So what's the sense of it all? Perhaps too straightforward question (I know it's too general) but still - when there's the enlightenment why we even exists? If Samsara can be brutal and full of suffering, what's its purpose? To suffer and then enjoy how nice it is to not suffer? Or to have the choice whether to be good or bad? As humans we can surely limit the suffering. But how much really?

If there are 6 realms (hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings) - what sort of principles could ever decide for such an order? Isn't everything supposed to be going towards the enlightenment? If that is so - what's the sense of having e.g. the hell? To "punish" those who act as evil so they could "taste" their own acting? I'm not really sure if I understand the purpose of going through all of it..

I believe it was Erwin Schroedinger who expressed an interesting idea that the total number of all minds in the universe is one. Just one mind. Split into different lives in different time and space. If that's the case I only wonder why would the same mind ever "start" this. Most likely it's only my limited point of view. Seems like never-ending fight between good and evil. Does the Buddhism somehow grasp such let's say - more (perhaps too much) general questions?

When there's the enlightenment why we even exists?

We exist believing in a permanent self because of craving.Enlightenment is when we let go of this craving and any other craving.

If Samsara can be brutal and full of suffering, what's its purpose?

I'll answer this question by asking another question.If you throw a ball up what is the purpose of the ball falling down?

There is none.Its just cause and effect.

Samsara was not created by a higher being and we were not put in it to learn some kind of life's lesson or as a kind of test.Remember,Samsara is not a place it's a state of mind of always craving.

To suffer and then enjoy how nice it is to not suffer? Or to have the
choice whether to be good or bad?

Enlightenment is when you transcend both.It's good that your disenchanted with this roller coaster of good then bad good then bad.Don't play the game anymore.If you want to be happy in samsara you'll need to accept the fact that you'll be unhappy when that happiness changes.Everything changes.Impermanence.That's about the only thing that's permanent with samsara.

As humans we can surely limit the suffering. But how much really?

Depends on our own effort.We can limit our suffering through our own merits but we will not be able to eradicate all suffering until enlightenment.

If there are 6 realms (hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings) - what sort of principles could ever decide for such an order?

Karma.

If that is so - what's the sense of having e.g. the hell? To "punish" those who act as evil so they could "taste" their own acting? I'm not really sure if I understand the purpose of going through all of it..

We create our own heaven and hell.no one punishes or rewards us.Our actions creates these realms.To simplify things,If you don't want to go to hell do not act like you are already in hell.

Isn't everything supposed to be going towards the enlightenment?

could you tell me more about this.

I believe it was Erwin Schroedinger who expressed an interesting idea that the total number of all minds in the universe is one. Just one mind. Split into different lives in different time and space. If that's the case I only wonder why would the same mind ever "start" this.

I have heard of this concept in Gnostic and Hindu teachings.The closest thing i can relate to Buddhism is There is only awareness.But because of delusion we believe it's my awareness,my consciousness,my perceptions,my thoughts,my feelings,my body.My life.Infinite numbers of beings believing they have individual and separate egos.If i had to pin point what started this all i would say Delusion.But this is all beyond my scope.Please take it with a grain of salt.


How can mindfulness/awareness be employed effectively for Forgiveness? I don't want to harbor ill-will anymore and I want to forgive others for what they did to me and also forgive myself for my past actions.

So I remain aware and mindful of the thoughts of ill-will that pop up and mindful of corresponding feelings. But this does not seem to alleviate the stream of thoughts and feelings all day.

How can mindfulness be employed effectively for forgiveness?

I want forgiveness for what others did to me and also forgiveness for myself for my past actions.

The first part isn't in your sphere of control. Having preferences like that other people better forgive you is in and of itself ok, however, if you turn that healthy preference into a command that they SHOULD forgive that will result -as in your case - in anger.
You can however cultivate self-acceptance. You judge your acts as bad but not your personhood. You judge the deed, not the doer, for the doer is fallible and too complex to give a global evaluation.
Just observing ill-will won't necessarily change your underlying beliefs and the resulting perceptions. You need an alternative perception that weakens the old belief. Therefore, mettā is employed to attenuate anger and increase kindness.
Refer to MN 62

"Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

~
You can also try to view people as unique, complex and fallible human beings (like you!), whose mind and body are constantly changing (like yours!),  and that they too are often prey of environmental factors and prior mind/body conditioning (again, like you!) -> At that moment in time these people haven't had better coping skills to regulate their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. In short: "It seemed so to them."
See them as human beings that have certain aspects that are annoying and then you can take that aspect and wish them metta with regards to the opposite positive quality. So if a person is annoying or dishonest, you can wish them: "May they know the happiness resulting from honesty and friendliness".
No matter which technique you employ, repetition is key. I employ especially the self accepting technique for over 2 years and it works out. Of course, sometimes I do get angry, but that is to be expected because I too am a fallible human being who can learn from his mistakes and try to restrain himself in the future.


How is marriage after divorce looked upon? From this article, it is clear that Buddhism accepts(but doesn't really root for it) divorce when things get worse.  But, how is marriage after divorce looked upon?

The 3rd precept doesn't prevent you from getting remarried. So as long as you don't steal another man's wife, it should be fine.


"Tibetisches Totenbuch"? "Tibetanisches Totenbuch" - different books? I'm not firm in tibetan buddhism, but my old daddy had wanted to make a spiritual gift to me 12 years ago- I'd put it into the bookshelf after I'd read a handful of pages, and was a bit puzzled why this might have such a big reminescence as I've heard somewhere (and expected because of having got it by my father as a special birthday present).

Recently I was beginning a small research, especially about Padmasambhava, and there it occured to me that he was said to be the autor/to have been the spiritual background of the "tibetisches Totenbuch" (german name). I was surprised and saw now, that the book of my father was "tibetanisches Totenbuch" - which is a suspicious change - at least suitable for better business. On amazon I've found both titles and that of mine was looking color- and playful and that what I don't own looked  more serious.

  Q: Are the books at least related? Is the "tibetanisches Totenbuch" something like "tibetisches Totenbuch for dummies" or is it a complete different work (possibly just profiting from the extreme similarity of the titles - but what do I know...)?

Addendum: in the book they say: subtitle "...or The after-death-experiences on the Bardo-stage" and then "... after the english edition of Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup, published by Evans-Wentz, (...) newly edited commented and introduced by Lama Anagarika Govinda" On the next page they write: "the title of the original edition was "the tibetan book of the dead".

But I do not find yet any reference to Padmasambhava (may be deeply in the book itself?) which was irritating me.

Addendum 2 Ah, now I find something which looks relevant. The first 150 pages are simply introductions (which made me silly when I read into it and tried to make any sense of what was said), on pg 148 Padmasambhava is first time mentioned and then on pg 159 it seems that the traditional text does really start.

So I think this answers my (stupid?) question ...

It looks like Tibetisches Totenbuch is a German name for what's popularly known as "The Tibetan Book of the Dead".

In that case, (quotes from Wikipedia)

  According to Tibetan tradition, the "Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State" was composed in the 8th century by Padmasambhava, written down by his primary student, Yeshe Tsogyal, buried in the Gampo hills in central Tibet and subsequently discovered by a Tibetan terton, Karma Lingpa, in the 14th century.

  It is part of a larger terma cycle, Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation through the Intention of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, (zab-chos zhi khro dgongs pa rang grol, also known as kar-gling zhi-khro, popularly known as "Karma Lingpa's Peaceful and Wrathful Ones."

  The Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation is known in several versions, containing varying numbers of sections and subsections, and arranged in different orders, ranging from around ten to thirty-eight titles. The individual texts cover a wide range of subjects, including meditation instructions, visualizations of deities, liturgies and prayers, lists of mantras, descriptions of the signs of death, indications of future rebirth, and texts such as the bar do thos grol that are concerned with the bardo-state.

From what I can see on the Internet, it looks like  Tibetisches and  Tibet-an-isches are used interchangeably and both simply mean "Tibetan". If this is correct, then they most likely refer to different versions or different translations of the same basic text.


Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta? Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta? How it can be presented in numerical notation?
Is there any complete translation of all tipitaka into English language (not leaving any single Sutta without English translation)? And
Any good Pali-English online dictionary available?

The standard reference scheme in the West seems to be the Pali edition of the Pali Canon published by the Pali Text Society. One often finds it referenced in the standard English translations at the top of each page. Unfortunately, it is only useful to Pali specialists who have this edition of the Pali Canon.

