Do Buddhists need affection, physical touch or intimacy? I am interested in learning about Buddhism, and there are a lot of questions. I wonder (since it seems to me Buddhists are quite independent, and they don't attach that much to people or things) what about like if they did have families or friends or wives or husbands: do they live without affection etc.?

Marriage does not guarantee happiness (some married people are unhappy). This answer includes advice about how to choose a marriage partner.

And chapter 6 of A Happy Married Life (which is titled "Security, Respect and Responsibilities") identifies what attitudes and behaviour are recommended by Buddhist doctrine/scripture, between husband and wife.
There may also be affection between e.g. a mother and her children.

I don't think it's affection that's identified as the principal problem in Buddhism: the problems are craving (e.g. for what you don't have), and attachment. So for example if you craved more affection than you think you're getting, you will "suffer" (and, I think, cause suffering too). Also, a characteristic of sensual pleasure (and of other "compounded" or "conditioned" things) is that it's impermanent. So for example "physical touch" cannot be a permanent (even if continual it couldn't be continuous), and so people must learn (or must also learn) to live, to behave, to control or regulate themselves without it.
And I think that attachment is likely to cause the survivor problems when their partner dies, etc.

For these kinds of reasons, the pursuit of sensory pleasures may be unwise or unsatisfying.

As for "living without affection" there are attitudes which I think are recommended by Buddhism and which are like affection (perhaps these are affection, or perhaps they're a good substitute for or alternative to affection), for example kindness, benevolence, harmlessness, even equanimity.

As for the title ("Do Buddhists need...?"), I'm inclined to read that as "Do Humans need...?". I'm not sure whether to say that all humans are the same, and have the same needs. Perhaps they do, but have different capacities or abilities to deal with those needs. There's a field of Western psychology (which I'm not familiar with) called Attachment theory, which has theories such as how secure people feel depends on things like how they were treated and how they developed when they were infants: as well as how they developed (how they were developed, and how they developed themselves) as children and so on into adult life. Maybe people's needs, or how "needy" they are, varies according.


Saving the stink bug Real question (this happened today). Imagine you're meditating by the fireplace. Outside is cold winter with snow. You have achieved a nice level of concentration, and suddenly you see a stink bug awoken by the heat, crawling into the fireplace. Your choices:

Let it keep crawling into fire, noting "crawling, crawling".
Pray for it to achieve a speedy human rebirth.
"Save" it by taking outside and letting die from the cold.
Put it in a safe place inside the house and let it die from hunger and dehydration.
Put it in a safe place inside the house and provide care and feeding.
Hop on an airplane and take it to China, its natural habitat.
Focus on achieving Enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.
Simply switch attention away from the issue.
There is no stink bug.
Mu.
Your own option.

You have about five minutes left on the timer, so you can either finish your meditation properly and then act, or choose to interrupt the session.

What teachings are relevant in this case? What should I do, according to Dharma, and why?

The moment your awareness was drawn to the reality of a living being about to experience dukkha dukkhata, the most karma neutral action you could do is to take it away from its apparent predicament and go about finishing your meditation without allowing any after thoughts about this past event.


The purpose of associating with the wise The Buddha states that he sees no other thing that is so much responsible for the arising of unwholesome qualities in a person as bad friendship, nothing so helpful for the arising of wholesome qualities as good friendship.

Is associating with good and wise people only useful for direct experience in this present life or is it right to assume that it will carry on to the next life e.g. reborn among the wise and good people or have good companionship?  Thanks.

Any action will have a result somewhere in Samsara. Obviously a student performing correct practice kamma with a wise teacher of kamma will have fruits in this life such as jhana or the 16 stages of insight. -Metta


Is meat eating a possibility? I have been vegan (no animal products) for over 5 years but recently have encountered many health issues (unable to digest many plant protein, leaving no viable protein to eat), including some meat in my diet seems to be the only option (I can't tolerate any grains or beans anymore).

I would try to source as ethically as I could, but it does of course, still involve the killing of another.

Is there any way this is acceptable? Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?

If you eat vegetables or grains, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.

If you wear clothes made of cotton, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.

If you use banknotes made of paper, or buy or use anything made of paper, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, when trees got chopped down for the manufacturing of paper.

If you use any plastics or fuel for your car or banknotes made of polymer, it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to drilling for petroleum and gas.

If you throw rubbish away, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, because some of that trash ends up in the sea or landfills.

If you buy anything metal (including all electronics), it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to mining.

If you drink treated water from the tap, it can indirectly cause the death of small animals from the process of filtration and chlorination.

If you use electricity, it can indirectly cause the death of animals from the process of clearing land for building hydroelectric dams, or the billowing of smoke from a plant that burns hydrocarbons.

When you pay any kind of taxes, even indirectly e.g. through purchasing goods, the money from it may be used by the government to buy weapons and train soldiers for killing humans.

Basically, the Buddha taught that to break the first precept, you must have the intention to kill and then actually kill. This applies to directly causing the deprivation of life. For e.g. hitting a mosquito would be directly killing it.

By buying frozen meat or vegetables from the supermarket, or using paper or banknotes or wearing clothes or drinking treated water or using electricity or using electronics (including the computer or smartphone you are reading this on), you did not have any intention to kill anyone and you did not in fact kill anyone. Therefore, you do not break the first precept this way.


Importance of the first three Brahmaviharas in Theravadan Buddhism So while reading a lot of teachings, especially "higher" teachings, a great deal is mentioned about dispassion in worldy things, unattractiveness in the body and various contemplations on death. It's quite easy to get lost in these kind of contemplations without developing the Brahmaviharas to feel something positive (especially social positive emotions are important for humans).

I'm wondering if positivity is highly stressed in Buddhism? On the one hand the brahmaviharas are not withot reason called "the divine abidings". So I think one needs to dwell in them as much as possible. Also the last two points of Right Effort stress the importance of cultivating and maintaing positive emotions. On the other hand though, being non-delighted in things makes this look rather grim.

Maybe I haven't read much Suttas on Compassion, loving kindness, generosity etc..

Brahmavihara manifest naturally from non-defilement. Regardless, Brahmavihara is taught as a preliminary practise to Anapanasati. For example, from MN 62 and MN 118:

  Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the
  meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the
  meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing
  the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the
  meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are
  developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion will be
  abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you
  are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the
  conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.
  Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of
  great fruit, of great benefit.

  And how, Rahula, is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed &
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?

  There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the
  shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs
  crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the
  fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

It is reported that, for the Buddha, metta was very important. For example:

  Monks, if for just the time of a finger-snap a monk produces a thought
  of loving kindness, develops it, gives attention to it, such a one is
  rightly called a monk. Not in vain does he meditate. He acts in
  accordance with the Master’s teaching, he follows his advice, and eats
  deservingly the country’s alms-food. How much more so if he cultivates
  it!

  AN 1:6.3–5


Overwhelming states of being reached through meditation I'm wondering what the Buddhist tradition might say about the following state of being. Firstly a bit of background, explaining how I got there and how it felt:

I practiced (what I understood to be) mindfulness meditation for six months through a simple book that came with a CD of guided meditations. It improved my life immeasurably. I got everything everyone says they do from the practice: More control of my life, less stress, more happiness, better resilience to the bad things that happen to us all. Even though I don't practice it anymore, I have taken this knowledge and understanding with me, and continue to apply it as best I can, without the aid of meditation itself.

The reason I stopped meditating is because of a series of events that pretty much left me temporarily unable to work (I'm absolutely fine now!). I experienced an incredibly intense emotional explosion in my chest during one meditation, and in my daily meditations after that I experienced what can only be described as immediate and overwhelming bliss. My meditations were shorter, but extremely powerful (and actually became the highlights of my day).

Unfortunately after a meditation of such power, I also found myself in a state of mind that was unable to work. I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence, this new state of mind became a hindrance. Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living) was struggling to focus.

It was worrying. I didn't feel as though I was in control of these feelings, or sometimes, even myself (I remember one time talking to a friend about these new experiences, and being unable to stop myself from talking -- I literally kept interrupting him with my "insights", very unlike me).

Despite beginning as bliss, it quickly became a worrying experience.

I reluctantly stopped meditating and, after a few weeks, thankfully returned to my normal self (perhaps even better than I was before).

My question:

Does this experience have a name in Buddhist tradition? I have read about "Spiritual Crises", and indeed it appears that what I experienced matches the symptoms of that, but what IS that? I'm guessing in thousands of years of Buddhist study that there are answers? (Although, I must ask that if you're just guessing loosely, that you don't attempt to answer. Thanks.)

