Why do people pray to Buddhas? Why do Buddhists pray to Buddhas in temples? I heard that Sakyamuni didn't approve of that and even criticized Bodhisattva for telling other people that he can help them with things that only God can help with. Sakyamuni considered himself and Bodhisattva as ordinary human beings without any divine abilities. Is that true? Is there any reference or source which confirms this?

Buddhists don't praying Buddha. Not reciting chants as devotee does for other gods.
We just ignite candle which is symbol of enlightenment and we just pay homage to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha those are Three Jewels.
Faith in Buddhism centres on belief in the Three Jewels.

  Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
      Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
      Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.

  I take refuge in the Buddha.
      I take refuge in the Dharma.
      I take refuge in the Sangha.

Buddhist don't believe in god and Buddha never said anything about god.
So he criticized because of distracting people which Buddha never mentioned this in his techniques or what people supposed him as (that god is exist and can help someone with something) so he wasn't god just ordinary human being like us.
But he enlightened one and became Buddha.

There's Buddha delivered discourse Jewels  in Ratana Sutta

Ratana Sutta

*RATANA SUTTA
The Buddha’s Discourse on
The Three Superb Jewels
And Their Intrinsic Power

With an Introduction, Translation,  and
 Explanations Based on Pali Sources by
Bhikkhu Nanadassana

1.Yànãdha bhåtàni samàgatàni,
Bhummàni và yàni va antalikkhe,
Sabbe'va bhåtà sumanà bhavantu,
Atho' pi sakkacca suõantu bhàsitaŋ.

  1.Whatever beings are here assembled,
  Whether terrestrial or celestial,
  May all beings be glad.
  Moreover,may they attentively
  Listen to what is said:

2.Tasmà hi bhåtà nisàmetha sabbe,
Metta ŋkarotha mànusiyà pajàya,
Divà ca ratto ca haranti ye baliŋ,
Tasmà hi ne rakkhatha appamattà.

  2.Therefore, pay heed all you beings,
  Show your friendliness to humankind,
  Who day and night bring you offerings.
  Hence, protect them diligently.

3.Yaŋ ki¤ci vittaŋ idha và huraŋ và
Saggesu và yaŋ ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ
Na no samaŋ atthi Tathàgatena.
Idam'pi Buddhe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

Suvatthi(su-"good, well"+atthi"to be, being") = well-being
:good  health  or  fortune.
Or  as  the  Commentary  ex-plains: arogatā (healthiness),
nirupaddavatā (no  danger, safety).

  3.Whatever treasure there is here or beyond,
  Or whatever superb jewel is in the heavens,
  None is equal to the Tathàgata (the Buddha).
  Verily, in the Buddha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

4.Khayaŋ viràgaŋ amataŋ paõãtaŋ
Yadajjhagà Sakyamunã samàhito
Na tena Dhammena samatthi ki¤ci.
Idam'pi Dhamme ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  4.There is nothing equal to that Dhamma
  Of the superb Extinction (of defilements),
  Dispassion, and Deathlessness (Nibbàna),
  Which the concentrated Sakyan Sage (the Buddha) has realized.
  Verily, in the Dhamma is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

5.Yaŋ Buddhaseññho parivaõõayã suciŋ
Samàdhim'ànantarika¤'¤am'àhu.
Samàdhinà tena samo na vijjati.
Idam'pi Dhamme ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  5.That Purity which the Supreme Buddha extolled
  Is called "concentration with immediate effect".
  Nothing equal to that concentration is found.
  Verily, in the Dhamma is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

6.Ye puggalà aññha sataŋ pasatthà
Cattàri etàni yugàni honti.
Te dakkhiõeyyà Sugatassa sàvakà,
Etesu dinnàni mahapphalàni
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  6.Those eight individuals
  That are praised by the Virtuous Ones
  Constitute the four pairs (of persons).
  They, the worthy of offerings,
  Are the disciples of the Well-farer (the Buddha),
  And gifts given to them yield abundant fruit.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

7.Ye suppayuttà manasà daëhena,
Nikkàmino Gotamasàsanamhi,
Te pattipattà amataŋ vigayha,
Laddhà mudhà nibbutiŋ bhu¤jamànà.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  7.Those who with a steadfast mind,
  Apply themselves well
  In the Buddha Gotama's Teaching,
  Being desireless, attain the highest gain.
  They plunge into the Deathlessness (Nibbàna)
  And enjoy the peace of emancipation,
  Obtained for free.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

8.Yathindakhãlo pañhaviŋ sito siyà
Catubbhi vàtehi asampakampiyo,
Tathåpamaŋ sappurisaŋ vadàmi,
Yo ariyasaccàni avecca passati.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  8.Just as a city-post fixed firmly in the ground
  Is unshake able by the four winds,
  So too, I declare, is the virtuous person
  Who sees the Noble Truths unwaveringly.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

9.Ye Ariyasaccàni vibhàvayanti,
Gambhãrapa¤¤ena sudesitàni,
Ki¤càpi te honti bhusappamattà
Na te bhavaŋ aññhamaŋ àdiyanti.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.

  9.Those who clearly comprehend the Noble
  Truths, Well taught by him of profound wisdom
  Even if they are very negligent,
  They do not take up an eighth rebirth.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

10.Sahàvassa dassanasampadàya
Tayassu dhammà jahità bhavanti:
Sakkàyadiññhi, vicikicchita¤ca
Sãlabbataŋ và'pi yadatthi ki¤ci.
Catåhapàyehi ca vippamutto,
Cha càbhiñhànàni abhabbo kàtuŋ.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  10.Just with his gaining of insight
  He abandons three states of mind:
  Self-identity view, sceptical doubt,
  And whatsoever [grasping to]
  Mere rules and observances.
  He is also fully freed from (rebirth in)
  The four woeful worlds (apàyas),
  And is incapable of committing
  The six major misdeeds.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

11.Ki¤càpi so kammaŋ karoti pàpakaŋ
Kàyena vàcà uda cetasà và,
Abhabbo so tassa pañicchàdàya,
Abhabbatà diññhapadassa vuttà.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  11.Any evil action he may still commit
  By body, speech, or mind,
  He is incapable of concealing it;
  For it is said that such incapability
  Is of one who has seen the Path (of Nibbàna).
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

12.Vanappagumbe yathà phussitagge
Gimhànamàse pañhamasmiŋ gimhe,
Tathåpamaŋ
Dhammavaraŋ ade sayã,
Nibbànagàmiŋ paramaŋ hitàya.
Idam'pi Buddhe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  12.As a woodland grove is crowned
  With blossoming flowers
  During the heat of the first month of the summer,
  Even so (crowned) is the sublime Dhamma
  Leading to Nibbàna which
  He (the Buddha)
  Expounded for the highest good.
  Verily, in the Buddha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

13.Varo, vara¤¤å, varado, varàha ro,
Anuttaro Dhammavaraŋ adesayã.
Idam'pi Buddhe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  13.He, the Sublime one (the Buddha),
  The Knower of the Sublime (Nibbàna),
  The Giver of the Sublime (Dhamma),
  The Bringer of the Sublime (Noble Path),
  The Peerless one (the Buddha)
  Taught the Sublime Dhamma.
  Verily, in the Buddha is this
  superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

14.Khãõaŋ puràõaŋ, navaŋ natthi sambhavaŋ
Virattacittà àyatike bhavasmiŋ,
Te khãõabãjà aviråëhicchandà,
Nibbanti dhãrà yathàyaŋ padãpo.
Idam'pi Saïghe ratanaŋ paõãtaŋ.
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu!

  14.Their old (kamma) is destroyed,
  No new (kamma) is produced,
  And their mind is unattached to future rebirth.
  Those wise ones,with the seed (of rebirth-consciousness) destroyed,
  And with no more desire for further growth,
  Go out as the flame of a lamp.
  Verily, in the Saïgha is this superb jewel.
  By virtue of this truth may there be well-being!

(Spoken by Sakka, Lord of the gods)

15.Yànãdha bhåtàni samàgatàni,
Bhummàni và yàni và antalikkhe,
Tathàgataŋ devamanussapåjitaŋ,
Buddhaŋ namassàma.
Suvatthi hotu!

  15.Whatever beings are here assembled,
  Whether terrestrial or celestial,
  Let us revere the perfect Buddha
  Honoured by gods and men.
  May there be well-being!

16.Yànãdha bhåtàni samàgatàni,
Bhummàni và yàni và antalikkhe,
Tathàgataŋ devamanussapåjitaŋ,
Dhammaŋ namassàma.
Suvatthi hotu!

  16.Whatever beings are here assembled,
  Whether terrestrial or celestial,
  Let us revere the perfect Dhamma
  Honoured by gods and men.
  May there be well-being!

17.Yànãdha bhåtàni samàgatàni,
Bhummàni và yàni và antalikkhe,
Tathàgataŋ devamanussapåjitaŋ,
Saïghaŋ namassàma. Suvatthi hotu!

  17.Whatever beings are here assembled,
  Whether terrestrial or celestial,
  Let us revere the perfect Saïgha
  Honoured by gods and men.
  May there be well-being!