Each part of the Pali Canon has its own reference scheme. Unlike the King James Bible, for example, each text has its own internal structure, ranging from simple to complex. Here are some examples: V:III.4.2[72] (III.2) (Horner, Book of the Discipline, p. 125); DN 21:[263]1.6 (ii 268) (Walshe, Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 323); AN VII:64(11)(7) (IV 96) (Bodhi, Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p.  1067); etc.

The Burmese Pali Tipitaka is also online at http://www.tipitaka.org. It uses a system of sutta and paragraph references that do not necessarily correlate with the English editions.

A critical edition of the Pali Canon in English is in preparation, based on all Pali editions. Hopefully this will simplify the matter (when it is completed).

The Pali Text Society has published English translations of nearly all of the Pali Canon. These are available in North America from Pariyatti (http://www.pariyatti.org).
The best and standard Pali-English dictionary is still the Pali-English Dictionary of Rhys Davids and Stede, published by the Pali Text Society.


Can I practice Buddhism on my own? As I live in an extremely Christian centered country, and am still a closeted non-christian (if that makes sense), it's hard for me to just join a temple (there are none) or a community/sangha. Is it very important that I do, or can I practice Buddhism on my own?

You don't have to join a physical Buddhist community or temple. Instead you can use online resources for learning and be part of virtual Buddhist communities on the Internet. You can also practice the Noble Eightfold Path on your own.

A classic book for a beginner to read is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, which can be downloaded here.

The Basics of Buddhism podcast series by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) seems to be good. Ajahn Brahm, who features in some of these podcasts, is also a famous speaker on Youtube.

Two good beginner articles to read are The Buddha and His Dhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Tricycle's Buddhism for Beginners has some nice articles.

If you want to feel close to a Buddhist community, watch the live and recorded videos of the BSWA on their Youtube Channel. During the live sessions, you can submit questions. Sometimes they have live events like the five precepts initiation ceremony on Wesak Day and the occasional monk ordination ceremony.

You can learn the basics of Buddhist meditation as taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu either using the booklet or the Youtube videos. You can join the online meditation courses also, where you could have interaction with other course participants.

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has also written many great answers on this website, which would be helpful to a beginner. His YouTube channel also has many good videos for beginners.

When you want to deep-dive into the teachings of the Buddha, use the accesstoinsight.org website's Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings. The book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi is also highly recommended.

And of course, Buddhism SE, SuttaCentral and DhammaWheel are a few other online Buddhist communities you can participate in.


Did nuns participate in the councils? Are there any records of this? Though I'm more curious about the first council, I'm generally curious about their participation in any of them.

The Ariyas are "breast born" sons and daughters of the Buddha and they sometimes address each other as elder brother or sister as a mark of respect, according to their accomplishments.

Given that it is a council of Arahants, would it even occur to them to notice  that there is a distinction, even in terms of class or sex amongst them, and that distinction is marked enough to make a separate representative body, which participation somehow adds or detracts something on the authority of the council?

The council of Arahants would look more suspicious if it was thought that some of those distinctions were relevant and recorded.

The patimokkha is different, in that, later it was made up of ariyas and putthujannas and the rules of the women were slightly different and more than the men.


The Bane of Social Media I looked up 'social media' in the questions, but didn't find an answer precise enough for my inquiry. Basically, I came to the conclusion that 1) social media fragments attention drastically by multitasking and unawareness, and 2) it is extremely addictive, perhaps for that precise reason.

Thus, I ask what is likely cause, effect, and remedy linked with social media. What fuels social media use? What effects does its use have? What are the best ways to deal with this addictive medium? And finally, is it possible to tackle this addiction without alleviating it with the natural drive to socialize?

Thank you.

What fuels social media use? What effects does its use have?

I suppose it's fairly benign or minor to start with.

Curiosity: "What is this 'Facebook' which other people talk about?"
Utility: "I have a question about my work, I can ask people online."

I've read people say it's fueled by small rewards. You get a little chemical 'hit' from smoking a cigarette or taking a drug; or from winning on a slot machine; similarly you get a little (mental) reward when you get a 'Like' or a reply on social media.

And Stack Exchange for example encourages people to "pay it forward" (e.g. if you're helped by someone's answer, you're invited to try to help someone else by contributing another answer elsewhere), which (the feeling of altruism) is some kind of reward in itself.

See also "operant conditioning".

As for effect, it is time-consuming; and (like other addictions) can or will fragment attention. It also results in social bubbles (less connected with "real" people around you).

People have a similar problem with smart phones and email/messages (the thought occurs, "let's check my phone to see if there's another message"); or with Twitter and news sites ("has anyone posted anything new?").

It's easy (relatively effortless) to do (it's easy to read a web page, for example) so I'm inclined to do it instead of doing something more difficult (e.g. work): "It's time to start work now ... I'll just read a bit of social media first, which is easier, to get started ... maybe I'll feel like working after I do that."

IMO a task's being effortless is interpreted by the brain as a type of reward, something to seek (perhaps it's associated with mastery).

It's unsatisfying though (or only temporarily satisfying), hence the eventual desire to repeat the "rewarding" behaviour.

What are the best ways to deal with this addictive medium?

Sometimes if I get too disgusted by how much time I spend on a site, I block it from my computer so that I cannot access it anymore.1

It may be good (or better) to find alternative media for communication: 'phoning people, writing letters, reading books, meeting people in person.

And perhaps alternative "reward" systems (other activities that are rewarding in some way).

On the subject of "best ways", it might a topic to apply the noble eightfold way to (starting with right view, and so on).

1 This technological solution, i.e. barring one's personal access/exposure, is also used by other software developers: see 'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia, which also explains in more detail the theory of why it's addictive and takes your attention.


Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured? I posted the identikit question to Christianity stackexchange, and was met with dumb silence.
Which, really, I was shocked by. E.g. the parable of the good samaratin:

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat
him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest
was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other
side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and
saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he
travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with
compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and
wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and
took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two
denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of
him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.'
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him
who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

'Mercy' can be defined as

compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within
one's power to punish or harm.

Which is very, very close to exactly what I mean: compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed.
Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics, I was very interested in if the Buddha ever discussed this.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to
those we have injured?

the parable of the good samaritan
The parable of the Good Samaritan isn't about "special responsibility to those we have injured". In the parable:

The "certain man" was injured by robbers (who stripped and beat him)
The injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite
The Samaritan showed compassion and acted as if he had a special responsibility (even though the Samaritan had nothing to do with, wasn't responsible for, causing the man's injury)
Jesus's message is to do like the Samaritan did

'Mercy' can be defined as compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
You seem to be interested in the definition of "mercy".
I slightly disagree with your definition above. If you're able to rescue someone from drowning, for example, then that could an act of mercy, but (assuming you weren't the cause of their being in the water) nothing to do with "punishing" or "harming".
You might like Wikipedia's article on Mercy (I went to it to look for the etymology of the word). An interesting part is at the end,

To be mercy, the behavior generally can not be compelled by outside forces. A famous literary example that alludes to the impact of the ethical components of the mercy on the legal aspects is from The Merchant of Venice when Portia asks Shylock to show mercy. He asks, "On what compulsion, must I?" She responds:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

That almost argues against your definition: because there might be some special obligation towards someone you have injured.
The corresponding traditional Buddhist virtues, by the way, if you want to research them further, might be the Brahmaviharas (including Karuṇā which is 'translated' as compassion), and ahimsa (harmlessness or non-violence, for example mentioned here).

compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed
There may be something somewhere in Buddhist scripture, that talks about whether and how to behave towards people you have injured.
Although that's your question I'm not immediately inclined to answer it, because the more important message of Buddhism is, "because you have compassion for people, do not cause them injury".
The basic rules of conduct, for example the five precepts, and the ethical conduct portion of the eight-fold way, are to do with not causing injury.
One of the suttas about the five precepts starts with,

There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans...

The practice of Dana (i.e. gift-giving or generosity) is made especially by laypeople towards monks and nuns; and not because those monks and nuns were injured by the laypeople.

Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics
Some people think that the "golden rule" is the bedrock of intelligent ethics, e.g. "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", also known as "love thy neighbour as thyself".
I think you'll find that in Buddhism too, for example in the Dhammapada,

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?
I'm pretty sure he taught that we have some responsibility to not injure people.
I think that the practice of deliberately (intentionally) injuring someone would be likely to have a negative/undesirable karmic consequence.
I'm not sure it's always possible to undo an injury (which is a reason for avoiding causing injury in the first place).
Answers to other topics on this site, for example What do we do when we've broken a precept?, don't seem to focus on restitution or special responsibility towards the injured party.
The practice of the Buddhist "Metta Bhavana" (or "cultivation of loving-kindness") meditation is meant to develop compassion towards all people, both near and far, both more dear and less dear -- and not especially towards "someone you have punished or injured".


