Is there any way to decipher sensations in the body during Vipassana? Can we know what kind of Samskars are being eradicated from the kind of sensation? Like while doing Vipassana I feel cooling or stretched sensation on forehead; itching on throat; burning & tingling in other parts. (for now).

So is there any way to know the kind of Samskars these sensations represent?

You are not supposed to relate any physical sensation (or feeling) to any sankhara for a good reason. Because in vipassana you are practicing to see the reality as it is. This is the keystone of vipassana, to see the reality as it is, in order to discover three characteristics of all phenomenon (i.e. anicca, anatta, dukkha). Trying to find the corresponding sankhara to every feeling and sensation distracts you from this and if you insist on doing it, after a while you will find yourself playing a mental game and you'll be running in the opposite direction of vipassana's purpose.

Moreover, I think quite different sankharas can create the same physical feelings. Also many a times a neutral feeling may arise because of physical conditions (how you sit, temperature, what you ate, etc.) so it's literally impossible to find an exact sankhara for each and every sensation.
Of course, on the other hand, if you're doing vipassana and memories arises, they should not be oppressed but simply you should let them come, observe them and calmly come back to the object of meditation.

As you progress your reactions in real life will show you how you've progressed and which sankharas has been eliminated and which ones still remains.


Did The Buddha promise to send a Paracelete, or Holy Spirit? In page 32 of The Pagan Christ, Tom Harper writes:
"The Buddha, when he prepares to depart, promises (like Jesus) to send the Paraclete, "even the spirit of truth which shall lead his followers into all truth.""
I followed the footnote and found the footnote simply adds other information about other claims, but does not refer to the source of the claim. I also googled and didn't find original source material supporting this claim. I think the difficulty is I don't know he exact words to search for. Perhaps a knowledgeable person here would know where this claim comes from.

I think the short answer might be "no" -- more-or-less as argued in this review of the book:

Oh no! I found some errors in scholarship here. Tom Harpur's "Pagan Christ" is based on the idea that Christianity borrowed beliefs from paganism. Many scholars have argued in favor of this during the Victorian era and even into the early 1900's.
Many thousands of books by scholars later, the idea has been soundly refuted. [etc.]
Buddha "promises to send the Paraclete" (p 32). Buddhism began as a religion without a god, let alone a paraclete.

To post a longer answer I'll try to reference Buddhist scripture and find some parallel in it.
I think of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (translated here and elsewhere) as narrating what the Buddha said "when he prepares to depart".
The closest approximation I remember to "sending the Paraclete" is this passage:

(The Buddha’s Last Words)
Then the Buddha addressed Venerable Ānanda:
“Now, Ānanda, some of you might think: ‘The teacher’s dispensation has passed. Now we have no Teacher.’ But you should not see it like this. The teaching and training that I have taught and pointed out for you shall be your Teacher after my passing.

So it's "the teaching and the training" -- the dhamma-vinaya, the law and the discipline -- that's to be the teacher. And not new dhamma-vinaya -- to be revealed in the future -- but rather the dhamma-vinaya which the Buddha had already taught.
Apparently the word paraclete means "helper" or "consoler" -- I guess you could argue that (and especially in context) that's analogous to what the Buddha was saying there -- that the dhamma-vinaya would be teacher, and helper, and consoler.
Furthermore I think that according to the Christian doctrine it's the Holy Spirit that allows Man to understand the teaching (of Christ and of the Church). There might be some Buddhist equivalent to that -- e.g. that there is a doctrine and a belief, which can and should be understood, and that doing so is a bit super-mundane. I think that if you read more of DN 16 you'll see the Buddha is saying that he has already taught, and in fact that the monks listening to him had already understood (and not saying he was going to send more in future).

There other other schools of Buddhism, e.g. with another version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which I won't try to analyse here.
And some of them might appear to be making promises of future aid, see e.g. Maitreya.
If Tom Harper's footnote isn't helpful then perhaps it's impossible to know what reference his claim is based on, if anything.
There is for example a book from 1896 titled The Gospel of Buddha. Its account includes,

And Ānanda, suppressing his tears, said to the Blessed One: "Who shall teach us when thou art gone?"
And the Blessed One replied: "I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim."
Ānanda said: "How shall we know him?"
The Blessed One said: "He will be known as Metteyya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'"

So possibly the author got his statement from a source like that.
I think we're lucky, now a century or so later, that people have continued to translate the primary texts, so to some extent we can have translations that are more accurate or more literal and not just paraphrased to such an extent as before.
There are also modern teachers who give lectures or "dhamma talks" or who write books for a modern audience, but people can read the original scriptures too in translation (there was  also a time when people's couldn't read the Christian Bible in their vernacular).
I think that that some of the early effort to bring Buddhism to the West was made by a group of people or learned society -- Theosophists -- who tried to find and teach what all religions had in common; which I guess might be nice, but some of the people closely involved with that effort decided that was at the expense of altering or misrepresenting specific religions, and so split from the group in order to promote the study of Buddhism itself.


Is a belief in rebirth a necessity for Buddhist practice? Can someone be a wholehearted Buddhist practitioner if they entirely reject rebirth? Or is anyone that follows the Buddhist path while not subscribing to rebirth only getting half the story? Or is the non-rebirth believer deluding themselves if they follow the Dharma under that circumstance?

Is the principle of rebirth lacking emphasis in some traditions perhaps? Or is it perhaps something that was culturally prevalent at the time of the Buddha but now can be safely disregarded? Or is it central to the enlightenment experience? Certainly the Buddha reports seeing clearly all his past lives on the occasion of his enlightenment.

So in short is a belief in rebirth a necessity for Buddhist practice?

No tradition, except maybe Secular Buddhism, rejects literal rebirth, it is a core part of the dhamma. I will say though that there is evidence the Buddha was never " believe in rebirth or else."

Probably the most famous Sutta for Western Buddhism is also the most over rated, misquoted and misunderstood. That being the Kalama Sutta. It is most famous for its paragraph talking about not going by reports or because someone says something.

What is much more profound, and more important imo, is the lesser known section towards the bottom of the sutta, where the Buddha says... ok what IF there is no rebirth and kamma..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

  "So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a
  disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free
  from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the
  here-&-now:

  "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions
  rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the
  break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good
  destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he
  acquires.

  "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look
  after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free
  from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires."

Now does the Buddha in multiple places basically say that believing there is no next world, no fruit, etc, is wrong view? yes he does, but as you can see he is never " thou shalt believe in rebirth... or else!" He is much more focused on your practice here and now bringing benefits and teaches to the level of the person, from basic generosity and giving up to kamma. I think that western people today get really hung up on intellectual pondering regarding topics like rebirth when they should be practicing, here and now is the most important place and time, in this precious human birth, where we can practice dhamma and free ourselves.

As far as a quick personal addition to this if I am allowed. I am a practicing Buddhist, have been for 6 years. I'm also close to getting on the path to renunciation and becoming a monk. I cannot say I BELIEVE in rebirth and that has never been a hindrance to me in Theravada. No monk has scolded me,judged me, or held me back in any way.

I am an agnostic and keep an open mind. I have also through my practice proven the Buddha to be dead on accurate about many things, so at this point I have enough confidence and faith in the dhamma to say "hmm.. if the Buddha was right about all this.. why not that?".


How does stream entry occur? When a person becomes a stream enterer/Sotapanna, I understand they no longer have the first 3 fetters of belief in a self, doubts about the Buddha, his teachings or the noble sangha, or attachments to rites and rituals. But what's not clear to me is the mechanics of it. Does a person have a glimpse of Nibbana in a moment of true mindfulness and the three fetters drop away? Or does a person work at eradicating the first 3 fetters and if successful have a taste of Nibbana? Or can it happen either way?

Stream-entry is very simple, there is nothing supernatural about it. Stream-entry is when the practitioner has fully understood the vision behind Buddha's teaching, has fully assembled the puzzle, and now has no doubts about what Buddha meant when he said certain things or why he said them. Having a clear vision of what Buddha was referring to includes clearly seeing the reality behind Three Marks of Existence and the actual mechanism behind the Four Noble Truths.

