Should Buddhists use statues with an imagined likeness of the Buddha for veneration? Should Buddhists use statues with an imagined likeness of the Buddha for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Kalinga Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue.

Even though the Uddesika Chetiya is not perfect to represent the Buddha, it doesn't mean that paying respect to it is not meritorious.

Read the story of Pulinathupiya thero.
There was a monastery on a rock called 'Samanga' near the Himalaya forest. There lived a hermit named Narada. He had fourteen thousand students. One day he thought, "I'm living here receiving respect and worship from everyone else, but I don't have anyone to worship. I don't have anyone to take advice from. This is not good!". So he searched for such a person, but couldn't find anyone that is worthy.
But he did not give up the idea.
There was a river called 'Amarika' nearby. He took sand from that river and made a stupa with no Dhatu inside. He likened that to the stupas of the past Buddhas and started worshiping it like a Buddha who is staying nearby. Because of that good deed, he was born in heavens many times and in his last life, he was born to a wealthy family in Savatti. He was able to attain Arhathship at the age of seven by recalling back to that past life.

So, if worshiping to a pile of sand with nothing in it could bring about such an outcome, there's no question of the merits of paying respect to a Buddha statue.
Besides, using a statue to remember a great person is a common practice in civilised societies. There were Buddha statues in monasteries in ancient times when there were many Arahaths. They didn't raise any objection. There are references to Buddha statues in the commentaries(Dhakkhina vibhanga sutta). There have been many debates about certain opinions of ancient Dhamma teachers which were recorded in Kathawattupakaranaya. But there's no record of anyone objecting the reverence of Buddha statues.

None of the statues that exist in the world can be likened to the Buddha 100% as the Thaththaga is Appatimo. The statues themselves have many differences. But most of them have a certain similarity which creates an undeniable sense of respect and awe in us towards the Buddha.

ex: Samadhi Statue of Sri Lanka. The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru once said he found solace and strength in a photograph of this statue when he was imprisoned by the British in 1940s.


How to stop comparing oneself with others? I'm wondering how Buddhism deals with the comparison of oneself with others, and I'm specifically thinking in terms of accomplishments. For example, I have usually had some success in art fields in my life. I now am in a setting where many people have similar, or greater talent. I can't help but compare myself to them, and this causes suffering.

Similarly, I tend to compare myself to others generally, in many ways. I am aware it is bad to do so, but I cannot help myself in engaging in that process.

Is there any way to make the comparisons cease? What does Buddhism teach about this?

If comparing is conceit, many of the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? seem to advocate merely watching mindfully the arising and passing away of the aggregates to extinguish conceit. Would this be the recognized ways of diminishing the presence of conceit?

If any practice could be recommended it would be much appreciated.

Thank you for any reply.

Actually start, not stop to compare yourself with others! , but only with the wise, if looking for a longer lasting good.

It's against the mainstream believe totally not wrong to compare "oneself" to others, Eggman, according to the teachings of the Buddha and the path going beyond comparing individuals.

If looking and reading the Suttas one will not find many places where not good or bad samples are used for orientation purposes. Path to liberation is all about learning how and what to judge.

Others then in usually wordily regards the objectivity does not focus on material thing to be compared, but virtues, and while ordinary man judges in the frame of gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. (the 8 worldily Dhammas on which the world turns around), a Dhammika (one following the path, "Buddhist") look for orientation amoung the seven treasures. Which seven?

  The treasure of conviction, the treasure of virtue, the treasure of conscience, the treasure of concern, the treasure of listening, the treasure of generosity, the treasure of discernment...

That means that one goes after, associate with virtuose people and compares ones own deeds, and this is importand, with people seemingly having such virtues. But like when one seeks for orientation for material skills, one tries not to do it in a battle way, but by reducing to regard individuals. One compares action and tendencies.

When ever there is much notion of "I" and "you", it gives much rise to envy, issa.

That is the result of conceit, and conceit (mānā) ends only for an Arahat totally. A big amout of this notion of comparing in the three conceit-full ways "better I am", "lower I am" but also "equal I am", falls with the reach of the Stream and the lose of personal-views (sat/k kaya ditthi).

Todays popullar notion "equal are we" is in fact most dangerous, because it forms even bigger groups (kayas) as if as individual for identification.

For the daily live with material items to trade, one of course needs to compare certain gains of others, but if wise one puts also the factor "in what way was this gained", in therms of virtues, into it, gives that more and more value for orientation. "How does he find so much peace while merely poor", for example.

How ever, envy, jealousy, does not end at the point when going even a total spirital way and the best description of what is really and most worthy to compare with, is given in the Cula Saropama Sutta: The Shorter Heartwood-simile Discours

So again, it's not bad at all, but foolish if one puts it more or lesser into such as a lasting person and it's qualities, when knowing that the 8 Wordily-Dhammas are not for sure and change sometimes very quick. So it's good the seek after the possession of the seven treasures, with what one does not only have a good and legitime source for ones healthy selfestimate but also would not be easy excelt by material things. At least, who ever had not found the real heart-wood, will not be perfect and secure, aside of all needs for comparisons, beyond.

One compares oneself not to put others down, but to possible learn from them, become equal, seeing that this also does not lead to lasting ease and searches again for better, till on possible sees and recognice Noble ones, listen to their Dhamma and by understanding loses the gross problems of comparisons of the world, able to even be an island for oneself.

Aside the "Self" and the Devas and gods, admirable friends are always good for comparing oneself, and should be ones govering principles all the time.

And to add a short note on "watching the aggregats", if not having accomplished the treasures, is not really possible to do such, so it is good to compare oneself in regard of generousity, moral and their virtues first, become as good as possible equal with that of the Noble Ones. There then is the place to enter the stream.

May this brief talk about a big issue, as well as the advices to a "youngster" in this manner be of understanding it and with it a help for those able to take.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.]


What is the cause of imaginary dialogues in mind? Most of the time, I have conversations in mind. Most of them, there is person , interviewing me. Other person: "Why don't you like that ?" Me: "I don't like it because ..."

This doesn't happen in real world because it is an egoish thing. What is the cause of this ?. Is this the pride ? How do I stop this without forcing it ? (I'm aware of these kind of thoughts and I turn the direction when I caught them.)

I am looking for an answer according to the Buddhism.

It's about the first Governor arguing with the defilement or vici versa. Nothing wrong and very needed till the final abounding of even this relation. Just don't mix them, since the defilement are smart in tricking.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade or what ever keeps one bond in the wheel]


Observing fever and Not taking medicine? I have been trying to tie mind with breathe lately and successful several times through the day.

But today I have fever, and I am finding it very difficult to observe, I just want to this feeling of weakness to be over, I know it is not permanent, But yes one more thing i realized today, the importance of healthy body, My friend suggested me not to take medicine as it is also my Sankara (to me its very stupid.)

He also explained that human body raises it temperature to kill some bacteria and by taking medicine you will stop its process.

Should I not take medicine in fever and just observe what is happening inside.

I want to keep following the Shila's and not also get rid of fever.

Kucchivikara-vatthu includes,

A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five qualities is hard to tend to.
A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.
A nurse endowed with five qualities is not fit to tend to the sick: He is not competent at mixing medicine; he does not know what is amenable or unamenable to the patient's cure, bringing to the patient things that are unamenable and taking away things that are amenable; etc.


Giving up bad friends The Buddha has spoken many times about giving up bad friends, we can find it in the Dhammapada, in the beautiful Maha Mangala Sutta and many other places.

My first point is: If we abandon bad friends, how will they improve? What role compassion plays here?

My second point is: It is very hard these days to completely abandon bad friends, we have social networks, professional networks, smartphones etc., we are connected like never before, it is very hard for a lay person to live only with good friends around, except if maybe he/she becomes a recluse, so what should one do? Just set limits?

