What are the issues related to medical treatment that prolongs life of questionable quality? While reading an answer to How to overcome the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence (in Western modernity)?, I began to wonder about a related matter.

In the answer:

  In preparation for death you should:
  1) accept the fact everyone must die and let go of the fear of death

OK, but how about this situation:

Let's say I have terminal cancer, and the doctor says I will only live another 6 months. However, if I get some difficult treatment (let's say chemotherapy that often causes severe pain), I may live up to 10 years longer.

So from a Buddhism point of view:
1) Would there be any concern if I didn't get any treatment? It isn't suicide, but I am not taking an action will hasten death.

2) Would there be any concern if I did get the treatment? Does that imply a fear of death, by postponing the inevitable? And since a goal of Buddhism is to reduce suffering, while understanding pain can be managed, can voluntarily increasing ones suffering be justified?

In each case, is there any impact on karma looking to the next rebirth?

Finally, I am not referring to medical treatment in general.  Only when it is very invasive and severely impacts ones normal life (and lifespan).

Here are some quotes from commentaries on the monastic rules.

The Bhikkhus' Rules --
A Guide for Laypeople

  Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and for the maximum freedom from disease.

Also, "praising the advantages of dying" is considered in the same category as "intentionally causing death":

  Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an
  assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): “My
  good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than
  life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways
  praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in
  affiliation.

The Khandhaka Rules

  “A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: He does what is
  not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount in things
  amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does not tell his
  symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare ...

I think the above implies that the patient has some kind of duty of care towards their nurse (as well as vice versa).

The Patimokkha Rules

  The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukka˛a to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.

  The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here. Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death; and
  from SN 35.87, where the Buddha says that one who puts down this body
  without taking up another body dies blamelessly. However, in arriving at its
  verdict in this case, the Commentary has to add the factors of motivation and
  perception to the equation, factors that are absent from the rule on which the
  judgment is based. It also leaves unanswered the question of how harsh the
  86
  disease has to be, and how near the anticipated attainments, to qualify for this
  exemption.

  This same holds true for case (a), which entails even more dubious reasoning.
  The Commentary’s judgment here has no clear precedent in the Canon; there is
  no clear line for deciding exactly how bad the illness and how fed up the
  attendants have to be for this case to apply; and why should the feelings of other
  people determine when it is or is not allowable to refuse food?

  It is worth noting that the origin story to the original rule here gave the
  Buddha the opportunity, had he wanted it, to formulate a general rule against
  attempted suicides, but he chose not to. He later formulated this subsidiary rule
  only when a bhikkhu attempted a suicide in a way that endangered the life and
  safety of another person. Thus a more appropriate way of applying the Great
  Standards to this subsidiary rule would be to extend it only to cases of that sort:
  where a bhikkhu’s attempts at suicide would bring danger to another person’s
  life and limb.

  As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.


What is the Distinction Between Knowledge of The Path and the Fruit? It is said that this happens in close proximity. So it is always referenced together. What happens when you get the knowledge and how do to transition to the Fruit? What happens just before the knowledge of the path?

Knowledge of the path is simply the first realization of Nibbana as one of the particular kinds of Aryas. In other words, the first time a person experiences Nibbana as a Sotapanna, Sakadagamin, Anagamin, or an Arahat is called knowledge of the path. During the path-knowlege, the fetters are destroyed or greatly weakened . Knowledge of the fruit is the same except that it doesn't cut away at the fetters in the same way so it is classified differently.

Knowledge of the fruit occurs automatically after knowledge of the path. You don't have to do anything specifically to make it happen.

Here is a description of these knowledges from the Visuddhimagga:

  Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target 3  set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping
  his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a
  wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel
  contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him
  a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot
  the arrow and hit the target.
  Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge’s [675]
  making Nibbána its object without pausing after the sign given by
  change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding  the  mass  of
  greed,  hate  and  delusion  never  pierced  and  exploded before, is
  like the archer’s hitting the target without pausing after the sign.

  And not only does it cause the piercing of this mass of greed, etc., but it also dries up the ocean of suffering of the round in the
  beginningless round of rebirths. It closes all doors to the states of
  loss. It provides actual experience of the seven noble treasures. 4
  It abandons the eightfold wrong path. It allays all enmity and fear. 5
  It leads to the state of the Fully Enlightened One’s breast-born son
  (see S II 221). And it leads to the acquisition of many hundred other
  blessings. So it is the knowledge associated with the path of
  stream-entry, the provider of many hundred blessings, that is called
  knowledge of the path of stream-entry. The first kind of knowledge is
  ended.

  Immediately next to that knowledge, however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. For it is
  owing to this very fact that supramundane  profitable  [consciousness]
  results  immediately  that  it  is  said, “And which he called the
  concentration with immediate result” (Sn 226), and “Sluggishly  he
  reaches  what  has  immediate  result  for  the  destruction  of  the
  cankers” (A II 149), and so on.

(Visuddhimagga Chapter XXII 12-15, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf )


sensations as meditation object Can sensations be a meditation object like breath? if yes how do I practice meditations with it?

Vedananupassana (contemplation of feelings) is part of the Satipatthana. There are 3 types of feelings:

Pleasant feeling or sensation,
Unpleasant feeling or sensation,
Neutral feeling or sensation.

In Vedananupassana you focus your mind on the sensation to see how and when it arises and how and when it passes away, keeping your mind steadfastly equanimous without getting attached to the pleasant sensations or averse to the painful sensation or ignorant of the transient nature of the neutral sensations.

This is a very concise description of the technique. It is best you take a course to learn it properly. Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html


Brain and heart dualism I’ve been meditating for sometime now, and it’s apparent that my mind and heart are not in sync.
I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities.
While meditating of course these dualities do not arise because the focus and attention is in single object unless if I do insight meditation.
I would be really appreciate if anyone could give me an dharma insight on what’s happening here.

I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities.

It'll be difficult to discuss in more details without some concrete examples/instances of the above, for quite oftenly, what one's "heart wants" while one hasn't attained enlightenment ususually is just a romanticized/sanitized way of sayin what one's "desire/lust wants". Just like how many times engaged couples explain away the break-up of their relationship as due to the man/woman simply "following their heart" to cheat on the fiance and had an affair with a different man/woman, etc.


Meditation to control anxiety and hyperactivity? I have recently taken up meditation to help with becoming more spiritual in general, but I am also interested in using meditation to improve my general well being.

When I am stressed and even after that (which is quite often) I tend to feel uneasy and restless in my feet and back then I get worried about my general health etc. Sympytoms only persist when I am not doing anything

How do I meditate to calm myself down and help in alliviating the spasms and restlessness due to my stress/anxiety/inability to concentrate?

Thank you and peace!

I think most Buddhist traditions agree that while meditating, you should concentrate on your breathing, and note when/if your mind starts to wander.  So if you have a spasm, you don't have to deny it or feel like a failure, but you recognize that it's happening, but also maintain your focus elsewhere.  You're focusing on your meditation, and whatever happens with your body goes on in spite of that because you're human, but doesn't have to detract from your focus.  You can tell your focus where to direct itself.

I know it's popular to say meditation can help with spasms and restlessness.  I think people say that because they find it teaches them to be at peace doing nothing, and that they can choose not to worry or think negative (or any) thoughts.  Personally, I'm not at that level, and I tend to become more worried when I'm not doing anything.  Perhaps for that reason, I don't schedule very long meditation sessions.  If I say I'll meditate only for 15 minutes, then I can believe that it's okay to meditate and give the meditation my full attention for that time.  If I schedule a longer time, then I have trouble really believing that it's a good use of my time, and I get fidgety.


Sampajañña: what is the correct action? One of Buddha's four ways of training the mind for Sampajañña ("clear comprehension") is to know the suitability of an action. From an anecdote given by Joseph Goldstein, his meditation master was haggling with a seller. When asked why, he replied

  The path of the Dhamma is to be simple, not a simpleton.

The following are two situations which I deal with on a daily basis, and I still am unsure what is the suitable or correct action to take.

Two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path, do you yield first and let the other pass?
Two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest?

The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well, but I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?

I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?

I am inclined to "yield first", although it doesn't often (or hardly ever) happen in practice that I'm walking on a path that narrow.

When I'm on a bicycle on a shared footpath, pedestrians are usually inclined to yield to me, and then I allow them to yield (they walk on one side of the path and I cycle past them); or you could say I yield i.e. I cycle around them. I slow, slow to a stop, or dismount when necessary (e.g. on a single-lane footpath under a bridge, when passing small children or off-leash dogs, or on a pedestrian side-walk).

