to my university. For the first hour or two that I am at university after meditating, I feel almost overwhelmed by the intensity of external stimuli (car noise, sights, sometimes even internal thoughts and physical feelings). Conversely, on days that I do not meditate, I feel relatively stable and at ease walking onto campus.

Does meditation increase sensitivity to these stimuli? If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

The sights and sounds were always there. Since your question is about why it is different when you meditate as opposed to the days you don't, may be you need to understand what happens on those days in order to understand this increased sensitivity ?

Maybe your mind was caught up in worrying about fulfilling commitments, like reaching university on time. Maybe you were daydreaming, or probably just scanning the environment and only noting novel and interesting stimuli.

Probably this doesn't happen on the days you meditate. I don't know about your typical meditation session, so I am assuming you are watching the breath. So you watch the sensations that make up the breath for a period of time. You are not only looking at interesting sensations during this session, you are looking at all the sensations - if you are doing it right. So after this session, when you go out, its only natural that you are not looking at just interesting sensations or worrying about getting somewhere, but looking at all the sensations that make up the external reality.

  If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

You need to observe all the sensations of your meditation object for making progress in mindfulness meditation. It is normal to have some spill over effects of practice in normal life. If you can, you can maintain mindfulness while interacting with the world as well. If you can't, that is fine, as it is generally considered to be more difficult. So increased sensitivity is normal, and it is result of being open to all sensations during the meditation practice.


What is the reason why Buddhist monks don't work to support themselves? Do the monastic rules prohibit them from working? It may be hard to find a comparative monastic tradition in the west although there are some monastic in Christianity currently most are really assimilated and intertwine with the Church which bears its existence in charity; so it's not practical to compare these with Buddhist monastic tradition. However, if we go back in history there were monastics in Christianity completely detached from the church, for example, the desert fathers ( Christian ascetics in Egypt and Syria ) were completely detached from the church, but  following the Apostel's command that 'a person unwilling to work should not eat' they lived by the labour of their hand.

So, the question, in short, is why do Buddhist monks rely on alms for sustenance?

I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but for many observers, it's perplexing to see a young and strong monk asking for sustenance from old and ragged and gray women.

I recommend you to read the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta. Kasi Bharadvaja was a farmer who asked this exact question from the Buddha. Monks dedicate their lives to spiritual development. They do not have time to make money or do agriculture. They do not eat for sport or beautification. They only eat enough to maintain life so that they can work towards Nibbana. Yes, farming does break a precept.

"Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is [an offence of Confession.]"


intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism From my perspective, the Buddha's Teaching is reductive and subtractive. It's experiential and fundamental for knowing how to die well. It's good for transcending the ego by dissolving into all to find freedom from suffering.

The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help but little intellect is required. Sometimes intellect  can get in the way.

One can start a practice by just practicing.

Nobody want's to avoid the labor of hard thought because the practice isn't to think, it's to experience. It's Satipatthana. It's understanding the difference between words or other concepts and experiential reality.

Does the Buddha's teaching require much intellect? What is anti-intellectualism in Buddhism?

I don't think Buddhism is inherently anti intellectual. Theravada's Abhidharma, Late Indian / Early Tibetan Mahayana preserved and developed by Gelugpa - are highly intellectual, to name a few.

It's an old adage in Buddhism that Dharma is medicine for the mind, and particular form the teaching takes depends on student's disposition.

There are certainly schools that grew out of concern that some students obsess over concepts and don't see the forest behind the tree. These schools, like many lineages within Tibetan Kham's Kagyu and Nyingma emphasize personal practice and insist on simple no-nonsense pithy instructions passed in private from generation to generation.

Some schools like Ch'an were born as radical response to then increasingly obsessive and speculative intellectualism, true, but Ch'an is far from being the largest or the most influential school. Perhaps the most famous in the West, exactly for its irrational presentations.

The truths that Buddhism teaches are complex and subtle, but in my opinion totally explainable. It's only a matter of time I think until western culture develops enough insight into things Buddhism taps into, and creates an authentically western intellectual representation of them.

We see it already in various forms of literature on topics as diverse as self-help, emotional intelligence, philosophy of mind, bundle theory, hierarchy theory, and others.


Do Buddhist texts record or comment on the then-prevalent varna or caste systems? Do Buddhist ancient scriptures/texts record or comment on:

The then-prevalent varna system?

or

The then-prevalent caste system (clan-like system)?

I understand that Buddhism is based on equality, i.e. I am not saying that Buddhism accepted the caste system.
In particular, what I am asking is whether buddhist text:

Records any wrong-doings based on caste system or varna system
Records whether or not the varna system was birth-based at that time
Explicitly says that it rejects birth-based varna system/caste system.

Please provide references from such text.

Straight forward answer is Buddhism never accept caste system or the color. In "Wasala suthra"  (as I remember the name) Lord Buddha has clearly mentioned that, a person doesn't become noble by his birth, caste etc but by his act (behavior).

Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (SN 1.7)

  Now at that time a fire was burning, and an offering was being prepared in the house of the brahman Aggikabharadvaja. Then the Blessed One, while on his alms round, came to the brahman's residence. The brahman seeing the Blessed One some way off, said this: "Stay there, you shaveling, stay there you wretched monk, stay there you outcast." When he spoke thus the Blessed One said to the brahman: "Do you know, brahman, who an outcast is and what the conditions are that make an outcast?" "No, indeed, Venerable Gotama …


Conscious Attention for Inner transformation during daily activities The life current is extremely strong, if I consciously bring my attention to a single breath, a single movement of my abdomen, a single moment of my weight or sensation of my sitting bones during daily life, would it still be beneficial to my inner transformation?

Or is it long hours of (15min plus) sitting meditation, body scanning is only counted?

Mindfulness should be from awakening to falling asleep, i.e., throughout the day. Formal practice time is just a booster and practice to keep your mindfulness thought out the day.


How and when did the name "Buddhism" appear? What is called "Buddhism" is a whole range of different schools, sects, practices etc. that has in common that they are based on the teachings of Siddharta Gautama/the Buddha.  But is the name "Buddhism" used as a name for these teachings anywhere else than in the "West"? How and when did the name "Buddhism" appear?

How and when did the name "Buddhism" appear?

I'm not an expert, but here's what I found this evening: the article  SCHOPENHAUER AND BUDDHISM by Peter Abelson says,

  When  the tenets  of Buddhism  became  known  in Europe  during  the third and fourth  decade  of the nineteenth   century

... and says that Schopenhauer referenced work by Isaak Jacob  Schmidt.

Wikipedia's article for Isaac Jacob Schmidt says that one of his publications was titled,

  Über die Verwandtschaft der gnostisch-theosophischen Lehren mit den Religions-Systemen des Orients, vorzüglich des Buddhaismus, Leipzig 1828

And this book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West quotes Isaac Schmidt as saying,

So according to Isaac Jacob Schmidt,

  The peoples of that faith call themselves followers of the teachings of the Buddha.

According to Wikipedia he was living in Russia and studying Mongolian and Tibetan history.

  His scientific work became noted after the publication of a work on the history of Mongols and Tibetans in 1824. ... Until his death in 1847, Schmidt published a multitude of works on Mongolian and Tibetan studies


Realization of Anatta I am not following any particular tradition of Buddhism. How does anatta feel to a sentient being? How can it be tested or experimented? This is being asked because mere intellectualization is not enough obviously.

And what's next?

The way Buddha formulated it, anatta was a surprising solution to the impossible problem - change in your attitude, not just an intellectual understanding - just like you said.

