Vipassana sharpens my ability to feel the feelings of others, but I'm not yet sure how best to use that? I've completed 5 10-day Vipassana courses, one Sati, and I've served a 3-day and in various other smaller capacities.  I'll be serving my first 10 day in about 6 weeks, and began regularly sitting 2 hours a day after completing my last course in early December 2017.

I sat a total of 28 days in 2017, and hope to do a similar amount this year as well.

So in short, I feel absolutely certain that this is the path; it's crystal clear to me.  I also have a clear sense of my purpose in this life as a householder, as an aside, but sense that I'll spend large portions of my life sharing with others about my experience with Vipassana to try and help to make them aware of it.

Recently, I've been noticing that my ability to feel the feelings of others, to see where they are, has become sharper and sharper.  I can really feel their pain, and transmute it, and I also see what could be done to really help them.  I feel love for them and want to help them, mostly, with occasional feelings of being negatively impacted by their pain creeping in, but that has lessened as my Vipassana practice has deepened.

The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them, in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of know-it-all-y, or whatever.

I suppose this will come to be with more practice, eh?  I feel like that was always Goenka's answer to every question and I understand more and more so what that was the case.

That said, if anyone out there can relate to this and is open to sharing his/her thoughts and experiences, I'd love to hear them.

I am interested in replies from people who have practiced Vipassana and can relate to my experience here.

Thank you!

I also see what could be done to really help them.

I doubt the above very much. While I do not doubt you are more & more feeling & seeing the situation of others; it seems what you believe can help others is actually what has helped you; which may not actually be what can help others.

Its similar to you had cancer & took a medicine to heal your cancer and now you wish to give your cancer medicine to another person suffering from AIDS. Although you can see the suffering of the person with AIDS, your cancer medicine will not cure AIDS.

  The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them,
  in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of
  know-it-all-y, or whatever.

There is nothing special that can be communicated to others; just as nothing special was communicated to you.

Thousands of people do meditation retreats each year. Each of these thousands of individual persons receive the same teachings. Possibly 1% of these thousands attain a special benefit. This 1% success rate is due to the individual's disposition & readiness for meditation and not due to the teachings. Even the Lord Buddha was unable to enlighten every person he spoke to.

In short, your mind might be blinded by the results of your meditation, similar to being blinded when looking into the light of the sun. My answer to you is to simply keep practising what you are practising & keep helping the meditation retreats & Buddhism when you can. But nothing special is required to help others; apart from understanding meditation will not help everybody.

Many people do meditation retreats because they are suffering & confused. However, the help different people actually need is often different. For example, most people need help about the skills & attitudes required to have successful lasting relationships because this what they really want in life. I spent a number of years working meditation retreats & this is the problem most people had & wanted to resolve, namely, broken or dysfunctional family & personal relationships. They were not really interested in meditation & meditation was not really what they needed.


Ṛta, ritual and Buddhism Not "clinging to rites and rituals" is one of the three requirements to become a Sotapanna.

But in creating a Sangha with strict rules (especially given the extensive permutations within the Tripitaka), the recitation of the Patimokkha etc, do followers of the Dhamma and Vinaya inadvertently accept the usefulness of ritual? Was the Buddha's warning more specifically against any practice that is not grounded in empirical experience?

And given that the Noble Eightfold Path establishes a concrete method and practice for the attainment of the goal, did the Buddha embrace Ṛta - the natural order of the Universe or Truth - if only in its most stripped down, empirical form?

Clinging to rites and rituals

It is mis-belief in something miracle and shortcut. It is mis-belief in worshipping the creator or god can bring the worshipper's liberation/salvation. It is something one is throwing away own efforts and nurturing own knowledge and wisdom. It is just mis-belief in some powerful beings (god) or some powerful things (fire [in some india place people worship to fire]) that ultimate liberation/bliss can be offered/transferred from it. It is mis-belief that the manners, habits and practice of dog or cow(bull) can cleanse one's impurities in mind.

Noble Eightfold Path

Noble Eightfold Path is one needs to practice oneself. The practitioner of Noble Eightfold Path never expects the salvation from anyone/anything. The very first of the Noble Eightfold Path, Right View already gets rid of the idea of "Clinging to rites and rituals" and so the two path clearly opposite to each other.

Vinaya

Vinaya is set of rules to monks. The tipitaka indicates that it is purely from Buddha's authoritative order (there is no one who defined Vinaya and only Buddha did). The purpose of Vinaya is clearly stated by Buddha in Vinaya pitaka as follow:

To accept and be disciplined by Sanga that Sanga likes to comply
To be in Sanga with pleasant mind/body by complying Vinaya
To identify and punish the committed one
Complied monks stay together peacefully/cherishing
To get away from present dangers/prosecutions by broking the law (vinaya)
To get rid of future dangers/sufferings
To be pleased by lay people who has not done to do so
To be more pleased by lay people who already has done to do so
To maintain three Sasana(s) more longer
To promote the vinaya (rules)

So it is the purpose of Vinaya and it is clearly intended to Sanga (the organization of monks) to be followed, disciplined and complied. The lay people is not abided by the Vinaya.

To attain the Nirvana, it is only one needs to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. It is not necessary to to be part of Sanga, be a monk(eventually it is not necessarily to be disciplined by Vinaya). So Vinaya is optional to lay people and it is only adopted when joining the Sanga.

For about Rules (Vinaya)

In above 10 purposes of Vinaya, Buddha clearly stated that to get rid of dangers and sufferings by complying it. By following it, one can free from accusing/prosecuting oneself at least. On closer learning of vinaya, it is trying to get rid of Five hindrances to some extent.

There is another example that would not go deep like above statement. Even in some club membership (and some religious matters) in real world, there are some ridiculous rules need to follow by new members. The only explanation is "it is tradition" and nothing more will be detailed.

Here is another example also stating that rule is not ritual. For travelers to Singapore it is illegal to bring/consume Chewing Gum but nobody say Singapore is in ritual by applying this law. There are many queer/odd rules applied by a number of countries but it does not totally apply those countries are in ritual. So there is clear distinction between rules and rituals.

Buddha's vinaya is clearly path-ed/reasoned than those of that. The two reasons (7 and 8) of vinaya on Sanga are because organization of monks (Sanga) is totally relied on offerings (meals, robes, accommodations and medicine) of lay people; in terms of living on donation. So it is very heavy burden for monks to comply rules so that people are pleased to see that their offerings go not in vain (they are not offering things bought by their hard-earned money to total jerks for nothing).

And another meaningful of vinaya is by following it, the complied person can feel oneself free from harms. Opposite to this, in ritual, the practitioner cannot clearly state why ritual has to be done, the practitioner cannot explain more than it is a tradition, it must be done but no reason. After completing/fulfilling the ritual, there is no obvious proof that result/outcome is achieved. The only thing is forced to believe. Let say a weight-controlling lady avoids any solid food meal after noon and after some days/weeks practicing this she can feel she lost her weight and feel better, healthy and active. Ritual is not close enough this in the sense of "Result oriented".

In conclusion, Vinaya is not ritual and set of rules bound to Sanga only. It is optional to lay people who follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Vinaya has 10 reasons to be put in place and Vinaya is trying to get rid of bad deeds as much as possible so that the practitioner can please himself and prone to mindfulness (good concentration) but ritual only based on belief (not clearly defined outcome/result of achievement).


After Nibbana, can one be reborn again in Samsara? Is Nibbana final? Or if you attain Nibbana, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

Theravada Buddhist Perspective:

  After Nibana, can one be reborn again in Samsara?

No, that is not possible. When reaching Nibbana one has destroyed all fetters. One has uprooted all defilements. There exists no longer Ignorance (Avijja) which binds beings to Samsara. One has freed oneself from the cycle of rebirth.

  If you attain Nibanna, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

No, that is not possible. Volition/intention no longer has any potency. Actions no longer bear fruits. Actions become merely "functional" (kiriya) in nature.

  Is Nibana final?

Nibbana is final when one has reached the forth stage of Enlightenment, i.e. Arahantship. At that stage the practitioner has destroyed all ten fetters. As a result of that, further rebirth is not possible.


Other than physical form which characteristics define a woman? We know what a woman is. One can easily identify by her physical characteristics. Among the five aggregates form is only one of aspects which defines identity.
I want to know are there any other characteristics which define a women ?

The Pali scriptures refer to the 'faculty of femininity' ('itthindriya'), as follows:

  Mendicants, there are these three faculties.What three? The faculties
  of femininity (itthindriya),
  masculinity (purisindriya) and life (jīvitindriya).

  SN 48.22

Thus, it appears the biological aggregate/faculty of form may possibly be one way to define a "woman" (itthi). However, it appears such a biological definition is not necessarily "identity" ("jati").

