In simple words, how are body sensations linked to moods and feelings? My teacher rightly emphasizes that sensations when observed equanimously will lead to eradication of suffering and he is very right. I have noticed a big change. But I just don't get the link between emotions and body sensations.

I can understand when I am angry there is heat like sensations immediately, on arousal there are certain sensations although these are kinda on the extreme side and may or May not take excessive meditation to practice. But what about boredom, depression, love, jealousy, greed and so on? Are these sensations linked to the body too? (Stupid question to ask I know since I have been practicing for years now) but I sense results by practice which is great. But on the level of functionality I don't get it.
I have read the mahasatipatthana sutta but I wish someone could explain it using normal terminology.

In simple words, emotion has three parts: the root, the stem, and the flower. The root is an imprint (samskara). The stem is a physical reaction. The flower is a psychosomatic sensation (vedana).

Emotion is a precursor of thought, it is like a very fuzzy/blurry thought. Before humans, animals already had some basic intelligence -- that's emotions. When a deer is grazing, her brain is watching for signs of danger. When she hears sudden noise, her brain creates a basic impulse to run away. The heart beats faster, the lungs breath faster, the muscles of the stomach contract, the legs start shaking. A basic formula like "sudden noise == danger" is an imprint or preconception -- the root of the emotion. The physical reaction is the stem of the emotion. And the way the physical reaction (heart, breathing, muscles) feels to you -- is vedana, the flower.

If you inspect your psychosomatic environment, you will surely notice subtle sensations in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. Subjectively, these feelings are often not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it. Some of the emotions most obviously accompanied by such sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness.

If we examine the root of the emotion more carefully, we can see that it works through evaluation (appraisal) by the mind of the present situation, against the basic assumptions and expectations (formulas, imprints, preconceptions) about how things are supposed to be. If the actual situation ("is") seems to be matching the expected situation ("should"), a positive emotion is generated (sukha), and if the two mismatch -- a negative emotion is generated (dukkha). By dropping the preconception, we prevent (nirodha) the emotion from arising.

For example, if you fall in love with a woman, and want to be with her, but she loves another man, and does not want to be with you -- you may feel depressed. If you look carefully at your somatic sensations, you may notice e.g. burning in your chest or dull pain in your belly etc. When you stare at this burning/pain long enough, you will eventually realize that it is caused by a mismatch between the mental picture of being with her, on one hand, and her not being available, on the other hand. This mismatch is called unsatisfied thirst, or tanha. If you keep looking, you will realize that the root of the emotion is your preconception that e.g. the woman has a perfect character on account of the way she moves, smiles, laughs, and flips her hair. (When you keep visualizing those attributes of her, and keep mentally connecting those with her - fictional - perfection, that is called "feeding the preconception", or upadana.) In order to stop suffering, you have to clearly see the preconception, and let go of it.

This is why Buddha taught kayagata-smrti (mindfulness rooted in the body) and anapana-smrti (mindfulness of breathing) -- because the root would be too hard to see under the ground, but the flower is highly visible. Once you notice the flower, you can start tracing it down to its roots (preconceptions) in meditation, and by extracting the roots (letting go of attachments, dropping identifications, dismissing the formulas, dissolving samskaras) you liberate from dukkha. Then you attain the state of suchness (tathata), when all your experience is basically sukha, because in suchness your "is" always matches your "should". When this practice matures, you go beyond dichotomy of right-and-wrong, beyond sukha-and-dukkha, and even beyond the beyond -- then you become completely rooted in tathata, and become what's called a tathagata.

Anyway, to get back to your question, emotions are always accompanied by sensations, however subtle. Somatic sensation is the most visible component of emotion. (The other component of emotion -- the mental obscuration or klesha -- is usually invisible, because it obscures the very ability to see oneself objectively.) So sensations, especially ones in the diaphragm area, but also in lower abdomen, throat, and forehead, are great windows into the "subconscious" mind.


Should sensual pleasure be actively avoided, rather than simply not sought? I am particularly interested in regards to taste I understand that the active seeking of sensual pleasure is not seen as good, but it's not clear to me whether it should be actively avoided.

I was preparing some noodles to eat this morning and inside the pack was a sachet of flavouring. I pondered upon this for a moment; should I add it to the food?

The following thoughts occurred in favour of adding the flavour:

I am eating the noodles for the purpose of feeding the body, not for the sensual pleasure. Why not add it?
Deliberately depriving oneself of the little sensual pleasure there is in a meal could be regarded as self-mortification.

The following thoughts occurred in opposition of adding the flavour:

Does the very notion of considering this only highlight my craving of sensual pleasure?
Why should I feel compelled to add the flavouring for reasons other than nutritional value?

I am interested in whether any Buddhist teachings directly address this sensual pleasure in such a situation, and more broadly whether sensual pleasures should be actively avoided in such a manner.

Reading your post, i remembered the Middle Way or the Noble Eightfold Path as a path of moderation, between the extremes, any sensorial pleasure provokes addiction if not moderated.
In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, it reads:

these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.
Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (the Perfect One) has realized the Middle Path

Depending on the spiritual tradition, some are more strict on interpreting moderation, and some like my own have a stronger focus on the self conscience: If you are mindful your unconscious urges will be apparent to you, and you will know what causes suffering to you and what does not.
Having said so, Monastics were advised in the 8 precepts not to indulge in any sensual pleasures, because I believe Budha regarded that as a problem if one was to attain enlightenment since it is so prone to cravings which will result in suffering.
In the Kamma Sutta:

If one, longing for sexual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he's enraptured at heart. The mortal gets what he wants. But if for that person — longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish, he's shattered, as if shot with an arrow.

For lay people it is recommended in the 5 precepts to abstain from sexual misconduct, which along with some guidelines more or less sprinkled in the Buddhist literature, I believe it should be interpreted in light of cultural and traditional practices, or even the self own conscience.
Citations from here:
Noble Eightfold Path
Buddhism and sexuality
Five Precepts


Does knowing Pali/Sanskrit (and to which level) give one more insights while reading Buddhist scripts? I think we all have experienced with our own native languages how works written a while back can have different words for the same meaning or the other way round. Also that words get lost in translations, almost inevitably. Metaphor and other rhetorical uses of a language may be hard to detect as well and last but not least, the lack of modern scientific terminologies may likewise contribute to ambiguity and confusion.

Therefore I'd like to pose the following questions:

1.How well studied are the Buddhist scripts? (compared to the modern study on Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy)

2.How well studied are Pali and Sanskrit linguistically in the context of Buddhism? (compared to ancient Greek and Latin, or even Arabic/Islam if someone has experiences)

3.What efforts have people made to prevent misunderstanding caused by the observations I mentioned at the very beginning?

4.Although I know there are such things called canonical scripts/literature, I'd still like to know others' opinions regarding what (and maybe how) to read, and what to believe literally.
ps: my personal preference would be those that are most loyal to Gautama's own words with few extended discussions and little personal guessing, but what scriptures would this comprise?

Pali is difficult to translate into western languages due to lack of expressive power. Though there is much effort to study the Pali cannot there are instances where translators / teachers / lineages have disagreed on meaning. E.g.  What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?

In instances like this Goenka advices to take meaning:

Easy to understand on how it is to be practiced, i.e., which is not abstract, philosophical or purely theoretical
Which is actionable, i.e., which can be put into practice, not pure theoretical conjecture or not purely theoretical which cannot be put into pratice

E.g. "keeping your mindfulness in front" is not like keeping a glass or something in front of you. This is abstract and not practical. Keeping your mindfulness around the mouth is neither astract nor impractical. Since these are instruction to be practiced it should be practical and actionable.

Especially in English some translations are loose fit hence some argue that the particular rendering though they principally agree on the meaning can lead to confusions. E.g.

  In order for meditators to understand the term sampajanna, we have translated it as-'The constant thorough understanding of impermanence'. It is felt that this translation conveys more fully the precise meaning of the term used by the Buddha. If the term sampajanna is translated too concisely into English its meaning can be lost. It has usually been translated as clear comprehension, bare comprehension, etc. At first glance, these translations appear to be correct. However, some have taken this to mean that one must merely have clear comprehension of bodily activities. Interpretations such as this may have had the effect of misleading some meditators on the path of Dhamma. To try and minimize any confusions for meditators the more wordy translation- 'the constant thorough understanding of impermanence'- has been chosen.

Source: Sampajanna-the Constant Thorough Understanding of Impermanence

Though strictly necessary knowing Pali would definitely help in understanding the teaching. There are many books which still has not being translated into other languages. E.g. Parajikan Atthakatha see: U Ba Khin and his reference to Parajikan Atthakatha

There multiple research groups which research the scriptures like:

http://atbu.org/
http://www.iabu.org/
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/religion/buddhist-centre/
http://ocbs.org/
http://gsas.columbia.edu/content/academic-programs/buddhist-studies
http://www.cbs.ugent.be/
https://www.bcbsdharma.org/
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/
http://buddhist-studies.uchicago.edu/
https://www.soas.ac.uk/buddhiststudies/
http://www.buddhism.hku.hk/
http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/
http://www.international.ucla.edu/buddhist
http://www.digitalhimalaya.com/
http://www.bpu.ac.lk/
etc.

