What is the next meditation type after Mindfulness of Breathing meditation? I have been meditation using Mindfulness of Breathing mediation. I will continue for a while, while increasing the duration.

When can I say that I "master" a type of meditation?

Are there a natural next type of meditation after Mindfulness of Breathing?

Meditation should be perceived as a tool to achieve some goal. We don't meditate to be good at meditation, rather, we use it because we want some results.

Buddhist practice is based on three pillars - Right View, Meditation and Action. We need to know some Buddha's teachings, we need to meditate and finally, we need to apply the results of the practice into our daily life. What is the point of meditating for hours if straight after the session we harm our friends by our inconsiderate behaviour?

It is always good to ask or remind ourselves why we meditate. If we want peace of mind, we keep checking whether we are able to remain calm in stressful situations. If we want to get rid of our ego - we check how we react when people offend or criticize us.

Personally, I never did a regular breathing practice on its own. I met Mahayana/Vajrayana masters and got attracted to the possibility of realising our Buddha Nature by applying certain methods. So I use those methods to realise my full potential in order to help other beings (Bodhisattva vow). In everyday life I keep checking (among others) whether I remain stable and joyful in difficult situations and whether I can feel compassion to all the beings no matter what they do.

Some may say that the next stage after Breathing meditation is insight meditation (Vipassana). However, before starting a new practice, you should very honestly check your motivation and goals - what exactly do you want to realise? Also make sure the new practice can indeed bring you closer to your goals. In general, keep checking whether your current meditation practice brings some positive changes into your everyday life and if you feel that there is something more you want to realise - try to find a new practice that will help you achieve that.


Is Buddhist practice a form of suicide? I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well, but I'm trying to increase my understanding of the Dhamma, so please don't take what I write the wrong way. I'm not being disrespectful, because even the Buddha praised Sariputta for his unwillingness to accept teachings on faith alone, but rather from his own personal experience and understanding.

I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide. Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced. Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever. This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated. Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself, craving Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence. Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth. Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this. If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required. But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana, they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes. Some people even abandon all worldly life to become monastics to accomplish this in the fastest and most direct manner possible. Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

Again, I realize people will argue that you can't annihilate what doesn't truly exist, but this existence which all sentient beings experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth. I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well

The above self-awareness is wise.

  I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide.

Its not. 'Dhamma' means that which 'supports' life therefore dhamma cannot be suicide.

  Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced.

Yes. Buddhism says to attain the higher pleasures of jhana & Nibbana, worldly pleasures must be abandoned.

  Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever.

No. Nibbana is the here-&-now freedom from the disturbing emotions of greed, hatred & delusion. As for the word "existence" ("bhava"), it means "ego-existence", which is the root of suffering.

  This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated.

Actually, the Buddha did say in one sutta he annihilates greed, hatred & self-delusion. But this does not involve suicide.

  Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

It is the mind that suffers (when it ignorantly creates self-view) rather than a self that suffers. The end of suffering in Buddhism is called freedom of mind (ceto-vimutti) rather than freedom of self.

  Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself

Nibbana is not the extinguishing of mind. Nibbana is the extinguishing of greed, hatred & delusion.

  Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence.

No.

  Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth.

Nibbana has no correlation to suicide. Nibbana is the freedom from the pain that motivates suicide.

  Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this.

The idea that Nibbana is ending of mind is wrong understanding of Buddhism.

  If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required.

Samsara means the continuous attaching to things as self. Refer to SN 22.99.

  But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana

Craving does not bring Nibbana. Nibbana is found by ending craving.

  they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes.

There is no evidence for many lifetimes. Such ideas are only found in a certain genre of texts and also later texts.

  Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

Eightfold Path does not lead to annihilation of life. Only the annihilation of suffering.

  existence

Existence (bhava) is an idea; the idea or thought "I exist". It does not mean the existence of the mind & body.

  which all sentient beings

The Buddha never used the term "sentient beings". The Buddha taught "beings" are views or ideas born from strong attachment (refer to SN 23.2; SN 5.10).

  experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth.

Suicide is an action born from pain & confusion. Suicide means the mind has not found peace from practising the Noble Eightfold Path. This is why suicide is regarded as bad karma because, instead of performing suicide, a person can practise the Path.