His argument went like this: dukkha happens because we try to rely on things which are unreliable -- therefore to achieve permanent Nirvana we need to try and find something which is absolutely reliable. Anything that depends on conditions is impermanent - therefore it is unreliable -- therefore it is dukkha. So we should not lean on (=try to establish our base in) anything conditioned (impermanent, unreliable). Let's see what it leaves us with. All physical objects, configurations, and situations are impermanent. So we can't establish our base in any of them. Our sense-experiences depend on the external objects, which are impermanent/unreliable - therefore our sense-experiences are unreliable too. So we can't establish our base in them. Our mind state depends on our sense-experiences, which are impermanent/unreliable - therefore the mindstate is unreliable too. So we can't establish our base in the mind state. This is the meaning of anatta, we decide that it would be stupid to establish our base in external world, in body, in sense-experiences, or in the mind - because they are all impermanent and therefore unreliable. So this leaves us with... nothing. There is nothing we can establish our base in. This is complete anatta, complete no-self / no-base. And then Buddha made discovery: if you don't establish your base anywhere, you are invulnerable! So on one hand it is a complete loss, there is nothing reliable so there is no Nirvana. On the other hand, if you really let go of everything, if nothing is yours, nothing is you, nothing is your base, nothing is your prize - then impermanence no longer matters, and there is no basis for dukkha to occur. This is called Unbinding.

So as you can see, anatta is not the kind of selflessness we get in physical sciences - they too tell us there is no soul, and lately the neuroscience tells us the feeling of single agent in our head making decisions and experiencing phenomena is an illusion. So everything is just a combination of matter/information fluctuating. But that's not enough.

What really matters is our personal attitude to things. As long as we establish our base anywhere, even in Buddhism - we get involved into conflicts, arguments, disappointments, and losses. Only if we have no base can we be free from conditions. But to be baseless requires tremendous courage and tremendous will power to let go (and to keep letting go, like jumping from the airplane). It really is very scary. And it kinda makes you very lonely, because you can't seriously relate with people who make their bases in all kinds of arbitrary things. On the other hand, since you don't dwell on any negative thoughts (you don't make them your base either) - you are never upset or frustrated.

It feels like you are superninja dancing between the raindrops. The raindrops represent various bases you could potentially attach to. Dancing between raindrops represents baselessness. When you get it, what are you going to do with this? What's next? At this point it becomes a funny question. Do I need a next base, is that's what I am asking about? What is my next base to go to?

What is my next address? What is Buddha's address? Buddha is not leaving - and Buddha is not arriving. Something like this. You asked how anatta feels to a sentient being.

But that's the very end of the path. Buddha said, there is no point in skipping stages - otherwise you will be like that cow - that has lost her previous grazing grounds before she has established her feet in the new grounds. First anatta should be practiced as baselessness in everyday life. Any time we feel frustration in daily life, that's our mind trying to establish a base. So we should learn to watch out for those and let go of the base, starting from the most coarse situations, that generate the most coarse emotions. And then you stalk yourself identifying more and more subtle bases, and let go of them, until you let go of the base of the Buddhist practice itself, and the base of "better", and the base of no base.


If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life? Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path? Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path?

Yes. That's the promise

  Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

This is a misunderstanding. True benefits are realized now. At the present moment. Anyone who wait for next life or even tomorrow are simply in a state of suffering.

  If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?

Non of your suffering is based on bad karma. Suffering is something you do. Not something that happen to you. Enlightened person realize this and stop doing it.

You may have a back pain, which may or may not be karma from past life. But you don't have to suffer it.


Can we meet the conditions of good feeling again and again? All our feelings depend on conditions... it is said that conditions are impermanent.... is it possible for us to create conditions for us to have good feelings forever ? If not , why ?
I am not saying good feelings can exist eternally ... I am saying can we create conditions for good feelings? For example by earning money we can ensure that a perpetual supply of food is available.... we fulfill the conditions of money accumulation and in return I get food. Similarly is it possible to work for something which ensures us good feelings forever or at least till we last ?

There are three feelings:

DN34:1.4.11: sukhā vedanā, dukkhā vedanā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā.
DN34:1.4.11: pleasant, painful, and neutral.

Sukhā vedanā (e.g., "joy of sex") is prone to relishing which leads to suffering.

MN1:172-194.26: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

How then should we practice?

DN34:1.2.5: What one thing should be developed?
DN34:1.2.6: Kāyagatāsati sātasahagatā.
DN34:1.2.6: Mindfulness of the body that is full of pleasure.

Note that sātasahagatā is not the same as sukhā vedanā. Indeed sātasahagatā is the subtle ease brought about by the relinquishing of stressful grasping at good feeling.
Sātasahagatā can be understood as "frictionless ease". Sātasahagatā is equally applicable to the sublime ease of meditation and it is also applicable to the spinning of a jet engine at full throttle.
So if "good feeling" means "grasping at pleasure", then yes, we can choose delight and suffering endlessly. Yet if we understand "good feeling" as sātasahagatā then we can also understand that right mindfulness leads to extinguishment.

AN8.63:3.1: Yato kho te, bhikkhu, ayaṁ samādhi evaṁ bhāvito hoti bahulīkato, tato tvaṁ, bhikkhu, imaṁ samādhiṁ savitakkampi savicāraṁ bhāveyyāsi, avitakkampi vicāramattaṁ bhāveyyāsi, avitakkampi avicāraṁ bhāveyyāsi, sappītikampi bhāveyyāsi, nippītikampi bhāveyyāsi, sātasahagatampi bhāveyyāsi, upekkhāsahagatampi bhāveyyāsi.
AN8.63:3.1: When this immersion is well developed and cultivated in this way, you should develop it while placing the mind and keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind or keeping it connected. You should develop it with rapture. You should develop it without rapture. You should develop it with pleasure. You should develop it with equanimity.

Sātasahagata itself must be relinquished on the path. Sātasahagata still is tangled with intention. Notice that the Buddha points to equanimity.


How do I practice the Dhamma in an environment where it's not supported? My parents, try to hinder my practice of the Dhamma by verbally & aggressively putting the Dhamma down to me, almost every day. They believe I am being "brainwashed" by monks I watch online or people I talk to about Buddhism.
They also express that they are concerned when I meditate, which itself is not negative at all, I just don't want them to worry about my practice.
My practice in no way interferes with their life, I keep the Dhamma to myself unless one is curious or respectful about it, but my parents always seem to bring it up & they aren't very respectful.

How do I prevent this from happening while at the same time respecting their beliefs in the Abrahamic God? I only want love & practice, it's just hard to communicate, for them to understand, the truth of the Dhamma to them.

Metta to all

The Buddhism as a religion which can be seen practiced nowadays is often and in many ways quite different to the practices in the texts. Therefore your group is right to worry about you imo. There are several sects even within the Theravada and a variety of disagreements, chances are they already got you:)

Perhaps try approaching the whole Buddhisms more like an academic pursuit and experiment with meditation, shouldn't be a big deal if someone wants to explore those things. The problem arises when you come of as a lunatic and they are unable to communicate because they are not trained in that system of language (dhamma).


What are the ten courses of action (kamma)? In the Visuddhimagga, on the topic of virtue, there is a reference to the ten courses of action (kamma):

  Furthermore, virtue as volition is the seven volitions [that accompany
  the first seven] of the [ten] courses of action (kamma) in one who
  abandons the killing of living things, and so on. Virtue as
  consciousness-concomitant is the [three remaining] states consisting
  of non-covetousness, non-ill will, and right view, stated in the way
  beginning, “Abandoning covetousness, he dwells with a mind free from
  covetousness” (D I 71).

I know the quote is taken out of context from the chapter, but I was just wondering about the ten courses of action (kamma), and their reference and significance?

1. What are the ten courses of action & their significance?

They are unwholesome and wholesome behaviors that lead people to live unhappily or happily now & in the future.

Unwholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Killing & harming living beings.
2. Taking what is not given.
3. Sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Lying.
5. Slandering.
6. Harsh talk.
7. Useless Idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Covetous thinking.
9. Hateful thinking.
10. Seeing distortedly with wrong view.

Wholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Abandoning killing & harming living beings.
2. Abandoning taking what is not given.
3. Abandoning sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Abandoning lying.
5. Abandoning slandering.
6. Abandoning harsh talk.
7. Abandoning useless idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Abandoning covetous thinking.
9. Abandoning hateful thinking.
10. Seeing undistortedly with right view.
(You can find details about them in the references provided below.)

2. What are their references?

You can find them in many discourses throughout the Pāḷi Canon, specially in the 10th book of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara Nikāya).

Two examples are: AN 10.176, Cunda (Cunda-suttaṃ) & MN 41, Brahmans of Sala (Sāleyyaka-suttaṃ).


Dharmaskandha and Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana contains a section of shortcomings. What are the shortcomings? According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Dharmaskandha and Śāripūtrābhidharma versions of the Satipatthana contains a section of shortcomings. What are the shortcomings mentioned in these versions?

To put it in another way Sujato Bhikkhu postulates a root text which he calls Satipatthana Mula which other later Satipatthana suttas and sutras "added" their own stuff. He derived a postulated root text not just by elision and finding common contents but other textual analysis.

The results he obtained happened to be similar to those found in the Theravada Abidhamma Vibhanga.

My quick and brief comparison from his table shows that the current pali version contains the following practices which according to Sujato Bhikkhu are not present in his postulated Satipatthana Mula:

Theravada Satipatthna Sutta adds:

Four postures;
Clear comprehension;
Anapanasati;

4 elements;
Food;
Space (5 element);
Oozing orifices;
Charnel ground;

6 sense media;
4 noble truths;
Rise/fall;
Knowledge;
Independence

Ekayana Sutra added: Arahantship


Why don't monks get married? If there are no restrictions in Buddhism then why do they not want to get married?

Of course there are restrictions!

  Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami (I will refrain from sexual activity)

If you can't have sex, your spouse probably won't be too pleased.  Having a family of your own will also prove slightly more difficult.  Besides, the whole point of forgoing the householder life for homelessness is to pursue enlightenment with the minimal amount of obstacles possible.  Supporting a family is quite a large responsibility to undertake!

(Note: this does not apply to all Buddhist schools.  Zen monks often marry.  But if you are looking for the strict, scholastic answer, see above.)


What does "abandoned for no future renewed existence" mean in this sutta? In SN 35.72, the buddha had an exchange which goes like this:

“What do you think, bhikkhu, do you regard the eye thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
“Good, bhikkhu! And here, bhikkhu, you should clearly see the eye as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Thus this first base for contact will be abandoned by you for no future renewed existence.
(Repeats for the remaining 5 sense bases, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind...)

When the buddha said, this base for contact will be abandoned by you for no future renewed existence, does he mean that your future existence will be devoid of that sense base i.e. being born without sight?

No, it means to give up the clinging towards eyes and sights since they are neither you nor yours. As a result, eyes and eye contact cannot cause you to be reborn again in Samsara.


Is Nirvana redundant? I'm confused over Buddhism's lack of afterlife, yet belief in rebirth.

If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?
What happens to the five aggregates after death?
Consciousness in Nibbana

From reading answers given on this site, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness. Logically then any concern of either suffering from bad karma in a next life, or being reborn as an animal is unwarranted.

Although apparently death leads to rebirth, Nirvana appears futile as life will continue to reproduce unhindered. Life is far more effective at producing more life than death is.

What does Nirvana offer that death does not? It would seem they both lead to oblivion.

"No afterlife" means, from a Buddhist perspective, that there is no ego-centered identity to experience that afterlife. After life, the ego entity created by the human mind is no more but the consciousness in which that individual was operating in never dies.

As Andrei_Volkov answered, the Buddhist perspective likens consciousness to a vast ocean. The Five Aggregates are what happens as consciousness becomes embroiled and enmeshed in straits and currents, like tidepools on the coastline where water can be "trapped". If it mixes with pollutants here, it will still contain them if swallowed by a stork or channeled elsewhere. This is karma and it is a causative process stretching infinitely.

The human brain reasons and automates judgement which can blind one and veil true causation and the true nature of things. For instance, the human brain contains two dedicated regions in the parietal lobe: one to keep track of the body's boundaries ("elbow: check! nose: check! right arm: check!..." and another to keep track of the body in space. These regions greatly contribute to the human sense of ego or I-ness or self. There is no afterlife for this sense of self that is delimited by skin and bound in space. However, consciousness channeled through the eddies of the individual will forever return to the ocean (rebirth) carrying the traces of its course (the five aggregates).

Nirvana, the great blowing or washing out, is only possible when the water returns to its pure and primordial state. Death will always accompany life, and to the Buddhist death is only a turning point on a great wheel of eternity. Nirvana refers to the complete freedom, beyond conception. Nirvana is not a possibility only after death. Despite the rendering of the phrase "to enter Nirvana", it is not an "arrival" like you die and you go there instead of somewhere else. It is freedom from the perspective that otherwise glues consciousness to life, but in an ultimate sense - not a temporary conceptualization within an individual mind's understanding.

To explicitly answer your question, Nirvana offers nothing -- and death doesn't exist -- it begets more life. Like night and day, they are just vantages from a stationary point on the rotating earth. The sun just shines and gravity just propels and it makes a whole horse-and-pony show out of next to nothing. Again, Nirvana offers nothing.


Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it? Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it? I thought that only substantial beings could be completely in control of everything that happens to them, and not just because things are impermanent.
Also, conditioned things are a result of past karma, which is often said to be an unconscious process of seeds becoming ripe. So surely it would only be under out control over the course of very many lives, at least?
The Points of Controversy -- theravada -- refute the claim that everything is from karma, including karma, of the rajagirikas and siddhatthikas. But it does not show that for anything but new karma. The sautrantikas taught that there is no life faculty sustaining events between life and death, because karma alone is "sufficient" to account for all destinies.

this is accepted by all Buddhists... theravada or mahayana

The Lioness in Bloom, p33
Further, Bodhidharma exhorted

the practice of following conditions, sentient beings  lack a self and
are all whirled around by conditions and karma; suffering  and joy are
to be equally accepted, for both arise from conditions. If I
encounter excellent karmic recompense, such as honor and so forth, it
is  in response to causes in my past lives. Even if I should encounter
such  recompense in the present, the necessary conditions for it will
exhaust  themselves, and it will again cease to exist. What is there
to be joyful  about in its existence? Gain and loss follow conditions.
Mind has neither increase nor decrease. Unmoved by the winds of joy,
one is mysteriously in accordance with the path. Therefore, it is
called the practice of  following conditions.

Bodhidharnma, Two Entrances

Not everything is caused by karma. Some things are caused by other reasons, like the weather. The Sivaka Sutta talks about this. There's a summary at the bottom:

Bile, phlegm, and also wind,
Imbalance and climate too,
Carelessness and assault,
With kamma result as the eighth.

To quote the sutta in detail:

“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
… caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they
overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say
that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

The Acintita Sutta states that you can't work out karma and its results precisely:

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

What's more skillful is to develop one's virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña) as stated in the Lonaphala Sutta. That will mitigate the ill effects of past karma (actions).
As for future karma (actions), to avoid accumulating karma debts, it is skillful to adopt the following skillful thinking from the Themes Sutta:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’


How can I forget my old girlfriend? Hello to all of you and thank you for your time in answering the questions here.
I have a big problem with my feelings. I have a huge emotional lack, which means I've never moved on with my old girlfriends. My last three girlfriends, two that I loved a little bit, and one with whom I had a long relationship and thought she was my soul mate.
As a result, I suffer and often come back to them again and again and again and again... in a never-ending loop. I look needy and pathetic.

How can I get better, please?

Thank you very much.

As my teacher explained, the reason we are needy and clingy is because we have not discovered how to be our own source of "energy". We are like babies depending on mothers' tits for nutrition, in this case emotional/psychosomatic nutrition.

In order to become independent, we must learn to obtain energy by ourselves. The entire Buddhist path can be seen as a method for gaining complete independence from external circumstances as far as energy. Once we learn to be completely independent, we are free (call that Enlightenment, Nirvana or anything you want).

