What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi? What is the difference between Sakkhya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?

I have asked the same question at the Dhamma Wheel topic: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

In my opinion or view, SN 35.166 (Samyutta 34.16.11.(166)) says Sakkāya Ditthi - Self View is not the self view but it is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable.

  34. 16. 11.

  (166) Sakkāya - Self View

  1. At one time the Blessed One lived in Jīvaka's mango orchard in Rajagaha.

  2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.

  3. Sitting on a side that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, knowing how and seeing how does the self view get dispelled?”

  4-9. “Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness, in the eye self view gets dispelled Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness in
  forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings pleasant,
  unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact,
  self view gets dispelled. Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and
  mind

  10. “Monk, knowing and seeing thus self view gets dispelled.”

In my view or opinion, taking:

Anicca (the impermanent) as Nicca (permanent) is wrong view ie: Micchaditthi
Dukkha (the unsatisfactory) as Adhukha (happiness) is Sakkayaditthi
Anatta (not-self) as Atta (self) is Attanuditthi.

They are just the synonym.

Sakkāya is an object of anu-diṭṭhi. So, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta and
attānudiṭṭhisutta have the same content. This is the english translated version of those suttas,
attānudiṭṭhisutta is next of sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta.

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other like this:

Diṭṭhi means misunderstanding of causes and effects, clinging-aggregates which is anattā as attā.

Anu is prefix which means often.

Micchā is prefix which means mistake.

Sakkāya is a name of clinging-aggregates follow to many sutta, such as Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

  These clinging-aggregates are the Sakkāya described by the Blessed One.

So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding,  micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clinging-aggregates, which is anattā, as attā. See note0 below for more information.

Note0: (I have to use image, because I can not make underline in stackexchange. The same format are relating to the same format.
)

Above pāli appear in these suttas:

Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Isidattasutta:

For "dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto saṅghabhedakasutta:

brahmajāle:

saṅghabhedakasutta:

So, what I said:

It is completely from pāli.

Note1: Sakkāya is not only internal, because there are internal clinging-aggregates, internal sakkāya, and external clinging-aggregates, external sakkāya, which are contemplating by the practitioner in Cūlavedallasutta and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ (<< this link is a good translation of this sutta).

  they meditate by observing an aspect of the principle inside and outside.

The inside and outside aspect of the principle in this term is sakkāya (clinging aggregates), sakkāyasamudayo, sakkāyanirodho, and sakkāyanirodhagāminīpaṭipadā.

Note2: Santo kāyo sakkāyo. Kāya, clinging-aggregates, is sacca, santa, vijjānana, the reality, truth, possible to arise in causes and effects cycle. So, buddha said sakkāya is sacca and clinging-aggregates in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans].

"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and "para kāyo sakkāyo" is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ as an internal anupassī, but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans], which sakkāya meaning is defined by buddha directly. And "para kāyo sakkāyo" never found in any where else except in  Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ.

So, if you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in Sakkāyasutta, Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, which has both sakko and paro.

But by the "Santo kāyo sakkāyo", there is no conflict like that between the co-context sutta, such as micchādiṭṭhisutta, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta, and attānudiṭṭhisutta, which using the same context and near by each other. Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta,  Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

Note3: Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes. So, it can use to explain each other like appeared in Vinaya. Mahā (1) Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

  ‘Now what do you think, O bhikkhus, is the body permanent or perishable?’

  ‘It is perishable (anicca), Lord.’

  ‘And that which is perishable, does that cause pain or joy?’

  ‘It causes pain (dukkha), Lord.’

  ‘And that which is perishable, painful, subject to change, is it
  possible to regard that in this way. ‘This is mine, this am I, this is
  my self (atta)?’ ‘That is impossible, Lord.’

So, those 3 suttas is synonym of each other. For the example:

You never have to see "I often(1) mis(2)-understand(3) of you-ahaṃ tuvaṃ micchā(2) anu(1)-passāmi(3)" sentence. But is it the right, if I tell you A, B, and C have the same meaning?:

A: I often understand of you as permanent person.

B: I misunderstand of you as permanent person.

C: I understand of you as my dear forever (misunderstanding sakkāya as attā).

In this case the buddha can predict, because buddha maybe his teacher, the listening-bhikkhu will enlighten by animitta-vimokkha, so the buddha taught  impermanence to him. And this bhikku maybe memorized micchādiṭṭhi from buddha before, so the buddha taught micchādiṭṭhi in this sutta. If the buddha teach the other words, they cannot enlighten, because the listening maybe never memorized before.

It looks like when I said หนึ่งคูณสองเท่ากับสอง, you cannot enlighten what I said. But if I said "1x2=2", you can get it.

This is the same way which atthakathā described  SN Salāyatanavagga aniccatādisutta:

  Iti idaṃ suttaṃ chasu ajjhattikāyatanesu tīṇi lakkhaṇāni dassetvā
  kathite bujjhanakānaṃ ajjhāsayena vuttaṃ.

  For these 3 sutta, buddha taught 3 characterizes of 6 inner-āyatana
  depend on the enlightening-possibility of each listening-bhikkhu.

For more information, you can see naya in netti.

Note4:

Note5: Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as sakkāyasutta.

Sakkāya is 5 aggregates, which is engaging by diṭṭhi-clinging (diṭṭhi-upādāna).

But sakkāya-diṭṭhi is diṭṭhi-clinging, which engaging 5 aggregates.

So, mostly english version, which I random checked, translated wrong as "self view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)", but it should be just "sakkāya".


What are the Buddhist teachings on how best to live a married life? Does Buddhism describe how best to live a married life? Please provide some short excerpts. Thank you.

The Access to Insight website has a number of related translations and essays;
Suttas

How to ensure that you'll be with your spouse in future lives: AN 4.55
Spouses' duties to each other: DN 31

Essays

"A Single Mind" (Fuang)
A Happy Married Life: A Buddhist Perspective (Dhammananda)
Nothing Higher to Live For (Nyanasobhano)
Buddhism and Sex (Walshe)

It all seems to boil down to "be ethical". Although on the other hand ideally one would not get married, but would take up celibacy and reject family life. For example in the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta the Buddha says:

so tena saddhāpaṭilābhena samannāgato iti paṭisañcikkhati — ‘sambādho gharāvāso rajopatho, abbhokāso pabbajjā. nayidaṃ sukaraṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasatā ekantaparipuṇṇaṃ ekantaparisuddhaṃ saṅkhalikhitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carituṃ. [MN 27; i.179
And having become possessed of faith [from hearing the dhamma] he thinks: household life is crowed and dirty; having gone forth one is wide open. It is not easy to live the religious life, so perfect and pure like a polished shell, while living in a home.

In short the best way to do marriage, is not to do it all, but to dedicate yourself to practising the Dharma.
This question is similar to a previous one:
What does a traditional Buddhist wedding look like?


Interference from another meditation technique in my vipassana meditation In my 20's(I am now 55) I practiced light and sound meditation for 7 years. When I am doing vipassana which I started in March this year (having not meditated for 25 years) I get the 'sound' mainly engulfing me and it is very blissful I must say. I might also get a huge gushing out of the top of my head and that draws me in to. These moments can feel very blissful.
I made a conscious effort to ignore these events and have mainly succeeded but sometimes I still get sucked in because I want to or as a 'treat'.
What effect will this have on my vipassana? Is it safe to allot some time for that meditation outside of the vipassana meditation? Is it ok toward the end of a sitting to let myself focus on the sound instead? Should I let the sound buzz through me at the same time I focus on my body parts?

You do not go into any detail about what vipassana you are practicing but with the information on hand the following advice:

In insight meditation (vipassana) ALL phenomena have the following qualities:

Anicca - they are impermanent.
Anatta - they are not-self.
Dukkha - that if we cling or have aversion to these impermanent phenomena this creates suffereing.

You 'sound' experience is fairly common, I have it as a constant meditation companion in some form or other, but it falls into the same category of any other phenomena.

  These moments can feel very blissful. I made a conscious effort to ignore these events and have mainly succeeded but sometimes I still get sucked in because I want to or as a 'treat'.

There is both clinging and aversion here. Do neither (push away or hold onto) - just view both the bliss and the sound with equanimity. Equanimity is a core skill you are learning in any vipassana practice. So let go of the need to 'control' any of this and just try to see that all these phenomena have the same intrinsic nature as a 'thought', a body sensation, a physical sound. They are all phenomena with the same above three characteristics.


Is a prior human existence required for a current/subsequent human existence? If I, this impermanent and suffering and no-self array of aggregates, am journeying through this human realm now, shall I assume that that which was "my prior life", another impermanent and suffering and no-self array of aggregates, was also journeying through the human realm (i.e. a prior human existence is a prerequisite for a subsequent human existence)? I am inclined to think that it is possible for an individual array of ever-fluxuating potentialities to "pass" through the human realm consecutively a number of times.

As I see it, if we assume a linear, unidirectional temporality, it is logically impossible that a prior human existence be necessary for a human existence since there could never be a first existence.

Concerning the beginnings of existence, according to, e.g., the Assu Sutta:

  "A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."

According to Buddhism, it is not only possible to be reborn as a human many times but, as I take the Mata Sutta to declare, certain that each person has:

  A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not
  easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your
  brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the
  past is not easy to find.