Does the Buddha's concept of Citta contradict the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness? In the suttas quoted in this answer, the Buddha describes the Citta as pure, free from defilement and transcending the 5 aggregates, and its liberation from samsara as the highest aim of his teaching.

Is this evidence that the Buddha never taught "emptiness" (in the Mahayana sense of "emptiness of inherent existence"), and does it contradict the Mahayana doctrine of "emptiness?

Pabhassara Sutta
AN 1.49-52 PTS: A i 10 (I,v,9-10; I,vi,1-2)

While citta seems to show some variations according to context, it's literal meaning is "thought", but also has been identified primarily with "state of mind". Here's Sue Hamilton analysis1:

  By this I mean that citta is the term used to refer to the qualitative picture, as it were, of the way all one's mental processes are functioning at any given moment. This is very different from any of the different mental processes of which the whole 'mind' is comprised: citta is neither an entity nor a process (which probably accounts for its not being classified as a khandha, nor mentioned in the paticcasamuppada formula), but is a term which abstractly indicates one's progress on the path, or even more generally, one's mental condition.

  [...]

  Understanding citta to mean 'state of mind' clarifies otherwise confusing passages, such as the following examples: "Without understanding the thoughts of his mind, one is reborn in life after life [...] with a restless state of mind". Likewise: "My state of mind is not of such nature that it will return to kamabhava levels of existence; knowing this, one's state of mind is well acquainted with wisdom". Johansson suggests these (and other similar) passages imply that citta
  "seems to signify a surviving entity". But what they are indicating is that one's state of mind reflects one's progress, or lack of it, on the path to insight.

Claiming that citta is everlasting is not just a challenge to suññatā, but a challenge to anatta, and thus, a contradiction to pretty much the entire canon on that matter (whose summary has been written as sabbe dhamma anatta: all dhammas are not-self). Finally:

  "Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."

  -- MN 22

1 See "Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism"


Generosity in Buddhism - When does giving become unwholesome? Buddha said that generosity is essential for enlightenment.

  O monks, if people knew, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would they allow the stain of stinginess to obsess them and take root in their minds. Even if it were their last morsel, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared it, if there were someone to share it with. But, monks, as people do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given, and the stain of stinginess obsesses them and takes root in their minds.”
  – Itivuttaka 26: 18-19 (tr. Ven. Bodhi)

Lets take an example . If there is a material object that I want to donate , and it will be used for a very good cause. However , I really like this material object and I feel I might want it ( definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that) . The thought of giving this object does not make me happy. If I force myself and give up this object , will my giving (generosity) be unwholesome?

Unwholesome actions are those which are based on the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. When giving is wholesome it is an act of renunciation and it reduces the three poisons.

Giving becomes unwholesome if it is based on the three poisons. Perhaps you want to be famous for giving money so you are willing to give all your cash to charity; in this case you would effectively be buying fame and it is fueled by greed. This kind of giving is like a trade, you still want money but you've decided that fame is worth more; this type of giving is not renunciation.

You can come up with similar examples where the act of giving increases anger or the delusion of self-view, they would all be unwholesome giving.


Overcoming sensual craving for food I've become interested in Buddhism a couple of months ago, and I try to meditate daily, which had very positive effects on my anxiety and overall feeling so far.

I am prone to feeling overwhelming cravings for unhealthy, sugary food. Although the intensity of the cravings has been reduced since I started meditating, it is still a significant problem. I wonder if there is any specific practice which could help with that. I tried reading texts about the elimination of sensual cravings, but unfortunately they all focused primarily on sexual desire and not on craving for food.

If someone could enlighten me on the topic, I would be very thankful. :)

Sexual desire and the craving for food both fall under the umbrella domain of sensual desire, which can be countered with various different strategies as highlighted in MN 20


Purpose of touching tongue to roof of mouth during meditation While researching forms of meditation involving concentration specific to the Tibetan school of Buddhism, the meditation instruction tells one to touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth when meditating.

Recently, I have been reading a book on Taoism and energy flow, which also instructs the same thing yet for the purpose of completing an energy pathway.

My question:

What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating (in concentrated meditation in Tibetan Buddhism)?

I would also welcome some answers/comments about other schools of Buddhism related to this.

As it was explained to me, the purpose is rather mundane. During some kinds of meditation, esp. when one penetrates lower chakras, there is lots of saliva generated, swallowing which can be quite a distraction and interfere with abdominal breathing. Raising the tongue makes most of saliva flow back into the throat instead of filling the mouth.

P.S. in a commentary to ancient Chan text "Lung Chung" (The Brief Precepts) it says that pressing the tongue to the roof of the mouth eliminates the objects of discursive (speech-type) thought.


Is it right to teach other people? Everyone of us is unique, with different percepts, respective back ground & nature. although Way of living can be equally beneficial to everyone, inhaling & exhaling peace of mind, together. So many religions, text, even our history tell us about us. All these teach us while a few people get elevated level and again start teaching us.
I've learned a lot from them but the best i learn and adapt that comes within and stay within me IS ACTUALLY RESULT OF MY ABILITY TO BEND MY THINKING. My question is just this simple - is it right to share my thinking with others or not? Aren't we are becoming more dependent on others?

How is it right to teach other?

If one's teachings teaches people how to become free from suffering and that teaching deals with ultimate reality then that would be considered wholesome way of acting.

If one teaches freedom from suffering but one's teachings are dealing with concepts such as a Creator God it is not wholesome since it will not lead people to Liberation. It will instead bring more delusion into other beings minds and steer them further away from the path to end suffering. Since delusion is what is keeping beings in Samsara it would be considered unwholesome to input more delusion in them.

  Is it right to share my thinking with others or not?

What kind thinking are we talking about?

If one is sharing unwholesome ways of thinking with others that might lead to wrong speech, wrong action.

Another aspect to mention is also whether or not the other being in some way has agreed to be told about one's thoughts. Sometimes a being might have problems in his or her own life and might not have energy to listen to other beings problems. If one then just unloads on that being without that being wanting to listen that might not be a good thing.

In the same way if one has criminal intentions and wants to commit a crime then if one tells another innocent being about ones plans one will actually involve that being in the act. Now that being has some unwanted knowledge which is placing that being in an unfortunate sitation. Should the being go to the police with the information or what to do? These are just examples of what might happen if we share wrong and unwholesome ways of thinking with other beings.

One could also choose to share wholesome thoughts, i.e. thoughts of renunciation, peace, friendliness, loving-kindness and the like. This would be beneficial not only for oneself but also for other beings. One might share an advice with another being who is in need for advice. Wholesome actions will produce wholesome results.

  Aren't we are becoming more dependent on others?

This question is difficult to answer since it can be answered in many different ways. It's actually subjective. Some people will say no while others will say yes. I do not have an answer for this question.

What i would like to point out is the "attachment-factor" in the question. The Buddha clearly stated that we should be our own refuge and not rely on other people for salvation. With that in mind one should strive to set oneself free. One should practice diligently and not be negligent. A human life is very short and we must practice while the body and mind is still intact. Old age, sickness and death will come to all of us.

See Dhammapada Verse 166 - The Story of Venerable Attadattha.

Being dependent on others will not set one free. The Buddha's only show the way. We ourselves must practice it.

May you be well and happy and free from suffering.


What is the definition of 'fool' in Theravada Buddhist text? The Lakkhana Sutta says,

  Endowed with three things, monks, a fool can be known as a fool. What three? By bodily misconduct, by verbal misconduct, by mental misconduct. Endowed with these three things, monks, a fool can known as a fool.

But everyone has bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct and mental misconduct (I say that because we make mistakes from time to time, at least to a certain extent).

So how to differentiate between a fool's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct, compared to a wise person's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct?

In SN 12.19 (Bala-pandita Sutta: The Fool & the Wise Person) the Buddha explains "what distinguishing factor is there between the wise person & the fool":

The Blessed One said, "The ignorance with which the fool is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has not been abandoned by the fool; that craving has not been destroyed. Why is that? The fool has not practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is headed for a [new] body. Headed for a body, he is not entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. I tell you, he is not entirely freed from stress & suffering.
"The ignorance with which the wise person is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has been abandoned by the wise person; that craving has been destroyed. Why is that? The wise person has practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is not headed for a [new] body. Not headed for a body, he is entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is, I tell you, entirely freed from stress & suffering."