The answer to this question may also depend on the individual and how advanced they are in Buddhist practice. If a person is solid in faith and regular in practice and can truly be that good example for friends that may help lead those friends to the Dhamma that is one thing. If the individual is newer to Buddhism and the keeping of precepts and right speech and needs lots of time to themselves to establish a regular meditation practice and learn about their new path then friends and social activities can be a distraction. In fairness, a person in the second scenario should explain to their friends why they can't be as available as they've been in the past, or why they are no longer willing to participate in certain activities. Good friends will understand and give you that time you need. Bad friends may not respect your commitment and may continually try to persuade you back to your old ways. It's not compassionate to yourself or even the bad friend to accommodate that. Leaving a bad friend with more time on their hands (because you are not around) may give them more time to think and may be the wake up call they need.

As far as socializing in real life and online, you have to set limits and priorities or the days and weeks and months will simply fly by aimlessly. As a practical suggestion, I find Airplane mode on the my phone very handy when I want to use my phone based meditation timer but not be distracted by texts and notifications. :)


The dilemma of enlightenment As a lay Buddhist, I know it is almost impossible for me to attain Enlightenment in this life. So if I keep enlightenment as a goal in mind it creates frustration, as I am not progressing in meditation and, life seems hopeless as Enlightenment is an impossible pursuit. However, if I don't think of enlightenment then I don't have any good motivation to do meditation and keep the precepts.

How should I get out of in this confusion? Life as a Buddhist seems almost unpracticle. Any advise?

Don't focus on suffering as it is the reason for suffering. You can have a goal of reaching that eternal freedom. But, make sure you enjoy the journey without too focusing on the end...


Someone told me Buddha copied almost everything from Brahmanism, how accurate is that? I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted.

How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

Dyana meditation is basically keeping your focus on one object. Various forms of it can be found in many religions. There's nothing exceptional about it. Even christians/muslims praying to a God is a type of concentration meditation that could lead to the first Dyana. In that case, the object of focus is conceptual or fictional.

In Buddhism also you can find types of Dyana meditations as they are useful methods of developing concentration and subduing defilements. But what makes Buddhism exceptional is Vipassana meditation. This meditation is not found in any other religion. Then there are so many unique teachings like the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, most of the teachings in the sutta, abhidhamma, vinaya pitakas that amount to 84,000 teachings.

So if someone claims that the Buddha copied almost everything from Yoga, it only speaks of his lack of knowledge in Buddhism.


Does memory persist across different births of an individual? I've read that the Buddha could remember his past life. Does this means that the memory of a person lasts across different life times?

This is just knowledge (jnāna or vidhyā). Anyone who acquired that knowledge can remember his past life.

Please see Buddha's awakening Buddha's awakening

and page 63 of "On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood"

and I retrieved the text below from page 571 of "Agama Aura Tripitaka: Eka Anusilana"

Prodigy of Memory of Earlier Births (Pϋrva-nivāsa-anusmrti-jnāna): The monk endowed with this prodigy remembers many kinds of earlier births. He can remember many periods of duration of dissolution, creation and destruction-cum-origination of the universe. He remembers that at that time, he was in a particular place, state of birth, species, destinity and state of knowledge. I was in a specific state of birth. I had this name, lineage, life-span, food and experience of pleasure and pain. I was born in a specific place after death from there where I had this…etc. After death there, I am born here in this Ksatriya or Brahmin family. The heretics remember their earlier births upto 40 Kalpas (a unit of time equivalent to 20 Antar-Kalpas). The natural votary remembers earlier births upto 100 or 1000 Kalpas, the great/senior votaries remember earlier births upto 80 lacs of Kalpa years, the self-enlightened one remembers the earlier births upto two innumerable lacs of Kalpa years and the Buddha remembers the earlier births upto a period without measure.


Candrakirti - what was his most important contribution? I'd like to look more on Candrakirti, and have a few questions about him. What was/is Candrakirtis most important contribution to Buddhist philosophy?

If you were to start reading Candrakirtis own works, where would you
start?
Can anyone give me a good tip for a comprehensive introduction to
Candrakirti?

There are different interpretations of Candrakirti, even among Madhyamika-Prasangika scholars. That said, Prasangika scholars generally hold that Buddhapālita (470 AD - 550 AD) gave the first Prasangika presentation in the form of a commentary to Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, but is not the founder of the Prasangika school. Bhāviveka (500 AD - 578 AD) then refuted Buddhapālita and is  to be regarded as the founder of the Madhyamika-Svatantrika school. It is thought that they did not debate face to face because Buddhapālita belonged to a lower class. Candrakirti (600 AD - 650 AD) then established the Madhyamika-Prasangika school by way of refuting Bhāviveka so-called Svatantrika positions. Candrakirti is held to be the founder of the Prasangika school (over Buddhapālita) because he established it through properly refuting another. It is sometimes thought that Candrakirti was Buddhapālita's reincarnation. It is also sometimes thought that he debated Bhāviveka face to face (although their commonly established date of their birth and death would not allow it)

As I said, there are different readings of Candrakirti, even among Madhyamika-Prasangika scholars. These differences are significant, and are in relation to:

The notion of other-emptiness & self-emptiness;
The nature of emptiness (whether it is an affirming or a non-affirming negation)
The way emptiness is realized (implicitly or explicitly)
The meaning of 'prasanga' and that of 'svatantra', and so forth.

I suggest that, first of all, you study the context and the possible meanings of the so-called Svatantrika / Prasangika distinction. Sara McClintock & Georges Dreyfus's The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make? is interesting.

The two main Prasangika positions are:

Gorampa's
Tsongkhapa's.

Gorampa is known for criticizing Tsongkhapa's positions: he goes as far as to say that Tsongkhapa is in fact a proponent of Svatantrika tenets. Thus, studying Tsongkhapa in order to know what Gorampa refutes would be most relevant.

In relation to studying Tsongkhapa, I advise you to read Tsongkhapa along with his main disciples: Gyaltsab Je and Khedrup Je. Khedrup Je is usually easier than Gyaltsab Je. Tsongkhapa's commentary to Candrakirti was translated by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, I will thus not expound on that. Also, from a Geluk perspective, we do not usually study Tsongkhapa's (or any Prasangika commentery to Candrakirti). We study Svatantrika commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara (i.e. Haribhadra, and so forth). Our gateway to the Prasangika system is other. It is Tsongkhapa's commentary to Nagarjuna (the Ocean of Reasoning), it is the Special Insight chapter of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, along with Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom, Gyaltsab Je's commentary to Shantideva (Shantideva also presented as a Prasangika himself). Having studied them, having understood them thoroughly, you could go a step further and read Candrakirti's root text (Madhyamakavatara) for yourself, and also read Gorampa's positions and his followers.

In relation to studying Gorompa, you may read
Ju Mipham, whose presentations accord with Gorampa's. Ju Mipham's commentary to  Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara is most relevant.


How come movies/video games decrease the motivation to do buddhist practises? I practised buddhism a lot in holidays given due to Covid-19. I listen to dhamma and meditate each and every day. When my college started, I was not ready for the exam. I got stress. Somehow I found some interesting videos on a video streaming platform and I watched videos such as movies, gaming videos and funny videos. It helped me to forget the problems. At the beggining, I had a lot of resistance to watch that kind of useless videos. But at the end, I lost that resistance. Watching a video became nothing. Even after 2 months gone, I still watching videos. I passed days without doing anything related to buddhism. I can't be mindfull as before.
What happened to me? How those videos cause me to lost my interest for buddhism? How I lost that resistance? Have you any personal experiences like this? How can I get back to that previous state?

What happened to me? How those videos cause me to lost my interest for buddhism? How I lost that resistance?

I suspect something you wrote points to the answer – you wrote that college work stressed you out, and these videos “helped me forget the problems.” People respond to stress in their own way, e.g. overeating, indulging in drugs or sensual pleasure, or zoning out on YouTube videos. They’re all easy distractions that are pleasurable in the short term and an escape from your troubles. As you’ve found, watching videos online can become compulsive – there are always endless more videos to watch, endless suggestions and enticements. It may not cause the same obvious physical downsides caused by overeating or drug use, but there is a definite negative effect as it takes over your time and stunts your motivation for other, healthier endeavors. Internet addiction in general is a very real thing, and perhaps reading a bit about it will give you some insight as to how your mind has been affected by your time online.