  I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

This struggle exists because Buddhism has not been studied & learned accurately. Instead, your views about Buddhism, while very common, are the superstitions taught to children & village peasants. Since a Buddha is fully enlightened, obviously what a Buddha teaches cannot be illogical.


Exact meaning of Ditthivisuddhi (3rd purification) Is ditthivisuddhi (the 3rd purification) only the purification of the illusion of 'self'; 'I'; 'me'; 'mine'?

Understand that mental and physical process and the world at large is not in our control and is changing. So any notion of regarding one self will not be in line with expectations and also would lead to comparison hence misery. (3 Marks of Existence) Further the understanding of the 4 Noble Truth and Dependent Origination.

See: Rathavinita where this is initially covered.


Do parents' karma affect their children? In Hinduism, it is generally said that children too have a share of their parent's sins & good deeds.

So, according to Buddhism, does the karma of a parent (in a direct or indirect way) affect their children?

Karma of one person is not shared or inherited. Say a parent has a bad Karma to suffer. This might some times instrumented by means of a child getting sick. This does not mean the Karma has being pass to the child. Say the child leaves the household then perhaps this may manifested through another calamity even maybe another loved one getting sick.

Karma is Fabrications. The volition creates fabrication giving, pleasant, neutral, painful experiences in the future. This is Karma. This cannot be transferred or inherited or stolen. When this gives results there should be a medium for it to manifest. Generally though the people and the environment around us. The working of Karma is complex. There could be a case some one dear might die so we experience sadness. In such a case it is not the Karma of the person who died inherited our bad Karma. If there are X & Y who are dear, if there is a chance X may go and in case the opportunity does not present itself for X and Y is there then Y maybe the person to die. This is not X or Y's karma but our own which manifests itself to give pain. If say the opportunity of you get hurt though X & Y does not present itself as the environment and situation did not arise, it does not mean the Karma will also follow X & Y but it will follow you and will give results at a later time if it is potent and the opportunity present itself. In this case if is Z how is close and dear to us and the karma is that for a loved one to depart it might be Z who takes the fall.

Also it is not wise to be around people doing or having bad Karma, or situating where bad Karma is in effect. E.g. if you see a rioting or fighting crowd get your self out of there and if you have the slightest part Karma to get beaten up this might be the best opportunity for it to manifest itself. Also if you do not have such Karma getting being at the wrong place at the wrong time, may mean you can get hurt.


Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too? If ritual is repetition outside of what can be justified through direct experience, can ideas and opinions, as well as words and actions, be ritualistic? Would a belief in God - given the axiomatic impossibility to verify the entity directly - classify as ritual?

Till the experience of clear seeing and knowing, realizing, what ever deed by body, speech and mind is good to considered as a habitual ritual, householder Ilya Grushevskiy and interested.

Ways of belief, expecting certain happiness and release, to the extend of not knowing, not clear seeing, are rituals.

In regard of abounding the fetter of ritual toward an aspiration headed to Nibbana it requires the knowledge of the path through realization. Relaying on this, it's also again practiced as ritual (habitual) but no more destined toward anything else as well as raw rituals not headed toward the aim have been abounded.

The same, of course, would count also for the path into the Brahma-realms, if realized once.

To possible understand the underlying point as well: believing is an action (mental), a practice, as well, and the foremost in becoming also signs and physical deeds, rituals. Usually the word ritual is used for practice that would not really cause the desired effect (i.e. actually: mind is one, sign, physical another). Sometimes ritual refers also to holding on certain actions by signs and deeds although the mind might not be directed at it's purpose, perceived as habitual only outwardly.

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


Can a Bhikkhu yell at or beat a lay person under the vinaya? In the vinaya of the Theravāda, it is an offense for a monk to insult or be abusive to another monk (pacittiya 2). But I don’t see any reference to a prohibition from yelling at a lay person (and I know of some instances when some bhikkhus have behaved disgracefully in this regard).

For that matter, there seems to be no prohibition in the vinaya on beating the hell out of a lay person either without the use of a weapon (short of killing them).

Is that right or am I just missing the rule where this is prohibited?