I cannot think of any specific references about consecutive human births in the Pāli Canon, but one may, given the appropriate conditions, e.g., having practised generosity, achieve their desires for some kinds of birth. So, it seems that one could theoretically be reborn several times in a row as a human if they desired it and accomplished the necessary conditions. (cf. AN 8.35)


What is the meaning of the lotus? On the altar when entering a Buddhist temple I see the Buddha sitting on a lotus, but frankly I do not understand the symbolic meaning of the lotus image? Everywhere you look in the temple you see lotuses. Can anyone explain this to us?

Well there are more than one meaning to the lotus image. It is a multi-layered symbol.

http://buddhists.org/buddhist-symbols/the-meaning-of-the-lotus-flower-in-buddhism/
the meaning of the muddy waters, physicality being the ground out of which the nirvana experience grows.

  The lotus flower represents one symbol of fortune in Buddhism. It
  grows in muddy water, and it is this environment that gives forth the
  flower’s first and most literal meaning: rising and blooming above the
  murk to achieve enlightenment.

and the second meaning refers to how the pure flower is when its roots are in the mud and the earth

  The second meaning, which is related to the first is purification. It
  resembles the purifying of the spirit which is born into murkiness.

Rather than faithfulness to a doctrine, what it implies is faith in the process so that at all points of development from a shoot out of the mud, to blooming, it is the process of awakening.
The third meaning refers to faithfulness. Those who are working to rise above the muddy waters will need to be faithful followers [of the process] (note added by soulsings)

Each color implies a different quality of the buddha mind.

  The color bears importance in the meaning of the lotus flower in
  Buddhism. A white lotus flower refers to purity of the mind and the
  spirit. If a lotus flower is red, it refers to compassion and love.
  The blue lotus flower refers to the common sense; it uses wisdom and
  logic to create enlightenment. The pink lotus flower represents the
  history of Buddha and the historical legends of the Buddha. A purple
  lotus flower speaks of spirituality and mysticism. Finally, the gold
  lotus flower represents all achievement of all enlightenment,
  especially in the Buddha.
  and regarding colors also see
  http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_lotus.htm

and the symbolism of the stages of growth.

  The stage of growth the lotus flower is in represents a different
  stage of enlightenment. A closed lotus flower represents the time
  before a Buddhist follower found Buddha or enlightenment. A lotus
  flower fully bloomed and open represents full enlightenment and
  self-awareness.

Rising out of the mud of materiality into the emotions (represented by the water)
the path of awakening eventually leads to the opening of the lotus flower before the sun of compassion and wisdom.


"I fear the man of one book" - What is your attitude towards this thought? A while ago I heard said phrase being interpreted as a warning toward people who only have knowledge from a single source (a single book, the oneself's perspective, a single author, a single teacher, etc.).

Buddhism touches a lot of topic today divided into individual sciences and knowledges of their own. That's why the Dhamma is usually classified as a philosophy, a psychology, a religion, and so on. But in Buddha's time and considering the purpose of the Dhamma, those bounderies where useless and alien to the practice itself. The Buddha used elements from all sorts of areas and knowledges in order to eradicate Dukkha and to reach the other shore.

In modern times, we know a lot more about the working of the brain, about human physiology, about philosophy and science in general, about the development of religions and cultures, and about the world in general.

With that in mind: should we fear the men of one book?

Should the ones following the Dhamma know and study these other areas in order to contrast and prove the reality of the Buddha's words?

Or is it enough with just reading Dhamma books?
If you lean on that second field, do you trust that the Buddha was inerrant and/or that the authors of the Suttas had the Buddha's words transcribed verbatim?

I'm not sure if this kind of questions are appropiated for this site. If not, just ignore it and close it.

EDIT: What motivated this question is that strange vibe that arises when I read discussion where people base their answers and arguments only on suttas and Dhamma books. While that's OK, specially on academic sites, it's pretty weird to me that such an experiential and pragmatic thing as the Dhamma is, is a lot of times covered by a dogmatic and scholar aura, which puts in motion endless debates about the nature of consciousness, the place where kammic seeds are stored, the time it passes before rebirth and that sort of things. But I always end with this question in my head: are people telling about X thing because they have experienced themselves such phenomena, or because the suttas said so, or both?

EDIT 2: Wow! Such good answers! I cannot pick one over another. For these cases, I'd love to choose more than one.
Thanks for those well thought and well put idea!

Thanks for your time and patience!

You can study other fields like science, psychology, philosophy, physiology, culture, other religions etc. That's no conflict with Buddhism.

However, using other fields to validate Buddhism is not the right approach. The reason for this is that other fields have different objectives compared to Buddhism. To compare them would be the same as comparing oranges and apples.

Buddhism has one primary objective - to reduce and end suffering, which basically relates to achieving permanent stable happiness.

The only way to validate Buddhism is to compare its teachings and the effects of its practices (as practised by oneself) against one's own experiences. Does it reduce your suffering? Does it help you reduce your bad habits and improve your harmony with yourself and others? Does it promote an increase in your own happiness and better psychological well-being?

Back to the first point, studying other fields can broaden your understanding of other fields. This has a few benefits.

Firstly, it helps prevent a Buddhist from becoming extreme or ritualistic or overly clinging to rules in his view. This actually is one of the fetters that the stream winner has to eliminate, through seeing the Dhamma clearly.

Secondly, it prevents a Buddhist from becoming disconnected from the "rest of the world". The Buddha wanted his monks to depend on the laity for alms, so that the monks don't become disconnected from the "rest of the world" and also for the laity to interact and learn from the monks.

Thirdly, understanding other fields can help with the validation of Buddhism against one's own experiences, because it can help feed one's insight. Let me use the example of Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman (quoted below from here). Teaching basic physics to students is not required for one dedicated to research, but getting questions and interacting with students help to feed into his insight, so he found it necessary.

So, although Buddhist teachings and practices combined with one's own experience is enough to "research" (i.e. gain insight) into the nature of one's reality in order to end suffering, learning other fields can be helpful in feeding that insight. In this question, I tried to compare the nature of the mind vs. body to software vs. hardware. That doesn't mean mind IS software, but knowledge of the nature of software vs. hardware can feed into the insight into the nature of the reality of mind vs. body.

  When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to
  those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been
  specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this
  opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no
  classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards
  could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't
  get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do
  something, and they are not getting any ideas. I believe that in a
  situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you,
  and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing
  happens. Still no ideas come.

  Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and
  challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't
  have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!

  In any thinking process there are moments when everything is going
  good and you've got wonderful ideas. Teaching is an interruption, and
  so it's the greatest pain in the neck in the world. And then there are
  the longer period of time when not much is coming to you. You're not
  getting any ideas, and if you're doing nothing at all, it drives you
  nuts! You can't even say "I'm teaching my class."

  If you're teaching a class, you can think about the elementary things
  that you know very well. These things are kind of fun and delightful.
  It doesn't do any harm to think them over again. Is there a better way
  to present them? The elementary things are easy to think about; if you
  can't think of a new thought, no harm done; what you thought about it
  before is good enough for the class. If you do think of something new,
  you're rather pleased that you have a new way of looking at it.

  The questions of the students are often the source of new research.
  They often ask profound questions that I've thought about at times and
  then given up on, so to speak, for a while. It wouldn't do me any harm
  to think about them again and see if I can go any further now. The
  students may not be able to see the thing I want to answer, or the
  subtleties I want to think about, but they remind me of a problem by
  asking questions in the neighborhood of that problem. It's not so easy
  to remind yourself of these things.

  So I find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would
  never accept any position in which somebody has invented a happy
  situation for me where I don't have to teach. Never.


How is catharsis different to gossiping in Buddhism? Catharsis is described as "providing psychological relief through the open expression of strong emotions; causing catharsis"

An online resource mentions "The Buddha has thus presented the principles of the catharsis of emotions..."

It is my understanding that gossip is not looked upon favorably in Buddhism. I am unsure why though.

Rightly or wrongly, i practice catharsis through open dialogue with others. This may be in relation to others or myself. For example, if i am faced with a challenge which i am aware and mindful gives rise to emotions such as frustration, anger, helplessness, etc, i often discuss these with close family.

Working with a real-world example, currently i am faced with someone who simply does not wish to work with others in a meaningful way nor takes proactive steps to work with others. Often this is seen as being a roadblock of sorts and more than often, there is little trust in working with the person. I have attempted on multiple occasions to work with this person in a way to go beyond the trifles and historical 'negative' experiences which has been less than successful. Now i undertake catharsis by discussing the concept of 'how it blows my mind" that someone is not willing to work in meaningful ways.

A couple of reasons why your practice of catharsis, as described above, might not be considered a favorable thing to do in Buddhism even if you believe it's different enough from gossip to not be considered wrong speech.

It brings you out of the present moment and has you re-living or clinging to the past.

  Let one not trace back the past

  Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.

  That which is past is left behind

  Unattained is the "yet-to-come."

  But that which is present he discerns —

  With insight as and when it comes.

  The Immovable — the-non-irritable.

  In that state should the wise one grow

  Today itself should one bestir

  Tomorrow death may come — who knows?