How can I get back to that previous state?

Not to get technical, but there’s no such thing as going back to a previous state, nor should you want to. You’re currently learning a challenging but important lesson – distractions will always exist, and now you know that a weak spot for you is internet videos. Guess what? You’re going to get through this, and then you’re going to encounter the next challenge and overcome that one, and so on. And at each step you’re going to become wiser about pitfalls, how to avoid them, and how to climb out of them. I suggest you start by reading (or re-reading) about the five hindrances and their antidotes. Of the five hindrances to progress – sensory desire, ill will, sloth-torpor, restlessness-worry and doubt – you seem to be plagued by a mix of the last three. They each have their specific antidotes, in this case such aspects as rousing energy, having a schedule/routine for meditation, and developing contentment and trust in the process. Underlying all of this are the constants of Buddhism: being mindful of our thoughts and impulses, investigating them to understand them, and detaching from them as you realize they’re not “you” and they’re just as transient as anything.
I believe having a schedule/routine for meditation is critical. As the body and mind get used to it, we just automatically do it and are less likely to skip it in favor of distractions. Keep to the schedule and give yourself time to get in a groove. Don’t beat yourself up if it’s tough at first. I noticed that the election week stress threw me off, and I’m just now getting more focused day by day. Best wishes to you.


What is wrong speech according to Buddhism? Is something a lie if I don’t have bad or evil intentions but what I said turns out to be false? I’m trying to protect my five precepts but sometimes when I say something it turns out to be false but I just said what I know at that time. I wasn’t trying to deceive or tell lies. I just said what I know but I found out later that I was wrong. So is that a lie? I didn’t have any bad intentions. I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false.

I don't think the fourth precept is defined in detailed in suttas. Actually I don't think any of the precepts are defined in detail -- perhaps they are in a commentary.

Something like that precept, though, is defined in the vinaya (for monks) -- see Chapter 8, page 298, of The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, which includes:

  Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
  Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

But I don't understand your question saying, "I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false" -- because, how could you "know" something that's false?

I think (I hope) I'd tend to phrase that as, "I think that so-and-so", or "Someone once told me so-and-so", or "I guess that so-and-so", or "Such-and-such a reference says so-and-so" -- not, "I know that so-and-so is true" when I'm not sure.

If I'm not sure about something, then conveying more certainty than I have (e.g. by saying, "X is definitely true") is in my opinion misrepresenting the truth about how good my knowledge is, how much certainty I have, how trust-worthy it is.

Anyway you should probably read that chapter of the vinaya, it includes various details which I won't quote here.

The vinaya says it's wrong to break a promise, too. In my opinion (though, I'd guess, not according to Buddhist scripture) that means you should avoid kind of implying (perhaps an implied promise) that something is true when it isn't -- so for example if you're not certain then don't imply you're certain.

Since you mentioned "wrong speech" you might also want to read about "right speech" more generally, i.e. one of the factors of the noble eightfold path (I don't know whether that's exactly the same as the fourth precept):

Right Speech (quotes from Suttas)
Right Speech (a little essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)


How to discipline self to practice meditation everyday? It's very hard for me to discipline myself to practice meditation every day. Every time I decide I am going to meditate every day no matter what, after a few days I cannot not keep it up. Sometimes it is due to lack of time, but mostly it is because of laziness.

I am not sure how I can get over it and keep practicing. What should I do?

This is a common problem. I'd suggest you get some inspiration and enthusiasm from reading online about meditation and start doing it for even say, 30 seconds.

But most importantly, don't force yourself to do it or feel bad about not meditating. The moment you start forcing your mind to do something, it mostly doesn't work. Let your mind be.

Also there could be external distractions apart from internal distractions. Try an early morning meditation sometime if that is the case.

Again, don't force yourself. Just sit down when you have the time/desire and let go of your mind. Let it wander aimlessly. But be with your mind. It's not what the mind is aware of, but how you are aware of the mind. Once this is done, start bringing the mind to your breath. This is a trick to deal with the mind. ;)

Also try mindfulness in your everyday activity. Say, your lunch or dinner time. It helps to get you started again.

Good luck.


What does the Pali canon say about "death"? I'm just clinging to this notion that the small death (of prthagjanas) is never reversible, and never incomplete.

Leaving aside the notion of "karma" and "rebirth" and "continuity", what does the Pali canon say about "death"?

“Paticca Samuppada” is a discourse on the process of birth and death. As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).

The understanding of death &  impermanence is an antidote to desire and ill-will, is an encouragement to our practice of Dhamma, and is a key to understanding the ultimate nature of things, the way things really are.
Remembering death especially is said to be like a friend and a teacher to one, as it acts as a discouragement to excessive desire and ill-will. While death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. Life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Thus, we ought to practice the Dhamma quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.

The Buddha once gave a discourse on the impermanence of life at the village named ‘Alavi’. He admonished, 'Practice meditation on death. Reflect mindfully: Uncertain is my life, certain is my death, certainly one day I have to face death.'

The Buddha also exhorted his listeners to be always mindful and to strive to perceive the true nature of life. He also said, 'As one who is armed with a stick or spear is prepared to meet an enemy and some other poisonous and dangerous animals, so also, one who is ever mindful of death should face death mindfully. He will then leave this world for a good destination. – “Blind is this world. Few are those who clearly see. As few birds escape from a net, few go to a blissful state.” '

In many a suttas it is shown that beings in the un-ending Samsara (cycle of birth-and-death) are bound to eye as ‘me’ (considering eye as ‘me’). In a similar manner, beings are bound to ear as ‘me’, nose as ‘me’, tongue as ‘me’, body as ‘me’, and mind as ‘me’.

As long as they are bound to all these faculties, they are actually bound to Māra. In order for one to free from this bond of Māra, one needs to investigate the notion of ‘me’ about each faculty (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) separately.

We should see that there is nothing permanent in rūpa (figure), vēdanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sanskāra (intention; volitional effort), and Viññāna (consciousness). But, we are bound to these five groups of clinging because of the thought of ‘me’. That binding results in a birth. That binding results in our death. That binding results in getting another life (birth) after our deaths.


Do the specific historical past events play any role in the analysis of the conditions leading to suffering? As far as I've studied the suttas (not very much, to be honest), it seems that whenever dukkha is analysed and reflected upon, it is mostly done in terms of the phenomena as they arise in the present.

In contrast, modern psychology and therapy seems to put a lot of effort and value in trying to understand/recognize the specific historical causes that led to the establishment of any unwholesome trait/behaviour/thought pattern in the first place.

For instance, while buddhist practice seems to focus on the arising of craving or aversion, and the understanding of how ignorance makes us to crave/control the external world, modern therapy methods emphazise the importance of knowing the reasons in our past that may indicate when such craving/aversion started to be a part of our habitual way of thinking.

Do the specific past historical causes play any role in the buddhist analysis of dukkha?

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards!

Certain buddhist schools adhere to the idea of Alaya-vijnana, which roughly corresponds to the western notion of an unconsciousness.

The idea is that karma is originated by "seeds" (bhijas) stored in our unconscious memory, and are made up of previous experiences. These seeds can therefore be seen as the cause for our karma.

This connects to the four right efforts, in order to examine the seeds and deal with them to accomplish non-arising, abandonment, arising or maintenance according to dharma.

A question to reflect on: Is understanding our past necessary for liberation?


Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? A claim which is often heard in connection with Buddhism is that it is not a religion. From a scientific point of view, is it a religion, or is it not?

It really depends which definition of religion you go for. For instance

Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and particularly of
a personal God [..]
Oxford English Dictionary.