Between Ana & Apana. What is the terminology for this moment? Ana (Āna, Āṇā, incoming breath, inhale) & Apana (apāṇa, āpāna, outgoing breath, exhale), there is a moment between them. Or let's say the point switches from incoming breath to outgoing breath.
I can't remember the terminology for this switching point. I believe it exists in the Pali language.
Does anyone know it? Thank you.

I am not familiar with this terminology.
Technically, speaking of 'a moment' only goes as far as the discernment of a beginning & an end.
If one can not discern a beginning & end then one can't talk about it in terms of temporality.
The conditioned changes as it persists and in as far as change is discerned one conceives of a before & after.

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

“Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who knows not these three things Development is
not obtained. Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who does know these three things  Development
can be obtained” (Patis I 170)


Which eliminate the hindrance permanently Noble eightfold path or supermundane? Do they both play a role in getting rid of the hindrances or is one better then the other? How do they eliminate them?

To your question, “Which eliminate the hindrance permanently, Noble Eightfold Path or supramundane?” …. There are two level to this Path – the Mundane and the Supramundane. It is at the higher level of this Path that the Hinderances are eliminated permanently, but it happens in stages.

As aforementioned, ascertaining the truth has two parts, i.e; mundane truth and supramundane truth. Ascertaining the truth in matters superficially is known as mundane truth and at this level, the five hindrance remains. This mundane truth would lead to the supramundane ultimately. The ultimate meaning of samma dhitti (right view) is ascertaining the supramundane truth.

What involves in the category of supramundane truth that would help eradicate the five hinderances? It is the understanding that nothing existing in the world can provide long-lasting happiness in the long term, and that there is hidden suffering and that suffering can be eliminated] and that one is really helpless in this rebirth process if this Path is not pursued.

There is the encounter between the Buddha and Mahānāma (Majjhima Nikāya Sutta 14,) a Once-Returner and the householder cousin of Anuruddha, in which Mahānāma asks the Buddha why he can't bring himself to go forth. The Buddha tells Mahānāma that it's because he hasn't sufficiently experienced the pleasures of meditation. One can only assume from this that Mahānāma is somewhat stuck in the five hindrances (nīvaranas).

At Stream Entrant stage one comprehends the anicca nature of this world to some extent. For the mind to grasp that concept, it must be free of the “coarse defilements” or “panca-nivarana” or “five hindrances” that cover one’s mind. For that one has to live a moral life, start contemplating Buddha Dhamma, and experience the “cooling down” that results.

A Stream Entrant is incapable of actions of craving and hatred that will definitively lead to rebirth in the four states of misery (Hell, Asura, Hungry Ghost and Animal realms), but the remaining gross craving and hatred is only eradicated when one becomes a Once-Returner; subtle craving and hatred are eliminated for the Non-Returner.

The Stream Entrant is incapable of False Speech, but is capable of both Malicious and Harsh Speech, which are only eradicated when one becomes a Non-Returner. In this way, we are able to see the emergence of reasonable criteria for the Once-Returner: the emotions would be gentler, more skilful, and one would no longer be subject to any outbursts or compulsions associated with craving or hatred. The Once-Returner has basically 'broken the back' of these fetters, so that they are rendered weak and feeble.

The Once-Returner is no longer dominated by hatred or craving, that there are no longer any times in their lives when they are overwhelmed by such unskillful emotions. These emotions may arise occasionally in a weakened form, and only during awareness – they don't dominate.

In addition to having broken the first three fetters and possessing an unshakeable faith in the Three Jewels, the Non-Returner has attained complete ethical purity. It's not that they don't conceal their unskillfulness, they just don't have any, whether of body, speech or mind. They are almost flawlessly motivated by generosity, love and wisdom.

The last five fetters remain of course, but these are exceptionally subtle in comparison to what has been broken in the fourth and fifth fetters. Also, because Non-Returners are not subject to any hindrances, the Eight Jhānas are readily accessible to them.

There’s a simile where a man is suffering from pain. He gets tied up in anxiety and misery around the pain. And the Buddha says it’s like being shot with an arrow and then shooting yourself with a second arrow. The physical pain is the first arrow; the mental pain is the second one. And it’s the mental one that’s important. As the Buddha says, the enlightened person, the awakened person, may still get shot with those first arrows but doesn’t shoot him or herself with the second.  It is because an Arahant has gone beyond the last of the four kinds of clingings – the Attavada Upadana (attachment or upadana is “firmly grasping”.) Attavada is the last of the attachments which is in other words a hindrance to the realization of Nibbana. So this tells us how hinderances are eradicated in stages.


Is turning off a patient's life support system encouraging to kill? If a person is on a life support system due to the failure of one or more organs and not able to return to normal life without them again, if the family consents to the doctors' recommendation to turn off the artificial life support, can this be considered encouraging to kill, violating the first precept?

No it is not killing. Because there's no intention of killing. You just stopped doing things to sustain his life. It doesn't even have to be a relative. So many people die due to famine all over the world. So many animals are being slaughtered every day. You could stop everything you are doing right now and go and try to save them with all your time and money. But by not doing that, are you killing those whom you might have saved? No! Not doing a good deed isn't necessarily doing a bad deed.

But if there's the intention of killing, turning off the switch breaks the 1st precept.


Is it possible for a Buddhist to develop spiritual bypassing? What are the main traps? How to avoid falling into spiritual bypassing while practicing Buddhism?

  Spiritual bypassing, a term first coined by psychologist John Welwood in 1984,
  is the use of spiritual practices and beliefs to avoid dealing
  with our painful feelings, unresolved wounds, and developmental needs. It is
  much more common than we might think.

  http://realitysandwich.com/74388/spiritual_bypassing/

The guy in the article appears to have this favorite style of psychology and solutions for everyday problems drawn from the world of psychology.

I'm guessing that "spiritual bypassing" is sort of like using religion to solve problems instead of using this guys favorite methodology.

I think the most legitimate trap is to not distinguish between problems that Buddhism is good as solving and which problems are better solved with pharmacology, or one of the many talking cures from the world of psychology.

Buddhism does a really good job of addressing the problems of existential angst-- the who am I and why am I here questions. It isn't especially suited on its own to deal with marital problems (Dr Gottman is a better expert), or literal delusions (like seeing little green men in the drain of the bath tub), substance abuse, bacterial infections, cancer, stroke, clincial depression and so on.

But if some wants to try to deal with their problems using Buddhism instead of Freudian psychoanalysis or any of the other talk cure systems that have since followed and bypass this the article's author's methodology, I wouldn't hold it again them. The various talk cure systems are probably as difficult to prove right or wrong as it is to prove one religion to be better or worse.


Continuity With Meditation Practice I have been practising compassion meditation somewhat consistently. I usually try to do so in the morning and in the evening. Somehow, I've come to view these two moments as 'ideal' in terms of meditation. But, when I skip a meditation session, I am afraid or unwilling to meditate outside of those morning and evening times.

Would it bring more benefit to just meditate whenever possible, independently of a routine schedule? I feel like meditating during the day (other than morning or evening) will maybe affect my schedule, making my evening meditation 'too much'.

In sum, is it profitable to meditate outside of schedule (or even disregard schedule) to compensate for skipped sessions?

I hate to sound too critical, because you appear to have a healthy meditation regime, so kudos for that. Having said that, adhering too strictly to a specific routine runs the risk of being silabbatupadana, i.e. clinging to a ritual for it's own sake.

Based on contemporary learning theory, more frequent meditation is likely more favorable for developing the dhyanas, over a strict routine, or having few session with longer duration, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if the suttas reflects these findings.

To sum up: a scheduled routine helps, as well as meditating often, even when it's outside your regular routine.


What symbols represent Zazen? I am looking for symbols which specifically represent Zazen, or, more generally the act of meditating.

The symbol for Zen meditation is Riding the Ox.
See Wikipedia article on Ten Oxherding Pictures.

  The calf, bull or ox is one of the earliest similes for meditation practice. It comes from the Maha Gopalaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 33). It is also used in the commentaries, especially the one on the Maha Satipatthana Sutta (Digha Nikaya 22) and the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10). As Buddhism spread throughout South-East Asia, the simile of the bull spread with it.

According to this explanation, the use of ox as symbol for meditation predates Zen, but on my memory I have not seen the ox used in any tradition other than Chan/Zen/Seon. Now technically, the ox is probably a symbol for the mind or something like that - so it is not the ox itself but riding it joyfully (symbolized by the flute) is what probably stands for the (successful) act of meditating.

Or perhaps, if you want to show the struggle you can use the fighting scene:

In Tibetan tradition the ox is replaced by an elephant:

In Pali Canon, the Buddha speaks on multiple occasions about herding the grazing cows, taming wild elephants, and training horses as metaphors for Buddhist practice. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about training our inner gorilla. Dza Kilung Rinpoche compared the gentle but steady approach to meditation with teaching a very young child. I think it should be safe to say that training an animal is probably a good symbol for meditation.

Other generic metaphors used by various Buddhist teachers for (not necessarily Zen, but definitely Buddhist) meditation, that come to mind, include:

Improvising a certain theme on a lute, with the strings not tied too tense nor too loose.
Flying a kite of mind, tied to the stake of the breath.
Practicing airplane "touch-and-goes".
Watching the running water calm down.
Sobering up without sleeping.
Cleaning the kitchen.
Weeding the yard or field.
Polishing a tile or a mirror.
Leveling jungle into a flat field.
Honing an arrow.
Heating or chilling a piece of smithwork to maintain the right temperature.

