Iconography in Buddhism - from the Greeks? And why isn't the Buddha bald? When you read or hear about Gotama leaving his home and family, the story is usually something like "he shaved his face and head and went out to be a wandering monk". But very few depictions of the Buddha (perhaps apart from the laughing, fat buddha) is of a bald man. Why is that?

I've also heard, but don't remember the source, that in early times there was no iconography in Buddhism. As far as I remember hearing, depictions of the Buddha did not appear for many hundreds of years. Actually I've heard that the iconography of Buddhism actually comes from the Greek,,that the first to make icons of the Buddha were Greeks living in India.

There's obviously a lot of variations over time and between traditions. But can anyone give me some  information, and sources about Greek influences on  Buddhist iconography? Also I wonder why Buddha almost always is depicted with hair?

About the Statue called Laughing Buddha...

The Statue called Laughing Buddha is not Lord Buddha or any Buddha. He is some local divine figure in some culture in the east and this statue is misunderstood as a Buddha because it has a name that sounds a lot like Buddha. It's correct pronunciation should be like this or something close - Laughing Budhai

About the Greek connection...

The statues were not made by the Asian artists because of respect and the fear of their creation being not god enough, This should go withot saying Gauthama Buddha was considered the most charming person in India and people even became monks just to see Buddha's beauty.

As the story goes the appearance was unique and it was not alike with any other person (But as the suttas say only The great arahant kashyapa looked a bit like Lord Buddha). With the scientific knowledge we have today we can say the DNA structure of a Lord Buddha is either unique or a complete anomaly.

A king called Kanishka who ruled a certain part of India took a Greek wife and with her came a lot of people as it was a tradition to send skilled people as gifts with princesses who marry to countries abroad.

At the time Buddhists had many other depiction of Lord Buddha to worship Like the "Anandha Bodhi" - Video and Lotus carvings on rock pallets.

The princess questioned the king Kanishka why there is no statue of Lord Buddha in his kingdom and the king explained why. So she ordered her people to create a statue and with time finally Asian artists came up with their designs.

Why Buddha is not bald and what was the appearance of Gauthama sage?

When Prince Gauthama started his journey he used his sword to cut his hair. But later on even though Lord Buddha advised monks to shave the hair there is no mentioning about Lord Buddha shaving hair. This should go with the special look all the Lord Buddhas shared "The hair with very small curves." A lord Buddha never appears without hair and the unique hair is sign for others to know who it is.


Are there meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills? I meditate daily, for around 30 minutes or so, I have been on and off for the last few yew years. I only ever do a simple breathing meditation and I find it tends to make my mind smoother and more relaxed (compared to days I do not sit). I am also in the process of becoming a mathematician (hopefully completing my PhD in the next few months). Before embarking on my PhD I worked in IT as a developer/support manager, so my work has always been fairly cerebral. Given this context, I was wondering - are there particular types of meditation that specifically improve mental ability ? I know one of the obvious answers is that solving a problem in pure math is really a form of meditation, and I should probably just continue with the daily grind. I'm hoping for a bit more though. Thanks

I am not aware of any meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills. However (although I am not an academic), I have found, in my experience, the more clear & calm the mind is, the better my logic & problem solving skills.


What is Tantric Theravadan Buddhism? I read somewhere that there are a number of Tantric Theravadan Buddhists practicing in Cambodia. What is Tantric Theravda and what are it's distinguishing practices? Can it be said to be a vajrayana practice? Does it use visualisations practices and if so what sort of things are visualised? How is it different to non-tantric Therevadan practice?

This particular tradition of practice is actually not based on Vajrayana practice, but is more of a mixture of traditional Theravada meditation with Hindu Tantra, not Buddhist Tantra, so there isn't any deity yoga, but is instead based on generating a nimitta made of light and then moving it around within one's body.


The eternal universe As far as I know, in Buddhism and Hinduism, the universe has birth and death, like the time of life. However, in Buddhism, as well as other Eastern religions, there are a lot of schools and movements.

Is there such a school (in Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism), which would teach that the Universe exists forever, is never born and never dies? Some names, links, concepts would be fine...

Universe is a concept. Concepts are permanent but they have no footing in reality. They exist only in the imagination. If by universe you mean the 'All', this is what the Buddha said about the 'All':

Sabba Sutta: The All (SN 35.23)
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."


Is it true that enlightenment is equivalent with perfect knowledge? It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have four immeasurables, you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta Aṅgulimāla. The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge, and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out.

The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means.

However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion, and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering.

Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve mindfulness or practice eightfold path).

Is this correct?

In buddhism, Enlightenment is the "direct knowledge" about suffering, the origin, the cessation https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

the four immeasurables  is just how to get to Brahma world, like here https://suttacentral.net/mn99/en/sujato  so it is not Enlightenment. When you claim that the four immeasurables  is Enlightenment you are a hindu and that's totally wrong in buddhism.

So you are mixing hinduism and buddhism. In hinduism the path to nibanna is to generate merits over and over, same thing with the jains. They have to burn up past bad karma and create lots of good karma..
But that's very wrong view.

In buddhism generating merit is useless to get enlightened. Merit gets you a good birth and that's all. In buddhism you need to know about suffering, the origin, the cessation and the path to the cessation of suffering.
So do not confuse the path of merit, the path of Enlightenment and Enlightenment itself.


Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings? I know it is very common these days to associate Chakras with Buddhist meditation, but I couldn't find anything that supports that in the suttas. (I haven't read all suttas)

Did the Buddha himself taught about Chakras or has it been incorporated later in some parts of the world?

There is nothing supernatural about chakras. They are psychosomatic phenomena; they exist only in the subjective world of a person. That's why you can't photograph a chakra, or measure its "field intensity" with some kind of device.

If you inspect your subtle tactile perceptions, you will surely notice feelings in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. Subjectively, these feelings are not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it.  They are not produced by a contact with an external object, and they are not as sharp as itching or pain. What are they then?

Chakras are somatic projections of our emotional state onto the internal map of the body. They are indicators of what goes on inside our brains, below the threshold of awareness. Some of the emotions most often accompanied by chakra sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness.

In Chinese Mahayana, Buddhism is often taught in combination with Tai-Chi, Qi-Gong, and other forms of "energy management" exercises focused on developing one's psychosomatic skills. The Chinese (also Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) recognize three main chakras: lower dantian (lower abdomen), middle dantian (chest) and upper dantian (head). The Indians  recognize more chakras, but if you think about it, these are just alternative ways to emphasize some of the most important locations in person's subjective space.

Even though Buddha did not mention chakras directly, his various mindfulness practices are essentially chakra exercises. Specifically, kayagata-sati (mindfulness rooted in the body) involves paying constant attention to feelings around throat, chest, solar plexus, lower abdomen, and feet. Similarly, anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) involves paying attention to the diaphragm, esp. the sensations experienced around the moment when the breath reverses its direction.

But to answer your question directly, no, Buddha of Pali Canon did not speak about chakras, these and other practices (yoga, tantra) were incorporated later, as people realized their affinity with Buddhism's goal and methods.


What do Buddhists think of leather? I understand that vegetarianism goes with Buddhism. But what about leather? Leather car seats, leather handbags, leather this and leather that.

Is there some sutra on the permission to have them, since animals need to be killed to make these products?

Buddhists here (one) think that natural leather is not encouraged but can be tolerated out of necessity.


"Being" or "Existence" in Paticca Samuppada Did Buddha mean the term "being or existence" as used in everyday life or different from those such as co-arising with contact and feeling and attachment ?
In case Buddha meant the latter I believe the meaning of "being or existence" is quite different from the ordinary meaning.
"Being or existence" is not something staying for 30 or 80 years but reborn every moment you become craved on sensual phenomenon.

From the explanations I've seen/heard in Mahayana context, and also etymologically, the word "bhava" means "a state of (personal) existence",  "being something or someone", "being in a certain configuration or position", "having a specific form/manner of existence" - something like this. The connotation is not just "being", it is a particular manner or configuration of being, and thinking that that configuration is you.