Sometimes I drive a car on a single-track road. There is a (unwritten?) convention for which car is supposed to yield in that case, i.e. it's supposed to be whichever car is able to yield the most easily:

The car which has a lay-by in front of it, which it can pull into
The car which is closest to the lay-by behind it (i.e. the car which has most recently passed a lay-by) into which it can reverse
The car which can most easily reverse (e.g. the car which will be reversing down-hill rather than up-hill, or the smaller car)

Sometimes I stop for 4 ½ seconds to see whether the other car (which is probably driven by someone who's more familiar with the road than I am) goes into reverse, and if not then I start to reverse.

The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well ...

I don't see this as a conflicting interest. I want to get around in a friendly and more-or-less cooperative way, I want to be non-aggressive and I don't want to frighten people. I assume (and my experience has confirmed) that these ambitions are socially acceptable and not a "conflicting interest".

When one car yields to another is conventional for both drivers to do a small hand-wave to the other as they pass each other (each to acknowledge the other's politeness and savoir faire perhaps).

On foot if I make eye-contact with someone (outside a city) then I'm likely to say "Good day!" to them (and vice versa, they do too). Someone said once that according to the older and more formal rules of politeness in this country it's conventional that it should be the more junior person who should be the first to say "Good day!"; but I'm happy ignore that and wish a good day to anyone, older or younger.


Ways of Raising Energy I've eliminated many addictive fetters which deterred me from practising meditation. However, now I've noticed that getting into a meditative posture leads--perhaps because of the addictions such as social media which gave me dopamine are gone--to a kind of lethargy, a low energy. I have thus a few questions.

1) I've always had trouble with the breath as meditation object. I enter a state of less thoughts when I'm focusing upon it, and seemingly it diminishes my total experience of the body, mind, etc. Which meditation object would really increase my awareness and energy? Is it possible to achieve shamatha with outer objects, or even inner images?

2) Are there alternative ways to raise energy, such as physical exercise or other things like this. Will such activities increase my meditation energy specifically?

3) In terms of interior images, which seemingly arouse my mind slightly when I let myself visualize random things: are these recommended as meditation objects? I'm a very visual person, but I've been afraid of interior images as meditation objects for a few reasons.

First, the images that arise during meditation, in my case, sometimes seem disturbing. Second, I have always had a difficult time separating my inner impressions from reality; although, to be fair, I always am conscious of what's real and what is not, but I am very superstitious and attribute a lot to images or impressions that arise in me.

If any of my questions are answered, I thank you in advance.

Anapana (Breath-In/Breath-Out meditation)

Anapana is suitable for people who frequent train of thoughts. If you are easily distracted person Anapana is well suited technique as meditation. Thoughts are hindrance to meditation. It is also one of Five hindrances prohibit meditator not to achieve keen concentration to clearly see the bubbles of matter and non-matter states. If you are seeing images/thinking about images during meditation, it is some kind of restlessness (uddhacca) and this does not allow your progress in meditation (whatever goal you are trying to achieve).

Please keep in mind that meditation does not help healthy body or energy. The mindfulness/proper attentiveness plus having insightful knowledge of eating habit of your own (when you have to eat, how much do you have to eat and which one you can eat) can only help sound body and energy. Other than walking with normal pace, physical exercises are not recommended as body building is not recommended for those who practice meditation.

2-3 Samatha Recommendations

Based on your hobbies and attitudes, you need to choose which type of Samatha is suitable for you. Usually, this is done when you go retreat to some meditation centers. Generally people nowadays are easily distracted and that is the reason Anapana is ubiquitous choice in many meditation centers. For the people with distraction it is recommended to do meditation in confined space and do meditation walking in open space is not suitable. There are some constraints in choosing type of meditation for particular type of people with specific hobbies but nobody is master in choice, only combination with own personal determination/reasoning on type and experienced teacher from meditation centre can do approximation.

Below are some of the type of Samatha for the person with specific hobbies, attitudes and inclinations but you are warned to seek proper guidance from centers instead of choosing the type of Samatha your own.

Anapana - for most distracted people
Marananusati (intensive mindfulness of dying) - for people of pride
Asuba/32 Human parts - for people with strong sexual/sensory desire
Metta - for people with strong aversion

There are many more; colors, four elements, and 10 anusati including Marananusati. All are for people with different hobbies, attitudes and inclinations. I hope you could find your most suitable techniques of meditation by consulting a good teacher in meditation center and make progress in meditation.


Is "nāma" an equivalent of the Western concept of "mind"? Is it used alone? This answer refers to "mind" as a synonym for "nāma". The only relevant use of that word I have found was "nāmarūpa", which refers to the five aggregates. But is "nāma" ever used alone to signify "mind"? Or do we speak of mind in Buddhism only because it is a convenient Western abstraction that we can use?

In the Theravada (mostly in the abhidhamma and commentaries), "nāma" is used to describe those dhammas that are mental, i.e. the last four aggregates. Also, three of the four ultimate realities (nibbana is considered a nāmadhamma, though that's a bit of a technicality).
e.g., in the Yāmaka:

ye keci nāmā dhammā, sabbe te nāmamūlā?
Whatever nāma dhammas, are they all rooted in nāma?

They're also referred to as "arūpadhamma", i.e. not physical, as in the Visuddhimagga:

yathā yathā hissa rūpaṃ suvikkhālitaṃ hoti nijjaṭaṃ suparisuddhaṃ, tathā tathā ... tadārammaṇā arūpadhammā sayameva pākaṭā honti.
For in proportion as materiality becomes quite definite, disentangled and quite clear to him, so the immaterial states that have that [materiality] as their object become plain of themselves too.


Companies that practice right livelihood I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any.
Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood?
Kind regards,
Timothy

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which
five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
business in intoxicants, and business in poison." - Vanijja Sutta

Is it really very hard to find companies that don't deal with weapons, human trafficking/ slavery/ prostitution, meat, alcoholic beverages, recreational drugs, and poisons (for malevolent purposes)?
For e.g. the company running Stack Exchange (with offices in New York and London) itself should fulfill these criteria.
UPDATED:
Right Livelihood applies to individual Buddhists, not entities like companies.
It's up to individuals to run businesses or be employed in businesses based on trades allowed by Right Livelihood.
Companies don't practise Buddhism. Individual Buddhists do.


In Pure Land Buddhism, what realm do the pure lands belong to? Are they outside of the usual six realms? Do the pure lands belong to heaven realms? Or a completely different realm from the normal six realms?

From wikipedia:

About Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism:

  Upon entry into the Pure Land, the practitioner is instructed by
  Amitābha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas until full and complete
  enlightenment is reached. This person then has the choice of
  returning at any time as a bodhisattva to any of the six realms of
  existence in order to help all sentient beings in saṃsāra, or to stay
  the whole duration, reach Buddhahood, and subsequently deliver beings
  to the shore of liberation.

About the Sphere of No Form:

  Bodhisattvas ... are never born in the Ārūpyadhātu even when
  they have attained the arūpadhyānas.

About the Pure Abodes tier of the  Sphere of Form:

  Because a Śuddhāvāsa deva will never be reborn outside the Śuddhāvāsa
  worlds, no Bodhisattva is ever born in these worlds, as a Bodhisattva
  must ultimately be reborn as a human being.

In the rest of the realms of the Sphere of Form the beings continuously dwell in the state of mind corresponding to one of the four dhyanas, and therefore arguably cannot possibly be "instructed by Amitabha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas".

This leaves the Sphere of Desire (kamadhatu) of which the only appropriate place for Pure Lands is the world of gods (aka Heavens). Indeed, the famous Tusita heaven is where the Bodhisattva Natha currently resides, who will later be born as the next Buddha, Maitreya.

  Tuṣita (Sanskrit) or Tusita (Pāli) is one of the six deva-worlds of
  the Kāmadhātu, located between the Yāma heaven and the Nirmāṇarati
  heaven.
  [...]
  In Mahayana Buddhist thought, the Tuṣita Heaven is where all
  Bodhisattvas destined to reach full enlightenment in their next life
  dwell for a time.

However,

  Tuṣita is part of the same world-system as Earth, and so is relatively
  close, whereas the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha is treated as a
  separate world-system entirely.

From all of the above it follows that Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism are inside "the usual six realms", namely they are part of the heaven realms.


Jhāna in the different branches of Buddhism From what I have read it seems the different branches seem to treat the subject quite different. While Mahayana texts seem to avoid directly touching the subject and only describe the effects, the Theravāda tradition seems almost obsessed with Jhāna.

