Do monks have big ups and downs in their life? Buddhist and non Buddhist people have a lot of ups and downs in their lifes, doubts, fears, anxiety, regrets etc... we understand that as impermanence.

Do monks experience similar things of aftet joining the Sangha their lifes are pretty much "peaceful and flat"?

Take a look at Ajahn Lee's autobiography, page 16 and onward.

His practice slackens, he grows disillusioned with being a monk, and he begins an obsessive debate within himself about whether to disrobe or not:

  But looking at the state of my meditation, I could see that my practice had
  grown slack. I was becoming more and more interested in worldly matters. ...

  One day I went up to a hollow space at the top of the chedi and sat in
  meditation. The theme of my meditation was, 'Should I stay or should I
  disrobe?' Something inside me said, 'I'd rather disrobe.'

  ... 'The people in the Great Metropolis aren't deva-sons or deva-daughters or
  anything. They're people and I'm a person, so why can't I make myself be like
  them?'

  I questioned myself back and forth like this for several days running until I
  finally decided to call a halt. If I was going to disrobe, I'd have to make
  preparations. Other people, before disrobing, got prepared by having clothes
  made and so forth, but I was going to do it differently. I was going to leave
  the monkhood in my mind first to see what it would be like.

  So late in the quiet of a moonlit night, I climbed up to sit inside the chedi
  and asked myself, 'If I disrobe, what will I do?' I came up with the following
  story.

    If I disrobe, I'll have to apply for a job as a clerk in the Phen Phaag Snuff and
    Stomach Medicine Company. I had a friend who had disrobed and gotten a job
    there, earning 20 baht a month, so it made sense for me to apply for a job there too.
    I'd set my mind on being honest and hard-working so that my employer would be
    satisfied with my work. I was determined that wherever I lived, I'd have to act in
    such a way that the people I lived with would think highly of me.

    As it turned out, the drug company finally hired me at 20 baht a month, the
    same salary as my friend. I made up my mind to budget my salary so as to have
    money left over at the end of each month, so I rented a room in the flats owned by
    Phraya Phakdi in the PratuuNam (Watergate) section of town. The rent was four
    baht a month. Water, electricity, clothing, and food would add up to another eleven
    baht, leaving me with an extra five baht at the end of each month. ...

I won't paste it all, as this goes on and on for several pages in insane detail as he imagined what might happen if he disrobed. I think the amount of detail is indicative of how much he wanted to disrobe right then and return to lay life.

But he concludes:

  Finally I decided to call a halt. My wife wasn't what I had hoped for, my earnings
  weren't what I had hoped for, my children weren't what I had hoped for, so I left my
  wife, was reordained and returned to the contemplative life.


Concept of "gods" in Vajrayana Buddhism As I know Vajrayana Buddhism has a concept of "Gods": it's kind of "polytheism".

How does it related to the concept of non-theism in common "original" Buddhism?

In Tibetan Buddhism, a God is merely a sentient being that is subject to suffering. Gods have afflictions such as ignorance, anger, attachment and so forth. They have mistaken consciousnesses, and so forth. It is just a type of rebirth. You yourself could be reborn as a God. A god is empty of being permanent, unitary, independent, self-sufficient substantially existent, and according to some schools of Tenets empty of true existence as well, and to others empty of inherent existence as well.

So, 'a god' is just a name referring to a type of being that experiences pleasant feelings for a very long time, before he dies and gets reborn as... maybe a human, or a preta, or a hell being, or an animal or a god again.

There is also the concept of 'deity' but that is another matter that is related to secret mantra and the four bodies of a buddha. Basically, a deity is an emanation or a supreme emanation body which is not a being.


I am hearing buzzing, humming sound in silence. Is this problem with my ear or its progress in meditation? I was practice Breath Meditation then OM Chanting Meditation from year. and finally leave these both because its not suite for me.
Then I start Sound Meditation where I try to listen sound of my heart or other subtle sound. Last week I sit in meditation, after 2 minutes I hear sound like buzzing, hissing, humming.
from that day its continuously buzzing in my ear. Its

  Tinnitus

or

  Sound of Silence?

I am experiencing the same when I focus on hearing when there is no sound/noise (not an intense sound, but definitely a sense impression). Either both of us have bad ears or it's normal (it may be the sound of the blood floating in your brain or something). Nevertheless, if I don't keep my attention on it, it's not there.

I never did meditation on sound, but one option would be to chose another primary meditation object. There are enough of those. If you don't want to do breath meditation, you could use your body sensations as an object. There is a method called part by part sweeping (Link to a guided meditation by Ayya Khema), where you systematically notice sensations/feelings in your whole body. It has the advantage that you become more aware of emotions and reactions, since you are focused on all kinds of (changing) feelings and not i.e. only the breath going in and out. You can get quite concentrated with it, too.

If you want to stay with the sound as your object, you should notice the "hearing" and also your reaction to it ("worry", "dislike" ...).


Why is it hard to breathe naturally when meditating? For me it is rather hard to breathe naturally while doing Samatha meditation. It makes it harder to concentrate because I'm always controlling my breath.

Do you have any suggestion how to overcome this problem?

Is this a normal problem for a beginner in Samatha meditation?

In the beginning one tends to control the breath out of habit. The moment we think about the breath we tend to take it over. Even going as far as trying to even it out, make it pleasant, make it smooth.

Sticking with it long enough one can realise that the breath is not completely controllable or always pleasant. Realising this one can think that the meditation is not done right, as if the mediator is failing, however this is part of the practise. Seeing your habit of clinging, of trying to control and seeing that it doesn't work, you slowly and momentarily let it go.

So my suggestion is to simply sticking with it and you'll find yourself slowly letting the breath rise and fall, rather than trying to control.


Are there Goddesses in Buddhism? If yes, who are they? If they exist, then how are they connected to the God(s)/Lord Buddha?

I'll answer in two parts-- what sort of looks like a god in Buddhism and which of those are female.

Early Buddhism didn't see gods as important to solving their fundamental problem of ending suffering. Gods were seen as a possible destination for our reincarnation. Gods didn't provide any help to us humans, they were too busy enjoying themselves (devas) or jealously fighting each other (asuras). In Mahayana Buddhism, the devas are not the target of devotionalism, respect and appeal for help, so I'll skip over them. (Except maybe to the extent that they were recast as Bodhisattvas & Buddhas)

Later Buddhism developed the Bodhisattva Path, which was based on the idea that one should strive to become a Buddha. The Bodhisattvas were models of behavior, but rapidly also became devotional targets who would provide various this-worldly benefits, such as defense against snakes.

Also by this time, the Buddha and enlightened people in general were supposed to have extreme long life, the ability to know past lives, to do "astral projection", and so on. As sutras evolved, Buddhas gained more powers until they were indistinguishable from a conventional god from a more familiar religion like devotional Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

There was a lot of controversy about if a woman could reach enlightenment (arahathood) or become a Buddha (full Buddhahood). I think it's not controversial to say that from the time of the historical Buddha the relevant societies were deeply sexist and reluctant to admit that woman could become Buddhas.

Avalokiteśvara was Bodhisattva who once the story arrived in China became a woman (Kwan Yin). Kwan Yin is both a devotional target and a model.

Tara is an important Yidam in the Tantric system. People appeal to Tara both for this-worldly aid and use visualization techniques to imagine themselves as a Tara-- i.e. an enlightened being.

Jan Natier has a good discussion about women in Buddhism, in this paper, although it is is somewhat specific to the Lotus Sutra by the end: https://www.academia.edu/8164216/Gender_and_Hierarchy_in_the_Lotus_S%C5%ABtra


Was Buddhism a rebellion against the Aryans? I read and learned many areas in Buddhism, for example the Seven Arya Dhana (Saptharyadhana - The Sevenfold Noble Wealth), the Four Noble Truths (Chathurarya Sathya) and the Eightfold Path (arya ashtangika marga).

I sometimes feel in the time when Gautama was born, the Aryans had ultimate power because of the caste system. So Gautama needed to break that authority and misbehave and tell people that this is the way to be an Aryan (and not by family birth in the caste system).

I admit that the teaching of [how to live] life is the basis of Buddhism. But rather than that i feel that there are some other things.

(Sorry about the Sinhalese wordings. I don't know how to say it in English. Please correct if you know the exact English words).

This is not a theory or something. This is something i feel when I am learning the philosophy.

Thank you.

When Gautama left his family to become an ascetic or śramaṇa, he joined many other ascetics or wanderers who were separate from the Vedic-Brahmanism religion.

However, when Gautama left his family to become an ascetic, his goal was not political. The Pali scriptures describe when Gautama lived the life of a prince in his palaces, he was very unhappy & disenchanted & also saw how his rich relatives & associates suffered about worldly things, such as money, status, sex & sensuality, which brought little happiness & much trouble & suffering.