Of course, this can happen both on a long-term, as well as on the moment-by-moment scale. Being someone is the mind of grasping onto a particular idea of self, identifying with a particular form - which can be something large-scale, like thinking one is a Buddhist - or something small-scale like getting frustrated when you unexpectedly slip going down a stair. One common theme is getting used to a particular way things are, expecting that they will go according to plan, and holding on to that idea even as things go in a different direction. These are the symptoms of bhava - "being something", "identifying with something".

My teacher always said (paraphrasing): you must stop being someone, get rid of all these ideas that you are this or that. You must have no idea who the hell you are. Once you have no such idea, you are free, because there is no you. That is cessation of bhava.


The terror tragedy in France in Buddhist light How can the horrible and tragic events in France be seen from a Buddhist perspective? Can the global situation with fanatical terrorism be analyzed in terms of the Buddhist theory of human mind? Can we as the global society do anything to heal the divide?

I'm sorry I'm posting this 100% opinion-based question. Normally, questions about current events are considered off-topic and would be closed. But I feel that we as Buddhists and as humans can't be silent, can't ignore this tragedy and pretend that nothing happened. Please share your thoughts and opinions.

My deepest condolences to everyone affected by the tragedy. My best thoughts are with you.

I saw the "breaking news" on BBC news web site last night.

Today they are still using the heavy black border around the headline which they reserve for grave calamity.

The sight (and formatting) of this headline is shocking to see, full-screen: it turns my stomach somehow.

There is nothing else in the news headlines, at the moment, it occupies every news slot:

I remember the TV news reporting the 9/11 attacks in New York. Two or three weeks later the TV was still replaying or showing the same photos of the infamous footage, and I switched off the TV news and I haven't watched American TV since then.
The subsequent invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the willing (not to mention the invasion of Afghanistan) seems to me related to that kind of propaganda.

With respect and assuming you want to know the world news, I invite you to contrast the 130 dead in Paris with the number (hundreds of thousands) of people killed and homeless in (for example) Syria.

My specific suggestions are:

Be aware that something like this (i.e. people being shot) happens often in the world, presumably daily, although not where you are and not reported in the news you usually consume
Beware that news is emotionally sensational, with dramatic introductory music (even if if it's only a drum-beat), a hurried/worried/concerned tone of voice from the people reading the news, etc. ... and beware that those emotions, and/or what you call "memes", may be infectious.
Beware of the reaction to respond to violence with violence, fear, anger, revenge, e.g. go to war "to prevent further war" or something like that ... that might not be a good idea! The Dhammapada suggests that,

  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

We (most people) are probably not directly affected by these events (but we may be affected by news of the events). Isn't this partly a matter of "guarding the sense doors" which Buddhists have a habit of doing already?
If it does affect you personally (if you are at the scene of a shooting) historically one of the ways in which Pacifists serve in war-time is as "stretcher-bearers".

The French have a word "affoler" which literally/etymologically means "to make crazy". Here are some definitions of it from the 'net:

  (transitive) to madden, drive crazy (under the effects of a strong emotion)
  (transitive) to terrify, frighten, scare
  (intransitive) to run like crazy, leg it
  (reflexive) to go crazy, go bonkers

Or from Larousse,

To provoke great anxiety
To provoke emotional disorder

Avoiding this kind of "folly" within yourself might be a good beginning.


Where and what to study - Buddhist compassion and business communication I have a background in business studies and communication. I believe that what the Buddha taught about how we should communicate with each other compassionately can change the business world. I want to be able to do a PHD on this topic so that I can spread this concept for the benefit of everyone working in business organisations. However.I have looked at several PHD programs on buddhist studies around the world and most of them ask for bachlor and master in buddhist studies and knowledge of atleast one root language. I do not have any of these. Does anyone know what I can study or where I can explore this idea ?

You can find info on Buddhist Studies in the USA here and info on Buddhist Studies in the UK here.

However, it is likely that the kind of research topic that you're considering, would be more acceptable in Business faculties rather than Buddhist Studies faculties. You probably need to find a doctoral supervisor who would be interested.

Searching "Buddhist business workplace" on Google Scholar, I found this paper:

  Marques, J. (2010). Toward greater consciousness in the 21st century
  workplace: How Buddhist practices fit in. Journal of business ethics,
  92(2), 211-225.

Its abstract:

  The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of
  Buddhist practices in today’s workplaces. The findings were supported
  by interviews with Buddhist masters and Buddhist business
  practitioners, as well as literature review, through phenomenological
  analysis. As a means of presenting the main reasons why Buddhist
  practices should be considered in contemporary workplaces, a SWOT
  analysis is presented. In this analysis, a number of strengths for
  using Buddhist practices in workplaces are listed such as
  pro-scientific, greater personal responsibility, and healthy
  detachment, while potential weaknesses such as non-harming,
  equanimity, and no competition are also reviewed. Both the strengths
  and the weaknesses could be listed in reverse if applied to a
  different extent. Among the opportunities were issues such as
  re-educating the world of business, enhancing personal ownership and a
  healthier society, while the threats comprised issues such as creating
  different imbalances, disinterest, and stationary development.

Based on this, I think Prof. Joan Marques of Woodbury University's School of Business, might be a good choice for a doctoral supervisor. You can find a list of her other publications on her Google Scholar profile page.

You can search for more relevant papers on Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Knowledge, and the authors of those papers may make suitable research supervisors.


Anti-natalist overtones in Buddhism Buddhism has anti-natalist overtones according to the writings of Hari Singh Gour below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

  Buddha states his propositions in the pedantic style of his age. He throws them into a form of sorites; but, as such, it is logically faulty and all he wishes to convey is this: Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death.

How does this view of the Buddha reconcile with the fact that the Buddha had a son named Rahul?

While the Buddha later taught procreation of children can be burdensome & confining, thus previously calling his son "Rahula", this is unrelated to ending suffering.

Keep in mind, when unenlightened Gotama (not yet a Buddha) had a son, Gotama was not yet a Buddha. He was not enlightened. Therefore, Gotama calling his son "Rahula" was not related to being a Buddha.

Like most people, Hari Singh Gour did not understand Buddhism, which is shameful for a highly educated Indian.

In India, today, as always, the word "jati" does not necessarily mean "physical birth" or "procreation". I expect Hari Singh Gour should have understood this.

The Buddha taught suffering ends by ending "jati" ("self & social identity"). When there is no conceiving of "identity", there is no reference point for the conceiving of "aging & death".

When the mind suffers about aging & death, it does not suffer over the aging & death of a physical body or corpse. Instead, the mind suffers over the loss an "identity" or "jati", such as "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my daughter", "my son", "my friend", "my computer", "my wealth", etc.

Please read the Pali sutta paragraphs below and try to understand:

  Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? When the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’

  MN 140

  And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
  subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

  And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

  MN 26

If you struggle to understand MN 26, then SN 12.66 clearly says the cause of aging & death is acquisition (upadhi) or attachment. SN 12.66 does not mention "birth" ("jati"; apart from a general meaning of "cause" or "jatika"), as follows:

  Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores
  thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world
  headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what
  is its origin, from what is it born (jātika) and produced? When what exists
  does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
  aging-and-death not come to be?’

  As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
  suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born (jātika) and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
  aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
  aging-and-death does not come to be.’

  SN 12.66


Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"? Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"?
I'm asking because I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.
Because that's how I'm thinking about the rebirth doctrine, for now.

I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.

In the oldest texts mn43, it says that what one perceives that one also feels & cognizes. That which is spoken of as perception can be explained as something cognized by that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.
Creation, feeling, consciousness, perception are thought of as conjoined by Theravada.
Therefore the way you express it, i think would not be agreeable with the sutta expression.
It seems as you would separate consciousness from perception not by context but in a way that one can come before the other. If this is so then imho it is disagreeable in meaning as well as expression.
Consciousness is to be understood and intellect is to be developed.
The semantics of how you hold the doctrine in mind are very important to get right. If this doesn't occur then it is like a mistake in forming an algebraic equation. The term mind is to be thought of principally unlike anything else much like multiplying two negatives is a pretty unique principal seen by intellect so the function of mind is much more difficult to see and is to be comprehended for the doctrine to be properly carried.
It is said in the Sutta: 'it arises as one thing and ceases as another', 'it preceeds all things, all things are mind made', it is called 'the world' because it is that in the world which perceives & conceives the world.
Consciousness is a general term which is thought to include past, present & future instances of such or such consciousness thought to be coming into play as one thing and ceasing as another.
One can't think about consciousness as something in time. It is like the philosophy of measuring the position of an electron, it is not something you can observe as being here or there because that which is thought of as an electron is principally such that will have moved by the time you perceive it's location. With consciousness you likewise infer it's demonstrable coming into play and only think about it's function. You will see then that it's semantically tied up with conception & perception of all kind.