In addition the institutions which does Etymology studies:

http://vridhamma.org/
http://www.palitext.com/

Also there are prominent people who does research on this front. Excluding people tied to universities and institution following are very prominent:

Ven. Sujato - https://sujato.wordpress.com/
Piya Tan / http://dharmafarer.org/. E.g. on essay written in this area is: Language and Discourse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu_Bodhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanamoli_Bhikkhu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyanaponika_Thera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanavira_Thera


"Guard the sense doors"- What does this mean, and what is it's application? What does it mean to "guard the sense doors"? What is the practical application of this concept in daily life? For example, does this concept mean that a heterosexual male should entirely avoid looking at women?

Thank you

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu answers a question about "guarding the senses" in this video (at time 34:40).

Guarding the sense doors is a way of protecting ourselves from being overcome by passion for the sensed object (which leads to dukkha). In his video Yuttadhammo mentions three ways to do this.

Physically avoiding the object (in relation to your example, when on alms round monks may keep their eyes facing down to avoid lust from seeing a beautiful woman).
By developing samadhi the mind is disconnected from the sense doors (only the sixth sense "thought" is present)
By developing insight we know the inherent dukkha of sensed objects, therefore no passion arises for them when they are sensed.

The third approach is part of the goal, the first two are training practices to help us maintain a calm mind to achieve the goal.


How can I find a teacher? What is the best way, or how would I even go about finding a Buddhist teacher or spiritual guide?  Thanks.

If you have an interest in learning the Burmese system of Insight or Vipassana Meditation, which was popularized the world over by the Burmese Monk, Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, recommend his magnum opus "Manual of Insight," (pdf) which was translated into English by the Vipassana Metta Foundation of USA. Also recommend the utube video >Phra Noa Yuttadhammo - How to Meditate< as a visual supplement, for a novice  to get to grips with the subject. Incidentally, Ven. Yuttadhammo is a registered User of the Buddhism Stack Exchange.


Were psychedelics used in the past by Buddhists? I know it's discouraged for Buddhists to intoxicate their body, but were there any known cases of monks using psychedelic drugs intentionally in the past?

Buddhism is about having in-body experiences not out-of-body experiences. Psychedelics distort one's experience/perspective of reality and Buddhism is about experiencing reality for what it really is. Thus psychedelic drugs are the opposite of the dharma path and not used by monks or nuns.


Significance of Bhikkhus uncovering their right shoulder Often in the suttas one finds Bhikkhus who approach the Buddha reverentially uncover their right shoulder as a mark of respect. What is the significance of this practice? Is it cultural or is there a deeper significance?

One example from the Ratnakuta sutra

  At that time, Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana then arose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, and bowed with his head at the Buddha’s feet.

Elsewhere in the sutra,

  Perceiving Sumati Bodhisattva’s extraordinary intention, good roots, and sovereign authority, each bhikṣu uncovered his upper robe. They gave an offering to the Tathāgata by developing a great vow, saying...

In Pāḷi texts, the right shoulder is not specified. The standard description of a monk meeting the Buddha says

ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti (Vin 1.46)
he arranged his robe over one shoulder.

However the right side of the body is generally emphasised, e.g.

Atha kho so, bhikkhave, mahābrahmā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā dakkhiṇaṃ jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ pathaviyaṃ nihantvā... (DN ii.36; cf. MN i.168, i.177 etc.)
Then indeed, monks, the Great God, having arranged his robe over one shoulder, placing his right (dakkhiṇaṃ) knee-cap on the earth...

and

Atha kho rājā māgadho ajātasattu vedehiputto ... uṭṭhāyāsanā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā padakkhiṇaṃ katvā pakkāmi.
Then indeed Ajātasattu Son of Vedehi, King of Māgadha... rose from his seat, saluted the Bhagavan, and keeping to the right (padakkhiṇaṃ katvā), he left.

The verb many of these is √kṛ - "doing, making". So ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti literally means "he makes his upper-robe one-shouldered" and  padakkhiṇaṃ katvā means something like "making right-handed".
The connotation of auspiciousness with the right side of the body is something shared with the Romans from whom we get words like "dextrous" from dexter "right, right hand side, south (facing the the rising sun)"; and it's opposite "sinister" (literally "left). In fact the Pāḷi word dakkhina is cognate with Latin "dexterous" (they both come from the same Proto-Indo-European root). And just like it, it can mean "skilful, clever, and quick to learn", but also "lucky, auspicious, etc".
One explanation might be deduced from the modern day Indian practice of using the left hand to wash the backside after defecating. If this is an ancient practice, which it may well be, then the left hand was ritually (and factually)  polluted and the right hand ritual pure.
However, I cannot find a single reference to the robe going over the right shoulder in either the Nikāyas or the Vinaya. It is always simply ekaṃsa "one shoulder". So this is apparently a later tradition.
NOTE Apparently Stack Exchange doesn't allow me to post Chinese characters! So I'm having to give Romanji instead which is much less satisfactory!
I tried to check the Lapis Lazuli citation, but he doesn't give enough information to locate the particular sūtra in the massive “Dàbǎojī jīng” or Mahāratnakuṭa - it runs to 120 fascicles in the CBETA version of the Chinese Tripiṭaka. But plenty of other Mahāyāna texts use this kind of phrase.
eg.

Ěr shí ānán cóng zuò ér qǐ, piān tǎn yòu jiān, yòu xī zhuó dì, (T232 729.b17)
Then Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder (yòu jiān), and knelt on his right knee.

Now we can search for the phrase "yòu jiān" and see when it started appearing in Chinese translations. It turns up in some early translations, e.g. T156 which is an Avadāna Sūtra translated during the Wei Dynasty (220-265 CE); in T1428 and  T1432 some of the Chinese Vinaya Texts. It also turns up in the Āgama texts. So this suggests that the introduction of specifying the right shoulder occurred after the closing of the Pāḷi Canon (which occurred quite early), but still fairly early.


Which branches of Buddhism acknowledge the Parable Sutra? This Sutra, known in Chinese as 佛说譬喻经, has been translated into English by Charles Patton.

The Sutra makes a part of Taisho Tripitaka (Takakusu Junjiro's edition).

The text is known worldwide, also as a part of parables from other than Buddhist tradition.

My question is, do Theravada and Mahayana acknowledge this Sutra as words of Buddha as well?

When a Sutra began with "佛说" (佛说譬喻经), it usually means remembering what Buddha said and retold by a third party. This a general understanding, but doesn't undermine the value of teaching contained in that Sutra.

This 《佛说譬喻经》 only one page, translated by Yijing (635–713 CE), is collected in the Jātaka Section. Some scholars and Buddhists doubt the authenticity of the Jātaka "tales" - also in the Theravadin Canon. The Chinese Canon captioned this Sutra 佛说 as the beginning, just reflected the meticulousness of the ancient Chinese Buddhist Masters, to differentiate if that 100% confirmed directly from the official Tripitaka collecting, or the source was with certain uncertainty. Captioned with "佛/说" (Buddha/Said), means it told by someone that the Buddha said this. However, judging the Sutra context and other evidences, they aligned with the Buddhist teaching thus accepted in the Canon.

For Theravada, they have only one section out of the Twelves Sections of the Buddha Sutras. They may unlikely can have this in their canon. The Three Turning of Twelves Dharma Wheels was recounted in event of 500 Arhats collecting the Tripitaka after Buddha in Nirvana, recorded in at least all the survived Vinayas in the Chinese Canon, more detail in this post. The Mahisasakas Pratimoksa, one of the Early Eighteen Buddhist Schools, appeared in Ceylon supposedly split from Sthavira, but kept in the Chinese Canon. Surprised this Vinaya completely missing in the Pali Canon; their Vinaya Pitaka is with unknown origin.

Due to their lack of writing material to record large quantity of Sutras, only mean was relied on oral memorizing; Pali wasn't formally invented and synthesized, Theravada Suttas when finally they had the mean to write them down, was first written in Sinhalese letters imitating the "Pali" (Buddha never spoke Pali; Pali wasn't any ethnic language spoken by any race, the language existed and spoken by the ancient was called Paiśācī, and Prakrit, etc., not Pali; neither Pali appeared in the Ashoka Edicts, nor found to be used in any survived literature works apart from the Pali Canon) until Buddhaghosa translated all their Sinhalese records to Pali -- they likely incapable of holding this Sutra in their collection. Let alone if from the island they had means to access to all Sutras that circulating in the Indian Penisula, also wars, at that time. The only uncertain event recorded the Buddhist teaching arriving the island Ceylon was the story of Mahinda, even their own Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa had conflicting accounts on this story. If this story to a certain degree credible, how many Sutras could be bought by just one time of missionary effort?

Therefore it's not surprised this Sutra if not existed in the Theravada Canon, and not surprised many many Sutras also missing in the Theravada Canon. Just one Chinese Agama Section has the complete and extra Sutras that covered the totality of Sutta Pitaka of Pali Canon capable of keeping.