Therefore, Gautama became an ascetic for the sole purpose of finding a solution to suffering for himself & for the world. Gautama's sole purpose was a Noble Search for Nibbana.

Later, after enlightenment, when the Buddha became famous, the scriptures report many Brahmans ('Aryans') came to visit the Buddha to ask him questions about 'caste' or 'birth' ('jati').

Because the Buddha was an honest & ethical man, he spoke the truth to the Brahmans (for example, here, here and here.

In Singala: https://suttacentral.net/si/mn93 ~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn95
~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn98

Because the Buddha & many of his enlightened disciples were not from the Brahman caste, the Buddha understood with right wisdom that the highest, most peaceful, wise, virtuous & free state of mind was not related to birth caste (read Brahmanavagga).

I would speculate that hundreds of years later, under King Ashoka, many new scriptures were written that were very prejudiced against Brahmans (such as here & here).

I say this because in many scriptures, the Buddha is very civil to Brahmans and encouraged them to follow their own religion in a better way. The Buddha did not try to convert anyone to Buddhism unless he knew Buddhism was the most suitable path for that person.


Meditating and including buddhist philosophy in your life without abandoning previous religious beliefs? Is there a way where someone (for the sake of discussion) who is Jewish by belief and is actively practicing, could meditate and take up certain Buddhist practices without actually forfitting monotheism

This is just a question to understand theory, not directed to be anything arguementative or offensive

Thank you and Peace!

I think we can split Buddhism in 3 different levels of commitment:

Meditation, Dana (charity) and basic Sila (precepts). In this level, you can easily keep any peaceful religion, you will benefit from meditation and people will feel you are slowly changing, more inclined to a spiritual life, usually your family/friends/priests/bishops etc. will not see it as a threat.
Lay Buddhist Life. Here you may have some conflicts depending on your religion and how orthodox you are. Lay buddhists may prostrate and take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is where your previous religion may tell you that you are turning your back on them.
The life of a monk/recluse.

So, as long as you commit to the first level, i.e:  meditating; cultivating generosity; refraining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants, you should be fine with your current religion.

Problems will arise if you want to progress in the Buddha's teachings while keeping your current religion, but it is up to you; the path is there, it is your choice.


what is the difference between Ego and self respect? What is the explanation of Ahankaara(Ego) & Swabhimaan(Self Respect) as per Buddhism ?

Is there any way something in a way so that one keeps his self respect without showing Ego ?

In Pali Buddhism, any positive term that includes "self" is merely a statement of conventional language because there is no other way to communicate whatever concept pertaining to individual persons that needs to be communicated.

In addition, most teachings that positively use the term "self" are mundane or moral teachings. They do not represent the highest truth. For example, (somewhere) it is taught one of the benefits of giving/charity/generosity is 'self-respect'.

For the most part, 'self-respect' is related to freedom from remorse, guilt &/or regret. Here, to use the word 'self-respect' is not so necessary because 'freedom from regret' implies 'self-respect', such as in AN 11.2, which states:

  For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

  For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

Where as the teachings about ending "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra & mamaṅkāra) represent the highest truth about freedom from suffering (Nibbana).

In summary, 'self-respect' is a statement of conventional mundane reality where as the destruction of "I-making" and "my-making" is a statement of ultimate supramundane reality.

The way to keep self respect without showing ego is to comprehend the word 'self' is only a word, only a convention & not something inherently real, as explained in SN 1.25.


Meditation through clearing the mind of all thoughts Is it good practice in meditation to focus on having no thoughts? A purely empty mind. Whenever a thought arises, it is cast off.

From the viewpoint of Theravada Buddhism, we definitely do not teach this way. It's impossible to empty the mind. Thoughts pop up all the time. We can, however, train ourselves not to follow these thoughts. In other words, we want the mind to become stable and free of dependencies.

Here is a basic outline of the method of Mahasi Sayadaw, a prominent 20th-century meditation teacher:

Focus on the rising and falling of the abdomen during the process of
breathing. Focus on only one thing at a time, and make an honest effort to
focus well.
If a thought arises—besides the thought, "rising... falling..."—focus on the act of thinking itself. In other words, shift from "I wonder how much that car will cost me" to "thinking... thinking..."
If pleasure or pain is experienced, focus on the pleasure or pain itself.
Similar for liking, disliking, drowsiness, distraction, doubt.
When these objects disappear or become uninteresting, return to rising
and falling.

The ultimate goal of this practice is to bring about the insight into the nature of reality. This means understanding—not by thought, but by having seen the truth for oneself—that all experiences are:

Anicca—Impermanent
Dukkha—Unsatisfying
Anatta—Uncontrollable, not part of oneself

That being said, a beginner should have the guidance of a skilled teacher. Here is a meditation manual in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, by the Venerable Sir Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu.


Is the emptiness of persons an emptiness of essence or just substance? Is the emptiness of persons an emptiness of their essence, which (I think) would be a defining characteristic, like how "fire" is always "hot", or just substance?

Do any Buddhist texts say no?

In the Pali suttas, 'emptiness' ('sunnata') refers to emptiness of 'persons' or 'self' rather than emptiness of defining characteristics, which is why the Pali suttas state the five aggregates are empty, or the sense spheres are empty, or the elements (dhatu) are empty.

'Consciousness' does lose its defining characteristic of 'cognition'; the earth element does not lose its defining characteristic of solidity; the fire element does not lose its defining characteristic of heat; the Nibbana element does not lose its defining characteristic of peacefulness.

  Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self?

  The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of
  anything pertaining to a self.

  The ear is empty...

  The nose is empty...

  The tongue is empty...

  The body is empty...

  The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
  self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
  world is empty.

  SN 35.85

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold,
  deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by
  contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is
  deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels
  pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It
  feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it
  perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it
  perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called
  perception.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call them formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations. And what
  is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned
  form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they
  construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct
  conditioned formations as formations; they construct conditioned
  consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’
  bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it
  cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it
  cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes
  salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is
  called consciousness.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  SN 22.79

  And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
  internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by
  nutriment]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.'

  MN 62


Is assault against the first precept? The first precept states

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.

So does this mean that punching someone in the nose isn't actually against the first precept and the five precepts generally. It really feels like it should be.

The following five conditions must be satisfied to break the first precept.

The being must be alive.
There must be knowledge that it is a living being
There must be intention to cause its death
Action must be taken to cause its death
Death must result from such action

So punching someone in the nose does not break the 1st precept. But it weakens it. Since the question is if it's against(not if it breaks) the precept, the answer is yes.

Weakening here means the merits you acquire by keeping to first precept are reduced or weakened. Also, when it comes to the consequences of Kamma, Killing results in one having a short life span if born as a human again. Just injuring or torturing results in having bad health if born as a human again. killing usually involves inflicting pain or torturing as well. So it can result in bad health too.


What are the most prominent Tibetan Buddhist texts that are only written in Tibetan script? A lot of Buddhist texts come from Sanskrit or Chinese. I am looking at the Kangyur and Tengyur, and a few scattered others. But a lot of those are from Sanskrit and Chinese as well (or other languages, Pali, etc.). What books or groups of books/works can only be found in Tibetan script? Whether or not it has been translated to other languages isn't important, the original language should be Tibetan though.
I am trying to mentally gather an image of how much reading would be required to gain the knowledge unique to Tibetan Buddhism.

The foundational tantra (book) of Tibetan Dzogchen , the Dra Thalgyur, (“The Reverberation of Sound”) is only available in Tibetan. If you are interested in the highest practice in Tibetan Buddhism, that would be one you would need to read.


Who are the Buddhas Yet to Come and what Information do we have about them as per Theravada standpoint? Who are the Buddha's who have got definite prophecy of Buddhahood? What is the description we have about them, their parents, family, disciples and sasana? What are the sources?

There are many schools and teachers in Buddhism. They all contribute to the growing dispersement of Buddhist teaching. The past is full of references to the Buddhas of the past like Shakyamuni Buddha, his closest students, Bodhidharma, Dogen, and all the Buddhist teachers that have come to the west in the last 75 years.
How can we know what tomorrow's flowers will look like and what scent they will carry when they are only seedlings popping out of rocky soil? Just don't know.


Is ignorance a form of superstition? There are many varieties of delusion, and probably many ways to categorize them. I’ve heard one way of categorization that was interesting. This was from Alex Berzin. (Alex Berzin often talks from the perspective of Prasangika Madhyamaka, but here he was talking in very general terms.)

He said there are two main forms of illusion/delusion/ignorance (Berzin uses the word 'unawareness').

Doctrinally based illusion/delusion/ignorance. This one is based on something one has learned. F.ex. one might believe that God is the creator of the universe and that one has an irreducible ever lasting soul that is either going to heaven or hell. Or – more common, at least in the Western secularized societies – one might believe in science and assume that science is objectively right and think that if something cannot be measured scientifically it simply do not exist (an example here might be some behaviorists claim that consciousness is a superfluous concept and emotions are behavior).
The other form is "automatically" arising illusion/delusion/ignorance. This is not based on something you have heard or learned or indoctrination, but rather based on our karma. An example might be the feeling and belief that I have a core self, something that is holding all experience together, the “stuff that makes me me.” The belief that external reality is independent and self-existent, not imputed by mind, is another example.