These metaphors hint at such factors as steadiness, balanced effort, removing the obstacles, and making incremental gradual progress.

Some of these might make good graphical symbols, too.


Do we need to believe in Buddhist stories to be a real Buddhist? Some suttas and the dhammapada contain stories with things not very easy to verify, such as people flying, living 8.000 years, teletransportation, etc.

Some of those are related to the psychic powers of the Buddha and that is easier to believe as he was an enlightened being; however some are not related to that.

Buddha always encouraged us to verify and contemplate things. Will having doubt about Buddhist stories and legends interfere with Buddhist practice?

You should not believe all the stories to become a Buddhist dear friend. Instead you should believe Noble Eightfold Path and taking refuge in the triple Gems (Load Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). Taking refuge doesn't mean that the person has to pray for them or looking forward until they do something for you. We have to believe Lord Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha then we have to follow the path which is showed by them. They are guides and helpers so followers have to follow the path.

If someone loose their courage to follow the path due to the stories that is the best enmity one can do for him/her self. First clarify everything about Noble Eightfold Path and follow it. Then when you gaining wisdom due to the follower, you will be able to identify whether the stories are true or false.

when talking about teleportation, we are in a era of quantum teleportation. even now with the existing technology we can perform teleportation on quantum particles like photons. but the problem is on the communication channels. if we divide our body into quantum particles and begin to teleport them, it will take millions of years to complete. If scientists develop a mechanism to build high speed communication channel with using quantum entanglement, we will have a teleportation era in near future. So don't categorize stories just as fairy tails or believe at once. Remember stories and follow the path then you will find facts do decide.


Metta towards yourself - useless? There is a part of Yuttadhammo's answer at

How to practice Metta without a Benefactor?

that has very confused me:

  cultivate metta towards yourself (useless, but a good example)

Why is metta useless?

Are there any specific sources for this statement, or is this based on a determine school?

I think this needs qualification.

Metta towards oneself helps reduce self hate. So this is not completely useless. Also this is the basis of developing Metta to others. If you do not love yourself you cannot love others. [page 83 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw]

You cannot attain Jhana if the person is oneself, hence as a means to achieve Jhana this is useless. [page 82 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw]

Other objectives is as an antidote to hateful temperament towards others. On this perspective this is useless if you contemplate about only oneself and not of others, but useful if you contemplate about oneself and others. As you cannot love others if you do not love yourself hence oneself should be included.

Also this is used to break barriers [page 85 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw] as perceiving someone dear, neutral and foe. In this perspective it is useful to asses the level of love to oneself vs loved one vs neutral people vs foes, but not useful if you contemplate only about oneself and not others, and only others and not oneself, and useful when you contemplate on oneself and others.


Why is Buddhism not Nihilism? I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway.

So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is.

Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki

  life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes.

I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist:

Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes against the dependent origination. Also the name 'chair' is just a convention, nothing more.

Nihilism as we know it is a recent phenomena. The name has a Latin origin, so in the time of the Buddha Nihilism didn't exist like today. It was more related to ascetic practices of thinking that the world is a illusion and nothing exists at all. So the Buddha was trying to explain that things DO exist, but not as we think. There IS a chair, but it does not own a chair-nature. It is something transitory, impermanent with a dependent origination that we perceive with the eye-consciousness


Meditation - how to practice it? Is it more important to develop one's own meditation skills or follow a prescribed method of a teacher? After all I think the Buddha worked it out for himself. And I have noticed in my own practice that following someone else's method can be confusing, if I don't understand properly what they teach. Is discovering it for yourself, such as meditation, the best way?

N.B. I don't have any technique, I just sit there and try not to hang onto my thoughts. I think if we make out meditation to be difficult we set up obstacles to it in our minds. When I think its easy I find easy to do.

Both.  While it's pretty much impossible to make real progress in meditation on your own, under the guidance of any good teacher, you are still expected to figure things out for yourself.  I know this seems contradictory, but a meditation master can only guide your progress.  It's absolutely impossible for them to get into your head and show you how to practice.  Think of sitting as a skill like wood working.  While the master carpenter can give you instructions on how to cut a board, only through your own efforts and experience will you understand how much pressure to use on different wood types, how to work the grain to your advantage, etc.  Likewise, on the cushion, while your teacher will tell you to watch your breath, it's up to you to figure out how firmly to apply your attention, where the best anchor point is for your mind, how much to relax, and how to use your posture to your advantage.  Like any skill, mastery only comes through countless hours, many questions, ample feedback, and innumerable breaths.


Complexities of karma accounting It is of certain interest to me how does buddhism view the mechanics of karma accounting. By accounting I mean the weighing of intentions and outcomes and adjustment of the karmic ledger of the reincarnated unit - without a "supercomputer" to calculate all the expected probabilities.

Consider this example from the book [https://www.amazon.com/Three-Levels-Spiritual-Perception-Commentary/dp/0861713680] "The three levels of spiritual perception" by Kunga Tenpay Nyima:

"... there is a story in the Jakata Tales of one of the earlier lives of the Buddha as a bodhisattva. In that rebirth he was a sailor. While crossing a river in a ferry, through his bodhisattva's prescience he realized that one of the passengers was planning to kill all five hundred people aboard the ship. Quick as a wink, he killed the person intending the evil act. By doing so, he saved not only the other passengers but also the person who was planning to kill them, preventing him from committing such a terrible sin. Even though he did this at the price of killing a living being himself, because his intention was so good, and was motivated by compassion, both for the other passengers and for the would-be killer, it was, on balance a meritorious action."

Note the complexity of this scenario, and also extend it a bit in your imagination with other people suspecting that the killing could take place, and also the killer himself still debating in his mind as to whether to proceed and sink the ship. The bodhisattva could also not be 100% sure that the deed will eventually take place - as Buddhism rejects complete determinism and fatalism. There were other passenger with their intentions and decisions to act or not to act, passengers whose karma was to be punished on this ship and by not dying on that day the balance could have been changed for the worse. Imagine there were future killers among the passengers, etc etc.

There was a web of intentions, partial knowledge, and unknown outcomes.

How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer?
How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action without knowing the outcome of this complicated karmic accounting?

How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer?

The weather is complicated too. People literally use supercomputers to run numerical models/simulations of the atmosphere, to predict the rain and wind. In other words, it requires a super-computer to predict the weather.

On the other hand the weather happened by itself, resolved itself, even before super-computers were invented.

Similarly karma can proceed without a super-computer even though people cannot calculate it exactly.

One of the suttas (Acintita Sutta) says that one should not conjecture "the results of kamma".

How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action

Karma isn't quite like the weather: unlike karma, the planet's weather is more-or-less unaffected by what one person does, so there's no feedback loop between one person's actions and the fruits of the weather.

I think there are many ways to choose the right course of action:

We get good advice (or teaching) from other people
The Dhamma gives us rules of heuristics about right courses of action (e.g. the precepts and other Buddhist ethics, and, the eightfold path, and so on)
The Dhamma gives us insight into which variables are important to monitor: for example greed and anger (craving and aversion) are important; lay (social) responsibilities and personal (family) responsibilities are important; mindfulness is important; good-will is important, and so is equanimity, generosity, and so on; renunciation is important, dispassion is important; etc.
We experience results of action.
Buddhism sometimes suggests some alternative to conventional thought (for example choosing a "middle way" instead of one extreme or the other; or for example non-action instead of action)

Incidentally I beware of taking the Jataka tales literally, or even as a good example of how to behave; for example it's difficult for me to accept that story as proof that it's sometimes right to kill somebody.

Also, one of the characteristics of an enlightened Buddha is that they are able to know more: including being able to see the workings of karma more clearly than other people can.
There are some Buddhist practices or paths which involve learning how to act is if we were enlightened -- see the answers which describe tantrayana in this topic -- but these may require a teacher.

To repeat, I think we should be reluctant to understand that Jataka story as meaning that it's sometimes alright and even benevolent or beneficial to kill people (which might be a doctrine e.g. of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita). On the other hand that story illustrates a point: that according to Buddhism, your "intention" matters -- karma is described as "intentional action". I suspect that maybe pre-Buddhist doctrine taught that "ritual action" (e.g. Brahmins tending household fires) was important, and the Buddha countered that with a new (Buddhist) doctrine about intention.


Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'? The Raft Simile says, in part:

  I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas. [MN 22]

Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'?

This Pali Canon parable is one of the two most popular images among Mahayana students (the other one being the parable of toys used to lure children out of the burning house).

The other shore is Nirvana and the raft is the concepts (of Dharma). The concepts are used to get across, but the final destination is beyond concepts. Rafts don't move on dry land, sun rays have nowhere to fall if there's no ground. Concepts don't hold in Emptiness, they have nothing to hang on.

The whole point of Buddha's teaching is liberation of mind. The entire appearance of samsara with all its problems and sufferings is a giant self-perpetuating complex of concepts. Our problems are concepts in the space of relative definitions. To be a master of concepts rather than victim of, is what the practice is all about. Being a master of concepts one can create and destroy concepts as needed, without being bounded by them.