For example: This answer mentions the differences between two types of meditation: Calm abiding (Tib.: Shine, Skr.: Shamata) and insight meditation (Tib.: Lhaktong, Skr.: Vipassana), stating that the first is "safe" for everyone, while the latter could be damaging to certain individuals in certain situations.

And finally, as a side question, can someone who has experienced such a thing learn how to avoid re-experiencing it in the future and continue meditating? Or is that, as my girlfriend asserts, just playing with fire?

First of all, I think your question has gotten worse at explaining your condition through your edits (sorry!).
In Theravada Buddhism, and really I think I speak for all of Buddhism when I say, the object is to understand reality as it is. This means you actually have to understand the experience before you can "fix" it. Actually, it means once you understand the experience, there will be no need to fix it.

Saddhāya tarati oghaṃ appamādena aṇṇavaṃ,
Viriyena dukkhaṃ acceti paññāya parisujjhatīti.
With confidence one crosses the flood, with vigilance the ocean;
With effort one overcomes suffering, with wisdom one is purified.
SN 10.12

So, first you need to purify your understanding. What is it you are exactly experiencing? What is really happening? The Buddha reminded us that understanding reality means breaking experience up into its constituent parts and seeing them just as they are (called Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana). For example, in the Bahiya Sutta (Ud 6):

"diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissatī"ti. Evaṃ hi te bāhiya, sikkhitabbaṃ.
"In what is seen, there will be only what is seen; in what is heard, there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed, there will be only what is sensed, in what is thought, there will be only what is thought." Just so indeed should you train, Bahiya.

The Buddha explained that to the extent that Bahiya could train himself in this simple teaching, "tato tvaṃ, bāhiya, na tena" - "therefore, Bahiya, there will arise no 'you' because of that," which means that there would be no misinterpretation of the experience as "me", "mine", etc.
"To the extent," the Buddha continued, "that there arises no self," "tato tvaṃ, bāhiya, na tattha" - "to that extent, Bahiya, there will arise no 'you' in regards to that object." "To that extent," the Buddha concluded, "nevidha na huraṃ na ubhayamantarena. esevanto dukkhassa." - "there will be neither here nor there or anything in between. This indeed is the end of suffering."
So, let's examine what exactly you experienced, based on your words, in order to try and see it for what it is:

I experienced an incredibly intense emotional explosion in my chest

First of all, emotions are not in your chest, they are mental. What you experience in your chest is a physical symptom, maybe accompanying emotion, maybe not. It should be understood as it is (in our tradition, this means reminding yourself "feeling, feeling..." until it goes away).
Second, "incredibly intense" is a judgement - not bad in itself, but indicative of some emotional reaction to the experience. That too should be seen as it is ("disliking" or "upset", for example).

I experienced what can only be described as immediate and overwhelming bliss.

Bliss is either mental or physical (or both); either way, it is a feeling (vedana) and should be understood as it is ("happy, happy" or even "feeling, feeling")

My meditations were shorter, but extremely powerful (and actually became the highlights of my day).

This indicates some degree of attachment, which is a cause for addiction and should be understood as it is to stop it from escalating ("liking, liking").

I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence, this new state of mind became a hindrance.

This as well is a judgement, probably indicative of aversion. Even though a state may be objectively "bad", disliking just aggravates the condition. This should understood as it is ("disliking, disliking").

Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living) was struggling to focus.

Sometimes struggling to focus on worldly things simply means you are unable to care about what has no intrinsic benefit; you may have to in that case force yourself to stop practicing in order to carry out the worldly duties as you see fit. In this case, though, it sounds like you probably have too much concentration and not enough effort. If the mind is unwieldy, inflexible, it will have trouble keeping up with reality and thus interacting with daily life. Insight meditation that focuses on mundane reality should help. If you truly are distracted (in the sense of the mind flitting to many different objects at once), then it probably has less to do with the meditation practice and more to do with your reactions to it that have led to anxiety, etc.

It was worrying.

States can't be worrying, you can just worry about them. Which is unwholesome and should be understood as it is to avoid escalating it ("worried, worried").

I didn't feel as though I was in control of these feelings, or sometimes, even myself (I remember one time talking to a friend about these new experiences, and being unable to stop myself from talking -- I literally kept interrupting him with my "insights", very unlike me).

Welcome to the world of non-self :) The Buddha said that aspects of experience are non-self, including nibbana. We simply fool ourselves into thinking we are in control, when in fact the most we can do is react (or not react, which would be better).
Interrupting your friend, on the other hand, is a sign of too much energy - probably accompanied by faith, and, as you say, insight. Energy, faith and insight can all become hindrances or imperfections of insight (vipassanupakkilesa) if you follow them without being self-aware and letting them go. It is important not to cling to any positive states that may arise; as you have learned, they can lead to problems in your daily life.
Hopefully this at least gives you some guide as to how you can better pinpoint what exactly you experienced; if you want help, you will need to be able to express what is happening on a momentary experiential basis; the present moment is just one moment, and it is the only moment that is of true importance:

Let one not go back to the past, nor worry about the future, for the
past is gone and the future unreached; but which phenomena arise here
and now, let one see clearly into them all.
This is unconquerable, this is unshakeable; knowing thus, let one so
devote oneself. Today, indeed, should one strive at the task; who
knows whether death comes tomorrow? There is no bargain to be made
with him, Death with his great army, But one who dwells thus ardently,
day and night untiringly, is said by the peaceful sage to have had a
blessed night.
-- The Buddha (MN 131)


How should I stop thinking that I am even slightly enlightened? I don't know how else to phrase this question, but please advise. I have this constant irritating feeling that I am kind of enlightened. It is confusing.

I don't really know if it is my ego which is trying to assume this sort of "super self", when in reality I am just a normal person, making normal mistakes. I become unaware of my mental formations sometimes, or careless about what I say, or I get angry at times.

A little more about this. I know about this ultimate goal, like Nirvana or Moksha or call it anything. I listen to talks by Ajahn Brahmavamso, Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti and some other yogis. Then I think my ego blends into acting like that enlightened being. I sometimes advise my parents on some matters also. It is definitely weird. You see I want to achieve that final goal, but I accelerate towards it in a moment. It definitely seems wrong. Or is there a final goal at all?

It seems like I am constantly checking myself against enlightenment. It is funny too.

So please advise. And also I would like to know if there was any such situation(in the texts) which the Buddha faced.

The appropriate response to such a thought of personal enlightenment is: "fart".

  Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was
  quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhism follower he was very
  serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhism with his
  good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one
  another.

  Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master
  Foyin.

  One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:

  稽首天中天， 毫光照大千； 八风吹不动， 端坐紫金莲。

  I bow my head to the heaven within heaven, Hairline rays illuminating
  the universe, The eight winds cannot move me, Sitting still upon the
  purple golden lotus.

  The “eight winds (八风)” in the poem referred to praise (称), ridicule
  (讥), honor (誉), disgrace (毁), gain (得), loss (失), pleasure (乐) and
  misery (苦) – interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and
  influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained
  a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect
  him.

  Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem
  to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed.
  When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a
  tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement.
  Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it
  returned to Su Dongpo.

  Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he
  saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into
  anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s
  got a lot of explaining to do!”

  Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to
  ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find
  Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the
  door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had following two
  lines:

  八风吹不动， 一屁弹过江。 The eight winds cannot move me, One fart blows me across
  the river.

  This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yin had anticipated this hot-headed
  visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his
  friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement,
  completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so
  easily provoked?

  With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that
  Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be.
  Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.

  This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual
  development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not
  merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue.


When were women first welcomed into Buddhist orders? I know that in the early days of Buddhism, it was for men only. To practice, you had to be a monk, and to be a monk, you had to be a man. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of the time, but today, my experience of Buddhism has been as something that welcomes men and women equally, even when that's still in a segregated way.

Historically, when did this change come about, and what first triggered it?

According to the texts (Cv 10), after the Buddha returned to visit his father in Kapilavatthu, his aunt and step-mother, Mahapajapati Gotami, followed him back to Vesali and eventually ordained her using the eight garu dhammas as her higher ordination. He then gave the injunction that the male monks were to ordain the female monks, which was the beginning of the bhikkhuni sangha.