In order to understand energy we must understand the principle of this/that conditionality and 2nd/3rd Noble Truths. In brief summary: when "is" and "should" match, we feel gratified, we gain energy. When "is" and "should" mismatch, we feel miserable, we lose energy. When we clearly see this principle at work in our own lives we can extract all kinds of tricks from it.

Famous Buddhist trick is to let go of "should" (aka attachment) in order to liberate oneself from the mismatch and thereby cease suffering. A more advanced trick is to transcend any and all "is" and thereby make oneself immune to any future suffering.

But there is other side to this equation, and it involves taking advantage of matching "is" and "should" in a positive way. If you frame your goals and values, and your achievements in such way that "is" and "should" match, you can extract energy from the same mechanism that normally generates suffering. Buddha described it gloriously in many suttas on Jhanas.

In fact, generation of energy is one of the most important practices in Buddhism, but not all practitioners realize that. And how do we generate energy? We generate it by setting up clear criteria for success, achieving them, and congratulating ourselves on the achievement.

Traditionally in Buddhism this is practiced as Sila. We vow to uphold the precepts, then we uphold them, then we examine ourselves, congratulate ourselves, and extract energy from the achievement, energy we can then reinvest back into practice. But it does not have to stop with Sila. Every and all action can be a source of energy. Starting with simple daily tasks. We can set our own standards of perfection for tidiness and cleanness in our household. Then we can slowdown and put some determination into implementing our standards. Then we can observe ourselves having achieved it, congratulate and extract energy. Makes sense?

This works even at the level of day to day actions. If we set our own standards for dressing comfortably and looking the way we want, and then stay true to our own standards every time we dress, the daily ritual of dressing becomes a source of energy.

In general, being consistently perfect by your own standards minute after minute, hour after hour every day - is an incredible source of energy. It is a nuclear station we always carry with us.

Achieving this level of satisfaction requires developing a perfect connection with ourselves. We must be in deep touch with our inner core, with our true nature, so we can always stay true to ourselves, never rushing, never compromising with our truth.

When we are like this, we don't depend on any external source of energy, we don't even depend on favorable circumstances anymore, and not even on success. We get a kick from the very process of knowing that we always stay true to ourselves and always do our (optimum) best, given the multifactor/multidimmensional limitations of the circumstances.

This in itself is a path to Enlightenment, if you follow it through to the very end. But it can also serve more mundane purpose, like making you free from dependency on a girlfriend. Dharma is a very powerful tool when one puts it to actual use.

Good luck with your problem and let us know if you have further questions.


live as if it was your last day? So there is a lot of teaching out there focuses on meditating on death. A lot of it talks about living life as if it was your last day, week, month... in that this way, you don't take life for granted and it wakes you up instead of just passing time...

These same teachings talk about how life should be lived in reality and not in your mind.

My question is... isn't "pretending" it is your last "day", "week", "month"... itself a construction of the mind? Doesn't that distort reality? Is that really the "correct" thing to be practicing?

The "meditating on death" sounds like it's meant to be a meditation on impermanence, and on the unattractiveness of the body (i.e. an antidote to lust); as well as on the "just seeing" and so on that may be an antithesis to a excessive mental fabrication.

But there may be another aspect to it (beware this is something I've been thinking about myself, and is not a thought that I've been reading or hearing about from others, so don't take this as an authoritative answer) which is 'real' in a different way: which is to do with how you handle time.

If you consider not time but money for example, if you borrow money then that's a burden. "How will I pay the money back? I owe the money, I spent the money, how can I accumulate more money (more than I need) to pay back what I owe?" If someone says to me, "Would you like to...?", or, "Can you...?", if I have a debt then maybe I'm meant to say, "Sorry, I owe a lot of money and instead of doing that good thing you suggested I have to work to try to pay it back." In any case that doesn't seem like sukkha.

According to this one of the questions they ask someone who wants to be ordained is, "Are you free from debt?"

I think something similar happens with time: if I accumulate a time debt, if I have a lot of things to do, which I haven't done and which I need to do, which I owe to someone, then maybe that's not conducive to being free (in the "liberation" sense of enlightenment), it means that you're unable to do what you want or should.

So I think that it may (at least for house-holders) be (not a mind-construction or reality-distortion but) a sīla practice, which ties into the notion that a result of virtue is the lack of remorse. I think a consequence of "living each day as if it's your last" might be that you have done (and continue to do) everything that you need to.

It might fit into the notion of karma too, somehow: if you go around saying, "Sure I'll (promise to) do this, that, and the other..."

  I'm not sure if you are even answering the question, but it doesn't matter.

To try to even answer the question, then, the "last day" doctrine or something a bit like it might be traditional in Zen -- see Three Days More.

I was watching this video recently which I think is introductory Zen (if you don't have time for all of it, try up to 10 minutes from time 29:00 onward).

Or see also the subsection titled "Yes, I Speak Zen" in A Still Forest Pool which ends, "Perhaps the Zen student glimpsed that the heart of vipassana is no different from the heart of Zen."

IOW I'm guessing that the point of "live this as your last day" is meant to be the opposite of "pretending" -- for example, the intention isn't, "pretend that now is tomorrow and that you are dead" -- instead maybe the intention is, "tomorrow is not now."


Why does the Buddha appear androgynous in some depictions? In quite a few depictions of the Buddha in artwork, he appears androgynous.

Does this represent something significant in terms of a Buddhist message or ideal, or is this just an artistic style?

It's an artistic style. The impression of androgyny is arising in the mind of the viewer (not necessarily every viewer), and part of its cause is our arbitrary cultural standard of how men and women should look.


How does the Buddha subdue fear in MN4? In MN4 does the Buddha subdue the fear by:

Observing it with mindfulness until it goes away, thereby seeing the Three Characteristics?
Subdue it with samatha meditation, i.e. to shift attention away from the fear, thereby gaining temporary seclusion from it?

So when fear & terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I
would not stand or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would
keep standing until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand
up or walk. I would keep sitting until I had subdued that fear &
terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was lying down, I would
not sit up or stand or walk. I would keep lying down until I had
subdued that fear & terror. MN 4

Good question! Not everyone finds this episode interesting - and yet it illustrates a very important point.
Buddha subdues his fear by bringing all of his attention to the present moment.

As I was staying there a deer came by, or a peacock snapped a twig, or the wind rustled the leaves. Then I thought, ‘Is this that fear and dread coming?’ Then I thought, ‘Why do I always meditate expecting that fear and terror to come? Why don’t I get rid of that fear and dread just as it comes, while remaining just as I am?’

Normally when we are afraid, our mind gets split. Half of it is in the present moment and another half runs to a hypothetical future, imagining the dreadful scenario. Buddha said, why do I always do that, why do I imagine things? Rather than worry about them why don't I focus on what I was doing?
This happens a lot to us. We imagine what our neighbors think about us, we imagine our audience judging us when giving a lecture, we imagine things lurking in the night when putting the trash can out for pickup. The more we worry about them the more we lose our ground and our connection with the real situation.
Instead if we can focus on doing what we started - which is what actually matters anyway - then we will not only stop experiencing fear, we will do better in terms of meeting an actual danger if it should ever come.


Practice of the other three Brahmaviharas Metta has received plenty of attention and focus of practice. Even a search of Buddhism SE shows over 170 posts with the word "metta" in it.

Comparatively, the other three Brahmaviharas are not so often discussed or focused in similar depth.

How do we practise them?

What are the benefits that can be gained out of the practice?

Canonical quotes appreciated. Theravada preferable, but answers from the perspective of other traditions are also welcomed.

The practice of the Brahmaviharas is comprehensively dealt in Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga. Online resource :- Visuddhimagga.