I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that all kinds of illusion/delusion/ignorance could be categorized as forms of superstition.

Is Buddhism really all about recognizing that we have always been superstitious?

Does the Buddha talk specifically about illusion/delusion/ignorance as superstition in the suttas?

I'm starting in Wikipedia, where "clinging to rites and rituals" is defined as one of the "fetters". This answer assumes that "clinging to rites and rituals" is (the same as) the "superstition" you were asking about, and so this answer will give references to describe what "clinging to rites and rituals" means.

From Wikipedia, Fetter (Buddhism), the third fetter is,

  attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)

  Attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)

  Śīla refers to "moral conduct", vata (or bata) to "religious duty, observance, rite, practice, custom," and parāmāsa to "being attached to" or "a contagion" and has the connotation of "mishandling" the Dhamma. Altogether, sīlabbata-parāmāso has been translated as "the contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good works, the delusion that they suffice" or, more simply, "fall[ing] back on attachment to precepts and rules."

Wikipedia then gives the following paragraph which may or may not be helpful -- on the one hand it's relevant to the conventional meaning on superstition, but on the other hand Thanissaro Bhikkhu's description of it below says it has a broader meaning (e.g. that merely clinging to even Buddhist precepts isn't right):

  While the fetter of doubt can be seen as pertaining to the teachings of competing samana during the times of the Buddha, this fetter regarding rites and rituals likely refers to some practices of contemporary brahmanic authorities.

A footnote mentions "the similar concept of sīlabbatupādāna (= sīlabbata-upādāna), 'grasping after works and rites.'"

From Wikipedia's Sotāpanna article,

  Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery (issara nimmāna). Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the right view of the sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is the elimination of the notion that there are miracles, or shortcuts.

Following Wikipedia's footnoted references to the suttas, one is Lohicco Sutta which says that Brahmans have their rituals (garbs of skin, chanting, ritual washing), but that these actions aren't right.

  First in virtue were the men of old,
  Brahmans who preserved the ancient ways,
  In whom well guarded were the doors of the sense.
  They were never overcome by wrath.
  Meditating on the Law[1] their joy,
  Brahmans who preserved the ancient ways.
  These backsliders who but chant by rote,
  Drunk with pride of birth they stagger on.
  Full of violent rage, aggression prone,
  They lose respect from weak and strong alike:
  Their unguarded senses bring them loss,
  Like a treasure hoard found in a dream.
  Fasting, sleeping on the ground, and such,
  Dawn ablutions, chanting Vedic texts,
  Garb of skins, matted hair and filth,
  Magic spells and rites and penances,
  Trickery, deception, blows as well,
  Ritual washing, rinsing of the mouth,
  These are caste-marks of the Brahman-folk,
  Done and practiced for some trifling gain.
  But a heart that's firm and concentrated,
  Purified, of all defilements freed,
  Kind and gentle to all living things-
  That's the path that gains the highest goal.

Another description of this fetter is in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Into the Stream
A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening,

  The fetter of grasping at habits and practices is often described in the Pali Canon with reference to the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals or patterns of behavior. This view in turn is related to the notion that one's being is defined by one's actions: If one acts in accordance with clearly defined habits and practices, one is ipso facto pure. Although the Canon recognizes the importance of habits and practices in the attaining the stream, the experience of the Deathless shows the person who has attained the stream that one cannot define oneself in terms of those habits and practices. Thus one continues to follow virtuous practices, but without defining oneself in terms of them.

    "Now where do skillful habits cease without trace? Their cessation, too, has been stated: There is the case where a monk is virtuous, but not fashioned of (or: defined by his) virtue. He discerns, as it actually is, the awareness-release & discernment-release where his skillful habits cease without trace."

    — MN 78

And,

    [The enlightened person] doesn't speak of purity
    in terms of     view,
            learning,
            knowledge,
            habit or practice.

    Nor is it found by a person
    through lack of view,
            of learning,
            of knowledge,
            of habit or practice.

    Letting these go, without grasping,
        one is  independent,
            at peace.

    — Sn 4.9

The first of these two referenced suttas, Samana-Mundika Sutta (MN 78) says that doing no wrong isn't enough -- that merely doing no wrong is "on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back" -- that person needs skillful resolves and habits, and (as quoted above) discernment of cessation.

The last reference Magandiya Sutta (Sn 4.9) is more on the subject of not clinging, of not being fashioned by views, not being led by actions, not being tied by perception (of better and worse).


What's the difference between perception and consciousness? Having read descriptions of perception and consciousness (two of the five skandhas), I still don't understand the difference.

Is there an important difference? What is the difference and why is it important?

In relation to the five aggregates, the consciousness aggregate solely refers to main minds, such as the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth. This excludes mental factors. Mental factors are consciousnesses but they are not included within the category of consciousness aggregate. Except feelings and perception (or 'discrimination', etc.) mental factors are included in the category of compositional factors.

Because perception is a consciousness, it is clear and knowing. It means that it has the capacity of taking the aspect of the object it apprehends, and it knows/apprehends its object.

According to Mahayana Abhidharma, perception is one of the five omnipresent mental factors. It means that perception accompanies every single main mind. Here is an example: an eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that aspect is apprehended by the perception factor that is in the retinue of the eye-consciousness as well. A main mind and its concomitant mental factors share five similarities that are explained by Yeshe Gyaltsen in his Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors.

Regarding the entity of perception, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

  QUESTION: What is the defining characteristic of discrimination
  [Tib. 'du shes, literally, aggregation-knowing]?

  RESPONSE: It has the characteristic of knowing upon aggregation. It has the entity of
  apprehending the sign and apprehending the mark, through which one
  designates an expression to objects of perceptions, hearing,
  differentiation and knowledge.

Yeshe Gyaltsen explains further:

  Just as it has been said above, it is a knower that, upon the
  aggregation of the three – object, sense power, and primary
  consciousness – apprehends the uncommon sign of an object. Also, A
  Discussion of the Five Aggregates says:

Later in the text, he explains two division:

  The apprehension of a sign with regard to an object means to
  apprehend it through individually distinguishing the object's
  particularities, such as blue, yellow, and so forth.
  The
  apprehension of a sign with regard to a convention means to apprehend
  it through individually distinguishing the convention's
  particularities, as when one thinks, "This is a man; that is a woman."


Why wouldn't one say "I am the watcher"? Now separating self from perceptions for me is understandable. That Ego is just an illusion there is no self. But a question arises... Who is the watcher?

Can't I say that I am the watcher or is awareness the watcher and what I perceive as self is just awareness ?

Or I can just recognize "there is a watcher".

Identity view (i.e., "I am...") is the first lower fetter.

  the mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters are stream-enterers

To say "I am the watcher" simply perpetuates identity view. Identity view is a conceptual tool. Like all tools, it can be put aside. When identity view is put aside, "there is watching." With identity view, there is a prioritization towards the self. Without identity view, broader consideration becomes the norm. With identity view, the self controls--there is struggle to use and impose will. Without identity view, experience unfolds effortlessly.

To see this, meditate "there is breathing" vs. "I am breathing". When "I am breathing" there comes a cascade of questions ("Am I breathing well?", "Should I exhale now?"). When "there is breathing", simple awareness follows the breath in and out. Effortlessly.

Relinquishing "I", we relinquish the first fetter. There is watching.


Yatha bhuta and Dhamma Can you say that Yatha bhuta (= seeing things as they really are) and Dhamma are synonyms?

Yatha Buthavādin: Yes, good householder, nothing wrong with it, all Dhammas (with one exeption) are actually Yatha Butha (are conditioned, "truly born", originated).
One who sees Dhamma(s) sees yatha bhuta, phenomenas as they really arise.
It's even possible to call the Unborn "Yatha bhuta", in a sense of "real".
While falsehood is called "abutha". Someone thinking and arguing in ways of "is" speaks for the sake of taking a stand abutha, yatha abutha, abuthavacana.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades but for escape from such stands]


Spiritualism VS layman's path I have followed the Dharma for the last ten+ years, and have been married for thirty. l have reached a stage where my progression is noticeably obstructed by the Layman's world. I've talked to my spouse(non Buddhist), but she is upset and doesn't want her world to change. What advice would you give to both of them?

There are several options for you.

Keep the marriage life and visit a monastery for meditation for couple of weeks every six months.
Give up the marriage and get ordained. But before you do that, make sure your family has a steady income to survive.
Keep the marriage and meditate whenever your wife does not need you.
Keep the marriage and just be mindful of everything you do in lay life.