Guidance in practical aspects of buddhism and meditation I read a course entitled ' Meditation without exertion' which was purportedly based on Tibetan teachings and methods. It discussed methods of developing concentration and imagination leading to Samadhi. Buddhism seems to present a practical method which leads to discipline and non attachment something which is lacking, at least in my experience, in the the western traditions. I'm looking for direction to these methods and ways of applying these methods to myself and my experience. Your guidance and input will be greatly appreciated

There is a good primer on Buddhist training, it is called Sutta Pitaka and it is basically a collection of discourses attributed to the teacher and the foremost disciples.
It's pretty good and i recommend memorizing it.
You won't go wrong by familiarizing yourself directly with the teacher's message before seeking out teachers & methods as it will equip you with the discernment to see which teachings are based on texts known to be true and whose teachings are worthless.

https://suttacentral.net/sn20.7/
... in a future time there will be mendicants who won’t want to listen when discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited. They won’t pay attention or apply their minds to understand them, nor will they think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing.
But when discourses composed by poets—poetry, with fancy words and phrases, composed by outsiders or spoken by disciples—are being recited they will want to listen. They’ll pay attention and apply their minds to understand them, and they’ll think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing. And that is how the discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—will disappear. So you should train like this: ‘When discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited we will want to listen. We will pay attention and apply our minds to understand them, and we will think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing.’ That’s how you should train.”


Is there evidence of a Buddhist influence on Greek Stoicism? Stoic philosophy seems to share a lot with Buddhist wisdom.  Since Zeno of Citium (generally credited as the founder of Stoicism) is said to have lived a couple hundred years after Siddhartha Gautama, it seems possible that some cross pollination of ideas may have influenced the development of Stoic philosphy.  Is there any evidence (other than the similarities in philosophy) that this happened?

It's hard to answer these kind of things with a negative but I'm going to be bold and do that with caveats. I haven't heard of Stoicism itself being directly influenced by Buddhism but.....

There is evidence that Indian Philosophy was influencing Greek philosophy

The founder of skepticism Pyrrho travelled with Alexander the Great into India and was said to have studied philosophy there. One of his subsequent central concerns was  ataraxia (freedom from worry) which to my mind seems to have parallels with the doctrine of liberation as espoused by Buddhism and other Eastern traditions

A specific example of an advocate of east/west cross pollination of ideas is Thomas McEvilley in his book the Shape of Ancient Thought. He contends that modern thought is actually influence by Eastern and Western traditions and there was a rich cross pollination of ideas. He goes right back to the Pre-Socratic and says that with the exception of Thales, these philosophers could (would???) have been influenced by Eastern though as mediated through the Persian Empire.

Looking at it the other way, the transfer of ideas certainly happened the other way around. The Questions of King Milander detail a dialog between a Buddhist Monk and a Indo-Greek king thought to have been Menander. So it's very evident that a dialog was happening between east and west.

So generally the conclusions could be that there was no direct influnce but if the Pre-Socratics and/or the Skeptics were being infuenced by Eastern thought then Stocism itself would have been influenced by those philosophies. The influences doesn't need to be direct to by present and relevant.

We might not/never know

We probably lack direct evidence for this kind of transfer from the Stoics in particular. Philosophers such as Aristole do name check their influences in their texts (and then go on to say why their own ideas were so much better). I'm not aware of any direct referencing to Buddhist or other Eastern traditions in Greek texts.

That said the transmission of ancient texts is clearly very incomplete. I find it fascinating that we have lost much (all??) of the work of Chrysippus one of the main Greek Stoic thinkers. I heard it said that if his works had have come down to us then Chrysippus would have been a philosopher know to us in the same way as Plotinus or even Plato and Aristole.

So that said the eveidence of direct influence could well be there. Given that writings of major thinkers in the Stoic tradition are lost it can't be said what else is in there.

It might not just be the Stoics

I'm personally not convinced that the Stoics would be the best candidates for a heavy Buddhist influence. There is a lot in Stoicism such as their logic and physics that I would struggle to fit into this framework. To my (naive) mind the Skeptics have more similarities or even the Neoplatonic thinkers or even the Pythagoreans. I could even make a (bad) argument for Epicuricans if we consider the central place of spiritual community - though that's really pushing it to an almost crazy extent.


Is it possible to fly? Many times I see myself flying/floating in dreams. Not so high, but 1-2 feet above the surface. I make a second step upwards before my first step touches the surface/while my first step also holds up in air. Last night i was asked by myself (in the dream) how I am doing this. I don't know why but i replied 'its all about breath control'.
Whenever this flying happens in dreams, it leaves behind an amazing experience. I recall everything of those scenes. Whenever I breath-in, I raise up in parts and whenever I breath-out or lose control, I touch back the floor.
Almost 1 year back I had watched a programme on discovery channel which was about a monk who can fly/stay uplifted.
I wish to know, 'is it possible to actually fly? If yes, then how? If yes, then why one should do this 'as per buddha?

This is actually nothing special to feel excited about. In Ayurvedic terms, when Vatha(air element) is imbalanced in the body, people tend to see dreams of flying. More information here

On the other hand, the ability to fly through the air is just one of the many psychic feats an advanced meditator can perform. It has nothing to do with dreaming. It requires great dedication in the practice of Samatha meditation. Visuddhimagga explains how it can be achieved based on the 4th Jhana.

  If yes then why one should do this?

It's the same reason why one gets into an airplane. To travel longer distances easily. According to the stories, in the past, monks with psychic powers have used this method to travel when they don't have a specific destination in mind. ex: when going on alms round.
But if they want to go to a specific place, they would simply disappear from where they are and appear in the destination.
Lord Buddha himself has said to have used this method when he visited Sri Lanka 3 times.


How should I stop my craving for money and people? I have strong craving for money and people because I consider them basic for survival. But I know money is not going to stay with me forever and people are not going to stay with me forever. I have developed a fear of loosing people and money.

My question is : How should I stop my craving for money and people ?

Donate as much as you can to counter your greed.
Do Marananussati or Patikulamanasikara or Satipatthana meditation to counter the craving towards people.


Do Buddhist believe fortune teller? As a Buddhist, I only believe Buddha ,Dhamma,Sangha. But some of my relatives still believe fortune teller.
What should I do with people who try to read and tell my future.

You can't really say No to "Do Buddhist Believe in Fortune Tellers?" Because The Buddha himself had the ability to tell someone's fortune and future.He didn't do it for money of course.But he could tell what would happen to people. There were times where he knew that they had to listen to the Dhamma soon because their death was imminent.He could tell their fortune or misfortune.

In fact the past Buddha Kassapa was able to predict that the then Boddhisatta would one day become a Buddha.I know this all sounds like magic.But it all boils down to Karma. All Buddhas posses omniscient knowledge.They have the ability to discern someone's karma and the karmic tendency that will lead to the likelihood of one's karmic fruit ripening.

The Buddha also had a disciple who was once a fortune teller called Venerable Vangisa.Now, You don't have to be a Buddha to be able to predict the future.It can come as a Siddhi in some yogic practices.But this is clouded by delusion because one doesn't see dependent origination in it.Not to mention the Ego is still very much in charge.

When people try to read or tell your fortune it may be skillfull to just politely decline.If you don't want to do that then just remember that no one can make or take your fortune except you.It all depends on you.When people read your future their reading what your own actions are producing, their not causing the future to happen to you.Your fortune depends on your own actions.


Annoyed when talking about generosity, stingy -- would one ever be able to grow in Dhamma? Not having a quality, not seeing a quality in oneself, people get annoyed, even angry -- and use 1001 excuses to escape the first training.

Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma?

Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue?

(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining binding here, but for an exit for debt)

Generosity can help develop non-attachment & emptiness of self but its not guaranteed. This is why generosity is included as "mundane dharma" and it generally taught to common worldlings (aka puthujjana).


Was the Buddha misogynistic? The introduction to the Dhamma Wiki's Buddhism and Misogyny article says,

  Nevertheless, there are some non-Buddhists and even some Buddhists that contend that the Buddha was misogynistic. This is because of some passages in the Buddhist scriptures, the Tipitaka that appear sexist, that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women, that the bhikkhuni line ended and cannot be revived, that the Buddha said that the teachings (religion) would only last 500 years because women were given permission to ordain as nuns (bhikkhunis), because of the extra rules that were imposed on the female monastics, including the eight ‘heavy rules,’ and the passage that states that only a man can be a samma-sam-buddha who teaches the masses after the teachings have died out.

Was the Buddha misogynistic?

Buddha said women can be Enlightened.
In an unprecedented move for the times, Buddha allowed women to ordain as Buddhist wanderers.
Buddha added numerous rules to Vinaya to protect women practitioners from the abuse of men practitioners.
Buddha said that part of the path to Enlightenment is abandoning gender biases (AN 7.48)
Buddha was a big opponent of the traditional practice of having widows join their deceased husbands on the funeral pyre.
Buddha gave many teachings specifically for lay women.
Both the 500 years prediction and the idea that only man can be a buddha seem to be later additions as they are present in some versions of texts and absent from others.