Hidden is the mind


Impermanence: How do we know when a thing ends or if it's just changing? It seems to be a big deal that we see things as they are. If we are merely assuming when things begin and end or change then how do we ever really see things as they are?

Great question.

From Mahayana perspective "things" do not "end", nor do they "change" - because separate self-identical things are imputations of the mind. In reality things do not have firm spatial and temporal boundaries. Things do not by themselves have identities that stay unchanged throughout their lifecycle, allowing us to designate it as "still the same thing, just changed a little". These identities are chosen by us. So to speak of any "thing", "ending", "changing but still staying itself" - is a simplification. Ontological reality has nothing like that, it is totally up to observers to define "things" in space and time.

How do we "see things as they are" then? We see them with our "wisdom eye" (wink wink).

We remind to ourselves that what we see is not all there's to it, until we are used to seeing it all. For a trivial example, when someone dies, we say: it only looks like this person ended, but that is not true - there are children, books, students, flowers, social influence - whatever imprints they left on the world - it lives on.

When we practice this enough we get in the habit of seeing "energies", "influences", "connections", "processes" behind things. We no longer see separate things, we see the matrix - and that's called "seeing things as they are".

From Mahayana perspective, this is the real nature of Impermanence: everything is continuously in flux, but the mind grasps after "entities" that it itself designates, and then gets upset when these imputed entities morph beyond recognition, like the cloud figures.


Beginner Buddhist Breathing? Buddhists, I am told, value the practice of paying attention to breathing. I think I'm going to give it a try while I go about my day ... it can't hurt.  What are the benefits?  Are there beginner guidelines to follow?
I intend no insult, so forgive my ignorance please.

In my opinion (and there are definitely different schools of thought here), the significance of this practice derives from the fact that breathing is the most direct connection between our normal rational mind and our emotional/subconscious/somatic mind. Breath is also on the intersection between our willful acting and our spontaneous being, since we can both control it OR leave it running on autopilot. This puts it in a key position as far as integration between our different sides or levels of mind. Also, there is a peculiar connection between our free-floating association process, our inner dialogue, and our breathing. I can't quite put it in words, but they seem to be functionally connected.

Just casually watching the breathing expands one's awareness to include that which is usually left out. This allows for an information exchange between the levels and serves to the benefit of all sides. It definitely allows one to get significantly less carried away by the affects, and over time leads to a more "grounded"/"balanced" overall disposition.

Practiced as a form of meditation, deep focus on breathing, when done right, provides direct access to non-conceptual mind. This enables discovery and processing of old unconscious traumatizing experience that might have stiffened and became a source of stereotypical pathological automatic reactions and stress.

Most South Asian Buddhist teachers recommend focusing attention on or around nose (the breathing sensations on nostrils or the upper lip). Instead, following my (Korean) teacher's recommendation to focus on the movement of abdomen, I came to appreciate the diaphragm as my perfect focal point. That's what I watch when I do formal sitting meditation - and when I just move around I'm in the habit of watching my overall breathing system, the entire state of all muscles participating in breathing - from abdomen, to diaphragm, to ribs, chest, and shoulders. As my practice progressed, I learned to expand attention to also include limbs, posture, and the muscles of face. Developing this overall awareness of the body (I believe) is what Buddha called "kayagata-sati" and is highly recommended.

I can't think of any specific guidelines other than this:

Do not blame yourself if you keep forgetting. This is not just a casual remark! Blaming yourself in connection with any meditation practice, formal or casual, including mindfulness of breathing, leads to aversion towards the practice, so it ends up being very counterproductive. Don't do that. Be kind to yourself, like you would be to a very young child.
Try to find a sense of how mindfulness of breathing is not something external you impose upon yourself, but rather how it allows you to stay in contact with your "private self" and therefore to remain more yourself. It should feel more comfortable to remain in touch with your breathing (and therefore with your emotional side) - than to lose that connection. It should be a very healthy feeling.
There is no need to artificially control your breathing, or to relax it - but you may naturally start making more sighs and the frequency and amplitude of breathing may start reducing by itself. You may find yourself suddenly becoming aware of and relaxing your shoulders and other muscles that you used to keep tense. That's a good sign - but you don't have to contrive it on purpose.

That's all I could think of, based on my own practice and the instructions I received from my teacher. Hope it helps.


Is the beginning of coming into birth described in the twelve nidanas? The Twelve Nidanas state the cause for coming into birth.

Suppose we take a look at a being with the name Robert.

If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came into his first birth?

As I see it, the twelve nidanas state that the cause Robert came into his first birth was because he started doing volitional activities because of his ignorance. The first time he did a volitional activity he basically stepped in the circle of the twelve nidanas and destined himself to "never ending" births and deaths. Is this correct?

If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert
  has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came
  into his first birth?

There is no first birth. Samsara is beginningless. But you can end it. Robert is a concept. There's no Robert existing in reality even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life.


Nature of Integrity in Buddhism Following an answer I received previously, I wonder a question I deem somewhat important:

If a person preaches ideas or advice related to the dharma, but fails to live by those values, is this person lying? If not, is there still a consequence in terms of the person's mind, perhaps integrity?

This is not lying unless you pretend or say you follow the advice.

Dhamma practice is a gradual exercise hence one does not become perfect at once but it is a matter of putting int the effort to increase one's perfection:

cultivate what is wholesome which one does not already do
increase what is wholesome which one already does
abandone what is unwholesome which one already does
prevent the arsing of what is unwholesome which one does not already do


Is there a list of (all the) Suttas that mention supranormal powers? I know there are the miracles of the historical Buddha and the Samannaphala Sutta, but is there a comprehensive list of Suttas that mention supranormal power(s)?


Are there different factors for access concentration depending on which jhana an individual is entering? I have heard that a practitioner does not go from first jhana directly to second jhana or from second jhana directly to third jhana and so on. Instead, they go through momentary and access concentration to get to first jhana; then they drop out of first jhana and go through momentary and access concentration to get to second jhana and so on. First of all, is this correct, am I totally wrong or is there debate with regards to this?

Secondly, do the factors of access concentration change depending on which jhana someone is trying to enter?

I can only answer first part of your question, i.e. if a meditator returns to access concentration between Jhana-states.
You are correct in that understanding. Here is a quote from the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder, which describes access concentration and that between entering the different Jhana-states the meditator returns to access concentration. Highlights in the quote are made by me:

ACCESS CONCENTRATION
Meditators can eventually attain access concentration using either type of momentary concentration practice—samatha or vipassanā. However, samatha practices are more likely to lead to access concentration because of their more stable nature. Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of the jhāna factors. For most people, a period of intensive practice is required to reach access concentration. In access concentration, the meditative experience becomes smoother, easier, and more pleasant because of this lessening of hindrances and the arising of the powerful and blissful sensations of the jhāna factors. This allows meditators to meditate longer and progress more easily in the practice.
It becomes a positive, self-reinforcing loop.It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator’s continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and “bright.”Most of the practices outlined in this book are samatha practices specifically designed to settle the mind and develop laserlike awareness, leading eventually to full absorption into the jhānas. Examples of samatha practices designed to develop access and absorption concentration are ānāpānasati meditation (as presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw), the kasiṇas, thirty-two-body-parts meditation, skeleton meditation, and the bramavihāras (sublime abidings).
As access concentration develops, but prior to full absorption, it is also easy to confuse access with absorption concentration. In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna. (The differences between access and absorption are described below.) Even after a meditator has experienced full jhāna absorption and begins to move through the practice progression, access concentration continues to be used. With progression to each successive jhāna, the meditator first experiences access concentration as the awareness orients to the new experiences and increases in stability.
-- Practicing The Jhanas, p. 73-75


Boundaries and Buddhism Further to this question Do Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself? Or is the creation of boundaries an obstacle to enlightenment because of its avoidance of future suffering? Are we called to give of ourselves without bounds, even to those without gratitude for our service? How does this apply to emotional, financial, and service to others with our time?