Buddhism is not a religion based on this definition

Any specific system belief or worship, often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy
Websters New World Dictionary

Buddhism is a religion based on this definition
(Both quotes are taken from Jared Diamond's the world until yesterday pp 327)
Buddhism certainly is in a grey area with definitions. But then so are other philosophies/religions. Confucianism was considered a religion a few decades ago whereas now it is definitely seen as a philosophy (Jared Diamond again). Shintoism is simliar in the grey area. Going further back then Epicurianism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism all have something about the religious to them but are always (in my reading) spoken about as philosophies.
I would contend that the philosophy/religion divide is a continuum and owes something to the prevailing cultural climate. Nobody would say Marxism is a religion but there is certainly a religious attitude (controversial final point!)
Footnote
Well not quite the final point. Again Jared Diamond - he has 16 definitions for religion on pp 327 of World until Yesterday. It's an interesting exercise to go through them all and see if Buddhism fit's into each definition. It varies quite a bit. For instance just to give one more
Émile_Durkheim

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and
practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church,
all those who adhere to them.

Well maybe, maybe not.


AN 7.64 kodhana (anger), case 3 of 7 unclear what is meant by "profit" or "loss", and how exactly that sabotages what angry person wants (pali + english, derived from b. Sujato trans.)
http://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-v05/index.html#s64

(b. thanissaro eng. trans)
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_60.html

The passage in question:

  “And further, an enemy wishes of an enemy, ‘O, may this person not
  profit!’ Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy’s profits.
  Now, when a person is angry—overcome with anger, oppressed with
  anger—then even when he suffers a loss, he thinks, ‘I’ve gained a
  profit’; and even when he gains a profit, he thinks, ‘I’ve suffered a
  loss.’ When he has grabbed hold of these ideas that work in mutual
  opposition (to the truth), they lead to his long-term suffering &
  loss, all because he is overcome with anger. This is the third thing
  pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy’s aim, that comes to a
  man or woman who is angry.

b.bodhi has:

  (3) “Again, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘May he not succeed!’ For
  what reason? An enemy does not delight in the success of an enemy.
  [95] When an angry person is overcome and oppressed by anger, if he
  gets what is harmful, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is beneficial,’
  and if he gets what is beneficial, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is
  harmful.’ When, overcome by anger, he gets these things that are
  diametrically opposed, they lead to his harm and suffering for a long
  time. This is the third thing gratifying and advantageous to an enemy
  that comes upon an angry man or woman.

In the other 7 cases in the sutta, specifics are given so it's clear what the person who wants the enemy to suffer, how their anger sabotages their desire and tends to get the opposite result. In the case # 3 above however, it's not clear what the Buddha had in mind for specific examples. I can think of some hypothetical situations that would meet that criteria, but they would just be guesses.

Anyone think they know exactly what is meant here?

In AN 4.55 for example there is:

  When both are faithful and kind,
  Ubho saddhā vadaññū ca,

  disciplined, living properly,
  saññatā dhammajīvino;

  then wife and husband
  Te honti jānipatayo,

  say nice things to each other.
  aññamaññaṃ piyaṃvadā.

  They get all the things they need,
  Atthāsaṃ pacurā honti,

  so they live at ease.
  phāsukaṃ upajāyati;

  Their enemies are downhearted,
  Amittā dummanā honti,

  when both are equal in ethics.
  ubhinnaṃ samasīlinaṃ.

  Having practiced the teaching here,
  Idha dhammaṃ caritvāna,

  both equal in precepts and observances,
  samasīlabbatā ubho;

  they delight in the heavenly realm,
  Nandino devalokasmiṃ,

  enjoying all the pleasures they desire.”
  modanti kāmakāmino”ti.

The word in AN 7.64 is pacurattho which suttacentral's dictionary says is a compound:

  pacura (abundant; various; many) + attha (aim, purpose, goal; advantage, profit, benefit)

The translation as "profit" appears to have come from picking one of the meanings of the latter word.

I too can only guess at specific examples. From AN 4.55 I'd guess it includes all the requisites at least, and what they have to live at ease (phāsuka -- pleasant, convenient.), maybe heavenly pleasures too.

Reading the rest of AN 7.64, I think the whole sutta is a polemic against anger -- not a detailed explanation of how specific types of wealth are gained or lost. Looking through the verse at the end, anger seems to cause the loss of everything -- sleep, wealth, friends, reputation, conscience, life, etc.

So becoming angry may cause a person to lose anything and everything.
And perhaps it's easy to see why such a loss might please an angry person's enemy.

But I'm not sure why it points out that it would please an enemy ("what would please an enemy" doesn't seem to me a usual or recommended view-point of the suttas) -- maybe it's just meant as a synonym of "misfortune".


Do lay Buddhists ever wear distinguishing clothing or jewellery? I'm aware that Buddhist monastic communities often wear robes that distinguish them and visibly mark them out as Buddhists. Do lay Buddhist ever do the same thing? Is there any jewellery or clothing that lay Buddhists wear to mark them out as Buddhists - a visible marker of their religion. This is obviously common in other religions e.g. crucifixes for Christians - but do Buddhists of any tradition have an equivalent?

At least in the Theravada tradition people do not were distinguishing clothes or jewelry.

Though not used as a distinctive form, but as more of protection and a good luck charm, some wear a Pirith thread.


As Buddhists, what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet? I finished watching two movies on the life of H.H the Dalai Lama (Kundun and Seven years in Tibet) which also highlight the tragedy of Tibet. Historically Tibet can be said as the only country which has dedicated itself to the attainment of Nibbana (take this with a pinch of salt). A huge amount of cultural heritage and Buddhist documents must have been lost during the cultural revolution.

So what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet?

Do we learn any lessons about Karma?

Do you think that for protection of Dhamma Tibet should have indulged in dealing with arms?

If you are a Vajrayana, do you care for Liberation of Tibet?

P.S: Not being judgemental towards the Chinese.

I believe this question has been asked 2500 years ago. Please see Mahāparinibbānasutta DN16:

  I will wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I will destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!


Intensifying sensations in Vipassana When I sit for Vipassana and observe the sensations, they intensify. The sensations get stronger and stronger the more I observe them. After a limit these sensations break my will power to sit and force me to stop. What is happening here, can anyone explain?

Normally our attention is diffuse and weak. When you focus on anything it becomes clearer. That's a part of it for sure. The same will happen to sounds, etc. if you focus on them. Of course, pain will increase itself if you don't take steps to alleviate it, so that's often also a part.
Important is that the pain is not a problem, and if you can see it just as pain, it doesn't matter how intense it becomes. The Buddha said we should bear with pain even if it feels like it will kill us. When you are averse or afraid of the pain, you should take that aversion or fear as an object of mindfulness. This will help you see clearly (vipassana) that the pain is just pain:

dukkhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ti pajānāti.
When feeling a painful feeling, one knows fully, "I am feeling a painful feeling."

The idea is that that should be all you know about it, not that it's bad or a problem or getting worse, etc. All of those things are reactions and should be taken as objects of mindfulness as well.


Avoiding debates & looking into Planes/realms What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it?

Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by experience to understand them better?

I believe the planes, I just was curious about that.

Metta to all!

The planes of existence can known as psychological states of mind therefore it is easy to prove them to others. People have hellish suffering; people behave like animals; people can be ungrounded rootless ghosts & addicts; people can live a godly life of wealth, power, luxury or bliss; people can be humane.

Planes of existence are depicted below. An explanation is: The Wheel of Life by Barbara O'Brien.


Is there a Buddhist explanation for why envy manifests as hatred? I have observed that when I am envious of somebody, I feel an impulse to malign them, and sometimes experience feelings of hostility toward them. Is there a textual explanation for this phenomenon?

You specified pali-canon but I think (admitting I'm merely skimming translations) that definitions of envy are similar in Mahanaya texts too; for example one of the Tibetan texts, A Necklace for Those
of
Clear Awareness
Clearly Revealing the Modes of
Minds and Mental Factors, defines it as,

  Jealousy (phrag dog)

  Regarding jealousy, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

    QUESTION: What is jealousy?
    RESPONSE: It is a deep disturbance of mind that cannot tolerate another's
    marvelous attributes due to excessive attachment to gain and honor, and is
    involved with hatred. It has the function of [causing] mental unhappiness
    and of not abiding in contact [with happiness].