Lost mind while Meditating I'm practising Vipassana meditation and I noticed that most of the time my mind thankfully doesn't wonder about things (past, future, judging).

But I notice that my attention is not really sharp. It's like my mind its in standby not really paying attention to anything in particular. I lost my attention of my breath, sensations, etc.. but not because of wondering.

What's is happening?. Could I get further information about this issue?

That sounds like the hindrance of "sloth-torpor". There are lots of ways to counter this.

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Sloth

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

  Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
  Changing the bodily posture;
  Thinking of the perception of light;
  Staying in the open air;
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

Mindfulness, investigation of reality and energy are factors that will help overcome sloth-torpor.

Also, don't lay down when you are meditating and experiencing sloth-torpor or you will probably fall asleep. If you need to, get up and practice walking meditation . . . or splash water on your face.


Has the Buddha taught anything about how one should approach fixing society? Has the Buddha taught anything about how one should approach fixing society?

Does the Buddha advocate for striving to make society better?

Does the Buddha have any practices for groups and societies that would lead society to less suffering?

Does the Buddha have any teachings about Justice and  Social Justice?

Yes.
The best is the sutta on World Turning Monarch (DN 26).
In addition other two important sutta are Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) and Parabhava Sutta (Snp 1.6).
There are many other suttas on the values of a great country.


How to deal with criticism? How should one properly handle cases of insults, criticism and discrimination, according to the Buddhist teachings?

How should one properly handle cases of insults, criticism and discrimination, according to the Buddhist teachings?

Here's what the Buddha had to say to the monks:

  For even this external earth element, great as it is, can be seen as
  impermanent, can be seen as liable to destruction, liable to fall,
  liable to change; so what of this body, which is clung-to by craving
  and lasts but a while? There can be no (considering) that as ‘I’ or
  ‘mine’ or ‘I am.’

  So then, (thus having seen this element as it actually is) if others
  abuse and scold and curse and threaten a bhikkhu, he understands thus:
  ‘This painful feeling born of ear-contact has arisen in me. That is
  dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact.’
  Then he sees that contact is impermanent, that feeling is impermanent,
  that perception is impermanent, that mental formations are
  impermanent, and that consciousness is impermanent. And his mind
  enters into that very object (taking it just as an impersonal)
  element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein).
  -MN 28, The Greater Discourse on the Elephant-footprint Simile

  "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

  "Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of
  the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you
  could not endure?"

  "No, lord."

  "Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw.
  That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness."
  -MN 21, The Simile of the Saw

  "Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they
  insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"

  "If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta
  people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with
  their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I
  will think, O One Well-gone."

  "But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a clod...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a stick...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a knife...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."

  "But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"

  "If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are
  disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and
  disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but
  here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' That is
  what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One
  Well-gone."

  "Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit."
  -SN 35.88, To Punna

In addition, with cases of blame or disrepute, you might want to take a look at this answer.


Does hand gesture have an impact on meditation or attainment of Nirvana? The question regarding the gesture while sitting for meditation has always intrigued me. When I tried to ask this to a Vipassana teacher in my 10-day course, he put it off saying I should concentrate on meditation first without worrying about these matters. Does it mean that it doesn't make any difference?

I personally use the dhyana mudra (fore-finger touching the thumb in a circle, and other three fingers straight out) while sitting cross-legged. But in many of Buddha's statues, I've seen him keep the left hand over right, and in some others, thumb touching forefinger and hand kept straight across the chest gestures.

Want to know from advanced practitioners, what do the Buddha's postures indicate? More importantly, does having a certain gestures have any good or bad effect on our vipassana practice?

Yes and no.

Certain hand gestures cause better energy flow through your body and vibrations. These vibration can be some times an aid in dissolving pain and also fabrication.

If you get attached to the vibrations and gestures this will do more harm than good in your progress.

So my advice is do not bother too much about these as their contribution to your final goal is marginal or non existent through it might give a mild boost to better practice in certain situation is making you conferable to be seated for a long time by creating Piti which is one of the enlightenment factors but keeping in mind you cannot bake a cake with one ingredient and attachment to the feeling or creating view and perception around the gestures will hold you back


What do the words of the Mahayana Buddhist mean? A Mahayana Buddhist said:

Mahayana Buddhists agree that there other sentient beings exist, that
they have discrete mindstreams, and ingest and interpret reality in
accordance to their own karmic dispositions.
If I encounter you, I believe you are a sentient being, and that you
are not me. But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only
with the impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory
contact.
So my experience of you is 'imaginary' in the sense that all I have is
this mental representation that was constructed within my own mind,
using limited data from where our actions and sense systems have
interactions.
But you clearly exist on some level, because you can perform actions
that I did not cause, which means that you are not some kind of
phantom my mind created.

Can you please explain to me what this means.
What does the following mean?

But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only with the
impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory contact.

That is, does it mean that when he talks to me, he thinks he is talking to an imaginary person?
Thank you!

Let's say there's a person called George, who is a lay single unmarried man, aged 39, and is strongly interested in Buddhism.
Now let's take a look at other people around him.
Let's say his friend Tom, is of the same age and is happily married with 3 kids. He looks at George and pities him for being single and not having his own family. He thinks about advising George to try more diligently to achieve the goal of marital bliss in the near future.
Another friend of his, Bob, is an openly gay man. He looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is a closeted gay man and that's the reason why he's single and unmarried. He pities George for not being true to himself and opening up to his fullest potential of happiness.
And then there's his colleague, Jim, who went through a bitter divorce, separating from his ex-wife who cheated on him with another man. Jim is very emotionally hurt from his divorce. He looks at George and envies him for having made the right choice to remain single and unmarried.
Lastly, George knows a Buddhist monk by the name of Sadhu Bhikkhu whom he met at a Dhamma talk. Sadhu Bhikkhu looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is single and unmarried because he is considering joining the monastic order in future. Sadhu Bhikkhu is hopeful that more interested men and women would join the monastic order.
So, in each case, Tom, Bob, Jim and Sadhu Bhikkhu, all know the real person George, but they each form a different mental model or mental image of George. When they interact with George, they are interacting based on that mental model that they have created, and not based on the real situation of George.
I believe this is what is meant by the Mahayana Buddhist.


More self control - Beginners Most of the time we are under control of our mind and old habits.If a beginner wants to break the old habits and get more control of it.From where do they should start ?

One starts by seeing with insight how the old habits are disadvantageous, unsatisfactory (incapable of bring lasting hapiness), dangerous, harmful &/or promote suffering.

One starts by seeing with insight the advantage & benefit of giving up those old habits.

The Dvedhāvitakka Sutta is one of many suttas describing how the Buddha, before his enlightenment, reflected upon the advantages & disadvantages of differing types of thinking.

The Upanisa Sutta states a cause of faith in Buddhist practises is the experience of suffering.


3 marks of existence: conditioned vs unconditioned things? The Wikipedia page for "the 3 marks of existence" differentiates between "conditioned things" and "unconditioned things" like so:

The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras
(conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all
saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas
(conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering."
Within that context:

What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an "unconditioned thing"?
How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks?
How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?

All compounded and/ or conditioned things are impermanent or changing. This applies to the five aggregates, physical objects, matter, energy, physical space, time, most mental concepts and ideas etc.
All matter can be broken down to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. That we know from Einstein's E=mc2. Matter can convert into different forms and so can energy.
Physical space and time can be warped by matter. This we know from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Conditioned things are impermanent and a source of suffering.
Nibbana is not impermanent. It is not conditioned or compounded. It does not depend on anything else. From this answer, we read:

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.

However, all things including Nibbana, Buddha's teachings, matter, physical space, time, thoughts, concepts are not self. There is no permanent, standalone, independent thing called self, just as you cannot find a thing called music when you breakdown a musical instrument into its constituent parts. Please also see this answer.


is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants? Suppose Dave is a Buddha.

Does he want to be a Buddha?

Will he get what he wants - forever ?

Does it matter ?

Does he want to be a Buddha?

I think it's usually expressed as a negative:

Life (or the experience of life) is unsatisfactory when you're not a Buddha; many examples of its being unsatisfactory include poverty, illness, death, separation from people and things you love, inability to have what you want, inability to keep what you have, failure to do what you want to, etc. (sorry for all that bad news! :-) That's the so-called "first noble truth".
This dissatisfaction is caused by desire: I want to live forever! I want all my friends and family, and everything I like, to live forever! I want no pain, no sickness, for anyone! Lots of money! Endless paradise! Never anything unpleasant! But I can't have any of these things and so life is unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "second noble truth".
This dissatisfaction (and desire) can end. If I stop wanting things that are unreal, stop wanting to keep things that are impermanent, then I'll stop finding life unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "third noble truth".