Because most of us are so dominated by our preconceptions about the world, and about Buddha-Dharma, stream-entry is difficult or virtually impossible to attain from mere theoretical study of sutras, or from one super-successful meditation session, when one gets a "glimpse of Nirvana". Instead, stream-entry requires an effort consistently applied over a long period of time, targeted at putting Sat-Dharma to practice in day-to-day life.

The reason it's called "stream"-entry, is not because one enters some magical stream, but because one finally sets foot on the unquestionably right road towards Nirvana, having really understood the whole thing.

As I understand, what he subsequently called stream-entry (attaining a clear understanding of Three Marks of Existence and Four Noble Truths -- and therefore cutting all doubts) was attained by Buddha at time of his Bodhi, but because he had already liberated his mind from most of the other asavas by then, he effectively achieved full Nirvana at once. But in case of Buddha's students (and ourselves), because we do have the advantage of teaching available to us, we can assemble the puzzle while still having residual mental/emotional obscurations. Hence the need to have a separate name for this stage, distinct from "bodhi".

As for how exactly stream-entry occurs. It occurs through exhausting samsara. In order to exhaust samsara you must exhaust ego. In order to exhaust ego you must explore all corners where Enlightenment might hide, until you know you couldn't have possibly missed it. Then it finds you :)


In need of help in meditation I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE.

I'm not sure what the current policy is on these sorts of questions, but considering how powerful the mind is, seeking help in a forum like this might be problematic.

  while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?

I'm guessing the question mark is a way of saying something like "I don't even know if I'm describing it correctly". The Buddha used teachings like the five aggregates to help students understand that feelings are just feelings, shivering is just shivering, heaviness is just heaviness, etc. You finding it weird is just a mental phenomenon and has nothing to do with the nature of the experience itself - i.e. it's not weird, that's your judgement of it.

  Is it normal?

Meditation can trigger all sorts of responses as it affects mental and physical formations that exist prior to meditaiton practice. There is no "normal", as your physical and mental condition are unique. Also, different meditation practices will affect the body and mind differently, so there's really a very wide range of potential feelings, etc. that you might experience.

  how can we control this?

Control has the danger of increasing attachment of self. Regarding your experience specifically, there is no real Buddhist imperative to control feelings; what we are interested in changing is our reactions to experiences, not the experiences themselves.


Zazen to get an LSD effect? In Zen the key practice is sitting meditation (Zazen or 座禅).

Is monks' experience in Zazen like the LSD effect (i.e. "ego is dead")?

Does Zazen give at least approximately some experience similar to LSD -- perhaps including, for example, "tears, laughter, and then everything becoming clear"?

Are there any scientific experiments, books, interviews with scientists about this?
I'm looking for, but can't find, any scientific information about it.

Zen is very unlikely to produce LSD-like effects. It is just sitting. There isn't an object like breath or visualization to focus on, it's more like un-focusing the mind.

According to some ancient sources, some ritual substances produce effects that are called "siddhis," or in laymens' terms, psychic phenomenon. Ancient texts in yoga and Buddhism contain descriptions of states of consciouness associated with siddhis, or iddhis.

"Psychic powers arise by birth, drugs, incantations, purificatory acts or concentrated insight." - Patanjali Yoga Sutra

This web site is about Mindfulness Meditation, which like Zen practice, moves one AWAY from altered states, rather than to them. The effects of this are not "powerful" but are more permanent, if that interests you.

Siddhis: In Tibetan Buddhism it's much the same as Shaivism (not sure why Wikipedia did not list for Buddhism here):
"Shaivism
In Shaivism, siddhi are defined as "Extraordinary powers of the soul, developed through consistent meditation and often uncomfortable and grueling tapas, or awakened naturally through spiritual maturity and yogic sādhanā."
Eight primary siddhis according to Shaivism
According to some forms of Shaivism, the eight classical siddhis (Ashta Siddhi) or eight great perfections are:
Aṇimā: reducing one's body to the size of an atom
Mahimā: expanding one's body to an infinitely large size
Garimā: becoming infinitely heavy
Laghimā: becoming almost weightless
Prāpti: ability to be anywhere at will
Prākāmya: realizing whatever one desires
Īśiṭva: supremacy over nature
Vaśiṭva: control of natural forces"

Or in Pali text its called "iddhi" or "rddhi"
According to Bowker, there are eight ṛddhi powers:

Replicate and project bodily-images of oneself,
Make oneself invisible,
Pass through solid objects,
Sink into solid ground,
Walk on water,
Fly,
Touch the sun and moon with one's hand,
Ascend to the world of the god Brahmā in the highest heavens
According to the Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta (SN 51.20)

Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one.
He appears. He vanishes.
He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space.
He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water.
He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird.
With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful.
He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
In the book Great Disciples of the Buddha by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker, there are several additional powers described:

The Divine Eye (Clairvoyance)- this power allows one to see beings in other realms as well as see the future
The Divine Ear (Clairaudience)
Travel by Mind-Made Body(Astral Travel)
Travel with the Physical Body (to other realms)
Telekinesis (Supernormal Locomotion)
Flying
The power of Transformation
The ability to replicate one's body
Penetration of others' minds (Thought Reading)
Passing through solid objects
Diving in and out of the Earth as if through water
Walking on water
Touching the sun and the moon with one's fingers
Becoming invisible
Recollection of past lives (some would call this a power, some would call it true knowledge)

Even in the case of those who seek to develop these powers, it's not a matter of something temporary such as a drug. It's more like a life-long pursuit. Most Buddhist, even advanced ones, see this a a trap, only further attachment, and will try to avoid these as much as possible.


Answering Other's Questions About Oneself Do all people practicing Buddhism have difficulty answering questions like these:

What gives your life meaning?

What do you like about yourself?

Somebody asked me these questions, and I am having a difficult time answering them. I don't know if it's just me and my circumstances, or if it is my Buddhist practice that keeps me from verbalizing the answer.

In Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunyru Suzuki Roshi says a Buddhist should stay away from excitement which I agree with and try to follow. If I knew I wouldn't wake up tomorrow morning, I don't think I would be particularly upset. Is this a normal feeling Buddhists have or come to after they have been practicing?

tl;dr: I think it is normal, you just need time to get used to it. It will pass. I think it will be useful for you to investigate, why do you feel the desire to be "normal"? What part of you feels insecure?

I can only offer my anecdotal support - yes, I've felt like this too.

At one point I couldn't even fill out the "About me" section of my social media profile, or a form for a retreat that asked me to describe myself. I mean, what do I put there? I couldn't really define myself by my samsaric interests of the past, and I didn't identify as a Buddhist or some other "ist" either because it's my present vehicle to the truth, it is not me.

Then I began to wonder if my friends will consider me weird. And I also realized it didn't matter much to me what anyone thought.

It took me a while to accept totally that this identity-less person is who I am, and I am fine with it. What helped me was to listen to several interviews of spiritually awakening people on batgap.com - after hearing several hundred interviews I had the confidence that this is quite okay. I was not very different from the people being interviewed in my mind state and experiences, and they all seemed pretty together in their external identities after a few years of being lost, so I felt okay.

These days if someone asks me who I am, I don't have the deer in the headlights look - instead I try to imagine what the person wants to hear, and reveal that aspect of my externally visible identity, even though internally I have none.

And yes, being okay with dying is pretty normal at this stage of acceptance.


Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent? Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?

I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent

  The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty"

I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

It's impermanent.  That's kind of the point.  You're supposed to empty your store house consciousness or, practically speaking, at least try to stop perfuming the seeds.

  4

  The store consciousness is clear and undefinable.
  Like a great river, it is always changing.
  Neither pleasant nor unpleasant, when one becomes fully realized, it ceases to exist.

  ...