Are there really such big differences?

The word jhāna is Pali, so it stands to reason you wouldn't hear about it directly in other traditions. What you should be looking for are the following:

Sanskrit: dhyāna

Chinese: Chán (simplified Chinese: 禅; traditional Chinese: 禪)

Japanese: Zen (禅)

As far as differences go, I'm not sure which you are referring to, but I once skimmed through a collection of modern Buddhist writings on samadhi and found that none of the authors seemed able to agree on what meditation or jhāna meant. It differs from monastery to monastery, let alone tradition to tradition.


Doubt while Meditating regarding Breath When i am meditating, my breath which was normal(means three seconds longer both in and out), is becoming one second long or only half second long(extremely short in length).

How to manage if breath becomes so short in length, am i going in right manner of meditation ?.

note: could any body say if i am going or doing meditation in intended manner.. or is there anything i could do to improve my situation or psychological state

The meditation taught in the old scriptures includes being aware of both long & short breathing.

Long breathing is calming & soothing, which is why it feels preferable.

Short breathing can be a sign of stored tension coming to the surface of awareness; therefore short breathing can feel uncomfortable.

However, it is sometimes important to allow tensions to rise up so they can dissolve. This requires patience & forbearance. Once tensions & short breathing resolve, the breathing will naturally become long again.

If short breathing becomes too uncomfortable, you can deliberately take some deliberate long breaths to slow down & calm your body & mind.

The old scriptures state:

  There is the case where a monk...sits down...holding his body erect...setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes
  in; mindful he breathes out.

  [1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'

  [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.

  Anapanasati Sutta


Afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism Where does the ideology of afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism come from and why are they different?

Hinduism teaches about a permanent soul that goes from life to life until it reunites with the universal soul called the Mahabrahma.
Buddhism says there's no soul going even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life. Both mind and body are processes of causes and effects. There's nothing permanent within you that can qualify as a soul. Read about Paticca Samuppada. Buddhism also rejects the belief of a universal soul.


What practices are included in (daily lay) life for a Buddhist? There are a number of Buddhist traditions, each with different teachings and practices. What are the daily practices lay people normally live by?

For instance, living by five or eight precepts, in the Theravada tradition, or just daily meditation practice.

How do the different Buddhist traditions compare, in terms of daily practices? What is common among different traditions, and what varies?

Revised question Since many people ask about choosing a tradition on Buddhism.SE, the purpose of this question is to gain clarity about the differences (and similarities) between the traditions. There appears to be a clinging to the known tradition(s) among many, and rejection of other traditions (as good or bad)

Here are a few examples. I am looking for some more insightful comments from those experienced with more than one tradition, since these are merely what Google provided:

Bhikkhu Kantipalo (1995) from the Theravada tradition:

Cultivation of calm and insight.
Practice giving (dana) according to their faith.
Make an effort to keep the precepts (sila) pure.
Develop the mind in meditation (bhavana)
Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha
Undertake the five precepts

By Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche: (source offline when writing this, cached)

Taking refuge
Prostrations
Mandala offerings
Vajrasattva mantras
Samaya vajra
Dorje Khadro (burning offering)
Water bowl offerings
Guru Yoga
Making tsa-tsas

Venerable Thubthen Chodron highlights:

Affirmations upon waking up
Morning meditation
Cultivation of mindfulness

SGI members are encouraged to:

Believe in the teachings of Nichiren
Chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, as well as to explain Nichiren's teachings to others
Study and understand the Buddhist teachings

Found this about Zen practice on zenki.com (unsure of the authority, since I'm unfamiliar with Zen)

Yes, it is the five precepts on normal days and 8 precepts on Poya days. Apart from that, do meditation and good deeds whenever there's an opportunity. Or simply come up with plans to avail opportunities to do good deeds. Just like how we normally plan or devise ways to gain sensual pleasures.


Scared of growing old – living in the moment For those who are scared of growing old and death, what would be a well thought out response be? My first thoughts on it would be, if you learn to meditate, you are going to enjoy your old age, and you will never fear death. But that is not an answer that will go down well with many people. So this is a question that cries out for a mature, seasoned response?

A good response is one of good demonstrative right intention(or action).

Then they might inquire further  and if so, maybe tell them about some fundamental Dhamma.


As a Buddhist how do I get over hatred towards my previous religion? I am filled with genuine hatred towards my previous religion. My hatred is not directed towards other religions it's just towards my past. And this constantly bubbles up during meditation.

I don't live in a majority Buddhist country and it was a long hard journey to arrive at the Dhamma.

I don't have any problem with them following their respective paths but I am filled with rage for all the lies that were filled in my head for their own greed and ignorance. I get so enraged when I see people around me preaching non-sense theology to other people and to what effect, only to fulfil material desires.

So, what is the strategy when you see the lies and ignorance around. Do you keep quiet as not to get into a debate to keep the 'Right Speech' or do you get into arguments?

How do I get rid of hatred and tolerate other people spreading lies?

Think of the followers of your former religion as people who believe that the earth is flat. There's no point getting angry at them. It's ok to argue with them in social circles if you feel it might be useful to some and if you are confident that you can handle it.

But if it is getting to the point that you start shouting at them or trash talking at them, you should stop and contemplate the Anatta nature of beings. You cannot make other beings think the way you want at will. Meditate on the wanting to control others' thoughts. Whenever anger arises in the mind, simply note it.


Unconscious intention? Sometimes we do thing intentionally sometimes unintentionally. But is there such thing such as unconscious intention in Buddhism (Theravada)?

No such thing! Consciousness(Vinnana) is present in all Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara. Intention falls under Sankhara.


Buddha statue of European/white likeness? Do Buddha statues exist that portray Buddha as a person of white or European likeness? Where would I find them?

(Not sure what other than "white" or "European" to call it; you are free to correct me.)

If not, why not?

(I would like to explain in a few words why I am asking that question, but find it difficult to pin down the right words. It has something to do with the feeling of familiarity or likeness, and just plain fun of entertaining the idea that the Buddha can look like all the other people that are typically around me all day long. Plus, whatever drives people to make cover versions of songs, just seen as a "cover version" of the typical Buddha statue.)

EDIT: Replaced the word "caucasian" with "white", because this should be less offensive.

Just to add to the above, it is unknown what the historical Buddha looked like, and it is a matter of debate if he was, indeed, one particular person. There are conjectures based on the Suttas and so on, but none of those are essentially good enough to make a strong conclusion on the subject.

So the ordinary response has been to make him look like whatever you like, and which helps you in your practice. The Buddha could look occidental, african or aryan and as long as the image was useful, it would be fine.

In the end, its about the practice and the result. The Buddha would probably be the first to say appearances are unimportant, and in this sense you don't get points for "getting it right".


Is there any online serious community of Dhamma practitioners to join? Not counting this site are there any communities where I can talk about the Dhamma with serious lay practitioners in facebook? Most of the groups I have been have been riddled with really toxic and judgemental people.

Facebook: Friday Night Study Group with Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

Meditation group:
https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/login


"The number of dust on the earth could be counted..." In the video documentary Go Beyond Samsara - Part 2, it mentions that Buddha had said:

  "The number of dust on the earth could be counted, but the number of
  beings that had been one's parents is in no case calculable"

I'd like to see this in its fuller context. Where in the pali canon or other scriptures did the buddha say this and can you point me to it?

I have researched and I can only find similar biblical references like here.

Note: The video link above will play at the very moment in question.

THe puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim that people you see around you could have been your parents or loved ones in a previous life.
From this, they embarrass themselves even more by inferring that ''therefore you must be nice to them'', so that they build their humanist ethic and feel good about themselves. As usual they confuse the sila of the dhama with humanism.

Their confusion stems from their confusion of the dependent origination of the 5 aggregates with the dependent origination that they invented which they called ''inter-being'' which is just the eastern humanism where people depend on each others.
Those puthujjanas prefer to care more about the thousands little objects and humans they see each day and slap the words sunnata and dependent origination on it Whereas the claim of the buddha is precisely that instead of caring about those objects, what matters is to see how conditioned the 5 aggregates are.
Puthujjanas who do not cling to mental masturbation already know that objects and livelihood are conditioned, and this knowledge doe snot get them enlightened, but a few intellectuals pass this dull, bland, common knowledge as being awaken.

The philosophers are the textbook case of overthinking, they focus on a few words and they build a new system around it, a new semantics, a new doctrine.
Their story begins with the a famous claim that what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta. THen a natural question by Puthujjanas is ''why are things anatta'' and of course, the answer is that ''things are anatta because it is the way they are''. IT is a disappointing answer, because it is a stupid question in the first place.