The Pali Canon position (e.g. Sedaka Sutta) is that :

  [Correctly] Looking after oneself, one [implicitly] looks after others.
  [Correctly] Looking after others, one [implicitly] looks after oneself.

The Mahayana position is unquestionably that of service without boundaries.

That said, both the Buddha of Pali Canon and the contemporary Mahayana teachers insist that taking care of oneself is a prerequisite to being able to take care of others. To use a modern analogy, first put the oxygen mask on oneself, and then help the children.


Why I'm feeling hopeless about life? I'm so sorry.
When I born as layman ; I tried to have loving life but it always come with big deal. She leave me undone and she wanted I must change my religion with her (muslim) to get married. I was ready but when she leave me , I just realise how silly I was. Now I'm completely distracted from life like I don't feel having family and I don't think a girl who know about my past will accept my love because she know I was ready for leaving Buddhism. She did asked me "Don't you think this is wrong ?". I want to apologize her and promising "I'll spent my whole life as Buddhism " . I don't know how to get rid off my state of mind ? I'm so sorry.

I guess the reason why you were feeling hopeless is that you were anxious about the past, a memory ... but the past isn't something you can conveniently change.

You were also anxious about the future ... "I don't think a girl who know about my past will accept my love" ... but the future too is something you can't easily change ... it's beyond your control at the moment (for example because it isn't happening yet) and because you can't control it it's easy to feel hopeless (or helpless) about it.

Instead of being "distracted from life" by anxiety about the past and future, maybe the one thing you can affect more easily, one thing you can reach, is the present. You're aware of what you're doing now, how you're thinking now ... maybe you can use Buddhist practices to relieve your suffering now, your present suffering ... maybe in fact that's something you can hope for, i.e. you can hope that Buddhism can help you.

Another reason why you might be feeling helpless is because "I tried to have loving life" -- a lot of people in society want that, but it maybe "hopeless" to depend on someone else loving you (again, because you can't control that).

FYI this answer has some advice on how to choose a marriage partner.

Also, is it true to say that "hope" isn't a big factor in Buddhism? There are things that are like hope, e.g. faith and confidence.

Hope is maybe similar to ignorance, e.g. you 'hope' that something is true when you don't 'know' that something is true. Maybe it's better to concentrate on what's knowable, on what makes sense, rather than trying to hope for what's unknown (and the future is maybe not just unknown but unknowable).

I found (only) a couple of essays by Thanissaro Bhikkhu about "hope". One is All About Change ... which says that it may be stressful to have "hope" in things that are impermanent. It then goes on to describe a search for "the Deathless" via concentration. You said "I born as layman" so, I don't know, maybe you're saying you're not interested in that ... but maybe the essay is worth reading anyway, because it's lucid and includes a question from the Buddha that's worth considering:

  "What, when I do it, will lead to my long-term well-being and happiness?"

Another short essay was a Dhamma talk about The Sublime Attitudes. It includes this quote:

  Notice that the teaching on equanimity is a reflection on the principle of karma. Of the four chants we have for the sublime attitudes, it's the only one that's simply a statement of fact. The others say:

    "May all beings be happy.
    May they be free from stress and pain.
    May they not be deprived of the good fortune they're experiencing."

  The first three are wishes, attitudes, things you would like to see happen. "May... May... May..." The fourth one is simply a reflection on the way things are.

    "All living beings are the owners of their actions, heir to their actions...
    Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir."

  This reflection actually turns up in lots of different contexts. In the five reflections, the reflection on karma is the one that gives hope. You realize that you're in charge of your actions. You're not simply a victim of fate or of the stars or of some other being acting through you. You're the one who's making the choices. That's what gives you hope.

I guess the difference is that you can be hopeful about what you do (instead of trying to depend on someone else).


Was buddha aware of future or future way of living? I need a suggestion. I raised up as an aspirant on my side. As per my family (attached people) i was a sign of glory to them. In India, i did completed my education with good grades. I started my career on a positive note. 3 years back i was earning 1 lakhs plus every three months. Then i joined psychedelics and also started learning about religion/science related people and their thoughts. I came along buddhism. I managed to buy our own home. Now i am earning less than 1 lakhs a year. My family's financial earning was always like hand to mouth, same is mine now a days. This situation is so bad to us. To me its like i am all negative right now. I want to know 'what is the right way of earning life, when i don't want to hurt anyone else including me 'as i don't like any corporate?

Change in circumstances

This is a fact of life. You have your ups and downs. Worrying or resentment towards the situation will not change it. You have to accept it with grace and then do what is wihtin your control to improve your situation.

Use of psychedelics

This interferes with your mindfulness. So best is to sop using them. If it is difficult perhaps you can use professional help. This might also help in solving your changed circumstances.

Right way to earn a living

The right way to earn a living is a way which does not harm yourself or others and have a moral basis. Avoid ways to earn a living without lies, deceit, killing, debauchery, etc.


Six Senses and Four elements The six senses are arises from NamaRupa in PaticcaSamuppada. NamaRupa paccaya Salayathana. So basically all 6 senses are a combination of Mentality(Nama) and Form (Rupa - which is a combination of the four great elements).

How is the mind (6th sense) created from the Form? As in from the 4 elements? Is it created from unseen molecular level 4 elements?

Is it somewhat similar to Light? Where light was considered as an energy but later it was considered as both energy and particles as well?

In case of the mind-sense(the stream of Bhavaangha cittas), the object received by the sense is a thought itself. There's no physical element involved. That's why Arupa beings only have the mind sense.

'Energy' is a concept. There's no such thing according to Buddhism. Even sunlight is said to be containing the pure octad. Anything physical is Rupa and the rest is Nama.


What are the Pali or Sanskrit words for these things? I think I know some of these, but the rest are a translation muddle. The west seems to not attempt to translate nirvana, sangha, dharma, mantra, mudra, buddha, bodhisattva (and probably a few more) and that for me is actually helpful. I expect that some of these correspond to multiple Pali/Sanskrit words.

Enlightenment. In English, it is an anachronistic reference to the European age of Enlightenment.

Meditation. This word predates the west's contact with Buddhism. I have no idea what non-Buddhist baggage it brings along.

Loving-kindness. This sounds like Christianity projected on Buddhism.

Soul. Seems like this is atman, but everyone seems determined to call it something like "self," which is for a man-in-the-street just a reflexive pronoun. (Does the self exist? Well, as much as any other pronoun, like "he" or "they")

Reincarnation/rebirth. Synonyms in man-in-the-street's English, but I've seen people argue passionately how Buddhism believes one but not the other, sort of like believing in leasing but not renting (which are synonyms).

Repentance. I know for sure this is a big deal in Chinese Buddhism.

Pure/Purity. Means scrubbed clean of earthly dirt. I know this is a metaphor, but somehow, after 2000 years it falls as flat as if I tried to use a computer metaphor to explain to a 500BC farmer how the brain and cellular DNA works.

Heaven/Pure Land.  Sukhāvatī comes to mind, but I'm not sure if this is a specific pure land, or the jargon for pure lands in general. Again, 'pure' makes it sound either homogenous or really well scrubbed, like a hospital. I'd rather just use whatever jargon word the originators used.

Deity. This in man-in-the-street English mean a god, or God, just like the one's the Christian's pray to. In Vajrayana, people seem to argue that yidams are something else.

There are many synonyms to the words given in the table. Only mentioning some of the popular words.


We need to remove fear. But mothers fear for their kids? If I have no expectation, I can't feel fear. I can't be afraid of dying. Yet, when I fall off a bike, isn't it fear that protects me from dying? Mothers also often worry about their kids. Are they weak for doing so?