SN 12.2 defines "identity" ("jati") as follows:

  Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti
  abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho

Here, SN 12.2 (& also MN 98) explains "identity" ("jati") is produced (abhinibbatti) from how both physical & mental aggregates are manifested & used (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) and from what sense objects are sought & taken possession of (āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho).

Therefore, the following suttas AN 6.52 & AN 7.51 below describe other characteristics which define a woman. In other words, AN 6.52 & AN 7.51, below, provide descriptions the manifestation & use of aggregates ('faculties', 'gestures', 'manners', 'poise', 'desires', 'voice', 'charms', 'delight', 'excitement', 'attending outwardly', etc) and the seeking/taking possession of sense objects (such as 'a man', 'children', 'adornments', etc) which may possibly define the category of beings (sattanikāye) called "women".

  Itthī kho, brāhmaṇa, purisādhippāyā alaṅkārūpavicārā puttādhiṭṭhānā
  asapattībhinivesā issariyapariyosānā ti

  A man, O brahmin, is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her
  mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal
  is domination. (Nyanaponika)

  A man, brahmin, is the aim of women; their quest is for adornments;
  sons are their support; they on intent on being without a rival; and
  their final goal is authority. (Bodhi)

  Women have a man as their ambition. They’re preoccupied with
  adornments. They’re dedicated to their children. They insist on being
  without a co-wife. Their ultimate goal is authority. (Sujato)

  AN 6.52

  The Blessed One said: “A woman attends (manasi karoti) inwardly to her feminine
  faculties (itthindriya), her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine
  poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is
  excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that,
  she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures,
  masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine
  voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that.
  Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is
  outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on
  that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into
  bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend (nātivattati) her femininity.

  AN 7.51

The above said, an enlightened bhikkhuni (Buddhist nun) that does not manifest/use/possess aggregates & sense objects in the above described ways appears to not have the identity (jati) of "a woman", as follows:

  What does womanhood matter at all. When the mind is concentrated well.
  When knowledge flows on steadily. As one sees correctly into Dhamma.

  One to whom it might occur, 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' Or 'I'm
  anything at all' — Is fit for Mara to address.

  SN
  5.2

However, AN 7.51 does contain the phrase: "This is how a woman transcends her femininity. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, itthī itthattaṃ ativattati".

Therefore, it appears the 'faculty of femininity' ('itthindriya') or form aggregate may possibly generically define a "woman" however such "femininity" can be "transcended" ("ativattati") by not attending to it (na manasi karoti), by not manifesting it (na khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) & by not identifying with it (anabhiratā).

  And how does one become unbound?

  Kathañca, bhikkhave, visaṃyogo hoti?

  A woman doesn’t focus on her own femininity:

  Itthī, bhikkhave, ajjhattaṃ itthindriyaṃ na manasi karoti—

  her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine
  desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment.

  itthikuttaṃ itthākappaṃ itthividhaṃ itthicchandaṃ itthissaraṃ
  itthālaṅkāraṃ.

  She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.

  Sā tattha na rajjati, sā tatra nābhiramati.

  So she doesn’t focus on the masculinity of others:

  Sā tattha arattā tatra anabhiratā bahiddhā purisindriyaṃ na manasi
  karoti—

  masculine moves, masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine
  desires, masculine voice, and masculine adornment.

  purisakuttaṃ purisākappaṃ purisavidhaṃ purisacchandaṃ purisassaraṃ
  purisālaṅkāraṃ.

  She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.

  Sā tattha na rajjati, tatra nābhiramati.

  So she doesn’t desire to bond with another.

  Sā tattha arattā tatra anabhiratā bahiddhā saṃyogaṃ nākaṅkhati.

  Nor does she desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a
  bond.

  Yañcassā saṃyogapaccayā uppajjati sukhaṃ somanassaṃ tañca nākaṅkhati.

  Sentient beings who are not attached to their femininity are not bound
  to men.

  Itthatte, bhikkhave, anabhiratā sattā purisesu visaṃyogaṃ gatā.

  This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

  Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, itthī itthattaṃ ativattati.

  AN 7.51


Am I "fooling" myself? As I practice more and more on seeing life as Dukkha, something interesting happens. I feel a greater sense of gratitude and contentment.

I am not talking about seeing things as they are directly and non-conceptually, piercing through and seeing emptiness. I am a beginner, stuck in concepts. But the more I interpret my existence in view of impermanence/anicca, suffering/dukkha, and non-self/anattā, the more grateful and content I become.

Am I "fooling" myself? Is it just another aspect of Dukkha, like when you are in love and don't see that it's going to end/change?

Here is the simple answer to what you feel...

We are in constant pain and suffering.

As to lord Buddha

Eyes,Ears,Tongue,Nose,Body & Mind are Burning from three things (Lust,Anger,Confusion -[Raga,Dwesha,Moha]). But the one who practice and realize escape the burning forever,he is free.

So here's what is happening to you...

Now that you have started to see the world in the correct way you might feel these things like anyone who traveled the path before you,

Happiness or joy without a reason
Feeling happy even from the little things
Not feeling like you used to,as if you are someone else
Appreciating little things in life
Feeling more love or kindness towards ones who are close to you & for almost anyone
More willing to forgive & forget
Looking back at past and making plans to correct the wrongs and to
apologize

These are really few among the usual characteristics of an individual who is practicing the path. Feeling happy and relaxed, starting to enjoy the life without hassle is really normal and there is nothing to be afraid. What you feel is the slow process of realization, The realization of what truly things are.


Dependent Origination and Impermanence in Buddhism 1 question: I just started learning about Buddhism and I read about the 3 marks of existence. When Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included and considered impermanent. As I understood it impermanence is a key Buddhist principle. How does Buddhism describe time according to this impermanence doctrine and what is impermanence relationship and connection with time. I have seen a few answers here on a similar question/topic but not really this one so I hope I will get a few answers that can help me understand it.

2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ??

Impermanence includes everything. For the record, Buddhism only uses the references like inside and outside as compromises with unenlightened way of thinking. In the strict sense, these notions of Inner and Outer arise as result of Dependent Origination. When you go out of subjective frame of reference and speak about Mind Processes at large, everything is unfolding all the time, with some patterns emerging as seeming Inner and Outer.

Technically, this Unfolding IS Being IS Time, as explained by Dogen in his famous lecture on the topic. In other words, it's not that Time is a container for Everything. It is identical with Being or Unfolding, but we sentient beings like to delineate certain aspects, because our minds are reification machines that work in terms of entities and their background. So for us it's only natural to think of time as background or container of events.

Dependent Origination unfolds over time, just like everything else. However, it would be incorrect to talk about concrete time scale, because DO talks about high-level principles in terms of functional relationship. Yes, the seedling comes from the seed and this happens over time, but we don't have to talk about a specific seed, we talk about the principle at large.


The Buddha and the act of smiling Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa.
Even though it may at first hand appear to be a shallow subject and inquiry, I happen to find it of relevance to the practice and wondered about it.
How prevalent was the Buddha's smiling ?
As I was starting to read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Buddha Smiles", it is stated :

The Pali Canon has a reputation for being humorless. And it’s easy to
see why. In some of its passages, the Buddha seems to regard humor in
a bad light. For instance, in the Wailing Discourse (AN 3:107) he
refers to “laughing excessively, showing one’s teeth,” as a form of
childishness, and counsels that a monk, when feeling joy in the
Dhamma, should simply smile. His instructions to Rāhula in MN 61 note
that one shouldn’t tell a deliberate lie, “even in jest.” A passage in
the Vinaya (Sk 51) tells of a monk, formerly an actor, who made a joke
about the Saṅgha. The Buddha, in response, made it an offense for a
monk to tell a joke not only about the Saṅgha, but also about the
Buddha or Dhamma.
There is also the famous verse in the Dhp 146 that seems aimed at
squelching all forms of merriment:
"What laughter, why joy, when constantly aflame? Enveloped in darkness,
don’t you look for a lamp?"
And then there’s the fact that the Buddha himself rarely smiles in the
Canon, and when he does, the reasons for his smile are never
hilarious.

(the emphasize in the quoted passages is a making of mine)
Yet, I started to also read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught" in which I can read the following :

The Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy. He was described by his
contemporaries as ‘ever-smiling’ (mihitapubbamgama). In Buddhist
painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with a
countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate.

There seems to be a divergence in the two quoted passages as to whether he was "ever-smiling" or only in rare occasions.
In Bhante Vimalaramsi's teaching the act of smiling within one's practice is quite present yet I cannot recall from what I read in the suttas the mentioning of smiling.
I'd appreciate learning more about it.
(If such a question is indeed irrelevant please kindly let me know and I'll delete the question).
With metta.

The Buddha smiles many times in the suttas, in fond remembrance of experiences that brought great wisdom.

MN83:2.1: Then the Buddha smiled at a certain spot.