1. Now Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī went up to the place where the Blessed One was, and bowed down before him, and stood respectfully on one side. And, so standing, Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī spake thus to the Blessed One: 'What course, Lord, should I pursue towards these women of the Sākya clan?'
Then the Blessed One taught Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī and incited her, and aroused her, and gladdened her with religious discourse; and she, so taught, incited, aroused, and gladdened, bowed down before the Blessed One, and keeping him on net right hand as she passed him, she departed thence.
Then the Blessed One, in that connexion, delivered a religious discourse, and said to the Bhikkhus, 'I allow Bhikkhunīs, O Bhikkhus, to receive the upasampadā initiation from Bhikkhus.'
2. Now those Bhikkhunīs said to Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī: 'Neither have you received the upasampadā initiation, nor have we; for it has thus been laid down by the Blessed One: "Bhikkhunīs are to be initiated by Bhikkhus."'
Then Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī went to the venerable Ānanda, and [repeated their words to him]. And the venerable Ānanda went to the Blessed One, and [repeated them to him].
'In that moment, Ānanda, when Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī took upon herself the Eight Chief Rules, that was to her as the upasampadā initiation.'
-- Cv 10.2 (Rhys-Davids, trans)


Secular Buddhism and Suicide I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, but let me first explain my perspective. More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process. From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering. I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities.

This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism. If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves? I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think all Buddhists would commit suicide.

I apologize for this question being so broad. I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers. I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern science.

This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

I used to think much the same thing. I thought that the main problem according to Buddhism is suffering. But the Buddhist resolution to suffering isn't extinction or happiness, but is more like an in between peace.  The bit about nirvana, is the historical Buddha attempting to explain his program of ending suffering, by using a word that sounded a lot like moksha. Re-using the language of his time (karma, reincarnation, brahma, etc) actually makes it more difficult for modern people to understand the core message.
Next, the central solution in Buddhism isn't re-evaluating one's desire, but a realization about who one is, in particular, we aren't a permanent, easily identifiable thing or soul, we're a temporary collection of things, and we can reframe our sense of self as being everyone. So the problems of suffering that anyone has is our problem too. So in with a Mahayana sense of how anatman (selflessness) works, to "solve" the problem with suicide, we'd have to kill everyone.  This particular argument works regardless of whether we think we rebirth or reincarnate or not.
Anyhow, with everyone dead, they aren't happy, unhappy or anything. Which brings us back to the goal, which is to chart the path between seeking pleasure (by working on your dad's farm, serving in the provincial Maghadan government) and asceticism (doing without) and living a life without suffering, but instead something close to "peace" or "equilibrium".  The Dalai Lama had a good quote about this, he usually uses the word "happiness" to indicate the goal of Buddhism, but noted that the English isn't quite right, Buddhist happiness means neither clinging to pleasurable thing, nor pushing away from things that make us suffer, leaving us in between. (Ah, I found it, it's in the video: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/11/the-dalai-lamas-guide-to-happiness-and-farting/ ) "Happiness is a neutral experience that can bring a deep satisfaction"
(I won't go into why traditional Buddhists thought suicide wouldn't work, except they said people who commit suicide would go to Buddhist hell. For a Buddhist extinctionalist (one who believes we do not reincarnate), then suicide is an uninteresting solution. It brings no peace, it brings something entirely different, like asking for a cake and getting the color blue-- not even in the same category)


Teachings regarding Veneration/Respect (as one of the traditional 10 meritorious deeds) Feel invited or maybe even inspired to share any teachings regarding "Apacāyana" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds. Teachings within Suttas, and Dhamma talks even from 'stranger' resources, if Dhamma, are welcome (in English and/or German).

They are actually difficult to find in the modern world, since they go a lot against the grain of how Dhamma was often introduced and promoted.
Such are of course just of beneficial use if they had originated and forwarded in line of meritorious deeds.
Atma would like to share this merits (Pattānuppadāna), not to speak of rejoicing with your merits.

It will not be easy to fully answer this question, so it might stay without an accepted answer for a longer time.

Asian dhamma talks are normally full of this matter, now here we can hardly find anything: of course from cause.

In addition: Even more complicated, such teachings should be Dhamma also given in line of Dhamma. So commercial stuff and taken things (althought it will be naturally less on this topic) is not useful since it has lost the line of respect.

Ven. Sir. most likely Apacāyana is a word used in the commentaries more particularly appearing Abhidhamma commentaries like Attha,sālinī, Abhidhamm’attha,saṅgaha, Abhidhamm’attha,vibhāvinī, Moha,vicchedanī. (Search for Apacāyana within the Pali Canon returns nothing while other sources are mentioned in the background and introduction in Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta compiled by Piya Tan)

The salient point with regard to practicing Apacāyana is that you dissolve the ego, pride and self-righteousness, within there is the perception of "I". In addition there is sense of gratitude1 or respect for higher virtue or attainment in the person you are venerating2.

As for source I would like to point out the following:

  Apacayana means paying respects to those who excel you in age, morality, integrity, wisdom, virtue, etc. Paying respects to elderly persons such as your father, mother, uncle, aunt; offering your seat and making way for those worthy of respect; bowing your head and showing humility, clasping your palms in homage to Bhikkhus, doffing your hat, saluting according to custom, etc. are all signs of respect. However, if you show respect unwillingly to a powerful person out of fear or with some selfish aim, this cannot be called apacayana, because it is pretentious in nature. It only amounts to maya (trickery).

  Note: Food for thought - bowing or curtseying is generally accepted as signs of reverence. In Myanmar some people put down whatever load they are carrying and prostate on the roads when they meet Bhikkhus. Some kneel down in the sidewalk or on the platform of a railway station to pay respects to monks and elderly persons. These actions if done with true sincerity, are not to be blamed. But in these days when people have to rush about in busy places, just a bow or a few humble words will suffice the need of apayacana. Kneeling down and prostrating in worshiping on meeting a Bhikkhu on the roads in a Bhikkhu on the roads or in busy crowded places in the presence of alien people are not really necessary.

Source: Abhidhamma In Daily Life / Chapter 6 - Ten Domains Of Meritorious Actions  / Domain 4 - Apacayana

  Respect as a way of making merit should be known in such acts as getting up from
  one’s seat, welcoming one’s mother, father, elder brother, elder sister or an elderly person,
  taking his/her luggage, saluting him, showing him the way, and so on. Or generally,
  respecting others’ feelings, privileges, property, and life; regarding them with deference,
  esteem and honour; avoiding degrading, insulting or interrupting them; refraining
  from offending, corrupting or tempting them. Sadly, today the younger generation
  lacks respect or reverence.

  According to Venerable Nāgasena, in Milindapañha, there are twelve persons who do
  not pay respect or show reverence to others: a lustful person because of his lust; an angry person because of his anger; a confused person because of his confusion; an arrogant
  person because of his pride; one devoid of special qualities owing to his lack of
  distinction; an obstinate owing to his lack of docility; a low minded owing to his low
  mindedness; an evil man owing to his selfishness; an afflicted owing to his affliction; a
  greedy owing to his being overcome by greed; and a businessman owing to his working
  for profit.

  It is clear that, in contrast to the above persons, the reverent and respectful man develops
  his mind (and thereby accumulates merit), for by his attitude he cuts down the defilement
  of pride and replaces it by wise conduct of humility. Respecting elders and the
  Saïgha are clear examples of this aspect. Even the respect shown by a novice monk to a
  bhikkhu falls under this category.

  Here again, the good intention that arises in one who shows respect or reverence is the
  way of making merit in respecting others.

Source: TEN WAYS OF MAKING MERIT by MAHINDA WIJESINGHE

  Respectfulness (apacāyana) is the means by which one shows respect (apacayati), acts properly
  by way of honouring. Traditionally, respect is shown in such ways as when we meet a practising monk,
  salute him with joined palms, we take his bowl and robe, and offer him a seat and some water as appropriate.
  A common mark of respect would be to give way to elders when meeting them. “Respect” here
  should not be taken in the ritual way, which has very little moral value, as the intention behind such an
  action is not always pure. “Respect” properly means “accepting others as they are,” that is, using our present-moment
  awareness not to measure or judge others, but to relate to them (especially those near and
  dear) as if meeting them for the first time. In other words, when we show a sincere interest in people, we
  are more likely to encourage them to show their better sides. There is also “self-respect,” that is, abstaining
  from evil or unwholesome deeds through the feeling of moral shame (ottappa), that such negative
  results would bring disgrace upon us and those close to us.

Source: Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta commentary and analysis by Piya Tan

Since gāravā is a loose equivalent as per the comments the following are the Suttas which has this word: search for gāravā within the Pali Canon.