  29

  That is the supreme, world-transcending knowledge
  Where one has no mind that knows
  And no object that is known
  Abandoning twofold grasping
  The storehouse consciousness is emptied

  30

  That alone is the pure, primordial reality
  Beyond thought, auspicious, unchanging
  It is the blissful body of liberation
  The dharmakaya nature of the enlightened ones

  From Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses

What's "left" when you've abandoned the karmic conditions of the store-house consciousness and the two fold grasping (i.e. grāha-dvaya - the grasping of the grasped and the grasper himself) is ultimately all that is truly unchanging or supramundane.  That said, I think it makes more sense to call what's left simply "unconditioned".  It isn't subject to the negative influence of ordinary defilements.  When you call it "permanent", I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of seeing it as a "thing" or a "self".


Sunyata is the truth and compassion is not an illusion? It’s curious that if you study Buddhism you need to understand  that Maya is an illusion and life is a product of cause and effect of past karma, so is deceptive. All my emotions are deceptive  but not compassion.The void is the ultimate reality and is not part of anything bigger.
Why compassion is not deceptive then , if it is itself part of an illusion and it is an emotion ? Shouldn’t be only an act of positive karma which as well will create only positive effects? But why then positive karma can push toward the void , or “ultimate goal” if the sunnyata is anything else rather than  void itself.
It shouldn’t have any attribute of “positive” or “negative” which are supposed to be moral and discriminatory observations.if the void needs to have moral attitudes to get access into, talking about sunnyata as ultimate reality , isn’t becoming a contradiction by its own logical terms?

This answer is from the Theravada perspective.
You are thinking about this from the frame of reference of Vedanta, where there is only one thing real and eternal, and the others are illusion (maya) which are not eternal and changing.
In Vedanta, this one thing that is real and eternal is God, whereas you replace this with shunyata (emptiness), which means the great emptiness is the only real and eternal thing, or that the ultimate reality of the universe is voidness.
Next, you say that compassion is the really good emotion compared to others, and this moves one towards emptiness. Then you ask why only such a positive quality moves one towards emptiness, and why not other emotions?
Now, let's change our frame of reference to the Buddha's.
He doesn't ask, "what is the only thing real and eternal?". This was not important to him.
In the Acintita Sutta, he states that metaphysics should not be conjectured, otherwise it will lead to madness. In Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, he says to focus on the immediate problem (i.e. suffering) and not on how it all originated. In the Sabba Sutta, he taught to not speculate about things that's beyond The All.
The Buddha's frame of reference is really the Four Noble Truths - stating that there is suffering, identifying the cause of and solution to suffering, and teaching the Noble Eightfold Path as the method to realize the solution to suffering.
Emptiness in the original teachings of the Buddha refers to all phenomena being empty of a self. This is explained in this answer. This is not metaphysics. It explains that the self is really a mental idea - the illusion, that results in suffering. It doesn't mean that the ultimate reality of the universe is voidness.
It's true that Nirvana is what is attained by the enlightened ones. Maybe you might then say that this is the eternal thing or the ultimate reality of the universe. But Nirvana is just the extinguishment of suffering - it is that which is experienced by the mind when it is completely free of defilements and fetters. It is the only stable source of happiness and peace. It's not any kind of ultimate reality. It's not a supernatural state of consciousness. It's not immortality.
And what about compassion? Compassion is not the only positive mental factor. There are 25 beautiful mental factors listed in the Abhidhamma, in this answer.
Why do positive mental states lead to Nirvana but not negative ones?
That is explained in the Kimattha Sutta - skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, and the sutta explains how this leads to Nirvana.
The negative states of mind which are basically combinations of greed or lust, aversion and delusion, that enslave the mind and keep it clinging to sensual pleasures and existence of the self. When one does unskillful things or has unskillful thoughts, this also leads to remorse, and reinforces suffering.
Skillful virtues and positive states of mind brings one freedom from remorse and joy, but this is only one of the three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path called virtue (Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood). There are still the other two parts that need to be cultivated - concentration/ meditation and wisdom.
Without the five precepts and cultivation of virtue, it is impossible to practise concentration/ meditation or deepen wisdom. With the mind becoming positive and virtuous, it can then calm down, concentrate and experience insight and wisdom.
From the perspective of karma, virtues and positive mind also reduces or removes future consequences of bad actions, and therefore reduces suffering.
So, you have to change your frame of reference:
Vedanta talks about the metaphysical reality of the universe (real/ eternal i.e. God vs. the illusion), and it talks about how to go from illusion to real/ eternal. Vedanta also postulates the individual self as being part of, or identical to, God.
Buddhism addresses the problem of suffering and how to end suffering. Buddhism is not concerned with the metaphysical reality of the universe. Buddhism also takes the self as an idea conjured by the mind - which leads to suffering.
From SN 22.86:

In the past, as today, I describe suffering and the cessation of
suffering.


Does anyone know of any good Asubha sites? Does anyone know of any good Asubha sites?  Am interested in suitable objects for contemplation for the overcoming of lust.

I think these might be helpful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2JroFk5Ke8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgDHJzBt-YU

I found it more helpful in daily life to be more aware of and look more at old people. I find it also develops helps develop a sense of respect towards fellow humans around. Old people are worthy objects of respect.

No need then for so much blood and gore. Or I have not seen the advantage of it.

I think it all depends from where one works. A sense awareness that there is the same awareness in the object, being bound to this existence, growing old, sick and dying, from my experience, is a very powerful support. More than looking at dead bodies.

Might be different for others.

After that one incident, where I looked at a woman like this, because "fallen in love", could not maintain such enamoured state, because somehow it was demeaning, my thought was I wanted to disappear into the forest and only look at my own mind, to find freedom.

Then looking at any woman at all I was not inclined to have any sexually motivated perception or fantasy anymore for months on end. Feeling very light and freed.

So, this sense, that we are all imprisoned here, going to die. Developing this at the "living object", developes some kind of compassion that one would not be able to have sexual thoughts about this.

Perhaps a bit gone of-topic, because just I find some other ways to be more useful.

Just some not so professional ideas. Hope it may help.

_/_


Is there anything else beyond realization of the five skhandas? What happens when individuality totally disappears by recognizing the five skhandas as not "me" or "mine"?

Which platform or ground remains after one has fully realized that the five skhandas are impermanent?

MN121 is a wonderful discourse on emptiness. At the end, the five skandhas are gone:

  MN121:12.1: They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance.

However, something remains:

  MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

In particular, the Buddha instructs Ananda:

  MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this instruction is its universal applicability. It is true riding on a crowded train. It is true in deep meditation. Conventionally we ignore the emptiness and grasp at what remains. With practice we see that emptiness is always there. And we are simply aware of what remains, attending without grasping.


Is 'Neo' the Buddha? In the Matrix, is Neo's character just Sidhartha in a new life? Does the movie have any implication to whether Neo is actually the Buddha? I know the movie is chalk full of notions of being Buddhist or at least explores some of it's foundings but Im asking is anyone in the movie, mainly Neo, seen as The Buddha?

I've never understood why people somehow think that the Matrix is somehow a Buddhist movie. It's actually a very thinly veiled allegory for Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, you have the idea that an evil creator god called the Demiurge created the physical world and trapped the souls of people in physical bodies to have dominion over them, and the goal of Gnosticism is to escape physical existence.

Most of the Matrix is a copy and paste of that. The core ideas of Buddhism really aren't in that movie in any real sense.


What did Siddhartha really meant by ending suffering I constantly hear from buddhists that "happiness is inside of you" and that thinking you can get away from suffering by wanting to be somewhere else, or wanting to be with someone else or stuff like that, stuff that comes from the outside, is only misleading and will generate more suffering because once you satisfy some particular need, since you are a human being, other needs will arrive and with that new forms of suffering, but then I wonder, how is it possible to end suffering if we will always desire for certain things, as long as we exist in this material world? Can someone clarify  this to me? I'm really naive into buddhism

"Ending suffering" is a red haring caused by older translations of the Pali word Dukkha.

It is a word which has not survived in Western Indo-European languages, but its antonym "Sukkha" is the root for our word "Sugar" in English, "Sucre" in French and "Zucker" in German, all meaning "sweet".