Unbounded, vast, limitless, open - is the other shore. The raft of Dharma is a vehicle, not the destination.


Returning to the marketplace - examples In the Ten Ox Herding Pictures of Zen the final picture is commonly depicted as returning to the marketplace. Enlightenment is said to be doing the most ordinary things in a most extraordinary way.

It is very different at many levels from the Theravada model of an Arhat who recollects past lives, walks through walls, flies in the air and so on. Though there are references to vasanas which prevent the Arhat from Buddha like perfection, they are not commonly what comes to mind when one thinks Arhat. It is reinforced by the belief that one who has such attainment will leave the family, never have romantic worldly ideas, become a monk and generally be holy, strictly confirming to popular ideas of what is holy - i.e separate from this undesirable world of samsara.

The Zen model doesn't even have the label Arhat that makes such attainment separate and special. Zen masters are of course famous for doing silly things like playing with kids, drinking wine, teaching in whore houses and so on. I've read similar things in the Tibetan tradition. Though it's another matter that most Zen masters obsess with lineage, robes, proper form and such.

I'm looking for sutras, books, biographies or examples and generally any text that deals with returning to the marketplace in various traditions. Any tradition is fine.

Does the Theravada canon have such ideas anywhere at all? Perhaps Tibetan?

Thanks.

Does the Theravada canon have such ideas anywhere at all?

This is a far-fetched example which barely answer your question but IMO the Buddha himself kind of returned to the market-place: not as a tradesman nor even a customer, but he did leave his solitude.

The description could almost fit him:

  In the World

  Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world.
  My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful.
  I use no magic to extend my life;
  Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

  Comment: Inside my gate, a thousand sages do not know me. The beauty of my garden is invisible. Why should one search for the footprints of the patriarchs? I go to the market place with my wine bottle and return home with my staff. I visit the wineshop and the market, and everyone I look upon becomes enlightened.

Any resemblance can't be entirely accident, presumably, to the extent that he was ever a role model for Buddhist enlightenment.

A few things seem to me anachronistic.

Magic

"I use no magic to extend my life" -- is that a reference to (rejection of) some Taoist-immortality-magic or -obsession: which, I'm not acquainted with, but might have been important when it was written?

Wine

The "wineshop"?

Wine is forbidden in Islam too, but apparently some Sufis use "wine" as a metaphor for a divine love and loss of ego. That's esoteric (and orthodoxly a heresy) in Islam (it also reminds me of a family story: that when my grandfather bought a house in Morocco he met a "hereditary saint" there who was allowed to drink wine because the wine would turn to water in his mouth), but really I don't know anything esoteric especially about Buddhism. Apparently there was a Sufi doctrine which said that, "Drinking 'wine' depends: on how much, and who with", but beware I think that advice is Delphic.

Another idea is that some of the versions of the ten bulls talk of carrying a "gourd", depicted as (or, who knows, perhaps mistaken for) a wine gourd: but which (a gourd), someone else wrote, is a metaphor for emptiness.

Sunyata might be a bit anachronistic too, i.e. a tenet developed in slightly later schools.

Non-duality

It's a bit difficult to imagine the Buddha pulling a pint in the pub with his friends. If I see someone doing that though, then as long as they're not doing harm I'm conditioned not to say something like, "You're a bad man: you shouldn't be drinking."

Is that what "everyone I look upon becomes enlightened" means, i.e. non-duality, and to whatever extent I hope to become enlightened, other people become so too? I mean there are two ways to see that: being "looked upon" (or talked with) helps to lead the seen person to enlightenment; doing the looking helps the seeing person see there is enlightenment (perhaps some "Buddha nature") already.

On the other hand maybe drinking is harmful, and if I were wise and kind and selfless then I would mingle with them there?

Anyway that leads to this other answer about non-duality which I think you already know, which says there are real differences between Theravada and Mahayana practice. And so I present that answer as saying, "No, I don't think you'll find exactly the same 'returning to the marketplace' within the Theravada Sangha."

  It is reinforced by the belief that one who has such attainment will leave the family

One of the Zen stories I admire is Nothing Exists. I like it because it reminds me that it's not to do with theorizing about the nature of external phenomena, but it's more about being prepared to behave myself.

There's a quote I read once, I haven't found it again since, someone was asked "Why won't you become a Christian?" and replied, "If you mean 'Christian' like your Christ, it's because I don't have the courage. If you mean 'Christian' like you, it's because I wouldn't want to be."

Does that make sense, assuming you know the Christian metaphor for marriage? I don't know whether you are or have ever been married, but how could you expect to control two people if you don't even control one?

Actually I have the belief that Siddhartha left his family, not because he had such attainment but because he desired that attainment.

Conversely, Is That So? might be a story of someone who already has some attainment and subsequently acquires a family.


Who are the Buddhas on the Wheel of Life? In a lot of images of the wheel of life there are Buddha figures in each of the realms. You can see them in the image below of the full wheel of life and I've also put in a close up of the hell realm with the Buddha figure clearly visible. So a Buddha is in hell, animal, hungry ghosts, human, heaven and titan realms.

Who are these Buddhas and what are they doing in each of the realms. What is their significance?

Wheel of Life

Hell Realm with Buddha on the right

@konrad01 got it pretty close, the Buddhas symbolize various ways Dharma is presented in each of the six realms, expressed so as to match mental disposition of the realm's beings. If you look carefully, on most depictions of Bhava-Chakra the Buddha in each realm holds a different object in his hands. That is the key.

in Hell realm Buddha holds a cup of water, because for Hell beings the point of Dharma is to Escape from Suffering. This is the only seed of positive thinking that exists in their otherwise 100% negative mind.
in Animal realm Buddha holds a book, because for Animals the point of Dharma is to acquire Wisdom (and through wisdom, control and power -- which is what they secretly crave despite their laziness and inertia).
in Preta realm Buddha holds treasury, because for Preta mind everything looks very desirable from a distance but once they get it they realize that it is empty, so Dharma for them is the best hope to finally get something of Real Value that won't turn out to be yet another lie.
in Human realm Buddha holds the begging bowl, which stands for compassion and generosity. Because in Human realm the main feature of mind is obsession with quasi-valuable (such as the "I"), developing compassion/generosity is the best way to liberate mind from egoistic tendencies and obsessions, something required for Enlightenment.
in Asura realm Buddha holds vajra I think, or some kind of sharp weapon, symbolizing Perfection of Excellence. Because Asuras are very sharp and competitive, they are incurable perfectionists, so Dharma is presented to them as a way to perfect their excellence, until they eventually realize that the highest perfection is to transcend their perfectionism and thus attain liberation.
in Heaven realm Buddha holds flower as symbol of impermanence. Because life in Heaven is so perfect, the only potential problem Gods have is entropy finally kicking in. Impermanence is presented to Gods to remind them of their vulnerability/susceptibility and Dharma is presented as ultimate Protection from Impermanence.


Can a arahant recognize the spiritual attainment of others? Can a arahant recognize other arahants?

Can a arahant recognize stream winners, once-returners and never-returners?

Can a arahant recognize the spiritual attainment (and conversely, the defilement) of others?

If a arahant is able to recognize other arahants, then we may be able to reliably establish a recognized group of arahants in our time, who can be the lead teachers of the sangha worldwide.

No.  It is a quality in Buddha among humans only. However, Tissa Brahma God has this quality too.  Ven Moggallana was curious about this and went to Tissa god and asked him if all beings in Brahma world had this quality.  Tissa Brahman said not all beings in the brahman world had it, but only few.  Tissa Sutta
Buddha said there is no measuring tool to measure others' attainment level (such as one Arahat in Buddha's time that used profanities- one may still use profanity after liberation because force of habit not mind with defilement, etc )
Another sutta I remember which do not remember the reference talked about one Arahat who had never met Ven Sariputta before.  They met for the first time and has conversation in form of question answers (Ven Sarriputta asked another answered).  After a few minutes, they both realized that each other reached some mile stone in their progress but they didnt know which level.  They knew each other by talking.  From that Sutta, Arahat may have a clue about the other but not 100% sure.

Dharma spoken by Buddha should lead us and Sangha world wide.


Do we believe psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha? I have read from scriptures about psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha and arahats: for example, just after birth the Buddha walked some steps on lotus flowers, elevated during meditation in his childhood, occurrence of earthquake when he touched the earth at the moment of enlightenment, ability to spread water and fire, communication with gods without physical body, ability to read mind of others, recall past lives etc.

The above are accepted only based on our faith to Buddha is reasonable: but in front of rationalists' point of view the above can't be explained; and so,

Do we have to maintain silence as Buddhists?
Do supernatural and psychic phenomena really exist, if so why does nobody take the challenge of rationalists (see e.g. List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal)

I mean not "psychic powers" up to Buddha's level; just for example to describe precisely certain object in a black box (also refer to Abraham Kovoor's challenge).

You are basically saying "I have doubts about the Buddha's supernatural powers. Can someone prove them to me?". Nobody can do this for you unless the Buddha himself comes and show you. But that's not going to happen. So you have few options to appease your mind.