  Just as it has been said above, it is a deep disturbance of mind that cannot bear
  another's success due to attachment to gain and honor. It produces serious undesirable
  [consequences] in both this and future worlds [i.e., rebirths]; in this life there will be
  mental unhappiness, and in future lives one will be impelled into bad migrations.

On Access to Insight there's some textual explanation here, not in a sutta but in the translator's introduction to a sutta:

  A glance through the list (see Note 2) will show that all these sixteen defilements derive from greediness and selfishness, from aversion, self-assertion and conceit, or their combinations. If we take, for instance, contempt, being a weaker nuance of (5) denigration, we see that aversion and conceit contribute to it; (7) envy is fed by greediness and aversion. The pairs of contributive factors here exemplified do not, of course, occur at the same moment of consciousness; but their repeated, separate presence favors the arising of such derivatives as contempt and envy. On the other hand, if those secondary defilements such as contempt and envy (and all the others) appear frequently, they will bring about a close serial association of their "feeders," as for instance hate motivated by conceit, or hate motivated by greed; and these may easily become habitual sequences, automatic chain reactions in our impulsive life.

  Interlocked in such a manner, the negative forces in our mind — the defilements, roots of evil, and fetters — will become more powerful and much more difficult to dislodge. They will form "closed systems" hard to penetrate, [etc.]

I read that as saying that:

Envy is fed by greed and aversion
Hate is (or may be) motivated by envy
It becomes tangled, inter-related, hard to disentangle

The statement that "[factors] do not, of course, occur at the same moment of consciousness" is I'd guess an abhidhamma statement (that you can only be conscious of one thing at a time).

My personal opinion is that in theory I can imagine two motives for the impulse to malign someone:

A primitive belief in the zero-sum nature of things, e.g. "He has what I want, if I could destroy him then I could take his place and have that for myself"
Or perhaps some egalitarian belief, e.g. "If he has more than others, he doesn't deserve it"

Perhaps I'm wrong, it seems to me that the suttas don't examine negative emotions in great detail. Perhaps it assumes we know what they are, but doesn't dwell on them (and doesn't encourage us to dwell on them) -- for example, consider verses 3 through 5 of the Dhammapada.

I think the antidote for envy may be mudita, by the way, if you want to read more about that -- if you do read more about mudita then I think you'd incidentally read something more about the nature of envy.


How to maintenance equanimity in the daily life? I would like to understand in the short and simple how to deal in the daily life.

When I have the emotion and I feel the sensation i.e. cold in my palm, what should I do next?
I aware that this feeling cold will be gone sometime later. But how do I know that I do not react to that sensation blindly?

Looking forward to see your answers.

With a lot of metta,
PP

If, during your formal practice, you are able to purify the mind of the hindrances then you can apply that level of concentration and purity of mind to experiences outside of formal meditation.

Purity of mind means that you are able to attend to a sensation without adding stories to it that are rooted in the hindrances to mindfulness (attachment, aversion, doubt, worry and slackness/laziness/lethargy of body and mind).

For example:

If you have warm hands and you say, "I like warm hands; they are so pleasurable!" That is attachment . . .

If you observe cold hands and you say/think something like, "I hate cold hands." That is the hindrance of aversion . . .

If your hands are cold and you ignore mindfulness because you do not believe it is beneficial then you have doubt about the practice . . .

If you have cold hands and you say something like, "I am scared, what will happen if my hands get too cold, I could get hurt and experience painfulness." That is worry . . .

If the mind becomes sluggish and ignores the sensation because of that sluggishness then you have lethargy of mind.

Instead of saying or thinking any of these things you should simply observe the sensation in the hands. If you can not do this it is a sign that there is still work to be done in regards to purifying your mind. If those thoughts arise notice them, then let them go and try to return to observing the bare sensation.


Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment.

But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

It is delusion, with all resulting kamma. This case is addressed in MN1:

  They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

It may sound like progress, but it isn't. In fact, the Buddha would say the same about conquerers such as Alexander the Great, who grasped at earth:

  “Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They perceive earth as earth. But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Constrast this with how the Buddha describes a Realized One. Notice that identify view is absent:

  He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

Per MN1, even a trainee "shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? So that they may completely understand it, I say."

Furthermore, per MN1, only "an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones" would "identify as extinguishment."

Therefore, if we can agree that uneducated ordinary persons are entangled in suffering and kamma, we can infer that to think of oneself as enlightened is unskillful, uneducated and ordinary, with all corresponding kamma.

Other suttas reiterate this cautionary point about non-identification with extinguishment in different ways. For example, there is MN44:

  “A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Both MN1 and MN44 stress non-identification even for those with experience of extinguishment such as stream-winners. In our practice, we should note that mind is included in good conduct (DN33). And therefore if we do not speak unskillfully, we should also avoid thinking unskillfully.

  Three ways of performing good conduct: by body, speech, and mind.


How to ordain and become a monk? I want to devote my life to Buddhist way of meditation, I want to know more of Buddha teaching but my main interest is for go day and night actual meditation practices. I accidentally come across Sri S. N. Goyenka Vipassana retreats and attended one 10 day retreat at Dhamma Sota-New Delhi, after that from one year i'm practicing Vipassana meditation 2-4 hours daily at home. Now i'm very clear i want to devote my life for this.Its be very helpful if anyone can guide me into this.

Hope this video, "Ask A Monk: How To Ordain As A Monk" by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu would help you! And hope you will achieve what you want!


SN 12.52 Upadana Sutta Can one elaborate please more on this quote:

"In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops.
"Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."

Upādāna Sutta SN 12.52 (S ii 84)
How is this exactly done?

In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops.

Like this: mmmm, she is so sexy, the way she looked at me, wow, it's like she's begging for... Something around her eyes... And she's so small... I imagine how she would... If only I could... I feel the pull when she's near. She's so sweet, I almost want to bite her. Etc.

  "Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."

Like this: I've been through this before. She knows she's sexy and is using it. She's definitely very manipulative. If I lose control she'll take advantage of me. I will get in trouble. I'll lose everything I have: job, family, my stable life. And for what, for that same age old slimy game of moving in and out? She's probably not even smart. What would we even talk about? Besides, I hate losing control. I don't like when my head is spinning and I can't focus because of a woman. I like my normal sober mind. I don't want to be lost again, like that last time. Etc.

Simple, right?


Can Buddhist practice lead to pure consciousness experiences? First, how is "pure consciousness experience" (abbr. PCE) defined for the purpose of this question?

A PCE is when one’s sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne and apperception occurs. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself … it is a pure awareness . Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is not and an unmediated awareness occurs. The pure consciousness experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear.