Later translators preferred to either leave the term untranslated or to clarify that translation with terms such as anxiety, distress, frustration, unease, unsatisfactoriness, etc. Many contemporary teachers, scholars, and translators have used the term "unsatisfactoriness" to emphasize the subtlest aspects of dukkha.

Buddhism focuses on developing insight into the nature of dukkha, the conditions that cause it, and how it connects & affects us all. This insight, bodhi is (also dubiously) translated as enlightenment. So what Siddharta actually meant would be closer to "ending the arising & conditions of unsatisfactoriness in one's mind", which also creates positive effects in reality (by actions based on understanding) and therefore to others.


How to experience Anatta Is it during deep meditation when the mind is completely stilled that one experiences anatta? Is the conviction in anatta gradual or abrupt? This question would be connected to the 4 stages of enlightenment, too.

Regards

Anatta can be seen even by the average Joe. Ex: when there's headache or any kind of bodily pain, why it is not going away at will?  When you taste something, why the taste disappear after eating? Why can't you make the taste persist. Why your body stink when you don't take bath? Why can't you stop that from happening? When happiness arises in the mind, why does it fade away without your consent?


Is there a benifit to "wishful thinking"? Is there a benefit to "wishful thinking" ?

not like in a very deluded way    -

but like if i think about meditating a lot during the day -  or getting money to also give others and aid practice

Is there a benifit to “wishful thinking”?

I would not exactly call that wishful thinking but rather the results from practicing the path correctly (in this life or previous lives).

Wanting to meditate or wanting to aid other beings spring from wholesome intentions, i.e. right intentions of good-will. These are path factors.

Right intentions-> actions that are based in non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion, are bound to create wholesome future resultants.

So the benefit would be the fact that wholesome actions lead to wholesome results. Experiencing and undertanding that through the practice of insight meditation is a huge benefit. When the mind experiences this over and over it begins to understand causality and how suffering comes to be.

If you observe how craftsmen build a house you will see that they lay the bricks layer by layer. The first layer is the foundational layer. The layer everything else has to be based upon.

In the practice one of the foundational bricks is right intentions.


Which Living Ajahns are considered to be Arahants today? After the era of the well known Thai Bhikkhus like Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Tate, Ajahn Maha Boowa, Ajahn Waen and Ajahn Chah; Which Ajahns are considered as Arahants or Highly developed Meditators,in these days? (I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks).

I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks

An accomplished practitioner may not be a good teacher and a good teacher may not be an accomplished practitioner. In some cases teachers maybe both.

So ideally you should look for teachers who teach well, both theory and mediation.

Also the Buddhist should follow: pariyatti (theory), patipatti (practice), pativedha (experience). Whereas learning / listening to the Dhamma is just the 1st of these 3 parts. So a person should teach the theory he should teach the practice also well. Theory without practice is like an unused boat. You should row (patice) the boat (theory or tool) to get to see the other show (experience).

Also accomplished masters may not say so and also some who are not accomplished may claim to be so. Hence it is best not to look at this aspect in deciding who to listen to. Also see if the teaching sounds right, is logical and put it into practice and see if it is beneficial.

As always go to the source. The Tipitaka a the primary source and commentaries and sub commentaries as secondary and tertiary sources.


What is (re)born? Did the Buddha explicitly state that it is "the mental idea of the self" that is reborn? It's been asserted by some knowledgeable individuals that the Buddha explicitly identified "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara and has done so in suttas spelling out the doctrine of dependent origination.
Is it true that the Buddha explicitly identified "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara?
If not, is it true that the Buddha implicitly intended to identify "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara?
Please provide sutta references.
In the Prasangika Madhyamaka we say it is the "mere I" that is reborn and not the "mental idea of the self" and we say how it is reborn is through the doctrine of dependent origination which involves the mental idea of the self. I think this is a significant difference.

From Milindapanha:

-- “What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
-- “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
-- “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
-- “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.

Just like an adult "inherits" results of the choices made by the child - even though most of the original body cells are gone, similarly future existence "inherits" karma from the past existence.

--“Can there be any rebirth where there is no transmigration?”
--“Yes there can, just as a man can light one oil-lamp
from another but nothing moves from one lamp to the
other; or as a pupil can learn a verse by heart from a teacher
but the verse does not transmigrate from teacher to pupil.”

It is information and causation that is reborn, or is re-embodied. Or, as Chogyam Trungpa said, it is our neuroses that are reborn.


Soul that splits in seven parts I clearly remember reading somewhere about (some branch of) Buddhism believing that there is a soul and that it splits in seven parts when dying. The article mentioned that four of these parts are believed to return when reborn, the other three will merge with Nirvana.

My recent reading has taught me that the individual soul/ātman does not exist per se, it is a false assumption and what one might perceive as "I" is just a piece of the a bigger consciousness (God, if you like).

Can anyone shed any light on the splitting? And is my current understanding correct, incorrect or oversimplified?

Mr. Jonas Bystöm might read Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile especially the introduction, which gives a good overview and the "Six View-Positions" section. The seven parts soul thing is a common folk believe even is SEAsia and has Tantric roots, one could say Hindu, and has influence especially many Mahayana approaches.

To be or not to be is no question. There is no such as any self-theory to be found in Dhamma since it has simply the liberation form suffering, so to understand its cause, as objective and aim. Do not waste your time with such, 99% of beings do so.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


How to combine Buddhism with being a parent? Buddhist philosophy says that we shouldn't get attached and try to form bonds with something and desire or crave it because everything is essentially impermanent and this will lead to suffering. But how can you raise a child without being attached? Wouldn't that make you lousy parent?

Of course the older a child gets, the more you'll have to let go. Every child needs to find his/her own way in life, but that doesn't take away the fact that, especially in the early years, there is a big attachment to your children.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept of attachment? Or is there another explanation?

Parents are supposed to practice Brahmavihara towards children. Attachment doesn't benefit them in any way. What benefits them are kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity. Attachment or clinging just makes you sad and afraid. Lord Buddha had no attachment. But he still preached the Dhamma, Vinaya and created a system which benefited many beings. Sometimes he would travel a great distance to help people attain enlightenment. He advised the Arya Sangha to do the same. Even after 2500 years, millions of people around the world still benefit from it. All that good work is done because of compassion. Not because of attachment.

You provide for your children because of Metta (friendliness).
When they get sick, you take them to the doctor because of Karuna (compassion).
When they study well and get into good positions in the society, you become happy because of Muditha (sympathetic joy).
When they get married and leave you or when they get busy in life and don't visit you as much as they used to, you stay calm because of Upekkha (equanimity).

Attachment doesn't do any of that. It only makes you sad & afraid.


In what ways you advance on the path ? In what ways you advance on the path?

is it by lowering the hindrances ? or your ability to notice them ?  you get a greater ability to not attach and let go ?

im trying to understand in what ways we advance -  i mean before becoming a sotapanna what do you improve throw meditation

and if you answer for example : " you have less ill will your less angry"  do you mean we lower the anger levels - if so how -  did i remove existing anger "seeds" or did i improve my ability to notice and let go of anger - and if so is this an ability which builds up from meditaiton to meditation ?

i would appreciate everything you can expand on the subject of advancing in the path

The path is lead by right view, which is wisdom.

Each hindrance is the drive/motivation to do harm or enslave. Therefore, to advance on the path, it is ideal that wisdom investigate each hindrance & examine why its motive is harmful &/or enslaving.

If the mind is not a slave to hindrances, to enter sotapanna the mind must have the selflessness to 'let go'. Sotapanna will not be entered with force or will power. It will be entered by dropping ego & self. For some people who are very ethical or harmless, dropping the self can be difficult because it can be like 'dying' existentially.

Therefore, a good way to advance on the path is to focus on being a harmless & unselfish person and to also abide regularly in solitude so existential fear can be overcome.

For example, if you live in society, you can find somewhere, like some bushland or empty beach, to meditate alone a few nights a week.