The Buddha does not smile at the suffering of others. His smiles are never cruel. His smiles are for the remembrance of great wisdom and insight that can be shared. The Buddha smiles for us all, never against any.

MN83:21.16: Ānanda, I say to you:
MN83:21.17: ‘You all should keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my final men.’”
MN83:21.18: That is what the Buddha said.
MN83:21.19: Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda was happy with what the Buddha said.
(END)


Can a non-Buddhist get Nirvana? No religion teaches what Buddhism teaches at its core. A true Hindu or Christian or Muslim believes in God and soul.

Can a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim, who is not aware of Buddhist philosophy, get Nirvana?

If yes, how? Otherwise, why doesn't everyone become a Buddhist to attain supreme bliss?

Can a non-Buddhist get Nirvana?

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc. are just words, conventional language. What is important is the teaching and practice of the teaching.
In the famous Maha-parinibbana Sutta, there is a passage where the Buddha explains to the wandering ascetic Subhadda, that "in any doctrine & discipline", that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found.
It shows that only teachings that contain the Noble Eightfold Path can lead to freedom from suffering, to Nibbana.
The quoted passage can be found below.

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"
"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."


Did Buddha saw his two teachers were born, where living beings did not have physical body? Siddarth promised Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta that if he ever finds the way, he will come and tell them ?

Is it true that buddha saw them being born in a Universe, where there was not physical body, but only mind ?

And in Buddha's way one must have a physical human body.

I believe this has nothing to do with whether or not these men had ears that could hear. The Devas are able to communicate via reading and projecting thought.

The problem teaching Dhamma in the higher spheres has more to do with the fact that there is no painful sensation experienced there and apparently no memory of past lives such as could provide the understanding of pain as experienced personally.

The Buddha and other bhikkhus do manage to visit some of the lower higher realms such as the Brahma Lokas, so there must be some further explanation.

I suggest without personal experinence that I can recollect that this has to do with the enormous length of life in these spheres. The arahant that lived outside Time could visit (via a wormhole?) these higher realms, but once manifested there, if even for so short a time as it takes to snap the fingers, his return would occur millinia later. It would spoil the Buddha's mission.


Seeing there is no subject experiencing subject and object? I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience.
I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."

Sam Harris, Page 92
The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of
experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of
thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant
of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a
kind of vehicle.
And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.
Josteph Goldstein, No-Self (17:00)
Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the
self because it is not there in the first place.

Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?

Knowing is a part of the experience. An experience is merely the arising and vanishing of the five aggregates: Rupa(form), Vedana(feeling), Sanna(perception), Sankhara(mental formations), Vinnana(knowing/awareness).

If the meditation is done correctly, the awareness can be seen as merely an aspect of the experience along with the other 4 that comes and goes. Not as a person.


Doubts and Ungathered Mind I have asked questions many times here, and I have come to the conclusion that my mind easily tricks me. I speculate and doubt to a very great extent, and feel aversion to fear and effort; I will easily try to avoid such states.

I feel these are all symptoms of an ungathered mind. For example, I often feel afraid of getting hurt from running as exercise, or just that it is too effortful; the consequence is that I avoid it. Similar with meditation, wherein I find sitting too effortful.

But with meditation, there arises another problem: I also doubt, but I doubt all aspects of meditation. I doubt mostly the breath, and whether it is the right object, and whether I am meditating correctly. Ironically, I have read in meditation texts that the breath is the object best used against speculation and delusion.

But, no matter how I examine the matter, I'm still uncertain that breathing meditation is right for me; I always tell myself "Maybe it represses my emotions," or "Such a person advised against it," or even "Maybe I'm meditating all wrong."

Are these obviously just doubts which, despite seemingly seeing this, I cannot shake? Does anyone have other advice on this?

It seems pretty clear to me that your mind is divided. There is a conflict between a superficial mind and a deep mind. The superficial side is the hunting dog mind that gets excited about ideas it gets from the world of people: "Oh! I should exercise!", "Oh! I should meditate", "Oh! They say this would be good for me!", "Oh! They say this is the right thing to strive for!". While the deep mind is not so gullible and does not want to run around like a hunting dog chasing pigeons. As a result of that, you get this sense of fighting between something you think you "should" do on one hand, and not really feeling like doing it, on the other.

This happens when we lose touch with our deeper mind and identify with the superficial. In fact, our deeper mind is always the closest, but we tend to learn to suppress it. Nevertheless, it makes its presence felt by resisting the efforts of superficial mind. Good news is, the fact that it can resist so well, means that it is strong - despite you not giving it a chance to live and express itself.

What my teacher recommended in this case, is to take a step back and see at what point you have alienated a part of yourself. What usually happens is, we want to get something we really want (a job, a girlfriend, a particular place of living), that happens to be incompatible with the deep part of ourselves. At this point we make a deal with our deep mind and ask it to step aside and shut-up for a while, which it kindly does out of its spirit of all-acceptance that is its main characteristic. Deep mind is a mind of great love. So it agrees to step aside, like a good dog, or a favorite childhood toy, or a magic creature from the fairy-tale which used to be our best friend and now gets completely forgotten. The compromise grows and grows, until our life turns into a city without [dogs|toys|magic], but the feeling of something missing remains, and something forgotten reminds of itself through that resistance and doubts.

What my teacher recommended in this case is to sit down and ask yourself: "what do I want?", "what do I really-really want, that I had put aside and forgotten?" - getting into this mood of asking yourself what you want helps re-unite with the deep mind. There is nothing better than getting it back. It is like getting your life back. From that point on it becomes a matter of cultivating this "being truly yourself" mind until it grows strong again. Cultivating deep mind is cultivating energy of your spontaneous fundamental goodness, your own spontaneous Buddha nature, that always knows what's right.

The truth is, you don't have to meditate. You don't have to run. Running was meant to be a way to refresh your body and stir the energy, not a way to torture yourself. So ask your deep mind, and listen to your body - it will tell you how it wants to refresh its energy. Same with meditation. It was meant to be a way to experience peace, to experience suchness - with no judgement, no pressure to reach some target state, to come back to your deep mind - and instead we are turning it into its opposite, some sort of dukkha-hell.

Makes sense? It's a matter of switching perspective. When you get the right perspective, you start working towards the peace of being fully yourself, instead of endlessly frustrating yourself with superficial conflict. It may be scary at first, to be authentically yourself, and may lead to changes in your life situation - and to temporary trouble - but it is endlessly better than trying to do something you don't really believe in.


How not to alter breathing in Anapana meditation? When I practice Anapana meditation,I often get a feel that I tried to alter my breathing instead of observing natural breathing.So,how can I observe natural breath?What are the best tips for this?

A simple and natural way to relinquish breath obsessions is to count your breaths. This is a traditional Zen meditation practice that I still use 4 decades after I learned it. It works because it gives your grasping mind something to do. It's actually quite difficult to maintain a count. One has to relinquish distractions in order to not lose count. And that is actually why breath counting of any sort is initially effective.

With extended practice, the counting itself becomes a distraction since it engages the verbal processes. In the meditation practice guide of MN44, we have:

  MN44:17.2: “Verbal processes cease first, then physical, then mental.”

So to deepen the practice, we have to relinquish the numbers. One way to do so is to switch to something like prayer beads where the counting is relinquished while retaining the mindfulness of the passage of time. Or one can simply follow the breath in and out as recommended by the suttas.

Consult with a meditation teacher for individual advice on breathing.


Metta's Intensity and Concentration I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).

Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).

Most likely what is happening is when you think about different people

your perception of them
past incidents
their situations

Stir up emotions.

Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

Emotional intensity most likely goes down with meditations as your concentration increases your mind becomes stable.


Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame? Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame? The Buddha could have been a wheel turning monarch, and was in deed born a prince. So perhaps his decision isn't all that confusing for the rest of the world.
Is even a small degree of enlightenment preferable to unparalleled wealth and power, or are they in fact incomparable?

Put another way, what does your karma have to be to be born as a prince, as compared to e.g. the first jana?

Not just complete enlightenment. The Buddha taught that even the fruit of stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment, incomplete) exceeds sole dominion over the Earth and lordship over all worlds.
From Dhammapada 178:

Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of stream-entry
excels them.