In Buddhism, there are different kinds of fear or 'good fear' & 'bad fear'.

Bad fear is fearing what should not be feared (e.g. afraid of dying when you are old or terminally ill or fearing what other people think about you).

Good fear called 'ottappa' is fearing what should be feared; such as fearing doing bad actions that will bring a bad results (for example, fearing addiction to drugs).

The Dhammapada states:

  317. Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.


Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction I read the question/answers on mindfulness of feelings and emotions. When I am meditating on the breath unpleasant body feelings arise and they are noted. (Example: A wave of fear permeating the body.  Not long after the fact, I realize that those unpleasant body feelings were a result of a thought. So, I get caught up in trying to label it correctly. I.e. Is it a body unpleasant feeling or a mind unpleasant feeling? This creates more anxiety and doubt. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you

Even though I cannot help explain the first part of your question, for sure I can help you reduce the anxiety and doubt that arises in meditation. What I give below is only one small part of the many things that you can do to overcome this feeling. Please try the following and see….
Impermanence of Breath

Anapanasati is something that should be developed and pursued mindfully and discerningly. Now, he trains himself to breathe in focusing on impermanence, and to breathe out focusing on impermanence. Purity of mind has been achieved through the elimination of the hindrances (nivarana). His effort, mindfulness and concentration are now being directed towards focusing on impermanence. He is contemplating on impermanence within anapanasati. He can see the impermanent nature of his own breath in its rise and fall; the impermanence of his body; and the impermanent nature of the pleasant feeling and perception that he experienced.

Impermanence of Body

What has he seen in the body? What does this body consist of? This physical body contains and comprises the four great elements, which are known as: solidity/earth (pathavi), fluidity/water (apo), heat or temperature (tejo) and air (vayo). We generally use the word rupa (material form) to denote the body. When he is breathing in and out, he is focusing on impermanence of material form which is derived from the four great elements.

Impermanence of Feeling

Thereafter, he is focusing on feelings. Dependent on contact, feeling arises. What is contact? Contact is the coming together of three things. For example, eye, form and eye-consciousness come together, and it is their convergence, that is called contact. Similarly, with ear and sounds, nose and smells, and so on, through to mind and mental-objects.

In this instance, when body, tangible object and consciousness come together, there arises contact. With the arising of contact, simultaneously, there arises feeling (vedana) – feeling born of body contact. Since feeling is conditioned by contact, feeling differs in accordance with the change of contact. This way, he contemplates on the impermanence of feeling.

Impermanence of Perception

Then, there is the recognition of perception. This is called sañña (perception) which is also subject to change as it is conditioned by contact. Perception changes due to impermanence of contact.

Impermanence of Formations

Perception is followed by sankhara (mental formations). If the mental factor was directed to a certain matter, on that occasion there is volitional activity, and this is called sankhara. Here, he observes the impermanence of the mental formation with the change of contact. All these are based on the activities of the mind.

Now he understands every aspect in this life process which was considered as self (form, feeling, perception and formation); or anything pertaining to a self. He has real wisdom to see things as they really are. One may contemplate on impermanence saying “anicca, anicca” continuously, but still be holding onto the notion of “I am” or “mine”. To avoid this, it is important to realize the impermanent, no-self nature in inhalation-exhalation and in any other external object.

Impermanence of Consciousness

Finally, he sees the impermanent nature of all that has been cognized (the rise and fall of breath, rapture, joy, feelings, and perceptions). It is through this insight that the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging is understood and seen in the light of impermanence:

material form (rupa) derived from the four great elements,
feeling (vedana) that is conditioned by contact,
perception (sañña) that is conditioned by contact,
mental formations (sankhara) that is conditioned by contact, and
consciousness (viññana) that is conditioned by mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)

Being fully concentrated on anapanasati, he now dwells ardent, with full awareness, and clear comprehension of impermanence. With the base of this awareness, established in anicca (impermanence), he develops an understanding of his own life, the impermanent nature of others who breathe and live, and the impermanent nature of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness (the five aggregates of clinging).

Thus, he observes the impermanent characteristic of phenomenal existence, internally and externally. He does not see a difference in him and the outer world. He sees the characteristic of phenomenal existence as subject to cause and effect. Now he is gaining knowledge, and his comprehension is increasing. He sees things as they really are, in whatever material form: whether past, present or future, far or near, external or internal. He sees the impermanence even of the rapture and pleasure that he is experiencing in breathing mindfully. Now, based on the impermanent breath, he understands the impermanent nature of the five aggregates of clinging.

He realizes that whatever is impermanent and subject to change, is suffering (dukkha). And, whatever is impermanent is without self (anatta). It is through this insight that the true nature of the aggregates is clearly seen; in the light of three signs (ti-lakkhana): impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and without self (anatta).

He sees the impermanent, suffering and no-self nature of all conditioned and component things. As a result, he knows there is no “I”, no self, or anything pertaining to a self. When he trains himself to breathe in and out focusing on impermanence, he understands that anything taken as ‘mine’ is impermanent; anything taken as ‘I am’ is impermanent; and anything that is taken as ‘my self’ is impermanent. He realizes that whatever is impermanent, is without self. That which is without self, is not ‘mine’, not ‘I am’, and is not ‘my self’. Thus he sees everything as it really is – with wisdom.


Sathipathanna mindfulness and Jhana how to do them correctly 1) It is said that doing the technique that Mahasi  Sayadaw talks about we can attain awakening. If you know anything about this technique how is it to be done and can it take us to Nibbana.

2) Question number 2:  could you describe the sathipathanas and Jhanas and how I should train them. Especially when I hear about Jhanas on youtube it seems something mystical that we normal people cannot attain. Thank you Dhamma brothers.

The way to develop Satipattana and Jhana is described below:

When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:
“I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing [contemplating] < body | feeling | mind | dhamma > the in the < body | feeling | mind | dhamma >,
removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”
Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.
When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,
THE 1ST DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;
THE 2ND DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi with zest;
THE 3RD DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;
should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;
THE 4TH DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta (Desita) Dhamma Sutta
Jhana is not that difficult if you have the proper guidance.
For Mahaisi method see this answer.


Were the oldest Buddhists evangelical? Between the time of the historical Buddha and state support by emperor Ashoka, were Buddhist monks evangelical?

In other words, did Buddhism spread through enthusiastic recruitment by the sangha, or did it spread more due to state support or something else?

Background
This personally occurred to me after living a life as a crypto-Buddhist. There were not many Buddhists around me and no one knew I was a Buddhist. This is despite nominally believing in the Bodhisattva vow, which to my ears, sounds rather evangelical.

I'm trying this question out on Stack Exchange to see if it fares better than it did on a forum, where pretty much people only could agree that they really didn't like Christians knocking at the door and that just about any form of promoting the Dharma to someone not already inclined towards Buddhism (or possibly already a self identifying Buddhist) was a grave violation of respect for autonomy, i.e. forcing one's religion on someone else. And that sentiment sounds like the value system of contemporary ex-Christians in the US more than whatever the earliest Buddhists might have thought.

"Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way. Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter." ~ Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka."

I'd imagine it spread much the same way as other religions. In many cultural centers of the ancient world you would have places where multiple beliefs congregated to talk to those who walked by about their faith.

Imagine going to the mall today and in center court you had a Christian,  Hindu, Buddhist,  Jewish, Muslim, and taoist all speaking of their doctrines?

You get a glimpse in the Kalama sutta of the time of the Buddha being one where teachers and traditions were numerous and they wandered about teaching their doctrines.

"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

So it is obvious that Buddhism was spread much the same way as other traditions in ancient times.  What makes Buddhism mostly different is that there are almost no examples of buddhism involving forced conversation.

There is no doubt that king Asoka did for Buddhism what King Constantine did for Christianity hundreds of years later.  Once it became a religion of the dominant Kingdom its spread was assured as it went from one of many doctrines to the official state doctrine.