Notes:

Please don’t reply with references to what is implied and what is common sense etc. I know that. The question is specific to whether there is a prohibition in the letter of the monastic code.
While the 5 lay precepts do guide against harsh speech, no prohibition on a lay person silently beating someone either.  This is also not lost on me, so it’s not really useful to point out that “what about the lay precepts?”  .  The question is regarding the Vinaya in its role as community rules, not as guidelines for wholesome personal behaviour.

Even torward a cat, insects or non-human, neither insulting nor even beating would be proper and allowable, in cases against humans it might be even seens as heavier then toward a fellow or novice.
It falls like many other things (really and by far, not all has been caught in special wording or rules) under that what is called derived offenses, some are mentioned in commentary or sub-c. or "just" to figure out at times, using the great standard:

"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against [literally, "preempts"] what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you." — Mv.VI.40.1

Something actually very hard for those not tending to higher virtue.
The BMC1 tells about Pc2:

To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person — according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings — a dukkaṭa.

For example. My person would not agree, since generally "foreign-policy agenda" are generally given more sensibility. If we take the cases in BMC2 in relation with lay people it allows the Sangha to take on disciplinary measures.
See Reconciliation BMC2 and the story of Cv.I.18.1-5

The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities:
a) he strives for the material loss of householders, for the detriment of householders, for the non-residence of householders (so they can't live in a certain place); he insults and reviles householders; he gets householders to break with householders;
b) he speaks in dispraise of the Buddha to householders, speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma to householders, speaks in dispraise of the Saṅgha to householders, ridicules and scoffs at householders about something low or vile, does not fulfill a righteous promise made to householders [C: this includes accepting an invitation for the Rains retreat or any other similar promise].

Generally in regard of the basic precepts, not to speak about kammic effects, there is no exclusion for Bhikkhus at all and the Vinaya contains aside of "foreign political" and community rules specifical special mentionings of cases where Bhikkhus obiviously had to less objectivity, such as water filter, digging earth... It's importand to understand, that Vinaya rules are for the most cases for very undeveloped minds and wordlings. Whom would one need to tell about issues of being in water, earth or possible endangered by uncontrolled fire... if not someone who is far away from higher virtue and controll of the sense faculties and mind.
How to handle things is always a case to case matter, requiring people with lot of knowledge and understanding of Vinaya so that the right kind of offense class is selected.
So aside of the Patimokkhas 227 rules, 1000 in Mv and Cv and other books, "countless" other cases need to be deriven form the given set and especially today many have of course real problem.
One, like also mentioned in the Suttas, who trains firm in higher virtue, concentration, wisdom, would aside of community and costume rules have no problems at all, sticking firm to the basics and fundamentas precepts.
There are those who argue just in literary ways, even thinking (following the words) that Bhikkhus might have more ease than Samaneras for example, or householder and there are also many cases where householder rules are explained by the Vinaya standards, but that is mostly wrong. Vinaya should be seen as addition to the basics to have common min. standards and not as replacements at all. Again, not to speak of kammic effects, where there is no difference in what ever cloth one might wear.
Hope that this short explaining could ease in the regards of shock displayed in the question.
In cases where a lay person might be really ill willed harmed by a monk it's good and proper, if no backwards need to be feared, to speak out such cases to other trusted monks since it is not good, for anybody, to keep problem, possible also misunderstandings, a burden for good relation. "Sadly" such as "opening the Vihara" is not really broad known and practiced but a good and performed way to clean things up, used here in Cambodia, for example, in the Dhammayut Nikaya. When lay people see grave problems they are given to call for "opening the Vihara" where they then are given to bring up their cases in front of an assembling of monks and possible the involved people. Not that such is a desired and pleasant event, but it is a very good tool for healing and clarify possible misunderstandings as well since it is somehow public.
At least one should not forget that a Bhikkhu is not immune and excluded in regard of criminal law for cases where the Sangha is not really capable to handle cases. Beating and serious ill-willed insult are no trivial offence in most counties. Of course it's better to solve it in amicable arrangement but in certain countries one would be even obligated to legally report it.
If a monk deprives lay people from their possessions and states, advocate such, promote such and tell others to do, if a layperson loses (such as a legal case, right or wrong), he insures a Pārājika, the same also in regard of killing. There are actually many "monks" who, by Vinaya, are no more. Think on certain movements, euthanasia, abortion... hate speech toward not beloved, support of legal actions... So stay away from those and be sure that merits toward those are just for harm in the world and will seldom bear even small fruits. Even association with them or using things from them will have much disadvantages for one, cuts one off from good monks and the Savaka Sangha.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Are Habits a Kind of Attachment? Some questions have already touched the nature of habits, namely in the sense of good habits or their benefits. This answer explains how attachment occur from a repeated desire to engage in the phenomenon. But, psychology sees this same pattern for habits, and more so, in psychological literature habits occur independently of pleasure and of effort. A habit, when formed, continues usually even when no more satisfaction is derived from it, even if it produces no reward.