1 Especially to those who helped in learning and coming in contact with the Dhamma, especially you teacher, the lineage of Sangha who preserved the teaching, the Buddha as if it was not for the Buddha we will have not come across the Dhamma at all and our Parami is not strong enough to realise it, and the Dhamma itself as even the Buddha kept it as his teacher.

2 Garava Sutta


Three Questions about Sexual Desire I am wondering a few questions in regard to sexual desire and Buddhism.

Is fantasizing a form of craving and thus worse than sexual activity without it? What are the mental processes involved?
How much does a single orgasm, for example, affect the spiritual path? Basically what is the magnitude of the effect?
Is it possible that some individuals cannot eradicate lust and should merely diminish it?

Is fantasizing a form of craving and thus worse than sexual activity
  without it? What are the mental processes involved?

Fantasising creates further sexual energy that adds to the momentum of the whole process. Mental visualisations and thus sensory pleasure being the 'wanting' component.

  How much does a single orgasm, for example, affect the spiritual path?
  Basically what is the magnitude of the effect?

An orgasm doesn't effect the path in the slightest. How you have come to achieve the orgasm does. This can be a bit of a grey area for some. Sexual encounters are still possible for a practicing Buddhist but sometimes it's helpful to refrain from sex for a time in order to learn about how your physiology is guided towards the wanting of sex.

  Is it possible that some individuals cannot eradicate lust and should
  merely diminish it?

If you practice ardently, diminishment will be the first occurrence. It's not helpful to want to eradicate a natural biological process. It will create frustration (dukkha) but it may be a great learning curve if you're well versed in the arisings of your own suffering. Essentially, just work towards learning how it shows itself in your body and actions.


A person being enlightened by a non-enlightened I have heard stories of non-enlightened monks preach dharma to ordinary people and those people would become enlightened (At least a stream-enterer).

Can I have any sources on these? Possibly any sutta sources as well?

One story I remember is from Questions of King Milinda, where Nagasena himself not yet a stream-enterer, preached Abhidharma to a lay lady - as a result of which both the lady and Nagasena have achieved the stream-entry:

  Now a certain woman, a distinguished follower of the faith, had for thirty years and more administered to the wants of the venerable
  Assagutta. And at the end of that rainy season she came one day to him, and asked whether there was any other brother staying with him. And
  when she was told that there was one, named Nagasena, she invited the Elder, and Nagasena, with him, to take their midday meal the next day at
  her house. And the Elder signified, by silence, his consent. The next forenoon the Elder robed himself, and taking his bowl in his hand, went
  down, accompanied by Nagasena as his attendant, to the dwelling-place of that disciple, and there they sat down on the seats prepared for them. And she gave to both of them food, hard and soft, as much as they required, waiting upon them with her own hands. When Assagutta had finished his meal, and the hand was withdrawn from the bowl, he said to Nagasena: 'Do thou, Nagasena, give the thanks to this distinguished lady.' And, so saying, he rose from his seat, and
  went away.

  And the lady said to Nagasena: 'I am old, friend Nagasena. Let the thanksgiving be from the deeper things of the faith.'

  And Nagasena, in pronouncing the thanksgiving discourse, dwelt on the profounder side of the Abhidhamma, not on matters of mere ordinary morality, but on those relating to Arahatship. And as the lady sat there listening, there arose in her heart the Insight into the Truth, clear and stainless, which perceives that "whatsoever has beginning, that has the inherent quality of passing away". And Nagasena also, when he had concluded that thanksgiving discourse, felt the force of the truths he himself had preached, and he too arrived at insight he too entered, as he sat there, upon the stream.

  Then the venerable Assagutta, as he was sitting in his arbour, was aware that they both had attained to insight, and he exclaimed: 'Well done!
  well done, Nagasena! by one arrow shot you have hit two noble quarries!' And at the same time thousands of the gods shouted their approval.

An alternative translation of the same paragraph:

  And venerable Nagasena pronounced for her a sermon on the Abhidharma, about things deep in their meaning, transcendent, dealing with emptiness, [in accordance with the law of dependent co-arising. That is to say: When this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises.] And right there and then, even before the lay lady could raise from her seat, there arose in her the dust-free, crystal-clear Vision of Dharma: "Whatever is conditional can be controlled". And venerable Nagasena himself, as he was gratifying the lay lady with his sermon, reflected upon the Dharma he was expounding and had himself attained the insight; and even before he could raise from his seat, he had attained the fruit of stream-entry.


Should person with schizophrenia have children? I wanted to ask you whether it is ethical for a person with schizophrenia to have biological children. Do any Buddhist traditions teach anything in that regard?

When one parent has this illness, the chance that kid would have it too is about 17%, as compared to 1% in general population.

The doctor says that it shouldn't prevent one from having children, as similar situation is for many diabetics, where there is also hereditary factor, and they decide to become parents. And some other illnesses have even greater factor than 17% and those people decide to have children, who are in many cases healthy.

Some may suggest that it's better in this situation not to have biological children, but to adopt. However, mental illnesses are one of the main reasons why adoption is impossible.

According to some statistics (I don't know how accurate) one person with schizophrenia in ten commits suicide; three or four in ten have at least one suicidal attempt. Nonetheless, the illness can be treated so that there is full remission, i.e. no symptoms whatsoever as long as one takes medicines. And we may expect even better understanding and treatments in the future.

that's a loaded question with many factors to take into account.  Priority in life for those with serious illness should be given to self to make sure they live a happy healthy life.  If life is already difficult more than the norm, then having children will cause even more difficulties (if self is ill and having to take care of possible ill children).  Since this a Buddhist Q and A website, I'm going to try to link that.
remember this

  "whatever brings you joy, it will cause suffering"

It comes to personal choice, if he/she decides it is a fair trade off.
As for my personal thought. No, dont risk adding more troubles to an already troubled life.


Is there a specific range of meditation styles that could help with extreme clumsiness and disconnected mind-body? I have always been very clumsy, specifically,i am not aware, if that's a correct term,o f where my body is located or how its moving, leading to accidents, over-use of force, hitting things accidentally ,etc.... I have been practicing basic mindfulness meditation,along with zen meditation and it has worked wonders in many aspects of my life. Given that, would there be a specific type of practice which would affect this somewhat disconnected body "syndrome"?, for lack of a better term.

Of the four foundations of mindfulness (satipatthana)...
Mindfulness of the body is the main one in western practice already. Transitioning a constant state of awareness of the body into daily life could definately combat clumsiness.
           During meditation just feel all of your entire body at once... be aware of it, the feeling of it sitting there or better yet do walking meditation more... if something comes up, note it how its experienced by the body, then refocus on feeling the body just being a body.

do that regularly and you'll find yourself more aware of it naturally... then its more difficult to be clumsy.


Books for intermediate/advance students Most of the books about Buddhism I can find were made for Beginners, most are very good and touch the key points, easy to find and to buy.

The problem is that after a while I started to look for more advanced books, made for people that have already studied the key principles of the Dhamma and wanna take one step further, this is very hard to find!

Anyone can indicate a book about Buddhism (suttas, Abidhamma, techniques etc.) More suitable for advance students?

What particular subject would you like to study? Just comment on this answer with a list of subjects you want to learn and I will put together a list for you and edit it in this comment.

Would you like to focus on a particular tradition within Theravada? (I'm assuming you're asking about Theravada because you are using Pali terms.)


Why do I experience a second, floating body when body scanning? When I did the 10 day Vipassana meditation retreat, sometimes I would find that when I was body scanning, I would suddenly realize I was scanning a second, floating body maybe a foot in front and above from my actual body.  I could feel my sensations in the second body, but it was very disconcerting because it FELT like me, but was a projection.  I felt distrustful of my own experience.  If I recognized it, I could get my attention to return to my actual body and the projection would  go away.
What was that and why did it happen?  Should I have just kept on doing what I was doing and observed, or (sort of) forcibly returned my attention to my actual body, as I did?

That's really interesting.  I would say that because Goenka and the ATs (and the Buddha as well) say to scan the actual bodily sensations, the reality, it was the right thing to do to return to the body itself.  Did you talk to one of the ATs about this, by the way?


Why should one not address a venerable as friend? Here is a quote from MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
So I said to them,

'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.

I can understand why the Tathagata might not be addressed by name; but why not as "friend"?
Perhaps similarly, from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend (āvuso)', let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir (āyasmā)' or 'your reverence (bhante)'.