The commentary for this verse:

The Story of Kala, son of Anathapindika
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(178) of this book, with reference to Kala, son of Anathapindika, the
well renowned rich man of Savatthi.
Kala, son of Anathapindika, always kept away whenever the Buddha and
his company of bhikkhus came to their house. Anathapindika was afraid
that if his son kept on behaving in this way, he would be reborn in
one of the lower worlds (apayas). So, he enticed his son with the
promise of money. He promised to give one hundred if the youth
consented to go to the monastery and keep sabbath for one day. So, the
youth went to the monastery and returned home early the next day,
without listening to any religious discourses. His father offered him
rice gruel, but instead of taking his food, he first demanded to have
the money.
The next day, the father said to his son, "My son, if you learn a
stanza of the Text from the Buddha I will give you one thousand on
your return." So, Kala went to the monastery again, and told the
Buddha that he wanted to learn something. The Buddha gave him a short
stanza to learn by heart; at the same time he willed that the youth
would not be able to memorize it. Thus, the youth had to repeat a
single stanza many times, but because he had to repeat it so many
times, in the end, he came to perceive the full meaning of the Dhamma
and attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Early on the next morning, he followed the Buddha and the bhikkhus to
his own house. But on that day, he was silently wishing, "I wish my
father would not give me the one thousand in the presence of the
Buddha. I do not wish the Buddha to know that I kept the sabbath just
for the sake of money." His father offered rice gruel to the Buddha
and the bhikkhus, and also to him. Then, his father brought one
thousand, and told Kala to take the money but surprisingly he refused.
His father pressed him to take it, but he still refused. Then,
Anathapindika said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, my son is quite
changed; he now behaves in a very pleasant manner." Then he related to
the Buddha how he had enticed the youth with money to go to the
monastery and keep sabbath and to learn some religious texts. To him
the Buddha replied, "Anathapindika! Today, your son has attained
Sotapatti Fruition, which is much better than the riches of the
Universal Monarch or that of the devas or that of the brahmas."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 178: Far better
than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the
abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire
universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.


What is the true nature of karma? The more I study and meditate upon karma the more I am convinced that it is a physical thing and not a moral one.

The universe is a massive interweaving assemblage of gears and wheels and shafts and cogs. By doing this simple action (we'll call it "X") you create a rippling of reactions as a direct result. These are the primary reactions then secondary then tertiary and so on.

Thus the momentum imparted from the original action resulted in countless other effects. And the momentum or propensity of the actions to continue in that general direction is in my opinion the true nature of karma.

Not some altruistic ideology that frowns upon immoral actions and exacts a eventual penalty just for that reason. Now, granted, the ill effects on others from those type of negative actions may create its own karmic momentum. But so many see karma as some sort of cosmic police force and that just isnt the case. At least not as I see it.

Would someone agree or set me straight?

O! Bhikkhus, it is volition - cetana that I call Kamma, -cetanaham
  bhikkhave kammam vadami

Karma is always mental. But the consequences(Vipaaka) are both mental and physical.


What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta? Together they refer to one's mental processes as a whole. Separately, what are they and how are they different?

'Citta' (the C is pronounced as ch in cheetah) is a generic word for mind, including thoughts as well as emotional state. When the Chinese translated Buddhist texts they often used 'shin', the heart-mind, to indicate citta.

'Manas' (both As are pronounced as in Adam) is the "inner eye" that can see thoughts, memories, and one's state of mind (citta).

'Vijnana' (jna is pronounced as jnya - i.e. with soft n) is experience of reality that arises from mind's ability to recognize and interpret new stimuli by relating and comparing them with memories of past experiences.


Unchanging Awareness I listened to a short talk by  Mingyur Rinpoche and he said how thoughts and emotions etc are like clouds and Awareness is like space.  The clouds come and go but Awareness never changes. But I thought that everything is impermanent and therefore changes?  How can awareness never change? If I am not aware is awareness still there unchanging?  I would say no it is not. It arises and falls like everything else

There is no unchanging awareness. When he speaks of "unchanging awareness", Mingyur Rinpoche does not mean that there is an awareness that does not change. He means that all consciousnesses have characteristics in common. The more we understand (Mahayana) Buddhism, the more we are able to understand this and not take things literally.

Generally, when Mingyur Rinpoche says that awareness does not change, he refers to the nature of consciousness. He means that consciousness is clear and knowing by nature. Whether we speak of anger, attachment, mindfulness, joy, an eye consciousness apprehending blue or an ear consciousness apprehending a birdsong, we speak of phenomena that (1) are not form (2) are clear and knowing. Even anger has the nature of clarity and the function of knowing.

Mingyur Rinpoche is a Kagyu and mainly practices Mahamudra, concentrating and analyzing the conventional and the ultimate nature of the mind. Contemplating the analogy of the mind being like the sky is a way to get at the conventional nature of the mind (clear and knowing) that all instances of consciousness have in common. The idea is not to dive in the object of consciousness, but to find that which characterizes all instances of consciousness and to concentrate on that. It is an object that is always there, at reach, just like the breath, because we are always aware of something. If only we could find what is common to anger, desire, pride, an eye consciousness apprehending shape and color, etc. we would find the conventional nature of the mind. If we look for it and know how to find it, we will. On the other hand, if you were to focus only on, say, anger, then it would be different because there is not always manifest anger arising in your continuum.


Is low self-esteem a Western phenomenon? I while ago I read a story about the Dalai Lama and the metta bhavana practice. Someone was talking to him about the difficulty in practicing the first stage (wishing well for oneself) and was observing that low self-esteem was hindering the practice at that stage. The Dalai Lama was apparently baffled and it transpired that in Tibetan culture there is no such concept as low self-esteem.

More generally it occurs to me that the first stage of the metta bhavana practice is meant to be an easier on-ramp to the practice and the practice becomes more challenging as it goes on culminating in wishing well to the difficult person. But I have spoken to many people who have difficulties with the first stage practice because of low self-esteem. The easy on-ramp is more like a rocky cliff for the modern (or maybe Western) mind.

So the main questions is

Is low self-esteem a Western (sorry for the term I don't know a
better one) or modern phenomenon and does it not trouble people from
other places or in other times?

Also related to this I have a couple of supplementary questions

Am I right - is the first stage meant to be an easy start or have I
completely misinterpreted that?
Also if anyone has a reference for the Dalai Lama story - could you pop it in? I would be really interested to know the details or even if I have just imagined the story (I don't think I
have).

I recall around 20 years ago an Australian university psychology professor wrote a local newspaper article about what he regarded as superior self-esteem in Thai children. I have lived in traditional (provincial/village) Thai culture & I can attest to this.

I would suggest, at least for Thailand, this is obviously a combination of cultural factors, including: (1) the loving-kindness of the Thai monks in Thailand; (2) the traditional strong maternal culture in Thailand & the amazing lovingness of Thai mothers (3) the traditional material simplicity of the culture; and (4) the general morality of the culture.

For example, with the recent huge growth of commercial (Western) materialism in Thailand and cultural focus upon the accumulation of wealth, being physically beautiful, having social status, etc, I would imagine the lack of self-esteem issues would be growing.

The Buddha taught self-respect (including lack of regret) comes from the practise of morality & generosity. I would suggest Western self-esteem issues arise from judgmental religious culture, patriarchal culture, unloving parenting, childhood abuse, narcissistic media/commercial/entertainment expectations &/or unskillful behavioral conduct, particularly sexual.

In women this can be most prevalent, as seen in body-image issues, but also in men, particularly with expectation of sexual bravado. Traditional Thai culture, for example (contrary to the sex-tourism stereotype) has a matriarchal bent & men are raised to not be sexually aggressive & women are raised to be assertive.

British culture in particular is traditionally authoritarian towards children whereas in Thailand, for example, children do not stand up for adults on a crowded bus. It is the opposite. Adults give children the seats on crowded buses. Traditionally in Balinese culture, the children were considered to be the 'gods'.

This Thai video is an interesting insight because we would not expect children visiting a western religious institution to behave as free, without fear & uninhibited as shown in the video.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yaTT7nUAxE


Why do Buddhists believe in reincarnation? What makes a person believe in the idea of reincarnation? It can’t be “because the books/teachers say so”, given the Buddhist ideology of “come and see by yourself”

There is rebirth in Buddhism, for sure, but rebirth of what?

When we say "rebirth", we mean that something that we can peg onto as YOU, is born again after physical death. But what is YOU? The soul or self or the SAME consciousness that wanders on throughout this lifetime?

The Buddha taught that all phenomena is not self. The Buddha also taught that all conditioned and/or compounded things (including consciousness) is impermanent. It is not the SAME consciousness that wanders from childhood to old age. It changes. (See MN 38)

So, in Buddhism, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness.

In fact, if a person injures his brain or experiences dementia or amnesia or coma, then his personality, his memories and even his consciousness could be impaired or non-existent for the remainder of his physical life. In this case, even in his lifetime, we cannot guarantee that he is totally present at every moment. Then, what more for the next lifetime?

So, if a soul or self or consciousness is not reborn, then what is reborn?

There is definitely rebirth in Buddhism, but what is reborn?

Suffering. The continuity of suffering, regardless of physical death, is rebirth.
The continuity of conditioned processes when the condition for them to exist continues, is also rebirth. For e.g. karmic cause and effect, and its relationship to an individual's perceived continued existence in this lifetime. Also, the physical and mental processes of the five aggregates, for e.g. the "stream" of consciousness (MN 38) and the thought "I am the thinker" (Snp 4.14). The continuity of conditioned processes doesn't necessarily end at the death of the physical body.