In which suttas does The Buddha cover annihilationism (ucchedavāda)? Given what I assume was the predominant view of the time, I would not be surprised if there are many Suttas that deal explicitly with resurrection (as opposed to rebirth which seems to be a more recent word used to delineate the concept), but I am interested in finding out in which sutras did Buddha Shakyamuni deal explicitly with annihilationism (ucchedavāda) which, as I understand it, is the position of the dissolution of the self after death (of which materialism would be a subset).

I am aware of the following Suttas:

Brahmajāla-sutta -- which covers a large array of positions of
wrong arguments against annhilationism, but doesn't seem to go into
too much detail on how it is a wrong view.
Alagaddūpama-sutta --
in which The Buddha instructs on how to defend his position from
being confused with annihilationism.
Pālileyya-sutta -- not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it
seems to be about assuaging the fear of annihilation.
Achela Kassapa-sutta -- where the Buddha states the middle way
between eternalism and annihilationism.
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- where The Buddha separates his view from
all conventional views.
Kalama Sutta -- where The Buddha explains the benefits of the path
even if there is nothing after death.

Are there any glaring misconceptions here?

Are there any other Suttas dealing with this topic?

perhaps you will find what you want in the vagga about wrong views
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm


Is it bad karma if you are waiting for someone to die? I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die? For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die?

"Whatever, monks, a teacher ought to do out of compassion, for the
profit of his disciples, that I have done, having compassion for you.
"Here monks, are the roots of trees! Here are lonely places! Meditate
monks. Do not be slothful, have no subsequent regrets. Thus we charge
you."
SN 35.145

If you do not have any unwholesome intentions (greed, hatred, or delusion) tied up in doing so, no unwholesome kamma should fruit. Despite that, in many other ways unwholesome kamma will fruit (unless you are enlightened) and so instead of spending your time waiting, meditate! :)
For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

"Do you have your parents' permission, Ratthapala, to go forth from
the household life into homelessness?"
"No, lord, I haven't."
"Ratthapala, Tathagatas do not give the going-forth to anyone who
doesn't have his parents' permission."
"Lord, I will do what needs to be done so that my parents will give
their permission for me to go forth from the household life into
homelessness."
MN 82

It is by tradition and respect that a lay person get their parents permission to ordain. I would suggest that you ask them in a very serious manner and list solid reasons for why you wish to ordain (and even show them your practice so they can understand your point of view better) and be persistent (some people take years convincing their parents!). I would recommend you read the entire sutta quoted above (you can find it by clicking here). Refer to my answer in the previous question for if such an action will produce unwholesome kamma.


Sensations in practice I've noticed that in many teachings, books etc it is emphasised that something enters a sense door, sensation arises,then vedana then thought proliferates and I can understand this so far as a sound or smell etc  but what I notice in my practice a lot is not that. What I notice is that thought arises followed by sensation for example a thought of a lost loved one followed by sadness or a sexual thought followed by particular physical sensations.  Can someone please explain this.  what ive read must only be talking about one aspect right? I don't feel a sexual sensation then think about it. Its the opposite.

When your thought arises, it is thought entering your mind's sense door. This is then followed by sensations and/or feelings arising. Because you can't see the subtleties why this thought of yours is arising, you think that it is not according to the teachings.

Putting too much attention on such subtle things as thoughts, sensations, feelings and what arises/comes first, etc. during meditation should be avoided, because most people's meditation skills are not high enough to see these subtle things and their order of appearance. Even if somebody has high meditation skills to see these subtleties, others who are not skilled in meditation could easily misinterpret such teachings and/or think that something is different in their minds, which is not.


Sutta on the two kinds of (debt) giver, people of guṇā? Thinking about the two kinds of goodness in giving, and about debt when we receive a gift (guṇā), my person just thought to ask if there is a Sutta which points the different kinds of debt to those two kinds of giving?

One kind of (debt) giver is perhaps best embodied by Mara: e.g. enemies disguised as friends, or the strings of sensuality (kāmaguṇā). The other kind of (debt) giver (who gives debts torward debtlessness: end of upādāna, entertainment) is the Bhagavatā, the One who can Give, the Liberal, along with the other gods (starting by parents, teacher, admirable friends).

Just thought, next to the many Suttas around this fact, if there might be one direct pointing out the two kinds of guṇā and the debts in receiving the given, the inclination to certain destination by association and increasing debts.

Of course given, free of the first kind of guṇā (without wordily strings), Dhamma given in line with Dhamma, is preferred, is possible acceptable.

(For those possible not so familar with the use of the word guṇā, it's used as "goodness" in dhammic countries, for example "person of goodness"/"figue of merits" when speaking about people who one by dhammic law owes debts, like parents, leader, teacher... While the word is also used for the givers of sensuality.)

[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

The two kinds of debt can be found in the Ina Sutta.
The first kind of debt is that of money and material possessions:

"Monks, for one who partakes of sensuality, poverty is suffering in
the world."
"Yes, lord."
"And a poor, destitute, penniless person gets into debt. For one who
partakes of sensuality, getting into debt is suffering in the world."
"Yes, lord."
"And a poor, destitute, penniless person, having gotten into debt,
owes interest payments. For one who partakes of sensuality, interest
payment is suffering in the world."
"Yes, lord." ........
"Thus, monks, poverty is suffering in the world for one who partakes
of sensuality. Getting into debt is suffering in the world for one who
partakes of sensuality. Interest payment is suffering in the world for
one who partakes of sensuality. Being served notice is suffering in
the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Being hounded is
suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Bondage is
suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality.

The second kind of debt is that of virtue (sila) and good conduct:

"In the same way, monks, whoever has no conviction with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of concern with regard to skillful
mental qualities, no persistence with regard to skillful mental
qualities, no discernment with regard to skillful mental qualities is,
in the discipline of a noble one, said to be poor, destitute, &
penniless.
"He — poor, destitute, & penniless, having no conviction with regard
to skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience... no sense of
concern... no persistence... no discernment with regard to skillful
mental qualities — engages in misconduct by way of the body,
misconduct by way of speech, misconduct by way of the mind. For him, I
tell you, this is getting into debt.
"For the purpose of concealing his bodily misconduct, he formulates
evil desires: He desires, 'May they not know about me.' He resolves,
'May they not know about me.' He speaks, [thinking,] 'May they not
know about me.' He makes an effort with his body, [thinking,] 'May
they not know about me.' For the purpose of concealing his verbal
misconduct... For the purpose of concealing his mental misconduct, he
formulates evil desires: He desires, 'May they not know about me.' He
resolves, 'May they not know about me.' He speaks, [thinking,] 'May
they not know about me.' He makes an effort with his body, [thinking,]
'May they not know about me.' For him, I tell you, this is interest
payment.

The two kinds of gifts to help alleviate the two kinds of debt can be found in Iti 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."


Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural? I was once again challenged by my scientific friends: who say that all mind phenomena is just chemical reaction!

My question is, how does Buddhist philosophy view this question? I'm leaning towards my science friends' view, after reading A Manual of the Excellent Man, where the seven aspects of perception on materiality are considered to be the combination of natural elements.

If so how does a chemical overpower another, and is the transcendental self also chemical / elements? Because if it were not, then we could assume spiritual forces were active in creation, etc.!

Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither exists independently.


Is there an equivalent of heaven and hell in Buddhism? According to most sources, a soul stays in samsara until it concentrates enough karma to get yet another rebirth.

However, I failed to find any sources explaining if this process is eternal. In other words, what happens if a soul has committed so many sins that it's unable to accumulate enough karma? Or, in other words, is there a "dead end" when no more rebirth is possible?

There is no sense of accumulating sins, per se; your karma (actions) change who you are; there is also no sense that it can ever be too much to recover from (eventually). Eventually, your karma will catch up with you, sending you to heaven or hell, and making it more difficult to accumulate further good or bad karma, until you usually wind up right back where you started, somewhere in the middle. Something like the law of diminishing returns; the better or worse your rebirth, the harder it is to make further corresponding karma.

At any rate, given the infinitude of samsara, there is no such thing as too late; if there is time to accumulate good or evil, there is also time for its effects to wear off.

See the Assu Sutta, SN XV.03:

  From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
  point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
  by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.


Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists? I recall reading words or translations in the Pali suttas suggesting the following:

It is a path of decline to give donations to non-Buddhists.

It is most meritorious to give donations to the Noble Sangha & higher Ariyans

People are sick, injured & disabled in this life due to violence they have done in past lives.

Today, I read a post soliciting for donations on a Buddhist forum for a sick non-Buddhist. Since the time of the post, no one has given a donation, except me. Because I am simple minded & a sucker for bleeding hearts, I gave a US$37 dollar donation, to symbolize the 37 bodhipakkhiyādhammā, which include the 7 factors of enlightenment, which, according to the suttas, cure disease & illness.
My questions are:

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm? In other words, should I practise equanimity?