So I think that the Buddha knows (and teaches) that wanting (thirsting for) the wrong things (e.g. impermanent things) causes unhappiness. Dave no longer wants those things and is, consequently, no longer unhappy.

  Will he get what he wants - forever ?

Well, yes: for as long as he's alive. It's assumed that once he became fully enlightened then he will no longer (or not again) become unenlightened. Because being unenlightened means wanting the wrong thing, wanting the kind of impermanent thing that will cause unhappiness: and the Buddha knows better (is wiser and has more discipline) than to do that.

There is a bit in the literature where people asked what happens to a Buddha after he dies, and the Buddha says that's one of the questions that not worth asking.

  is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants?

I think it can be described as being liberated (freed) from the dissatisfaction which is caused by wanting or clinging to impermanent things.

So I started to answer: what the Buddha taught might be summarized as "the four noble truths" or as "causes of suffering, and his path or way to end suffering".

And I started this answer by saying it's expressed as a negative ("end of suffering").

But there's more to the teaching than that: joy; serenity; loving-kindness. Removing causes for suffering allows room for other, better experiences, more like the "getting what he wants" which you asked about. For example the Kimattha Sutta mentions words like 'reward', 'joy', 'serenity', etc.

I think that the Buddha also decided that a cause of dissatisfaction (which, he freed himself from) was views about 'self': views like "me" and "mine" etc.

According to the biography, once he became enlightened he felt compassion for other people who were still suffering, and decided to try to teach to them (in case, with the help of his teaching, some of them too could free themselves from suffering). And so he began to teach.

I guess we can say that that (i.e. helping to enlighten other people, other people becoming free and safe) was what he 'wanted'.


Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole? Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole, and wholes can't be real?

With emphasis on space, not what takes it up, except perhaps to say they're "in" space likes parts in a whole, and / or the contents of a whole.

Space (akasha) is one of those dharmas that were debated by Early Buddhist schools.

Some counted space as an unconditioned dharma along with Nirvana, and some did not. If I remember correctly, Theravada does not, and most other early schools did consider space unconditioned.

Then within that, there was argument whether a certain dharma can perform a function (whether its "real" or not - being able to participate in causal chains was considered an important characteristic, which later was denied equivalency with ultimate existence - things can perform function even though they are empty of real existence). This argument included akasha, some said it can cause results and some said it can't.

Some said akasha is only an absence of objects etc. All this messy debating about dharmas, in my opinion, is what led to eventual emergence and popularization of Emptiness philosophy and praxis of prajnaparamita. Declaring all dharmas to be mere conceptual designations/imputations, was an elegant way out of endless debates.

I do not remember who specifically spoke about "whole" vs "parts" but there was a line of analysis that was born somewhere in the period between Abhidharma and Madhyamaka, that showed that all spatial entities are designations, because they have "sides" (left/right/top/down) - and since they can be subdivided, they are therefore constructed, therefore are generalizations attached to a construct, hence not real. You find this point still cited in various Tibetan commentaries explaining the various facets of Emptiness.

Sorry, nothing specific here, hope it helps at all.


Is it only possible to pay attention to one thing at a time? I once was at a (theravada) mini-retreat where the teacher insisted that if one really watched carefully, one would recognize that it is not possible for the mind to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.  I commented that in my experience it is possible to experience a lot of stimuli simultaneously. to see "whole picture" in one glimpse, just like listening to many instruments at the same time, but he kept insisting that this was due to the fact that attention shifted at a very fast pace between objects. And that if I kept practicing I would realize this.  Is what he said in accordance with buddhist teaching?  I have never heard it mentioned from any teacher other than him (but I remember it from some old perception psychology which I don't know if is out dated), and it really interferes with my mindfulness when I come to think of what he said.

The teacher is correct.

It is only possible for the mind to hold a single object at a time. Thinking that the mind is able to hold multiple objects at the same time is merely an illusion of continuity. It is just the mind shifting very rapidly between objects and mindfulness is not yet strong enough to register/discern that.

As mindfulness, concentration and insight matures that fact will gradually become more apparent.

By practicing Vipassana meditation one can come to clearly experience this fact.


The New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness What is a Buddhist point-of-view on the New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness?

By the way the question is framed it implies that buddhism accepts a creator God or Universal Consciousness. Buddhism do not accept any of them. The Buddha refuted both the eternalist and annihilationist view as being 2 extremes that cannot take place. A creator God and the Universal Consciousness belongs to the eternalist view.

By saying that there is a creator God one is saying that there exists a first cause.

That can never be true since it will break causality by asking "what preceeded this first cause?".

And further "what cause preceeded that cause which preceeded the first cause?". One can do that endlessly and will thereby stumble into infinite regress.

In short your question is not related to buddhism.

Lanka


What do buddha taught about dreams? What has buddha told about dreams? Do dreams have any link with truths or realities? If a person understands something from his dream which he is asking in this world, than should such things considered as real? How is this world also one of the dream worlds among other infinite dream worlds/parallel universe? Is dream a type of meditation state?

Monks are not supposed to interpret dreams

  Whereas some recluses and brahmins, living off food given in faith, maintain
  themselves by wrong livelihood through the low arts such as:

  ...

  interpreting dreams

Te,vijja Sutta

Mahāsupina Jātaka does mention the Buddha interpreting 16 dreams King Pasenadi Kosala.

But with regarding dreams, there might be no accurate way to interpret them, by anyone other than the Buddha.

Dreams are not meditative states. In meditation you should be focusing on a particular object or having awareness. In both cases it is unlikely you might have a dream unless you dose off.


Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "You insulted / offended / angered / hurt me?" I feel that in his Ball Of Honey Discourse, the Buddha advised his followers to reflect within whenever they felt offended: and to identify the processes of their mind that caused perceptions or sensations to arise, which then led to anger.

In the context of this teaching, can a Buddhist ever truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?"

Please reply with references to recent gurus.

One could "say" anything but that would only be a relative truth. Ultimately one person doesn't cause another persons anger. One causes their own anger.

It is hard to understand ultimate reality unless one reflects within by atempting to experience  things that arise in one's experience moment by moment in the present moment. Remembering to see things moment by moment is basicly what is meant by mindfulness.

The reason the Buddha's teaching is so seemingly contradictory is because of these two ways of approaching reality called ultimate and relative(conceptual) reality.  Reality is an other word for truth. Ultimate truth means our own instance of moment by moment atomic experience.

Most people are asleep to the ultimate, experiential and moment by moment aproach to reality. When we are not aware of our experience then we let defilements like anger and greed take us over. This is called mental proliferation and is basicly the opposite of mindfulness. Mental proliferation is the reason everyone suffers. Moment by moment mindfulness of the things that arise in one's own experience kills mental proliferation. Mindfulness is the cure for our suffering.

Here's a video, which hints that it's possible to use mindfulness to avoid reacting angrily:

Ask A Monk: Criticism and Insults

It's only 5 minutes long; I don't have a complete transcript but here are some selected extracts/sentences:

  No other person can cause "suffering" for you, all they can do is impinge upon your six senses. ... They can make you see etc. but they can't make you get angry ... or make you get attached, only you can do that.
  The problem is not the dirty look or the criticism, the problem is your reaction to it.
  ... we can change that through the meditation. ... that's quite difficult, that takes a lot of training but we are training to get to that level ... and it does work if that's continuous, even in daily life when it's difficult to do so, if you're careful and especially if you're prepared for it. ... If you prepare yourself in advance then when the situation comes up then you find yourself really able to deal with it in a much more profitable way.
  (you can use a similar technique to stop anger snowballing if it does arise)
  You mentioned losing all energy when you're criticized, don't worry about that, I think even if you're enlightened it would be very tiresome to be around, they say even the Buddha was tired when he was around such people and would often dismiss them. ... if you're going to live your life in a peaceful and happy way you're going to have to surround yourself with peaceful and happy people ... if you can't do that then try to say to yourself the greatest treasure that we have is our solitude.


How to scan your body in 3d? In S. N. Goyenka Vipassana meditation you have to scan your body from head to foot and foot to head. Now I take my attention or [ध्यान dhyaan] at top point of my head, so it’s a 2d point now I move from this point in 2d on surface of my body and I can either go from my front side or from back toward my foot. I'm not getting how to scan my body in 3d? And if I scan in 2d its take too much time to scan whole body if I go inch by inch. People working in this mediation may get my point what I’m trying to ask.

With sufficient practice one can develop the ability to very quickly and accurately observe several points in the body in very quick succession.

In a single mind moment only one point in the body is observed, however since mind moments are so fleetingly small, with good concentration intermediate meditators can pass attention to several points in quick succession such that it can appear as a single observation.

With good concentration one can pass the attention from top-down in a ray trace fashion, or left-right, and observe all points in between.

There is no reason to be in a hurry, or be impatient - the quality of meditation does not depend on the number of times the body scanned, but on the quality of the observation. If it takes a lot of time to go inch by inch, that is valuable practice too, since it develops patience and perseverance.