The Theravada perspective is that at every moment there is death and rebirth. In between, we have the continuity of conditioned processes, that bridges every moment. With the continuity of conditioned processes, we have the continuity of suffering, so long as ignorance is present.

When ignorance is permanently ended, craving is permanently ended and suffering is permanently ended. This permanent ending of ignorance is referred to as enlightenment in Buddhism.

In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote:

  ... the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in
  rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely
  a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to
  another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the
  experience of nibbana.

Usually when people talk about rebirth, they imply that the SAME consciousness wanders on in this lifetime and onto the next lifetime. In the following quote from this answer, we read a nice explanation by Damith, of why this is not true.

  Stream of consciousness OR Continuity of consciousness means
  individual consciousness which arises (uppada), exists (titi), ceases
  (bhanga) rapidly as an effect of many causes. It's just a stream, not
  a long lasting single one.

  Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
  stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
  a single droplet out of it which passed by(*) that point. If you
  consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
  stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
  see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
  analogous to this example. Please try to understand it in that way.

  (*) Note: "passed by" - This phrasal verb can be only used when we
  talk in conventional truth. The reader may think that rūpa
  (form/matter) can move in space which is not a true in ultimate
  reality. Neither any nāma (name) nor rūpa can move. What happens is
  the arose rūpa existed and ceased then and there. After that new rūpa
  arise nearby. This is called "Deshāntarotpatti".

I'm not saying that there is no YOU (self) at all. There is a YOU, but it's not a permanent YOU. It's changing from moment to moment, depending on conditions, and compounded by different mental and physical processes.


What is Aarya Upavaada? Based on a real situation, I have come across some people who claim to be Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami.. When i have gotten angry or upset about something they said or did, i was told i am committing Aarya Upavaada. This is nothing to do with Dhamma but personal issues such as relationships and finances. I am told if i get angry or upset with them, i am still committing Aarya Upavaada as the people involved are Aarya.

With Sutta references, could someone tell me if this is indeed Aarya Upavaada and what actually constitutes Aarya Upavaada?

Dear Gaveshika… if those people that you have come across are the type that tells any Tom, Dick or Harry that they meet that they are Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami, then you have nothing to fear. Only to such a person who has similar characteristics (gathi) as him/her, would a Sotapanna reveal that he/she is one such. By that what I mean is that, if an ordinary run-of-the-mill person asks you whether you a Sotapanna, you will evade that question, as this knowledge is something that you keep very close to your heart. So no fear, you have not committed an Aarya Upavaada.

But in case you had (even inadvertently) done a Aarya Upavaada to someone who walks this Noble Path that day, you could think about that person and ask for forgiveness. This is a very effective way to calm the mind and reduce tensions. If done sincerely, you should be able to see the effects in real life. You may notice that the tensions with that person is automatically reduced.
..........

A person who treads this Path in all sincerity knows at every stage where s/he is at.  One realizes that one is a Sotapanna, but it happens with time. When one observes oneself, it becomes clear to oneself that one has removed the characteristics (gathi) that prevents one from becoming such, and that you have attained that precious thing/stage sought by a Bhauddhaya (or a practicing Buddhist). Also, when you observe such characteristics (gathi) in a another (be it a much sought-after monk) you begin to question as to how that person could even be a Sotapanna. But you guard yourself and do not entertain such thoughts, as only a Buddha can say for sure whether a given person other than you, has attained magga phala or not. In this Path you will ONLY concern about yourself and NOT any other.

At this stage you do not need any guidance from another. You have seen the way to Nibbana (or a glimpse of Nibbana). You know what’s to be done, and silently you go about it, and your neighbours and others that you come across in your daily life will never know that you are one such (a Sotapanna). Once that knowledge that you have arrived at this stage of Sotapanna sinks in, your attitude, behavior, and outlook on life has changed forever.

Observing another person’s characteristics (gathi), you then get a feeling that there is a greater likelihood that the other person is at the Sotapanna stage or higher. ONLY with such a person would you share this kind of knowledge.


Is there any freely available English translation of the Peṭakopadesa? I only have knowledge of Ñāṇamoli's translation which is not available for free. Does anyone have knowledge of an English translation available for free?

The Pali Text Society is about the best authority for English translations, and they did produce a reference text in 1977. There is not a lot of online translations, but here is a link to the digital version of the book:

http://lirs.ru/lib/The_Guide,Nettippakarana,Nanamoli,1977.pdf


Is there an API for Buddhist texts? Does anyone know of an API for Buddhist texts along the same lines as this one for the Bible. I do some spare time software projects and I would like to hook up to Buddhist text API just as part of playing around with some new technologies. Currently I'm using the Google Books API for it.

What I'm imaging is that one could make a web request to a URL such as http://buddhisttextapi/dhammapada/verse/12 and you would get back the 12th verse of the dhammapada in whatever translation. So for the technically minded I'm interested in some kind of REST API - preferably under active development or at least with some decent documentation.

Many Thanks

SC has a API. E.g. : https://suttacentral.net/data?suttas=dn1,dn2

Also see: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/suttacentral-api-apps/1927/8

Also the data is in Github. E.g. https://github.com/suttacentral/suttacentral-data/blob/master/text/en/pi/su/an/an1/an1.21-40.html

Similarly you can download the whole Access to Insight website as files: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tech/download/bulk.html


When Buddhism started? After Gautama Buddha's born or Buddhism were already there in the world when Gautama Buddha was born? who was the first Buddhism follower?

According to tradition, Gautama Buddha was not the first Buddha. There were previous Samma Sambuddhas before him who taught the same teachings (called Dhamma). Also according to tradition, a new Samma Sambuddha does not appear until the teachings of the previous one has been completely lost and forgotten. According to The Buddhist Society page here:

  Once upon a time, many thousands of years ago, there was a Brahmin
  ascetic named Sumedha living in the Himalayan foothills. He was well
  advanced in his ascetic and meditation practices. It was the time of
  the previous Buddha Dipankara. When he heard that the Buddha was to
  visit the lowlands, he made his way down from his hermitage in order
  to meet the Buddha.

  He helped the people in making preparations for welcoming Buddha
  Dipankara. When he met the Buddha, the ascetic Sumedha was very
  impressed and thought, ’May I be able one day to attain Enlightenment
  like this Buddha, and help the people by teaching the Dhamma’. Buddha
  Dipankara read the mind of Ascetic Sumedha, and announced to those
  gathered there, ‘ This ascetic will one day become Enlightened as a
  Samma Sambuddha named Gotama Buddha’.

A brief history of Gautama Buddha's life can be found here.

The Buddha also described his noble search for enlightenment in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, including the shramanic (ascetic) teachers he studied under, before his enlightenment, but wasn't satisfied by their teachings. The first disciples were a group of five monks (according to this sutta):

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
  first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
  occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks
  who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to
  teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where
  are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye,
  purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

According to accesstoinsight.org's page on the Chronology of Theravada Buddhism:

  Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar is the year of the Buddha's
  Parinibbana (death and final release), which occurred in the Buddha's
  eightieth year (480 BCE according to the "historical" timeline; 544
  BCE by tradition).

On this year, the following happened:

  Parinibbana (Skt: Parinirvana; death and final release) of the Buddha,
  at Kusinara (now Kusinagar, India) (age 80).

  During the rains retreat following the Buddha's Parinibbana, the First
  Council (sangayana) convenes at Rajagaha, India, during which 500
  arahant bhikkhus, led by Ven. Mahakassapa, gather to recite the entire
  body of the Buddha's teachings. The recitation of the Vinaya by Ven.
  Upali becomes accepted as the Vinaya Pitaka; the recitation of the
  Dhamma by Ven. Ananda becomes established as the Sutta Pitaka.

We can consider this the beginning of modern Buddhism as we know it. Of course, years later, it would split into various schools and traditions.

My personal opinion is that Buddhism started the day the Buddha accepted the invitation by Brahma Sahampati to teach the world (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta).


Was Steve Jobs a Buddhist? I've heard Steve Jobs described as a Buddhist but is that actually true? I know that he was married by Zen monks but did he actually have a Buddhist practice, meditate or was associated with a particular sangha. Or was it just more of an interest with him rather than him actually identifying as a Buddhist?

Why not just google him? I see dozens of articles. Including:

What Kind of Buddhist was Steve Jobs, Really? PLosOneBlog
Here's How Zen Meditation Changed Steve Jobs' Life And Sparked A Design Revolution. Business Insider
Steve Jobs' private spirituality now an open book. USAToday.

Take your pick. I don't see how StackExchange/Buddhism is going to help you here. Unless of course there is someone who writes answers that knew him personally, we're all reliant on what is in the media.