What's the need for, what's the benefit of, the "reverent" form of address? Or what's the harm, if any, in the "friendly" mode of address?
If you can, I'd appreciate answers:

From canonical sources (e.g. suttas or commentary)
From post-canonical sources (e.g. later, or modern, articles or dhamma talks)
From personal experience
and/or which apply to lay people (when addressing monks, or teachers or other venerables)

Edit:
I think that ruben202's answer is ample evidence that it is so, in the culture and in the suttas and other scriptures.
I'm not sure I understand why, though. For example:

A venerable is a friend -- or are they not?
Is the behaviour (or mode of address) mere ritual?
Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind or karma, or even for the venerable?

I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another benefit is that it might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing); is another obedience for some good reason?
The whole question seems to me a bit associated with some identity-view and so thicket-of-views.
The only  answer I can think of is a reference to the sutta (reference required) where the Buddha said that people need some teacher or leader, and he (having none) would take the Dhamma as his -- but that's speculation, whereas I'm asking for answers based on references or experience.

Junior monks have to greet senior monks as "venerable sir" and lay people have to greet monks as "venerable sir" (and not as "friend" or by name) because this is part of the culture of respect and reverence in Buddhism, and South Asian culture in general, both in ancient and modern times.

It is part of the whole package of reverence to parents, teachers and elders. Of course, in the modern day, this is changing due to exposure to culture of other parts of the world.

Below are some examples from suttas and vinaya:

In AN10.16:

  “Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of
  hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an
  unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the
  Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one
  liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body
  witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the
  Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten
  persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
  offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of
  merit for the world.”

From AN8.59:

  Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential
  salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?

  The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the
  course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the
  once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the
  realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one
  who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of
  non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course
  for arahantship

In AN5.199, the Buddha taught:

  "On the occasion when a virtuous person who has gone forth approaches
  a family, the people rise up to greet him, bow down, give him/her a
  seat. On that occasion the family is practicing the practice leading
  to birth in a high family.

In Mangala Sutta:

  "Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise;
  and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest
  blessing.

In AN 4.32:

  "There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, & consistency in the face of
  events, in line with what's appropriate in each case, each case. These
  bonds of fellowship [function] in the world like the linchpin in a
  moving cart.

  Now, if these bonds of fellowship were lacking, a mother would not
  receive the honor & respect owed by her child, nor would a father
  receive what his child owes him. But because the wise show regard for
  these bonds of fellowship, they achieve greatness and are praised.

In AN5.58:

  Now on that occasion a number of Licchavi youths had taken their
  strung bows and were walking and wandering in the Great Wood,
  accompanied by a pack of dogs, when they saw the Blessed One seated at
  the foot of a tree to dwell for the day. When they saw him, they put
  down their strung bows, sent the dogs off to one side, and approached
  him. They paid homage to the Blessed One and silently stood in
  attendance upon him with their hands joined in reverential salutation.

In MN86:

  "Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"

  "We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense.

There are numerous examples of prostration before the Buddha, where the translations say that somebody bowed down then sat to one side.

In MN 90, we see prostrations with head placed at the feet.

  King Pasenadi Kosala said to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Go to
  the Blessed One and, on arrival, showing reverence with your head to
  his feet in my name, ask whether he is free from illness & affliction,
  is carefree, strong, & living in comfort, saying: 'King Pasenadi
  Kosala, lord, shows reverence with his head to your feet and asks
  whether you are free from illness & affliction, are carefree, strong,
  & living in comfort.' And then say: 'Lord, today King Pasenadi Kosala
  will come to see the Blessed One after his morning meal.'"

And also in SN22.87:

  “Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with
  your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is
  sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with
  his head at his feet.’

Part of the Sekhiya rules of the vinaya on a bhikkhu teaching the dhamma:

  When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the
  listener:

  has an umbrella, staff, knife, weapon in his/her hand.
  is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
  is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
  is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
  is sitting holding his/her knees.
  is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
  is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
  is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
  is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
  is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
  is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path. (Sk 57-72)

This theme is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, in the "A Brief Teaching on The Bodhisattva’s Garland of Jewels" with translation and commentary by Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche. This text might apply to other Mahayana and Vajrayana schools too.

From this section:

  Refrain from meaningless chatter,
  And speak only true words at any time.
  Whenever you see your guru or khenpo,
  Offer to serve with devotion and respect.

  Commentary:
  In every moment, refrain from any talk that does not refer to the
  Buddha-dharma or spiritual practice. Never say anything that may cause
  others to slander the guru or the Three Jewels. Some people pay close
  attention to their own speech, and will carefully consider if what
  they are about to say is meaningful or meaningless, and if they find
  that it is meaningless, they will refrain from speaking at all. Others
  however, very much like talking and gossiping about other people’s
  faults. They do not even notice that they are doing it! This can bring
  a great deal of trouble both to themselves and to others. It would be
  better for this type of person to remain silent and avoid committing
  so many negative actions. Our speech should always be true speech,
  meaning that it is in accordance with the truth, is meaningful and
  brings no harm to ourselves or to others. Whenever we meet our root
  guru or khenpo, we must give rise to reverence and respect from the
  depths of our heart, and offer to serve them with respectful devotion.
  Some people might occasionally become caught up in anger or resentment
  towards their guru. This creates very severe negative karma and should
  be remedied with their utmost efforts at sincere confession and
  clarification. Some people do not know how to act when they see their
  guru or khenpo, and so will try to hide or run away. This is not
  right. What is appropriate is to just remain calm when seeing your
  guru, and, from the heart, offer to serve them with devotion and
  respect.

We also see this in the Manusmrti or Manu's Laws, a Hindu legal text, on respect to elders:

  2.119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a
  (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

  2.120. For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting
  he recovers them.

  2.121. He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life,
  knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

And this from the Manusmrti on reverence to the teacher / guru:

  2.146. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for
  the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in
  this (life) and after death.

  2.147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was
  born from the womb (of his mother).

  2.148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is
  real, exempt from age and death.

  OP: I'm not sure I understand "why", though. For example, a venerable is a friend -- or are they not? Is the behaviour (or mode of
  address) mere ritual? Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose,
  some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind, or even
  for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the
  classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another might
  be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen
  without yet knowing)

Argument 1: Korean Air Crashes

A theory on this is explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, as summarized here:

  As a closing point to consider the value of the wide use of formal
  speech in Korean, let me add a story regarding Korean Air discussed
  among others by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ``Outliers." Korean Air
  had in the 1990s become one of the world's most dangerous airlines,
  with so many crashes that it was eventually excluded from its airline
  alliance.

  The management of Korean Air at that time brought in an American team
  of consultants to analyze the problem and recommend a solution. While
  the Korean management had suggested more mandatory hours of flight
  simulator training for all pilots, the Americans advised them to
  introduce English as the official on-board language and ban the use of
  any Korean communication from the cockpit. Korean Air went ahead with
  this solution and as a result the crashes ceased, the airline's
  reputation was restored and it became an alliance member again. The
  consultants had discovered that the reason for the numerous accidents
  was that co-pilots could not inform captains about mistakes or
  potentially dangerous situations, because they had to use the most
  formal style of speech when addressing the captain and this created a
  barrier, which made criticism almost impossible. Once they used
  English, this "artificial wall" was torn down and teamwork and
  cross-checks became easy.

According to this theory by Malcolm Gladwell, Korean co-pilots spoke in Korean with each other that had a formal style of speech when addressing the captain, and this created an artificial barrier of respect that prevented first officers from directly criticizing their captains.

They were politely making suggestions with hints to the captain, when they should be communicating directly, clearly and bluntly in the case of a flight scenario where timeliness is critical.

On the other hand, in English, they would address each other simply as "you" or "I" instead of using honorifics. This apparently broke down the artificial barrier of respect and contributed to a reduction in crashes.

I would argue the reverse.

The use of honorifics like "bhante" and "ayasma" would create the right context and climate of respect that makes it conducive for teaching and learning the Dhamma.