Thus, wouldn't bad habits be a form of attachment and potentially even worse given the lack of reward? By definition, unless they are positive, habits will continue occuring again and again despite nothing rewarding is produced.

Does Buddhism consider neutral habits, just habit itself, as unvirtuous? Is doing something repeatedly without reward, compulsively, a kind of potential attachment? Or does the Buddhist concept more so mean a pleasurable form of attachment?

Thank you

Kilesa has a residual impression which is called vāsanā which even arhats (other than the Buddha) have. Only a Buddha eliminates that. This is what drives habits. Many habits are reflexive and there no much thoughts of the intention behind it. If it is purely reflexive it does not have karmic consequences.

Initially, when you start doing something this is driven by craving. More you do it it becomes habitual. When it becomes habitual this might surface without craving.

If you think you are developing bad habits you should break them early. Deeply ingrained habits are difficult to break.


Anatta during meditation When doer and knower disappears is that the state where anatta found? Have reached the state experience of a mirage in appeared on doing work. Which  samadhi has involved?And mind  restlessness appeared when closer look at the restlessness it will disappears with samadhi.

You don't have to look for anatta. That's completely misunderstanding what anatta means. Anatta is a characteristic. Meaning every experience is anatta.
Look at experience (any experience) arise. You don't make it arise. That happens according to conditions. That is what anatta means.
Feelings, memories, hearing, thinking .... everything arises according to conditions. Whether you like it or not. You can't stop experience from arising.
That is what anatta means.

Don't try to reach stages. Don't try to gain anything. Just observe objectively.


Nature of True Cognition What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.

In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.

Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?

So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.

The true cognition in Buddhism is tautologically defined as directly knowing and seeing things as they are.

The explanation of this is threefold.

First, this means a mode of cognition without a contradiction, not prone to contradicting evidence.

Second, it means a mode of cognition which, when taken as a  basis for decision-making and action, does not lead to conflict or suffering, but to peace.

Third, it is cognition that is an extension of the ontological nature beyond words, beyond generalizations and concepts, beyond discrete representation.

This last point means, this cognition is so featureless that it may seem like there's none, and yet it is actually a lot more accurate than our naive crude models we take for the truth.


Drunk monks and the 5th precept I have heard that the 5th precept was not a core of Buddhism, it was created later by the Buddha after some monks returned drunk from alms because they had something with alcohol (accidently I believe)

My first question is: Is this story true?

Many Buddhist school claim that the problem with alcohol is that it can cloud the mind and make it easier for breaking the other (more important) precepts. Based on that some schools are ok with lay people drinking in moderation, with the commitment of not getting to a point of losing control of their acts or doing something they will regret.

So, is drinking with moderation (socially) breaking the 5th precept?

I believe this is the story you are referring to. It's a great story explaining the origin of the monks' rule to avoid alcohol. It also shows a bit of the Buddha's sense of humor.
This is from "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html

"The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquors is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 51; BMC p.402)
The origin-story concerns Ven. Saagata who conquered a fierce naaga — a type of serpent with magical powers — by his meditation-developed psychic powers. The townspeople heard about this feat and wanted to make some sort of offering to him, upon which the 'group-of-six' bhikkhus impudently suggested that they all should give him alcohol. When he arrived on his almsround every household offered alcohol and he finally collapsed, drunk, at the town gate and had to be carried back to the monastery. He was laid down in a stupor with his head towards the Buddha but in his drunkenness he turned around so that his feet pointed at the Buddha.[97] The Buddha called attention to his changed behavior, remarking that he certainly could not oppose "even a salamander" in such a state.
The Buddha also said:
"Bhikkhus,... there are these four stains because of which samanas and brahmans glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Drinking alcoholic beverages... indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting gold and money... obtaining requisites through a wrong mode of livelihood." (A.II,53) (AB)