Daniel Ingram says that the Brahmaviharas are:

  Loving-Kindness (Metta): the natural well-wishing for one's self and all beings.
  Compassion (Karuna): the natural wishing that the suffering of one's self and all beings will cease.
  Sympathetic Joy (Mudita): the natural appreciation of the successes, good fortunes and joys of ourselves and all beings.
  Equanimity (Upekkha): the feeling of peace that comes from realizing that all beings are the true heirs of their karma and that their well-being depends on their actions, and not on our wishes for them.

He makes an important point that all the Brahmavihara practices share common ground - they are rooted in conscious intent. In this way they produce positive effects. The structure of the meditations are similar and it is merely the intent that changes, encapsulated by the meaning of the phrase that is used. As in Loving-Kindness meditation, so in the others we (substituting the appropriate pronoun in the blank spaces) we silently intend:

  For Loving-Kindness: May _____ be happy. May ____ be peaceful.  May _____ be safe. May _____ live with ease.
  For Compassion: May _____ be free from suffering. May their suffering finally cease.
  For Sympathetic Joy: May the happiness and good fortune of _____ always increase.
  For Equanimity: ____ is/are the true heirs of their karma. ____'s happiness depends upon their actions and not upon my wishes for them.

Quoted from integrateddaniel.info


How does the Nimitta occur? How does the Nimitta occur? I mean does it come all of a sudden (like torch turned on) as a shining bright white light or does it come as light gradually increasing brightness of varied colors?
I am able to see a faint glimmer of blue circular object but not getting anywhere with it. The brightness and color remains constant for few minutes and it vanishes afterwards. Is it Nimitta? What should I do to brighten it

MN128 has a long long discussion about what to do when nimitta vanishes:

MN128:15.3: “Well, sir, while meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, we perceive both light and vision of forms. But before long the light and the vision of forms vanish. We haven’t worked out the reason for that.”

It's rather lengthy, so I won't repeat it but it starts here:

MN128:16.1: “Well, you should work out the reason for that. Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too perceived both light and vision of forms.  But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me: ‘What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’  It occurred to me: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away.

And continues for a very long explanation...
Regarding what is actually seen, that too is mentioned in DN16. Specifically, visions can be internal or external; limited or limitless; blue, red, yellow or white.

DN16:3.26.1: Perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. (...)

Notably, one should also not be attached to such visions. Let them come and go. Watch without grasping.

MN111:4.5: And he meditated without attraction or repulsion for those phenomena; independent, untied, liberated, detached, his mind free of limits.

In particular, limited visions will have forms, since forms are limited. Just watch.


What is the actual status of the Dalai Lama in regard of Dhamma-Vinaya? Since a Tibetan religious leader is often counted in the West and under modern people (yet actually known just in Tibet and as far as western modern media reach, unknown or not regarded in 95% of the Buddhist World), it would be good to ask of what rule and status this well-known person actually has in regard of the Buddhas Sasana, Dhamma-Vinaya.
Taken this as reference and base of the question:
What is the/a formal status of the Dalai Lama according to Vinaya? (for example: Bhikkhu, Samanera, Brahman, teacher of other sect, faithful lay follower, one having attained ordination by thief, doubter, trader, politician... and why?)
What is the ideal status (at least as recognize-able broadly) of the Dali Lama according to the Dhamma? (for example: faithful worldling, doubtful worldling, stream-enter, ... Arahat, Paccekabuddha... and why)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]

The 14th Dalai Lama has no standing in the Theravada Buddhist tradition.
However, in the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist tradition and conforming to the Dharma and Vinaya of Tibetan Buddhism (and in particular, the Gelug school), the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is:

a Tibetan Buddhist monk
a Tibetan Buddhist lama i.e. a teacher of the Dharma (as taught in Tibetan Buddhism)
a tulku (reincarnate custodian of a specific lineage of teachings)
incarnation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara
head of the Gelug ("Yellow Hat") school of Tibetan Buddhism

The bodhisattva's achievements in Mahayana Buddhism is measured in bhumi levels. However, it's unclear to me what is the bhumi level of Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara.


Is this a passable translation of Dogen's "without thinking"? His, Dogen's, Fukanzazengi, says

  Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before
  thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

I haven't, I think, been formally taught zazen. But how does this sound, as a paraphrase:

think of thinking which is no longer thought

Because, taken literally, I feel that it is a very good way of looking at our relationship to history, when we cannot do anything about it.

Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

When one's perceptional faculties are acutely developed and on the cusp of awakening, logical perception will begin to occur before emotional perception.

For example, if there is a loud bang, the first perception in the mind will be, just a loud bang, nothing to fear. The very next nano second, the emotional perception will arise, suggesting fear and panic. However this emotional message will have no relevance because the event has already been cognized logically.

In modern scientific terms, one could describe it as the speeding up of the logical brain over the pre-brain.

By intently examining every moment in zazen we cause the evolution of the response time of the brain's logical faculties.

To be before thinking is indeed a very literal action.

The pre-brain, or animal-brain, or Amygdala evolved in human evolution as a primtive information processor, only emitting a binary response - fear or pleasure. It is very stupid but very quick. It keeps one alive, uses very little energy, but is useless for day to day human activity. The pre-frontal cortex is a far more sophisticated organ, whose response to inputs includes no emotion, only logic, but takes more calories, and has a slower response time.

In a normal unenlightened brain, the amygdala responds faster than the PFC. By the time the PFC gets event data it is already meddled with by the Amygdala and has been characterized as positive or negative.

To attain being before thought we train in faster response and intelligent reponse.

When we do long hours of zazen, by choice-less-ly observing events, we strengthen the nervous system leading to the pre-frontal cortex, and weaken the nervous system leading to the amygdala. Exactly like strengthening a muscle with use, and atrophying another muscle with disuse. In time the PFC reacts faster than the Amygdala to everything leading to a very logical person who's not swayed by the emotional ups and downs of life.

However, this is a physical modification, and can change with age or injury.

The real permanent change is when we also train our logical faculties to learn to recognize and discard the emotional meddling of the amygdala if and when it arrives before the PFC.

Thus even if an event is characterized as fearful or anger inducing by the Amygdala, by realizing no-self we can discard animalistic habit patterns, and utilizing the energy of mindfulness and wisdom we decide on the moment on its merits.

Eventually after practicing this until it becomes second nature, and by discarding identification and habit patterns we are finally before thought, and the turbid waters of the mind become still and clear.

CAVEAT: I am not a neural expert, this theory is solely based on personal inquiry, a little experience and a little hypothesis. YMMV.


Doesn't mahāyāna have a classification for jhānas? Is it me or is it incredibly difficult to find resources on the 4 (or 8, with the arupas) jhānas and how to reach them in the mahāyāna/vajrayāna literature? Apart from vague references to samādhi in general, I can't find anything.

Edit: In addition to the suttas, theravādins also have commentaries and books on jhānas, for example the one by Ajahn Brahm... I was looking for a mahāyāna equivalent, too bad :(

Edit 2: I've found my happiness: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1559393254

Thanks y'all!

You're right - jhanas are deemphasized (and for good reason as far as I'm concerned), but don't forget that most Mahayana schools use the Chinese Agamas as a part of their canonical literature.  The Agamas do contain, more or less, the original Sutta-pitaka along with the vinaya, abhidhamma, etc.  You're not finding anything in the newer Mahayana literature because the Mahayanists are just using a Chinese translation of the same texts a Theravadan might refer to.


Lovingkindness and Compassion of the Buddha? In an effort to understand the concept of lovingkindness it would help me to see how the Buddha explicitly described lovingkindness and specific acts of his unconditional compassion. I've heard from secondary sources that he'd throw out his "net" of compassion to walk 200 miles to teach someone, but I'm looking for references to primary or well known secondary (e.g. Bhikku Bodhi, Analayo) sources, please.

You've asked about metta.

The deepest example of metta does not use the word metta.

In SN6.1, we hear that Brahmā Sahampati kneels and asks the Buddha to teach the Dhamma.

  Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!