  For no bargain can we strike

  With Death who has his mighty hosts.

  But one who dwells thus ardently

  By day, by night, untiringly

  Him the Tranquil Sage has called

  The Ideal Lover of Solitude.

  MN 131

Also, it's the opposite of Equanimity
which is prized as the 4th brahmavihāra, the 7th Factor of Enlightenment, and the 10th pāramī.

Lastly, spending time blowing off steam about another person comes close to gossip, ridicule, and other types of speech which are not considered Right Speech and could easily cross the line. As Anthony suggested above, reading up on Right Speech might help to make sense of all this. Best wishes.


What were Nagarjuna's seminal contributions to Buddhist philosophy? Nagarjuna's ideas are considered to represent the historical starting point of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Can his ideas be considered a clarification of the philosophy presented in the Pali canon? And if so, what are the specific ideas in Nagarjuna's thought that are important for that clarification? Or, am I completely wrong in my assumption that Nagarjuna actually contributed anything significant to Buddhist thought? (I'm not afraid of criticisms of my pronouncements).

One of Nāgārjuna's main contributions to Buddhist though was the development of the doctrine of sunyata or emptiness. This was a reaction to the development in the doctrines of the Abhidharma by some of the early Buddhist schools (for instance the Sarvastivada). In those schools there developed the concept of things (dharmas) that had some form of independent existence i.e were not subject to dependent origination. I will quote wikipedia on this point

  The Madhyamaka school [Nāgārjuna traditionally seen as founding this school] has been perhaps simplistically regarded as a
  reaction against the development of the Abhidharma, especially the
  Sarvāstivādin. In the Abhidharma, dharmas are characterized by
  defining traits (lakṣaṇa) or own-existence (svabhāva), whose
  ontological status is not dependent upon concepts.

Nāgārjuna therefore refuted this and insisted that all things are inherently empty and do not have an independent existence. This means everything not just sentient beings. Nāgārjuna is also linked to the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and the Heart Sutra is particularly good on this point (please note I'm using the translation that we use in the Triratna Buddhist Community - scroll halfway down this document for the full version).

  So, in emptiness, no form, No feeling, thought, or choice, Nor is
  there consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No colour,
  sound, smell, taste, touch, Or what the mind takes hold of, Nor even
  act of sensing.

So nothing in the psychophysical organism

  No ignorance or end of it
  , Nor all that comes of ignorance; No
  withering, no death, No end of them.

Or ignorance or death/withering (so no lakshanas maybe?)

  Nor is there pain, or cause of pain, Or cease in pain, or noble path
  To lead from pain; Not even wisdom to attain! Attainment too is
  emptiness.

Or even no four noble truths or eightfold path. So not much left.

So hopefully this giving a flavour of the radical nature of emptiness.

Please note this isn't a complete answer. There are other areas of Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I haven't covered such as the two truths largely due to a complete absence of knowledge on my part.


The fear of committing to a monastic lifestyle I have a persistent fear of going without food that prevents me from giving monasticism a full shot.

Some background: I suffered for approximately 4 years with something called cyclic vomiting syndrome. This is an affliction characterized by recurrent, prolonged attacks of severe nausea, vomiting, and prostration with no apparent cause. During this time I repeatedly lost and regained 100s of pounds at a time. Losing weight, while something I needed to do, was not fun. My longest single attack lasted a full 7 days during which time I was unable to keep any food down whatsoever, much less get any sleep. Retching on a completely empty stomach 45+ times an hour is a hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. So, food is important to me. At the same time I realize that too much is not good in a myriad of ways.

So, where are all the Buddhist monasteries at which I'd be afforded the opportunity to practice self compassion as opposed to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through a whole lot of discomfort in order to satisfy my ego and other's expectations of what constitutes a good, chaste and worthwhile existence? That doesn't seem mentally or physically healthy or conducive to showing loving kindness and compassion to others. I'm a firm believer that in order to be able to show compassion for others, I need to show it to myself. I'm mainly thinking about food here. Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? At least until my stomach had shrunk to such a degree that hunger pains were perhaps more a nuisance than anything else?

I think I understand the reluctance on the part of many monastics to allow things like eating after noon, etc. It so happens also, that I suspect that their concern is misplaced. It seems to me that there aren't many things in life that don't consist of shades of grey. It also seems that Buddhist monastics in general tend to lose sight of the nuance making up many of these things.

So, is there a tradition I should be focusing on? A teacher? (Ajahn Brahm is a favorite btw.) Am I way off base with my concerns? If so, how should I go about rectifying my inconsistent views? If not, then what?

By practicing monastic life, if you mean becoming a monk, it's a no go with your current condition. But if you just want to practice meditation, staying at a monastery, you still have to give up Marijuana and Nicotine. No serious monastery would allow you to smoke while you stay there.

Some monasteries allow lay practitioners to take just 5 precepts and have food in the evening as well. But usually you have to bring your own food for evening meals.

I would suggest for you to do an online meditation course and to get advice on how to give up your addictions while consulting a doctor to treat your ailments without Marijuana and Nicotine.


Getting out of a rut when your sick and dying What are the teachings and books that are good for inspiring  the sick and soon to be dying? If your brain is getting eaten away, what are the best practices for that? Anyone know of any Doctors who would understand all this insight meditation stuff? Doctors often seem to me far too  smart to be wise.

Buddha once visited an infirmary for monks and advised to practice satipattana (Maha Satipattana Sutta, Deega Nikaya)

Bojjangha Sutta is well known to be contemplated by monks who are sick and known to have already practiced dhamma (hence being able to cultivate them when recited to them)

There is an instance where Nakula pitha (anagami) visits Buddha and related he's sick where Buddha reminds him it's the body that gets sick and not the mind.

There is an instance Arhat Maha Sariputta visits a dying person who has proper faith in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. The priest asks the dying person to think of different realms of birth, starting from animals all the way to brahma realms.

I hope these help.


Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder and schizophrenia, to name a few. Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather than unwholesome states of mind? What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

I think that unwholesome states of mind are conditioned and temporary.

It's difficult to generalise (i.e. I was told there are different results/experiences for different people) but if someone has a mental illness they may have seemingly unwholesome states of mind, and this condition might last for decades, for a lifetime -- but/or, a change in medication, a change in their social situation (friends), might condition a thorough "night and day" change in the states of mind even before the end of this life.

Sometimes it may seem that the range of (or the extremes of) experience is wider: i.e. a longer and more acute experience of a hell and/or a heaven (even in this life) than other more "normal" people will experience.

I'm not sure that Buddhism rightly talks about what's "destined" for people, i.e. perhaps it isn't correct to ask about it: because you can't predict the future and it may surprise you; because you should have some faith in the possibility of salvation, of becoming enlightened, of teachers, of refuge, of the three jewels; because there's some scope of agency and good (or bad) intentions, i.e. results are not predestined; and because the ability to see the effects of kamma on specific people is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers (and the fact that he did it sometimes doesn't mean that we should assume that we can).


What are the ways to be conscious in all situations? Ways to be conscious in all situations
How to do one thing at a time ?

Ways to be conscious in all situations

Just like anything else, to be good at martial arts, at playing the piano, at math, etc... the only way is to practice, practice, and practice. Practice mindfulness meditation diligently and one will be able to have very sharp awareness/mindfulness any time, any place. For a straightforward and practical advise on the what and how, check out Ven. Gunaratana's excellent "Mindfulness in Plain English"

How to do one thing at a time ?

Actually if one's able to be good with step 1 above, whether one does one thing or many things at a time no longer matters. S/he'd have just as much awareness/mindfulness at all time!


Is there any authentic Chan Buddhist lineage operating in the West/Europe? I mean Chinese Chan Buddhism, not Japanese Zen or Korean Seon. If not, what is the best course of action if one wants to become a monk in Mahayana Buddhism, but not in Theravada and not in Vajrayana? I am especially fond of Master Xuyun, are any of his disciples still around?

There's only two Ch'an lines active in the West that I know of, the first one founded by Hsuan Hua. Its headquarters are in California. It has branch temples, for the West mainly in the US, listed on this page.

The second is the Western Chan Fellowship, who actually list Xuyun in their lineage, and has branches in the US and Europe.


Are there any websites that contain Buddhist dictionaries? I believe that there many words translate from Buddha Sutra and I want to ask is there any website can translate the words meaning in English? Example Samman Samadhi

I recommend the Digital Pali Reader (a browser extension for Firefox and Pale Moon).


At which point after conception does life begin? According to Buddhist teachings (of any school) at what point does a human life begin? Is it at conception, during a particular point during pregnancy, at birth or even after birth? Does it differ between schools and Buddhist cultures?

I suspect the nidanas might be instructive on this point but I'm interested in answers that may or may not include them.

Patisandhi Citta is the starting point of life. So life begins at conception.

Rebirth Consciousness

  This is called pa.tisandhi citta, literally "relinking consciousness."
  The pa.tisandhi citta is the act of consciousness which arises at the
  first moment of life, the moment of conception. It is determined by
  the last kammic citta of the preceding life.