Again, this explains the monks' rule regarding alcohol. Regarding laypeople and the 5th precept, I'm not sure I understand your meaning of the significance of something having been created "later by the Buddha". Perhaps a Buddhist scholar could identify the timeline of the 5 precepts; but my simple way of thinking of it is that they were created by the Buddha during his lifetime and whether it was in the first years of his teachings or the last; it was a valuable teaching to help lay people make their lives simpler (less suffering) by avoiding bad deeds. And avoiding alcohol is helpful for many people to stay mindful enough to observe the other 4 precepts.
Whether observing the 5th precept means avoiding even a drop of alcohol or just avoiding drunkenness or "heedlessness" by laypeople varies by tradition.


If I am not the skandhas, then what entity/group of entities am I being responsible for by being a good person? I'm look more for an epistemological Buddhist answer to this question.

If I am anatta (not self because composite) then who is the one responsible for his/her actions? Why am I still responsible for my karma? What is it that transmutes from life to life?
Who is the one making the choice?
Why is it even possible to do good (as opposed to fatalistically going along with things)?

How do you resolve this paradoxical quandary?

Edit:
To clarify the cause of my question, it was not mere metaphysical musings. I want to know more about the Director, the Leader, the Chooser because not only is it more conducive to proper behavior but actually because I want to more practically cultivate the specific aspect of Buddhism which indicates that we can direct our rebirths to a very high degree after death.
The answer to this question I believe is Awareness as Tibetan Buddhism would indicate where it is repetatively emphasized that we should cultivate so as to be aware throughout the death process and not startled by the manifestations. Thus, we can choose and direct our rebirth with clear functioning.

Buddhist concept of not self is always difficult to translate. It generally means:

There is no core or soul
You have no absolute control over your aggregates or the world at large

Also when you have the perception of self you have a yard stick which you use to measure other people, their actions, standing, wealth, etc. with respect to you. This creates misery. If you drop the yard stick then you get out of misery.

Having said this though there is no lasting entity as you there is a mind matter process. What ever you do becomes fabrications which at that point influence the process and also has a "loop back" at different times.


How do I deal with Aversion? I practice the Dhamma & I try hard to show loving-kindness, but I end up sometimes getting very mad at people or irritated.

I try Metta meditation, but is there anything else I can do to try and calm the poison of anger? I don't want to be snappy or hateful at times, people just cause me to arise my anger at times.

Metta & Appreciation!

well there is the 4 four divine abodes like you said, and beyond that, there is becoming an arhant.

For metta and the opposite, ie anger, ill will you can find out why you get angry towards somebody. Generally, people get angry at somebody or something because they care about a thing, then somebody does something and the angry person imagine that this action of this somebody will  threaten the thing he cares about.
Then the method is that you must determine if what you care about is indeed worth caring about. It runs out that puthujjanas care about bad things and do not care about good things. So that's probably a good start for improvement. So first see if you think that caring about the thing is good or bad, then see if the buddha says it is indeed good or bad.
If the buddha disagree with you, then you better follow him, rather than whatever false ideas  popping up in your mind.

so if you want something else than metta, you have to look at wisdom, ie panna, and with the buddha, the way to get wisdom is always the same, ie this
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.126.wood.pts.htm#p1

  Herein, monks, a certain person lives irradiating one quarter (of the
  world) with a heart possessed of amity; so also as to the second,
  third and fourth quarter of the world; and in like manner above,
  below, across, everywhere, for all sorts and conditions, he lives
  irradiating the whole world with a heart possessed of amity that is
  widespread, grown great and boundless, free from enmity and
  untroubled.

  There, whatsoever conditions arise by way of form, feeling,
  perception, the activities, consciousness, those conditions he comes
  to regard as impermanent, as Ill, as a disease, as an imposthume, as a
  barb, as pain, ill-health, alien, transitory, as empty and not of the
  self.