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

What is the karmic destination of a person that solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

Good Brahman, good householder,
sure is it that good householder's intent is not so kusala provoking intended, but anyway my person will answer for what ever, who ever, can be healed:

Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists?

Not at all, but always good to give to the sick. Not a single being not worthy to receive the basic means for life, even if a 'bad' one. Sure, such merits are most in sphere of Sila in ones relation or not that upwardly, yet secure not usuall fall down and keep ones level.

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

One can not force or stop anothers beings actions, kamma, nor fruits. Yet one can provide with conditions that certain fruits could ripe. What one gives he gain and given can be only what one has gained/one has. Taking on given is the receivers thing, being touched and where.
**There are five proper times/occasions, always good to give and toward anyone, even if not beloved, enemy, bad: **

when a being approaches new (one comes)

when a being leaves

in times of sickness

in times of hunger

and best and alway, with merits strong upward: to those with virtue, metta (Ariya, training for Ariya)
  In the proper season they give —
  those with discernment,
  responsive, free from stinginess.
 Having been given in proper season,
  with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
  — straightened, Such —
  their offering bears an abundance.
  Those who rejoice in that gift
  or give assistance,
   they, too, have a share of the merit,
  and the offering isn't depleted by that.
   So, with an unhesitant mind,
   one should give where the gift bears
   great fruit.
      Merit is what establishes
      living beings in the next life.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

One isn't urged to control or teach other lessons since most not even able to have oneself under control. Such thought's a strong connected with defilements and wrong view.
If really wise, one gives always if one is able to without harm (against precepts, rules bond to)

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?

Sure, if deliberately seeking of non-support of the Noble Sangha, being an outcast, one is sure to walk straight toward hell. Yet, not to forget is that ones perception counts of what is perceived and how to react on it.
As for giving to the Sangha, even if defacto only perceived as such, not Noble yet, see 'former' Bhante Varados last suspicious gift before he actually headed toward highest, gained firm path of release:
MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

Supreme leader of the Dhamma is the Buddha, and if perceiving the Tatagatha, one is wise to be quick. It's always of high results to give toward the Sangha of the Buddhas disciples (monks).
As for Johann, good householder wouldn't be able, since he had turned over the bowl long time ago toward householder Dhammadhatu and those bound to him.
(And serious asked: aside that there is NO way one could make my person receive money even indirectly and seldom one would meet even other possibility if no Upanissaya, even if strong wishing, does good householder think that in good ten years dwelling as beggar in spheres good householder dwells even the effort of giving a spoon of rice was made? If not simply sharing forward the merits of others, there wouldn't be any reason to enter this outwardly homeland of marxists and traders void of basics. As if a monk would look for alms under not so wise Devas or hundry ghosts.)

What is the karmic destination of the troll, who solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

It's not a matter whether Buddhist or non in regard of giving at the first four proper times. If one lives in dependency of the Buddhaparisa and in certain corrupt way leads their wealth outside, such is of course demeritious. As for praise and prefer of what is to be blamed or minor, such leads also downwardly.
As for 'troll': Three things are praised, encouraged by wise: support of parents, generosity, go forth. Someone calls someone encouraging toward generosity, even at certain right time, is therefore to be seen as fool.
Often has good householder be told about the unfortune Moneylender, heirless and not able to enjoy his whealth as he destroyed his merits by having doubts later... disregarded Sublime.
And as the Buddha warned, less more harmful for oneself as to discourage others from doing good, generosity.
So may good householder have ways to possible not fulfill a complete transgression, or finds ways to confess and apologize, so that, aside of not able to run away from the poorness he will meet, may be able to wander on.
As the Buddha told: be quick!
Be quick in doing
  what's admirable.
  Restrain your mind
  from what's evil.
  When you're slow
  in making merit,
 evil delights the mind.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

While such are kusala thought, they are bond to heavens, Samsara. If able to practice vosaga, real giving and abound desires after garlands of the mind at all, if such done as effect of insight: much mudita, yet in householders really bad situation, possible difficult before not having solved old and out of the hole of transression.
Best wishes, metta & mudita
Addition because useful for understanding the comments since easy disappearing often:

And at least, in regard of householders bad advise, in his answer, to do not seek for the Noble Ones for ones generosity: Indeed, Noble Ones, at least an Arahat, is not in need, or wishes for gifts, yet not only Dhammadhatu would need a punsh of merits and really a missery when cutted off by ones stupidy... encouraging public to don't give toward the Sangha in a Dhammic room, possing there to be a wise and Noble one.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]


Listening to music while meditating I listen to a very low background score on a meditation app called Calm while meditating. It's mostly non-obstructive and really helps me get into the space of calm.
Where I live, silence of the outer world is hard to come by and I mostly use the music just to combat that.
Should I not be listening to music while meditating?
Does the Buddha have any words in this regard?

Metta & Chai to all,
Kalpesh

Listening to music, among other liminally conscious activities, like scribbling or tapping a pencil while listening to a lecture in class, are ways of distracting one’s attention from other more disturbing phenomena such as street noise, but the goal of meditation is to focus the mind, not distract it. I suggest that buying some industrial grade earplugs (not the foam kind) would be more beneficial to your practice than listening to music.


Is there a connection between Lord Buddha & Hinduism? I am new to Buddhism & exploring it. Recently I came across this video which made me ask few questions & they are:
1)They have shown image of Lord Shiva at 13:50 above the baby(Lord Buddha). Even in Hinduism Buddha is considered one the avatars of Lord Vishnu. So is there a connection between Buddha,Shiva & Vishnu.
2)Lastly in this video they said child's(Buddha) parents are Brahmins. So was Buddha a 'Hindu Brahmin' before he attained enlightenment?

Prior to the Buddha (born 563 or 480 BCE), was the historical Vedic religion (1750 - 500 BCE), followed by the shramanic movement (500 - 200 BCE), and the beginnings of the Upanishadic movement within Hinduism (500 - 200 BCE). Buddhism is also considered to be part of the shramanic movement. Vedanta came later as part of Classical Hinduism (200 BCE - 1100 CE). You can find this information here.
Prince Gautama (therefore a kshatriya, not brahmin), after leaving home, followed the shramanic traditions which were based on asceticism. Jainism was one of the major shramanic traditions at the time. The Pali Canon (DN2) has descriptions of various shramanic teachings at the time (Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sanjaya Belatthiputta and Mahavira). These teachings may or may not be compatible with Hinduism at the time.
Gautama tried to follow the different teachings at the time (Hindu and shramanic teachings) and found that it did not lead to the goal that he sought. And you know the rest of the story of how he found enlightenment and started teaching.
The Buddha did not accept the authority of the Vedas, preached that a Supreme Creator God did not exist and also taught anatta, which implied that there is no permanent absolute self (atman). All these contradicted the teachings of Hinduism at his time. The teaching of anatta and the Buddhist version of karma also contradicted Jain teachings.
According to the Krsna Consciousness (ISKCON) movement on this page, the Buddha, the Avatar of Vishnu, gave false atheistic teachings to the hedonistic nihilistic atheists who were living a sinful lifestyle, so that they can practise virtues, while remaining atheists, because God was kind to them and knew that they would never accept God and the "true" teachings which has both virtues and devotion to God. He also preached against the sacrifice of animals which was an abuse of Vedic sacrificial rites. The Krsna devotees therefore respect the Buddha but reject his teachings.
The idea that the Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu comes from the Hindu text Bhagavata Purana, which was written around 500 - 1000 CE. It is possible that this was one way to bring Buddhist converts back to Hinduism, while reconciling the Buddha's position.
Did the Buddha say that he was an Avatar of Vishnu? No. According to the Buddhavamsa, he was the Bodhisattva Śvetaketu who resided in the Tushita heavans, before being born as the human Prince Gautama. Please see this answer.
The Hindu text Brahma Sutras, written around 200 BCE, has some criticism of Buddhism as found in this question.
Later on, Buddhist teachings was found to influence Hindu philosophy, to give rise to Advaita Vedanta. Even the Indian Mahayana schools of Madhyamaka and Yogacara predate the Advaita Vedanta school and Adi Shankara by centuries. Please see this answer for details. This meeting point of Advaita and Mahayana, now has the highest level of philosophical compatibility between the two religions. In fact, Advaita philosophers were accused of being Buddhists in disguise. However, anatta still keeps the two religions apart, philosophically.
The Hindu philosopher and scholar Adi Shankara who expanded Advaita, was also responsible in reviving Hinduism once again in India, and may have caused the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in India. However, Buddhism spread outside India.


What was the historical Buddha's ethnicity? Gautama Buddha is traditionally regarded as having a noble body with 32 signs of a Great Man and one of those signs are deep blue eyes.

I came across many online discussions about Buddha's ethnicity where some stated that Buddha's family - Sakya - was from Scythian descent. I also met some Ukrainians claiming that Sakyas were precisely from the land that now belongs to Ukraine.