  This kammic factor for the arising of a being operates through the
  pa.tisandhi. The accumulated tendencies of past lives are carried on
  to the pa.tisandhi and so the process of being born, dying and being
  born again goes on. Each pa.tisandhi citta is a new one, not the
  continuation of the old one in the previous life. Thus there is no
  place for a soul concept in rebirth. In the course of one particular
  life there is only one pa.tisandhi citta. Once the function of linking
  two existences has been performed by the pa.tisandhi, consciousness in
  the newly formed embryo immediately goes into the bhava"nga state.
  This flows along in the new existence with infinite interruptions by
  various stimuli and ends as the cuti citta of that particular
  existence.


Karma and one's own belief about the event Suppose I yell at a person and I hold a belief like: "I made a mistake and I try my best not to repeat that fault again" vs "I'm such a bad person for doing that bad deed. I should feel ashamed of myself" then the kamma is completely based on my sincere beliefs I hold about the situation and the less anger, greed and delusion they have the better the karmic results, right?

In my tradition we recognize three ways to do repentance.

On the basic level, we should feel ashamed and guilty, tell someone about our misdeed, then decide not to repeat same mistake. Then stop beating ourselves about it, since that only makes things worse after certain point.

On the medium level, we should understand that our mistake was because of a particular delusion or reification that manifested as some sort of attachment, which then produced the behavior. We should make an effort to really see our preconception or overgeneralization or attachment that gave rise to the misdeed, and make an effort to let go of it.

On the highest level, repentance consists in simply recovering the stable and pure state of mind and staying in that.


What is special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour? When staying at buddhist monasteries (Theravada for me so far) there are the Eight Precepts to be followed. I am familiar with the eight precepts. Regarding the precepts "

This bothers me already for a while: "To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour" one thing bothers me already for a while.

I cite from the information for guests from the Amaravati Buddhist monastery since the point which bothers me is well formulated there (I cannot directly link to the information for guests since it is mailed as PDF and not online on their website):

  To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour

  [...] For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid
  cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical
  contact [...]

(Full qoute for your reference at the bottom, here extracted the part relevant to the question extracted)

I understand (also by experience, although I've never done "real" sex up to now) why to refrain from erotic behaviour.

But I never understand why physical contact is automatically
associated with erotic practices. Take bodywork (therapeutic) or massage for example. Take communication through physical contact than through words (as in
Shiatsu, or simple games with hands-on) for example. Take dance-forms that concentrate on the experience pf physical principles rather than
"socialising-partnerfinding" (such as Contact Improvisation) for example.  Acrobatics. etc.

On the other hand, there may be many erotic scenarios without involving
physical contact.

So, what is so special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour that it needs to be forbidden at all at monasteries?

Full quote:

  To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour

  An important aspect of spiritual practice is the transformation of energy. This precept refers specifically to Sexual energy which can be transformed into 'heart energy'. To support this process, our training in the community requires that all behaviour supports the practice of celibacy.

  For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical contact or actively seeking out the company of anyone to whom you may feel sexually attracted. Even in speech, it is important to be sensitive to time, place and topic, not
  creating or furthering situations in which sexual attraction may arise.

  This is especially true in contact with the monastics. For the monks and nuns, even private conversation with the opposite sex has strict boundaries. Such contact must be in a public place, or with a chaperon present (and sensitive also to topics discussed). Certain times are available for
  you to speak with some of the senior monks and nuns.

..."I never understand why physical contact is automatically associated with erotic practices"... We are not in control of how sensual desires arise. The only thing we can do to control erotic desire is to cut out what has been known to make the erotic desire arise and that means abstaining from physical contact. Doesn't it help meditation practice when we don't do things that could possibly lead to defilement and distraction? Erotic desire entangles  and greatly distracts us from the task of seeing things as they are. Metta :)


Is Tantrayana the same as Vajrayana? I'm reading a little bit from the Tibetan Buddhist lama Dhardo Rimpoche at the moment. He keeps referring to Tantrayana not Vajrayana when discussing Buddhist philosophy and practice. It's pretty obvious from context that this is the diamond vehicle i.e. Vajrayana. However I'm not clear whether the two terms are the same and interchangeable. Would Tantrayana refer to non Tibetan Vajrayana schools such as Shingon? Is Tantrayana  a subset of Vajrayana or is it a term only used by certain schools? Do they have a different nuances of meaning or are they genuinely exactly the same?

Vajrayāna (Sanskrit: वज्रयान, Bengali:
বজ্রযান)

is also known as Tantric Buddhism, Tantrayāna, Mantrayāna, Secret Mantra, Esoteric Buddhism and the Diamond Way or Thunderbolt Way. The Lama and the Guru yoga are central in this system.[1] Vajrayāna is a complex and multifaceted system of Buddhist thought and practice which evolved over several centuries.

Although known with different names they are slightly different according to their practices.
There are many ways in which Vajrayana can be divided or classified and one way is to differentiate according to schools

..there is historical evidence for Vajrayana Buddhism in Southeast Asia and elsewhere (see History of Vajrayana above), today the Vajrayana exists primarily in the form of the two major sub-schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism in Japan known as Shingon, with a handful of minor subschools utilising lesser amounts of esoteric or tantric materials.

The Tibetan schools are:

Tibetan Buddhism
Nelpalese Newar Buddhism
Ari Buddhism
Azhali region

Japanese schools are:

Shingon Buddhism
Tendai Buddhism
Shugendo

etc...
History of Vajrayāna:

Vajrayāna probably came into existence in the 6th or 7th century, while the term Vajrayāna itself first appeared in the 8th century. The Vajrayāna was preceded by the Mantrayāna, and then followed by the Sahajayāna (*8th century - long haired Sahaja(founder of Mahamudra)-siddhis) and Kalacakrayāna (*10th century - which includes messianism and astrology).

Fourfold division in Tibetan Buddhism

The best-known classification, by the Gelug, Sakya, and Kagyu schools, the so-called Sarma or New Translation schools of Tibetan Buddhism, is to divide the Tantras into four hierarchical categories:

-Kriyayoga, action tantra, which emphasizes ritual;
-Charyayoga, performance tantra, which emphasizes meditation;
-Yogatantra, yoga tantra;
-Anuttarayogatantra, highest yoga tantra, which is further divided into "mother", "father" and "non-dual" tantras.

Shingon and Tibetan Buddhism

The primary difference between Shingon and Tibetan Buddhism is that there is no Inner Tantra or Anuttarayoga Tantra in Shingon. Shingon has what corresponds to the Kriyā, Caryā, and Yoga classes of tantras in Tibetan Buddhism. The Tibetan system of classifying tantras into four classes is not used in Shingon.
Anuttarayoga Tantras such as the Yamantaka Tantra, Hevajra Tantra, Mahamaya Tantra, Cakrasaṃvara Tantra, and the Kalachakra Tantra were developed at a later period of Esoteric Buddhism and are not used in Shingon.

So Tantrayana as far as I know is another name for Vajrayana which is different from Shingon and other Chinese Esoteric Buddhism. Tantrayana or Vajrayana is the latest 10th century tradition which includes the highest yoga tantra (Anuttarayogatantra).


What is a "sutta statement" or "sutta action"? In this answer yuttadhammo wrote,

  If you want an abhidhamma answer, you have to speak in abhidhamma terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a sutta statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a sutta action.

I think it might mean 'thread' ... or possibly 'sleep' ... or a type of description of reality that's found in the suttas, as opposed to the description of reality found in the Abhidhamma?

If you answer please assume that I have looked at the abhidhamma but never read it.

The Sutta Pitaka deals with conventional reality, i.e. concepts such as "a man, woman, person, a wisher" etc.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka deals with ultimate reality, i.e. Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana. These are "abhidhamma terms".

Here is a quote on Abhidhamma by Ven. K. Sri. Dhammanda, p. 107-108:

  "The Abhidharma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:

  1. Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as ‘that which knows or experiences’ an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.

  2. Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.

  3. Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.

  4. Nirvana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final
  goal.

  Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions, and will disappear when the conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nirvana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything—be they within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near—is a concept and not the ultimate reality."


Crippling fear of hellfire &, damnation, please help? My original belief used to be that as long as you are a decent good person without any intentions to hurt others, you'll be fine. Meaning that no matter what religion you follow, no matter how flawed you are as a person (stubborn, short-tempered, basically all the imperfections of a human), you will not be damned to hell. To me, it used to be that there are so many religions and so many hells and heavens that comes with them, but they teach one main thing: to love and to be kind, and that would be all that we had to follow.

However, this belief was recently shaken with my grandmother's passing. She was a buddhist. I thought that because she was a good lady who never really harmed anyone directly, she would be at peace and with God/Buddha, but throughout her 5-day funeral service, there were so many things to follow (offering incense, chanting etc.) to ensure she moves on, and I developed this fear that if these rituals and rules weren't followed properly, she would go to hell/not be able to move on.

I'm an anxious person. I get fixated on things. On the final two nights of her funeral service we had to sit down and chant from some scripture books to help my grandma move on (again, what happens if there's no one doing that? Say a Buddhist that doesn't have a family who knows to follow these customs/a Buddhist with no family/a person of any other religion?). While reciting some of the scriptures, though difficult, I briefly read something about how humans are imperfect for wanting good things, being lustful, and basically all the things in human nature that makes us flawed and of course, all the very specific different kinds of hell that comes with.