How does rebirth work for arahant and non-arahants? I read in a sutta a few days ago (I can't remember the exactly where) that the question of rebirth after parinibbana is not a valid one, because there was no one to be reborn.

But if anatta is valid not just for arahants, but for all conditioned phenomena as well, does that mean that rebirth is also not applicable for non-arahants either?

Thanks for your time!

Indeed puthujjanas knows that it makes no sense to ask where a fire go once it is put out, unless those puthujjana managed to create a fantasy where they deify fire..., so the buddha says that It makes zero senses to ask where an arhant goes, or if an arhant exists after parinibbana, by creating a parallel between fire and craving (or fire and existence).
Same thing about the stupidity of trying to figure the non-existence of a buddha.

It is craving that is the path to vedana, the 5 aggregates, birth, dukkha and all that stuff, so once there is no craving, well there is nothing left and there cannot be birth again.


What word is the closest to qualia I think I get what qualia means, intuitively at least:

  Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers
  over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to
  see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I
  am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective
  character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state,
  some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term
  ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively
  accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives.

In Buddhism what is the word for this "introspectively accessible" aspect of "what it is like"?

Is the term just "phenomena" or is there some other more subtle translation, like "awareness"?

I don't think there is any single word that's cleanly equivalent to qualia, but there are some that approach the idea from different angles.

  sabhāva-dhamma: Condition of nature; any phenomenon, event, property, or quality as experienced in and of itself.

sabhāva by itself means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It describes the intrinsic nature or essence of living beings.

  dhamma: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself.

dhamma by itself can describe a kind of mental quality or quality of thought.

  mūla: Literally, "root." The fundamental conditions in the mind that determine the moral quality — skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) — of one's intentional actions (see kamma). The three unskillful roots are lobha (greed), dosa (aversion), and moha (delusion); the skillful roots are their opposites. See kilesa (defilements).

mūla describes the root of our actions; the quality of our intention behind them.

sabhāva-dhamma and dhamma probably come closest, while mūla carries the same concept but applies it very specifically to the mental root of action.


How to let go of doubt? I have a question which has probably been answered before, but I'm unable to find it. Sorry about that. My mind is unfortunately very logically driven. My question is, is doubt removed after making progress, or is it up to me to remove the doubt? I want to not doubt, but I cannot help to doubt. I practice meditation often and a common thought is "am I wasting my time?" I know I am not, but the thought still arises. Do I just accept the doubtful thoughts, or do I try and transform them?
Many thanks!

If assailed by doubt during meditation, the solution is to first receive clear instructions for meditation, then later during meditation, to let go and have complete trust in the process.
Please see the section on doubt from the essay "The Five Hindrances" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
"Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
"How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
trust in the driver.


The "cow-keeper"-story? My person remembers a possible common know story about a Brahman collecting as much as possible cow's leading to sorrows for poor. The Sublime Buddha approached him one day, gave a talk and later he released the cows.
It might be that's just a later tale not found in the scripts, my person just does not remember where having been come across aside in an illustrated "Children"-book.
Good if one likes to share messages on livelihood.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

The following is somewhat like the posted question, but not exactly:

SN35.241:7.4: Sir, may I receive the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence?”

SN35.241:7.5: “Well then, Nanda, return the cows to their owners.”

SN35.241:7.6: “Sir, the cows will go back by themselves, since they love their calves.”

SN35.241:7.7: “Still, Nanda, you should return them to their owners.”

Here the Buddha emphasizes ethics in our relationships with others. The Noble Path starts with Right View.


I was wondering about deep meditation and out of body experiences I am very sick and as such I have tried meditating a lot, and reading about the heart mantra, as far as studying meditation. When I was meditating I was going into a trance like state for about 3-4 hours, my first question was, is 3-4 hours, deep meditation or beginners meditation? My second  question was, in at least one trance state I suddenly looked down and saw myself sitting, I was out of my body,
I tried to look around and I saw what I can only describe as many beautiful places/doors, Could this be any beginning to becoming realized, maybe a step in the right direction or not? Please excuse me if these questions are stupid.

I suddenly looked down and saw myself sitting, I was out of my body, I
  tried to look around and I saw what I can only describe as many beautiful places/doors

This is an effect of certain Samatha meditations. It is called out of body experience. I remember reading something similar in a book by venerable Ananda Maithriya thero. He would start the meditation(Samatha) while lying on the bed and after sometime he'd be standing next to the bed looking at his body.

At one time he wandered out of the room and started exploring. Then he came to a gate/door that was guarded by a huge demon like figure. It told him something like "What are you doing here? Go back!". So he went back to the body. Later he discussed this experience with the head monk of the monastery. The head monk advised the Thero not to do that without proper preparation. Because if something else gets in while you are out, you will be locked out of your own body. People have died trying to do that.

Venerable Yuttadhammo also speaks about a similar experience in this video

  is 3-4 hours, deep meditation or beginners meditation? Could this be any beginning to becoming realized

No, this has nothing to do with Nibbana. You have to do Vipassana meditation for insight knowledge. But being able to sit for 3 hours and focus on one object is good progress in terms of Samatha meditation. Also, having such focus is a good starting point for Vipassana.


What tenets must a person accept to be a Buddhist? I'm curious what minimal tenets a person must accept in order to be considered a Buddhist.

As an example of the type of answer I'm looking for, I'll give you the minimal tenets of Christianity as I know them. A person must...

Accept that there is only one God and that Jesus, his son, walked the Earth for some time in order to be a model for his followers.
Accept Jesus/God as their lord and savior.
Recognize that they are born in a state of sin, and that acceptance of Jesus/God is the one and only way to attain a happy eternal life.

Is there a similar set of statements that can be made about Buddhism?

You just need to take refuge in the Triple Gem sincerely.

Buddham saranam gacchami - I go to the Buddha for refuge.
Dhammam saranam gacchami - I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
Sangham saranam gacchami.- I go to the Sangha for refuge.

Refuge here means spiritual refuge. It doesn't mean you reject medicine for physical ailments like in some Christian sects.

Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem. Those who are Noble Ones will never break with their refuge. But ordinary people, through ignorance, doubt, and wrong knowledge about the special qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, are susceptible to breaking their refuge.

Read more at How to Take the Triple Refuge.


Advices on start practicing I've read an introductory book written by Hsing Yun, about humanistic budhism.

I meditate every day, and now I feel like taking the next step in my journey. I don't know people who practice budhism, and I have many doubts... There is a temple near my city, but I feel a little intimidate by the number of tourists that shows up there, and the only practices that I know of, are paid meditation courses.

How do I start practicing with more people? And who do I look for when I have doubts?

Courses conducted by

http://dhamma.org/
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/

Are done solely on donation basis without commercial interest. It is best to take such a course as there will be lesser distraction including people.

There are multiple centres worldwide and has the best out reach. Also you can watch some testimonials and experiences to build some confidence in the technique.

In addition you can try to find a teacher and course through:

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

And also online material on meditation.

But in doing so be careful. Even choosing any online guided meditation instruction see if it adheres to the following principles: Any sensation is unsatisfactory this is the link to understand the 4 Noble Truths and also with sensation, according to dependent origination, arises craving which fuels the vicious cycle which keeps you in misery. If this is missing, you will miss the path and benefits of meditation. Also make sure any instruction in these online retreats are not contrary or tangential to the right view as mentioned in the Samma Ditthi Sutta.

In addition you can try building you knowledge further. Some resources website:

http://dharmafarer.org/
http://www.vridhamma.org/Research-Index
http://www.vridhamma.org/Research
http://www.vridhamma.org/Online-Books-and-Pamphlets
http://www.dhammasukha.org/
http://www.dhammatalks.org/
http://www.dhammatalks.net/
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/Library.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
http://www.abhidhamma.com/
https://suttacentral.net/

Also another beginner to intermediate book that might be of help to further your knowledge might be: In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi


Importance of making and sharing merit What are the benefits of transferring karmic fruitfulness and how is this done by Buddhists?