What is the textual source of the 4 infinitudes and the 6 coolnesses? If I remember this right I heard about the 4 infinitudes and the 6 coolnesses on podcasts. Not sure if I'm getting the names right and/or representing these properly. The question is, I'm looking for the textual source of these two lists in the scriptures.

4 infinitudes:

mind of a buddha
the mind in Jahna
space
world systems

6 coolnesses:

When the mind needs to be restrained you restrain it
When your mind needs to be exerted you exert it
When it needs to be encouraged to encourage it
When you should develop equanimity you develop the quality of equanimity
When there’s resolve on the mark of freedom you reserve on that mark
Delighting in freedom

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html


Bare awareness while meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition While practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw style of meditation, noting the rise and fall of the abdomen as the body breathes, and noting other intruding experiences or phenomena, and essentially labeling that which is noted, at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling in favor of simple non-conceptual bare awareness? Is the transition made by conscious effort or is it a non-volitional event that one simply recognizes and sits with? I think I may have some fundamental misunderstanding in this matter.

The noting shouldn't stop one from seeing things with bare awareness. One doesn't focus on the noting, one focuses on the meditation object.

...at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling...

If one isn't  consciously aware of the noting then one will be unconsciously (un)aware of the noting. We note no matter what we do.

When we need to listen, speak, read, write or study then it is more difficult to note consciously. Some don't note consciously in these situations but they do continue mindfulness of bare experience.

I've never heard of an end to noting(conscious or otherwise) made by conscious effort or made by a non-volitional event.


Question about the Pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra Is the pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra, a Mahayana sutra or does it occur in the nikayas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sutra? Does this sutra precede Nagarjuna or is it a post-Nagarjuna sutra?

The Pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra is most likely based on some earlier Abhidharmic writings from one or two centuries after the Buddha’s death. Multiple versions of this sutra have been recovered, perhaps the most famous one from the Ratnakuta collection. The dating of this collection is uncertain, but the collection is mentioned in the Nikāyasaṅgraha, a Theravadin text. It states the collection was compiled by the Caityaka, which had branched off the Mahāsāṃghika school by the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

Nagarjuna lived somewhere between 150-250 CE, so the text very likely predates him.


Can cold showers benefit or harm our practice (our concentration)? I actually have two different questions :

Can cold showers benefit our practice?
Someone once told me not to take showers when doing a lot of meditation because the cold reduces the concentration level: is this true?

The person who told me this talked about "regular showers" not "cold showers"; now that I got interested in cold showers after reading about their health benefits, it made me worried that they would harm my concentration level.

For the record the person who told me this was a theravada monk

Let me tell you a story from Lord Buddha's time....
One day a maid who was a follower of Lord Buddha went early in the morning to the nearby river to bring water.
She saw a sage in the  river taking an early bath, knowing the temperature of the water in the morning she asked him a question.

Dear sage what are you doing in this cold water, it is very cold in this part of the day?
the sage replied, I am washing away my sins. When i take cold baths it brings me closer to salvation.

The maid was surprised by the answer and said,

Dear sage if cold water brings you closer to the path what about the fish in the water?

Then she went on to describe how mind matters to the path not the body.

This is what you should take from this story...
Lord Buddha clearly said "Mind is the thing that comes first,that it is on top of the order".
Lord Buddha also said "thoughts are Karma" ("Chethanahan Bhikkave kamman wadami")
It is the mind that matters not the body...

Let me convince you with some stories from the history of the Great Arahats,

One day a determent monk started to do the walking meditation around the "Bodhi tree" of a monastery. The monk was determined to keep going no matter what. After some time he felt that his legs hold no more power to carry him and he fell down, but he did not stop. He started to keep going on his knees. Then his knees gave up on him after some time. He was bleeding and fell down on the sand. Later on he was directly instructed by Lord Buddha to take things slow, Not too hard and not too soft.

So this is how taking things too hard ended up. Now lets see how taking things too soft ended up...

In the early age of Buddhism monks used a wooden pillow to rest their heads when sleeping. But this was later on replaced by the kind of pillows we use today.
And it can be found in many dialogs among Monks and Arahats (In text) that this replacement which is seemingly good actually reduced the potential of the monks. It was considered a bad choice because the replacement actually represented the love for the well being of the body.

So have people or monks meditated without any regard to their bodies?
Here's the answer...

Once there was a monk called "Ven. Chakku pala". while he was at the peak of his practice he started having troubles with his eyes. The doctor gave a medicine which needed to be dropped in to the eyes while the patient is lying on a bed. But he could not agree to that because the practice style he was doing needed him in only to poses (sitting or standing). So all along he was either standing or sitting,skipping the sleeping. He chose his Nirvana above his eyes and kept going. In the very day he turned blind he reached Nirvana.

Do not have many concerns. Try to relax and not to worry about the minor details. If you have pains while meditating do some vipassana meditation and focus on the impermanence of that pain and keep going on. It is essential that you give up the love for your own body and to do that you need to learn and realize just like all other things your body is temporary too.

Be strong and keep it up,
May triple gems bless you!


Saying Grace before meals When I was in rehab (15 years ago) I was at a Camp Hill community. It wasn't really that helpful for my drug problem. Maybe I wasn't ready at the time and because I don't believe in God, I had a lot of resistance to the antroposofic cosmology. Also, Camp Hill is very hierarchic and not really a drug treatment program; it's for mentally disabled people. I find Buddhist meditation practices on non-self, suffering and impermanence much more helpful.

What I did like about Camp Hill was that we always had a little prayer before meals. When I am about to eat, I very often wish I could have some kind of Saying Grace that could express gratitude (I don't know if 'Saying Grace' is the right term, in Norwegian it's called "table prayer").

Does anybody know any Buddhist prayers like that? It's not so important what tradition it comes from.

In the monastery I live, we are taught to bless the food by way of offering it, before each meal (or even before simply drinking a glass of water, tea, coffee or so).

The short Tibetan version goes:

Tönpa la mä sangye rinpoche
Kyobpa la mä dam chö rinpoche
Dren pa la mä gendün rinpoche
Kyab nä kön chok sum la chö par bül

Its English translation goes:

To the precious Buddha, the unsurpassable teacher,
To the precious Dharma, the unsurpassable protection,
To the precious Sangha, the unsurpassable guides—
To you, the three rare and supreme sources of refuge, I offer.

It is what we recite (just once, no need for thee recitations) when we have no time (or no heart to take the time). Usually, we recite this short version in the context of 'blessing, offering the food during puja' or when we eat outside of the monastery. An even shorter version for lazy people like me consists in saying "Om Ah Hum" three times.

We also have a longer (clearly Mahayana) version. It is the one we recite every day before the communal lunch:

Om Ah Hum (3x)

Compassionate Lord,
All-knowing Guide,
Field of merit and ocean of qualities,
Tathagata, to you I pay homage.

Through purity free of attachment,
Through virtue free of the lower realms,
Uniquely ultimate supreme,
Peaceful Dharma, to you I pay homage.

Showing the path which frees those seeking freedom,
Well established in the trainings,
Pure among fields possessing qualities:
To the Sangha, I also pay homage.

To the principal Buddha homage.
The Dharma, which protects homage.
To the Sangha assembly homage.
Homage to the three always.

The qualities of Buddha are inconceivable.
The qualities of the Dharma are inconceivable.
The Arya Sangha are inconceivable.
Through generating faith in the inconceivable,
The karmic ripening result will also be inconceivable:
May we be born in the pure realm.

To the precious Buddha, peerless guide,
To the precious Dharma, peerless refuge,
To the precious Sangha, peerless liberators:
We offer to the three jewels of refuge.

This food with a hundred of flavours,
Which  is mouth-watering and well made,
To the Conqueror and his children we offer with faith.
By this, may all migrators become wealthy,
And enjoy the food of concentration.

Seeing this food as medicine,
We eat it without attachment or hatred,
Not to have an enviable body, not out of pride,
Not to look strong, only to sustain the body.

Through the connection of making charity
To the sentient beings living in my body,
May they become human beings and I will reveal to them the
Dharma and lead them to enlightenment.
For this purpose I am going to enjoy this food.


Dukkha Nana - deep knowledge of our own suffering In which school of Buddism is dukkha nana a recognised term?

Where is dukkha nana discussed in the Pali canon?

The nearest I can find to dukkha nana is klesha-mara which maybe related in some way.

Speaking specifically of dukkha nana that has arisen as a result of practice, what is your experiential interpretation of dukkha nana?

"ñāṇa" is the Pali word for "insight" or "knowledge" (jñāna in Sanskrit), used in a phrase like "vipassanā-ñāṇa".

It appears in the Pali canon, for example in SN 45.8 in the definition of Right View:

  “And what is the noble eightfold path?
  “Katamo ca, bhikkhave, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo?