It feels like we're all comforting ourselves that my grandma is resting in peace now, but this huge part of me has this crippling fear that my grandma (as well as the rest of us) will not rest in peace and instead be suffering at the end of our lives for being imperfect humans.

I'm only 22, and I start having this intense fear of doing virtually anything as a human. I'm afraid of not being wise and selfless like old monks, I'm afraid of wanting to strive for anything, or ranting about any dissatisfaction, feeling upset by things, having fun, treating myself with self-love and basically anything at all.

I feel so crippled by the fear I wake up unhappy and afraid to live and afraid to die as well. It's consuming me so much and I'm deathly afraid of it, because I'm spiralling. The more I read and research, the more afraid and unsettled I get. I even read that feeling fear and anxiety is bad and I'll also be damned for that.

Could someone kind enough maybe please offer me some words of comfort and lead me back to a rational mindset? I've been Buddhist since birth, but like I said above, I've always thought of Buddhism as a religion about love, forgiveness, and karma. Karma meaning if you do something bad, you can something on par in return. Not in a sense that if I feel anxious, live in fear I get reborn as an animal living in fear. That just makes me feel the whole religion is so scary like one misstep or one imperfection as a human, and you'll be damned.

This is still a grieving period for my family, and I want to be there for my mother for the loss of my grandmother, but I'm so scared right now. I want to be able to cheer her up, treat ourselves to nice meals and desserts, watch movies and basically just have fun like a human living their best lives, but after reading into Buddhism I feel like that's all wrong and there is no forgiveness like there is in Christianity or something else.

Maybe I got the whole perception wrong, but could somebody please help me? I'm not trolling, so please use kind words. Thank you so much.

I hope SN 42.6 quoted below will give you comfort. A person's actions while they were alive determines their outcome, and not rituals performed after death.

  Then Asibandhaka’s son the chief went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat
  down to one side, and said to him:

  “Sir, there are western brahmins draped with moss who carry pitchers,
  immerse themselves in water, and serve the sacred flame. When someone
  has passed away, they truly lift them up, raise them up, and guide
  them along to heaven. But what about the Blessed One, the perfected
  one, the fully awakened Buddha: is he able to ensure that the whole
  world will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm when their body
  breaks up, after death?”

  "Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return,
  and you can answer as you like.

  What do you think, chief? Take a person who doesn’t kill living
  creatures, steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech
  that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
  kind-hearted, and have right view. And a large crowd comes together to
  offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating them with joined palms
  and saying: ‘When this person’s body breaks up, after death, may they
  be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell!’ What
  do you think, chief? Would that person be reborn in hell because of
  their prayers?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Chief, suppose a person were to sink a pot of ghee or oil into a deep
  lake and break it open. Its shards and chips would sink down, while
  the ghee or oil in it would rise up. And a large crowd was to come
  together to offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating it with
  joined palms and saying: ‘Sink, good ghee or oil! Descend, good ghee
  or oil! Go down, good ghee or oil!” What do you think, chief? Would
  that ghee or oil sink and descend because of their prayers?”

  “No, sir.”

  “In the same way, take a person who doesn’t kill living creatures,
  steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech that’s
  false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
  kind-hearted, and have right view. Even though a large crowd comes
  together to offer up prayers and praise … when their body breaks up,
  after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”

  When he said this, Asibandhaka’s son the chief said to the Buddha,
  “Excellent, sir! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as
  a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”


Need reference for the two conditions need to realize path to Nibbana In this article, it has mentioned that;

  During the time of the Buddha there were two ways by which one could understand the Dhamma and realise the path to Nibbana. One is called “paratoghosa paccaya.” Hearing the true Dhamma from others who know it. The other is called “sammasati” or practice of meditation.

Would anyone please give me reference from Pali canon or any other book for the above statement?

I didn't find that phrase on sutta central. https://suttacentral.net/search?query=paratoghosa

Still it's very common in the suttas to read of someone's entering the stream at the end of a sutta. Perhaps the first time that happens is in the first sutta, SN 56.11,

  That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.

Perhaps that's the most common way or almost the only way these days. The article you quoted said that "sammasati" is the method which the Buddha himself used (perhaps because he couldn't hear the Buddha-dhamma from someone else).

Note that "sammasati" doesn't just mean "meditation", it's also "right mindfulness" i.e. part of the noble eightfold path. So I suppose people won't complete the path without that, but they might enter the path (and I think that must be what was meant by "realise" the path).


What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation? This seems to have different interpretation and translations? What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to different line of practice? How is the particular interpretation rationalised?

What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to the different lines of practice? How are they rationalized?

Here are some:

  Etymology:
  pari- is a prefix used with the connotation of around, about, all over, or that of completeness. Thus dhāvati means
  'to run' and paridhāvati means 'to run about'; vajati - 'to go/
  proceed' becomes paribbajati, 'to wander about', ie. 'to live the life
  of a religious mendicant'; carati - 'to walk' becomes paricarati - 'to
  walk around, ie. to serve, honour'; gaṇeti, 'to count' becomes
  parigaṇeti - 'to calculate'.

  mukhaṃ means primarily and literally 'mouth', by extension 'face' and
  figuratively 'entrance', 'opening', 'brim', then in a more abstract
  meaning 'the front', 'the foremost' and finally 'that which is an
  entrance into something', ie. 'a mean', 'a cause'.

  Strictly from the point of view of semantics (ie. neglecting
  contextual information), the following meanings could reasonably be
  derived from the juxtaposition of these two components: around the
  mouth, all over the mouth, completely on the mouth, around the face,
  all over the face, completely on the face, around the entrance, all
  over the entrance, completely on the entrance, around the front, all
  over the front, completely on the front

Note: The above link also has references to commentaries & later Pāḷi literature.

  Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  To the fore (parimukhaṃ): The Abhidhamma takes an etymological
  approach to this term, defining it as around (pari-) the mouth
  (mukhaṃ). In the Vinaya, however, it is used in a context (Cv.V.27.4)
  where it undoubtedly means the front of the chest. There is also the
  possibility that the term could be used idiomatically as "to the
  front," which is how I have translated it here.

  Ānandajoti Bhikkhu:
  Parimukhaṃ means at the front, or perhaps, around the mouth, i.e. it
  is a vague area, not meant to be confined to one particular spot or
  place, which would have been easy to designate if that is what was
  meant (like specifying oṭṭha, the lip). It is of course the
  mindfulness that is important in the practice, not the breathing as
  such, which only provides a basis for the mindfulness.

  Anālayo Bhikkhu:
  Once the posture is set up, mindfulness is to be established “in
  front”. The injunction “in front” (parimukhaṃ) can be understood
  literally or figuratively. Following the more literal understanding,
  “in front” indicates the nostril area as the most appropriate for
  attention to the in- and out-breaths. Alternatively, “in front”
  understood more figuratively suggests a firm establishment of sati,
  sati being mentally “in front” in the sense of meditative composure
  and attentiveness.

  Sujato Bhikkhu:
  In the gradual training, sati and upatthana occur together in the
  common idiom parimukhaṃ satim upatthapeti. Here the term parimukha is
  one of those simple words that is so hard to interpret. It modern
  renderings usually use something vague like 'in front'. However the
  phrase frequently occurs in contexts outside of anapanasati, making
  the interpretation 'at the nose-tip', or any literal spatial
  interpretation, unlikely. The Sanskrit has a different reading,
  pratimukha. This has many meanings, among which are 'reflection' and
  'presence'. Both of these would be appropriate in meditative context.
  But the word usually, as here, occurs in close conjunction with
  upatthana, which also means 'presence'. I think here we have another
  example of that common feature of Pali or Sanskrit, a conjunction of
  synonyms for emphasis: literally, 'one makes present a presence of
  presence of mind', or more happily, 'one establishes presence of
  mindfulness'.

  S. N. Goenka: The awareness is established around the mouth,
  the entrance to the nostrils: parimukhaṃ. Certain traditions
  translate this as "in the front," as if the awareness is imagined to
  be in front of the person, but this sets up a duality. Actually you
  have to feel the breath coming and going around the mouth, above the
  upper lip, which is parimukhaṃ.

Additional References:

Parimukhaṁ article with Āgama references
Footnote 55 of Piya Tan's Study of Kāyagatāsati Sutta
Dictionary entries


Delayed speech as right speech I was once told a story by the abbott of a monastery about how the Buddha once decided to delay his speech and said it only when it was the right time.  Paraphrasing, the story is like this -

  Two tribes were going to war over the waters of a river and the Buddha
  wanted them to stop, but he knew that they were not in the right frame
  of mind to listen to him.  So he kept quiet.  After 3 days of
  fighting, when both sides were in pain from the fighting, the Buddha
  decided to give them advice at that moment, when they were primed to
  listen and they stopped the war immediately.  Although he allowed many
  people to die in waiting for the right moment, he saved a great many
  more lives.  If he had spoken right away and they'd rejected his advice, they
  might also not have listened to him afterwards either.