Can someone answer the question providing reliable sources or evidence?

The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama was probably Indo-Aryan.
He lived in what is today the Democratic Republic of Nepal. Nepal's ethnicity today comprise mixed race people of Indo-Aryan & East Asian ethnicities.

It is believed He spoke old Magadhi language. He belonged to the Ksyhtriya Varna of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty and Gautama Gotra. Before his enlightenment he was a practitioner of what is today called Hinduism.

Sakhya is derived from the Sanskrit word śakya which means capable, able [1]. Sakhyamuni just means a muni(renunciate) from the Sakhya tribe.

From Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, 2 of the meaning out of many others for the word sakya:

  śākya m.   Name of a tribe of landowners and kṣatriya - s in kapila
  -vastu - (from whom gautama - , the founder of Buddhism, was descended)

  śākya mfn.     derived or descended from the śaka - s (= śakā abhijano 'sya - )    gaRa śaṇḍikādi

Here the tribe of the Buddha is not given as decedents of Sakas(Scythians) since a distinction is made between Buddha's tribe and the Sakas.

The theory that Sanskrit speaking Aryans came from Southern Russia has been controversial and is disputed.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya


Memories of previous lives I think I have to tolerate memories of previous lives. And I know many of which memories are combination of true and false memories.Part of the memories are scientifically superimposed by army or any research department of the government.It is pointless to try to get rid of these memories.Are scientific memories good or bad for me? or are these  cinematic experiments artificial intelligence based?

It's good to remember birth, aging, sickness and death, the suffering again and again. So actually perfect when the proper attention to see the first Noble truth and more perfect then, if having heard the others as well.


Noumenon and "mind only" according to wikipedia anyway:

  The noumenon (/ˈnɒuːmɨnɒn/) is a posited object or event that is known
  (if at all) without the use of the senses.

I know that the term is used in Buddhism, at least after its sinification. Often noumenon seems to mean reality itself, the buddha nature.

Avoiding that last gloss, may I ask if the "noumenon" is "mind"?

And whether extinction, be that impermanence, nirvana or final nirvana, is noumenally real?

I think that this might be the result of a translation problem. The concept of a noumenon in western philosophy is very foreign to Buddhism I think. In western philosophy a noumenon is the opposite of a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is experienced, whereas a noumenon is something that is somehow outside of experience all together but somehow exists anyways.

Most forms of Buddhism don't settle well with the idea of any kind of reality having some sort of existence that is independent like that because it falls into the error of essentialism, or at least it appears to.

I think you may be coming across this word in an off translation or something relying on such a translation, because I suspect a translator may be trying to translate the concept of 體用 (tǐ yòng, usually now translated as essence and function) as noumena-phenomena, but I don't think this is a very good comparison at all. Definately the term 體 does not mean noumena, but something more like the nature of something.


How to live life after acknowledging anatta? I acknowledge that there is no-self. But now I don't know what to do.
Previously I was driving a bus called life. Now I am no more the driver because according to anatta , I am not the driver. Since no one can replace me as a driver because each one of us is without self,I am seating on a bus without any driver.
I think discovery of anatta means that I should stop thinking about controlling life. Infact I should stop thinking at all because I am not the thinker or the thoughts.(In other words I would not like to associate with thoughts or the thinker)

My question is: How to live life after acknowledging anatta? And how can I change the direction of the bus called life?

Let’s get this straight. This is the problem when your mind is active and you’re reading all this stuff and thinking about it. The mind can only be confused. Because “moving above your intellect” is enlightenment, nirvana and all that jazz. Right now you seem stuck with your intellect, which can only dissect stuff and make you operational in this world which is a level lower.

You have to play a role in this society with some element of identity. Otherwise I can’t be talking to you right now. If you keep telling yourself “there is no self, there is no self”, that is a wrong view, because you have a viewpoint. There is a bias in your mind telling you that what you read somewhere is correct.

You cannot “think up” no-self. It is a direct experience. Not a thought. You’ll only end up dissociating and creating personality disorders for yourself. Just going crazy. Your mind will split itself up into a guy who is the ego and a no-self perspective. You see this mechanism of the mind? It is not true in your experience. I cannot stress this point enough. Right now your mind is sitting there going, “oh I am not-self, then what else is there...”

Let’s clarify this chicken and egg story. You are thinking right now because you’re alive, not the other way round. If I take your breath away all your mental nonsense will cease. What do you then know about this life actually? Nobody knows anything. They just “think things up”. If you try to think it up, then all kinds of contortions and twists will start to brew inside your head. And it will only lead to mental disorders.

When the Buddha (and so many other Buddhas) talk about no-self, they come from a direct experience of unity with everything. That is the source of “no self”. Their perspective is abolished. There is only truth for them. Unlike our experience where we are this body and mind and everything else is separate. And we have opinions about everything from our perspective.

So how to live life, you ask? Respond to everything, you are very much there, there is no “no-self” or “all self” or whatever your mind is brewing. If you really experienced no-self you wouldn’t be here asking this question :)


Did the Buddha tell how to visit another part of universe via meditation? Based on this answer I came to know that the Buddha has spoken about life on other planets; so did he ever explain any method, how to visit those places while doing meditation?

Weirdly I have read this in Hinduism as well: that it's easy to visit another planet using your mind, instead of wasting more time and resources by physical means, but I never find a method to do so.

The Buddha mentioned many supernatural powers called siddhi but he did not teach them. He mentions that samadhi is required to developing siddhi but since siddi do not help to end dukkha the Buddha doesn't explain exactly how to develop siddhi.


Buddhism Perspective on Frustration I noticed I rarely get mad at people, but when I engage in a task, I get extremely frustrated when things go wrong. My head hurts, I despair (e.g. this is pointless, worthless), and often avoid the task.

1) What is this? What is it caused by?

2) What is the remedy to such frustration?

From the perspective of training I received, this is a (very) obvious case of "attachment" - to things being "right", and likely also to success and praise.

I suspect, your frustration and anger are your reactions to dukkha generated when in your mind there is a mismatch between your expectation of how the task is supposed to proceed, and how it actually goes.

In my understanding, there are two steps here: one, attachment to an idea of things going perfectly generates dukkha; and two your aversion to dukkha generating frustration and anger. I would not be surprised if there were an element of self-reflection going on as well. As in, thoughts like "why don't other people run into these problems and I do?" or "this is my bad luck". And probably some reverse projection of these back onto the world e.g. "I'm running into these issues because someone else did a sloppy job." and/or "This world is broken! Things never go right and everything is in a mess! It's hopeless!"

From Buddhism's perspectives these are all pathological thoughts rooted in attachment, aversion, and confusion. The root of all this is ignorance - an incorrect expectation of how things are supposed to work, based on an incorrect (overly simplified!) idea of how things work in general.

So, naturally, the remedy is to meditate on how things work!

why exactly things don't go perfectly?
where do the obstacles come from?
if it's the other people who did it imperfectly, why could they not do it perfectly?
what are all the factors at play?
can things ever be perfect?
what is "perfection" anyway, and does my mind play the role in defining it?
is my definition of "perfection" truly objective, or is it partially biased and somewhat one-sided?
aren't things already perfect in some global sense?
does my attachment to idea of how things should be, that leads to frustration, does it help me or others?
does being in a frustrated state lead to my long-term happiness?
when things go different from my idea of how they were supposed to, can I learn to not lag behind reality in my mind and to keep updating my idea to always match reality?
if I learn to stay in sync like that at all times, would I not be stable and at peace?
could it be that this is what Buddhism is actually about?

The last question is obviously a leading question on my part, sorry about that ;)

But yes, analysis like this, and resulting change in perspective is how these things are to be resolved, in my opinion.


Ethics regarding the sharing of paid Dhamma material I recently bought this Ayya Khema Ebook Bundle.

I bought the bundle for my own interest in the first place but after reading in them I would now like to share them with my friend, who is just starting out on the Buddhist Path.

Can I share the books I bought with my friend or should I buy the Ebook bundle again in order to share it?

Thank you for your time.

I doubt sharing things is a transgression of the 2nd precept; otherwise how could we practise generosity?
I would be more concerned about the kamma of selling the Dhamma for money since the Pali suttas state the Dhamma should be taught with "benevolence" & given (freely) as a "gift".

And what, monks, is the power of benevolence? There are four ways of benevolence; by gifts, by friendly speech, by helpful acts and by
bestowal of equity. This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma.
AN 9.5


Is there a Connection between Sila and Fear? Is there a connection between Sila and fear? I find fear to be the main reason I practice sila. I would like to practice Sila out of loving kindness and a compassionate heart but I'm more worried about the consequences of my actions then being compassionate.And i don't know if this is selfish reason to practice sila but I'm really not keeping the precepts because I care very deeply about others or want to be Mother Theresa but  because for some reason I never seem to get away with anything.And I always seem to get the results of my actions right away that I feel like I don't have a choice but lead some kind of moral life.Basically i feel like someone on parole.My question is:

Is it selfish to practice sila because you want to save your own skin? Or should it only be practiced out of compassion for others?
Is there a connection between fear and sila?