Argument 2: Courtroom Decorum

Another way to argue this is to use courtroom etiquette or courtroom decorum as explained by these guidelines:

  Be Respectful in Your Public Requests, Comments, and Dealings with the Court. Adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect
  for the authority of the court. Common phrases that are used when
  communicating with the judge include the following: "May it please the
  Court," used as the greeting at the outset of your opening statement
  and your opening argument; "With Your Honor's leave (or permission), I
  would like to, " used when seeking permission to do something; "As the
  court pleases," "Very well, Your Honor," and "So be it, Your Honor" -
  used when you are acceding (consenting) to an unobjectionable oral
  direction or order of the court. "As the Court well knows," used when
  you are getting ready to educate the judge about something s/he
  probably doesn't know. Don't interrupt the judge. Listen to what the
  judge says. The judge has considerable discretionary power that can be
  used to help you or hurt you, even in jury trials where s/he serves
  only as the referee. Something as nebulous as the judge's tone of
  voice in ruling on objections can influence the juror's perceptions of
  your credibility. In jury trials, treat the judge as though s/he was
  the foreperson of the jury. Every judge has quirks. In some locales,
  there are published Judge's Bench Books that describe the
  peculiarities, predilections, and requirements of each local judge.
  These may be useful reading if you are not personally familiar with
  the way a certain judge runs his or her court.

Similarly, we should adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the teacher.

What would happen if courtroom communication was informal and casual? The authority of the court and the judge would not be respected, and justice would not be served.

Similarly, we need to be formal in front of the Dhamma teacher to respect his authority.

This establishes the atmosphere conducive to learning and teaching the Dhamma.

Argument 3: Your child is not your friend

From a parenting website:

  There are parents out there who are concerned about being their
  child’s friend. What is challenging is that if you are, first, a
  friend, then when the child is a preteen or teenager, the child will
  not need you as a friend. By then, he or she will have friends their
  own age to listen to. As teens, they need you as a parent, but they
  are not going to tell you that. When you become their friend first,
  parenting becomes difficult to establish. The child may not see you as
  an authority figure, and when you try to establish authority, the
  child will most likely question you even more. That’s not what you
  want.

  When you are a friend first, it sends a message that you want your
  child to like you, to share with you, and to help you feel connected.
  If that’s the case, that puts a lot more pressure on the child. It is
  not your child’s job to help you feel good about yourself. If that is
  why you are your child’s friend, rather than being his/her parent,
  then you may need to get some counseling for yourself. You and your
  spouse (if married) will need to focus on a healthy relationship so
  the lines of parenting and friendship, even with your child, can be
  reassessed and altered, if need be.

If parents become friends first with their child, their child would not respect the authority of the parent.

It is the same with the Dhamma teacher.

Hence formal communication is needed to establish authority.


Were there earlier western monks before Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya (Charles Henry Allan Bennett) Looking at the Bio of Ven. Nyanatiloka who was regarded as one of the earliest monks. I came across that he had met Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya (Charles Henry Allan Bennett) who was also a Western monk before him.

I am curious to know who were the earliest Western monks? How did they get their conviction (to the extent to ordain) as most countries were strongly Christian or Catholic.

Gordon Douglas (monk),

Gordon Douglas has traditionally been seen as the first European to become ordained as a Bhikkhu in Southeast Asia although Laurence Carroll (U Dhammaloka) and others are now understood to have been earlier.1 He was ordained in Siam in 1899 or 1900 and assumed the name Bhikkhu Asoka or Ashoka.2

An online summary is Theravāda Spirituality in the West.

U Dhammaloka,

U Dhammaloka (Burmese: ဦးဓမ္မလောက; c. 1856 – c. 1914) was an Irish-born hobo (migrant worker)1 turned Buddhist monk, atheist critic of Christian missionaries, and temperance campaigner who took an active role in the Asian Buddhist revival around the turn of the twentieth century.
Dhammaloka was ordained in Burma prior to 1900, making him one of the earliest attested western Buddhist monks. He was a celebrity preacher, vigorous polemicist and prolific editor in Burma and Singapore between 1900 and his conviction for sedition and appeal in 1910–1911. Drawing on western atheist writings, he publicly challenged the role of Christian missionaries and by implication the British empire.

Found in the abstract of Rewriting the History of Early Western Buddhist Monastics.


In my previous life I was --- I can accept the concept of Reincarnation in Buddhism . That is , after a person died  , then he/she will reborn again as human , as animal , or even as God , in the same / different Realm. But there's one thing that to me is weird . In my previous life I was a mosquito ? , a flea ? , a worm ? , a bacteria ? , a bamboo tree?

Technically speaking... (the devil is in the details!)

You can only 'reincarnate' into a sentient being. Mosquitoes, fleas, and worms are, in general, considered sentient beings in Buddhism. Bacteria (not an animal) and bamboo trees (a plant) are not. One might discuss if it's possible to 'reincarnate' as an amoeba (technically an animal — from the perspective of Western biology, at least), but I'd guess that one would require at least a minimal nervous system with a few cells in order to classify as 'sentient'. Then again, I might be wrong, of course!
'Reincarnation' is a Western term coming from a Christian tradition, with a very specific meaning, so it may lead Buddhist practitioners into the mistake of thinking that somehow their minds will be put into the body of a flea or a mosquito; in practice, it's both more complicated and much more simpler than that, and I'll give you the analogy that my own teachers gave me:

Think of a series of candles, all about the same size, the first of one is lit. The light of that candle represents a sentient's being life. Now, eventually, the candle burns out — and you might have to transfer the flame to the next candle using a stick of wood or something. The next candle might outwardly look like the first one, and from the perspective of someone on the room, there is still light around — even if it might come slightly from the left or the right, or be slightly stronger or weaker because even outwards-looking 'identical' candles will have some difference at the molecular level and thus there will be a difference.

You can repeat the process from one candle to the next, and there will always be 'light' while you keep one flame going, but eventually, there will be no more candles to light.

This symbolises how a stream of consciousness works across 'lives'. All the candles give light — but the light is not exactly the same, because each successive candle is slightly different than the previous one. Each candle is its own distinct object — symbolising different bodies if you wish — and there is no shared material/physical components between each candle. Because there is a succession of flames — the previous one becoming the cause for the next one, and so forth we can say that what you do in one life will influence — 'cause' — the next life. But each is started 'from scratch' in the sense that each life is separate and distinct from the previous one, even if it's in very small details (i. e. even two consecutive human lives will be quite different!). There is technically 'nothing' passing from the flame of one candle to another (this is where the analogy fails because it requires the stick/match/a bit of paper etc.), except this very abstract notion of 'light': i.e. all candle flames produce light, and the flame from one candle is the only cause for kindling the flame of another candle, so there is a cause-and-effect tying all candles together (this is the stream-of-consciousness which 'ties' together different lives through a causation effect). And finally, when one reaches awakening/enlightenment, there will be no more candles — no need to 'reincarnate' again, if you wish. So there will always be an end to the cycle of reincarnation; the role of Buddhist teachers is to get as many people to get out of that cycle as fast as possible (through teaching their students the means to do so, of course)!

Is this a confusing analogy? I think so; it is one supposed to make us think a bit. For instance, it's true that you have been a mosquito or a worm on previous lives, but you have no recollection of that — this is simply because not only each candle is physically different, but because its flame is different, so you cannot 'look back' to how you were in the past. Nevertheless, there is a connection: what you did as a mosquito back then has influenced what you are today (in exactly the same way that what you do today will affect you tomorrow — even if you don't notice it in most cases). Of course, a poor mosquito will have little knowledge of how to behave in order to get a 'better' life in the future (what makes you a 'good' or 'bad' mosquito...?); however, you, as a human being, have the ability not only to influence what your next life will be (it only depends on what you do in this life), but, even better than that, you have the abilities and capacity to break free from the reincarnation cycle altogether! When that happens, you can spend the rest of eternity in any form whatsoever and have the ability to watch from afar how flames go from one candle to another... while Buddhas cannot directly influence how that happens (even Buddhas cannot change the causation effects on other beings!), they can certainly help us out with tools and methods to figure out, on our own, how to break free from the cycle of reincarnation.

Patience, young grasshopper, you're on the right path!

Extra bonus: just by following the Buddha's path will give you another chance as a human being. And you were so fortunate to find the Buddha's path and a teacher on this life because, well, you did great on a previous life! Perhaps, as a mosquito, you might have bitten a Buddha by accident — thus creating a bond with a Buddha, which has ultimately led you to be 'reborn' as a human being able to study the Buddhadharma, think about it, and meditate. So rejoice!


Following the Dhamma without taking refuge A lot of people, especialy from the west, like to follow the Dhamma (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.), however they worry about taking refuge, because taking refuge is seen as an official entry point in Buddhism, where your old religion should be abandoned, for Christians for example, they feel like if they take refuge they will be turning their backs on Jesus.

So the questions are: Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge? Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?

Can you follow the Buddha's teachings (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.) without taking refuge?