What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)? What is moha (delusion)? What is avijja or avidya (ignorance)?

What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja or avidya (ignorance)?

I think it requires a lot of research or another's excellent research to answer this question.

Often ignorance & delusion are used as synonyms, for example, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which humankind is so obstructed and for so
  long a time runs on and wanders in saṃsāra. It is indeed through the
  hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long
  time runs on and wanders in saṃsāra.

  No other single thing exists Like the hindrance of delusion, Which so obstructs humankind And makes it wander on forever.

  Those who have abandoned delusion, Cleaving through this mass of darkness, No longer roam and wander on; In them the cause is found no
  more.

  Iti 14

  Bhikkhus, any bhikkhu or bhikkhunī in whom attachment is not abandoned, hate is not abandoned, and delusion is not abandoned, is
  said to be one who has not crossed the ocean. One who has destroyed
  attachment Along with hate and ignorance Has crossed this ocean With
  its sharks and demons, Its fearful waves so hard to cross.

  Iti 3.69

However, I imagine 'ignorance' ('avijja') literally means an underlying 'lack of knowledge' or 'blindess'; where as 'moha' ('delusion') literally refers to the defiled overt manifestations of that lack of knowledge, such as 'self-view', 'selfishness', 'ingratitude'; 'fear', 'doubt', etc.

  Humankind is possessed by delusion, Bound by delusion and delighted with being

  Iti 1.11 Mohapariññā Sutta

  Delusion is that one thing, bhikkhus. Abandon that and I guarantee you non-returning. Beings confused by delusion Go to rebirth in a bad
  bourn. But having rightly understood delusion, Those with insight
  abandon it. By abandoning it they never come Back to this world
  again.

  Iti 1.3 Moha Sutta

From the viewpoint of Dependent Origination, 'delusion' would be a type of craving (8th condition) leading to attachment (9th condition) that propels wrong action; for example:

  It’s not because of deeds born of greed, hate and delusion that gods, humans, or those in any other good places are found. Rather, it’s
  because of deeds born of greed, hate and delusion that hell, the
  animal realm, the ghost realm, or any other bad places are found...
  These are three sources that give rise to deeds.

  AN 6.39

  Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false
  speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech
  is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome;
  ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the
  unwholesome.

  And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
  the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

  MN 9

  A deluded person, his mind bound up, overcome with delusion, engages in bodily misconduct, in verbal misconduct, in mental misconduct. But
  having abandoned delusion, he doesn’t engage in bodily misconduct, in
  verbal misconduct, or in mental misconduct.

  AN 3.71

Therefore, it appears 'delusion' (such as 'selfishness') is a form of craving & attachment that manifests abruptly and overtly & then calms down; where as 'ignorance' (lack of knowledge) is a more permanent underlying tendency (anusaya) in the unenlightened mind.

  Friends, passion carries little blame and is slow to fade. Aversion carries great blame and is quick to fade. Delusion carries great blame
  and is slow to fade.

  [Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen passion arises, or arisen passion tends to growth
  & abundance?’ ‘The theme of the attractive,’ it should be said. ‘For
  one who attends inappropriately to the theme of the attractive,
  unarisen passion arises and arisen passion tends to growth &
  abundance…’

  [Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen aversion arises, or arisen aversion tends to
  growth & abundance?’ ‘The theme of irritation,’ it should be said.
  ‘For one who attends inappropriately to the theme of irritation,
  unarisen aversion arises and arisen aversion tends to growth &
  abundance…’

  [Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen delusion arises, or arisen delusion tends to
  growth & abundance?’ ‘Inappropriate attention,’ it should be said.
  ‘For one who attends inappropriately, unarisen delusion arises and
  arisen delusion tends to growth & abundance…’

  AN 3.68

In summary, there are differing degrees of defilements on the Dhamma, namely:

Anusaya - underlying tendencies
Asava - outflows; fermentations; cankers; eruptions
Nivarana - internal hindrances
Tanha & upakkilesa - external orientated craving & defilements that directly cause action

Ignorance predominates on the subtle degree of 'anusaya' where as 'delusion' predominates at the coarser degree of strong external defilements.


How do Buddhists justify or explain that monks and/or temples amass and use wealth? This question applies mainly to Theravada Buddhism, which is the prevailing branch of Buddhism in my country (Sri Lanka).

I've observed, many times, how many temples and monks are amassing wealth and influence. Some monks travel in luxury vehicles. Some buy expensive phones. These are just a few examples that comes to mind.

How is practices like this aligned with Buddhism, i.e. how is it justified or explained by Buddhists?

Also note that I emphasize "some", and not all.

One should feel pity for those ignorant monks for they're sowing some very bad seeds for their future's well-being:

  Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? (1) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’ (2) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to illness; I am not exempt from illness.’ (3) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’ (4) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (5) 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.’ ~~ AN 5.57 ~~


Spiritual Potential and Consequences of Actions Upon reading this question, I wondered: would a person with great spiritual potential, without compassion, be more likely to cause great harm than an average person? Not intentionally, but say due to anger or hate; would this person be akin to a politician with great power who's actions can affect more?

Thus, would spiritual potent individuals' actions have greater consequences under the effect of negative states?

Instead of "spiritual potential", you probably meant those with supernormal powers/Iddhi capability right? because those with higher spiritual potential would naturally tend to act/speak/think in a more skillful way than those who don't. If that's the case then sure. Just like that common expression "with great power comes great responsibility". A foot soldier can save or kill someone with just his weapon, but an emperor can build or annihilate an entire country with just an order! So probably a more apt expression would be: "with great power comes great kammic consequences".


Source of Benefit of Formal Sitting I've noticed (and have been told) that formal sitting meditation is required and beneficial, as opposed to merely being mindful or compassionate in daily life. What aspect of formal sitting causes this?

Is it the relaxation? The recurrent location or time? The stillness? The consistency?

Thank you

Stillness. Whereas the other elements are also beneficial, sitting is about reaching the pinnacle of stillness. The methodology is very simple, because it's mostly one of letting go. Caveat: it always seems dubious until it proves it's efficacy, and then doubt is removed.


Emotional Support without God in Theravada In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress, pray to God to seek emotional relief, find a virtual shoulder to cry on and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music).

They also establish a personal relationship with God. In Christianity, one has the relationship of being a child of God. In Islam, one has the relationship of being a servant of God, created by Him and therefore must submit to Him. In Hinduism (Hare Krsna), one can see God as a friend, son, teacher, master, lover etc.

Whether God exists or not is not the point here for discussion. Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer.

The above describes the emotional support that one could get from religions that have a God. I know this exists in certain parts of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism too with Kwan Yin (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara) and other Buddhist deities fulfilling the emotional support role of God. Chinese Buddhists have long composed songs and prayers to sing the glories of Kwan Yin, and they also call on Her during distress.

However, in Theravada Buddhism, there exists no such emotional support from any deity. So, what should the Theravada Buddhist do in these cases? For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity? How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music? With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

You point out several supposed benefits of God and then ask how the godless fare without these benefits. I would first challenge the virtue of the benefits mentioned:

  In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress

Unless you believe God directly intervenes, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, calling on God for help seems as useful as calling on a milk carton for help. This cannot be accurately seen as a benefit, since it most obviously sets one up for disappointment and unreasonable expectation.

  He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

  If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

  Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?

  Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?

  I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.

  -- Jat. 543 (Cowell, trans)

  pray to God to seek emotional relief

Prayer is a lot like meditation so it can certainly have beneficial side effects, but since it relies on the presumption that an imaginary being will prevent harm or bring fortune, it falls under the same pitfalls as the first benefit. It is a lot like depending on a father figure to protect one - it is only beneficial if one's father actually exists.

  find a virtual shoulder to cry on

By virtual, we would understand you to mean "imaginary". There is some benefit, surely, in imaginary friends, but in the end we would see this as a dependence. Catharsis is not recognized as beneficial in Theravada Buddhism; it is habit forming, and thus crying on anyone's shoulder, real or imaginary, is unwholesome behaviour that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music).

We do something similar in Buddhism, praising the virtues of the Buddha, and our chanting is similar in nature to this. So, this I would recognize as a virtue, qualified by the fact that the virtues of God are not all appealing to a Buddhist - believing God to be all-powerful, for example, is a sign of delusion, and not at all wholesome.

Either way, there is a similar practice:

  I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only of me thus:

  "'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men, the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear, terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass away.