Secondly, here are some self-reports by people of them experiencing PCEs. Here's one report:

Yesterday I had the first really clear and unequivocal PCE since starting with this ... previously, I had had what I call ‘mini-PCEs’. They lasted only very brief periods of time, say an hour or so, and I wasn’t really sure it was a PCE. Yesterday, however, I had no doubt at all about the experience, as it accorded in all details with what I have read about PCEs ... I had some trouble at work ... some old fears of mine concerning work, authority, success, etc. came up for me. I found myself in some turmoil about these issues and, investigating deeper into it, I once again saw the futility of a feeling-based life, a so-called ‘normal’ life of sorrow, malice, nurture, and desire ... I wrote in my journal to myself what I would do to bring about peace-on-earth, for myself and others. A little later, I sat in my chair and was still for quite awhile. The PCE experience started there and continued for the rest of the day, at times most vividly, at other times diminishing somewhat, but always lustrous, vibrant, and rich. One of the things I noticed most strongly was the intensity of sensation – the clearness and brilliance of colours, and the ability to hear every little sound around me ... at a gravel pit ... I saw a stone popping out of the ground that had some interesting features to it. I ran my hand along the exposed top of it and it felt to be alive. Similarly, the texture and surface of the stone appeared to be actually a living thing. It reminded me of psychedelic drug experiences I had when I was younger, except that it was natural and uncontaminated by any emotions of fright, fear, doubt, etc. Later on we went to the supermarket to do the week’s shopping.
Another thing I noticed about the experience was how any object, even the most ordinary and mundane, instantly had become amazingly interesting and wonderful to look at.
Everything I looked at had a life of its own. Everything appeared fresh and new.
Everywhere I looked there were sensual delights to behold. Another thing was that there was some kind of very pleasurable sensation located near the solar plexus region. I find this difficult to convey but it was a very satisfying visceral sensation. I shall have to, in future, see what I can notice about it ... I found that I could refresh the experience by running the ‘How am I ...’ question and by increased attentiveness to the feelings that contaminated the experience. A couple of times, the experience would come back in full bloom in all its lustrousness. The PCE stands out in such dramatic contrast to ordinary, every-day perception and sensation ... another key feature of the experience – no affective element, no feelings, no disturbance whatsoever – there was nothing that could disturb the experience, take anything away from it, or detract from it. In other words, there was no feeling ‘me’ to spoil the experience. How amazing.

From this juncture, I have some specific questions:

Have anyone in the Buddhist history (a relatively unknown monk perhaps) advocated pursuing such a state?
Is there any Buddhist methodology that demonstrably leads to a PCE?
In what way (in regards to consciousness) is the official Buddhist goal different from PCE?

PCE sounds very much like Eckhart Tolle's experience in his book "The Power of Now", of which you can find the excerpt on this page:

“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept
repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a
peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with
myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’
cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”
I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I
was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt
drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement
at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and
my body started to shake. I heard the words “resist nothing,” as if
spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void.
It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside.
Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that
void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.
I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had
never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw
the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound,
this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of
dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt,
I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That
soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears
came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized
the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before.
Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into
existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at
the beauty and aliveness of it all.
That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of
life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world.
For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep
peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or
perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could
still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever
did could possibly add anything to what I already had.

I would speculate, the same as your PCE page, that this refers to what Buddhism calls jhana in Pali (same as the Sanskrit dhyana) and ch'an or zen in Mahayana traditions.
While the Sanskrit dhyana simply refers to meditation, jhana in Buddhism is defined into 8 levels - 4 lower jhanas and 4 higher jhanas. You can find more info on this in "The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana.
Another two good books on this subject is "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm and "Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners" by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. These two books provide the Buddhist methodology.
From Chapter 5 of Ven. Ajahn Brahm's book "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook", obtained in PDF format from here:

As you build up mindfulness and it gets sharper, you will realize that
you are emerging from a world that has been very dim. As you get more
and more mindful, it’s as if someone has turned on the lights in the
room, or the sun has come out, illuminating the surroundings. You see
so much more of what’s around you. It’s like shining a spotlight on
reality, and you begin to see the subtle beauty of rich colors,
delightful shapes, and deep textures. It all appears very beautiful
and wonderful. When mindfulness becomes powerful, it generates not
only insight but also bliss.
When you have developed powerful mindfulness, it’s like going out into
a beautiful garden in the brilliant sunshine. It’s energizing and
inspiring. Possessing strong mindfulness, such brightness of mind, if
you then focus it on a small part of the world, then you will see so
deeply into its nature. The experience of bright and focused awareness
is wonderful and amazing! You see much more beauty and truth than you
ever imagined.

I'm not sure about Actual Freedom, but Eckhart Tolle really thought he became perfectly enlightened with this experience.
However, in Buddhism, this is nowhere close to enlightenment. This is only part of the samatha (tranquility) meditation to calm the mind, concentrate the mind and overcome the five hindrances.
Also, there are 8 levels of jhana. Actual Freedom's PCE and Eckhart Tolle's experience is probably only up to the first or second level of jhana.
The Buddha himself experienced this (first jhana) as a boy, as narrated in MN 36:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied,
while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I
entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by
applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of
seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following
on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to
enlightenment.’

Samatha (tranquility) is not enough. It has to be combined with vipassana (insight), to reach the enlightenment that the Buddha speaks of, as stated in Kimsuka Sutta:

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
concentration."

So, in my opinion, a number of new age gurus have experienced the rapture (piti) and joy (sukha) of jhana and imagined that this is enlightenment, when this is only a small part of the journey towards complete enlightenment that was discovered and taught by the Buddha.
In his journey to enlightenment, the Buddha was taught by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta as described in MN 26, and they reached the 4 higher jhanas, which is higher than what is taught by Actual Freedom's PCE or Eckhart Tolle's "entering the Now", but even then the Buddha was not satisfied that this ended suffering permanently, and he continued till he achieved complete enlightenment.
The jhanas by themselves calm the mind and refine consciousness (which are impermanent), but they do not solve the problem of realizing the truth i.e. the four noble truths, the three marks of existence and dependent origination.
Samatha (tranquility) is needed to calm and concentrate the mind, while vipassana (insight) is needed to observe the nature of reality, which is not possible if the mind is not calm and concentrated.


Looking for help for Practise / Method to overcome distubring external sounds Can anyone recommend a practice to overcome disturbing sounds. Many times when I meditate or turn inwards I am disturbed by a neighbors loud barking dogs or other loud sounds.
I've tried doing visualization, clearing the space energy, Feng Shui mirrors, ear plugs (help to some degree), even talking to the neighbor but I seem to be often in irritation by this. The external disturbance is affecting my inner-commune.
I also find my attention goes to that external sound and I feel tense/disturbed by the energy of it.
I'd appreciate any ideas / thoughts on how to stay centered and undisturbed in the face of external disturbance / inconsiderate neighbors.
Thanks in advance.
Rich

You know, once I was leading a meditation group when a whole bunch of laughing, screaming children came running through the room.  Long story, that, but it wasn't an issue. Meditation happened. One of the things we have to learn, eventually, is that there are no external disturbances. There are only internal disturbances as our mind reacts to things with anger, outrage, irritation, or whatever. If it's not screaming kids or a barking dog or a low-flying plane, it will be a persistent itch or the hum of a fan or a cricket that's just a little bit off key. If the mind is looking to unsettle itself, the mind will find something to unsettle itself over, and it doesn't matter how big or small, how loud or quiet, how far or near that might be. The mind will seize on it and magnify it into a crisis.

The trick is to realize that the thinking mind wants to be unsettled, because when it's unsettled it has something to do. It can happily occupy itself complaining about or trying to solve whatever problem it has fixated on. When it does that, all we can do is sit with it like a parent with a child, and let it fuss itself to sleep. Part of what we're trying to do in meditation is teach the thinking mind that it doesn't have to fuss over every little violation of its expectations: that a dog can bark or a child can scream and it does not necessarily call for any action or reaction on your part at all. Of course, that equanimity doesn't come overnight, but keep it in mind as a standard for your practice.


How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated? In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms  'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 & 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination).
Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is:

Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?
These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) & mental
fabrications (citta sankhara).
But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal
fabrications? What are mental fabrications?
In-&-out breaths are
bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal
fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.
But
why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought
& evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings
mental fabrications?
In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things
tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily
fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an
evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed
thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.
Perceptions & feelings
are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why
perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?
Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception & feeling be the "mental (citta) fabrication" when many suttas state it is feelings & perceptions that are the cause of mental states of greed, hatred & delusion (as shown below)?

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes
it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets
obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves,
& laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's
hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of
neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is
present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape
from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN
148

In the English language, the term "fabrication" refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?

In Pali just one word, sankhara, or pair of words.

English, being precise, has a lot of grammar. You can't construct an English sentence without a verb, a subject, maybe an object, and "prepositions". Maybe English has too much grammar (maybe there's a similar problem translating from Chinese into English), i.e. that to create a grammatical English translation you need to add extra grammar which didn't exist in the original.