Meditate on the doubt until you realize that it's just another mental state that arises and falls and that holding on to it is useless and does not lead you to freedom from suffering.
Take it on faith, accepting the fact that you are not capable of knowing all that is possible with your current state of mind. And then do #1.
Do Samatha meditation, follow the instructions given in the Visuddhimagga that lead to attaining magical powers.
Waste your life trying to scientifically prove or disprove whether supernatural powers are real or not.


What was the chronology of events in the Buddha's life? This is the sort of question I'd find really useful to get an answer on; I'm looking for a rough chronology of the 45 years of the Buddha's (not the Bodhisatta's) life, year by year. I know there is some orthodox-approved order, I just can't find it yet. Does anyone know where it can be found, or even better can post it here?

This is from Hajimi Nakamura's "Gotama Buddha" vol. 1
Sorry about the quality...

1st         36      varanasi                migadayavana

2nd         37      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

3rd         38      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

4th         39      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

5th         40      Vesali                  Mahavana

6th(1)      41      Mount Mankula           Makula mountain

7th         42      Heaven of 33 [Gods]     Tavatimsa

8th(2)      43      realm of Yakkhas        grove of Tesakala

9th(3)      44      Kosambi                 Kosambi

10th        45      Cetiyapabbata           Palelayaka

11th(4)     46      realm of Yakkhas        Dakkhinagiri monastery

12th(5)     47      Magadha                 Veranja

13th(6)     48      realm of Yakkhas        monastery near Tsalia

14th        49      Anathapindika’s Park    Jetavana monastery

15th        50      Kapilavatthu            Nigrodha monastery

16th        51      Kapilavatthu            Alavi

17th(7)     52      Rajagaha                Veluvana

18th(8)     53      Rajagaha                monastery near Tsalia

19th        54      Mount Calika            Veluvana

20th        55      Rajagaha                Jetavana

21-24(9)    56-59   Mount Calika

25-43rd     60-78   Savatthi

44th        79      borders of Vajji

45th        80                              Veluvana

The Buddha moved from Vaisali to Sravasti, where he spent the sixth retreat. At the end of the retreat he moved to Rajagrha (H. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism IStrassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Triibner, 1896], p. 31). As can be seen below as well, Kern makes conclusive statements about the chronology, perhaps based on a South Asian tradition.
Kern states that the eighth retreat was held at Crocodile Hill (Simsumara-giri), a hill in Deer Park of Bhesakalavana in the country of Bharga (Kern, Manual, p. 34).
According to one Southern tradition, the Buddha spent the ninth retreat in Ghositarama in Kausambi (P. Bigandet, The Life or Legend of Caudama, vol. 1 (Rangoon) American Mission Press, 1855], p. 234). However, see Kern, Manual, p. 34.
During the eleventh retreat, the Buddha stayed near Rajagrha (Kern, Manual, p. 35).
Concerning the twelfth through fourteenth retreats, see Bigandet, Life or Legend, pp. 240—41; Kentoku Hori, Bijutsujé no Shaka (Sakyamuni in art; Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1910), pp. 208—9. During the twelfth retreat, the Buddha stayed at a place near Veraﬁja (Kern, Manual, p. 36).
The thirteenth retreat was spent at sravasti and Calika (Kern, Manual, p. 36).
The Buddha went from Alavi to Rajagrha, and spent the seventeenth retreat in the Bamboo Grove there (Kern, Manual, p. 37).
The eighteenth retreat was spent on a hill near calika, the nineteenth at Venuvana, and the twentieth at Jetavana (Kern, Manual, p. 37).
Concerning Mount Calika, Shinko Mochizuki, “Buddha jodé shijﬂgonen ni okeru agon no chiten” (The places of vassa during the forty-five years of enlightenment) (Bukkyé kenkyu 1, no. 2 [July-August 1937], p. 8) says: “If we consider calika to be in Savatthi because it was located nearby, this would mean the Buddha spent a total of twenty-five years at Savatthi.” Akanuma does not refer to the mountain in his dictionary.


Why is my head going all Poltergeist on me Lately when sitting, my head will abruptly turn at weird angles very suddenly. I'm not always able to catch it to stop it before it happens; sometimes the movements are really bizarre ( my head moving straight back, leaving me looking at the ceiling if my eyes were open).

Is this a common/known occurrence in meditation, or do I need to see a doctor?

The experience you describe is not a common experience but meditators do get very uncommon experiences due to sudden outburst of past Karma / Snakhara. When you have stopped creating new Karma though Vipassana sometimes deeply hidden karma suddenly pops up to give results. (Many times cited by S.N.Goenka in his lectures.)

Also if would be an idea to also see a doctor and perhaps a serious meditator too to rule out any medical condition just be on the safe side.


Was Buddha ever born as an elephant? I am not sure about this but the title of this book (When the Buddha Was an Elephant: 32 Animal Wisdom Tales from the Jataka) implies that Buddha was once an elephant; in other words that an elephant was a Buddha.

Here is the story in question:

My question is: according to Jataka tales or other scriptural references, is it true that an elephant was a Buddha (not just Bodhisatta but Buddha)?

No. Animals can not become Buddha.
Even if an elephant or any other animal regulates his life right ,he will not attain insight into the Truth.

To quote from Questions of King Milinda:

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those who regulate their lives aright--do they
  all attain to insight into the Truth, or are there some of them who do
  not?' 'Some do, O king, and some do not.' 'Then which do, Sir, and
  which do not?' 'He who is born as an animal, O king, even though he
  regulate his life aright, will not attain to insight into the Truth,
  nor he who is born in the Preta world, nor he who holds wrong views,
  nor the deceitful man, nor he who has slain his mother, or his father,
  or an Arahat, nor he who has raised up a schism in the Order, nor he
  who has shed a Buddha's blood, nor he who has furtively attached
  himself to the Order , nor he who has become a pervert , nor he who
  has violated a sister of the Order, nor he who, having been guilty of
  one or other of the thirteen grievous offences , has not been
  rehabilitated, nor a eunuch, nor an hermaphrodite--and whosoever is a
  human child under seven years of age, even though he regulate his life
  aright, will not attain to insight into the Truth. To these sixteen
  individuals there is no attainment of insight, O king, even though
  they regulate their life aright.'


Where can I read more about the rare special supernatural creatures mentioned in Buddhism? There are some special supernatural creatures mentioned in the Buddhist Tipitaka, which include for example:

Beings of negative births living like gods
Floating creatures in immense pain only seen by the Arahants
Evil creatures who only reside in ponds in the jungle
Evil creatures who eat their own babies

Where in the Theravada Tipitaka can I find out more about these creatures? These stories are ascribed to (i.e. told by) the Buddha.

I think you're looking for or trying to reference the "Petavatthu" in the Khuddaka Nikaya.

Wikipedia says,

  The Petavatthu is a Theravada Buddhist scripture, included in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon's Sutta Pitaka. It is composed of 51 verse narratives describing specifically how the effects of bad acts can lead to rebirth into the unhappy world of petas (ghosts) in the doctrine of karma. It gives prominence to the doctrine that giving alms to monks may benefit the ghosts of one's relatives (see Ancestor worship).

A Google search for Petavatthu returns other references and sources and translations on this subject.

Beware that S. Dhammika writes,

  Interestingly, the Buddha considered ‘talk about ghosts’ (petakatha) to be unedifying and unbecoming for serious Dhamma practitioners (D.I,8). The Petavatthu would by any interpretation qualify as ‘talk about ghosts.’ It is also interesting to note that the Thai Sangha has never recognized either the Petavatthu or the Vimanavatthu as canonical. All scholars who have examined the Petavatthu – Rhys Davids, H. S. Gehman and Prof. Abhayanayaka – ascribe to it a late date. Winternitz wrote that it ‘probably belongs to the latest stratum of literature assembled in the Pali Canon.’

He also says that that doctrine was an existing Brahminical belief.

There seems to be English-language translations of (at least 20 of) the stories here: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Petavatthu inluding at least one about a creature which eats it's own babies.


Suffering more in order to feel less suffering? Living with suffering? I have been reflecting on suffering and it seems to me that, since everyone is suffering and yet most people around me seem happy and contented, there is a way to live "happily" despite suffering that is accessible to everyone, Buddhist and non buddhist alike.

None of these "happy" people I know are Buddhist - most have no spiritual beliefs. I'm mainly talking about the people at my work: I am the youngest and all the others are middle aged, I have a healthy body and most are overweight or have pain from age related problems, most have children which (from the sound of it) is a big source of suffering. I admit I have depression (I have had it since I was abused as a child by a parent and don't expect it will ever go away), and I only have one friend (probably due to depression too), but I feel that objectively I am suffering less than everyone I spend time with even though it doesn't seem that way.

If this is true then I must be missing something really big, if I'm here trying to learn the way to escaping suffering but my colleagues are already halfway there without thinking about it. It seems like every day takes all my effort just to get through, but my colleagues are doing the same work happily AND raising kids (for example).

My teacher seems to teach only that you can ignore suffering if you focus on imagined, "happy" scenarios, and that thia can even heal my depression if I brainwash myself enough, but I am questioning this as Buddha clearly said that only enlightenment is the cessation of suffering.