Absolutely! Whatever elements of Sat-Dharma you can incorporate in your life are going to be beneficial. It does not have to be "all or nothing". However, the extent to which you follow Sat-Dharma is the extent to which you benefit.

Can someone attain enlightenment without taking refuge?

The world does not care about official ceremonies! :) What matters is your determination. To attain enlightenment, in your heart you have to be fully committed to the spiritual quest. That's the true meaning of taking refuge.

Does taking refuge in the Triple Treasure mean your old religion should be abandoned?

Regardless of your cultural background, the spiritual quest has one goal: completion. Taking refuge implies unwavering commitment to that, above worldly quests and goals. The tri-ratna is a further development of this idea, with Buddha taken as an inspiration of someone who successfully made it, Dharma taken as a guidebook, and Sangha as companions. However, despite an instrumental role of tradition, the only real working basis is one's own fundamental sanity.

What is the main benefit of taking refuge?

It is like when you lived with a girlfriend for 5 years, and finally you two decided to make it official. If love and commitment were NOT there to begin with, the wedding ceremony can't improve anything, and if love and commitment were there all the time, the ceremony does not change anything. However, in your relationships with external world, you can now firmly say "I am a married man, and she is my wife" -- which makes things simpler and gives you a sort of strength.


Is praying to a statue of the Buddha for bad things to happen part of Buddhism? A lady at my work has a Buddha on her desk. She's on vacation an  today and i had to work at her desk. I accidentally touched it and her friend said oh 'my don't touch that she prays to that Buddha for bad things to happen to you all'. Well let me tell you I'm more than upset about this. Is this part of this religion? I will be demanding this to be removed from our work place. This seems like voodoo. It also has my hair tie around its neck.

There's no voodoo in Buddhism. Buddha preached his doctrine to help you get rid of hatred, greed and ignorance. Any curse or black magic is not a part of Buddhism, even if the lady ignorantly uses a Buddha statue for it. She only harms herself by being ignorant and disrespectful towards the Buddha.


Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism? I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies?

link to audio of Tao Te Ching

There is common ground. But there is common ground between Christianity and Buddhism, too. So...

A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.

Your question is broad, and so it's hard to answer. There are just too many sects... some Chinese ones like Huayan were influenced by Taoist philosophy so there is more common grounds... and then there are Taoist sects that were significantly influenced by Buddhism, like the Quanzhen School...

In the Pure Land tradition, the great patriarch Tan-Luan, was initially a Taoist teacher. He wanted immortality but couldn't achieve it. Then he met the Indian Bodhiruci who gave him the Infinite Life Sutra, and Tan-Luan was so delighted by this sutra that he burned all his Taoist texts and followed Buddhism alone. If this story is true, then we can say at least one person didn't think the two were compatible. Tan-Luan sought immortality, but it occurred to him that when Taoism speaks of immortality, it does so from a point of view of attachment to existence, while Buddhism's ultimate point is nirvana which is neither-existence-nor-nonexistence (suchness). Something far removed from existence and non-existence.


Buddhist Equivalent to Prayopavesa (resolving to die through fasting) In Hinduism, when a person is old, bed-ridden and fulfilled all their obligations, they are able to fast to death to end their life. This is called prayopavesa and is an acceptable practice in India.

I do understand that the first precept in Buddhism says not to kill others which includes oneself. However, are there certain instances like those mentioned above where fasting to death is acceptable in Buddhism ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa

Beware that even describing the advantages of dying is an offence.

I quote from this commentary on the Vinaya.

Page 74:

  Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an
  assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): “My
  good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than
  life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways
  75
  praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in
  affiliation.

The following fragment (quoted below) might be relevant to the case you're asking about e.g. when the person is terminally ill.
Don't take my word for it though!
Also this commentary is to do with whether the dying monk incurs a monastic penalty (not with whether it's a karmically optimal course of action).

Page 85:

  The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukkata to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.

  The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here. Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death; and
  from SN 35.87, where the Buddha says that one who puts down this body
  without taking up another body dies blamelessly. However, in arriving at its
  verdict in this case, the Commentary has to add the factors of motivation and
  perception to the equation, factors that are absent from the rule on which the
  judgment is based. It also leaves unanswered the question of how harsh the
  86
  disease has to be, and how near the anticipated attainments, to qualify for this
  exemption.

  This same holds true for case (a), which entails even more dubious reasoning.
  The Commentary’s judgment here has no clear precedent in the Canon; there is
  no clear line for deciding exactly how bad the illness and how fed up the
  attendants have to be for this case to apply; and why should the feelings of other
  people determine when it is or is not allowable to refuse food?

  It is worth noting that the origin story to the original rule here gave the
  Buddha the opportunity, had he wanted it, to formulate a general rule against
  attempted suicides, but he chose not to. He later formulated this subsidiary rule
  only when a bhikkhu attempted a suicide in a way that endangered the life and
  safety of another person. Thus a more appropriate way of applying the Great
  Standards to this subsidiary rule would be to extend it only to cases of that sort:
  where a bhikkhu’s attempts at suicide would bring danger to another person’s
  life and limb.

  As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.

I guess my personal/unreliable hypothesis on the subject is that it's like medicine: i.e. a patient may take medicine because they are ill, not in order to cause illness.

Similarly a patient might stop eating when (or because) they are dying, not in order to cause death.


If a monk sees a pin in his path, will he step on it and accept pain? I read about Buddhism where I came to know, we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything. And a random thing came to my mind: I even read that pain is seen as pain and nothing more, no bad or good feeling towards pain.

So suppose a Monk happens to see a pin in his path:

Will he step on it and accept pain, and think of pain as pain and detach from its feeling?
Or, would he judge the pin which will cause pain and move away?

Moving away shows that he knows its bad to step on the pin.

This was just a question which came to my mind. I don't mean any offence, literally I have no idea of it.

I have not read in original Buddhism we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything (apart from possibly one popular yet questionable teaching, at this link).
Buddhism teaches, about all things experienced by the senses, their origination, passing away, attraction, danger & escape from their danger should be comprehended (at this link).

...discern, as they actually are present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawback and the escape from the six
spheres of contact.
Punna Sutta


On 31 planes of existence According to buddhism, there exists 31 "planes of existence".

Theravada Buddhist cosmology describes the 31 planes of existence in which rebirth takes place. The order of the planes are found in various discourses of the Gautama Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka. For example, in the Saleyyaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya the Buddha mentioned the planes above the human plane in ascending order.1 In several sūtras in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha described the causes of rebirth in these planes in the same order. In Buddhism, the devas are not immortal gods that play a creative role in the cosmic process. They are simply elevated beings who had been reborn in the celestial planes as a result of their words, thoughts, and actions. Usually, they are just as much in bondage to delusion and desire as human beings, and as in need of guidance from the Enlightened One. The Buddha is the "teacher of devas and humans (satthadevamanussanam). The devas come to visit the Buddha in the night. The Devatasamyutta and the Devaputtasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya gives a record of their conversations. The devaputtas are young devas newly arisen in heavenly planes, and devatas are mature deities.
There are more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) solar systems in our Galaxy, and more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) galaxies in our Universe. There are many Universes in space. Past and future lives may occur on other planets. The data for the 31 planes of existence in samsara are compiled from the Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Digha Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya, and others. The 31 planes of existence can be perceived by a Buddha's Divine eye (dibbacakkhu) and some of his awakened disciples through the development of jhana meditation. According to the suttas, a Buddha can access all these planes and know all his past lives as well as those of other beings.
 Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school - Wikipedia

Hence the question:
Are these 31 planes of existence actually existing all around us RIGHT HERE where we are (as in 31 'dimensions' per se), or are they belonging in different planets and galaxies far apart from each other? Since 'planes' can also mean 'dimensions' if viewed from such a perspective.
Please verify! Thanks for your patience!
IMAGE: 31 planes of existence - Ven.Suvanno Mahathera

They are said to be located from a certain distance from the human realm.
ex: The closest heaven to us is the Chaturmaharajika heaven. It is located 42,000 Yojjanas above from the human realm. But the tree devas and certain Asuras/Yakkas also belong to this heaven. The closest hell realm 'Sanjiva' is located 15,000 Yojjanas below the human realm. Refer to this chart for more details.

As I've heard, humans can't see the Devas unless they develop the divine eye or if the devas make their bodies solid and reflective. In the same way, Devas can't see the Brahmas. So I would assume that the places they dwell are also invisible to average humans. You can possibly call them other dimensions or just think of them as what you can't see yet in this world system. It's the same with hell realms. Peta Vattu has stories about hungry ghosts in the human relam.