  It is right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
  Seyyathidaṃ—sammādiṭṭhi … pe … sammāsamādhi.

  And what is right view?
  Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi?

  Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.
  Yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhasamudaye ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya ñāṇaṃ—

I see from Google that some (contemporary) people use "dukkha nana" in the context of "dark night", however:

I don't remember much from "dark night" topics on this site, though there have been some
I don't know how to relate the "dark night" phrase to what I read in the suttas

Instead of "dark night" (e.g. as described in this answer), the message I get from the suttas is that:

Dukkha is discovered in 'real life' (as it were), and not during or as a result of practice -- e.g. the story of Gotami
"Knowledge of dukkha" is right view, it's insight into the cause of dukkha, its origin and cessation (e.g. the four noble truths) -- which might be from meditation but in the suttas I think it's usually (at least initially) as a result of hearing the dhamma explained (perhaps that explanation is then confirmed in meditation)

I don't quite trust the English-language "ego"-related words -- "ego" is Latin and/or Freudian originally, isn't it? Likewise I guess that the phrase "dark night" comes from the Christian tradition, I haven't tried to learn how that's related to Buddhism -- I'm pretty sure that Buddhist doctrine teaches, or at least that the Pali suttas teach, that there isn't a soul and that any and all self-views are associated with suffering.

In any case accepting the anatta view does not seem to me to be associated with suffering (not a "dark night", a "death of ego") -- instead I remember it as being always more like more like this:

  her madness left her and her right mind was established

and:

  And the master then uttered this verse:

    A person with a mind that clings,
    Deranged, to sons or possessions,
    Is swept away by death that comes
     — Like mighty flood to sleeping town.

  At the conclusion of this verse, confirmed in the fruit of stream-entry,
  she asked the master [for permission] to go forth [into the homeless life].

But who am I to tell you, you know, what other people experience?

Still I do remember reading people saying, on this site, or saying that their teachers said, that you should beware of people telling you that there are various specific stages of insight or meditation to go through, specific experiences.

I think the same or similar is in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

  ‘This is the noble truth of suffering.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.
  ‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

And the next two lines:

  This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññeyyan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe … pe … udapādi.

  ‘This noble truth of suffering has been completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññātan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

The participle there is Pariññāta, from the verb Parijānāti, a variant of the verb Jānāti.

I think that jānāti is the same root as ñāṇa, i.e. jānāti is the verb "to know" and ñāṇa is the noun "knowledge".

The sutta might contradict what I said above about "specific stages" e.g. because perhaps it lists some:

  Dukkha "should be completely understood" ... "has been completely understood"
  The origin of suffering "should be given up" ... "has been given up"
  The cessation of suffering "should be realized" ... "has been realized"
  The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering "should be developed" ... "has been developed".


Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma? Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma ? is it one of the 50 types of kamma ?

(my teacher who is a monk told me mindfulness is kamma  - and like kamma its an accumulated thing )

Im asking cause if mindfulness is kamma than its accumlated - and if its accumlated it answers my "problem"  :

Is there a value for a single moment of mindfulness (without others) ?

Fabrication (Sankhara), consists of 50 of the 52 Mental Factors (cetasika). Mindfulness appears in the 25 mental factors which arise with wholesome consciousness. Mindfulness is wholesome as it aids liberation. Unlike some factors which accumulates Fabrication which is one which aids in not creating new fabrication which keeps a being in misery. Also what every is Wholesome is not necessary accumulation of positive Karmic Fabrications. The reduction in accumulated Karma is also Wholesome are you are more closer to liberation. Also note the 50 cetasikas are not all wholesome and they influence karmic accumulation.


Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves? Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
At least in everyday senses of suffering.
Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples).
But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples).
Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Frustration and suffering arise from unskillful intentions. That's bad kamma.

DN33:1.11.154: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.

Harmony and happiness arise from skillful intentions. That's good kamma.

DN33:1.11.155: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.

More commonly, the two are mixed and muddied.

DN33:1.11.156: There
are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.

However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up.

DN33:1.11.157: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.

Looking for the limit of faults is chasing the conditioned, the impermanent and the unsatisfactory.
Instead, look for the limitless in love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.


Why does Lama Atisha say those "observing pure conduct" shouldn't take (some) Tantric initiations? In Lama Atisha's, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment he ends the teaching this way:

  Because the Great Tantra of the Primordial Buddha
  Forbids it emphatically,
  Those observing pure conduct should not
  Take the secret and wisdom initiations.
  If those observing the austere practice of pure conduct
  Were to hold these initiations,
  Their vow of austerity would be impaired
  Through doing that which is proscribed.
  This creates transgressions that are a defeat
  For those observing discipline.
  Since they are certain to fall to a bad rebirth,
  They will never gain accomplishments.
  There is no fault if one who has received
  The preceptor initiation and has knowledge
  Of suchness listens to or explains the tantras
  And performs burnt offering rituals,
  Or makes offering of gifts and so forth.

I interpret this to mean that people holding vows of conduct that are in contradiction to what is required in some Tantra (so-called taboo practices of sex, alcohol or other illicit activities) should emphatically not take those Tantric initiations.

In Louisville, Kentucky in 2013 I heard His Holiness the Dalai Lama explain that monks should not be engaging in sexual tantric practices and that to do so is a defeat that will lead to bad rebirth. Was I misunderstanding something or is it not the case that Tantric practices that involve activities in contradiction to pure conduct should be avoided by those who hold vows of pure conduct?

Do any schools of Tibetan Buddhism disagree with Lama Atisha's seeming prohibition? How about any schools of Vajrayana outside of Tibet?

Verse 64 mentions the secret and wisdom initiations.

These two initiations are taken only in the context of highest yoga tantra. Therefore, the three lower tantras are not concerned here.

From the point of view of highest yoga tantra, there are two ways of achieving enlightenment:

With an actual consort
In the bardo, after death

It is said that lama Je Tsonkhapa could have achieved enlightenment with an actual consort, but he would have to disrobe (or to ensue a defeat). Instead, he chose to achieve enlightenment in the intermediate state.

So, there are these two ways of actualizing the completion stage and upholding the secret and wisdom initiations. One them would be a defeat.

Other practices, such as the consumption of infinitesimally small dosage of alcohol, is not considered as a transgression of the pratimoksha. During Lama Chöpa Tsok, for instance, we dip our finger into alcohol and lick it. There is no practice where you consume more alcohol than that. In addition, we say that if you refuse to do it while you actually took a highest yoga tantra initiation, it is breaking your tantric commitments.


Is this considered sexual misconduct? If a person have a small Buddha statue in their room and they (sorry) masturbated in that room, is it considered sexual misconduct?
Sorry if this question is unappropiate.

No. Unskillful bodily action, which encompasses sexual misconduct as it pertains to the five precepts of the laity, was defined by the Buddha thusly:

He engages in sexual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
– AN 10:165

The main point, it seems, as with most things pertaining to the ethics of lay people, is to refrain from causing harm. Would you cause suffering to yourself or to another living being by engaging in a certain sexual act? If so, then that is unskillful. This view is supported by AN 8:39, in which the Buddha explains that the reasoning behind the precepts is that by behaving within those guidelines, one gives "freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings."
Now, what is considered misconduct for monks and nuns is a different matter. Should you be curious about that, I'd encourage you to read the Pāṭimokkha. In that case, just as a tangential point, the unskillfulness doesn't seem to be about disrespect to the Buddha, but just about the fact that engaging in the act of masturbation obstructs one from shedding one's clinging to bodily pleasure.
With Metta.


Examples of Buddhist traditions that are derived from popular superstitions In the online book Good Questions, Good Answers  there is the question

  Why do people do all kinds of strange things in Buddhist temples

In the answer it says

  It's true that some of the things Buddhists do have their origin in
  popular superstition

There are no examples to illustrate this statement though in the text. So can anyone give one or two examples of Buddhist traditions (from any school) that owe more to cultural or popular superstitions than the teachings of the Buddha.

Note - this is in no way meant to denigrate any particular school of Buddhism. I'm sure that the practices of many (all?) religions take something from local culture. I just would like some examples to illustrate this particular quote from this text.

This article describes the celebration of Vesak Day or Wesak Day 2015 at a Thai Buddhist temple (and therefore of the Theravada tradition) in Malaysia, near the capital city.

The author provides an example:

  This leads to the highlight of the day - chanting and blessings by
  monks and ending the short session (which lasts no more than 5
  minutes) with a shower of "holy water".

  The monks softly chants a Thai variety of the Ti-Ratana Vandana
  (homage to the Triple Gem), five precepts and punnanumodana (sharing
  of merits). For most however, these chants are exotic and spiritual,
  and are perceived to have "supra mundane" powers. It is no wonder then
  that many devotees place their personal belongings - amulets,
  religious icons and even car keys - onto a tray held by the monk who
  performs the chanting.