To which the Buddha humbly replied:

  Thinking it would be troublesome, Brahmā, I did not teach the sophisticated, sublime Dhamma among humans.

The Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching. Now that is the very definition of metta.


The illusions and delusions of the world How do we as Buddhists deal with a world that creates and embraces illusions and fabrications? For example, government is an idea and a fabrication, it is not a person or a thing, it just a group of individuals. A lot of people believe in this idea and accept it as something real; they believe it so much they follow without thinking. Next, covid. WOW! talk about following non-truth. This something that has never been proven to have been isolated, therefore it does not exist, yet people follow the the other illusion's advice (government). Why do people follow an illusion of an illusion? As a Buddhist who has learned to strip away many of these illusions, I still find it difficult to fathom. Particularly when others illusions start to directly affect me and my safety. Even other Buddhists have bought into this covid illusion, why?
How do we stay on the path, when our actions of not following these illusions makes a target, by not wearing masks, taking vaccines and not following government illusions?

The Theravada tradition has the concept of conventional truth and ultimate truth. You can read about it in this excellent answer.
It does not say that the universe is unreal. Rather, it differentiates what we sense from the six sense media, from the concepts that we create in our mind through reification (papanca).
Although the Buddha himself was fully enlightened and saw things exactly as they are, and did not cling to concocted concepts, yet he made use of concepts as far as they were useful. He did not cling to them but saw them as mere conventions. After all, are not the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha all mere concepts?
The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice, if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood.


What does Buddhism teach about fear of success? Sometimes people have fear of success, i. e. get agitated and nervous, when, for example,

some important person behaves exactly like they wanted (and they didn't expect it), or
they achieve a minor success, which indicates that their plan is working.

Think of a small business owner, who creates a successful advertising campaign and then gets upset about too many clients.

What actionable recommendations (protocols) does Buddhism in general and Diamond Way Buddhism in particular have for people, who want to overcome such fears?

Restlessness is it called, this hindrance. Restlessness and Remorse, in the "Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest"

It can be of course used for worldly purposes, but actually it not meant for such, its not meant to be a winner of others in the world, but to win something beyond that, Mr. Dmitri Pisarenko.


How does Paticcasamuppada or 12 Links of Dependent Origination relate to Aversion? Buddha mentions in the Paticcasamuppada that craving leads to clinging and this leads to existence ,birth and death. In other places Buddha mentions that Aversion is a very unwholesome state of mind and we should practice to remove it from our mind. However, I would like to know how aversion plays a role in the 12 links of dependent origination as only craving and clinging are mentioned.

Aversion is simply the disliking of an experience. When a person gets angry, sad or afraid, it is the craving to be rid of the experience that is going to lead to clinging. Not aversion itself. It is called Vibhava-tanha. Hence aversion isn't considered a direct cause of Samsara.


What is the most “genuinely Buddhist” kind of mindfulness? I’d like to hear some reflections on mindfulness. I’m not talking here about meditation on the three marks or any kind of visualization, but mindfulness.

I am quoting here from B. Allan Wallace’s The Attention Revolution.

  [One] approach views mindfulness as nondiscriminating,
  moment-to-moment ‘bare awareness’ [and the other] characterizes
  mindfulness as bearing in mind the object of attention, the state of
  not forgetting, not being distracted, and not floating.

Which one of these is the most “genuinely Buddhist” kind of mindfulness?

If you look at this article which describes The Noble Eightfold Path,

Chapter VI: Right Mindfulness (Samma Sati) talks about "bare attention"
Chapter VII: Right Concentration (Samma Samadhi) talks about "centering the mind on an object"

So I think they're both Buddhist, but one is called "mindfulness" and the other "concentration".


What is the role of karma in rebirth? Rebirth is not reincarnation.  How then does the karma of an individual affect their rebirth?

In reincarnation, an individual's karma results in a better or worse next life for their soul. But in rebirth, there is no soul. So why should we care about our karma regarding our rebirth?

But in rebirth, there is no soul

The Buddha didn't say there was no soul.

The problem with saying there is a self or there is "no self" requires a view which the Buddha said was incompatible with the practice:

  ... a certain monk said to the Blessed One: "Which birth, lord? And whose is this birth?"

  "Not a valid question," the Blessed One said.
  If one were to ask, 'Which birth? And whose is this birth?'
  and if one were to ask,
  'Is birth one thing, and is this the birth of someone/something else?'
  both of them would have the same meaning,
  even though their words would differ.
  When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there isn't the leading of the holy life.
  And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there isn't the leading of the holy life.
  Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth."

  SN 12.35

He didn't say the one thing (there is a self) or the other thing (there is no self), he said the thing in the middle, which is that with certain phenomena as a requisite condition, other phenomena arise.

He didn't answer the big question of what does and does not exist, he answered the small question about how a thing arises.

Some reading: No-self or Not-self?

  So why should we care about our karma regarding our rebirth

One thing that the Buddha consistently affirmed, though, is the efficacy of action and the results of kamma. He would go out of his way (MN 101) to refute ideas that personal action had no consequences or was totally predetermined.

He just didn't link together action and an individual's identity through multiple lifetimes or say that they weren't linked. Either view prevents the living of the holy life.

Seeing action as efficacious and producing results is the thing that is necessary; understanding the arising of phenomena is necessary. Talking about souls is not necessary.


Should one literally think "I am breathing in long, I am breathing out long." Per the teachings of the Anapanasati Sutta, should one literally think about what they are doing, or focus on the breath itself?

Meaning, should I think "I am breathing in long," or should I focus on the action of my breath being long?

It is not necessary to think: "I am". The mind should know the action of the breath being long or being short. Also, there is really no need to "focus". When the mind is quiet & silent, the mind will know the breathing. Be as silent, still, upright, awake & alert as possible.

Note: At the highest level of practise, the Buddha taught to reflect:

  Monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be
  regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

  SN 22.59


Did Gautama Buddha really want to create a new religion It seems Buddha was born in Indian culture , and was disillusioned with the rampant meaningless rituals and hypocrisy of the prevalent religion , Hence did he preach a new religion?

as Ven Yuttadhammo said this question definitely generates more opinions then answers. I will attempt to show what the Buddha himself talks about the goals of his creation.

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.' [23]

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."

As we can see the concept of a thriving fourfold assembly(Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Lay disciples of both genders) was an important goal of the Buddha's wandering for 40+ years. In this section above Mara is trying to get the Buddha to renounce his final body and exit stage left, years before the Buddha told him he would not do this until the holy life and the fourfold assembly are prosperous and now towards the very end they are.

Now did the Buddha want to create the "ism" that is Buddhism? That is where personal personal debate comes in and goes beyond the scope of this question. Personally I think much of the "ism" today is far from the original teachings and vision of the Buddha, other's may think differently. I personally don't think of my dhamma practice as "buddhism".. I like to use what the Buddha himself called his practice:

the name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was "Dhamma-vinaya" — the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya)


What is the "nature of reality" according to the Buddha? I have read that the Buddha said the cause of suffering is ignorance of the "nature of reality". Is this correct?

What is the "nature of reality" that the Buddha talks about?

Realities are called Paramattha Dhamma in Buddhism. There are 4 such realities.

Citta(consciousness)
ex: Vipaaka-citta, Karma, Kiriya-citta.
Cetasika(mental concomitants)
ex: Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara
Rupa(materiality)
ex: Patavi, Apo, Tejo, Vayo
Nibbana

  What is the "nature of reality" that the Buddha talks about?

The first 3 realities listed above have 3 qualitative natures:

Anicca(impermanent)
Dukkha(unsatisfactory)
Anatta(impersonal)

The fourth reality only has the impersonal nature.

The cause for suffering is craving according to the 2nd noble truth. But craving cannot arise without ignorance. It also cannot be uprooted without eliminating ignorance. Ignorance is given as the first link of Paticca Samuppada, the dependent arising process which explains the origins of suffering.