  When body breaks up after death he is reobrn in the company of the
  devas of the Pure Abodes.

  Monks, this rebirth is not partaken of by ordinary men.

Of course getting metta is hard for anybody clinging to sensuality, ie most people. So the beginning of that and more generally of ''mediation'', ie samadhi, is always to see thoughts as you see ''objects'' of the 5 usual senses, ie just things which come and go and do not get infatuated with ideas, thoughts, dreams, fantasies and all that.
Do not base your actions on thoughts. Base your actions, ie what you do and do not do, only on what the buddha says is wisdom. (since puthujjanas do not have any wisdom, they have to memorize what wisdom is, from the buddha , then cultivate it)

it turns out that the buddha says that there are good thoughts and there are bad thoughts.
First you must memorize what are good thoughts and what are bad thoughts, which is explained here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Second you must be judging all the time, all the thoughts which pop up in the mind. This is really hard for most people, only because people think that when they have an idea, they have to act on it, that their ideas, opinions, thoughts are always good, (and ideas of other people are mostly bad).

Third, you must judge a good thoughts as good thought and bad thought as bad thought . Some people do not even do that. for instance they say that thoughts of anger sometimes are good. THe buddha says thought so anger are always bad.

fourth, you must get rid of bad thoughts and keep only good thoughts. This is hard too as long as you see thoughts, opinions, ideas, dreams as important, as above.

Fifth, the way to get the citta in samadhi is actually to keep the good thoughts and then, with the faith in the buddha, you must manage to get piti, sukha, joy (ie that the things that the buddha calls good are indeed good, which is the way to tranquilize all the stuff that the buddha says is bad.

for instance, to calm the ''bodily formation'' you have to ''enter'' the 4th jhana

  "And how is a monk calmed in his bodily fabrication? [4] There is the
  case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with
  the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in
  the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure
  nor pain. This is how a monk is calmed in his bodily fabrication.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.020.than.html#fnt-1
Because the buddha says that  culturing  good thoughts and joy is actually the way to get the citta into samadhi.

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

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

  "For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.

  "For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.

  "For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.

  "For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

  "For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.

  "For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

now back to metta

first the buddha says that to avoid aversion, you have to cultivate ''Good will as an awareness-release''

  "[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen aversion does not arise, or arisen aversion is
  abandoned?'

  'Good will as an awareness-release,' it should be said.

  'For one who attends appropriately to good will as an
  awareness-release, unarisen aversion does not arise and arisen
  aversion is abandoned...'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/03_threes/an03.068.than.ati.htm#p1

but then there ''two kinds of view'' about metta. the view of the puthujjanas and of course the way better view of the non-puthujjanas because it is wisdom and not really a view,
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/04_fours/an04.125.than.ati.htm

  "There is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first
  direction[1] — as well as the second direction, the third, and the
  fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will.

  Thus he keeps pervading above, below, and all around, everywhere and
  in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued
  with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from
  hostility, free from ill will.

  He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that.

  Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away
  from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the
  devas of Brahma's retinue.

  The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon.

  A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the
  life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the
  state of the hungry shades.

  But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up
  all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of
  being.

  This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the
  distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones
  and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination,
  a reappearing.

Do not confuse the view of the puthujjanas with the wisdom about metta.

now concretely the good will is explained here
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/snp/snp.1-08.than.ati.htm

  Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure.

  Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever
  beings there may be,
      weak or strong, without exception,
      long, large,
      middling, short,
      subtle, blatant,
      seen and unseen,
      near and far,
      born and seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart.

  Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through
  anger or irritation wish for another to suffer.

  As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
  beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
  heart: Above, below, and all around, unobstructed, without enmity or
  hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down,
      as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here and now.

  Not taken with views, but virtuous and consummate in vision, having
  subdued desire for sensual pleasures,
      one never again
      will lie in the womb.


Can good and evil live in harmony? Presently I found an old steel bangle belonging to the sheik faith ...and I started to think of circle and unity how pleasent it would be to flow freely, and then I had the ephifany that this is possible except for the friction caused by opposites that have put a stop to  my flow.