Wisdom Devoid of Compassion Some schools of Buddhism focus on the cultivation of wisdom/understanding as a way to reduce suffering in this lifetime and to move towards Nirvana. Other schools of Buddhism focus on cultivation of compassion as a means towards these same ends.

I've occasionally heard and read statements to the effect that developing wisdom without compassion can be risky, dangerous, cold, cruel, etc.

My question is, can true wisdom ever be devoid of compassion? Or would true wisdom by it's nature necessarily contain compassion? In other words, is the risk of developing a cold, cruel wisdom a real possibility?

It depends on what you mean by wisdom. By wisdom, if you mean intelligence as well, it can be dangerous and cruel. ex: coming up with more effective ways to invade countries, deceive people to make more profit etc.

But wisdom from a Buddhist perspective can be seen as two fold.

Worldly wisdom: Wisdom that helps you live a successful family life, be an ideal husband, wife, householder or worker; wisdom that helps you improve a good business; wisdom that leads you to a happy destination, next life. etc. Singalovada Sutta has many such examples.
Wisdom that leads to Nibbana.
Basically this means the understanding of the four noble truths.

  can true wisdom ever be devoid of compassion?

Sure! Wisdom need not be associated with compassion.
Ex: take each of the 16 Vipassana Nanas. Those mind states have nothing to do with compassion. Some of them are associated with fear towards Samsara. Wisdom can also come as disappointment towards sensual pleasures. Read the story of Upatissa & Kolitha who later became the chief disciples of the Buddha.
Even the four stages of enlightenment don't have compassion as a quality.

To reach enlightenment, one needs to cultivate the Five Spiritual Faculties:

Faith
Vigor
Mindfulness
Concentration
Wisdom

Balancing of these five faculties is more important to the progression in the path:

  For one who is strong in faith and weak in wisdom places his
  confidence foolishly in an unworthy object. One strong in wisdom and
  weak in faith errs on the side of cunning and is as hard to cure as a
  sickness caused by medicine. But with the balancing of the two, faith
  and wisdom, a man has confidence only in a deserving object.

But this doesn't imply compassion(Karuna) and kindness(Metta) are unimportant. They have many useful benefits and they help us to stay away from hells by subduing our cruelty and hatred. That is very conducive to attaining Nibbana. Realising that is wisdom.

When a being attains or passes the state of Anagami, he removes aversion completely. Then there's no obstacle in his mind for compassion and kindness to arise, when he interacts with people. That's why they are naturally inclined to help other beings attain enlightenment. That is the reason why we even have Buddhism today. If the Buddha did not have any compassion towards the worldlings, he wouldn't have preached the Dhamma just because the Maha Brahma invited. Compassion and wisdom can work in tandem. Ex: Maha Karuna Samapatti Nana of the Buddha. But compassion is not a requirement for wisdom to be present.


What do Buddhists religious texts say about the environment? My name is John and I am a grade 12 student living in Australia. I am currently in the process of doing research for a religion assignment.

You could start by reading Buddhism and environmental issues (which I found, just by doing a Google search for Buddhism environment and which is intended as an educational resource).

I have read it and I mostly agree with it as a good beginning.

It mentions the "first precept" (i.e. avoid killing) and the "second precept" (i.e. avoid taking what's not given) -- those are from the five precepts, i.e. the more basic ethical rules for laypeople.

To that, I'd add that another place to look for ethical rules is in the Noble Eightfold Path, of which three (i.e. speech, action, and livelihood) are to do with ethics again.

There aren't many right livelihood rules but among them is "Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of poison or a toxic product designed to kill". I guess that a narrow view of that 'rule' might be that everything is alright except producing chemical warfare agents and pesticides. A much, much broader view might be to minimize 'pollution' of all kinds.

I think there's some justification or precedent for 'interpreting' Buddhism's ethical rules. For example, one of the precepts is literally against "fermented drink that causes heedlessness" but Buddhists today usually understand that as including all "recreational drugs and intoxicating beverages". The earliest Buddhist literature is from 2,500 years ago, which is before various problems of the modern world existed.

Note the second paragraph of "Buddhism and environmental issues": it says, "So, it should certainly not come as a shock to practising Buddhists to discover what environmentalists are now telling us." That's saying that environmentalists know more about the environment, these days, than is taught in Buddhist literature.

So perhaps you can look to Buddhist literature for generalities, or for hints on what attitude to have. I think that's what the Dalai Lama is doing when he gives a speech like this one which includes,

  Since I deeply believe that basically human beings are of a gentle nature so I think the human attitude towards our environment should be gentle. Therefore I believe that not only should we keep our relationship with our other fellow human beings very gentle and non-violent, but it is also very important to extend that kind of attitude to the natural environment. I think morally speaking we can think like that and we should all be concerned for our environment.

One of the central doctrines of Buddhism is that things are impermanent. I think it would be wrong, though, to interpret that as "nothing matters" ... to say for example, "Oh let's go ahead and kill on the elephants, what does it matter, everything is impermanent anyway" ... wrong because, as well as breaking the first precept (to avoid killing), there are other important Buddhist values including loving-kindness and compassion.

There are a few more things I think that maybe you could want to know.

The quantity of Buddhist literature is vast. So your question, "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?" is a little bit like asking, "What do English-language scientific texts say about the environment?", i.e. it's difficult to summarize
Most of Buddhist literature focuses on topics other than 'the environment'.
There are several schools of Buddhism (like there are many schools of Christianity). If you want to ask another question, one way to narrow it down would be to say whether you interested in the literature from a specific school, or from a specific time period: e.g. modern literature; medieval literature; or the earliest literature, the Pāli Canon which is from about 2000 years ago.
There are separate (and stricter or more numerous) rules of behaviour for Buddhist monks: which are called the Vinaya. There's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between Buddhist monks and laypeople, for example monks shouldn't work for a living (shouldn't handle money) and laypeople should support them with gifts of food and other essentials (basically just food, a robe to wear, medicine when needed, and maybe a place to live). Someone who is living a monk's life (and a lot of Buddhist literature is by and perhaps for monks) might be unlikely to have a huge, negative environmental impact. This explanation of the Vinaya rules on Harmlessness says,

  Throughout its history Buddhism has been renowned for its tolerance and compassion towards all living beings and this is reflected in the Buddhist monks' Vinaya. Their rules cover situations of causing harm ranging from murder — which is universally accepted as a crime — to such things as destroying plant life.

Rules against destroying vegetation include even digging the ground...
When the historical Buddha lived and taught (2400 years ago) there were other religions ... which the Buddha probably learned before his enlightenment. One of these is called Jainism. I mention Jainism because it's practice of Amhisa (non-violence) is similar to or stricter than Buddhism's, even for laypeople; and because Jainism and Buddhism may have influenced each other, to some extent, historically.
You can also look for guidance from specific Buddhists, Buddhist teachers, modern-day Buddhist teachers, if not from Buddhism-in-general or "Buddhist religious texts". For example in this comment, Andrei said, "17th Karmapa is very vocal about ecological concerns, perhaps more than any other major Buddhist figurehead so far". And indeed a Google search for 17th Karmapa environment returns many results, including for example Buddhism and the Environment: Living in Harmony with the Planet from his own web site.

I hope that what I've written here is true, I hope it's not misleading. Two ways in which this isn't a good answer include,

It references vocabulary but don't quote texts
It talks about ethics in general rather than environmentalism specifically
Asking about the Buddhism and the environment might be a bit like asking, "What does your sister write about football?" ... when, she doesn't actually write about football very much at all.

In fact it seems to me that Buddhism writes more about people or 'the person' than it does about 'the environment'.

Some of the topics that are more central to Buddhism include the following -- perhaps you can see for yourself how these may be related to environmentalism:

The 'four noble truths', of which:

The first is that "Things are not satisfactory: you cannot get everything you might want, and you cannot keep everything you have."
The second is that "The dissatisfaction is caused by greed."

There's a 'middle way' which says that eternalism and annihilationism are, both, extremes
Being 'selfish' is problematic and unenlightened.


Mindfulness of the world - its being OK Does mindfulness include being "mindful" (noticing, etc.) of your world, or only sensations like the breath, walking. etc.?

So e.g. - being mindful of the other things that I do or do not have to do, rather than the task which is stressing me out and I haven't started yet.

I have "pronounced negative symptoms" of schizophrenia, and I badly need a way to be cognisant of tasks (like coursework) without approaching them directly and getting flustered. This may be one way.

Mindfulness is a translation of a Buddhist term that generally means "recollection" or "remembrance". It can be used in any number of ways, for example "recollection of the Buddha", "recollection of past lives", etc. In insight meditation, it refers to one's ability to recollect or remember the present moment, as taught in the discourse on the four foundations of mindfulness.
The four foundations are

body - recognizing and reminding oneself of bodily sensations as being simply bodily sensations
feelings - recognizing and reminding oneself of feelings (pain, pleasure, neutral) as being simply feelings
mind recognizing and reminding oneself of one's state of mind (scattered, focussed, etc.) as being simply a state of mind
dhammas - recognizing and reminding oneself of various aspects of ones experience on the path to enlightenment as being simply what they are.