What is life-continuum? In the book Path Of Purification It talks about

  The explanation of the meaning here( " talking about the five jhana mastery mostly mastety if Adverting " ) is this. When he emerges from the first jhána and first of all adverts to the applied thought, then, next to the adverting that arose interrupting the life-continuum, either four or five impulsions
  impel with that applied thought as their object. Then there are two life-continuum
  [consciousnesses]. Then there is adverting with the sustained thought as its
  object and followed by impulsions in the way just stated. When he is able to
  prolong his conscious process uninterruptedly in this way with the five jhána
  factors, then his mastery of adverting is successful. But this mastery is found at
  its acme of perfection in the Blessed One’s Twin Marvel (Paþis I 125), or for others on the aforesaid occasions. There is no quicker mastery in adverting than
  that.

I'm having trouble understanding what they mean here. What iis life-continuum? It said in brackets consciousness so it's disrupting consciousness of the jhana object? What i guess they mean is once you come out of jhana use applied thought to focus on the things that intruped that jhana then once you have "applied" applied thought move to focus on the objects with sustain thought once you can do this uninterrupted you mastered adverting?

life-continuum is Bhavanga-citta. It's the filler thought moment/moments between every 2 thoughts/experiences. It keeps you from dying when the senses cannot provide an object to the mind. When you are in dreamless sleep, your mind mostly has Bhavanga-cittas.

It's the first thought moment in your life and the last thought moment of the previous life. It is a resultant thought moment, thus Karmicly neutral. For humans and above, it's always a result of good Karma. For hell-beings, it's a result of bad Karma.


Shoshin in regular buddhism In Zen-Buddhism there is the concept of the "Beginner's mind" called "Sho Shin" which I find fascinating. I haven't heard of something analogous in "regular" buddhism (meaning the forms of buddhism relating closer to the historic buddha). Does it exist and have a different name, or is it something that conflicts with the original teachings of the buddha?

the closest related thing i can think of is the teaching of overcoming mind tendency to objectification or conceptual proliferation (papañca), that is steering clear of preconceived concepts and notions about the world, reality and phenomena, which are dependent on our perception of those through the 6 sense organs, and disallowing ourselves to be obsessed with them

however this teaching in my view is much deeper because it aims immediately at the final goal, cessation of objectification is synonymous to attainment of nibbana

until then we need to learn to not fall victim to papañca and keep the mind in check


Different interpretations of the 6 realms What are the psychological and metaphorical interpretations of the 6 realms and why are they significant to some Buddhists but not others?

The psychological reality of the 6 realms is real & not metaphorical. Where as the  interpretations of the 6 realms as places that exist elsewhere, after the ending of life, is superstition. For example, when a vicious rapist or murderer or psychopath politician in the world is called "an animal", this is real & not a metaphor. They are animals & they are not human. In Buddhism, the word "human" ("manussa") means "high-minded" or "lofty-minded". The Pali suttas state a "human" lives in accordance with the Dhamma; with righteous conduct; without violence or exploitation ("devouring") of other beings. From the Buddhist point of view, not all people are "human". The book Buddha-Dhamma for Students may help here.

The real right understanding of the six realms is important to some Buddhists so they can see the world clearly (with dispassion), so they live the right way & so they can attain enlightenment. In other words, so they do not overestimate their spiritual progress & state. For example, many people who believe they are Buddhists & who are addicted to entertainment, sensuality, pornography, luxury, etc, believe the mind is "human" rather than the reality the mind is "hungry ghost". They believe by having superficial faith in the Buddha they will have a good reincarnation & don't realise the mind, in the here-&-now, is hungry ghost. This is how they overestimate their spiritual state.

Some Pali suttas listed below, which show the realms are mental states in the here-&-now.

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There
  whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable.

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’
  There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never
  undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
  Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with
  the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever
  tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon
  one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely,
  never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.

  SN 35.135

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a god?... A monk
  enters & dwells is the first...second...third...fourth jhana...

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a brahma?... A monk
  pervades the entire world with loving-kindness... compassion...
  appreciative joy... equinimity...

  AN 4.190

  Living with Brahma are those families where, within the home, mother
  and father are respected by their children. Living with the early
  devas (gods) are those families where, within the home, mother and
  father are respected by their children. For what reason? Because
  mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care
  of them and bring them up and teach them about the world.

  Mother and father are called "Brahma," "early teachers" And "worthy of
  veneration," Being compassionate towards Their family of children.

  Iti 109

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

  AN 6.39

  Bhikkhus, suppose a man would throw a yoke with a single hole into the
  great ocean, and there was a blind turtle which would come to the
  surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would
  that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years,
  insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole?

  If it would ever do so, venerable sir, it would be only after a very
  long time.

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once
  every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.

  SN 56.47

  Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come
  together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
  two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

  Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm
  (tiracchānayoniyā) are 'reborn' (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

  Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four?

  A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together with a
  female deva (god); a deva (god) lives together with a wretch; a deva
  (god) lives together with a female deva (god).

  When both are immoral, miserly and abusive, husband and wife live
  together as wretches.

  The husband is immoral, miserly and abusive, but his wife is virtuous,
  charitable, generous. She is a female deva living with a wretched
  husband.

  The husband is virtuous, charitable, generous, but his wife is
  immoral, miserly and abusive. She is a wretch living with a deva
  husband.

  Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and
  self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
  with pleasant words.

  Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease. Their
  enemies are saddened when both are the same in virtue.

  Having practiced the Dhamma here, the same in virtuous behavior and
  observances, delighting in a deva world, they rejoice, enjoying
  sensual pleasures.

  AN 4.53

  And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
  there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
  requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
  condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes
  becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From
  birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the
  origination of the world. SN 12.44

  Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa). MN 79

  Sensual desire… ill-will (anger)… sloth & drowsiness… restlessness &
  anxiety… uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms the
  mind and weakens wisdom… when a monk has not abandoned these five
  obstacles… for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to
  understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is
  for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human (manussa) state
  (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is
  impossible. AN 5.51


The question of why do we have craving In Buddhism everything boils down to we as humans and animals crave. Craving is the root cause for suffering and rebirth.

So the question becomes why are we hard coded to crave. Is there any reference in Buddhist documents where the Buddha have answered this question?

Personally i think every living being is hard wired to crave because of survival. I think at a primal level for every living being the main objective is to survive and to reproduce and i think that is why we have craving and all those akusala karma such as jealously anger etc...

please tell me you opinions or any reference in Buddhist scriptures

The Puttamansa Sutta lists four nutriments for the sustenance of beings (sattānaṃ) who have come to be (bhūtānaṃ) and for the support of beings seeking to be (sambhavesīnaṃ), namely:

Edible food, coarse and fine;
Sense-impression;
Volitional thought; and
Consciousness.

For unenlightened beings, craving is included within the nutriment of volitional thought, as stated:

  If the nutriment volitional thought is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are thereby comprehended.

  Puttamansa Sutta

Thus, at a primal level, for every unenlightened living being, craving serves the main objective (of nature) to survive and to reproduce.

As for the enlightened, they survive more skilfully relying on wisdom rather than craving.

The word 'dharma' means 'that which supports' thus craving also supports life but it is an 'akusala dhamma', namely, an unskilful means of support. For example, the suttas state:

  Thus, Ānanda, in dependence upon feeling there is craving; in dependence upon craving there is pursuit; in dependence upon pursuit
  there is gain; in dependence upon gain there is decision-making; in
  dependence upon decision-making there is desire and lust; in
  dependence upon desire and lust there is attachment; in dependence
  upon attachment there is possessiveness; in dependence upon
  possessiveness there is stinginess; in dependence upon stinginess
  there is safeguarding; and because of safeguarding, various evil
  unwholesome phenomena originate—the taking up of clubs and weapons,
  conflicts, quarrels, and disputes, insulting speech, slander and
  falsehoods. Therefore, Ānanda, this craving is the cause, source, origin, and condition for those various evil unwholesome phenomena.

To add, "we" do not crave. To the contrary, it is craving that creates the idea of "we". To quote:

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving and craving
  is the condition of clinging.'"

  SN 12.12

  An uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or conscious to be a self. That assumption
  is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what
  is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?
  To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is
  felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of self]
  is born of that.