  -- SN 11.3 (Piyadassi, trans)

  They also establish a personal relationship with God.

Again the problem of an imaginary friend. Buddhism doesn't rely upon even the Buddha for support; as above, it's not that having imaginary friends is bad, it's that reliance on others is impractical, since all things change, including God, Buddha, etc.

  And those monks who had not yet overcome their passions wept and tore their hair, raising their arms, throwing themselves down and twisting and turning, crying: ‘All too soon the Blessed Lord has passed away, all too soon the Well-Farer has passed away, all too soon the Eye of the World has disappeared!’ But those monks who were free from craving endured mindfully and clearly aware, saying: ‘All compounded things are impermanent — what is the use of this?’

  Then the Venerable Anuruddha said: ‘Friends, enough of your weeping and wailing! Has not the Lord already told you that all things that are pleasant and delightful are changeable, subject to separation and to becoming other? So why all this, friends? Whatever is born, become, compounded is subject to decay, it cannot be that it does not decay. The devas, friends, are grumbling.’

  -- DN 16 (Walshe, trans)

  Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer.

Feeling the presence of God is just a feeling; one's association of one's feelings with the existence of God is merely conjecture. Buddhists have the same sort of feelings, but they recognize them simply as feelings. It is not considered a positive activity to cling to such feelings or ascribe meaning to them beyond their existential nature, since that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

Seeing the good things that happen to one as miracles is pure speculation; it is often accompanied by (similarly speculative) rationalization when bad things happen. Neither is particularly wholesome, since they lead to unreasonable expectations and disappointment. More directly, they ignore the fact that there are perfectly natural causes and conditions that lead to all of one's experiences, and thus fail to attain understanding about the nature of reality - chalking it all up to "God's handiwork". This is a bad thing, since an understanding of reality is necessary to free oneself from suffering.

  ‘This, monks, the Tathāgata understands: These viewpoints thus grasped and adhered to will lead to such-and-such destinations in another world. This the Tathāgata knows, and more, but he is not attached to that knowledge. And being thus unattached he has experienced for himself perfect peace, and having truly understood the arising and passing away of feelings, their attraction and peril and the deliverance from them, the Tathāgata is liberated without remainder.

  -- DN 1 (Walshe, trans)

So, your supposed benefits are, in all, not very impressive to a Theravada Buddhist. As to your questions:

  For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity?

We don't seek relief from emotions, we seek to understand emotions. It is by understanding something that one becomes free from it. The need for relief implies aversion, which becomes habit forming and leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music?

Same. Also, devotional music leads to sensual attachment, thus - you guessed it - craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

There is an underlying assumption here in the importance of relationships. In fact, Theravada Buddhism takes relationships quite seriously. As acknowledged, having a relationship with an imaginary friend can be helpful - a Buddhist's relationship with the Buddha is similar to this. But Theravada Buddhism sees more importance in one's relationship with one's teacher who is a tangible source of knowledge, advice, and exemplary behaviour very much unlike one's mental construction of God or the Buddha.

  "Know I am Nārada by name,—a kassapa; my heavenly rest
  I have just left to tell thee this,—to associate with the wise is best.

  -- Jat. 539 (Cowell, trans)


Hard to breathe during meditation I started with a new goal: meditate for a month daily and it reminds me of my experiences during group meditations in the past. After relaxing the body, it gets very hard to breathe, my chest feels very heavy or like something is on top with a lot of pressure. I feel like I should breath deeply all the time, yet still feel like I don't have enough air. A bit scary too. Has anybody experienced the same?

it's not enough air. A bit scary too.

It's quite difficult to give detailed advice over the internet. What you describe is actually somewhat concerning. The best advice would be to seek out someone who could watch your meditation and advise.

For example, a common reaction to fear can be to hold one's breath so that a predator cannot detect our breathing. Meditation should feel relaxed and secure and peaceful, especially if you are alone without support. Simple things like poor posture can magnify suppressed anxiety. For example, if my chin is sticking out a bit, then fear tends to arise. However, if I am sitting straight and relaxed, chin in and back of neck smooth and unkinked, then I feel secure and fear evaporates.

Please do seek at least a friend who can compare your sitting posture with a picture of a meditating teacher. Such a friend would be a good spiritual companion.


What does 'awareness of the flow' mean What is the meaning of 'awareness of the flow'? Does that mean awareness of the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things?

The phrase is mentioned on several occasions by Stephen Levine in 'A Gradual Awakening' (which is a book in which the author "writes about his experiences with and insights into vipassana meditation"); for instance at p. 39:

  By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding.

Another example p. 57:

  We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like.

Last example p. 58:

  [Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

What is the meaning of 'awareness of the flow'?

When I read your question I actually think you gave a perfect answer, i.e. "...the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things...".

I'm not too familiar with Stephen Levine or his book but it sounds like he is teaching about exactly this quality of conditioned phenomena. What is this quality?

Conditioned phenomena is also called compounded phenomena, meaning that they consists of other phenomena that again consists of other phenomena. In other words, we are here dealing with phenomena based on causality.

In Buddhism we have a Dhamma called the Three Characteristics of Existence, which are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability. These characterize conditioned phenomena. In regard to the question, especially impermanence and uncontrollability is important here.

Impermanence shows that phenomena arise and cease. They come and go according to their respective causes and conditions. Uncontrollability shows that there is no stability or control to be found anywhere. One cannot exercise control over this flow. Mahasi Sayadaw calls it therefore oppressive and terrible. Oppressive is the incessant arising and ceasing of conditioned phenomena.

It sounds very much as what Stephen Levine is teaching about and what you yourself are describing. Now, the Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but that one should not be fooled thereby. In this regard, it means that all these different words (concepts) really just mean the same thing. Its just different ways of teaching it.

If we really want to understand what flow is then the practice of insight meditation should be undertaken. Intellectual knowledge only goes so far. With wisdom gained from insight meditation one will be able to see conditioned reality with ones own eyes.

In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) the Buddha taught about 7 taints that should be overcome and with what method they should be overcome. The first taint should be overcome by seeing, i.e. The Four Noble Truths should be seen with ones own eyes. The truth about Samsara should be seen with ones own eyes, in here lies the incessant arising and ceasing of phenomena.

  By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding.

It might mean that when staying in the present moment and not letting the mind straying into past or future even for one moment, Wisdom (natural understanding) will arise.

  We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like.

Separation from the flow, meaning that when the mind has wandered off into past or future one disconnects from ultimate reality and instead ventures into conceptual reality.

What joy, fear or anger feels like, means to know the quality of that object when it arises, as it exists and when it disintegrates. To thoroughly contemplate the objects qualities and distinctive marks.

  [Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

When hindrances are present one cannot clearly see reality as it has been plastered over with many different colors of dye (example given by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi).


Are there any references in the Pali canon to the experience of death? Are there any references in the Pali canon to the experience of death and what one can expect? I looked for a similar question and couldn't find one, so apologies if this is redundant.

Death perspective from the Abhidhamma point of view:

Notes:

"Death is the temporary end of a temporary phenomenon." By death is meant the extinction of psychic life (jīvitindriya), heat (usma = tejodhātu), and consciousness (viññāna), of one individual in a particular existence. Death is not the complete annihilation of a being. Death in one place means birth in another place, just as, in conventional terms, the rising of the sun in one place means the setting of the sun in another place.
What are commonly understood to be natural deaths due to old age may be classed under this category.

To each of the various planes of existence is naturally assigned a definite age-limit, irrespective of the potential energy of the Reproductive Kamma that has yet to run. One must, however, succumb to death when the maximum age-limit is reached. It may also be said that if the Reproductive Kamma is extremely powerful, the Karmic energy rematerializes itself on the same plane, or on some higher plane as in the case of the devas.

As a rule the thought, volition, or desire, which was extremely strong during lifetime becomes predominant at the moment of death, and conditions the subsequent birth. In this last thought-moment is present a special potentiality. When the potential energy of this Reproductive Kamma is exhausted, the organic activities of the material form, in which is corporealized the life-force, cease even before the approach of old age.
If a person is born at a time when the age-limit is 80 years, and he dies at 80 owing to the exhaustion of the potential force of his Reproductive Kamma, his death is due to the simultaneous expiration of both age and Kamma.
There are powerful actions which suddenly cut off the force of the Reproductive Kamma, even before the expiration of the life-term. A more powerful opposing force, for instance, can check the path of a flying arrow and bring it down to the ground. Similarly, a very powerful Kammic force of the past is capable of nullifying the potential energy of the dying reproductive (janaka) thought-moment, and thus destroy the life of a being. The death of Devadatta was due to an upacchedaka kamma which he committed during his lifetime.