What does Buddha teach about how to live well while suffering? Do I need to suffer more to toughen myself up against suffering - am I too "soft" because I've lived a life relatively free of pain? Have my older colleagues already suffered so much that they are beginning to be free of it? Is it really just about ignoring the negative emotions and exhaustion I constantly feel, and lying to myself until it becomes true?

None of that seems right but my teacher seems so sure. (She is New Kadampa - I don't know where that sits under the various Buddhist umbrellas.)

Your work colleagues live lives of distraction. For example, when a person has children, they are psychologically driven as a parent to think about them. This brings happiness because it is good kamma to think about unselfishly caring for others. However, this good kamma does not end suffering. But this is why having family is better for the majority of people than becoming a monk or nun. Most people will suffer more if they become a monk or nun because they are designed psycho-biologically to have children & busy their lives with the excitements, loves, joys & sorrows of parenting. Parenting gives life a 'purpose', even though parenting does not end suffering.

As for depression, the Dhamma way is to completely respect non-harming; to know thoroughly in the heart through repeated reflection the Dhamma does not harm, is completely safe & protects all beings. This will result in the mind losing attachment towards abuse. Adults, such as parents, can only abuse children because children, in their innocence, look upon adults as authority figures. When the heart can completely embrace, respect & honor non-harming & non-violence, abusers will be disempowered & lose their authority. They will be rejected & purged.

With abusive parents, this type of cleansing/healing can be difficult to do because there is an instinctual expectation that parents should be good to us, which enhances the depression. The depression is not only caused by the abuse or violence but also due to the expectation, hurt & sense of betrayal that parents have not cared for us, making us feel unworthy.

Therefore, the Dhamma states no person, including parents, have the right to abuse or do violence to any person, including their own children. The Dhamma states abusers that abuse children end up in hell, according to the law of Dhamma. If we can imagine an abusive parent in hell, we may begin to feel sympathy for their ignorance & spiritual poverty/illness.

Parents that abuse their children have a serious mental problem or illness. The more clearly this can be seen & realised, the more the illness can be removed from our heart/mind & returned to where it came from; the more we can feel sorry for the abuser rather than feel hurt from the abuser.

To focus on imagined "happy" scenarios may possibly help overcome depression by brainwashing oneself enough. This sounds like painting over rust.

The Buddha clearly said enlightenment is the cessation of suffering. However, enlightenment is comprised of three factors, one of which is having a clear vision of non-harming. When the heart is saturated with the love (metta) of non-harming, this is like removing rust from shiny metal rather than painting over it. It is harder work & may be more painful in the short term.

Ultimately, enlightenment sees the 'doer' of abuse is merely the element of 'ignorance' (rather than a 'person', such as a 'parent'). The Buddha explained life is comprised of only 'elements' ('dhatu'), which includes elements such as 'violence' & 'non-harming'.

Abusers do not intentionally act to abuse. In reality, such minds have no control over such behaviour because an unwholesome suffering element is controlling the mind.

The Pali suttas say:

  Dependent on the violence element, perception of violence arises;

  dependent on perception of violence, violent intention arises;

  dependent on violent intention, violent desire arises;

  dependent on violent desire, violent passion arises;

  dependent on violent passion , violent quest arises;

  engaged in the quest of violence, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself wrongly in these three ways — with the body, with speech, and
  with the mind

  SN 14.12

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

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

  Dhammapada


What makes someone become a gay? Is this the result of engaging in particular sexual behavior such as (frequent) casual sex, infidelity, etc? How can someone take rebirth as or become a gay/lesbian when s/he is not in the first place?

I think the question is unimportant because Buddhism does not provide an answer for this question & because in Buddhism there is a path for laypeople that can be practised by both heterosexual & homosexual people. I personally know gay people who are very spiritual, very moral, very faithful to their partners & extremely compassionate. In short, there is no inherent correlation between casual sex, infidelity & homosexuality.


Lord Buddha's Noble values We all know the famous nine values of Lord Buddha that we often recite when worshiping Lord Buddha. But i've heard the extended versions of those 9 values. Can someone point me a source to learn them?

The qualities of the Buddha Dhamma and Sangha is found in the Dhajagga Sutta, Velu,dvāreyya Sutta this might be a good starting point to study the qualities. Also Buddhânussati by Piya Tan has more discussion including that of the the Mahayana parallels. The 10 Characteristics discussed in the Wikipedia article Buddhahood seas to be the Mahayana point of view. A more comprehensive book written in the subject is Suwisi Maha Gunaya by Rerukane Chandawimala Thero would be a the best starting point for a for some one who knows Sinhala. A similar book perhap not this extensive in English would be Manual of Excellent Man: Uttamapurisa Dipani by Ledi Sayadaw


If the law of Karma is a natural law like Newton's law? Can we write an equation for it? at least in principle because I know that there are lots of variables involved. but if it really is a part of nature then why not?

Newton's laws are simple, they model of a simplified universe. They describes the relationship between "force" and the motion of a single object in an otherwise-empty universe.

If you consider two objects in the universe then there are a bunch of other laws: the law of gravity, laws of electrostatics, etc.

If you consider three objects in the universe then it cannot be generally solved by an equation:

  In 1887, mathematicians Ernst Bruns [4] and Henri Poincaré showed that there is no general analytical solution for the three-body problem given by algebraic expressions and integrals. The motion of three bodies is generally non-repeating, except in special cases.[5]

... and that's just classical mechanics, ignoring relativistic and quantum mechanics.

Something like the weather (how strong the wind is going to be, whether it will rain, what the temperature will be) is arguably "part of nature". There too there are "lots of variables" involved. In order to predict tomorrow's weather, "an equation" isn't enough: they need to use many, many equations, and a supercomputer on which to run simulations, and even then it's only limited accuracy and range.

Similarly I think it's possible to say that Karma exists and is a "natural law", just as it's possible to say that weather exists.

Perhaps you'd think it might be easy, but in practice it isn't easy, to describe weather even using several equations, let alone just "an equation". You needs laws describing temperature, pressure, density, fluid dynamics, Coriolis because the earth is spinning, differential heating, and then local weather caused by the existence of land and sea and mountains and ocean currents etc. etc. etc.

Again I suggest you stop trying to see a link between Buddhism and Physics. Physics is useful as far as it goes, but it cannot even describe the relationship between a boy and his dog (or perhaps "between a child and a teacher" if you don't have any relationships with dogs).


Two Extremes of Metta I've practiced metta, or attempted to, with mixed results.

Sometimes I'm wondering even how to practice metta, and in my mind it feels like I'm just repeating "How can I develop compassion? How can I develop compassion?" It's almost a lack of contact with the feeling of compassion, or just tedious repetition.

However, sometimes, at other times, I feel extreme feeling of compassion, to the point where I clench my jaw to avoid the feeling (since seemingly I am very repressed). It's a mixture of being moved, and compassion, since it arises when I react to either moving events, or when I see someone suffering. But, admittedly, it's really being moved that generates the most feeling.

I have sometimes managed to generate such a feeling in meditation by visualizing people doing acts of kindness, myself included. However, whenever this happens, I feel that the feeling isn't enough, that compassion should require effort.

Is this the case? Does a feeling of being moved, or a compassionate intention and feeling, generate something positive? Or, am I right in thinking that without effort and discipline, these feelings are merely oceanic and vast but not linked with true mental development?

Also, I suspect I might lack self-compassion or something because I don't allow myself to feel these feelings, and I often--used to--feel being undeserving of all these things. Any thoughts?

Thanks

PS: I recall a Buddhist teacher reacting to my yearning to develop compassion with enthusiasm, but advising against body meditation because it could be detrimental. How could I know if metta meditation is best for me? Any signs?

Repeating the words many times over might help you remember to do Metta when it is needed in a difficult situation. As a form of Metta it is very shallow, but nevertheless maybe beneficial. If you develop aversion when doing this best not do it at such times. When you get fed up just stop. Also the repetition may serve the basis for a change in attitude.

The most deeped way to do it is do Vipassana or Samatha Meditation. At some point you might get a pleasant feeling. When this happens bring ups the wish that others also experience this peace. This is more deeper form of Metta.

Objective of Metta is to:

develop and increase qualities Metta
break barriers thereby you consider some people of class of people more favorably than the others


Origin of the concept of «Oneness» in (Zen-) Buddhism I know that Zen-Buddhism knows a form of practise to achieve full harmony between the individual, his/her action and the animate or inanimate environment, often translated as «Oneness».

Does anybody know the roots of this practise?

Does it go back to Gautama Buddha or to an other known Buddhist teacher?

(Background: Around the year 800 CE (1300-1400 BE), Sufi Islam, and, shortly later, Christian and Jewish Mysticism have developed a concept of «Oneness» to reach by Dikr or meditation, meaning to reach a full compliance with the God; God meaning the Whole that is in relation to us. This concept does not have direct roots in either the Quran or the Bible. Although it might have been an independent parallel to Buddhism, I rather suppose that this concept is inspired by the Buddhist religion, above all because at the same time, even the concept of rebirth has been taken over by Jewish Kabbala and Alewite Islam although it is incompatible with traditional concepts of the three religions (which, in contrast to the aforementioned Sufi/Mystic practises have not entered into the main stream of either religion). It is part of the question whether we Muslim could or should recognise Gautama Buddha or possibly a Buddhist after him as a Prophet or as a valuable source of wisdom of Islam; I will have to discuss this question in Islam rather than here.)