But of course, for the Puthujjanas who are intellectuals, this answer is not intellectual enough. No, what matter to those Puthujjanas is to put another ''...because XYZ'' after ''because they are anatta'': They claim that things are anatta because they are sunyata. They picked the word sunyataand blew it out of proportion, by using it on their deep craving to find an essence in things.
When those Puthujjanas run out of ideas to intellectualize further their views, they stop and claim that the last bit of their sequence of ideas is in fact how reality is, so it goes

  idea A because idea B, idea B because idea C, .... , idea X because
  idea Y, idea Y because idea Z, and idea Z because reality is Z
  (expressed by idea Z). Which means ''Y because Z because it is the way
  it is, end of the story''

Now it turns out that the story imagined by those Puthujjanas does indeed stop  at sunyata:  things are sunyata because things are sunyata, because that is what things are, because it is the way things are.
And of course, those people love to feel smart for applying their fantasy to the most attractive word there is:

  Nibbana (the Unconditioned) is anatta because nibanna is sunyata. And
  Why is nibanna sunyata? Nibanna is sunyata because nibanna is sunyata.

With the crown of their speculations being the fantasy that:

  sunyata itself is sunyata

THis jewel of theirs is precisely what neuters their speculations. It puts a stop to the chain of ''because XYZ'' and adds nothing to the story.
Thus,  It is easy for those puthujjanas to claim that ''

  If dependent origination is true, then my attainment of enlightenment is mutually dependent on the attainment of all other beings.

So their craving for slapping sunyata eveyrwhere is utterly useless. They had an extra word and they stop here. It is already bad to intellectualize, but intellectualizing further by adding a useless word is embarrassing. But at least they obtain what they craved all along, fantasizing a true nature of ''the self'', as if things had a true nature and a not so true nature.
Later on, they cannot help themselves from claiming that their intellectualization is the dhamma and even more embarrassing, that it is a better dhama than the one from what they call the ''pali canon'' today,

But the intellectuals do not stop here. Those puthujjanas crave so much speculating and basing their life on their fantasies that they picked another word and blew it out of proportion by mixing it with their favorite topic: craving to attribute an essence or a true nature to things that they perceive.
Their new and equally  toxic fairy tale is about applying what they read about dependent origination to their craving for true nature of things like the external object.

THe dependent origination is and always will be about the conditions for the birth of an aggregate and the condition for the death of an aggregate. Dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of the objects that Puthujjanas love to cling to and which live ''in reality'' like they say.
On the contrary, if there is ONE thing that the buddha does NOT focus on is precisely those stuff of what Puthujjanas call ''objective reality''. It is utterly useless and never conductive to nirvana.

In fact, Puthujjanas know very well that the objects they crave are fabricated. Puthujjanas know that the meal they cook is sunyata.Puthujjanas know very well that their car is sunyata, that clouds are sunyata. THey know that when they change the summer tires on their car, to put a winter tires, the drive-ability of the car changes a lot, that the fuel consumption changes a lot, to the point of driving a totally different car. They know that when they change the gearbox or the engine, the car no longer behaves like the car before to the point of being a different car. And knowing that all those objects are sunyata does not get them to stop being Puthujjanas, does not stop the cravings they have for the objects nor the craving they have to find the ''real nature'' of things. Knowing that a carrot is fabricated is not reaching nibanna.
The dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of a carrot nor the about the condition of the death of a carrot.

THe buddha and the bikkhus used the analogy of the fabricated chariot and the scent of the flower, the sound of a lute https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html
 to talk about the 5 aggregates precisely because Puthujjanas know those objects and that the all those objects are fabricated. The fabrication of the chariot is not new to Puthujjanas. What is new to Puthujjanas is that the 5 aggregates are fabricated, just like their car is fabricated. This is the claim which is amazing.

Claiming that a carrot is sunyata is the most bland, common, vulgar claim for the Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkya-ditthi.
On the contrary, for the toxic Puthujjanas who love to pat themselves on the back for intellectualizing even more the few bits they read about the dhamma, the claim that a carrot is sunyata  is amazing, is deep, is the most profound revelation that there is.
The intellectuals find amazing what the Puthujjanas who do not create much views beyond sakkya ditthi do not find amazing at all.

it's like living in a builidng with many floors. Puthujjanas who know that the objects they fabricate are fabricated live on the floor 0, and the one who cannot help themselves from intellectualizing live on floor 100.
Puthujjanas who love to live up their dreams high at the floor 100 have completely forgotten that floor 0 exist. Then they pat themselves on the back for constructing a whole fairy tale leading them to discover that floor 0 have always existed. THen , the buddha lives at floor -1  and tells the Puthujjanas at floor 0 that there is a floor below them.

But it gets worst for those Puthujjanas clinging to rationalize that they experience. Because they exhaust themselves by struggling to fight their  views, they run out of energy when it is time to kill the lusts for the various 5 senses.
In fact, the most toxic Puthujjanas are not even interested in restraining their actions and prefer to claim that they already are awaken, because they delude themselves even more by creating the view that all that matters to reach nibanna is to have good intentions, so they go on carrying on their actions of Puthujjanas while building the fantasy that they have good intention while they are doing them. In order to express this new  view, that they love to pass as deep and pragmatic, They create the most moronic claim ever uttered by a deluded Puthujjana :

  ''Samsara is only nirvana seen from a place of confusion'' or  "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?

They really feel smart and deep when they say that.
On the contrary, the Puthujjanas who already know that carrots are sunyata have zero need to kill the speculations created by the toxic Puthujjanas. The Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkyaditthi struggle the least to reach nibbanna. Those Puthujjanas are easy to talk to and the easiest way to make them ''understand'' that the 5 aggregates are conditioned is to talk to them and create analogies from their daily life with all those objects that they work so hard to fabricate and service. Those non-philosopers  Puthujjanas do not confuse samsara with nirvana. Those Puthujjanas do not get awaken by seeing that cars are fabricated, they get awaken by seeing that the 5 aggregates are conditioned which leads to the death of the lusts for the aggregates which kills the aggregates at least at parinibbanna, if not at nibanna.

The goal is not to see that a carrot is sunyata, nor that to see that a car is sunyata , nor that a sound is sunyata . The goal is only to see that the aggregates are sunyata which leads to see that  in the ''sound there is only the sound'' (an no other stuff like lust), to cognize the earth element as only the earth element, contrary to puthujjanas who cognize the earth element as earth element+sakkaya ditthi and later on, speculate on this sakkayaditthi and turn that into their numerous mistaken:

  The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where 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 —
  perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
  [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
  [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
  delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
  tell you.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html


How do I focus from the distraction of people who look attractive? I am a 21 year old college student studying physics. When I walk around campus, I am in a meditative state; enjoying the surrounding nature and the mathematical fruit it bears.
My thoughts become interrupted when an attractive woman will walk by me. With something as simple as an exchange of smiles, or simply their youthful beauty, I can be completely removed from my meditation. Commonly, I am left feeling like what I am pursuing is not as interesting as the passerby.
I do not want to be distracted from my meditation; more importantly, left feeling like my path is wrong and lesser. After I collect myself I can regain the motivation to pursue my maths and physics meditation, but this back and forth process feels burdening.
How do I incorporate the beautiful youth around me into my meditation of math, physics and nature, instead of being a process like a type 1-a super nova, where the youth is the white dwarf consuming the star of meditation?

edit - describing my meditation
Periodically, I will focus on my breath doing a samatha meditation. When I look at nature I try to understand impermanence, but I do not believe all things are temporal. I believe symbols/ideas like the hexagon transcend time. My meditation also consists of trying to understand the objects that exists whether I am here or not (maths) and the transducer (physics) between these symbols/ideas and the temporal physical world.

Since you are philosophical, ponder: "What is beauty? Why does it exist? What is its purpose?"

In Buddhism, five questions are always asked about a thing:

(1) How does the thing arise (samudaya)?

(2) How does the thing pass (atthaṅgama)?

(3) What is the attraction (assāda) of the thing?

(4) What is the drawback or danger (ādīnava) of the thing?

(5) What is the method to escape (nissaraṇa) the danger? (which may include, with some things, escaping the danger while utilizing the attractive quality.)

  Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling does not understand as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger and
  the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional
  formations and consciousness.

  But, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple understands as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger and
  the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional
  formations and consciousness.