The first three types of death are collectively called kālamarana (timely death), and the last one is known as akālamarana (untimely death).

An oil lamp, for instance, may be extinguished owing to any of the following four causes, namely, the exhaustion of the wick, the exhaustion of oil, simultaneous exhaustion of both wick and oil, and some extraneous cause like the gust of a wind. Death of a person may similarly be caused by any of the aforesaid four ways.

As a person is about to die, a good or bad action may present itself before his mind's eye. It may be either a meritorious or a demeritorious Weighty action (garuka kamma), such as jhānas (ecstasies), or parricide etc. They are so powerful that they totally eclipse all other actions, and appear very vividly before the mental eye. If there is no Weighty action, he may take for his object of the dying thought a Kamma done or remembered immediately before death (āsanna kamma).

If it is a past action, strictly speaking, it is the good or bad thought experienced at the moment of performing the action, that recurs at the death-moment.

Kamma nimitta is any sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or idea which was obtained at the time of the commission of the Kamma, such as knives in the case of a butcher, patients in the case of a physician, flowers in the case of a devotee, etc.
By gati nimitta is meant some sign of the place where he is to take birth, an event which invariably happens to dying persons. When these indications of the future birth occur, and if they are bad, they can be turned into good. This is done by influencing the thoughts of the dying person, so that his good thoughts may now act as the Proximate Kamma and counteract the influence of the Reproductive Kamma which would otherwise affect his subsequent birth.

These symbols of one's destiny may be hellish fires, forests, mountainous regions, mother's womb, celestial mansions, etc.

The Kamma is presented to the mind-door. Kamma nimitta may be presented to any of the six doors according to circumstances. Gati nimitta, being always a physical sight, is presented to the mind-door as a dream.

Taking one of the aforesaid objects, a thought-process runs its course even if the death be an instantaneous one. It is said that even the fly which is crushed by a hammer on the anvil also experiences such a thought-process before it actually dies.

So if we practice jhanas (ecstasies), which is a weighty action (garuka kamma), we are destined to have that as the death nimitta, and reborn in the Brahma realm, unless other garuka kamma nimmitta intervenes.


What is the source of this popular quote about giving? What is the source of the following quote (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the historical Buddha (easily found online):

Generosity brings happiness at every stage of its expression. We
experience joy in forming the intention to be generous. We experience
joy in the actual act of giving something. And we experience joy in
remembering the fact that we have given.

At least parts of the quote appears to originate from the article "Family Dharma: The Joy of Generosity", written by Beth Roth and published in January 2007. This article appears in "Tricycle: The Buddhist Review", a Buddhist magazine.
I guess from there, it became wrongly attributed to the Buddha and the text has also changed along the way.
If you read the article, Beth Roth derived her inspiration from the Buddha, as shown below.

The Buddha said, “If you knew, as I do, the power of giving, you would
not let a single meal pass without sharing some of it.”

This comes from Iti 26:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

Also, related quote from AN 3.57:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
given to an unvirtuous person.


Im making no progress on meditation Kay so I have pretty strong OCD which manifests as just this constant stress. Under therapists advice ive been meditating for several hours a day for a month. I've made basically no progress. I also tried doing this several times over the past few years. Same thing. I've tried different objects (vedana, breath etc) and nothing really changes.

However interestingly I've had these short moments of bliss that do occasionally happen. Not every session but its happened several times. What causes that.

So I'm already expecting answers that are basically like "you have to be patient" but it's been a 2 months (and practicing mindfulness throughout the day) and nothing has changed at all.

I dont think im like "treatment resistant" because like i said there are those short moments of bliss. But the thing is i dont even know what im supposed to do during meditation. Like what am i doing. Is samatha the one where im supposed to be really concentrated? Is that whats causing the bliss?

RE: "I don't even know what I'm supposed to do during meditation" & "what's causing the bliss?" - Congrats, you are very clear about what it is that you're not clear about. That's an awesome first step.

The human mind  is an information machine. When you set a goal X and you attain X, we get "X = X" and that feels good. When you set a goal of X and you attain Y, we get "X not= Y" and that feels bad. When you don't set a clear goal (X) or you're confused about what you have (Y), there is no basis for comparison, so that feels like an ambiguous feeling, perhaps even anxiety.

In meditation, you are supposed to work on achieving perfect X=X. That's when you feel bliss. So, first of all you need to clearly define X. And then you need to work on attaining it.

In Buddhism, our X changes as we advance, from level to level. It starts pretty coarse, and then it gets more and more subtle. First we define X as "having no coarse cravings and no coarse negative emotions". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no worries". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no doubts". And so on. So on every level we achieve a state of mind that has less inner conflict and more inner harmony, and once we attain it, we congratulate ourselves on attaining it. And then we define X as "not worrying about our state of mind" - and we attain that too. So it's like a ladder.


What are the salient differences between the Pāḷi Nikāyas & Chinese Āgamas? What are the salient differences between the Pāḷi Nikāyas & Chinese Āgamas?

I'm looking specifically for a comprehensive list of discourses that are unique in the Āgama collection and differences between parallel discourses.

Venerable Analayo through the University of Hamburg has given online courses in 2012 and 2013 comparing MN suttas and MA sutras. So far not the whole collection has been covered but in the material covered in those courses, as I can recall, there are some minor differences here and there but nothing that would put in question the central teachings as we know better from the Pali Canon. In 2014 there was a course about bhikkhunis, and maybe next year there will be another course about MN/MA.

You may also want to check http://suttacentral.net/.


Is this considered insight? I have noticed during formal meditation and also off the cushion that everything can be broken down into what seems like an infinite amount of moments.

For example when swallowing I can notice so many things such as the saliva build up, the intention to swallow, the sucking motion drawing the saliva back, the swallowing motion etc. The same for walking.
I'm not sure if this is insight or if/how it's helpful to see things this way. At the very least it's interesting to notice how much is going on that we don't usually notice or even need to think about. It all just happens automatically. If anything it helps me to appreciate the amazing miracle of life that we can just either blindly go through or notice what is actually happening and how miraculous it is.

Is this what is meant by "Insight"?

I'm not sure if this is insight

Insight has many levels. This is very good for starters. As you progress you should be able to see this even to more finer granularity as kalapa.

  If anything it helps me to appreciate the amazing miracle of life that we can just either blindly go through or notice what is actually happening and how miraculous it is.

Any experience should be taken neutrally. You should try to be equanimous. This excitement may prevent you seeing the finer things.

What you are experiencing is transition from gross (olārika) to subtle (sukhuma). More on totality of awareness see this answer.


The role of doubt in Zen Buddhist practice? The Zen monk Hakuin said that 3 things are essential to practice

  great faith, great doubt, and great resolve

I can see how faith and resolve would be essential but I don't see why doubt would be? Also wouldn't faith and doubt contradict each other unless they occur separately at different times.

This doubt is a byproduct of really paying attention to details. As you pick up bits and pieces here and there, some of them don't fit together. So you put them aside and keep going. Then, later, some of them fit together, but others still don't. You have great faith in three jewels, and great resolve to walk the path. At the same time you have no choice but to suspend your judgement on some things that don't make sense. The further you go, the more this happens. But only if you really pay attention, and only if you don't get discouraged by logical inconsistencies, and only if you are determined to follow through. Somewhere along the way you get unwavering certainty on some points, even if they contradict other, equally authoritative points. Because you are certain about these things, you can give up some other things you would never have dreamt of giving up, even though your heart sinks as you do it. You keep doing it in the name of "no hope, no fear" until you lose all ground and fall through space. This is the great doubt, the flip side of your faith and determination. It's not the goal, it's a thing you have to go through. It's not something that can or should be induced artificially though. As Master Bankei said:

  What’s worse, they [the false teachers] tell practitioners that unless they can raise a “great ball of doubt” and then break through it, there can’t be any progress in Zen.  Instead of teaching them to live by the unborn Buddha-mind, they start by forcing them to raise this ball of doubt any way they can.  People who don’t have a doubt are now saddled with one.  They’ve turned their Buddha-minds into “balls of doubt.”  It’s absolutely wrong.

So doubt must be natural to be real. That's why even though Master Hakuin is right in listing it as one of three essential things, I now say it is secondary to paying attention properly, taking note of facts and how they fit together or not.