I don't recall any sutta in which the Buddha making that exact statement, but it is inline with Buddhism. It would be more correct if you say "The cause of suffering is craving, which arises due to the ignorance of the nature of reality".


Ghost or horror stories/videos are appropriate during Pandemic moment? There are more and more horror movie during pandemic and tension moment. Hong Kong is one of the example before riots recently.
Pretty much of productions of horror or ghost movie produced because the audience just like to watch especially they are in horror state as when there is a demand, then it will have the supply.
Source - Protest in 2019 HK
Below are some reasons why some people enjoy and what happens when watching a scary movie from Psychology view:

Horror entertainment can trigger the fight-or-flight response, which comes with a boost in adrenaline, endorphins, and dopamine. The brain can then process surroundings and conclude that the experience is not a genuine threat.

Below are some causes and effects of watching a scary movie:

Excitation transfer: This theory states that people who experience an emotional response to horror also experience more enjoyment when threats are resolved.

Individual empathy: People who are less empathetic enjoy horror films more, according to Professor Ron Tamborini. He suggests that “viewers with high levels of empathy should dislike horror films because they react negatively to the suffering of others.”

Sensation-seeking: People who watch horror movies may want to stimulate sensory reactions. Studies indicate these viewers may be more aggressive than other people.

Source of Reference - Concordia University
Ques Ghost or horror stories/videos are appropriate from Buddhism view? As people like to watch now during pandemic to have temporary relief and feel good? Even some Buddhism stories itself talks about Ghost realms but it will give a bring back positive message.
Post note - one or 2 horror must watch in a decade should fine like train to Busan right? but not during pandemic and I know I am far from enlightenment too.

Ghost and horror stories are thrill-seeking venues, not much different from a roller-coaster or bungie-jump. The egoic mind seeks them out because it suffers from an existential fear of extinction. The story creates a fantasy in which the hero confronts a murderous supernatural force and then escapes or overcomes it (for the moment), even while that force decimates the ignorant, the disbelievers, and the morally weak.
In a way — and with full appreciation of the irony — horror stories are how the egoic mind (mis)interprets the concept of enlightenment: karma is imagined as the murderous supernatural force pursuing those without virtue; the characters battle their way towards liberation, or fall through their own foolishness. Even the cyclic nature of the world is captured in the sense that the murderous force never truly dies, but reconstitutes itself again and again in the sequels.
I'm not going to dictate whether watching a horror story is good or bad, any more that I'd dictate that eating pizza is good or bad. They are indulgences, and in moderation indulgences are not necessarily harmful. So long as one is aware of the risk of reinforcing that fundamental egoic (mis)understanding of the world...


lady sayadev, saygi u ba khin goenka lineage vipassan In the above-titled lineage of vipassana, it is said that as soon as there is contact through the sensory bases, sensations are produced on the body.

Why and how does this happen?

And, what are the type of sensations arising on physical body -- for example, tingling, etc., etc.?

Not sure how Goenka tradition explains it, but Contact(Passa) means the union of form,sense & sense consciousness. That always causes feeling(Vedana) to arise according to Paticca-samuppada(dependant arising).


How observance of the 5 Precepts is done? As I know one says the 5 propositions and then goes about his day.

Or are the precepts also pegs for mindfulness? Keeping them constantly in mind?

You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind.
After while it becomes second nature to you.


New to metta meditation I have some questions about metta meditation.

1- When I send love to myself, my cat, the world etc. Do I have to feel something? Do I have to sit and repeat the mantra May I Be Happy until I feel love for myself and not move on to my cat until I've reached that point? (If yes, what if that takes forever? If I don't feel a thing, why might that be? Do I move on anyway? How much time should I spend on each thing?)

2- When I imagine myself, my cat, my neighbour and so forth, how much energy should I put into visualizing these things? Do I need to see it all clearly or is it enough to keep them in mind?

The way Trungpa Rinpoche explained metta, you must start with yourself. Sit and love yourself, respect yourself, give yourself a break - until you feel a relief. This may take days, weeks, or months - do not rush. The goal is to recover your sense of your own basic goodness, your fundamental sanity.

Often we judge others because we are strict to ourselves. Often we are strict to ourselves because our parents were strict to us, or our early environment was, like school teachers or peers. We may feel like we are high strung, we are under pressure to deliver excellent result, we are afraid to be a failure.

It takes a lot of courage to surrender, to sink into your own suchness, whatever it is. When you do it right you can feel the changes in your body. Your breath should get deeper and calmer. Your body should sink down and get more steady. At the same time you will feel like you can move your body freely without loosing your balance. Your face muscles should relax.

It feels like you can almost have a conversation with your own heart. "Forgive me my heart that I was so tough on you all these years. I'm so sorry, now I know how painful it was. Thank you for staying alive through all that. I love you, together we are one". You don't need to actually say or think any of this - but this is the feeling the right metta gives. The feeling of warmth.

This is 75% of the work. Then from this warmth, from this acceptance of yourself, you expand to accept and give warmth to everyone else. This is like having the same Sorry-Thanks-Love conversation with your cat, relatives, friends, strangers, enemies, and then the rest of the world, back to past ages, and forward to future ages. You don't need to visualize every one of them in great details, what matters is the sense of connection, the sense of appreciation, the sense of mutual acceptance, validation, and support.

It is a very heart-warming exercise. Don't be surprised if you find yourself overwhelmed with emotions and sob, that's a good sign.


Is there a list of things to abandon before abandoning craving? There are several things which Buddha asked us to abandon before we can abandon craving finally. For example Buddha asks us to abandon five fetters and hindrances.

My question is : Is there a complete list of things to abandon before abandoning craving ?

The mind can crave so many things. It's quite creative. You can see this creativity happen in the evolution of the Vinaya over time, as it has had to handle the rather bizarre cravings and loopholes that arise.

Given that delight is the root of suffering, you may notice the glow of delight and its relationship with cravings to be, cravings that are or cravings that were.

Consider greed, hate and delusion. One can see greed originating in delight. One can see hate as delight in rage. And one can also consider the role of delight in ignorance to be the seed of delusion (just a little bit won't hurt).

And one might consider that having a concrete, comprehensive list of cravings might suffice (e.g., the Vinaya). Yet any such list would still be incomplete. Mara is quite tricky. In mathematics, we can count. However we cannot enumerate the irrational numbers--there are just too many, and certainly an infinity in between. However, we can see delight.

Is there not delight here?

  Monks, cultivated in what way does the perception of impermanence, being cultivated, much cultivated, enable abandoning all craving for sensual pleasures, craving for form, craving for the formless, restlessness, conceit, and ignorance


What is the best meditation practice to fall asleep? I want to know if exist some practice to meditate when I am ready to sleep, in order to train while I am dreaming.

Maintain extraordinarily sharp attentiveness to your body as you fall asleep.  Your day-time meditation practice will have to be regular and consistent, without a daytime practice dreamtime practice will not really have a foundation to rest upon.

When you fall asleep, train yourself to stay aware of how all your limbs feel, the tension or laxity in your body, and the gentle rise and fall of your breath.

That is, in my experience, the best way to maintain aware levels of mind while falling asleep.  You must be able to observe without interfering too much, and that is why a daytime meditation practice is important.

If you set your intentions just before bed strongly, with the intent to further your practice and realizations in your dreams in order to bring ultimate benefit to all sentient beings and all that lives, you will make progress quickly.  There may be a few days where nothing happens, but if you keep to it, one day you shall break through.  As you fall asleep, keep your mind on your body energy and warmth, and you can use the physical body as an anchoring point for your attention until the falling away of gross perceptions takes place


Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard to one's reputations: What to practice in order to get rid of it? Vaṇṇā-maccharia, stinginess in regard to one's honor, reputation, not't letting make others use it, envy to lose it, is one of the five kinds of maccharia, based on ingratitude, wrong view, and a quality not only absent in all Noble Once, but also a hindrance to attain whatever Jhana, path or fruit.
What are practices to train to learn not being stingy in regard of ones honour, beauty, sublimity?
What and where to give into?
What traditional practice is done by faithful followers in that regard?