  SN 22.81


Why do we believe it? When we attend a meeting; just right after we leave the meeting room, every one understands the conclusions of the meeting differently. Even if it is written, every one interprets the message of the written message differently.

In politic, people distort messages for their favor, even when the message is recorded, the interpretation can be quiet different.

How do we believe in the ancient Tipitaka whether it is genuine or altered. We don't know the real teaching of lord Buddha. We believe what we believe as we interpret things on our own favor. We have our own versions of Buddhism that fit ourselves. Each of us has our own version of religion.

It should be verified through pratice by what you experience at the experiential level. If you experience something you know for a fact it is true.

Normal you should:

Learn the theory (Pariyatti)
Practice what you learned (Patipatti)
Experience what you learned why which you verify the teachings (Pativedha)

When you reach 3 your doubts will be cleared as you know for yourself.


Why is meat prohibited in Buddhism? Yesterday I was a guest at the home of my Buddhist friend, he cooked vegetables for me and some other drinks were there on table. I am fond of meat but there was no meat available. So, I asked him why he didn't cook meat, and he explained that he is Buddhist and that meat is prohibited in Buddhism. So, I want to know the reason behind this!

Buddhism does not explicitly prohibit ordinary people (lay people) eating meat although it prohibits monks accepting offerings of meat when it is known or suspected an animal was specifically killed to feed the monks.
The above said, Buddhism does including a training rule for Buddhist lay people to refrain from killing breathing lifeforms therefore a practising lay Buddhist should do their best to prevent unnecessary killing, which includes of animals.
For lay people, sometimes the killing of animals for food may be necessary, dependent upon the circumstances. This is probably why we cannot find any explicit teachings in the original scriptures prohibiting laypeople from eating meat or killing animals for food. Instead, there is merely the general precept of non-killing in Buddhism as a training rule, guided by intention.
In summary, many lay Buddhists choose to not eat meat because they practise loving-kindness & compassion towards animals. Buddhism teaches practicing loving-kindness & compassion leads to great bliss or the heavenly realms.


How can you know that meditating isn't selfish? Perhaps 'selfish' isn't the right word for it as the 'self' is not the goal. But if you define the 'self' as your inner core/soul is it still possible to meditate selfish? If so how to know this and how to prevent this? How to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' ('achieved') enlightement?

But if you define the 'self' as your inner core/soul is it still possible to meditate selfish?

One purpose of meditation is to deepen your understanding for anatta, non-self. Meditating as intended, one develops a different view on the self than the definition above, for instance.

  If so how to know this and how to prevent this?

On one hand - among other things - one needs to familiarize oneself with the theoretical concepts of:

the twelve nidanas, for general understanding on how wrong view leads to suffering
bhava tanha, for specific understanding of wrong striving for defining a self
the five skandhas, for right understanding of a wholesome alternative to defining a self

On the other hand, to prevent that our insights stays a mere theoretical product, we must also examine how these phenomena plays out in real life, with the aid of:

right mindfulness, in order to recognize when we falsely identify with a certain concept of self
right effort, to explore new habits allowing us to break the patterns creating more suffering, and to develop habits conducive to the cessation of suffering


Buddhavamsa Translations? Do any english translations exist online for the Buddhavamsa ? I cannot find one.

I do not know about any translations but there is this book called "The Great Chronicles of Buddhas". It's a book only about the different Buddhas and the life of them.

It's a very interesting book with lots of material on them such as daily life, teachings, characteristics etc.


How to let go of the will to let go or reach a certain state? I find that the biggest block in my practice is the will to reach a good state. There's constantly an expectation from the experience to be good. I found that only by letting this go you can truly reach a good state, but its very hard to let this go. Countless sittings are wasted on this.

How can I learn to let go of this need?

Great question ,this is actually a fallacy that ,I myself experienced after reaching long periods of bliss during meditation .What you are experiencing is called rapture,you  started off well in meditation without expectation then when the blissful feeling came, instead of meditating on it, you became enchanted by it and thus wanted to have it back but you cant have it because you started desiring it,falling back in the loop of desire> attachment> suffering.

What I had realized on the experiential level,is that there is no where to go in meditation ,I am already there ,all what I need to experience ,I am already experiencing.I realized that each experience whatever it is can be an object of meditation , a door way to end suffering.....Now If I cannot reach a certain state then the reality is ,,that I cannot reach it :).. knowing that right know and meditating on this reality by itself solves the problem.The quality of not reaching you cannot accept, you have an attitude towards it.When you accept not reaching the state you will transcend this thought.Then the state will come out of no where,its a state of connection with existence.

See the issue meditation is trying to solve is not to keep you in a spiritual high,but to make you less possessed by things as well as not making you disinterested in life.Thus if you totally accept life as it is ,with its bad states as well as its good then you have understood the way.

I recommend Vipassana meditation.Don't try in it to reach any state ,whatever you experience is your reality.No need to go anywhere or force any action.


Teachings from Buddhas other than Gautama I asked this question earlier: What "religions" did previous Buddhas practice?

Now I'm wondering if any teachings from earlier (or later) Buddhas have been passed down to our time. And if not, why?

Yes, the historical Buddha is said to have related teachings of other Buddhas; one that stands out is the Amagandha Sutta, which relates the teaching of Kassapa Buddha. Another is MN 81, which relates some aspects of Kassapa Buddha's life, and some words of Kassapa Buddha:

“The king thought: ‘The Blessed One Kassapa, [51] accomplished and fully enlightened, does not accept from me a residence for the Rains in Benares,’ and he was very disappointed and sad.
“Then he said: ‘Venerable sir, have you a better supporter than I am?’—‘I have, great king. There is a market town called Vebhalinga where a potter named Ghaṭīkāra lives. He is my supporter, my chief supporter. Now you, great king, thought: “The Blessed One Kassapa, accomplished and fully enlightened, does not accept from me a residence for the Rains in Benares,” and you were very disappointed and sad; but the potter Ghaṭīkāra is not and will not be so. The potter Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. He abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sensual pleasures, from false speech, and from wine, liquor, and intoxicants, which are the basis of negligence. He has unwavering confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and he possesses the virtues loved by noble ones. He is free from doubt about suffering, about the origin of suffering, about the cessation of suffering, and about the way leading to the cessation of suffering. He eats only one meal a day, he observes celibacy, he is virtuous, of good character. He has laid aside gems and gold, he has given up gold and silver. He does not dig the ground for clay with a pick or with his own hands; what has broken off riverbanks or is thrown up by rats, he brings home in a carrier; when he has made a pot he says: “Let anyone who likes set down some selected rice or selected beans or selected lentils, and let him take away whatever he likes. He supports his blind and aged parents. Having destroyed the five lower fetters, he is one who will reappear spontaneously [in the Pure Abodes] and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world.
(from Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, Bodhi, trans)

There are probably others I can't think of off-hand, but they all would have to have come from the current Buddha, since the interval between Buddhas is invariably so vast as to not allow for any trace of the previous Buddha's teachings to remain.
(This all from a Theravada Buddhist POV)


How do I get rid of ill will? People who have done wrong to me remain in my memory and continuously stay in my mind. I have feelings of ill will and hatered towards them...to revenge...how do I get out of the feelings of ill will...

Vitakkasanthana Sutta (MN 20)

Please keep in mind that one's effort should be of ardency and urgency. You have to act like a hero and free yourself from these. You need to have wisdom about defilements, otherwise you will find excuses and dwell in them even further.

1) "Divert your attention to something more skillful". Now, this doesn't necessarily mean to change one's ill-will to compassion via metta meditation, since the ill-will has too much energy and your thoughts are therefore distorted and won't let good thoughts in so easily. Therefore attend to something skillful but nothing unrealistically positive, for your current state of mind ( ill-will in that case) is too strong. You can try to give self compassion to yourself, i.e.that you are quite angry and that you are not feeling well (treat yourself like a little child). After that, once you feel better you see that other person might also get angry so that you have a sense of not being alone with that problem and you then send metta to these people.