  SN 22.74


How is it possible to change habits cultivated over lifetimes If one has cultivated a habit for countless lifetimes, how is it possible to reverse such habit? Is it possible at all? Is that person entirely at the mercy of external factors? (are we ever not entirely at the mercy of external factors? This is an entirely different question though).

I have trouble understanding how habits are changed, and where that change originates. I figure the answer to this 'extreme case' question will shed some light.

Thank you.

EDIT:
This question is a different way of phrasing these two questions What allows to make a choice and What is volition?

Easy. Well, easy in theory :) -- you need to get fed up! You need to get really sick and tired of your conditions, so sick that you cannot live like that anymore. You are so fed up that you are either ready to die - or to change your habits. So that desire to get out leads to iron intent to change.


Body Scan Versus Feeling Breath Overall Upon reading this post, I realized I always focused on the tip of the nose rather than the whole body, which may be less effective (for me). I was reminded of my Buddhist college teacher who said that meditation upon the body may cause psychosis or a mental breakdown for some.

Hence, I wonder: Is there any difference between mindfulness of the body (e.g. body scan) and focusing on the breath as it arises all across the body?

My teacher specified he believed focusing on the tip of the nose would avoid any such problems. Is meditation on the breath as it arises across the body a variant or even partial form of body meditation?

Thank you

Based on my study of Buddhist texts, the guidance of my teachers, and my own experience - the most effective meditation (of this type) is to maintain awareness of the entire breath AND feelings, while releasing any mental/emotional blocks that you notice thanks to this awareness.

First of all, there is no magic in merely holding your attention - whether it is the tip of the nose or the diaphragm or abdomen or anything else. There is no magic button somewhere that will open some door if only you keep pushing, nothing like that.

Instead the key principle is to stop creating/maintaining trouble in your mental continuum. This is called "samatha". In order to stop creating/maintaining trouble we must notice it first. This is called "vipashyana". The better you see, the better you stop, the better you see.

When you watch the entire "body" of your inner experience, it is likely dominated by thoughts. This is expected in this era. There is another type of meditation for working with thoughts. But for this meditation you need to tune your awareness to predominantly watch everything but thoughts. This includes sensations of the body, the somatic components of emotions (the part of emotions felt in and around the body), and the emotional aspect of your mindstate (colloquially known as "the mood"). Sensations of the body include the muscle tonus, posture, and any acute neuroses manifesting in body shaking, tensions, or blocks. In the very center of this entire body of non-discursive experience is the cluster of sensations connected with breathing.

The breathing sits right on the intersection between physical and mental, which is what makes it special. If you center your awareness on the breathing, you will naturally include most of the bodily sensations on one side and most of the emotional aspect on the other side. This makes breathing a perfect focal point.

Specifically, it is the muscles involved in breathing in and breathing out. Because, if you watch carefully, you will notice that these muscles are extremely sensitive to all emotions. Any change in emotional "weather" results in the change of tension and affects the speed with which these muscles contract and relax. So by watching the state of muscles connected with breathing you can very clearly see your emotional state.

Once you learn to see the emotional state, you don't really have to focus on breathing. The point of all this exercise is not breathing, after all, it is perfection of samtha and vipashyana.

So the entire exercise of meditation is to watch all that, and to trace these blocks and neuroses to their emotional roots, so you can uproot them. This process of tracing may involve a little bit of thinking, but for the most part your job is to dwell on the feelings. The hangups are something you discover by seeing, not by reasoning.

Once you see them, you let them go, release them, dismiss them - whatever you want to call it. As said in the sutta, you watch your breathing in long, you watch your breathing out long, you watch your breathing in short, you watch your breathing out short, you watch your breathing while paying attention to the whole experience, you watch your breathing while relaxing the mind, you watch your breathing while gladdening the mind, you watch your breathing while liberating the mind.

This is not all there is to Buddhist meditation, and not all there is to Buddhism - but this is a big chunk. Just practicing this for a while (months? years?) will be of great benefit to most anyone.


Compassion and Motivation I wondered today whether compassion is an antidote to a kind of lack of motivation, given that it remedies fear in the suttas, and often approach and avoidance are seen as opposite (e.g. fight or flight), and that in psychology compassion is linked with the reward system:

They [the researchers of the study] point out that a heightened sensitivity to suffering causes people to avoid that suffering because it doesn’t feel good; however, because the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions, people may have been able to sense suffering without feeling overwhelmed by it. Instead, the care for others emphasized by the compassion training may have caused them to see suffering not as a threat to their own well-being but as an opportunity to reap the psychic rewards from achieving an important goal—namely, connecting with someone else and making him feel better.
“When your goal is to help another person, then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal,” says Weng.
By contrast, the reappraisal group’s goal was to decrease their own negative emotions, making them less inclined to be altruistic when confronted with someone else’s pain. “When you’re focused on decreasing your own negative emotions,” she says, “I think that makes you less focused on other people.”
How to Train the Compassionate Brain

I thus wonder whether compassion is said in the Buddhist tradition to increase motivation in general. I feel the Mahayana,which emphasizes compassion as primary quality with emptiness, appeals to householders historically in part because of this worldly quality of compassion.
Is there any evidence for compassion -- in the suttas or Buddhist tradition -- increasing motivation and energy aside from towards compassionate aims? In other words, does compassion increase drive in general?

I haven't studied clinical psychology.

When I read this comment I discovered it has a doctrine or theory about something it calls "behavioral activation" --

  In the case of depression there is ample clinical evidence for behavioral activation as a mean to counter a clinical depressions cognitions, emotions and behavior.

Using Google I found a quick description of "behavioural activation" here: Behavioural Activation: Behavioural Therapy For Depression Treatment

That theory sounds plausible (e.g. worth testing).

Anyway I think that adds insight or background information to the quote in the OP ...

  When your goal is to help another person [out of compassion], then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal

... i.e. at least enough to help understand what Dr. Weng was saying.

And if that ties in (as it seems to here) to being a therapy for depression, that might answer your question about motivation -- because I think that depression is antagonistic to motivation in general.

Secondly, this article ...

Why You Procrastinate (It Has Nothing to Do With Self-Control)
If procrastination isn’t about laziness, then what is it about?

... claims that procrastination is a problem of emotional regulation -- i.e. it's caused by wanting to avoid emotional problems which you associate with the task that you're procrastinating about (and preferring tasks which give a short-term reward).

So perhaps this (quoting from the article cited in the OP), "the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions", suggests another way in which it might improve "drive" -- i.e. by reducing a "need for procrastination".

I guess a question (perhaps your question, which I'm not sure this answers) is whether it improves all emotional regulation, or only the regulation of emotions associated with the suffering of others (compassion).

Thirdly, this article from a while ago, The Pursuit of Happiness suggests that with meditation (it didn't say what kind -- the sort practised by "the Dalai Lama's lamas, the monks") lets you "train" the mind to be "happier" and remain happy under adverse conditions (including specifically unpleasant external stimuli).

That too fits with the theory of what causes procrastination.


Moving During Meditation When I feel dullness in meditation, I tend to move about on the chair, e.g. tilt forwards or backwards, change position to prod myself to wakefulness.

Would such a method be detrimental? Should one aspire to remain completely still during meditation?

If you experience dullness, it's because your thinking mind (little mind) has gotten bored and is trying to put itself to sleep. You can alleviate the dulness by movement, sure — there's nothing wrong with that, exactly — but it's a sideways transition. The more productive approach is to recognize that your thinking mind wants to go to sleep, and that you can detach from it and let it sleep while you remain alert and awake. The thinking mind is just confused: it thinks it's you, and that if it goes to sleep you should go to sleep with it. All you need to do is break that association.


Are all Buddhists vegetarian? Most if not all Buddhists I know are vegetarian or vegan. Thinking about the precepts this is not surprising - one should abstain from killing. However is this universally true in all Buddhist traditions? Are there some Buddhist traditions that emphasize vegetarianism more than others? For instance I believe the Tibetans were originally pastoral farmers which wouldn't lend itself to vegetarianism naturally.

So is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?

Very much not the case, so long as you don't engage in a No true Scotsman fallacy and say that they aren't really Buddhists unless they are also vegetarian.

In some traditions it is common for a begging monk to eat whatever is put in their offering bowl, mixing it together first (see the interview with Achaan Chaa in Living Dharma).