The abbott then advised me to remember this story as a model.  And I did.  I liked it a lot too.  This was many years ago.  The problem is, I recently decided to look up the story and found this story in the Mahāvaṃsa, of imminent war between the Sakyans and the Koliyans over the waters of the Rohini river.  A key difference here is that the Buddha did not wait until the fighting had started.  He showed up at the site where the armies had gathered.  Still a nice story of the Buddha stopping a war, but not an example of delaying speech for the appropriate moment even at some cost.

It's no longer possible for me to ask the abbott whether he meant this or another story or if he has a reference to another version of the same story which involved 3 days of battle. Instead, I'd like to ask the community about the main point:

Do you know of a canonical reference (from any flavor of Buddhism)   where the Buddha or another prominent figure decided to delay a    statement on account of timeliness and later said it with positive   impact? To be clear, instances where the Buddha decided not to say   something are numerous - I'm only looking for examples where he (or  another person) did end up saying it later.  Edit: Also, I know that the teaching on speaking at the appropriate time is quite clear - what I'm asking about is examples from the life of the ancients.
It would be particularly great if there are examples where the delay    did come at a cost.

In the Abhaya Sutta (MN58), the Buddha taught:

  (1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  (2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  (3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  (4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  (5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  (6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."


According to Buddhism, what separates humans from animals? Philosophers throughout history have been trying to pin down what it exactly means to be human -  what it is that separates humans from (other) animals.

Some have voted for our ability to make rational choices for the future - in a word the ability to intend; and then acting accordingly or contrary to our own better judgements. Some put emphasis on our capacity for language and communication by the use of signs/abstract representations. Another variety is about freedom of will as opposed to freedom of action. Humans, they say, has both.

Others still said it has really nothing to do with our rationality, but rather that it has to do with the internal structure of our will. That is to say, humans can want (or not want) to want something. We can have desires about our desires. I can say "I want to eat cake, but I don't want to be fat and I don't want to be seen as a person who succumbs to temptations. Therefore I shall abstain." A cat can want to chase and kill a mouse, but the idea is that the cat doesn't have the ability to say "I'm hungry and want to catch a mouse and eat it, but I don't want to be that kind of cat. Therefore I shall abstain."

How is this in Buddhism? What makes us human, what separates us from animals? Is it our capacity to understand/see that samsara is suffering? Is it our ability to see emptiness and dependent arising? Our capacity to be freed from suffering? Is it our rationality? Is this the same in all traditions?

According to Buddhism there 31 planes of existance out of one which is the animal kingdom.

Your next birth is decided by the last thought moment where you remeber a recent or grave act of Karma which you have performed. So what decides or separates us from animals the Karma which decided our birth.


Semi-consistent Long Sessions Versus Regular Short Sessions I've noticed it's really difficult for me to be consistent, even with short meditation. I'm thus hesitating between:

10 min sessions every day
40 min sessions every 2 or 3 days

Which of these seems more beneficial?

Long sits everyday is the most optimal.  As I've written you time and time again, you have to do the work.  There are no shortcuts.  There is only the hard way.  Stop looking for excuses.


How to deal with insults? As I am going deep into my meditations of Vipassana and Zazen I am also going deep in my subconscious mind. Some long-forgotten painful memories of insult surface up. As I look now with a different vantage point I understand that my own Karma, my own Ego, and my own behavior was also responsible for me getting insulted. So as the memories surface I say 'forgiveness and loving-kindness', also I try to watch the painful memories without attachment and without the anger, but this is all on the surface level or at the level of mind. Deep within I am hurt and I want to move away from them and go deep in meditation.

I want to ask how to deal with memories of past insulting behavior by others towards me?

How to deal with insults?
There's a canonical answer here -- Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2)

In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours.

I think that's great and maybe needs no explanation.
To try to explain it anyway, though, I think that means you deal with them by not partaking with them, not sharing them, maybe by seeing them as owned by (intended by, the kamma of) the person who produces them.
Possibly that's not the same as denying them, though:

Because it can be good to learn from criticism?
Because the Zen story Is That So? shows the master acting on reality and doing what's necessary even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the accusation?

I want to ask how to deal with memories of past insulting behavior by others towards me?
Memories of trauma can be difficult, in an extreme they lead to cases like PTSD

In the typical case, the individual with PTSD persistently avoids trauma-related thoughts and emotions, and discussion of the traumatic event, and may even have amnesia of the event.[citation needed] However, the event is commonly relived by the individual through intrusive, recurrent recollections, [etc.]

I guess stressful experiences are memorable, perhaps for evolutionary/survival (i.e. biological) reasons.
One therapy is to maintain mindfulness of the present -- e.g. breathing, meditating, whatever your object of concentration is, or whatever your other senses can be conscious of -- to learn that "in reality" the past is past and you are not being insulted any more.
Aside from that there are a few aspects of Buddhist doctrine that are useful in most circumstances:

Four noble truths -- suffering is a result of craving for something to be other than as it is

Anatta, non-self -- instead of "me and mine" you have the view that "there was that person, with some experience, some feelings", but all transient

Dependent arising -- you said, "my own behavior was also responsible for me getting insulted", but now the circumstances are different, you're not behaving like that any more

Morality -- maybe try to not behave like a person who people would want to insult

Good-will etc. -- see the first 6 or so verses of the Dhammapada ...

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

... and maybe doctrine about the brahmaviharas for further details.


How buddhists see/deal with Gaslighting? I've had my share of gaslighting and have given it as well. To me there's this sort of limbo situation, where the undefinition is the abuse, where a person has the underlying feeling that something is wrong with her rationale, and that there is no one else except herself to be blamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Taking into account this disconcerting feeling that is produced by manipulative habits, what would be a buddhist approach/interpretation of gaslighting from both sides, the "perpetrator" and the "victim", if we can name them like that, so that a solution could be reached?

Here's an answer without claiming it's extraordinarily Buddhist.

Buddhism might recommend you be resistant to (or perhaps transparent to) blame and censure.

From two traditions:

Lokavipatti Sutta (AN 8.6)
Eight worldly preoccupations

I think they're also called "eight winds" -- so just let the wind blow through you, as it were, or don't be there for the wind to blow on, might be my advice to you based on my small experience of it.

And the fart is a related story -- trying to explain not being moved by reputation -- though possibly harsh.

That's not to say that you "don't care" -- I think we're warned that people who are "incapable" of remorse will tend towards being ill-behaved.

I think you're supposed to accept the teaching of your teacher perhaps (and/or "spiritual friends"), but perhaps you might be a better judge of your own character and intentions than other people are.

If you want to avoid being gaslit then perhaps "remembering your own virtue" then is important. And then again in this story -- Is That So? -- the question of "Am I the one to blame?" was not the important question.

Another doctrine is that "skilful virtue" on our part should occasion "lack of remorse" and, from there, some joy -- a "lack of remorse" (though not "incapable of remorse") is perhaps a good "defence" against being gas-lit -- except that perhaps it's not a defence (an ego-defence), in the sense that some absence of remorse is non-existent (see e.g. this topic).

People attempt to blame or appear to gaslight "me" on this site, sometimes, I could reference comments as examples. It might help to see that as neither true (it isn't a brilliant description) nor false (they are really saying that at the moment), it's perhaps their "view"? Whether it's even a semi-accurate view is another story, your saying "gaslighting" implies you think it isn't accurate.

But communication problems exist between people. And what people say -- e.g. about relationships and how they perceive you -- might also be based on something like their own experience with their own family and society ... so it isn't always easy to agree with everyone and about everything, and of course people might reach different conclusions when they start from different premises, and when egos become involved.

As for your gaslighting other people I'm not sure why you think you are or want to be doing that at all. It might perhaps be typical of the competitions which people get into -- like "I am superior to you", or, "I am more deserving", see also this answer (about "conceit" and identity view) -- and a reason to be careful of what relationships and personal relationships you engage with -- see also Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

For more on whether you're gaslighting people try to pay attention to right speech and to not being a sectarian.


Is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? Given that except Nirvana everything is impermanent, is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? In other words whether, given something ,isn't it true that it will change no matter whether there is any reason behind it or not?
Can we say all conditions are superfluous for a change to happen? Can we say change happens with or without conditions ?

All conditioner have 3 sub-characteristics (upāda[jāti], ṭhiti[jarā], and bhaṅga[maraṇa]) according to the description of 5 aggregates and 12 dependent originations.
Saṅkhāra means cause of effects. This is conditioner aggregate of dependent origination.

Saṅkhata means effect of causes. This is conditioned aggregate of dependent origination.

Because saṅkhāra of saṅkhata, have to be saṅkhata of the other saṅkhāra.

So, nothing is no condition, except nibbāna. And that everything, except nibbāna, must be changed (jāti, jarā, and maraṇa) by it's multi-conditioners.


Does everything that happens to me happens because of me? I always wonder that my self. People scam me because I am not wise.

What happened?

Is there always something I did that causes that? How do I know that?

Surrounded by deceit and scams, probably the most important thing to consider first is our own conduct:

  MN8:12.32: ‘Others will be deceitful, but here we will not be deceitful.’

With right view about our conduct we can then seek out others with equal views about conduct. In this way our choices lead us upwards, away from deceit, away from scams, away from people who would tempt us with scams.

  SN45.3:1.3: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.”