Make merit is the core of the buddhist practice and is done by being resolute and practice deeds (through mind, speach and body) of generosity, renunciation and goodwill. This will gradually lead to the decrease of the defilements (greed, ill-will and delusion) and to the maturation of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Sharing of merit is one of the Ten ways of Making Merit because is a expression of goodwill and generosity and is done by inviting others to rejoice in the merits that you have done (which by itself is also a source of merit) or be intended that they do so. In other words, the more you practice merits, the closer you are to Nibbana. If you hold the intetion that others also make merit by rejoicing with your merits, this means that you are resolved in goodwill and generosity (which is right view/right resolve), thus, this is again a souce of merit.

  May all beings  —  without limit, without end  —  have a share in the
  merit just now made,  and in whatever other merit I have made.

  Those who are dear & kind to me  —    beginning with my mother & father
  —     whom I have seen or never seen;     and others, neutral or hostile;

  If they know of my dedication of merit,   may they themselves rejoice,
    And if they do not know,    may the devas inform them.

  By reason of their rejoicing  in my gift of merit,    may all beings
  always live happily,  free from animosity.

  May they attain the Serene State,     and their radiant hopes be
  fulfilled.

  Dedication of Merit


What are the positions of the different schools on a primordial mind? Different Buddhist traditions have some mention of an original, primordial mind of some sort. If there is one, what are its attributes.

Bhavanga, Pabhassara-cita and Nibbana (Theravadin perspective from Ajahn Mun's Thai forest tradition)

To get from bhavanga, pabhassaara to nibbana and understand how kamma effects are stored in the present and transmigrated to the future we have to explore some terms.

What happens in-between times when we are not thinking, when we are in a dreamless sleep? Is there still the arising and falling of consciousness (citta)?

In this tradition there is the bhavanga-citta which arise after the rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi-citta) that form the “life-continuum” in the next existence.

  The 'Visuddhimagga' (XIV, 114) states with regard to the bhavanga-citta:
  When the patisandhi-citta has ceased, then, following on whatever kind of rebirth-consciousness it may be, the same kinds, being the result of the same kamma whatever it may be, occur as bhavanga-cittas with that same object; and again those same kinds. And as long as there is no other kind of arising of consciousness to interrupt the continuity they also go on occurring endlessly in periods of dreamless sleep, etc., like the current of a river.

A bhavanga citta is a vipaka citta (kamma-result), but called bhavanga (literally meaning “factor of life”) because it performs the function of the “life continuum”.

Now we come to the question how is it stored?

Dynamically maintained throughout one life to another is just a postulation with no-doctrinal evidence:

  “.., kamma and vipaka don't get stored into some kind of immutable and centralized "repository", instead they're continuously and dynamically re-inforced or weakened from life to life with the patisandhi citta acting as the "link".”

Now onn how kamma is stored from doctrinal text.

  “Questions about the persistence of latent dispositions and accumulation of karmic potential thus remain: once the cognitive processes are activated, are they transmitted through the six modes of cognitive awareness? If so, why do they not influence these forms of mind? If not, how do they persist from one moment of bhavaṅga-citta to the next without some contiguous conditioning medium? The bhavaṅga-citta does not directly address these persisting questions, adumbrated in the Kathavātthu so many centuries before. Nor, to my knowledge, do subsequent Theravādin Abhidhamma traditions discuss these questions in dhammic terms.”
  - Waldron, William S. Buddhist unconscious: the ālaya-vijñāna in the context of Indian Buddhist thought. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. p.83.

  Rupert Gethin in  'Bhavanga and Rebirth According to the Abhidhamma.' in The Buddhist Forum. Vol III. T. Skorupski and U. Pagel (eds.), London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, pp. 11–35.

  “..it does not seem possible on the basis of what is said explicitly in the texts to justify the claim that the bhavanga carries with it all character traits, memories, habitual tendencies, etc." .

From the above it appears that the Theravada Commentators have resisted the temptation to create mechanism for the "transmission" of kamma, in contrast to other traditions.

Briefly, in the tradition of the Yogacara Buddhist they have a concept of store –consciousness  (alaya-vijnana).

We shall now leave the subject of bhavanga, and how kamma is stored in the consciousness and turn elsewhere for help.

Unable to find any doctrinal support, we shall now turn to the people most qualified to speak on the subject, the meditators, who many believed to have experience the ultimate and have spoken on it and I refer to Ajahn Mun of the Thai forest tradition and he spoke of the luminous mind(pabhassara-citta)

I quote from the above link:

  “The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds. Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.” ..from Ven. Ajahn Mun, ‘A Heart Released,’ p 23. Found in Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Amaro, The Island: An Anthology of the Buddha’s Teachings on Nibbāna, pages 212-213.

In the same link above Pabharassa-citta is identified as bhavanga.

  “The Theravadin Angutta Nikaya Atthakatha identifies the luminous mind as the bhavanga, the "ground of becoming" or "latent dynamic continuum", which is the most fundamental level of mental functioning in the Theravada Abhidhammic scheme.[11] Thanissaro Bhikkhu holds that the commentaries' identification of the luminous mind with the bhavanga is problematic, but Peter Harvey finds it to be a plausible interpretation.
  In Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation of the Pabhassara Sutta he gives his reason in Note 1.

(I’ll refer to Note 1 to it later).
I do not have access to Peter Harvey’s views. But in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta(MN49) translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, there is a description of “'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around” and in his Note no. 9 in MN49 he argues that:

  Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam).. for the arahant, nibbana is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.

That this consciousness is Nibbana!

But yet in his Note 1(which I promise to come back) in Pabhassara Sutta  he says:

  Another interpretation equates the luminosity of the mind with the "consciousness without feature," described as "luminous" in MN49, but this interpretation also has problems. According to MN 49, that consciousness partakes of nothing in the describable world, not even the "Allness of the All," so how could it possibly be defiled? And, because it is not realized until the goal of the practice is reached, why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And again, if "mind" here means consciousness without feature, how could the sutta talk of its development?

Here is Ajahn Sujato's Pabhassara reading that the mind is somehow radiant!

  The beginning of the Sutta has the Buddha (presumably, although it doesn’t actually say so), saying, “This mind is radiant…” The particle “idam”, “this”, functions to limit and specific: This mind, not “the mind” (as in Thanissaro’s translation). As well as the gold/samadhi passages, we might compare to the Upakkilesa Sutta, where the Buddha speaks of how he meditated, then light arose, but because of “defilements” (upakkilesa, the same word as our sutta), the light vanished. The word for light is different (obhasa), but is from the same root with the same basic meaning.

  This is the normal way the Buddha talked about the mind. It is not that it is “naturally” radiant or defiled: it is naturally conditioned. When the conditions for darkness are there, it is dark, when the conditions for light are there, it is light. Our passage, which is unique, without parallels in any early Suttas, syntactically awkward, clearly the subject of editing, can be read as suggesting a different take on things, that the mind is somehow “radiant” even when covered by defilements. Or it can be read in line with the other, more clear suttas.

  In either case, there is no suggestion here that the “radiant mind” be connected with Nibbana. Quite the opposite: the whole point of the sutta is that it can be defiled, so it cannot be Nibbana.

Ajahn Sujato stop short of connecting the "radiant mind" with Nibbana because ..it can be defiled.

The answer is provided by Ajahn Mun’s description:

  “The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds”…. “When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind,..”

So in the Pabhassara sutta  when it is said:

  “Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

  "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

  "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

  "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

Both Ajahn Mun and the Buddha are saying the same thing but Ajahn Mun had clarified that the luminous mind has lost it radiance when it is obscured by defilements and that we have to get rid of the defilements to reach the state of the primal mind (why would we want to go back to the primal mind, only if it is inherently luminous).

The Buddha stated very clearly that whether the mind is defiled or not it is still an inherently luminous mind. (inherently - my addition in light of Ajahn Mun's clarification)

Is an inherently luminous mind therefore the same as "consciousness without feature" i.e. Nibbana?

What Ajahn Mun's has said is that the primeval mind is defiled in the way of being obscured by defilements and not as altered ". What is intrinsically bright cannot be defiled by alteration but can be obscured, ...like the clouds covering the sun.

The inherent luminous mind obscured by defilements is therefore bhavanga.