So, to answer your question, mindfulness is simply a tool used to focus one's attention on a specific object; what you are suggesting sounds like a conceptual object, e.g. something unrelated to the task at hand to take your mind off of the present moment. This could be called "mindfulness", in the sense that you are actively working to recollect a specific object. It would be considered a form of samatha (tranquility) meditation, since it is no longer based on ultimate (i.e. present moment) reality.
The problem with what you suggest is that it seems to likely involve aversion to the present moment, and so it is not likely to lead to true freedom from the suffering associated with aversion. For this, you will need to practice mindfulness as described above regarding the four foundations. There, it should be used to focus on the present moment and remind you that the stress you feel is merely stress - not me, not mine, not good, not bad, etc.
A Buddhist perscription for your condition would be to focus your attention on the state of being flustered, as such states are conditioned by habit and can be countered with new conditioning (i.e. objectivity) through simply recognizing them as they are. As the Buddha said, for example:

idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sarāgaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sarāgaṃ cittan’ti pajānāti
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu clearly knows a mind with passion thus: "a mind with passion".
-- MN 10

In my tradition, this is accomplished by noting the flustered mind, for example, as "flustered, flustered..." somewhat akin to a mantra.


Fastest way to Samadhi I have heard that Metta Meditation is the fastest way to a samadhi mind. How effectively fast is it? How is Metta properly cultivated as a meditation? As in how to develop the Vitakka Vicara on metta in meditation?

I have heard that Metta Meditation is the fastest way to a samadhi mind. How effectively fast is it?

It depends on the practitioner. All beings have different Kamma. Some have sharp and balanced faculties and others must work more diligently on theirs.

The initial effort/goal of any (Samatha)meditator must be to quiet down the five hindrances. They are an obstruction to Samatha meditation. As long as the hindrances are present strong concentration (Jhana) cannot arise.

The two most influential hindrances are 1) sense-desire and 2) ill-will. The Buddha often talked about how ones faculties cannot remain sharp if one is prone to indulge in sense-desires, e.g. in MN 75 - Magandiya Sutta:

  "So too, Magandiya, in the past sensual pleasures were painful to
  touch, hot, and scorching; in the future sensual pleasures will be painful
  to touch, hot, and scorching; and now at present sensual pleasures are
  painful to touch, hot, and scorching. But these people who are not free
  from lust for sensual pleasures, who are devoured by craving for sensual
  pleasures, who burn with the fever of sensual pleasures, have faculties
  that are impaired; thus, though sensual pleasures are actually painful
  to touch, they acquire a mistaken perception of them as pleasant."

So the fastest way in any form of Samatha meditation is to ensure that the hindrances are kept in check.

This can be done in a number of ways; most importantly is to guard/restrain the sense-doors.

That can be done either by practicing

Morality (precepts)
Mindfulness (guarding the sense-doors, Right Mindfulness)
Attaining Wisdom (into the 3 sign of existence)
Patience and Forbearance (Khanti)
Effort (Right Effort from the Noble 8-fold Path).

If just one of these methods arises then one has fulfilled the goal of restraint.

  How is Metta properly cultivated as a meditation?

See my in-depth and detailed answer on how to pratice Metta Meditation correctly.

  As in how to develop the Vitakka Vicara on metta in meditation?

Vitakka and Vicara is practiced in the same way as in all other forms of Samatha meditation.

Vitakka means to apply the Mind to the object and Vicara means to continually keep the Mind on the object.

Vitakka is like striking a bell once.

Vicara is like striking a bell continually with a little pause between strikes so that the bell sounds will have a balanced and continuous flow.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to the post feel free to ask.


Buddhism and Novelty of Persons I realized that, when I meet new people and especially people I have a romantic interest in, to value and idealize them disproportionately. This seems very ingrained in my personality. Here, cemetery contemplation seem less pertinent as its novelty rather than lust.

What does Buddhism have to say about such novelty? What are the potential ways to reduce it or alter one's perspective about it?

From AN4.163 we have:

  It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions

Paradoxically, observing ugliness is a great antidote for the seduction of attractive. The perception of ugliness develops equanimity. To see this yourself, simply look at any pair of people. Invariable, one will attract your eye and one will not. Now rapidly look at each one in turn, switching to the other when any feeling (good or bad) arises. As you do this, also acknowledge that, "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self."

What happens as you do this is that your mind gets exhausted trying to make coherent sense of it all and collapses eventually into equanimity. Be careful when doing this with real people because nobody likes being stared at. However, you can practice this with any movie or video that you can stop mid-play. Simply scan back and forth repeatedly until equanimity returns. When you do this, the scene will always be equanimous to you in the future. Eventually you will be able to do this in real time without bothering others.

The nice thing about dealing with others in equanimity is that you will earn trust and friendship. Out of those friendships, deeper connections will naturally evolve. And those connections will always enrich your life.


Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible? Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" to a computer impossible?

I was reading this question on philosophy.stack

I'd suspect that it's impossible to make sense of momentary rebirth / causal continuity in terms of computer data. Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment? A chariot's axle, for them, does not generate visual consciousness, only colour and shape do that. And so the same for computers.

But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism? Does rebirth consciousness actually form the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination? Because if it does, unless I've misunderstood 'consciousness', perhaps due to its coupling with 'rebirth', I don't see how anyone can claim that there is genuine continuity.

As surely my consciousness does not form the physical body of a computer: it's already been designed etc..

I don't understand the question. I just try to help. I write this answer by my guess the question's meaning.

The past (vanished) moment does not "upload" anything to the moment which it affects. It just causes its effect to arise. However, the effects are able to arise as the same habit, e.g. same object and same feeling, because of Upanissaya Paccaya.

The vanished moment is hypochondria. It cannot pass or upload anything to the future, although it still is able to cause new moment effects.

For example, I can smile when I thinking of my dead sister however she vanished and doesn't upload anything to me, she just causes me to smile.


What is "love" to a lay person? As a budding Buddhist, one cannot help but investigate day to day phenomena with the magnificent tools made available to us by the Buddha.

An interesting thought occurred to me today and prompted me to ponder the nature of love. The conclusion that was arrived at the end of this particular stream of consciousness is that love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional. It is experiential, highly conditional, impinges on all faculties, and reverberates through the heartstring. As with all formations, it is impermanent. Wordly beings crave it, but few truly uncover it.

How do other lay people conceptualize love? And how would a monk approach this investigation?

Love is a very overloaded term. There are many different phenomena that fall under the umbrella label of "love":

There is love as obsessive kama (liking/desire) towards someone or something. This should probably be classified as lobha (greed, obsessive desire).
There is non-reciprocated love, longing for something you can't get. This is probably tanha (unsatisfied thirst, craving) - the root of dukkha.
There is love towards your mother, family, friends, town, country. This could be pure metta (loving-kindness) or metta with attachment. The first is a wholesome kind of love, producer of good karma. The second subtype, love with attachment, will serve as the root of dukkha once the impermanence kicks in.
There is love of self. This can be an egoistic form of love, or a kind of acceptance/appreciation - a factor of healing.
There is love as unconditional acceptance/appreciation of someone or everyone and everything -- a non-dual kind of love that does not draw lines between "self" and "other". In my understanding, such love is a factor of Enlightenment.

Summarizing the above, there seems to be two main types of love: attachment-type and acceptance/appreciation-type. The first type is a factor of dukkha, the second type is a factor of good karma, healing, Enlightenment.


Can one become so sensitive by an enlightenment that one can't have people near/around you? Is this good or 'bad' and should there be something done about it? So some person just picks up to much 'information' about other humans that it makes oneself emotionally to much loaded.
Especially during nights with out of the body experiences.

Yes, it is certainly possible to be spiritually hyper-sensitive however this is more related to expanded states of consciousness rather than Buddhist enlightenment. In Buddhist enlightenment, all things, both internally & externally are viewed as not-self (anatta) and with dispassion (viraga) & equanimity (upekkha). Some spiritually/consciously expanded people live their lives is solitude however this does not mean they are enlightened in a Buddhist sense.


Problematic Nature of Views This answer states that:

  View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction. Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction some view and confidence in these view.

I am confused by this, because I understand the world in terms of views, I have the feeling most people hold on to views. If these views aren't existent, what are people holding on to? I agree that perhaps these views are illusory, as they are impermanent and dependently originated, but doesn't the fact we recognize them imply they have some reality and existence?

More so, when I write for myself I often get insights, but these insights form aggregated beliefs. They're precisely aggregated, abstract ways of seeing things. Does Buddhism precisely condemn this as a cause to suffering?

Lastly, the quote mentions lower levels of abstraction. Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach higher levels of abstraction?

When we say "level of abstraction" we don't mean "level of sophistication", but rather "how much generalization this abstraction entails". "High level of abstraction" means a birds-eyes-view with a lot of generalization. "Low-level of abstraction" means we look at particulars.

For example, when we say "In US, Democrats are generally good people, and Republicans are generally more pragmatic than ethical."  -- that's a high level of abstraction, not high level of sophistication.