Is it me or are we as yet not free from this cosmic and earthly struggle between contradictions ie good and evil //heat //cool ..night //day there seems to be a checker board pattern emerging to me . the  sessation of suffering according to my knowledge of Buddhism is to recognise the hindrances.

And rectify them in order to escape from the karma wheel of cause and effect .  so again .. Conflict if opposing ideas or suggestions would be suffering to me as well as all sentient beings in this case I'm yet again asking like many before me can there exist harmony amongst chaos ? Or good amongst evil both subjectively and objectively ....good - a small Daisy flower evil - this very flower will kill a person allergic to it!!

(this is less Buddhism than a demonstration that actions within the empirical world do not suit Essential concepts like 'good' and 'evil'.. though to me this flows from the Buddha's analysis!)

Moral system 1: Killing = Evil (100%).

You wake up and find yourself faced with two option (you are placed in this position by a third actor).

Option A, kill 1 person.

Option B, 100 people are killed (by that third actor).

Knowing that 'Killing = Evil', you choose option B (within that 100%, the non-relational, there can be no justification for choosing A).. In that you do not personally pull the trigger, you are not the 'efficient cause'. You have done no wrong (within your moral system).

Moral system 2: No killing > less killing > more killing.

Logically, B is never reasonable.

An essential moral construct like 'good' or 'evil' will agree with a relational moral construct in all scenarios, other than the one where it is compared to itself. As such, it is simply inefficient. No need for opposites in their essential form!

"Treat this as this, not this as that or that as this" As the Buddha said. (in other words, not 'This=This'.. given evidence from empirical experience, the law of identity is flawed!)

Now how this fits in within the Buddhist world view, whether you can put it down to past karma for finding yourself in such a position.. how to square that you are damned either way is the more interesting question! :D


How do I reconcile the Dhamma Refuge with blind faith? I read in Wikipedia and also in the suttas that refuge in Dhamma is "verified", as follows:

  Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko
  paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti.

  "Svakkhato" The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is Excellent in the
  beginning, Excellent in the middle and Excellent in the end - all of
  Buddha's Discourses are consistent and teach the same truth.
  "Sanditthika" Dhamma is self-evident and can be understood in this
  life itself. "Akaliko" Dhamma, Noble Truths, can not be changed nor
  can they be altered over time. "Ehipassiko" "come and see"; Buddha's
  Dhamma is to be investigated. "Opanayika" Dhamma can only be
  understood by oneself. "Paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti" Dhamma is for
  the wise to understand and realize.

  The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very
  life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.

  svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti.

Can I believe in things I have not verified for myself but still be a Buddhist?

Do the words "veditabbo viññūhīti" refer to direct experience? Or can it be merely  fluency in theories?

One can be a Buddhist:

one believes in what is consistent with the teaching

verified by oneself
unverified but believed due to the confidence in the teaching

If one believes what is consistent even it is unverified there is no harm.


How do you trade a career for a life geared toward becoming awakened? I am a sales person according to my profession. I skip working and wander all over the unknown places, everyday. I just love doing that. But now that I am understanding Buddhist philosophy and am able to relate it to my real world, I am feeling the urge to be awakened. How can I do that with this modern world and its demands upon me?

I'd recommend reading the book "Dipa Ma: The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master" by Amy Schmidt. It's a very good illustration of how one can pursue the Buddhist path to a very significant degree, including coming through significant personal tragedy, and still be immersed in the day to day challenges of the world.


Is Buddhism a religion without God? In a recent article titled "America’s New Religions
" which is concerned with political fundamentalism, the respected American journalist Andrew Sullivan  makes a passing remark that "Buddhism’s genius is that it is a religion without God". How appropriate is that statement?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html

I think it's more a comment about other religions than about Buddhism, i.e. it's saying that:

Some people find other religions unsatisfactory
Part of that dissatisfaction is with religions' doctrines about God

As an aside I think that some of the same people may disparage, resist, or ignore elements of Buddhism which say seem supernatural or requiring faith, including e.g. rebirth, karma, psychic powers, other realms.

Some people find a lack of religion unsatisfactory too, e.g.  that might imply immorality or what people disparage as moral relativism, and various other missing doctrines.