What kind of vipassana retreats do you recommend in South East Asia? I've been meditating for 2.5 years, and have done two retreats before (Goenka and Gil Fronsdal). I'm looking forward to expanding to my understanding of the practice in South East Asia. I was wondering which 10 day retreat people here recommend for westerners (i.e. English is available, and there isn't any esoteric content being taught).

My most likely bet seems to be Suan Mokkh in Thailand, but was wondering if there are others in the Theravada tradition that are recommended by people here (i.e. Burma, or other places in Thailand)

An up to date list of centers would also be appreciated. Most of the information I've been able to gather through googling seems quite out-dated.

If you come to Sri Lanka, there's nice place up in hill country called the Rathmalkanda Meditation Center for Insight Knowledge. The head monk there is venerable Madawala Upali thera who has been a meditation teacher over 40 years. The main meditation taught there is the Vipassana(insight) meditation of the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. But venerable Upali also teaches Anapanasati, Kasina and other Samatha(tranquility) meditation techniques as well.


Cannot find amazing Buddhism resource with a sequence of instructions/guidance by level I've previously come across an incredible Buddhism resource that has escaped me. It was a website with a non-modern design, plenty of sub pages that were formed in a sequence in terms of how to study buddhism.
In particular:

there were different "levels" at which different techniques were appropriate and articles were split by the stages/levels
for each of these levels there were a lot of comparisons (e.g., what type of problem/need you can remove at that level, what meditation is applicable at level, the Truths, the Paths)
it was illustrated with quotes and pictures from the masters and written in Buddhist language, not a beginner-friendly wikiHow-like style
it was quite an extensive resource

The closest comparison I've found is the Basic Buddhism Guide on Buddhanet , but was I'm looking for was a less modern website, with more pictures and written in a more traditional style.

Just a shot in the dark as I am not sure how well it matches your description, but could it be this? https://studybuddhism.com/

That site used to have an older version that was decidedly less modern and had the feeling of a much older website, but it has been updated recently.


Why we must have a confident mind? “Here, bhikkhus, some person has a confident mind. Having examined his mind with my mind, I know that if this person were to die at this time, as if carried there he would be placed in heaven. What is the reason for that? It is because his mind is confident. It is because of the mind’s confidence that some beings here, when the body perishes, are reborn after death in a good bourn, in a heavenly world.”
Iti 21

Why we must have a confident mind ? What is a confident mind according to the Lord Buddha ?
What are the differences between confident and

Conceit
Clinging to a view

What is a confident mind according to the Lord Buddha?

From your quote, confidence is translated from the pali word pasannacitta. Pasannacitta literally means devoted mind, and can be interpreted as a person having faith (saddha).

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pasannacitta

  Why we must have a confident mind?

It is considered one of the five mental faculties/indryas that aids progression towards enlightenment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

  What are the differences between confident and conceit

Conceit (mana), is a cetasika with attachment/lobha as base. Mana means that we are attached to the misconception that there is a self that is superior to others.

  What are the differences between confident and clinging to a view

Primarily the difference is the fruit of their karma. Besides being a mental faculty mentioned above, AN 5.38 also lists five benefits of saddha for laypersons, for instance.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.038.than.html

Clinging to a view, on the other hand is simply not beneficial, and perpetuates dissatisfaction. Your comparison with conceit seems like an appropriate example.


How to use Sloth and Torpor as an object for meditation The Satipatthana Sutta details the use of the sloth and torpor hindrance as an object for mindfulness meditation. Does anyone have any practical advice, either of a personal nature or from an established teacher, about how this might be achieved. Whenever I am suffering from this hindrance it completely negates any attempt at meditation of any sort. So I am interested about advice how tiredness could be used as grist for the meditation mill.

It is an experience, like any other, so you have to face it and recognize it clearly as it is. In our tradition we describe the experience of catching up the fatigue in one's awareness and reminding oneself "tired, tired"; if one's mindfulness is sharp, it will either disappear completely or, if the body needs sleep, one will fall asleep.

As the Mahasi Sayadaw describes this process:

  Make a mental note of drowsy, when drowsy, and sleepy, when sleepy.
  After you have gained sufficient concentration in contemplating you
  will be able to overcome drowsiness and sleepiness and feel refreshed
  as a result. Take up again the usual contemplation of the basic
  object. Suppose you are unable to overcome a drowsy feeling, you must
  then continue to contemplate until you fall asleep.

  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed041.htm

Also, the commentary to the Satipatthana sutta has a number of ancillary techniques for overcoming sloth and torpor:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#sloth


Metta for dead father During a meditation I have practiced Metta, as I have learned it, I sent Metta to;

myself
a good friend
a "neutral" person
a difficult person
all four of the above equally
and then gradually the entire universe

with the thoughts;

May I be free from enmity/danger
May I be free from mental suffering
May I be free from physical suffering
May I take care of myself happily

Sometime during the meditation I have also sent my Metta to my deceased father. I had a good feeling about it, but wonder whether a Suta this refers?

I want to know whether this form is OK, and how to deal with it.

Generally you should not do Metta to:

Lingavisabhāga (opposite sex - generally directed at a specific person)
Kālakatapuggala (a dead person)

See page 81 Seeing and Knowing revised edition by Pa Auk Sayadaw (Pa Auk Lineage)

  To develop the sublime abiding of loving-kindness (mettà), you need first of all be aware that it should not be developed towards a person of the opposite sex , or a dead person.

Also page 66 Loving Kindness Meditation Ven. Sujiva (Mahaisi Lineage) and page 16 Matta: The Practice of Loving-Kindness As the Foundation for Insight Meditation Practice by Sayadaw U Indaka (Mahasi Sayadaw) also makes the same observation.

In addition Metta: The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love by Acharya Buddharakkhita (general Theravada) makes the following observation:

  Note that only a living person is to be visualized, not a dead one. The reason for this is that the dead person, having changed form, will be out of the focus of metta-projection. The object of metta always is a living being, and the thought-force will become ineffective if the object is not alive.

Otherwise the what you mention is fine to practice Metta.

Buddhism has the concept of transferring merit to the departed (if they are in a conducive birth to receive it.) This might be something, quite similar, which you can do instead. See: Tiro,kutta Sutta. Also offering to the liberation of ancestors especially your father is highly recommended (one of the "the five uses of wealth" / pañca bhogānam ādiyā) in Patta Kamma Sutta, Ādiya Sutta, Sigāl’ovāda Sutta.

Having said this, this using a deceased person as the subject diminishes the result reaped through Metta meditation. If you find any other physiological benefits by remembering your father, then all means do it, though you will not be getting the benefits expected out of Metta meditation. To get the benefits of Metta meditation focus on all living beings.


Deload weeks for meditation I like to go to the gym and lift weights. If you do that you are recommended to take deload weeks where periodically you lift lighter weights or less frequently or both. It's meant to be very beneficial.

Could the same be said for meditation practice? Has any teacher / book recommended something similar? Could periodically taking it easy (less frequently or shorter sits) benefit the practice generally? The advice I've seen seems to be the opposite i.e. the answer to poor meditation is more meditation. That kind of thing hasn't worked for me in the past and has actually caused me to go from poor meditation to no meditation.

I do appreciate lifting weights and meditation are different though.

Tibetan lineage teachers usually say, meditation should be like spending time with a best friend. You meet joyfully, you spend time effortlessly, and you separate easily, knowing you can't lose each other and will meet again soon.

Don't try to squeeze too much value out of that meeting, because you don't want to burden your friendship and turn it into a job.

When you turn meditation into a job your mind will secretly hate it. Instead, turn it into a vacation from all neuroses.


Sudden enlightenment described in the suttas A lot of suttas mention the case of sudden enlightenment, during the time of the Buddha. Do these cases speak only of stream-enterers, or can they even be full arahants?

For me it's unbelievable, that either others or I must simply (!!) understand impermanence, in order to become an arahant.

Thanks

The first five arahants are said to have attained that after hearing the Buddha's second sutta, which was the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic.

MN 26 however says,

  And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth [etc...]

I don't know how to reconcile the timeline of that, with the Anatta-lakkhana sutta's being the second sutta.

This question is discussed on pages 43 through 44 (i.e pages 2 and 3 of the PDF file) of this document: Assaji Sutta (also known as "SD 42.8" of Piya Tan's Sutta Discovery series). The bit of that that's relevevant to your question is:

  In other words, listening to the Dharma alone does not bring arhathood. Some stories of the great
  saints, such as Sāriputta and Bahiya Dāru,ciriya, give us the impression that they awaken merely by listening
  to the Buddha giving them a special teaching. However, it is imperative to remember the implicit
  fact that they are all good dhyana-attainers in the first place. It is their dhyana-purified minds that make
  them the perfect candidates for the attaining of arhathood. As such, it is not merely through listening that
  they become arhats (although, on the other hand, this “listening effect” may occur in the case of streamwinning).