For laypeople the provision is against engaging in the business of meat as it says in Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

There's little that I am aware of, at least from the Pali Canon, that addresses meat eating for laypeople. Even monks get a pass in some circumstances on this as well, as it says in The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople:

  The Buddha did allow bhikkhus to eat meat and fish[88] except under
  the following circumstances:

    If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him,
    he may not eat it.[89] (M.I,369)

This is clarified with footnote 90 with the following cited quote:

  The flesh of animals which have been slaughtered to sell as meat for
  the people, however, is called 'flesh which exists already.' [It] has
  been slaughtered for their meat to be used for food by one person or
  by a group of people, apart from fellow Dhamma friends, or specially
  for the butcher himself… If people cook such meat and offer it to a
  bhikkhu, [it] will not be an offence to accept and eat it.

Citing The Entrance to the Vinaya, (Vinayamukha), volume 2, pages 131—133.

It should be emphasized that these are predominantly guidelines for monks, not for lay practitioners.

This gets further modified depending on the specific tradition. His Holiness 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, simply try to lessen the amount of impact or the amount of meat eaten, and I have seen quite a few Vajrayana practitioners eat meat.

Many other sects have de-emphasized the need for vegetarianism depending on the local conditions and the history of that specific sect.

Basically: Even among monks the following of vegetarianism is not absolute and it isn't even clear that restrictions on that order exist for lay followers in a lot of different Buddhist traditions.


Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days? Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days? I ask this because I want to observe the eight precepts on uposatha days and I don’t need to use money on those days anyway so I might as well observe the ten precepts instead of eight. So is it ok for me to observe the ten precepts or should the ten precepts be only observed by novices and nun?

The recommendation is for lay persons to observe the Eight Precepts on Uposatha Days.
The Eight Precepts are included in the Ten Precepts, thus the Ten Precepts conform to the above recommendation.
So, there's no problem observing the Ten Precepts on Uposatha Days.
It's just like the case where monks need not do more than what is required by the Vinaya. But if they want to, they can optionally choose to observe the stricter Dhutanga rules.
In any case, it is useful to remember that the Buddha taught the Middle Way between excessive indulgence and excessive austerity.
The analogy from the Sona Sutta is applicable here to illustrate that energy and effort applied to the practice should not be too much or too little:

“What do you think, Soṇa? When you were still a layman, weren’t you a
good harp player?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too tight, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too slack, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“But when your harp’s strings were tuned neither too tight nor too
slack, but fixed at an even tension, was it resonant and playable?”
“Yes, sir.”
“In the same way, Soṇa, when energy is too forceful it leads to
restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa,
you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of
the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.”


Do all Buddhists abstain from alcohol? I've been to a nice restaurant (pictured below) where the bar was decorated with statues of the Buddha. Given the 5th precept and all; this seemed a bit odd. Would it be correct to surmise that the 5th precept is understood in different ways among Buddhists?

In Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, the 5th precept is interpreted mostly as 'do not get intoxicated by alcohol and drugs' for non-ordained practitioners, meaning that it's up to you to know how much you can drink without affecting your mind. Ordained monks are still supposed to take the literal interpretation of the 5th precept and fully abstain from alcohol and mind-intoxicating drugs (except on the bi-weekly purification ceremony known as Tsog).

Of course, many people really don't know exactly how much they can consume until their minds get affected. That's why the more literal interpretation of the 5th precept is recommended: put it simply, if you don't know how your mind gets affected by alcohol/drugs, then abstain from it.

Also note that the whole point of the 5th precept is not to impose any kind of 'puritan morality'. It's just because if your goal of becoming a Buddhist practitioner is to train your mind, it's a bit pointless to consume anything that makes you less aware, less mindful, and pay less attention. Morality is not the point here!

As for the 'right' or 'wrong' way of using Buddha statues as decoration, that's a really tough question. If the bar owners are beginning practitioners, I would say that they should take their refuge vows a bit more seriously and refrain from using representations of the Buddhas as 'decoration'. If they are enlightened beings, then I would say this would be just a very clever trick to get people interested in Buddhism: by looking at the statue of a Buddha, someone without any connection with Buddhism might ask what the statue is about and get interested in the Buddhadharma — so forging a connection with the Dharma that way. They whole point of having representations of the Buddha all over the place is not to remind existing practitioners, but to get non-practitioners interested in asking more questions about it and eventually developing an interest in the Dharma :) But, to be very honest, I would be wary of using that argument to place Buddha statues in a bar...

If the bar owners are not practitioners at all, then, well, I'd say the same applies. Somehow they made a connection with the Dharma — somehow the Buddha statue appealed to them. And somehow this very weak connection with the Dharma will endure — if not in this life, then in the next. So I'd be happy to see that someone who is not a Buddhist at all to pick, among millions of different choices, a statue of the Buddha as a worthwhile 'decoration'. There will be some benefit to them :)


Is there an eBook reader compatible Tripitaka? I would like to know if there exist a PDF version of Tripitaka which is compatible with an eBook reader(Kindle, Kobo alike)?

I am presuming you are looking for translations. There is the Buddha Jayanthi edition which has both Sinhala and Pali.

English

http://dharmafarer.org/ - does not have all the Tripitaka but there is a growing number of Suttas in PDF form
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ - this has traslation by many and can be downladed in multiple formats in mulitple languages

Multi languages

https://suttacentral.net/ - no PDF but mobile friendly. But has translations in multiple languages

Pali

http://www.tipitaka.org/ - Pali text is many different scripts with PDF downloads

Sinhala (Since you name sounds like a Sinhalese name including including some in Singhala script)

http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html - Buddha Jayanthi in PDF
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/, http://pitaka.lk/ -  A.P. de Soyza's translations (https://www.facebook.com/pitaka.lk has links to PDFs)
http://www.thripitakaya.org/ - Unicode mobile friendly format.


Can you explain the "Maha Meru"? I have come to learn the fact that the idea if maha meru is not only included in the buddhist canon but in many other beliefs and cultures which are not Buddhist.

This is what Wikipedia says - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru

I belong to the theravada tradition so i am very interested in knowing sources in the canon for further learning if you can mention some. Also if you can ease me into the topic with a small explanation it is also very much appreciated.

  I know that this has nothing to do with nirvana but i am curious of this and i also read this

  https://muslimanswersfiles.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/buddhism-modern-science/

I guess i want an answer to the question "While all other things are logical and also even scientific, why this (Maha meru) makes no sense?"

Namo Buddhaya!

As per my understanding in listening to Dhamma the maha meru is the mount Himalya. The anawatapta lake is located in the maha meru as per the scripts & now it is found hat this lake exists in the Himalya range.
Hope you will be able to find the stories about Maha meru more logical of you read articles on Himalya region, earth's structure, universal physics etc.


What would you say about being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic about the ways of approaching the path? As everyone is entitled to their own opinion to a question of this nature, let me first say this. Now I recognize that they’re both forms of conceit. If we learn the proper use of conceit: the confidence that, yes, you can do this; other people can do it, it’s something human beings have done—you’re a human being, you can do it too. Once you’ve got that amount of conviction, then it is time to drop the “you,” drop the “me,” the “I,” and then set to work. That right there makes it a lot easier. And this way you become your own best friend.

Being overly optimistic creates a turbulent mind, and in this Dhamma path it is important to calm your mind. Overly optimistic may fuel this “optimism bias” and specially in meditation takes you off base. An optimism bias, if its expectations are not met, its absence can signal anxiety or depression, its pessimistic opposite. The Buddhist term for this is Uddhacca-Kukkucca.

Many are the obstacles which block the road to spiritual progress and uddhacca is one such. Uddhacca is a Buddhist term that is translated as "excitement", "restlessness", etc. Here I have to remind you that uddhacca is not the same as what we mean by “restlessness” or “agitation”, used in conventional language. Even when there is pleasant feeling, for example, when we are attached to a quiet place, there is restlessness, uddhacca, which arises together with lobha-mūla-citta. We may think that we are calm at such a moment, but we have actually “mental excitement”. In the Theravada tradition, uddhacca is defined as a mental factor that is characterized by disquietude, like water whipped by the wind. Uddhacca or 'restlessness', belongs to the 10 fetters (samyojana), and to the 5 hindrances (nīvarana). It is one of those 4 mental factors inseparably associated with all unwholesome consciousness. Uddhacca is a close friend to moha (ignorance). Uddhacca spreads and disperses and wanders around. It is said to be like throwing of a stone into a heap of ash. In its presence, citta becomes restless and upset.