2) Repeatedly scrutinize the benefits of letting go of negative mind states and the benefits of positive ones (both for you and how it contributes to other people as well)

3) Step 3 in the sutta mentions: "Paying no mind to thoughts". Since not thinking of a thought or even aversion to it doesn't really eliminate it, my adive is to always accept the presence of the thought and then distract myself and do something else (or just curiously observe it and see its impermanence). At best, I would always employ a cognitive technique like Step 2 and a behavioral one (like standing up and doing something else while keeping the drawbacks and benefits in mind)

"Relaxation of thoughts". Basically "cooling off", for example via breathing and internally saying: "I'm breathing in sensitively.. breathing out sensitively". "Anger only makes matters worse.. both for me and for others" (connected to step 2)
Clenching one teeths. Now I don't  know how this one is to be understood, but surpressing thoughts in the sense of "don't think of xyz" doesn't work. I recommend contemplating the Buddha's strengths like energy and determination etc. and follow the steps above.

  "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme, he should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

  If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

  "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

  "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking quickly? Why don't I walk slowly?' So he walks slowly. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking slowly? Why don't I stand?' So he stands. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one. In the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

  "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

Regarding the fifth point in the Sutta: Sometimes there is also the word "surpressing" mentioned (or at least Ajahn Sona in one of his videos said "surpression"). However above, the Buddha says "constraining and beating down with one's awareness."
 Is someone familiar with this sutta? Does it really mean awareness? I wouldn't personally interpret that as "don't think of xyz" (since it doesn't work), but rather about forcing one's mind to concentrate on an object and thereby "crushing" one's thoughts. Now I don't know how the fifth method would differ then from the fourth. Any ideas? I think the difference would be the emphasize, that is: the urgency and ardency to rid oneself from these defilements.


can you help translate dhammpada 183? Would love to get a word by word trnslation to this verse dhammpada 183

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

i mean what every word means   -   and yes im a bit lazy to do it not that important  but i guess some people here know pali and it will be easy for them to do  -  if it takes more than a few minutes than leave it ... its still beneficial people see this verse which i think is great

i just seen that  sabba in the first word Sabbapapassa  means "all"

and "ku salassa"    is  kusala   meaning good ?  is it made of two words ?

Sabbapapassa akaranam
ku salassa upasampada
sacittapariyodapanam
etam buddhana sasanam.

taken from this link  :

http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=183

Sabba - all

pāpassa - of the evil/sin/

akaraṇam-non-doing

kusalassa-of the wholesome

upasampadā-acquiring/undertaking

sacitta-own mind

pariyodapanam-purification

etam-this

buddhāna-of the Buddhas

sāsanam-teaching/dispensation

Note that “assa” means ‘of the’ (genitive singular)


Why do enlightened beings want to save sentient beings? Does everyone want to be saved? Does enlightenment always comes with compassion so that all enlightened beings aspire to save sentient beings from sufferings? Or is the question 'why' only showing that I am using my discriminating mind to try to understand things?
Another part of my question is that I think most of the people  on this earth would not say they are 'suffering', there might be obstacles and negative feelings from time to time, but most people enjoy getting attached to the experience of pleasure, longing, love, etc. Most of them enjoy this worldly life so much that they wouldn't even thinking of standing back out and look at this kind of life that everyone is living from an 'outside' perspective. So my question is that why would all these sentient beings forgo this mostly pleasurable life (with net happiness larger than unhappiness, and all sorts of biological/neurological signals from their bodies guiding and incentivizing them to continue living and reproducing for the continuity and advancement of the species) to practice Buddhist teachings, to let go of things and pursue the state of nothingness? For most of them, it would be giving up net positive happiness to attain a state of nothingness and tranquility. Is that what everyone wants and needs? How do you convince them to do this? How do we save ALL sentient beings? Should we do this? Why do enlightened beings do this?
These questions have been tormenting me for some time. Would be great help if someone can help me understand them. Thank you!

If you knew of a really good restaurant, would you keep that knowledge to yourself, or would you take your friends there? If you saw a fantastic movie, would you go home and muse about it in private, or would you try to get your acquaintances to go see it? There's nothing mystical or magical here. People like to share good things with others; sharing knowledge of what's good creates value without cost. Why wouldn't one want to do it?
Now, people who lack understanding can get contracted. They worry that if they share knowledge of a good thing, it will create demand, then shortages. The thought of sharing the knowledge of something good invokes a fear of loss; the fear of losing something good invokes an urge to grasp; soon such people are trying to stockpile what's good, to decide who is worthy to acmes it and who is not, to police the boundaries of what they have determined is 'theirs' with all necessary force. The 'good' becomes like the ancient myth of the dragon's hoard: an accumulation of value for no purpose save to stave off that fundamental and abstract fear of loss and magnify the ego.
Are such people happy? Well, I suppose yes, but only in the twisted sense the they can share the knowledge of their own superiority with others: "I have, and you don't"; "we can do this, and they can't"; "our people are worthy, theirs are not". Their suffering isn't 'misery' in the classic sense, but more that they have no real understanding of their own selves, Like Milton's famous passage:
And they, so perfect is their misery,
Not once perceive their foul disfigurement,
But boast themselves more comely then before
And all their friends, and native home forget
To roule with pleasure in a sensual sty. — Comus, lines 73-7

Without that comparative — without the idea that 'the good' is in short supply, and that one has beaten others to secure it for oneself — this kind of wealth has no value, and makes no one happy at all.
Enlightenment is freeing — it frees us from the enchantment of that 'hoard' mentality, and the web of cravings that surround it — but it makes one conscious of the fetters that others are subject to. It's bittersweet. But still, it's a good that anyone who finds it would like to share, if they can figure out how.


Can you attain stream entry without meditation? Venerable sir,

Lately I have been wondering if there is a proper technique that can be used in order to attain stream entry rather than meditating. I have a few experiences with loving kindness meditation though it did not go very well. Actually, I am not good at meditating therefore it is hard for me to walk in the path. It might be easier if there is a proper technique to follow instead of meditating.  Also even though I am in a Buddhist country it is not very popular among the Buddhist to meditate here, so if there is a technique please let me know.

Thank you

If you find it difficult to meditate you may not have enough merits.
Your bad karma is obstructing you from meditating, either ones performed in this life or previous ones. Remember that it is because of our merits that we can even encounter the dharma.

First develop sufficient merits. Do dana and develop sila. Some people spend years developing their sila and generosity before sitting on the meditation mat. Other ways to develop merits helping others, listening to Dharma talks, being happy for other people's success, volunteering for charity and being humble. Basically just by being a good person and keeping the precepts. Just think of everything that's good and positive, wholesome and happy and let that shine your path. Don't worry about egolessness, equanimity or meditation. Don't run before you can stand. No-one who ever developed deep states of meditation and achieve Arahanthood did so without creating the necessary karma for it.

After you have developed positive qualities or merits then you will naturally be able to grasp meditation. Remember you don't meditate your problems away, you see your problems more clearly. So my advice is sort out your life first then your karma will allow you to meditate.


Laws and rules and Dhamma How are laws and rules in harmony with the Dhamma? How are the laws and rules we make in harmony or in conflict with the Dhamma?  How can one  best practice Dhamma while also practicing law ,enforcing law or enforcing any rules?

You can read some advice given by the Buddha in DN16 in the section entitled "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare". There are many items listed like organizing and dispersing assemblies peacefully, living according to established rules, honoring the elders, protecting women, protecting Arahats etc.

You can also read "The Edicts of King Asoka" translated by Ven. Dhammika. For e.g. this verse from The Fourteen Rock Edicts:

  I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and
  great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if
  military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and
  light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest
  by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May
  all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this
  world and the next.

Regarding enforcing laws, King Asoka's Kalinga Rock Edicts state:

  Beloved-of-the-Gods says that the Mahamatras of Tosali who are judicial officers in the city are to be told this: I wish to see that
  everything I consider to be proper is carried out in the right way.
  And I consider instructing you to be the best way of accomplishing
  this. I have placed you over many thousands of people that you may win
  the people's affection.