1) So is the true characteristics of Bhavanga, Pabhassara and Nibbana, the same, "consciousness without feature", except that Bhavanga has defilements obscuring its true nature?

2) Or is Bhavanga and Pabhassara the same, both luminous primodial mind, and different from Nibbana?

3) Or is Pabhassara, a luminous primodial mind with Avijja, not the same as Nibbana, pure awakened mind with vijja and Bhavanga just "emanations" of Pabhassara?

The Thai forest tradition of Ajahn Mun seems to adopts the third view.


What/Who is 'Mara' in Buddhism? Is there any definition for 'Mara' in Buddhism? Islam has a concept called Shayṭān. They explain it as the devil inside a human (Islam explanation). There is something like this in Christianity too. Does Mara represent the bad side of humans or is Mara understood differently in Buddhism?

There are 5 kinds of Maras in Buddhism.

Khandha Māra - The five aggregates of clinging
Kilesa Māra - The defilements
Abhisankhāra Māra - The Karmic force
Maccu Māra - The death itself
Devaputta Māra - The god Mara who leads a faction in the Paranimmita-Vasavatti heaven.


Arahants and suicide I'm aware of a story in the Pali Canon where a monk commited suicide by slitting his throat and achieved arahantship at the moment of death.

Where in the texts can i find this story?

Thank you for your time.

There might be something along those lines in SN 4.23 Godhika Sutta.

Page 85 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained says,

  Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death


Body scanning - right way of attention moving Practice - Mindfulness of body

When I move attention part by part in the body I don't feel sensations in every part . Is this right ? Or should I feel sensations in all body parts ?

Sometimes I do quick sweep of attention from head to feet . I do this at any moment during the day when I remember to be aware of my body .
Would this be helpful for practicing  mindfulness of body ? Or is there any better way of doing this ?

When I do a body scan, I do a visualization of a "golden nectar" slowly filling my body from the toes all the way to the top of my head. This is a way of helping you keep a focus of attention to the body. For me, sometimes as I am doing this technique, there is a sensation of warmth that I feel or think I feel as my attention to the body scan grows.

I hope this also helps a bit during your meditation practice.


Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist I'm intrigued by this concept. Can a Buddhist marry a person from a faith who believe in a God that created the universe?

I've got varying answers from Buddhists, some have advised that religion does not matter as it's personal, others have said it does. However I was also thinking as a marriage it 2 people, and then ramifications from that, be it extended family, children etc. Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people. Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

There is no problem for a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist to enjoy a married life together.

However, the Buddha recommended couples to be in tune in conviction, for best results, in the Samajivina Sutta:

  [The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one
  another not only in the present life but also in the life to come,
  they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in
  virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they
  will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life
  to come."

    Husband & wife, both of them
    having conviction,
    being responsive,
    being restrained,
    living by the Dhamma (the Buddha's teachings),
    addressing each other
    with loving words:
    they benefit in manifold ways.
    To them comes bliss.
    Their enemies are dejected
    when both are in tune in virtue.
    Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
    both in tune in precepts & practices,
    they delight in the world of the devas,
    enjoying the pleasures they desire.

There is no prohibition on Buddhists marrying religious non-Buddhists. Of course, if a Buddhist who does not believe in a Supreme Creator God, is married to someone who thinks that belief in a Supreme Creator God is mandatory for a pleasant afterlife, this produces some lack of compatibility between the couple, but this does not make marriage impossible. It is simply not optimum.


If there is no Self , what Self is there to be affected by the karma which non-Self now performs? If there is no Self , then what Self is there to be affected by the karma which the non-Self now performs?

EDIT: A similar question I guess was asked in Samyutta Nikaya and Buddha replied as follows :
" With thy thoughts, which are under the dominion of desire, dost thou dream thou canst overhaul the teaching of the Master "
However I not sure what that means. I would be really happy if someone can explain the meaning of that answer from Buddha.

This comes from the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Basically, it's pointless to ask questions like this, according to the Buddha. Instead, we should approach it from the perspective of dependent origination.

  Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"
  (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).


When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" thing that is born and dies what do they mean? When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different?

Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

  “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”

  “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

  “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”

  “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way?

Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies

The words "birth" ("jati") and "death" ("marana') are defined in SN 12.2 as producing or imputing the idea of "a being" ("satta") upon the manifestations or changing appearances of the aggregates.

What is important to understand is not so much the aggregates but how ideas of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings' are imputed upon the aggregates.

For example, when you see "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my friend", "my enemy", "my favourite pop star", etc; and Arahant, in the same situation, sees only aggregates, elements and sense objects.

  Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

Convention is different than ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, only aggregates change & cease. This is why there are so many suttas that says an arahant is not born, does not age, does not die (example, MN 140; SN 22.85; etc).

When there is no idea or view of a "self", "person" or "being", the ideas of birth & death do not arise.


Bhava Tanha & Vibhava Tanha The above mentioned technical terms are respectively translated as Craving for Becoming (something) & Craving for Non-Becoming/Getting Rid Off.

Above said, how do we know that we're in Craving for Becoming (or not) whenever we're cultivating good? One of the limbs of the N8P, that is, 'bhavana', is about active cultivation. Where is the difference between the two?

Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly, the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it? This too, then, is Bhava Tanha?

Now with Vibhava Tanha:  Suppose I am overweight and must lose weight immeditately; is the 'getting rid' of my body fat then considered vibhava tanha and at the same time 'bhava tanha' (becoming a skinny person)?

Finally, when do we exactly know whether something is bhava tanha or kusala chanda? Is it primarily our motivation, i.e., in this case, for whom we're losing weight/what motivation causes us to lose weight, or is it something that we can't avoid at all, since 'identity birth(s)' ('I am this', 'I am not this') exists in everyone except in a fully enlightened being.

Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly,
  the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it?
  This too, then, is Bhava Tanha?

Dana is the perfect case to illustrate that merit depends on ''good deeds'' and the intention behind them, as usually claimed by the buddha. Never forget that deeds (thought, speeches, actions) are always tied to intentions (or rather to cetayanas). This is the novelty claimed by the buddha, instead of normal people who think that virtue lies either all on the side of deeds, or all on the side of intentions, or some even say that virtue does not exist.

that's the relevant texts about giving:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html

The dana of something to a ''renunciant'' (bikkhu or lay person) is always good, but the fruit of this deed depends on how the giver view the deed.  there are 8 good intentions listed in the famous sutta about dana

there is the famous case, where the giver focuses on meritorious rebirth
there is a famous case, where the giver gives stuff to an ascetic by tradition
there is the famous case where the giver thinks that ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'' and rich people must give riches to poor people

Then there is the most important case where the giver focus on his citta, because, by right view and right intention, dana is part of right action. People who cling to the famous views above do not have access to this higher view.

So   there is Bhava Tanha when you do act meritoriously, but do not have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta), ie when you do not understand why dana is good (and not dana is bad). This is normal for puthujjanas since at best they memorize right view, instead of knowing right view.
Puthujjanas who cling to their view that nibanna means loving everybody and being selfless are stuck at the level of ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'', and they think that caring about their citta is bad. In short, they worry to much on what the recipient feels and enjoys. They do not understand that the cultivation of right intention is about their citta and that metta alone is not right intention...
Right intention is metta+Nekkhamma. It is metta which gets you in meritorious states, but It is Nekkhamma which makes you avoid bhava Tanha.

The way to have sila, respect the precepts and all is precisely mindfulness. As long as you are mindful, you are assured to have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta). This is why mindfulness matters :

  Being heedful, he achieves consummation in virtue.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.015.than.html

or even with Nanda here

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/08_eights/an08.009.than.ati.htm

It is the same thing with kusala chanda. When there is a buddha and people are inspired by him,  there is kusala chanda. When there is no buddha, it gets harder to have kusala chanda, because puthujjanas love to idolize people and do like their idols, so when there is no buddha, they only idolize only other puthujjanas and they make their life worse.

So 3 taṇhā you talk about, are about the object, kama, bhava, vibhava. But the object of right intention is indeed the samadhi of the citta, nibanna, dispassion, seeing things as dukkha and so on.