Practice of saying Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! Some Buddhists like to say Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!, usually 3 times.

There is some info here and here on this.

How did this practice originate? Are there any references to the Pali Canon or other texts for this?

Is it specific to a particular tradition?

Why is it necessary or useful to say this?

Mahasi Sayadaw gives some insight, if not an actual answer in his discourse on the Hemavata Sutta:

The Buddha was constantly into the jhāna, and for that He is adorable. While, after the end of a part of a sermon the audience exclaimed in one voice, "Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! (Well done!) the Buddha went into jhāna even during that brief interval. And then He resumed the sermon. Such constancy is really marvelous."
There are occasions  for the audience to say "Sādhu" during my preaching but they are rather few. But in Myanmar it is usual for the audience to say "Sādhu" at the end of a Pāḷi gāthā (verse) of which the preaching monk gives a literal translation. When the monk ends in a long drawn-out voice with the (Myanmar) phrase "phyitkya le dawt tha dee" the audience says without any hesitation, Sādhu. They don't care to notice whether the verse so recited and translated relates to a subject which calls for an exultant hailing or not. They just note ending words "tha dee" and drone out "Sādhu."
For instance, in the Vessantrā jātaka, king Vessantrā gave away his two children, a son and a daughter of tender ages of four or five, to Jujaka Brāhmin. The Pāḷi verse in that connection describes the Brāhmin's cruel treatment of the children who wept desolately; how the Brāhmin beat them cruelly and dragged them away. When the preaching monk recited that verse and translated it into Myanmar and ended his version with the usual "tha dee" the audience droned out the usual  "Sādhu". Well, that is the part of the story which calls for sympathy and sadness from the listeners, not exultation, and so the  "Sādhu" went awry. But in Myanmar the audience don't care to discriminate.
In Sri Lanka, however, the audience intones "Sādhu" three times only for the part of the sermon which related to attainment of Arahatship or Nibbāna, for that is an occasion of exultation when a congratulatory note of joy, such as "Sādhu", is called for.
During the time of the Buddha the practice of saying "Sādhu" must be of the Sri Lanka pattern. When the audience said "Sādhu" three times, the Buddha paused, and during that brief interval He went into jhāna, and soon after the saying of   "Sādhu" by the audience, He resumed His sermon, He never remained idle, How adorable!
The preaching monks of today may not be entering into the jhāna; that brief interval is probably the time of resting his voice or it is the time for him to think of the words he will utter when he resumes his sermon.

It was certainly common in the Buddha's time to respond to an appreciated statement with the word "sādhu"; this occurs throughout the tipitaka and commentaries. E.g.:

“aparopi ce, cunda, sabrahmacārī saṅghe dhammaṃ bhāseyya. tatra ce tumhākaṃ evamassa — ‘ayaṃ kho āyasmā atthañceva sammā gaṇhāti byañjanāni ca sammā ropetī’ti. tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditabbaṃ anumoditabbaṃ; tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditvā anumoditvā so evamassa vacanīyo — ‘lābhā no āvuso, suladdhaṃ no āvuso, ye mayaṃ āyasmantaṃ tādisaṃ sabrahmacāriṃ passāma evaṃ atthupetaṃ byañjanupetan’ti.
‘But, Cunda, if you think he has got the right meaning and expressed it correctly,... you should say: ʺGood!ʺ and should applaud and congratulate him, saying: “We are lucky, we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!”
-- DN 29 (Walshe, trans)

As for the tradition to repeat it three times, I can't find an example in the tipitaka; twice seems common - dual repetition in pali is certainly a common construction (e.g. punappuna.m - again and again):

“sādhu, sādhu, puṇṇa! sakkhissasi kho tvaṃ, puṇṇa, iminā damūpasamena samannāgato sunāparantasmiṃ janapade viharituṃ. yassadāni tvaṃ, puṇṇa, kālaṃ maññasī”ti.
“Good, good, Puṇṇa! Possessing such self-control and peacefulness, you will be able to dwell in the Sunāparanta country. Now, Puṇṇa, it is time to do as you think fit.”

There is mention in the commentaries (e.g. DN-A) of the phrase "tikkhattuṃ sādhukāramadāsi" ("giving a sādhu-making three times") but I am not clear if this really means saying sādhu three times. In modern times, this is certainly how the Pali phrase is used and understood, but we also see (Jat-A 540):

“sādhu sādhu, bhikkhū”ti tikkhattuṃ sādhukāraṃ datvā...
having given sādhu-making three times, [saying] "sādhu, sādhu, bhikkhu!"...

Anyway, it's clearly a part of the tradition since ancient times in one form or another.

As to why it is considered beneficial, rejoicing in the the goodness of others is one of the ten means of acquiring goodness.


Buddhism views on Ancestor Worship What is Buddhism view on Ancestor Worship? Are there any references which talk about it? Do ancestors occupy any plane/realm ? How to explain the ancestors who come in dreams? Is it manifest of mind?

Ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, is more of a cultural phenomenon than a religious one (though religions can also influence culture, so it can be difficult to pinpoint the source of different religious/cultural elements).

The practice is most common in countries that also happen to have a larger share of Buddhists, though there's not a huge connection between Buddhism itself and the practice.

Śrāddha is referenced in the Pāli canon, though in a Buddhist context the word has a meaning closer to the notion of "faith". But the word itself has an earlier meaning in the Hindu context, where it was more specifically applied to ancestor worship:

  In the Hindu religion, it is the ritual that one performs to pay homage to one's ancestors (Sanskrit: pitṛs), especially to one's dead parents.

Given Buddhism's origins in India, it's easy to see the connection between the cultural practice of ancestor worship and the linguistic fluidity of a single word used to describe both the practice and an early Buddhist concept. Ultimately, though, there doesn't appear to be any direct call for ancestor worship within Buddhist doctrine (which makes sense, given the overall emphasis on our present actions and not clinging to the past).


What determines whether a style of meditation can or cannot lead to insight? On YouTube @Yuttadhammo seems to say that tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept and as a result -- i.e. because a concept is not "real" -- that meditation cannot lead to insight. And, by way of contrast, he says that the rise and fall of the abdomen can lead to insight because the abdomen (and its rise and fall) is real.

Is that -- the nature/reality of the meditation object -- the primary difference between meditation intended to achieve tranquility and that intended to achieve insight?

But if so, how does that tally with Y's answer to this question. There, he notes that the Visuddhimagga allows for insight to be achieved by scrutinising “mentality” (nāma). But how is mentality real while a concept is not?

Here is the difference: a thought itself is real, but the object of the thought is conceptual. Loving-kindness is real, but the object of loving-kindness is conceptual.

When thinking, one is really thinking. When thinking of a cat, the cat is not really there, but the thought is.

When loving a person, the love is really there, but the person is only a concept.

Mind refers to the process of thinking, loving, etc., itself, not the object of the mental activity. When the mind focusses on the movements of the body, the movement is real, the focussing is real, but the body part itself (e.g. hand, foot, stomach, breath etc.) is a concept.

If one focusses on the breath, for example, going in and out of the body, one is focussing on a concept, as it is not directly related to the observation of the sensation. If one focusses on the sensation at the nose or the abdomen, then one is focussing on ultimate reality.


How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does? Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting question, or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:

How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does?

There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha".

  `(Mv.I.6.7) [11] Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”

  (Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:

  “All-vanquishing,
  all-knowing am I,
  with regard to all things,
  unadhering.

  All-abandoning,
  released in the ending of craving:
  having fully known on my own,
  to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]

  I have no teacher,
  and one like me can’t be found.
  In the world with its devas,
  I have no counterpart.

  For I am an arahant in the world;
  I, the unexcelled teacher.
  I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
  Cooled am I,

  To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
  I go to the city of the Kasis.
  In a world become blind,
  I beat the drum of the Deathless.”

  (Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”

  “Conquerors are those like me
  who have reached fermentations’ end.
  I’ve conquered evil qualities,
  and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”

  When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` (The Discussion of the Group of Five)

As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant".

Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good...

Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like:

  Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

So what is that all about with this paradox?

How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?

Just a "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did?

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

How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does?

The difference is that the teacher is a fully enlightened Buddha - the only one of his kind in this Aeon.

A fully enlightened Buddha has uprooted all defilements. There are absolutely no traces left of any defilements. Its impossible for a Buddha to create Kamma.

What might seem like praise or blame from the perspective of a non-Buddha is vastly and completely different from the perspective of a Buddha.