A/the realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found here.
(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

At the surface, you can look at how we do unskilled bodily, verbal and metal volitional formations due to stinginess for reputation (vanna maccariya). For example, one utters false speech to maintain a status. One kills, steals, etc. (all 10 can be looked at this way).

But to understand this in the Noble sense, you need to first understand the arising phenomena of stinginess. As explained in the Vattupama Sutta (Simile of the Cloth) it can be understood that it is because of Disparaging (palaso); and underneath that is difference in volitional formations (sankhara). For example, the person who lies to maintain a reputation have given different values to such statuses and disparage one status over another and holding on to that idea now doing even immoral acts (dussilam) to maintain it. This way we roam in samsara.

In order to go further deep, you need to understand how the stream of consciousness flow. You may not understand that without the pre-requisite dhamma therefore I won't try to explain it here.

Stinginess for reputation is connected with misapprehending feeling as pleasure but it has to be understood with above flow of consciousness and how the five-fold stinginess attributing to each other to maintain the flow.

Person who has destroyed all cankers (i.e. an arahat) does not have stinginess.

If you are interested in learning more, take a look at discussions in English stream on this website: https://visuddhimagga.info/


What number Jataka tale does this story come from? There are many adaptations of a story about a brave little parrot (or other type of bird) who tries to put out a forest fire by dipping her feathers in a lake and shaking the drops over a raging forest fire. Does anyone know which number Jataka tale this originates from?

Here is an example of the adapted tale. http://healingstory.org/the-brave-little-parrot/

Thank you.

The closest I have found is about a quail who put out a fire though determination. This is VAṬṬAKA-JĀTAKA (35). Perhaps there might be another Jataka about the parrot but I am not sure if it fits the description. You can perhaps read more about other Jataka tales from The Jataka tr. by Robert Chalmers.

What the author of this had to say:

  This is part of Rafe Martin, Sensei's teisho on "The Brave Little Parrot" jataka. It is from his forthcoming book on Zen Buddhist practice and the jatakas, to be published by Wisdom Publications 2016.

  The text for the Brave Little Parrot Jataka remains elusive. It exists as a few stirring lines of verse in the brief Jatakastava “Verses in Praise of the Buddha’s Former Lives,” a short Sythian-Khotanese work composed just prior to 1,000 AD, discovered in the cache of texts found in the Buddhist cave grottoes of Dun-Huang, China, in 1907. It does not appear in either the Pali Jataka or the Sanskrit Jatakamala, though Jataka No. 35 in the Pali collection of 547, about a quail who stops a forest fire with an act of truth, is seen as a variant. An original may exist as a carving at the great Buddhist monument of Borobodur, as well as a painting at the Ajanta caves. Whether as text or visual art, the ending of the story is different than that of our version. In the original the god, moved by the parrot’s heroism, squeezes a cloud causing rain to fall. I created the god’s tears more than forty years ago when I began telling the tale. The colors of the parrot’s feathers aren’t mentioned either. Are they gray? Multi-colored? Never mind. The point is that deeds make us who we are. Beautiful, which means selfless deeds, make us beautiful. There is truth greater than fact. Myth reveals what never was, but always is. While fact recounts what happens in one time, in one place, myth (ideally) reveals the archetype, i.e., what happens in all times, all places. Literalists adhering to the facts can still create a truncated story.

  It was my decision to make the Parrot female. Is she so in the original? No, he is not. Does that make our version untrue? Stories must find their relevance to every generation or they wither and fade. The feminine is reawakening. The jatakas are often though not exclusively, patriarchal. There are wise women, enlightened nuns, and true wives and queens throughout the tales. But rarely (if ever), does the Buddha appear in as female. Maybe this is true. Maybe this is how karma works. A man is a man is a man. Or maybe monastic forms led to suppression of a greater truth. In the jatakas, the Buddha could be a crow in a graveyard, a mongrel dog, or a monkey but never a woman? Really? I felt it was time to give our grand old tradition a nudge. Hence, the emergence peck peck peck, from its overly literal shell of the brave lady parrot. Dogen writes, in “Receiving the Marrow by Bowing,” in Shobogenzo, section no. 9:

  Why are men special? Emptiness is emptiness. Four great elements are four great elements. Five skhandas are five skhandas. Women are just like that. Both men and women attain the way. You should honor attainment of the way. Do not discriminate between men and women. (Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma: Zen Master Dogen’s Shobo Genzo, ed. by Kazuaki Tanahashi)


metta, anxiety, and anger I have been practicing mindful breathing for about one or two sittings a day, and done a few retreats. I have a big problem with metta, even directed at myself. after trying to practice metta I often find myself in a very angered state of mind, even rage, especially at friends for various reasons regarding my life.

The background to the anger seems to be that they do not really care for me and just want me to be synchronized with their hobbies or lifestyles which are usually high achievement based . the background is that my personal life is much more crisis oriented than theirs , and i am also about 10 years older than them .

I have a lot of regret for not leaving these relations and my thoughts are around those regrets , that in fact it is/was my interest to do so, and the 'tug of war' that they would have/will do with me would be based on their own interests ('tug of war' i mean things like 'you should stay in touch' or 'what going on with you?' etc...).

Do other people experience such extreme counter reaction to metta? should i continue with it ?
a bit at a loss ...
thanks.

It is normal or expected for metta practise to bring up underlying mental states of non-metta.

Also, in Buddhism, to understand the quality of our 'friends' or 'associates' is also important (refer to "foes in the guise of friends" & "warm-hearted friends" in the Sigalovada Sutta).

Many people in the world may appear 'superficial' to us, particularly if we are 'crisis oriented'.

If these 'associates' pose no inherent danger to us, we can let go of our expectations towards them and show friendship in a less-personal & more detached manner.

Most of your anger appears to be related to expectations you have towards these people that those people cannot fulfil. If so, your expectation towards them are unreasonable.

If your lifestyle has changed & you wish to associate when them less, simply say so to them.

This does not mean you cannot be there for them if they need something important from you.


What Bad Karma Awaits Adulterers? Will they get to suffer in hell? I am trying to find out more about their fate..I know that if you get angry a lot you get reborn ugly..But what happens to people who cheat on you??Will they get cheated on in a future life?Or will a worser fate await them..? I vaguely heard Ajahn Brahm talk about the Nirayas and he did mention a hell where adulterers go to.Is this true..

Is there really a special kind of hell for adulterers..if yes what happens to them there?

Thank you

Being cheated on in return should be the last thing to worry about according to the SN suttas. In SN 3.9, Ven. Bodhi's note provided the background story to the huge animal sacrifice set up for king Pasenadi of Kosala:

  ..In brief: The king had become infatuated with a married woman and planned to have her husband killed so that he could take his wife. One night, unable to sleep, he heard eerie cries of inexplicable origin. The next day, when he anxiously asked his brahmin chaplain to explain the meaning, the priest told him that the voices portended his imminent death, which he could avert only by performing a great sacrifice. When the king later inquired from the Buddha about the voices, the Buddha told him these were the cries of adulterers boiling in a cauldron in the great hell.

In SN 19.11, Ven. Moggallana during his alms round in the city of Rajagaha reported seeing a man with head submerged in a pit of dung. The Buddha then explained the reason:

  ..That being, bhikkhus, used to be an adulterer in this same Rajagaha. Having been tormented in hell for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years as a result of that kamma, as a residual result of that same kamma he is experiencing such a form of individual existence.


Should a bikkhu avoid eating sashimi? According to THIS, "The bhikkhu should also not eat raw or undercooked meat..."

Should a bhikkhu, then, not eat sashimi (raw fish, such as it used frequently in sushi)?

In this commentary on the Vinaya, on page 308, it says,

  Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
  by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
  raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
  steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
  Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
  bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
  purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14)