Thanks

Fear is considered an unwholesome state, containing as it does aversion (patigha):

paṭighacittuppādavasena hi bhāyanaṃ
Indeed, fear [arises] due to the arising of a mind accompanied by aversion.
-- Vism-T 21.3 (751)

So no, there should be no connection between morality and fear. ottapa, often translated as "fear of wrongdoing", is a mind state that recoils from doing evil; it is a quality of mind that involves the disinclination to perform evil, not necessarily related to aversion or fear. It is wholesome.
As to practicing morality for selfish reasons, every part of the Buddha's teaching should be practiced to benefit oneself. Helping others can only come through one's own self-improvement. Of course, disregard for the suffering of others can be a sign of cruelty, which is unwholesome, but the two states are mutually independent; you can be focussed on helping yourself without disregarding the suffering of others, or you can be focussed on helping yourself and meanwhile disregarding the suffering of others.

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
...
Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.
-- Dhp. 158 & 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)


How should somebody who has developed samadhi verify that rebirth occurs after death? I am trying to understand how somebody following the dhamma is supposed to verify what the Buddha said about rebirth. In the past I've been told that once somebody has developed samadhi/calmed the mind to a great extent then they will be able to see that rebirth occurs after death.

Usually samadhi helps along the path by making it easier to observe thing and see the world as it is. It's clear how this helps to see anatta/anicca/dukkha, but I do not understand how samadhi helps with seeing anything related to rebirth. I don't know what anyone would begin to observe to see rebirth.

This question has a very similar title to my previous question but it is not a duplicate. In the previous question I had one idea on how someone could verify rebirth occurs after death but the answers said that my idea was incorrect. This new question is asking for other ideas on how someone can verify rebirth through experience.

Go into a very deep samadhi. Very deep.

When in that very deep samadhi, make a subtle mental formation arise. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the mental formation, awareness comes to be. That very same awareness is consciousness. Within it is the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

Let the mental formation cease by going back to deep samadhi.

Notice how with the ceasing of the mental formation, awareness goes away. That very same going away of the awareness is death. Within it is the absence of the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

The way to get additional insight about this is to go into a very deep samadhi and arise a VERY pleasant mental formation. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the VERY pleasant mental formation, awareness comes to be. Within it is the attachment/craving for that pleasant mental formation. As long as craving/attachment is present, the mental formation is there and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. That very same pleasure is "being alive".

Now, don't let the VERY pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it to maintain it. Crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will cease by itself. When it ceases, as long as there is craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation, the feeling is unpleasant and awareness is present. That very same unpleasant feeling is "fear of death". The cessation of that very same unpleasant feeling is "death".

Now, don't let the craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it! Really crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will arise by itself. When it arises, as long as there is craving/attachment, there is also the pleasant mental formation and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. This very same pleasure is "being alive".

The wisdom you'll gain by experiencing the above is that awareness consists of many little formations arising and ceasing with high frequency, thus making it seem that consciousness is steady and pleasant. In individuals who don't practice the dhamma, there are so many of these formations, that even if you shut off all your body senses (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind), they would still be arising and ceasing. These formations can be dependent on your body or independent of the body. Impossible is to know exactly. They can come from deep within you. It's like a spider web that has no ends. It's these formations that condition other formations until the center of the web is created: your physical body.

With the death of the body awareness ceases similar to going into a deep samadhi, and craving/attachment "fear of death" is present ... this very same craving/attachment responds/reacts to the many little formations, thus creating new formations and rises the awareness because of the many new formations until a new body is created.

This must be experienced. It's the only way to verify that rebirth occurs after death.

Once you get the above insight, it's simple to follow a logical conclusion:

By wishing/acting/deciding/doing we're doing activities that create formations.

By activities we create subtle senses and come into existence. Then, because of our further activities, we create the senses of our body (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) and we're born.

By gaining knowledge we are changing our current activities and creating new activites.

When we're changing our current activities and creating new ones, we're also changing our first activities that we acted upon that propelled us into this existence.

With the dead of the body our activities on the surface (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) are destroyed. And what remains? The primary activities that are changed.

Because these primary activities are changed, after death we will come into a new existence that will be changed too.

Thus, there is no death. There is just the changing of awareness from one existence to the other due to activities. This process is constantly happening ... even now in this very same moment. It will happen as long as craving/attachment is present.

Then, the logical way to continue the path towards the ultimate would be: When craving/attachment stops, all activities stop and suffering stops. Thus, the next step is to stop craving/attachment.


Who said 'if you are too busy meditate for two hours'? There is a zen quote that goes something like

  Meditate for an hour every day unless you are too busy. In that case
  meditate for two hours.

I'm not sure about the exact quote - it might be 0.5 hours/1 hour or some other timescale. Does anyone know what the exact quote is and who said it?

Isn't this notion from meditation traditions in general?
James Altucher, in his Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Reinventing Yourself:

What if I don’t have time to sit in silence [for one hour a day]?
Then sit in silence for two hours a day.

which he adapted (with an entrepreneurial slant) from a story about Mahatma Gandhi.


Has there ever been a systematic persecution of Buddhist heretics? I was reading about the Cathars, and was really struck by the scale of persecution by Christians of Christian heretics.

Obviously there are reasons for that besides not meditating well enough. But in the 2,500 year history of Buddhism all I can think of in those terms is some political manoeuvring in Tibet, and arguments.

Has there ever been a systematic persecution of Buddhist heretics

King Asoka liked the Dhamma so much that he lavished the monks with robes, food and medicine...

This attracted many fake monks...

Monks were beheaded in an effort to find the imposters but that didn't work.

They started the third council to purify the monastic order by questioning monks to find out who knew the Dhamma and who held heretical views so they could  expell the real imposters   from the Sangha.


Why I can't think in anything while I'm meditating Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that when I'm sitting to improve myself, I have to watch my mind to see what is passing through it, and to figure out the reason for that thought and then let it go sometime. But when I'm sitting, my mind doesn't seem to work the same way as when I am not sitting. I'm just there, sitting and watching my respiration without thoughts. And when I get up and go do other things, all of the thoughts and feelings come back.
What am I doing wrong?

You are not necessarily doing anything wrong. It depends on what kind of meditation you are practicing and what your purpose with the meditation is.

It sounds like you are practicing Samatha Meditation (tranquility meditation) but instead you would like to practice Vipassana Meditation (insight meditation).

In samatha meditation one keeps attention on a single object, e.g. the breath trying to make that object stable. This type of meditation is creating a unification of mind. The goal here is to build deep and powerful states of concentration. When the mind is concentrated, i.e. by only paying attention to one object, other objects disappear. They slowly stop arising. This is only temporarily. This only happens as long as the power of concentration is present. When concentration weakens or when one stops the session and goes up and do other things then slowly the unification wears off and other objects e.g. thoughts and ideas come back into the mind.

When doing samatha meditation one temporarily suspends mental activity. When finishing the session this suspension of mental activity can last for a while afterwards but will eventually stop.

In vipassana meditation one does not keep attention on a single object instead one is giving attention to whatever arises whenever it arises. One has the abdomen as an anchor (mahasi sayadaw tradition) which one comes back to after having observed or noted objects as they arise and fall in the present moment. The anchor is a tool that one uses so that the mind will not get lost and follow after objects.

One is keeping attention on the rising and falling movements of the abdomen. When a thought arises then one shifts attention and watches the thought. One notes it a couple of times saying "thinking, thinking" and then returns to the abdomen. If a feeling or a sound arises then one shifts attention towards these objects and notes "feeling, feeling" or "hearing, hearing". One can also note the feeling more specifically, e.g. if anger arises one notes "angry, angry" or "sad, sad" if sadness arises.

When doing the noting it's important to sent the mind out to the object and not to keep attention on the "mental label". So when noting e.g. pain in the leg one is noting "pain, pain" but ones attention is on the pain in the knee and not on the mental label.

In vipassana meditation one tries to be with the objects as they arise when they arise. The goal is to learn about their true nature, i.e. the 3 signs of existence (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and the uncontrollable nature). One does not follow after objects. One also does not try to find out where e.g. a thought came from. This is not important. What is important is to see that thought as an object that arise and cease. One does not give special attention to any object at all.

For more information on how to practice this method see Ven. Yuttadhammo's video series called "How To Meditate" or his book "How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace".

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to anything i wrote let me know.