Oneness of the Universe was the original thesis of the (Kuru-Pancala) Vedic Religion (Brahmanism, as opposed to the later religion, the multi-deity Hinduism) - centuries before Buddhism appeared on scene. But it was never fully understood and the actual practitioners were rather corrupted, showing all kinds of real-life behaviors that went contrary to their own ideal.
Buddha had effectively cleaned it up and re-interpreted from the perspective of his own experience-centric framework.
Basically, Buddha said, the All of our lives can be summarized to our sensory and mental experience. Since experience is All,  having painful and conflicted experience is the essence of suffering while having peaceful and harmonious experience is the essence of happiness.
The highest happiness or bliss, is Nirvana, the complete cessation of all limits, divisions, and conflicts that would have induced suffering. This cessation of limits includes (among other things) complete and utter cessation of any and all I-making or self-identification. So once the individual mind stops identifying anything as "self", not even the universe, the true realization of that which the concept of oneness meant to represent is achieved.
Note how this is different from the Vedic experience of All Universe as Self. In Buddha's own words, that could be liked to a dog claiming freedom from the pole it was tied to, while still running around that pole a leash-length away.
In Buddhism the authenticity of the attainment is verified in practice as absence of any longing, grasping, attachment, identification, juxtaposing, and reification. Any kind of conflicted unsatisfied mind betrays still having some limits. The liberated mind has no limits, no position, no identity, no fixed form. It is beyond even the concept of oneness and off to the Unbounded - which is what the notion of oneness meant to mean anyway. This emphasis on direct experience and personal behavior that must be in line with the transcendental realization is the trademark of the Buddha's method.
The essence of this teaching was carried along the trade routes from the original birthplace of Buddhism to Kashmir and from there to China, where it grew into Ch'an Buddhism, and then to Japan where it got known as Zen. The essential practice of Zen is direct non-verbal transmission of the first-hand experience of this formlessness and limitlessness, beyond scripture and conceptual interpretation.
Part of Chan's inspiration for making the emphasis on harmony with the natural environment comes from the ancient Chinese tradition of Taoism which teaches a similar end-state but without tying it to the social, ethical, and psychological implications the way Buddha did.
Coming back to the original Buddha's teaching, the suttas often describe Buddhist path as progression of steps taking the student from confusion to the experience of oneness and beyond. For example in MN137:

"There is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity; and there is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness.
"And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
"And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness.
"By depending & relying on equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, abandon & transcend equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
"By depending & relying on non-fashioning, abandon & transcend the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending."

In other words, the Buddha repurposed naive oneness of Brahmins as a stepping stone to "emptiness" - the true state of shapelessness and limitlessness which is the end of suffering.
Just like the Buddhist social ethics of non-violence, truthfulness, non-intoxication etc. lead away from the objective causes of suffering, Buddhist practice of oneness (Brahmaviharas, Formless Jhanas) leads away from the subjective causes of suffering, and all this is culminated by the teaching and practice of transcending the limits of conceptual mind - Emptiness - which removes the very ground the suffering stood on.


What does Buddhism say about the consequences of good and bad behaviour? Please someone clarify:

Does Buddhism believe in rebirth?
There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that?
Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that?
In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or what ever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Disclaimer: My answers may lean towards the Theravada tradition.

Does Buddhism believe in rebirth?

Yes. But there is no permanent soul that transmigrates from one body to another. Instead, just as how the flame of one candle could light another, one is reborn with the final state of mind (representing the overall volitional tendencies cultivated during life) of the previous birth shaping the circumstances of the future birth. You can read the essay The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikku. There is a section of another essay by Nyanatiloka Mahathera that discusses Kamma and Rebirth.

There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that?

The past volitional actions of thoughts, words and deeds shape the future circumstances according to the Ekamsena Sutta (quoted below). There is a good essay on Karma: A Study Guide, again by Thanissaro Bhikku.

  "Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal
  misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the
  drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done: One can
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, criticize one;
  one's bad reputation gets spread about; one dies confused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the plane of
  deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.

  "Given that I have declared, Ananda, that good bodily conduct, good
  verbal conduct, & good mental conduct should be done, these are the
  rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn't
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, praise one;
  one's good reputation gets spread about; one dies unconfused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.

However, according to the Sivaka Sutta, not everything we experience is the result of past kamma.

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that?

Buddhism encourages Dana, the practice of giving. You can read the essay, Dana: The Practice of Giving for details. Here, giving is not to the gods, but to monks, guests, travellers, the sick and the needy. The manner and attitude of giving is very important. The essay will tell you much more. There is a whole sutta for this, the Dana Sutta. I quote from it here:

  "Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his
  own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to
  store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after
  death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.'
  He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland,
  perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a
  contemplative. ... "Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving
  is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in
  the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted
  that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
  returner, coming back to this world.

In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or whatever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Surely one who does wrong would face the consequences of his words and actions. This applies to monks and religious leaders too.

Your question hints that a religious leader who preaches wrong views or encourages wrong actions would influence many towards the wrong path. Hence, if such leaders get punished instantly, many would be saved from going down the wrong path.

According to the Kalama Sutta, the onus is on the follower of the path to select his teachers wisely and to discern the right teachings wisely. There are some details on how to do this, in the sutta. Thanissaro Bhikku, the translator, has these comments for this sutta:

  Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche
  for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says
  something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be
  followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as
  historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the
  source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed
  simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings.
  Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields
  when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any
  bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they
  must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.
  The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way
  is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose
  wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends.


The path of jhana vs the path of dry insight From everywhere I've read and heard in the suttas they talk about the jhanas being needed for insight, but as I understand it the Visuddhimagga gives the option of dry insight not requiring the jhanas. Does anyone know what canonical source Buddhagosa was basing this on?

This notion has arisen by the commentarial re interpretation of the (Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta. More details are given in the following easy: Samatha and Vipassanā by Piya Tan. Also the modern Vipassana Movement has some effects in spreading this nortion. Some discussion about the Vipassana Movement can be found in How Buddhist traditions are transforming – and being transformed – through their relation with Western psychology by Ven. Sujato

Also see: The Experience of Samadhi: An In-depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation by  Richard Shankman


How irony and sarcasm are seen in Buddhism? How irony and sarcasm are seen in Buddhism? For example, are they considered wrong speech in all ocasions?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,,

  For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness — all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there's enough irony in the state of the world that we don't need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote,

  Harsh speech is speech uttered in anger, intended to cause the hearer pain. Such speech can assume different forms, of which we might mention three. One is abusive speech: scolding, reviling, or reproving another angrily with bitter words. A second is insult: hurting another by ascribing to him some offensive quality which detracts from his dignity. A third is sarcasm: speaking to someone in a way which ostensibly lauds him, but with such a tone or twist of phrasing that the ironic intent becomes clear and causes pain.


Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas that occurs just over one lifetime? Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas (shown on the outside of the wheel below) that is compatible with a lack of belief in rebirth. For instance in the 12 nidanas there are the links

  Becoming -> Birth -> Aging and Death

So even though this explicitly names rebirth is there an interpretation of the cycle that occurs just over one lifetime (or reoccurs many times over one life). Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

All factors of the pratityasamutpada occurs in this lifetime. Just from different causal rounds of it. And of course, there is much more relations between the nidanas than just sequential enumeration of 12 states.

  Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

If you deny just one link, that should not make other 10 links of no value even for you.

In Sarvastivada school there is also instantaneous (ksanika) interpretation of pratityasamutpada. Quoting Abhidharmakosa-bhasya:

  [Question:] – How is dependent origination momentary? [Answer:] – When
  persons who are a victim of the defilements commit murder, the twelve
  members are realized in the same moment:
  1. their delusion (moha) is ignorance (avidyā);
  2. their intention (cetanā) is the formations (saṃskāra);
  3. their distinct perception of a certain object [vastuprativijñapti] is consciousness (vijñāna);
  4. the four aggregates co-arisen with the consciousness are name-and-form (nāmarūpa);
  5. the sense-faculties abiding in name-and-form are the six sense-spheres (ṣaḍāyatana);
  6. the functioning [abhinipāta] of the six sense-spheres is contact (sparśa);
  7. to experience [anubhava] contact is sensation (vedanā);
  8. greed (lobha; LVP: attachment [rāga]) is craving (tṛṣṇā);
  9. the envelopments (paryavasthāna) associated with craving are grasping (upādāna);
  10. bodily or vocal action [kāyavākkarma] that proceeds [from sensation or craving] is existence (bhava);
  11. the emergence (utsarjana; LVP: unmajjana = utpāda = arising) of all these factors is birth (jāti);
  12. the maturity (paripāka) of these factors is old age (jarā); and the breaking down (bhaṅga) of these factors is death (maraṇa).


A summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters? Can anyone share or tell: where can I find a summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters? For example, those philosophies of those opponents in Indian Buddhism Śāstras (i.e. treaties).
I ask because I am studying some texts on and also pondering on the tenets system/theory of Indian Buddhism, and I would like to be rigorous in understanding what non-Buddhist philosophies are refuted grounding in reasoning by Indian Buddhism (Nalanda) masters.

You might be looking for a scholarly paper which lists the non-Buddhist schools and their philosophies (for which I don't have an answer).
The sutta which comes to mind as likely relevant to your question is Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) -- which I think lists sixty or so wrong or non-Buddhist views.
Piya Tan as a more detailed (highly referenced) translation and commentary of this sutta (and of many other suttas too). The URLs on his site aren't quite stable but they're currently:

Brahma,jāla Sutta -- The Discourse on the Perfect Net -- D 1
A Commentarial Guide to the Brahma,jāla Sutta


A Good Career for a Buddhist? I am a business woman and my job is stressful. It is entirely motivated by greed. I want to leave my career but I have a dream to help poor people in my country and also to make my parents proud of me.
Could anyone please tell me what kind of career is compatible with Buddhism?

In my opinion and experience, a job of a manager or executive/director is pretty compatible with Buddhism. If you apply all teachings of Buddha to managing people, you can be both very successful and help people under you grow.


Body scanning feels a little stressful I feel a little stressed out when I move my attention through the body to observe the sensations. I am able to meditate far better if I focus on the entire body as a whole and feel sensations wherever they come up.

Is this acceptable in the S. N. Goenka Vipassana technique or is it important that a mediator scan the body part by part?

I can't speak for the method taught by S. N. Goenka, I only know the part by part sweeping method (link to a detailed talk by Ayya Khema about the benefits of it), but I guess you do the same thing. As for this method it is quite usual to get stressed or tensed, because you have to be much more focused on the experience you may or may not find at the current spot you're keeping your attention on.
 Ayya Khema said it would be a very good sign if you get a feeling of nausea coming up when practicing it for the first time. In another context I heard a different teacher saying that it's like after cleaning your clothes your washbasin is full of dirt (because it was on your clothes). It may be similar with this technique since you have to notice all kinds of feelings or emotions.

She also mentioned that if you really don't like to practice this certain method, you'll benefit the most from doing it :)


Quantified Self and Meditation I've looked around here for things related to this but keep coming up dry...

As is fairly common these days, I've been tracking/logging a lot of different things over the past several years such as my diet,  exercise, certain specific activities or actions taken etc.

I'm curious to hear opinions/advice and if anyone is aware of any references in the suttas on the topic of tracking and logging each time you sit & the duration of the sit. Particularly when establishing or modifying a  habit, I've found logging to be extremely helpful --> but at times the idea of logging my sits also seems counter to the teachings and especially counter to "just being."

Are there any references in the canon or other teachings that might point to or be a helpful guide in this area?

Nava Sutta

towards the end of the sutta, Buddha talked about daily progress of Dharma development.  My take on it, it is hard to track quantifiable progress daily.  You just know.  Though the sutta talks about effluents in general, it might be applicable to meditation as well.

  Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of
  his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know,
  'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still
  he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way,
  when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know,
  'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,'
  still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.


Mental States Versus Physical Substrates If I'm not mistaken, the Abhidhamma mainly explains the mind as mental factors. Modern psychology tends to see the mind as neuronal substrates.

Buddhism's time didn't have the neuroscientific modern view, but in many respects seems more advanced. What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?

For example, I think maybe mental states allows one to simulate and extend what they mean. A person may be angry, very angry, and we can imagine the causes of anger. However, just saying 'dopamine increases in such region' could mean a million things.

Are any other advantages linked to seeing the mind as mental factors?

What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?

I'm not convinced that buddhism sees the mind exclusively in terms of mental states, but rather taking both materialism and mental states into account. For instance, dependent origination details the relationship between physical properties and mental phenomena.

I guess it may seem that only mental states are relevant for buddhism while one reads those parts of abhidamma that deals with examining these things.

(On a side note, psychology is a field consisting of a great deal of different disciplines, besides neuroscience. Concepts like mental states are therefore also valid for psychological research).


If a Buddhist believes lay life is not ideal for the practice, why does he or she continue? Usually in the evening, when I am about to retire, I commit myself to finding and entering into a residential Sangha permanently.

When morning rolls in, I fall back into my usual patterns like work, hobbies, social, etc.

Usually when I suffer, this emboldens me to seek the monastic life but usually doesn't last very long.

When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way to proceed yet I don't follow through with it.

Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life. How can they be overcomed ?

Why does he or she continue?

Because of clinging. Clinging to family, clinging to lovers, clinging to property, clinging to comforts, clinging to all kinds of sensual pleasures which the monastic life wouldn't have.

  How to overcome it?

You have to develop Nekkhamma Sankappa of the noble 8 fold path.  Take a timeout  to think about what you've really been trying to do every day, your whole life. Being yourself subjected to birth, sickness, aging, death etc. which cause suffering, you are trying to attain satisfaction by chasing after other things which are also subjected to birth, sickness, aging and death.  This is called the ignoble search. Think of the absurdness of doing the same thing over and over again, when it can never give you the intended outcome. Pay careful and wise attention to the signs of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in life. What made prince Siddhartha decide to leave the lay life? Seeing an old man, a sick man, a dead body, a hermit. We see the same things too. But we rarely pay wise attention. We rarely think that we are also subjected to the same misery. Even if we do think that, it would just be a passing thought. It wouldn't be strong enough to break the bonds of lay life. It wasn't a passing thought for prince Siddhartha. He thought about what he saw even after returning to the palace. He cultivated his mind with Nekkhamma thoughts, which eventually became strong enough to make him decide to leave the lay life to do the noble search. i.e. to seek the unborn, unaging and the deathless element.


Wallace's samatha practice, based on Padmasambhava: Am I doing it right? I have been practicing a path that may be too advanced for me, in that I'm not even sure if I'm doing it properly. It is a path outlined by Alan Wallace in one of his retreats.

The following is the relevant portion from the podcast transcript (it's a transcript of Session 1 - Settling the Body, Speech and Mind in its Natural State, from Fall 2014 Shamatha, Vipashyana, Dream Yoga, and the Experience of Pristine Awareness in the Great Perfection Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism):

  "[15:40] Then we turn to settling the mind in its natural state....Just for the duration of this session let your awareness come to rest in stillness and in its own natural clarity in the present moment.
  [17:23] Now cultivate this ability of letting your awareness rest in its own place, holding its own ground, which means not directing your attention to anything, neither to any sensory impression nor to thoughts, images, other mental activities or even to the space of the mind, no directionality, no target. Just let your awareness rest in its own nature without meditating on anything, without doing anything. Simply being present.
  [18:42] Sustain this flow of present centered mindfulness, a mindful presence without distraction, without being carried away, without letting your awareness be set into motion obsessively. Sustain the flow of mindful presence without distraction and without grasping, without latching onto any object, either subjective or objective. Simply be present. Whatever thoughts come up just let them be without perpetuating them or grasping onto them, without following them. Simply let them dissolve of their own accord back into the space of the mind.
  [21:06] And now within this context explicitly be aware of something you are probably already implicitly aware of and that is namely the rhythm of the breath. Without explicitly directing your attention to the sensations of the breath throughout the body simply continue to rest your awareness in its own state. Within that simple presence, awareness resting in its own place, take note of the duration of each in breath, each out breath, whether it is long or short. And let’s continue practicing in silence."

So this is how I am viewing it. I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths. When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing. When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing.

So it seems to me a like a very flexible model. No preference is given to mindfulness of thoughts or of breathing. Rather, the instruction seems to be just be mindful of either one, depending on the random rise and fall of thoughts. Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind.

Is this right?

I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths.

This is right. Anapanasati Sutta mentions about discerning long or short breaths as the 2nd step in the 1st triad.

  When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing.

Realising that thoughts arisen itself sometimes bring you mind back. If not 1st be aware of the through and breath. Then look for any sensation that the thoughts might have brought, e.g. discomfort if they were angry thoughts. Finally actively redirect you mind to the chosen object.

  When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing.

Initially you have to keep brining back you mind to the breath even if it does not wander away.

  Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind.

This is how some meditation master teach this, but thinking and pondering is verbal fabrication which need also be calmed. [Samma,ditthi Sutta]

Also the following might be of interest: Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu


How to get involved in feelings maintaining Equanimity? Sir, when I talk to my wife over phone (maintaining equanimity) she suddenly recognize that either i am not in a mood to talk, and its obvious becuase even I know that its impossible to remain equanimous and get involved in the conversation whole heartedly, I am not sure I am making myself clear.

My question is lets say I often make jokes on phone and laugh a lot when I talk to my friend, but I find these things stupid while trying to maintain Equanimity.

Kindly explain is it possible to do both the things?

It is your perception which recognises and classifies it as funny or not. Tired with it arises the sensation which is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. You have to be equanimous towards it.

Also if the chattering is senseless chattering this is not right speech also. Why idle chattering is not conducive is with whatever you say the other person likes it or dislikes it reacting with craving or aversion. Also it creates verbal fabrications. And makes your mind distracted, than concentrated.

So limit conversation to what is important. Try to maintain equanimity towards sesations when talking also.