The person who develops belief and confidence in Satipatthana will not be in a hurry. Also he will not be lazy. Many people have this indecent hurry. They are in an unnecessary hurry. That is why they try to practice for hours at the beginning itself. Such a person is in an unnecessary haste. That unnecessary haste is due to impatience. One who has trust in Satipatthana or has confidence in it is not in haste. What does he have? Patience. The nature of one who is pleased with Satipatthana, who trusts it, who understands it becomes patient. Patience arises in him. Why does he have patience? Why does patience arise in him? Why is he not in a hurry? Because of confidence. What is his confidence? It is the unflinching confidence in the Triple Gem.


The Various Theravada Traditions What are the various specific traditions in Theravada Buddhism?
If you could please describe, compare, and contrast each of them
that would be greatly appreciated.

May you be well.

People believe that something is true, that it is not true, or that it maybe is and maybe isn't true.
There are major factions like this.
These are split as to which texts they assume to be true and worth studying.
To understand the various sections of thravada one has to look into how commentary & culture has been developing since the beginning and how it shaped the current traditions, teachers, translations & the translators.
There has been an tremendous change in how available the texts have become in the last 100 years, beginning with translations & more recently the internet, it is unprecedented.
The teachers who shaped what is now the monastic Sangha like Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ven. Ajahn Chah and many others are now either dead or soon dead.
Therefore the Sangha is rather slowly evolving new methods & understanding.
Many people are now interested in reading the Sutta more so than listening to a particular teacher or a commentator, people have access to the original texts and want to do their own analysis.
This is also rather unprecedented because historically only a few commentators have had access to texts and people had to get information 2nd hand from a teacher.
Ie nowadays the factions are divided as to:

Burmese Ven. Mahasi & Non-Mahasi
Thai as those who believe that maybe Buddha lives in Nibbana those who don't.
Thai who draw from Mahasi
In Sri Lanka, those who believe that Ven. Nanavira was Ariya and those who don't.
In Sri Lanka, those who draw from Mahasi and those who don't.

Some people analyze controversy by controversy and don't fit well into these broad classifications, ie those who accept some commentary but not all of it. I think this will be the norm in the future.
In regards to Mahasi, he follows commentary, seemingly all of it and then some. It is basically a mainline commentary based tradition and Mahasi Sayadaw produced a lot of commentary work himself.
Other than this it seems like the small monasteries require more conformity and a lot of the monastic division based on vinaya regulation as much as doctrinal differences.
As to Yuttadhammo, he mostly follows Mahasi as he was trained but i don't think he subscribes to everything.


What is the real meaning of the third precept? Can someone explain the third precept? Because most are translating this as "sexual misconduct"; but that it so narrow, and distorts Buddhism.

This is to have intimacy with someone under the protection of another. A wife or husband would be protective of each other in appropriate advances by another. A mother, father or family member would also do so.

  There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

  i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
  have sexual intercourse.

  ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
  person.

  iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.

  iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

  With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
  women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
  be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
  guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
  charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
  and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
  man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
  as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
  have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
  conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) on urbandharma.org


A Question About our Aatma Where is our Aatma or Soul when we sleep? What exactly happens to it?
I tried finding answers, but could not get any answer from within!
Help

In Buddhism there is not concept of Atman. But has the concept of Anatta, means you have not control over the aggregates or anything else to be considered as self, me or mine. Also there is no core which is unchanging or everlasting which you can consider Atman. It does not relate to the concepts given in your question.


What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse? Suppose a father is abusing his 3 year old child. As a consequence, the child is suffering. Who is the cause of the child's suffering?

The Pali scriptures (SN 12.17) state, from the perspective of ultimate truth, that the cause of suffering is 'ignorance' (rather than 'one-self' or 'another').

However, in the conventional scenario presented in the question, the father is causing the suffering because a 3 year old child does not have the cognitive capacity to engage the Buddhist path.

What is occurring to the child has no relationship to any (imaginary) past lives. I have never read this idea in the Pali suttas, where suffering (dukkha), let alone the suffering of helpless small children, is attributed to past lives.

The suffering is due to the evil within the mind of the father because the child cannot overcome the in-born ignorance in their mind that is causing the suffering.

Dhammapada 137 clearly states there are "innocent" victims of crime & AN 3.61 states what a person feels in not related to past kamma.

  137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:

  138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in
  hell.

~~~

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.


Does dreams make sense? I've watched on t.v that a monk had dreamt that Lama told him a lady will come to monastery and will request him let her with them when this was only for monks though he going to let her with them and teach Dhamma. Next day it happens what he had dreamt about; first he disagreed but later on he remembered his dream last night he had and then she became nun. So does dreams making sense ? I had one on full moon day that I'm crying next Buddha's statue in vihara saying give me power and peace.

Yes and no.Dreams sometimes makes sense sometimes they don't.It's not an isolated event people  sometimes experience dreams that do take place in the future.And it's getting harder to just dismiss it as mere coincidence (Precognitive Dreams).This is just a natural functioning of the mind.Whether dreams makes sense or not is not what releases us from suffering.


What is the mental factor of Adhimokkkha (determination) use for? I am interested in what many ways Adhimokkha(determination) is used in meditation or other purposes in different traditions.

In the Mahasi tradition (and perhaps others), resolutions are used when training the mind so that a certain type of insight (vipassana stage) arises during the practice -- most often the supramundane stage (cessation/fruition, magga-phala-nana), but also the lower stages (from A&P up to equanimity). The object of the resolution is stated in the mind (or aloud) before the practice, then let go. See Mahasi's great Practical Insight Meditation for details on that.


Religious experiences in Buddhism What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

Examples of religious experiences in Buddhism:

traveling with one's mind to other worlds
speaking with supernatural beings, like Devas
remembering past lives
witnessing an enlightened person flying, being in multiple places at once
having an enlightened master read your mind and respond directly to your thoughts


How many dimensions are there according to Buddhism? Humans or most of the organisms in this world can perceive three dimensions. Does buddhism explain about dimensions? If so how many are there?

The Sigalovada Sutta mention "the six directions":

  At that time a young householder named Sigalaka arose early and set out from Rajagaha with freshly washed clothes and hair.[3] With palms together held up in reverence,[4] he was paying respect towards the six directions:[5] that is east, south, west, north, lower and upper.

I take that to imply three dimensions.

It's not explicitly about dimensions but it casually implies in passing that there are three dimensions (perhaps as if it's the kind of thing that everyone knows and doesn't need explaining).

Modern maths (since the late 18th century) has described "time" as a kind of dimension. Buddhist texts imply that time, too, can be perceived.


According to Theravada tradition, was Siddharta Gautama illuminated after meditating under the Bodhi tree? I just found out what seems to me as a contradiction under Theravada tradition:

When Siddharta Gautama meditated under the Bodhi tree, I understand ho achieved illumination, he reached the Nirvana.

But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are dukkha. Theravada traditions says that when one reaches Nirvana, one ceases to exist. Obviously, Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree.

My understanding is that after that meditation, Siddharta Gautama reached full understanding of the Samsara, and the path to liberation, but chose not to reach illumination, because he wanted to share what he learned.

Is that the case? Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?

According to Theravada tradition, was Siddharta Gautama illuminated after meditating under the Bodhi tree?
There's a summary here:

The Buddha and His Dhamma
Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.
For several weeks the newly awakened Buddha remained in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree ...

I think that's a paraphrase of what's said in several suttas, e.g. MN 26 and Ud 1.3, and others.
But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are dukkha.
I don't think so.
The first noble truth (in SN 56.11) says, something like, that that the "clinging aggregates" or "grasping aggregates" are suffering (or if not "are suffering" then something like, "are unsatisfactory") ...

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

... that dukkha arises with craving ...

It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is,
yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṃ—
craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

... and ceases with the cessation of craving (it doesn't say "with the cessation of the aggregates") ...

Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—
It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it.
yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.

I think that "with nothing left over", there, doesn't mean "without aggregates", it means with no craving nor any tendencies that gives rise to craving, e.g. āsava and anusaya.
Conversely, the Buddha is liberated -- I think that's said or implied in so many suttas that it's difficult to choose one reference to cite, but see e.g. Why is the Buddha described as trackless?
Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?
I think that you're associating the Buddha with the aggregates, i.e. that you're arguing something like:

Siddharta Gautama is the aggregates
The aggregates didn't cease to exist
Therefore Siddharta Gautama didn't cease to exist

However identifying the aggregates as "self" is contrary to the anatta doctrine -- and the Anuradha Sutta for example says it's inappropriate to regard the Tathagata as being the aggregates, as being in the aggregates, as being without the aggregates.
I think that Theravada (and/or the Pali suttas) identify two types of nibbana, i.e. nibbana-with-remainder (with aggregates remaining) and nibbana-without-remainder -- the latter is called parinibbana, see e.g. the "parinibbana sutta" -- see also e.g. AN 4.23 which refers to anupādisesa:

From the night when a Realized One understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise.
Yañca, bhikkhave, rattiṃ tathāgato anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ abhisambujjhati yañca rattiṃ anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā parinibbāyati, yaṃ etasmiṃ antare bhāsati lapati niddisati sabbaṃ taṃ tatheva hoti, no aññathā.


Three questions about sensual desire If music is a sensual desire , what's wrong with that?

Sensual desire is described as the first of the five hindrances. What I am a little perplexed by is the stance of Buddhism on the positive senses.

For instance, if I desire to listen to a song, is the problem the desire, or the 'emotions and feelings' the song itself brings up?

Apart from sensual 'desire', what about just sensual 'enjoyment'?

If I just happen to walk by an area in which music is playing, and I find myself tapping my feet, or feeling really good; is this seen as a state we must abandon? I mean, if we never desired the music in the first place and it just happens to play around us, what is the harm in seeing the beauty in it? If someone offers us food, are we required to not enjoy our sense pleasures of it?

Isn't even metta meditation also a sensual desire?

Also, metta-meditation frequently uses people as objects of good-will and loving-kindness -- however, this is attaching sense pleasures to mental objects, which I thought are to be abandoned?

How does metta-meditation even make sense in the context of Buddhism when the meditation cultivates 'positive' states from mental objects?

Prevention is better than cure. It is easiest to tackle the mental pollution of unwholesome acts before it has happened - i.e. at the stage that desire is born.

For the same reason, help groups like Alchoholics Anonymous say "Say no to the first drink" - call a sponsor or friend and get over the urge. Suicide hotlines work the same way - they would like us to call at the very first thought of self harm, and not when we are standing on the ledge.

Likewise, it is more effective to walk away or keep silent when we feel angry, than calm down after a long rant.

Preventing unwholesome desires from arising, or tackling them as soon as they have arisen with right contemplation is better than recovering from the addiction.

Samsara is a greater addiction than any drug or alcohol.

  If I just happen to walk by an area in which music is playing, and I
  find myself tapping my feet, or feeling really good; is this seen as a
  state we must abandon?

This is a fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed?

First, the nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.

Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads books, and more and more people even find Twitter too much text - they want videos or GIF images instead. If we make a habit of mindfulness, then the opposite is true, at every opportunity the mind will seek mindfulness.

Second, the nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace - it is an existential threat mechanism that is woken up and makes us come alive. Thus entertainment is the enemy of equanimity.

Thirdly, entertainment reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It makes us lapse into being controlled by external forces, rather than taking control of our mind.

It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.

  Also, metta-meditation frequently uses people as objects of good-will
  and loving-kindness -- however, this is attaching sense pleasures to
  mental objects, which I thought are to be abandoned?

All mind states come with a stinger of unwholesomeness, except four mind states. Which four?

The four Bramhaviharas or Bramha abodes - namely, karuna (compassion), maithri (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy at the well being of others, or the opposite of schadenfreude) and upeksha (equanimity).

The mind needs to be parked somewhere, and rather than park it in a state where it can be tempted by a more exciting desire, if we park it in these four areas the mind will remain at peace, occupied and not easily distracted.


Visions of Hell Realm in Contemplation- What does it mean Yesterday while reading a book suddenly my mind generated the following visions: I saw a girl in a white dress being tortured in this very unpleasant place which smelled bad and was horrible , I saw her being raped by this creature who looked horrific , again and again these visions came to me in the night.

What could these visions mean ? Are they trying to warn me of some bad karma ripening. As it is said by many Tibetan teachers that they get warnings of future happenings in dreams. Although this was not a dream.

Some relevant advice here (from Awareness Itself -- Visions & Signs) by Ajaan Fuang:

  § "Don't have anything to do with the past or the future. Just stay
  with the present — that's enough. And even though that's where you're
  supposed to stay, you're not supposed to latch onto it. So why do
  think you should latch on to things where you're not even supposed to
  stay?"

  § "You know that you shouldn't believe even your own visions, so why
  go believing the visions of others?"

  § "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."

  § One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"

  His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."

  § "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."


What does zen have to do with spontaneity? Someone told me that I don't need to read about Dogens teachings of zen. They said that "zen is just about being spontaneous and free from rules." Are they right? Why or why not? Is it deeper than just being spontaneous?

They said that "zen is just about being spontaneous and free from rules." Are they right? Why or why not? Is it deeper than just being spontaneous?

Well, it depends on the audience. Take a martial art analogy, you'll never hear a serious master instructing his white-belt student to be "spontaneous and free from rules". You'll only hear that once you've earned a 3rd dan on your black belt. If you're a white-belt, he's gonna have you do tons of drills, physical conditioning, fixed katas, sparring, etc. until your knuckles bleed. Why? 'cuz for any fighting discipline, one still has to put his money where his mouth is by proving how his "spontaneity and freedom from rules" helps him surviving 3 rounds inside the ring. Similarly for spirituality, tell a zen novice to be spontaneous and free from rules on day one, and he'll die inside the ring against Mara in under 3 seconds, let alone 3 rounds.


What force keeps you bonded to samsara? Superficially, people say that there are a lot of people who love them (and vice versa), but if you analyze your life, you will find that there is no such thing as true love. I've realized that what we call love is essentially selfishness in disguise.

The strongest love in this world is maternal love of a mother for her children. But classical psychology will tell you that maternal love is also based on maternal instinct, which is endowed by nature to ensure survival of the race.

Coming out of that circle, love for siblings, brothers and sisters are more of social transactions - there is give and take, something in return for the so-called love which is given. If you don't have anything to give in return, they will be annoyed at best and shunt you altogether at worst.

Maybe, there used to be such a thing as true love back in the old days when Dhamma had a stronger hold, but I hardly see it in today's world. People say they love their spouse, but the search for your spouse itself begins with a selfish interest - Do they have a big house? What is the salary? Are they sexually attractive?

Coming back to the question, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that true love has vanished, then what force makes people cling to this wretched samsara knowing full well that its an exercise in futility? Even in the midst of utmost Dukkha, why doesn't the realization come that let me leave this path that causes Dukkha altogether? Is it the past Kamma which is holding its grip on you so strongly, that you are unable to come out of the while loop of samsara? Will past never let the present achieve freedom from Dukkha?

The force that keeps one bonded to samsara is desire. Desire for continued existence.

"Even in the midst of utmost Dukkha, why doesn't the realization come that let me leave this path that causes Dukkha altogether"

Because, most likely, you only intellectually realize Dukkha and unless you are enlightened , you have the habit of wanting to continue your apparent existence.

Many words, like "ignorance" are not exact and precise translations from the original Pali words. A better meaning of ignorance (in a Buddhist context) is what one doesn't deeply understand. If one only has an intellectual understanding of things like  dukkha, impermanence and not-self then one is still ignorant in the heart of those things.

People mix love and attatchment. This is just what is. It is possible to love without attatchment.

Maybe I am missing something somewhere but what does  our ability to love one another have to do with what keeps us bonded to samsara?


Is ending up in hell at some point in time inevitable for those beings who are not Stream-Entrants? I have seen this a few times in various places, although I haven't read it in any suttas, but I am guessing there might be some that talk about this.

The 4th jhāna brahma and above have a long enough age to meet more than 1 buddha, they are not going to hell until they die. So buddha can't say "If you do not enlighten by my teaching, you are going to hell soon".

However, most being are going to hell, included dead brahma, by Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Āmakadhaññapeyyāle:

  "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell... in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell...
  in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
  duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of stress.'"

Hurry up.


Will 10,000 hours of Vipasanna be enough for Enlightenment? As studies says 10,000 hours of practice usually makes an expert in your field, be it athletes, musician, doctors, engineers or any profession.

So I was wondering if I start doing 10 days course every month and practice 10 hours of meditation daily, so it will take 8.33 years to complete 10000 hours of meditation, which may not enlighten me but for sure it should make me an Expert.

How logical is that because I really want to know myself more, and I know that story of boy asked how much time will it take and master said 10 years and then he said what if i do more hard work he said then it will take 20 years, what is the essence here.

I think you are coming at this from the wrong place.  Enlightenment isn't something that we add to ourselves.  It's best not to approach meditation as another skill to master or the dharma as another field where we might gain expertise.  It really doesn't make sense to count your practice in hours, days, or years.  Buddhism isn't a transaction - it's an offering that can't be measured by any metric.  Ultimately, there is no upper limit to how much we can sacrifice ourselves.