What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life? I am reading SN 36.22, which says:

  And what, bhikkhus, are the thirty-six kinds of feelings? Six types of
  joy based on the household life, six types of joy based on
  renunciation; six types of displeasure based on the household life,
  six types of displeasure based on renunciation; six types of
  equanimity based on the household life, six types of equanimity based
  on renunciation. These are called the thirty-six kinds of feelings.
  “And what, bhikkhus, are the hundred and eight kinds of feelings? The
  above thirty-six feelings in the past, the above thirty-six feelings
  in the future, the above thirty-six feelings at present. These are
  called the hundred and eight kinds of feelings.

What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life?

(E) Therein, what are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life (cha gehasitā upekkhā)?

  (25) On seeing a form with the eye, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend form.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  (26) On hearing a sound with the ear, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend sound.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  (27) On smelling a smell with the nose, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend smell.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  (28) On tasting a taste with the tongue, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend taste.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  (29) On feeling a touch with the body, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend touch.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  (30) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
  nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
  Such an equanimity as this does not transcend mind-object.
  Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.

  These are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life.

Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta

So the neutral feeling or equanimous feeling experienced, in the case of a householder leads to ignorance. The equanimity, in this case, is not been non-judgemental.


Should I help an aggressive panhandler? I recently encountered an aggressive panhandler. To be exact, he was a peddler who was selling a small good at a profitable price.

I didn't end up buying anything from him because I simply didn't need the small good he was selling; but now I'm conflicted as to whether I should've just bought the item to help him out.

On one hand, I recognize that he is making a tough living and I admire him for that. I could've easily spared a few dollars to buy the item and help him out. To be honest, I really wanted to buy the item out of pity but I couldn't reason why I should treat this man differently from any other salesman I come across. All beings are suffering, and material wealth is illusory and insignificant at the end of the day. I am confused as to whether not giving (through refusing to buy from the peddler) is just me being stingy, and this is my attempt to rationalise my actions, or indeed there is no point in saying 'yes' to every salesman I come across selling something I don't need just to help them out with their livelihood.

Just to clarify this man was clearly not a drug addict or alcoholic who would use the money to feed his addictions, probably just an honest man trying to make a living. I guess what I'm trying to ask in essence is from a Buddhist perspective, should we treat those who are poorer and 'worse off' better by accommodating them than we do to those who are presumably 'better off'?

I understand that we should give whenever we can, but if the act of giving is accompanied by the moral high ground I take by deeming this man as more deserving of my sympathy, is it really the way I want to give?

On another note, this man was also aggressively trying to guilt trip me by saying that I could just give him money and it wouldn't make a difference to me but I didn't think this was relevant because I'm sure he has his reasons for any malevolence. I'm more troubled by the fact that I could've helped him, but I didn't simply because I didn't feel I should judge him differently from other salesmen and I really didn't need the small items he was selling.

And that is ok. Suppose you would have helped him, would you have felt aversion towards yourself because you allowed yourself to be tricked and towards him because he tricked you? Would his life improve beyond imagination if you would have bought the item?

Is it possible that you are allowing a trifling matter inflict exagerated suffering upon yourself?

One can accept the past the way it is and let it go.


Why the students shout at the master (after meditation)? I found following movie "Zen of Yamada Mumon Roshi" - here - after meditation, student go to master and at 4:45 the student start screaming on master. Then master takes breath and start talking (I don't understand what)

Can someone explain me in details - what actually is happened there?

Hah!  I've always wondered what someone outside of Zen would think if they ever saw what went on in the dokusan room.  What we have here is the Mu koan.  It goes like this - "A monk asked Josshu 'Does a dog have a Buddha nature?'  Josshu replies '"Muuuuuu!!!!!!!' (literally "does not; nothing; or no").  Now, of course, according to the Mahayana, everything has a Buddha nature.  What, oh what, could Josshu possibly mean by that?
In order to really know what this Mu thing is, you have to sit on the cushion.  You have to practice and practice deeply and sincerely sometimes for years.  The gist of what you have to do is say "Mu" on your out breath.  Take it all the way to the end of your exhalation.  At the end of the breath, maybe you notice a little bit of space (though, trust me, at first, you won't).  Over time, that little bit of space at the end of the breath becomes larger and larger.  Eventually, as your smaller self starts to drop away and you descend deeper and deeper into samadhi, it will start to overtake your entire being.  Then, we can say, the fun really starts.  That space at the end of your breath, that emptiness, that no-thing, that Mu, will one day begin to crackle with energy with no exertion of your mind's power.  When you are no longer in the way, Mu becomes a living, breathing, force that is like bottled lightening.  And like bottled lightening, it starts to look for a way out.  At this point, your body might begin to shake.  You might feel like you want to jump up and run around the zendo.  Maybe you start crowing like a rooster (that would be such a great answer!) .  Mu wants to express it self.  Mu wants to be seen.  Mu wants to be heard.  Now is the time where you present Mu to your teacher...which is what the student is doing in that video.
The really beauty of the Mu koan is that calling Mu - the act of presenting it - cannot be faked to someone who has sat in Mu themselves.  We know who's putting on airs.  You can hear it in their answer.  Someone who is truly in the energy of Mu need only open their mouth and Mu will come pouring out.  It's like turning on a faucet.  You don't reach into the tap and pull out the water.  The water comes out all of its own accord.  Someone who is not in Mu has to supply their own energy (which is the case with the student in the video).  Someone who is not in Mu may also be self conscious and block Mu from coming forth.
Don't worry if none of this makes any sense.  The only way it will is if you work with Mu yourself.  If you do, given enough time, I promise you that you will mingle your eyebrows with the patriarchs and speak the very same Mu that Josshu uttered more than 1200 years ago.


Meditation for higher concentration What kind of meditation can help one to have a higher concentration; maybe lasting for hours or days? I am a Buddhist, specifically Theravada, and I am trying to keep my mind on one thing. Buddha kept his meditation in the dushkara kriya (self mortification) period for more than 4 years. So is there any way we can apply that concentration technique in our lives?

Thank you.

I think the term for what you are describing is Samatha. On the Wikipedia page, you can find the "Nine mental abidings", a description of the process. There are also Zen teachings such as "The Ten Oxherding Pictures" that describe the process. Most of these teachings follow the idea of meditating "with support", using a focus (such as the mental image of a Buddha). There is also a practice of meditating "without support", as in the Essence Mahamudra of the Kagyu School.

I was also interested to see this in the above Samatha page: "

  ... samatha is not a strictly Buddhist meditation. Samatha in its single-pointed focus and concentration of mind is cognate with the sixth "limb" of aṣṭanga yoga', rāja yoga which is concentration (dhāraṇā). For further discussion, see the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali."

Just a note: Advaita (Hinduism) Meditation practice is very similar to the Buddhist Mahamudra practice. Since this is a Buddhist Q&A site and the question does not seek similar practices in other religions, I won't post Advaita links here. When one gets "stuck" in one's practice, I think it is sometimes a good idea to see how other practices  approach similar problems.


What is ariya or noble? What is ariya or noble?
This term is used in multiple places like Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariyasaccāni), Noble Eightfold Path (ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga), noble sangha (ariya saṅgha).

Good householder,
although wondering why one who steady teaches others about what is Sublime, Higher, Perfect, ask about the meaning of Ariya...
PTS-dictionary:

Ariya, (adj. -n.) (Vedic ārya, of uncertain etym. The other Pāli forms are ayira & ayya) 1. (racial) Aryan D. II, 87. ‹-› 2. (social) noble, distinguished, of high birth.—3. (ethical) in accord with the customs and ideals of the Aryan clans, held in esteem by Aryans, generally approved. Hence: right, good, ideal.

In regard of people:
The answer by Dhammadhatu isn't that bad aside of a grammar issue making "without enemy" to a dual or in both direction valid, but actually means that oneself sees nothing and nobody as enemy. It might be, and even in the Buddhas case, that an Ariya has people around who look after harming or winning over him.
Ariya is a Sublime person beyond ordinary, worthy of hospitality, veneration and gifts, one who has metta toward all beings, one having reached tge level of integrity, the Stream, has faced the Deathless and to certain amount awakened. One training after reaching this ancestor-ship is called a lower-Ariya (Dhamma-, Faith-follower practicing proper, having universal metta; having heard the good Dhamma and regards the Gems, bound to become Ariya before death).
In regard of qualities and deeds: Likewise Sublime, Exalted, not ordinary, common.
So if one touches or 'inter'-acts with the Sublime Gems one is wise to always regard them as Sublime, beyond even kings, world-ruler, Gods, father, mother, child, oneself.
Disregard or even harm of what is Ariya has very disadvantageous impact not only downwardly but can even totally cut one of from an upward path for long time.
This is why asking for forgiveness is a common and frequently conducted practice as one would be otherwise out of refuge, cut off the Gems.
Worthy to mention as very importand: One who does not recognize such as Ariya, Sublime, a common 'communist' is absolutly incapable to either work his way upwardly nor ever able to reach path or fruits, like one denying swimming is possible is actually bound to drow.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding and common trades but to gain escape in becoming an Ariya, not staying a slave of commu/onism]