Insisting on having a subject (an actor or an agent) for each verb (as English does), doesn't that invite the same kind of mistake as I-making or I-assuming, or reification?

So FYI (and I might be wrong) I think of (i.e. I mentally translate) sankhara as "putting together", i.e. as a kind of verb or a kind of process ... but without assuming there's a corresponding subject ... or you might translate is construction or constructing (or fabrication) without assuming there's a corresponding constructor.

So if you take thought as the cause (or prequel) of speech, I understand it as saying that it's the putting together (creation or construction) of speech.

You said that "speech is the fabrication" but in this context I think it's the fabricated.

Also I think that in English the word "fabrication" can refer to the process and to the end result (so "a fabrication" can be used as a synonym for "the fabricated"): e.g. "the story is a fabrication" means that telling the story is the process of telling a lie, and the told/completed story is the result of telling or having told a lie.

I think that sankhara is the process of constructing/fabricating something (e.g. breath, speech, thoughts) and also the product or result of that construction/fabrication.

Another thing is (and again I may be wrong), isn't the direction of the causation deliberately a bit vague? I read the answers to this topic as saying that it isn't as simple as "A causes B", nor "B causes A". It's not that "body causes breath" nor "breath causes body", rather it's "body and breath co-arise", or "body is the condition in which breath arises and vice versa". I might be wrong but does Western science/philosophy/logic/religion for one maybe try to teach us to believe in "cause and effect"? But isn't Buddhist logic rather about "co-arising", which might be a better description than simplistic "cause and effect"?

Assuming "causation" leads to (it invites) logical problems/fallacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For example, I think, it is that "fire causes heat", or is it that "heat causes fire"? Instead of one or the other, let's say that "heat and fire co-arise".

A final comment, if you read the Dharmafarer commentary on MN 44, the author distinguishes (or tells us to distinguish) between the singular saṅkhāra and the plural saṅkhārā -- saying that the singular (e.g. thought forming speech, or mindful speech, or "functional consciousness") is a quality (property or function) of the relatively enlightened mind, whereas the plural is "mental proliferation" or papañca.


Dealing with Anger and Criticism I noticed I sometimes feel anger when someone treats me unjustly, or criticizes me or one of my works. I know Buddhism advises waiting, or not acting upon anger. However, every time someone irritates me this way I am extremely tempted to say something mean, or when I get criticized I often delete my works or remove a comment. In a sense, these are respectively fight and flight responses.

What would Buddhism advise to avoid reacting to anger in either way described?

Thank you.

One of my early teachers suggested:

Externalize the core of anger within yourself as "not me". Meaning, you say to yourself "this is my ego getting angry", "this is my ego feeling hurt", or "this is my ego wants to feel superior" etc. Blame it on the ego, then discipline the ego like a misbehaving child.
identify the source of anger in an attachment. You say to yourself: "looks like I assign too much importance to X" or "looks like I'm overgeneralizing Y" or "looks like I stereo-typically identify A with B while in fact they are not always the same". As you identify the attachment, you know it's not you who's angry, it's your attachment that is angry (ego is made of attachments). Let go of the attachment and the anger will subside.

My root guru also taught a more advanced technique:

See your anger directly as somatic energy overlayed on the body-image. As you look at it directly you can transmute it from whatever it is to pure energy, or in the worst case to regular headache :)


Can anyone follow Buddhism if the person has had drinks & ate non-veg in the past? Can anyone follow a Buddhist life-style or philosophy even If the person has been violent or ate non-veg in the past or has drank wine.

If yes then what are the beginner steps?

As long as a person gives up violence and drugs & alcohol, they can be a Buddhist.

The ideal step is to clearly see why violence & drugs/alcohol are harmful and do not bring happiness.

As for vegetarianism, it is not strictly Buddhist, even though it helps nurture compassion.


Should Buddhists drive a car or a motorcycle? Buddhist first precept is abstain from killing animals.

Could this also imply that driving a car is unwholesome and not good for a practitioner.

Would not one agree that by choosing to walk is considered kinder as it would have less chance of accidentally killing animals than driving or riding? The same could go that riding is kinder than driving. By taking these kindfull approaches, one would commit less killing and right intention, which would bring better meditation. Please be careful here, I do not imply that driving is wrong, but it can reduce peace in our mind.

Please also see this answer.

When you walk you might accidentally step on ants or other small insects. Does that mean you should stop walking?

From Dhammapada 1:

  On one occasion, blind Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent."

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

    All mental
    phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
    chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
    'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
    that draws the cart.


Temporary Influences on Meditation I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality? Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?

The vinaya probably talks more about food. In the suttas the stock phrasing is ''moderation in eating'' is associated to good condition with minduflness, like that

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html

  "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/bhojan.html


What to do when overwhelmed with Doubt - Practical Advice I have a major problem in my practice. When things are going well in life ,doubt rarely raises its head and I practice diligently. However , when something bad happens , I feel, how could this happen , I practiced so much. I start losing faith in the Dhamma and start to question whether it is real or helpful. This is a very painful position to be in.

There are things causing doubt; frequently giving unwise attention to them — that is the nourishment for the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and for the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.

— SN 46:51

When in the midst of painful emotion , this is what revolves in my head. How do I take this advice of the Buddha on a practical level. How do I stop giving "unwise attention" to the events that arise doubt like when accosted with suffering even though I practice so diligently. I would like to hear you own practical experience or links to any meditations out there.

Furthermore, for denourishing of doubt , there are the five antidotes:

Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);
Asking questions about them;
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);

4.Firm conviction concerning the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

In addition, the following are helpful in conquering Doubt:

Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

How do I apply these antidotes practically , I read Dhamma books almost everyday , chant everyday and meditate. But when I am suffering , I feel anger and disbelief at the Dhamma . Even though I am practising so much ,I am still suffering.

How can I overcome this very toxic and negative wrong-view to continue my Dhamma practice?

There are times when there's nothing to do but watch. Put aside the expectations for yourself gained by reading the Dhamma. Unwise attention, in this case, would include reading about arahants and then judging yourself for not being like them.

Just focus on what is right here.  Focus on the doubt itself, or on the body, and the feelings in the body created by the negative emotions - the constricted breath, the aches and tensions, the agitation, the rushing thoughts.

Resolve to sit, but don't expect anything from the sitting- just put in the time. If chanting feels like a chore, just sit instead.

Find some small, easy, thing to do that is useful, or is kind and helpful to someone else, and do that.

Or just sit still and count to 100, if that's all you can manage. These are all wise and skillful actions and are Dhamma.

If you just do your best to not nourish the already-arisen thoughts, then you are practicing Dhamma. You're experiencing an emotional flood, created by long-past circumstances. The flood is pulling away your energy and faith. Wise attention, in this case, is to let the flood wash through, watch your energy and faith fade away, and stay aware. Later, the energy and faith will return - it is inevitable- and you will have have strength again to nourish new, increased faith and energy, but for now, just do what you can.


What are proper expectations to have about a Sangha? In my area, there are many Buddhists centers referring to themselves as centers, meditation centers, or monasteries.  These all seem to be various expressions of a Buddhist Sangha.  However, being in the Mid-West one tends to expect the Sangha to be modeled on or similar to a church or synagogue.   What are the proper expectations to have about being part of a Sangha?  Should Westerns expect a sangha to conform to the Western notion of religious institutions?

It depends on which Buddhist tradition that particular temple belongs to.

To avoid rampant anti-Japanese racism in America stemming from the 1940s, when Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps, Japanese Buddhist branches like Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu conformed themselves to a more western model of creating religious spaces when they settled in America. This is why the American branch of Jodo Shinshu is called "Buddhist Churches of America". They often have pews, a minister speaking from the pulpit, youth groups, etc.