  All men are my children. What I desire for my own children, and I desire their welfare and happiness both in this world and the next,
  that I desire for all men. You do not understand to what extent I
  desire this, and if some of you do understand, you do not understand
  the full extent of my desire.

  You must attend to this matter. While being completely law-abiding,
  some people are imprisoned, treated harshly and even killed without
  cause so that many people suffer. Therefore your aim should be to
  act with impartiality. It is because of these things — envy, anger,
  cruelty, hate, indifference, laziness or tiredness — that such a thing
  does not happen. Therefore your aim should be: "May these things not
  be in me." And the root of this is non-anger and patience. Those who
  are bored with the administration of justice will not be promoted;
  (those who are not) will move upwards and be promoted. Whoever among
  you understands this should say to his colleagues: "See that you do
  your duty properly. Such and such are Beloved-of-the-Gods'
  instructions." Great fruit will result from doing your duty, while
  failing in it will result in gaining neither heaven nor the king's
  pleasure. Failure in duty on your part will not please me. But done
  properly, it will win you heaven and you will be discharging your
  debts to me. ....

  This edict has been written for the following purpose: that the judicial officers of the city may strive to do their duty and that the
  people under them might not suffer unjust imprisonment or harsh
  treatment. To achieve this, I will send out Mahamatras every five
  years who are not harsh or cruel, but who are merciful and who can
  ascertain if the judicial officers have understood my purpose and are
  acting according to my instructions. Similarly, from Ujjayini, the
  prince will send similar persons with the same purpose without
  allowing three years to elapse. Likewise from Takhasila also. When
  these Mahamatras go on tours of inspection each year, then without
  neglecting their normal duties, they will ascertain if judicial
  officers are acting according to the king's instructions.

King Asoka's Seven Pillar Edicts talk about the hearing of petitions and the administration of justice:

  Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus: This Dhamma edict was written
  twenty-six years after my coronation. My Rajjukas are working among
  the people, among many hundreds of thousands of people. The hearing of
  petitions and the administration of justice has been left to them so
  that they can do their duties confidently and fearlessly and so that
  they can work for the welfare, happiness and benefit of the people in
  the country. But they should remember what causes happiness and
  sorrow, and being themselves devoted to Dhamma, they should encourage
  the people in the country (to do the same), that they may attain
  happiness in this world and the next. These Rajjukas are eager to
  serve me. They also obey other officers who know my desires, who
  instruct the Rajjukas so that they can please me. Just as a person
  feels confident having entrusted his child to an expert nurse
  thinking: "The nurse will keep my child well," even so, the Rajjukas
  have been appointed by me for the welfare and happiness of the people
  in the country.

  The hearing of petitions and the administration of justice have been
  left to the Rajjukas so that they can do their duties unperturbed,
  fearlessly and confidently. It is my desire that there should be
  uniformity in law and uniformity in sentencing. I even go this far, to
  grant a three-day stay for those in prison who have been tried and
  sentenced to death. During this time their relatives can make appeals
  to have the prisoners' lives spared. If there is none to appeal on
  their behalf, the prisoners can give gifts in order to make merit for
  the next world, or observe fasts. Indeed, it is my wish that in this
  way, even if a prisoner's time is limited, he can prepare for the next
  world, and that people's Dhamma practice, self-control and generosity
  may grow.


Which case is "I am a professor" with identity view? According to the Yamaka Sutta quoted below, a run-of-the-mill person thinks one of the following:

the form to be the self
the self as possessing form
the form as in the self
the self as in form

And the same applies to the other aggregates.

If someone says with identity view, that "I am a professor", "I am an American", "I am successful" etc., what would this case be?

Is "professor" a mental fabrication? So, "I am a professor" (with identity view) would be the case of assuming a mental fabrication to be the self?

From the Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85):

  "In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self...

  "He assumes perception to be the self...

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.

"I am a professor" is conceit not self view. But if self view arises before conceit as "professor is attā", then the conceit, which arises after that, will become misunderstood conceit.

The explanation

There are 3 clauses in tipiṭaka:

"etaṃ  mama-this is mind"  is thought by taṇhā.
"esohamasmi-I am this"  is thought by māna. <<< this is conceit.
"eso me  attā-this is my attā" is thought by diṭṭhi. <<< only this one is compatible with your quoted identity view,  Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).

But there are the complicated arising of taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi, because taṇhā must co-arises with only one, diṭṭhi or māna, per mind-moment arising. And  diṭṭhi can't co-arises with māna. So:

2 taṇhā = 1. sotāpanna's taṇhā 2. puthujana's taṇhā.

2 diṭṭhi = 1. sotāpanna's diṭṭhi 2. puthujana's diṭṭhi.

3 māna = 1. we are the same 2. I am better 3. I am worse.

There are sotāpanna's taṇhā and 3 māna of sotāpanna, but there are not diṭṭhi of sotāpanna.
There are 2 taṇhā, 9 māna, and 2 diṭṭhi of puthujana.

Therefore, there are just 3 māna of sotāpanna, but there are 9 māna for puthujana, 6 Diṭṭhi-Before&After(misunderstood) and 3 No-Diṭṭhi-Before&After māna's arising (right understood).

  "eso me  attā-this is my attā" is thought by diṭṭhi. <<< only this one is compatible with your quote,  Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).

There are 20 sakkāya-diṭṭhi which thinking about attā in Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).


Killing a parent and killing a foster parent We all know what happens if someone kill a parent but does the same apply to killing a foster parent

Killing a normal human being itself is a serious bad karma. So while killing a foster parent is not an Ananthariya Karma, it is still a severe bad karma depending on how good he/she was.


What is a "sentient being" in Tibetan Buddhism? The answer to this question seems to depend on what school one talks about. So my question is about Mahayana Buddhism, more specifically Tibetan Madhyamaka Buddhist schools.

I kind of wonder where the line is drawn between beings that are sentient and beings that are not. How about f.ex. corals, algae, amoeba, crill and living creatures like that.

As far as I can understand (which is probably not very far) this has got to do with whether the being has consciousness/mind or not. Is that so?  Maybe the question should be "what does it mean to say that a being is  conscious or has a mind?

Is there a generally accepted definition of what a sentient being is? Anywhere in the suttas the Buddha is talking about this?

Purbuchok. in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Posessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers:

  With regard to persons, the definition of something’s being
  a person is: a being imputed in dependence upon any of its five
  aggregates.

  Self, I, person, and being are synonymous. An illustration is a being
  who possesses a basis of one of the three realms.

That which is both a person and is not an arya buddha is a sentient being. An arya budha is a person, but not a sentient being.

From Geshe Gyaltsen's commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum:

  Person pervades all sentient beings and sentient beings pervade all
  ordinary beings, or ordinary persons. There are therefore three
  possibilities. Therefore the broader category is person, the person
  being someone with a mind, whereby all sentient beings and arya
  buddhas are included. Arya buddha is the buddha as a person.

According to the so-called Wheel of Life (Skt. bhavacakka; Tib. srid pa'i 'khor lo) there are six realms, that is six types of rebirth, six types of sentient beings. It is thus generally accepted that the are the six : hell beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, demi-gods and gods. All other existent (minerals, plants, fungus, my carpet, my cup of tea) are not sentient beings. Then, suffice it to establish that bacteria are fungus in order to establish they are not sentient beings, but it goes already beyond the scope of Tibetan treatises.

The wheel is talked of in the tales called Divine narratives (Skt. Divyāvadāna).


Is it wrong to watch fight events like boxing, MMA, judo etc.? From a Buddhist's perspective, is it wrong to watch such sports on television for example? Of course, I'm talking as a lay person. Monks have a completely different approach regarding entertainment.

Does watching it create any bad Kamma?

In one instance a head of a group of actors asked from Buddha if his profession is a good one and whether he could go to heaven because he provides entertainment. Buddha refused to answer this question three times. But when he insisted on, Buddha's answer was,

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

So I think this applies to such sports as well because they are not devoid of passion, aversion and delusion. So technically, any action or intention with desire, anger and delusion should create bad karma.