  Their belief - mistaken or otherwise - is that these chants contain
  "spiritual powers" which are then transcended into their items, which
  when worn or used, protects them from harm or danger. The ceremony
  ends with the tying of yellow coloured strings on the wrist, a
  symbolic notion of the presence of the Sangha in the laity. Of course,
  if one wishes, they can also make a donation to the monk concerned for
  his service by putting money into a metal box.


Are practical solutions to everyday suffering that contradict Buddhism Upaya or avidya? If we are caught in the great web of desire and aversion, and are roiling in Samsara, helpful or well meaning advise (to let go, to be in the moment, to inspect the emptiness of reality, to not indulge in distractions, to not follow emotions blindly) may fall on deaf ears.

Sometimes when the Buddha encountered such people, he seemed to have a knack to lead them to realization of the drawbacks of Samsara. Ex. Stories of Kisa Gotami or Patacara (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.10.01.than.html)

Other times, he wasn't so successful in making others happy, as with the case of his father who was very aggrieved about losing a successor, or monks in his order who plotted against him or the sangha. Sometimes even expulsion didn't seem to help. In fact, Buddha initially had reservations about teaching the Dhamma at all - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html

It is unclear whether it was his wise words, or his enlightened mindful compassionate energy presence or the receptiveness of the listener that led some lucky ones to this realization. In any case, lacking the wisdom of the Buddha, we may alienate those we seek to help by explaining the suffering of Samsara when they expect  conventional help.

In these situations, would it be wise for a Buddhist to offer everyday immediate samsaric help, like, taking someone out to a movie or to a drink to forget their pain (obviously only works in suffering of a lower intensity than losing your family to death)?

Or, would it harm the Buddhist himself, by weakening his/her belief in Dhamma? i.e. implying Dhamma isn't always the best cure

Which is more compassionate? Or, what would an aspiring Bodhisattva do?

Unfortunately (because it doesn't answer your question), I'd guess it's better to find "practical solutions to everyday suffering" that don't contradict Buddhism.
When my father died, there's a couple of things people did for my mum which she appreciated (i.e. these are stories which she retold, of examples of how to help people who are grieving because she found them helpful).

People made and gave her cakes. This is useful because, she said, "you don't feel like cooking, people are coming to visit you every day, and it's nice to have some cake to offer your visitors."
Isn't this is a practical and a Buddhist gift: because it helps the recipient to be generous?

My parents moved to a new place when they retired. One of the people in the new village, who she hadn't met before (word of her loss had travelled), stopped to talk to her in the street of offer condolences. He said, "Neighbours are more important than family." Oh: really? "Yes because we're here (and your family is in another country)."
Isn't that sort of Buddhist too? It's not Dhamma exactly (not talking about dukkha for example) but it's bringing attention to what is (instead of attention to what has gone), to human contact.

Several people told her to keep on making contact with other people. One told her "you mustn't just go home and close the curtains" (and told me not to let her do that). Another phoned a neighbour and told the neighbour to visit every day.

I'm not sure why "going to a movie" might help a person to "forget their pain". Perhaps it's just the passing of time (impermanence of pain), or distraction (to stop clinging), or human contact (your company at the theatre, or compassion felt for the characters in the movie).
Without saying that a movie is unwise, perhaps using conversation to touch on these topics or evoke them is a skillful alternative.

By the way a friend once told me there are different axes along which a topic of conversation between two people is more or less intimate:

What's distant in time (past or future) is less intimate (less immediate) than the present (now)
What's distant in space (other places) is less intimate than the present (here)
Talking about other people is less intimate than talking about ourselves.

If you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is grieving, maybe that's good to remember. A person might get bored if the topic of conversation is too distant ("why is Buddho trying to tell me a story that happened to someone else a long time ago and far away?"), but uncomfortable if the topic is too intimate ("what do you mean, 'how do I feel?' I feel terrible, what do you expect?"), so adjusting that to find some topic in the middle might be skillful.
I guess my mum enjoyed a couple of things I did for her, over the next months, she said: one was practical help, like helping her use her computer, helping her count her money (her budget); and the other was my acting silly sometimes which made her laugh.

That said, I'm reading "Good Question Good Answer" by Bhante Dhammika at the moment. In the chapter about the five precepts, one of the question is whether you should lie to a killer to prevent them from killing. His answer was that,

"If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?"
"If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases."


Buddhism and Science Science is capable of helping living beings flourish, or of generating suffering for living beings.

Either of these two capacities are the result of trial and error as well as research and technological development.

So if it is known that in the trial and error process of developing technologies to help life flourish that some degree of suffering could occur in the case of an error (such as a nuclear meltdown causing death or radiation sickness, or experimental medicine causing sickness or death,) would those scientists developing said technologies generate bad karma if suffering did, in fact, occur, even though their intention (life's flourishing) is pure?

How does an active R&D scientist who is also a Buddhist navigate the potential suffering that their R&D is capable of generating, so as to not accumulate any bad karma?

The paper Buddhism and Medical Ethics: Principles and Practice says (claims):

The study of Buddhist ethics is a recent development brought about by the arrival of Buddhism in the West, and largely in response to the demand of Westerners for clarification of where Buddhism stands on a range of contemporary moral issues.
Although Buddhism is widely respected for its humane and benevolent moral values, there is an apparent absence in traditional Buddhist thought of a branch of learning devoted to reflection on ethical issues.

See also:

While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is the Middle Way and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well being. The keynote of Buddhist economics is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfying results.

It may be that there isn't a direct, traditional answer to your modern question.
I'll try to list some of the traditional answers which may indirectly answer or touch on your question:

Traditional Buddhist monks (who you might look to for ethical advice) don't typically try to develop technology (except perhaps meditation as a type of technology).
The kind of "suffering" that Buddhism tries to address is mental, spiritual, or emotional suffering, rather than material or technological poverty
There's some doctrine (e.g. here) which says that "intention" matters -- if an enlightened person did harm without intending to, that's karmically neutral
There's some but only a little doctrine on the subject of "right livelihood": it's traditionally defined for laypeople as no "trade in weapons, living beings, meat, alcoholic drink or poison". Maybe the best (most harmless) form of livelihood is the monks': i.e. "living from begging, but not accepting everything and not possessing more than is strictly necessary".

I personally took those "right livelihood" guidelines as forbidding "trade in weapons" (e.g. any military R&D), but as permitting telecommunications R&D even though that might be used for good or ill.
Someone else I know studied nuclear physics and eventually chose a career in nuclear medicine (rather than nuclear power or military applications).
You presumably know that there are modern (not specifically Buddhist) guidelines for the development of e.g. medical and nuclear technologies. If you're going to practice that type of development you might at least consider those (modern ethical and engineering) guidelines.
There's some doctrine that's sometimes taken to be general advice, in the Kalama sutta:

... when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Beware I might be quoting this out of context, but I'm pretty sure it's often (rightly or wrongly) interpreted as giving you permission to think (or know) something for yourself -- that includes considering whether it's censured or praised by "the wise".


What is the difference between a Bodhisatta and a Bodhisattva? Lots of Buddhist words have two different spellings (kamma/karma) because one is the Pali version and the other is the Sanskrit version; but the meaning is the same. My understanding of Bodhisatta and Bodhisattva though, is that they have different meanings. Can anyone elaborate?

Bodhisatta is Pali, Bodhisattva is Sanskrit, they have the same basic meaning.

Wikipedia:

  In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व bodhisattva; Pali:
  बोधिसत्त bodhisatta) is an enlightenment (bodhi) being (sattva).
  Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great
  compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to
  attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. According
  to Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is one of the four sublime states a
  human can achieve in life (the others being an Arhat, Buddha, or
  Pratyekabuddha).

In Theravāda Buddhism, the term "bodhisatta" (Pāli language) was used by the Buddha in the Pāli canon to refer to himself both in his previous lives and as a young man in his current life, prior to his enlightenment, in the period during which he was working towards his own liberation. In later Theravāda literature, the term "bodhisatta" is used fairly frequently in the sense of someone on the path to liberation.

Mahāyāna Buddhism is based principally upon the path of a bodhisattva. Mahāyāna Buddhism encourages everyone to become bodhisattvas and to take the bodhisattva vows. With these vows, one makes the promise to work for the complete enlightenment of all sentient beings.

The vows are an expression of bodhichitta, the desire to realize enlightenment for the sake of others. The exact wording of the Bodhisattva vows varies from school to school. The most basic form is:

May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Mahāyāna schools like Zen, Nichiren, Tendai, and others use vows translated as:

Beings are numberless, I vow to save them
Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to end them
Dharma gates are boundless, I vow to enter them
Buddha's way is unsurpassable, I vow to become it.