Most people hold these kind of very general views about things, very much simplified. In fact, the nature of MIND is such that it has tendency to forming and holding on to such simplified views. Children are known for this, as well as unsophisticated adults. Mahayana Buddhists say that "reifying" (grasping as real) such views is the root of suffering. Buddha said, the Highest of the two Right Views (the right view without asavas vs the right view with asavas) is "analysis of dharmas" - meaning, the ultimate right view is to go beyond simplified views and reifyed abstractions.

Why?

Because simplified views omit too much, they are "leaking abstractions", thereby creating potential for mental conflict, which is the nature of suffering.

How do they create potential for mental conflict?

Either two (groups of) people hold opposing simplified views on the same ontological subject, and therefore come in conflict with each other. OR
A person grasps at a simplified view and comes in conflict with REALITY when the details omitted in the simplified view inevitably come up. (One obvious example is Impermanence - i.e. we grasp at an idea of an entity as something fixed, while the reality beyond this simplified abstraction is an assembly of transitory aggregates. Impermanence is just one example of leaking abstraction though, out of million other cases.)

To summarize, grasping at views, specifically grasping at "abstract", "generalized", "simplified" views, and specifically assuming them to be THE ontological reality must be recognized as the root of suffering.


What is the meaning in the Buddha walking seven steps? When Buddha was born, he walked seven steps and then stopped without stepping the eighth step, and at every step there was a shower of rain. I ask: what does the seven steps symbolize?

According to Mahāpadānasutta, when he was born he stood firm on both feet, then with his face to the north took seven strides while a white canopy was held over him. There is no mention of a shower at every step though.

According to Mahāpadānasutta commentary, standing firm on both feet is a portend for achieving the four iddhipada (Intention, Effort, Consciousness, Investigation). Facing north is a sign that he'll rise above others, the seven steps he walked is a portend that he'll achieve the seven factors of enlightenment (satta bojjhaṅgā) and finally the white canopy held over his head is a symbol that he'll achieve nirvana.


Bundle of processes, constantly remaking ourselves using past materials Retired Oxford Professor Richard Gombrich is an indologist and, scholar of Pali, Sanskrit and Buddhist Studies. He also founded the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.

He wrote in this biography:

  I begin with a brief historical account of my early life, because I
  agree with the Buddha’s analysis that we are a bundle of processes,
  and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited
  from our past.

If we should summarize the Buddha's teaching with respect to the nature of our reality as beings, would this make an accurate summary?

If not, what would be a more accurate summary?

We are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

According to Mahayana this is more or less right, but only as a simplification. If you dig in-depth, you eventually reach the limits of description and hit Emptiness, as Nagarjuna loved to point out.

Buddha said that almost all dharmas (things, phenomena) are saṅkhāras (bundles, assemblies). Dharmas that are not sankharas include Nibbana, and, according to some schools, but not all, Akasa (sky or space) and stuff like that (e.g. Time). Buddha explained that saṅkhāra-dharmas emerge when causes and conditions "come together" (samudaya) in a certain configuration and disappear when one or more of the necessary causes or conditions goes out. This is the fundamental principle behind the key teachings like Anicca (impermanence), Anatta (as explained through inability to control anything), and therefore Dukkha (esp. because of unreliability). It is also the fundamental principle behind Second and Third Noble Truths, explaining that Dukkha is also a sankhara, emerging when certain causes come together, and therefore can be stopped and prevented (nirodha) by removing one of the necessary causes, namely Craving (tanha) for things to be different than they are. It is also the fundamental principle behind Buddha's liberation from death, which, too, considered a sankhara and is traced back to its causes, among which Buddha identifies birth as the key element we can use to stop/prevent death, and then on the next cycle, taking birth as sankhara and looking for its causes, Buddha finds identification and appropriation (bhava and upadana). Note that Buddha never said death has no other causes other than birth, it obviously does (such as a strike of knife) - but birth is the key element we can work with - and so on all the way to Ignorance. So as you can see, the bundle theory is at the very center of Buddha's teaching on Three Marks of Existence, Four Noble Truths, and Twelve Chain of D.O. - the core of the core of Dharma.

Now, if we expand this analysis to include Mahayana perspective, we could note the following:

When we say "We are the bundle of processes", what exactly does that mean? First of all, what is a "process"? My teacher explained that processes can be seen like chains of events, like a sequence of billiard balls pushing each other. This can be understood. The billiard balls keep pushing other balls until they all get in a certain configuration temporarily and this configuration is a person (or other dharma). However, are we saying that each dharma (e.g. a person) is literally a bundle (sankhara) of a specific number of precisely identifiable processes? How many processes are there then? Where are the boundaries of each process? Is it the same number of processes over one's lifetime or does it vary with time? As soon as we start asking these questions we must necessarily realize that these "processes" we are talking about, are themselves not concrete. They are just a manner of speech. The processes are approximate abstractions, conceptual simplifications for describing the infinitely forking and joining network of causes and conditions leading to emergence of phenomena.

In Mahayana, we say that all Dharmas are empty. We also say that so called "Hinayana" (which is not necessarily a name for Theravada, just a name for simplistic/superficial understanding of Buddha-Dharma, because indeed there are Theravada practitioners who clearly understand this stuff), we also say that so called "Hinayana"-level of understanding naively assumes that dharmas that e.g. people are made from are themselves concrete and real, that they exist in the ultimate sense. No, according to Mahayana, they are not. According to Mahayana all this talk about processes and dharmas is a useful simplification. Everything is a simplification. Once we go all the way, we reach the limits of description and see that final reality is unspeakable. We call this Emptiness.

So, to say "we are a bundle of processes" is more or less right as long as we understand the limits of the semantic context within which we are making this statement.

Now,

  ...and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

What is "every moment"? Is there such thing as a single moment? From the above it should be clear that the answer is No. The dimension of time is infinitely slicable into infinitely smaller pieces. There is nothing like single moment, because the duration of moment depends on the scale of observation, which depends on perspective.

Are we really remaking ourselves? Or are we maybe "being remade"? Who is the driving force here and are we really in control? According to Buddha, it is a combination of the forces of inertia (latent results of past action or karma) plus the force of choice and determination being made in the now. So we can't say that each of us literally remakes oneself in isolation from everything else. We are being made by our past and we make ourselves and each other with our choices.

  Using the materials inherited from our past.

This sounds like "material" is something real and tangible that actually stays around, with things being made from combination of materials. This is not a Buddhist position, this is simple materialism. In Buddhist understanding, once you look close enough you see that so-called "material" is actually made of sankharas each of which is a just a focal point of interaction of other sankharas and so on. There is nothing tangible here, just interactions upon interactions. These interactions do not actually stay in the same place, they keep interacting, which is why things morph all the time, things get old, drift apart, and new things grow from them.

In Zen tradition this is well-explained by Dogen in his very important work "Time-Being".

So it's not like something tangible actually gets "inherited from the past". It's more like spreading and intersection of multiple waves - each next moment is a development - or unfolding - of the previous moment according to the rules of interaction. What's inherited from the past is form as well as force, the form of force, combination of energy and information.

Finally, see how it's saying "we are" and "our past"? That's identification and appropriation right there! Why is this stuff "we" and what makes that past "ours"?

Now, with all of the above, when you say "we are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past" - and while saying this you understand what Buddhism would mean by "bundle", "process", "moment", "remaking", "materials" and "inherited from the past" - as well as the limit of what's meant by "we" and "our" - then you can understand the picture that this phrase is trying to paint.


What is attachment as per Buddhism? Is attachment some kind of love? Parental love, a smile that comes when we get a glance of a toddler, when we spent money on good for our beloved one's then that time what is it?

As per my perception i wish to ignore all of this, attachment. But i am actually unaware of the factual attachment. Am i wishing good? I am open for good, for change as i am aspired to become a good or maintain a fair balance between good and bad in myself to lead a good way of living. Literally i have came to know that i need a fair personal practical advise.

Teacher S.L. gave the following examples of attachments: attachment to basic pleasures, attachment to possessions, attachment to "good looks", attachment to comfort, attachment to stability of life, attachment to predictability, attachment to plans, attachment to knowing "exactly how" before you do anything, attachment to skills and abilities, attachment to being right, attachment to intellect, attachment to accumulating knowledge, attachment to the idea of success, attachment to what others think about you, attachment to committed relationships, attachment to fairness, attachment to high moral standards, attachment to spirituality, attachment to doing everything right, attachment to how it is "supposed to be", attachment to a theory, attachment to Dharma, attachment to Enlightenment.

Another teacher explained these as simply attaching way too much importance to ideas...

Teacher I.L. further explained these as preconceptions - overgeneralizations of our past experience that we identify with. We are so convinced that these are justified that we consider them part of who we are, of our values - which we assume to be absolutely correct because they are based on our limited experience.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche further explained these as appropriating some familiar ground or territory, from which we then engage in dualistic relationship with the rest of the world. From his explanations, these attachments are the constituents of the ego. Feeding them is feeding the ego and therefore feeding Samsara.