Temples from other traditions usually don't model their space after western religious models. The sangha's "mode of operation" depends on the tradition, which school of thought that sangha follows within it's own tradition, and of course, the Buddhists themselves. So when visiting, these sanghas should be understood on their own terms as much as possible, leaving expectations at the door.


Can a military career be ethical? There are military generals as lay people and stream enterers in the suttas. And there is no clear prohibition to a military career. There are some suttas that criticize the karma of soldiers on the battlefield.

My question is, since being a military general is acceptable livelihood, what should he do? Could he planning for war, making war, or just sit there and do nothing since both of those actions could lead to indirect killing?

If he does nothing, that can lead to catastrophic results and even more people maybe get killed. Is that right livelihood if other people rely on him and he has the responsibility to use military force to protect people?

There is this section on being a warrior regarding right livelihood.

Right Livelihood : samma ajivo
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/

Considering becoming a soldier? You may want to reconsider...

Then Yodhajiva the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"

"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

A second time... A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'"

"I'm not crying, lord, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of warriors who said: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.'

— SN 42.3


Buddhism: Morality & Biology I have relapsed out of Buddhism two times in my past. Currently, I am between reconciling and rejecting it yet again. I decided to make this post to ask questions that I feel will help me either reconcile or reject Buddhism. I have categorized my questions into two areas: morality and biology. Before I write my questions below, please note the following information: I was/have been part of the Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw tradition under Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's teachings and have studied both Buddhism and science in the past as a vigorously dedicated layman in both fields.
Section 1: Morality

How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?
How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Section 2: Biology

How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/Homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?
How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

OP: How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

Once ignorance and the rest of the ten fetters have been uprooted, the enlightened are free from mental defilements, causing them to not have any thoughts based on greed/ lust, anger/ aversion or delusion.
Please read the Buddhism part of this answer for more details.

OP: How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Objective morality in Buddhism is based on compassion and the notion that you will feel remorse hurting others, because you know how it would feel if others hurt you.
Removal of remorse is needed to brighten the mind, which is needed for the rest of the path to enlightenment.
Please read this answer for details.

OP: How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?

It's not clearly answerable.
Some texts imply the Big Bounce model of the universe where the universe expands, then contracts and becomes destroyed, then expands again. So, past Buddhas may even have existed in past universes. Please see this answer for details. But this is only a conjecture.
Some people see this only as an exaggeration added to the texts.
Either way, this does not make any difference to the Buddha's message and teachings. It is not important compared to the path to the end of suffering.

OP: How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Please read this answer and this answer to understand what rebirth is in Buddhism. It's the rebirth of individuality and not really the rebirth of the individual, since there is no soul or permanent consciousness in Buddhism.


Is it necessary to be completely still during body scan? I've been practising vipassana for some time. Now, I'd like to try body scan, but one issue isn't clear for me. Books or articles about sitting meditation, I've read, say that it's good to sit completely still during practise. Does the same implay to body scan? Should I lie entirely still during body scan or can I move my hand, for example, when I feel such a need?

Thanks for your answers.

I think there are things to learn by not moving but i doubt it is essential since it is nowhere mentioned in the Sutta afaik.


How to practice ignoring identification with the body? Namo Buddhaya.

I strongly identify with body. I see myself in the mirror and I immediately recognize that that is me. Such a identification is against Dhamma.

How can I disidentify with my body? Along what lines of thinking should I prove to myself that the person in mirror is not me or mine?

Note:- Dhamma means teachings of Anatta. Question is related to practice of Dhamma.

The question you asked is directly combined with the concept of saññā(identification).
From the day we born in this world, we sense things around us and recognize them according to the external world. For example, when you first see an object like chair, you don't have any idea that it is a chair. But the knowledge you get from the outside, lead you to believe that it is a chair. So, next time you see a similar shape, you understand that is also a chair.
That's how conventional world is built. But actually, what we see is not what exists. Everything in this universe is made of 4 fundamental things patavi,aapo ,thejo and wayo. Nothing is beyond that.Anything you see from your eyes is just a combination of these 4 elements.Only the outer appearance differs according to the element percentages.
As an example if you consider water => aapo is the dominant factor...
for a rock => patavi is the dominant factor. The names you use for them are just set of words nothing more.

When you consider about the body, first thing you need to know is, the name "body" is just a word. What you feel when you touch yourself and what you see from the mirror is just a combination of 4 factors mentioned above.
In the Buddhism human body is beautifully described. Human body is made of 32 parts.

Head hair, Body hair, Nails, Teeth, Skin
(Kesa, Loma, Nakkha, Danta, Taco)
Flesh, Sinews, Bones, Bone Marrow, Kidneys
(Masam, Naharu, Atthi, Atthiminjam, Vakkam)
Heart, Liver, Diaphragm, Spleen, Lungs
(Hadayam, Yakanam, Kilomakam, Pihakam, Papphasam)
Large Intestine, Small Intestine, Stomach, Feces, Brain
(Antam, Antagunam, Udariam, Kerisam, Mattagunam)
Bile, Phlegm, Pus, Blood, Sweat, Fat
(Pittam, Semhan, Pubbo, Lohitam, Sedo, Medo)
Tears, Grease, Saliva, Mucus, Oil of the Joints, Urine
(Assu, Vasa, Kelo, Singhanika, Lasika, Muttam)

Imagine you separate each of these from your body and see them individually. If you see these things separately, you don't consider them as a body or a human.You might recognize them as blood, piece of bone or piece of flesh etc.
But when they are together you recognize it as the body. That is the wrong saññā(identification).
Body never exist anywhere in the future,past or present. Only these 32 parts where there. If you go deeper you might realize each of these part is just combination of patavi,aapo,thejo and wayo. So ultimately, what really exists is 4 fundamentals, not anything else.
when you realize what you see from the mirror is not your body and just combination of four fundamentals.You will not recognize it as body and you will see it as a combination.
patavi is toughness it belongs to land.. everything in your body made of patavi will decay and added up to soil one day.
aapo is the liquidity and it belongs to ocean.. everything in your body made of aapo will wash away and collect to the ocean.
thejo is the temparature inside the body.. it will mix with the atmosphere once you dead and add to the fire.
wayo is the air inside the body and it will mix to the atmosphere and blow away with the wind..

So if you cannot control these four factors,obviously you cannot control a combination of them as well. So there is no point of telling "body" is mine.
correct your saññā(identification) about the "body" according to Buddhism then you will see the truth.


Meditation side effects Recently I tried to meditate in a moving car. I started seeing shadow like houses or roads with close eyes. It was followed by intense pain in eyes, nausea and dizziness. The headaches and nausea went away once I stopped meditating in the car.
I have also reduced my practice from one hour to 20 minutes. One hour of meditation was giving me lots of benefits as I was more present throughout the day.
Now I have come to know about the side effects of meditation and advanced stages like “dark night of the soul” and different psychological illnesses like depersonalisation caused by meditation.
My question is that can an average person who is meditating for half hour or an hour a day get these side effects?

My question is that can an average person who is meditating for half hour or an hour a day get these side effects?

Assuming you are doing Vipassana.
Yes, any-type of experience is possible with a meditator.
It doesn't depend upon, "whether meditation is done for 1/2 - 1 hour or by seemingly average person" rather it depends upon , "how dedicatively meditation is practiced?".

You just started in car, for I started in a Bus later-on in a train. I started from 10s to 100s to 1000s of kms. journey.

Yes, symptoms remained same at start.

These were till I stopped having belly-full food during journey or before journey. Sometimes I would complete my journey by remaining hungry for 1000s of kms. and dedicatively focusing on meditation by taking adhitthana(it means to fixate your posture irrespective of room/place is shaking or not). This way, concentration increased, even the continuous noise of bus tyre or train helped me to focus on breath, sensations, seeing thoughts and analysing different sankharas through their body-effect.

Moreover, it was during journey till now, that I have made any progress in meditation.
It's just a start, don't flee away from it. Meditation is not always about merely getting calmness within 1/2 - 1 hr. It takes a lot to really calm and rectify your previous/current bad-habbits.