To lead a life without regret and remorse, embrace ethics and become a good friend who rejoices in other good friends. With Right View, step onto the Noble Eightfold Path practicing ethics, wisdom and immersion.


Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time? The future is not always tenable and capricious. Additionaly, if one is in the moment one shouldn’t be thinking about the future. To me, this seems like the two are mutually exclusive: to make goals and to be present.

Therefore, is it actually possible to be present but to think about the future at the same time? How does one reconcile having goals or making plans for the future?

It seems difficult to not plan for having children, planning a career, etc.

Consider following texts:

Majjhima Nikaya (3.272)

  ‘The past should not be followed after, and the future not desired;
  what is past is dead and gone, and the future is yet to come.’

Wei Wu Wei ('Why Lazarus Laughed'):

  ‘Past and Future are a duality of which Present is the reality. The
  now-moment alone is eternal and real.’

Matthew Flickstein (* The Meditator’s Atlas. A Roadmap of the Inner World p. 157*:

  ‘The greatest enemy to the conditioned mind is the reality of the
  present moment. The mind is always trying to oppose this experience,
  since the mind only lives through thoughts of the past and the
  future.’

and Thich Nhat Hanh' ('Thich Nhat Hanh on the Practice of Mindfulness'):

  ‘Most people are forgetful; they are not really there [in the present
  moment] a lot of the time. Their mind is caught in their worries,
  their fears, their anger, and their regrets, and they are not mindful
  of being there. That state of being is called forgetfulness -you are
  there but you are not there. You are caught in the past or in the
  future. You are not there in the present moment, living your life
  deeply. That is forgetfulness.

  The opposite of forgetfulness is mindfulness. Mindfulness is when you
  are truly there, mind and body together. You breathe in and out
  mindfully, you bring your mind back to your body, and you are there.
  When your mind is there with your body, you are established in the
  present moment. Then you can recognize the many conditions of
  happiness that are in you and around you, and happiness just comes
  naturally.

  (...) Mindfulness is the energy that helps us recognize the conditions
  of happiness that are already present in our lives. You don’t have to
  wait ten years to experience this happiness. It is present in every
  moment of your daily life. There are those of us who are alive but
  don’t know it. But when you breathe in, and you are aware of your
  in-breath, you touch the miracle of being alive. That is why
  mindfulness is a source of happiness and joy.’


My short story with anxiety problems - could meditation be the cause? My background is that my father was/is an alcoholic and I had pretty rough childhood. I recently turned 33. I always was pretty self aware. I have a good job. I’m easy going open person, have a bunch of friends, but in spite of that there are often times when I feel really lonely. I always had this anxiety/fear shadow on my shoulder, usually visiting me while I was walking street alone, or commuting. I got divorced 3 years ago and after some “rebound/reset” period and couple of toxic relationships decided to get my head straight. Wanted to end the family script of going into toxic relationships and then getting divorced again. That’s why I decided to start meditating.

My journey with meditation began a little more than a year ago. Since then I’ve been meditating almost every day for about 15-20 mins (usually in the morning). I’ve been using one of the more popular apps on the market to guide me through this process, and never had a real life teacher. It’s a standard practice of body scanning, and then observing the breath (+ sometimes some noting/visualisation techniques). I feel that I’m still a beginner in all of this and barely scratched the surface. I started reading “Mindfulness with breathing” by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu but after the first steps the rest is hard for me to understand.

During that year of meditation I gradually got calmer, gained a bigger distance to myself, stopped drinking so much, my empathy and understanding towards others grew. I stopped partying so much (realized it’s meaningless). I pretty much resigned from part of my activities that I noticed had bad motivation underneath.

Seems great, and I’m really greatful for all of this, but recently some dark thoughts began to cloud my mind (thoughts like ‘will I always be alone?’, ‘what if everyone turn their back on me?’). I’m not sure what’s the cause and I’m afraid that my meditation had something to do with it.

Recently during the weekend I had a big panic attack while in the pub with my friend. I quickly got home and realized that I can’t go to work on monday cause I’m too scared of walking the street… I wrote to my boss that I’m sick and I had to work remotely. I even thought about quitting my job on the spot, I couldn’t imagine walking to work again. I still continued my practice. When I finally went out to get to work (just couldn’t give up), the whole journey was a nightmare. I couldn’t stop thinking about the imminent danger. When I walk, the bad thoughts start to arise I try not to repress them, but see them, observe, accept, and get back to the breath. I have to do this almost every 30 sek, cause they keep coming back.
It helps when I occupy my mind with other thoughts.
But whenever I bring my mind to present moment the anxiety kicks in and I start having this panic attacks again.
I have a feeling that by practicing the meditation I dig up something buried very deep inside me and now it messes up my mind. I know I couldn’t handle it alone, so I went to psychiatrist and got some meds to help me during this period. I will begin the therapy shortly.

My question is, should I quit meditating? is that bad for me because of my childhood experiences? am I doing something wrong?

Best regards,
Robert

Pleased to meet you Robert.

It is very difficult to answer your question precisely however it is certainly likely/probable that practicing the meditation & the accompanying mental solitude is digging/bringing up something (i.e., a disposition or mental tendency) buried deep inside your mind.

I doubt you are doing anything wrong. As said, the mental solitude & quietude of meditation will bring things up, including existential fear. This is generally related to the ego diminishing, which in the beginning will generally be somewhat traumatic.

Even when the mind becomes increasingly calm, such as from Anapanasati, a certain threshold of calmness may threaten the (conditioned) ego, resulting in fear arising.

Such fear may not be explicitly related to your personal childhood experiences because such existential fear is a normal event when "crossing-over". Some meditators use an old Christian mysticism phrase for this existential fear, namely, 'Dark Night of the Soul'.

However, that your mind projects this existential fear into ideas of being abandoned by people may possibly relate to your childhood experiences & underlying fear of aloneness.

I offer the following suggestions:

Quit meditating.
Do the therapy, which is hopefully a kind of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) where you learn to rationally reflect/think that there is nothing to fear. This is similar to the Buddhist technique called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara').
If you decide to meditate again, meditate at a good competent Dharma centre with a group of people. I always recommend meditating with others is the best way to start meditation. The group vibe is helpful to reduce or remove anxiety. Also, hopefully meeting trustworthy reliable friends provides a necessary social support.
Do not use recorded guided meditations when alone because these can take the mind deeper than the mind is prepared for. In general, avoid all guided meditations (including in Dharma centres) that go beyond the mere basics of letting go of thoughts & observing the breathing. Any guided meditation that seeks to diminish the ego or observe emptiness, space or clear light should be avoided.


Daily life is dukkha When I wake in the morning I have noticed that in that first moment when I realise I am conscious I feel this kind of yuckiness or sinking feeling. I'm not sure quite how to describe it. I guess it's dukkha? It's a daily realisation about where I am and the effort and discomfort that entails.  I don't want to face the daily struggle to survive life.  When I'm on retreat I wake up fresh and light with a sense of joyous wonder about what is ahead. I am completely different person. The person I want to be. I suppose retreat isn't really reality. It's like a bubble frozen in time, buffered from external stress.   But I want to feel like this in my daily life. I want to wake up and feel like I'm glad to be alive but I don't. I feel more like a slave or a pawn trapped in a shitty capitalist system, being used to prop up the greedy and powerful. I don't feel free in any way. I feel weighed down.  what advice can you give me about this? Do I need to try and change how I'm seeing things and if so how?  How do I have more of the energised joyous wonder??

The main principle of happiness and freedom, especially emphasized in Mahayana Buddhism, is unselfishness:

(1) We feel concerns about ourselves, and about various conditions which also focus into ourselves.

These concerns are created by fixations on good and bad - as they exist from our point of view.

For example, I see the modern human world as cruel, unjust, full of stupidity, destroying the life on Earth, doomed.

But that view comes from my particular perspective. If I take into account that in the past millions of people in Europe died from plague and famine, and many were burned alive for their views, I could understand that some progress actually happened.

We can conduct an experiment: think about the same ugly things when we are in a good mood. Then probably negative thoughts would not stay for so long, they would not occupy our mind.

That experiment shows that habitual thoughts accompany our emotional state. In an easy state we would have more optimistic view on the same problems.

Therefore,

(2) We can drop our self-centered concerns, and shift our attention to caring about others.

You might say it looks like too simple idea to really work well, but then let me ask: have you tried?

Mahayana has thoroughly developed system, called the way of perfections (paramitas). Most often we speak about Six paramitas (they are the main core of the path).

Giving selflessly drops our egoistic burden. Every time we give without egoistic concerns, we return a step back to our original unconstrained and natural feeling.
Discipline means to keep our wholeness despite habits and distractions which try to carry us away from our natural heart.
Patience is an art of remaining relaxed. We have habits to be dissatisfied, to rush somewhere else rather than to be just here. Patience means we want to live every moment in complete wholesome manner. Not wasting our life in chasing feverish desires, not escaping this moment to self-compressed heat of constraint.
Enthusiasm comes from understanding that if we remain passive then our energy dissipates, and we live in dull, gray world.
Concentration is all the previous perfections together:

Selflessness.
Wholeness.
Relaxed presence.
Energy of joyful deeds.

Moreover, concentration means gathering of all our abilities, experience and knowledge, all our skills and open vision in the focus of being completely now.