Stages of Life according to Buddhism Like in Hinduism, is there any teaching on the stages of life in Buddhism ?

P.S. Answers for this question will be great "Dhamma gifts" for my upcoming Birth day.

There really isn't anything quite like ashrama in Buddhism, at least as it applies to an individual person's life. Buddhism takes a simple view that one is born, lives, and then dies, within a cycle of saṃsāra (a belief shared with Hinduism). Within the context of that life, one is either awakened or one isn't.

I think it's interesting, since Buddhism defines many other "stages" involving aspects of life (just not about life itself):

Four stages of enlightenment
Stages along the path to liberation (in Tibetan Buddhism)
Jhāna stages of meditation
Seven stages of purification
Seven stages of mind training (in Tibetan Buddhism)

Also: Happy birthday!


How did this material world come into existence if the ultimate reality is voidness? Okay, I know that anything that come into existence has a cessation..

So, how did this world of suffering begin?

Or, if you say it never began and it's ever existent, why would it need to exist?
What's the cause that's made this material world?

If you say that the cause is the Karma of a being, how come Karma come into existence? (By existence, I mean to ask why does Karma exist?)

What's the ultimate cause or factor for existence or emergence of corporeality?

I'm not trying to argue or quarrel, but I'm searching for answers from the point of view of Buddhism.

I accept that these kind of questions and answers doesn't lead to cessation of pain or suffering, as the Buddha said, but I'm just eager to know :)

Buddhism does not answer such questions, since they do not lead to Nibbana. The Buddha said himself, that he teaches only the cessation of suffering.
It's not that these questions are not important or interesting, they certainly are, but they will not lead one to Nibbana. They will only distract and agitate the mind, leaving it unfit for practice.
If you really want to know the answers to these questions, not only intellectually but experientially, then you have to become a fully enlightened Buddha (Sammāsambuddha). Then you will be able to know everything, that there is to know.
The questions you mention, fall under the "Four Imponderables (Acinteyyas)":

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

These are questions that the Buddha did not answer. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can know the answer to these questions and the questions themselves.


What's the origin of 108 being a sacred number? The number 108 is a sacred number in Buddhism, but in other religions as well (Hinduism, Jainism).
What exactly is the origin of 108 being a sacred number in Buddhism? Is there anything about it in the ancient scriptures? Did the Buddha say anything about it? Or is it more likely that this was incorporated from other older beliefs?

The origin of 108 in the ancient buddhist scriptures seems to be from the total number of feelings classified in different ways by the Buddha:

"Monks, I will teach you a one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is a
Dhamma exposition. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which one-hundred-and-eight exposition is a
Dhamma exposition? There is the exposition whereby I have spoken of
two feelings, the exposition whereby I have spoken of three
feelings... five... six... eighteen... thirty-six... one hundred and
eight feelings.
"And which are the two feelings? Physical & mental. These are the two
feelings.
"And which are the three feelings? A feeling of pleasure, a feeling of
pain, a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three
feelings.
"And which are the five feelings? The pleasure-faculty, the
pain-faculty, the happiness-faculty, the distress-faculty, the
equanimity-faculty. These are the five feelings.
"And which are the six feelings? A feeling born of eye-contact, a
feeling born of ear-contact... nose-contact... tongue-contact...
body-contact... intellect-contact. These are the six feelings.
"And which are the eighteen feelings? Six happiness-explorations, six
distress-explorations, six equanimity-explorations. These are the
eighteen feelings.
"And which are the thirty-six feelings? Six kinds of household
happiness & six kinds of renunciation happiness; six kinds of
household distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of
household equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity. These are
the thirty-six feelings.
"And which are the one hundred and eight feelings? Thirty-six past
feelings, thirty-six future feelings, and thirty-six present feelings.
These are the one hundred and eight feelings.
"And this, monks, is the one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is a
Dhamma exposition."
-SN 36.22, Discourse on One-hundred-and-eight (Aṭṭhasatasuttaṃ)

There is also a reference to 108 Craving-verbalizations in AN 4.199, Discourse on Craving (Taṇhā-suttaṃ).


Is there a "good" consciousness? I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana? Is there a consciousness of nirvana? Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

I would call that the "good" consciousness, like the good guy in the movies. i.e. salvific.

I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana?

According to the Theravada abhidhamma, yes, it is called a lokuttara-citta, and it is beautiful (sobhana).

  Is there a consciousness of nirvana?

This wording is a bit more difficult to answer. Since nirvana entails unbinding of consciousness, it is hard to describe it as being conscious of anything. Still, technically the mind is said to take nirvana as an object; it is probably better phrased as "object of focus", as in "the mind is focussed on/in unbinding", rather than "the mind is conscious of nirvana" - the latter is a bit of an oxymoron, I think.

  Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

"creates" is a bit problematic. lokuttara minds are said to be unconditioned, yet there is clearly a process that leads to them, and that process clearly involves certain specific minds - namely, the mind that realizes the first and second noble truths.  There is a consciousness that is necessary for the attainment of nirvana; I don't think this exactly means that said consciousness "creates" the nirvana consciousness. It is all very technical. In practice, nirvana is the unbinding, so any talk of creation and arising is very much out of place.


Is masturbation a sin when we do it to avoid intercourses with other people? first of all, sorry for my bad English.
Frankly says, I bring up this topic because personally I masturbate to avoid having sex with other people. I have to admit that I've masturbated quite a lot, but generally I really don't want to have any sexual intercourses with any one else though I kinda love sex. I've been keeping my body away from sexual desire with other men and found masturbation as a good feeling. I've never had any imagination of anyone else or rarely (if it does, it should be a person that I really like or dating with but I just keep desire away from him, again rarely)... I also have known that masturbation could prevent sexual assaults. I mean those points just mean good to myself- control, but I'm still so confused if this is still a sin or not?
Please help me to answer this question and thank you so much.

First off, Buddhism and karmic faiths generally don't really have a concept of 'sin'. 'Sin' is a Western conception — a feature of Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) faiths — that points at behavior that is punishable by some divinity. In karmic faiths, behaviors contain the seeds of their own consequences. Behavior that leads one astray isn't 'sinful'; it is misguided, unskilled, steeped in ignorance, etc...
Masturbation isn't sinful for a Buddhist. The question for a Buddhist is whether the act leads one further into ignorance or towards realization.
Buddhist monastics set aside sexuality less because of its outward consequences — social evaluations, pregnancy, possible diseases, etc — than because of its inward consequences. Sexual activity produces strong emotions, and can lead to attachments, desires, cravings, etc. Sexuality does not easily lend itself to the cultivation of peace and detachment that lies at the core of Buddhist practice (though Tantric practitioners might disagree), and since monastics are intent on creating the best possible environment for realization, sexuality gets in their way.
This isn't as true for lay practitioners, who aren't as dedicated to the practice (at this point in their spiritual development), and who live within the conventional world of love, marriage, children, and such. Lay practitioners are advised (more or less) to keep sexuality from becoming the kind of obsessive behavior that causes harm to oneself or others. Affairs, 'playing around', abuse or degradation, etc, are not 'sins', but they can cause harm to others and foster unhealthy attitudes in oneself, and so one must 'take care.' In that same vein, there is nothing specifically wrong with masturbation, except that it too can foster unhealthy attitudes, and can have an impact on your relationships with others. If you are constantly thinking about masturbation and the pleasure it brings you, for instance, you will find it very difficult to maintain a calm, peaceful mindset, and who knows what effects that constant craving for pleasure might have on your worldview? One can be fixated on masturbation just as easily as one can be fixated on having sex with others; neither fixation is likely to work out for the best. Meditating through a bout of sexual energy might give you a lot of insight into whatever karmic forces are at play in your life...
P.s. Just so it's said, masturbation does not prevent sexual assaults. Masturbation certainly does not prevent anyone from being assaulted by others — I mean, how would that work? — and while masturbation might ease the momentary frustrations of some person who is likely to commit sexual assault, it is not a cure or solution. Sexual assault is not about sexuality; it's about power and dominance (in the same way we sometimes see dogs mount each other to establish leadership), and relieving the momentary sexual urge does nothing to relieve the deeper tanhā for subduing others. That is a hazardous misconception; please don't spread it.