It means we are able to control our mind, because it's not scattered; distractions can't catch it so easily.

Finally,

Wisdom.

It means prajna - the ability to see everything as it is. It guides our practice of all the other five paramitas. And these five paramitas in turn create open, clean mind, which means the mind of wisdom.

That way we actually drop oppositions and concerns. We have no burden anymore. We naturally are doing something to make the world more beautifil, but we definitely understand that doing that we don't need to make ourselves suffer.

PS. Several practical tips

1. Take the responsibility

Ordinary attitude is: "The world is so bad that my life is in misery, and I can't do anything about it".

Better attitude is: "Whatever be the world, I wish to use my life for the benefit of all beings".

Reasoning:

Letting conditions make me waste my life has no sense. So regardless of conditions I decide to use my life wisely.

With that in mind, make a resolution to be responsible for your life and death by yourself, not letting adverse conditions make you useless.

2. Drop inner oppositions

Ordinary attitude is: "I should force myself to be a decent, effective person".

Better attitude is: "Whatever qualities I manifest, it's a resource and a field of exploration".

Reasoning:

Trying to force themselves, people divide in themselves, try to manipulate with themselves and act against themselves. That leads to wasting efforts in struggles and creating inner resistance to our own endeavors.

With that in mind, you decide to accept whatever manifests in your mental continuum as a resource and a field of exploration - not struggling with that, but dissolving oppositions.

These two decisions can transfer you from a position of a victim to a function of explorer and scientist who studies how to improve human life for the benefit of all sentient beings.


Are mindfulness and flow related Loose definitions for mindfulness and flow (text from Wikipedia):

Mindfulness involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective.

Flow is described as a deep focus on nothing but the activity – not even oneself or one's emotions.

Both are good, but they appear to be opposite mental states. Is entering a flow state incompatible with developing mindfulness? If so, then would flow be considered "bad"? If not, then how can these distinct concepts be presented so that they are compatible?

Equating mindfulness and flow is somewhat problematic.  I would actually go so far as to say that flow has more in common with samadhi than sati.

I'm guessing you are using the term flow as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.  From what I remember of his book, one of the important characteristic of flow inducing activities is that they have an engaging quality to them.  One becomes absorbed in whatever they are doing.  That should set off some bells and whistles immediately as there are some clear similarities (but not an equivalence) between being engaged in an activity and states of meditative absorption.  For one, both activities are, by nature, intrinsically rewarding (well, when you get better at meditation, they are!) and offer direct feedback.  We know when we've had a good sit or not, we know when our mind drifts from the the breath, etc.  On a more technical level, attention is applied and sustained (vicara/vitakka) in both flow and samadhi.  We either need a meditative object to apply our attention to (samadhi) or an activity to which we can apply our efforts (flow).  We also need to do both in a way that isn't distracted (sustained attention).  In flow, however, I just don't think one finds a sustained attention that is nearly as unbroken as it is in jhana or neighboring states of concentration.

When compared to mindfulness practice, flow is lacking some very important qualities.  For one, I just flat out don't think the word mindfulness even can be applied to flow.  The Pali word sati has a number of meanings, but generally implies bringing something into the mind's eye, bringing something into attention, etc.  I just don't see that taking place in flow.  The activity is supplying the mental content.  Secondly, mindfulness practice involves sampajanna - clear comprehension - of the activities one is engaged in.  This is the knowing that a breath is long or short, that an arm is raised, that a feeling is felt, etc.  Once again, I just don't see that happening in flow.  One is caught up in the activity instead of clearing comprehending the component actions that make up that activity.  Perhaps most importantly, flow utterly lacks the potential for insight.  Flow never affords one the opportunity to turn the attention to, say, the seven factors or enlightenment or the four noble truths.  The activities take us into a kind of attention that is other or outer-directed.  The potential for the development of wisdom - the main purpose of mindfulness practice - never factors in.


Looking for a clear explanation of "interdependent origination" in English (one that doesn't rely a lot of Buddhist terminology)? I am having difficulty understanding the idea of interdependent origination within the following text. It is from The Essence of Buddhism by Traleg Kyabgon. I am finding this book very useful as a refresher on the basic philosophy of Buddhism, especially because it includes Tibetan Buddhism. However this section, which talks about one of the two main ideas in Buddhism, seems to rely on terminology that gives me the impression of circular reasoning.

  "How, then, do things come into being? They come into being because of
  what is called interdependent origination, or pratitya-samutpada—that
  is, due to causes and conditions. This implies that things do not have
  inherent existence, because if they had any kind of essence or
  independent existence there would be no need for the whole idea of
  causality. Nagarjuna says: “The origination of inherent existence from
  causes and conditions is illogical, since if inherent existence
  originated from causes and conditions, all things would thereby become
  contingent. How could there be contingent inherent existence? For
  inherent existence is not contingent; nor is it dependent on another
  being. So the very idea of causality involves the notion that things
  are contingent. There is no being that can exist on its own without
  depending on anything else; no self-sufficient being. Everything is
  interdependent. Everything that exists on both the physical and mental
  plane involves the idea of interdependence, or pratitya-samutpada.”

I would very much appreciate an explanation, in clear English and without reliance on terminology (because it appears to be explaining by self referencing concepts and terms) of this basic idea. My guess is that the author is assuming that I already know something which I do not. References to online sources would be appreciated, if you can explain it yourself that would be terrific, and most of all if you can refer me to a clear, translation of the Buddha's original words about this that would be splendid.

Many thanks.

The Wikipedia entry on dependent origination is pretty good and simple. Similarly there is a good essay called Dependent Arising by Piya Tan.

In simple terms this is as follows:

When the cause is present, the effect arising from the cause is present as well
When the cause arises, the effect arising from the cause arises as well
When the cause is not present, the effect arising from the cause is not present as well
When the cause ceases, the effect arising from the cause ceases as well

The 12 links dependent origination (found in numerous Suttas like (Avijjā) Paccaya Sutta) you fill in specific cases and their resulting effects and how these affects in turn become a cause to create more effects.

The most elaborate of specific cause and effect relationships are found in the Theory of Conditional Relations. This maybe above the head for many.

Another rendering of this is the 4 Noble Truths.


Buddhist practice in Singapore Which are the major sects of Buddhism in Singapore? Which are these sects' main temples in Singapore?

You may want to try the following as I have been attended some events there too :

http://www.fpmtabc.org/ - More to Tibetan Buddhism
https://www.facebook.com/buddhistlifemission
http://www.buddhistfellowship.org/cms/ - More to Theravada
http://www.kmspks.org/

Hope this helps. =)


What distinguishes Japanese Shingon Buddhism from other types? How is Japanese Shingon Buddhism different from other forms of Buddhism such as Zen?

Shingon is a tantric Buddhism, which makes it rather dissimilar to Zen and a close relative of Tibetan Vajrayana. Unlike Theravada and Mahayana, both of which rely on discipline, study, and meditation for achieving Enlightenment, tantric systems work by putting a student inside a carefully crafted mandala, and having him or her interact with its energies.

Before the student can be introduced to his mandala, he needs to establish a deep relationship with the teacher. Once teacher has learned student's natural inclinations and energy profile, he picks a suitable tantra, tweaks it to match the student, and introduces the student to various deities and energies. As mandala begins to emerge, student works with it by participating in empowerment ceremonies, performing various rituals, and doing visualizations.

If teacher sees student making good progress, he will upgrade him/her to a higher tantra, and the whole process repeats until the student attains complete vision of Truth.


MN 38: How do aging-&-death cease when the eye sees a form? MN 38 has the following two different or opposite verses on the arising of suffering & the ceasing of suffering:

  On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the
  body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as
  it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom
  wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged
  as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether
  pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in
  that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so,
  delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his
  clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition,
  birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.

  On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.

Although these two verses are different, what is common to both verses is the event of: "on seeing a form with the eye".

How do aging-&-death cease when the eye sees a form?

Most probably imagine "ceases" to mean something like "ends". The fact is, "ceases" is a translation of "nirodha" which means "make it so it won't arise", "remove a necessary cause of arising" (what I call "prevent" or "dis-enable" in short). So the meaning of the passage is, when the eye sees a form, ear hears a sound etc. - if there is no like/dislike or craving/aversion modality established, then the cause that would normally push the wheel of D.O. to keep on spinning is not created. Because the cause is not created, the chain of events starting from the cause is not started. If this is only done occasionally with one form, then the other occasions would still give rise to the chain of events -- would push the wheel on spinning. But if this is done consistently for all forms, sounds, dharmas etc. - then the chain of D.O. is nirodha (prevented).

It is prevented because, as is explained in standard D.O. descriptions, enabled by Ignorance arise Tendencies. These tendencies are exactly the tendencies to like/dislike and to act based on this liking/disliking. Such tendencies feed and grow the entity-centric thinking and acting. This entity-centric thinking and acting gradually hardens into I-making, which culminates in death.

When stimuli like forms, sounds, dharmas etc. are taken "as-is", without forming personal attitude to them, the entity-centric thinking and acting is not perpetuated. Because it is not perpetuated, the I-making is not perpetuated. When I-making is not perpetuated - death does not apply.