Conversely I don't think it's especially Buddhism's being without God that is its genius -- I think it's its being beneficial, practical, perhaps humanistic, offering hope, and so on.

Actually maybe "hope" isn't a standard Buddhist doctrine (i.e. "faith, hope, and charity" are overtly Christian, rather, and part of Buddhism may be to lose unwarranted hope in the wrong sort of thing, to become disenchanted) -- instead Buddhism might say something more like this about its own doctrine, i.e. that it is "visible in this life", "timeless", "conducive (to the cessation of suffering)", and "for the wise to know for themselves".

Of course that's not the only thing that Buddhism (e.g the Buddha) says about the Dhamma, e.g. another formula (i.e. description of it) is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end" (see also e.g. this answer).


Can the Buddha ever be a woman? Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this?

To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am not asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

In the (translated into English) Pali text that I have, there's a section titled "The Admission of Women to the Order" within a chapter titled "Stability of Societies". This section describes Ananda's asking the Buddha whether Maha-Pajapati could join the order.

When Ananda asks for the third time, he asks,

  "Lord, are women capable, after going forth from the home unto the homeless life under the Norm-Discipline set forth by the Tathagata, -- are they capable of realizing the Fruit of Stream-winning, of Once-returning, of Never-returning, of Arahantship?

And the Buddha's reply to that question,

  "Women are capable ... of doing so, Ananda."

(Which is why and how Ananda persuaded the Buddha to allow women to be ordained.)

FYI I did a Google search for Bahudhātuka Sutta -- because that seems to be the one/only basis on which other answers claim that a woman's being a Buddha is impossible.

The first search result is this paper, The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels
On Women’s Inabilities.

The Abstract for this paper says,

  The present article offers a comparative study of the
  Bahudhātuka-sutta, based on a translation of one of its parallels
  found in the Madhyama-āgama preserved in Chinese translation.
  The study focuses in particular on the dictum that a woman cannot
   be a Buddha, which is absent from the Madhyama-āgama version.

Its conclusions is (page 166),

  the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society

and (page 166)

  This tendency can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where -- as far as the texts allow us to judge -- gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.

and (page 185)

  Kajiyama (58) concludes that, regarding the listing of inabilities of
  women, “it is most likely that the dictum did not exist when the Buddhist
  Order maintained one and the same tradition, but that it was created
  after the Order was divided into many schools and was inserted into
  sūtras of various schools.” However, the suggestion by Kajiyama (70) that
  “the dictum that a woman is incapable of becoming a Buddha arose
  probably in the first century B.C.” may be putting things at too late a
  time.

The arguments for why is this is a late addition start in the section titled Comparison of the Parallel Versions of the Bahudhātuka Bahudhātuka-sutta on page 151 and can be summarized as:

Evidence that other parts were added:

"Aggregates" seems to be new
Items were added to the "elements" topic

Therefore it's possible that an item (the item regarding women) was added to the "impossibilities" section.
The difference between versions could be explained as a later addition (into some versions), or as a later loss (from the other versions); but an addition is more likely.
There are various other differences in the "impossibilities" section.
The "impossibilities for women" doesn't exist in all versions
In the versions which do include the "impossibilities for women" section, there are differences between versions.
Buddha's being a woman, or low-caste, would be incompatible with contemporary society (because they wouldn't be respected when alive), which was the reason for the argument that a woman would have to be reborn as a man before she could be the Buddha
Some versions (not the Pali) say that a woman cannot even be a Paccekabuddha, which is proof that more and more degradation of women's abilities were added over time. (page 164)
It's therefore significant that one of the versions doesn't mention it at all (i.e. it implies that it wasn't original)
The addition doesn't fit, wasn't useful in the context of other information which was intended to be practical (page 166)

Maybe could better link the transition of the context? (from arahantship being possible to women, to the question at hand)

I think you're asking why my first quote (the Buddha's reply to Ananda's question, which was about "Arahantship") is relevant to this question, which is about the Buddha.

The paper I linked to above says that, at that time, no-one had the ambition of becoming the future Buddha: perhaps Arahant was synonymous with the highest feasible spiritual attainment, and that women were able no less than men to achieve it (page 163):

  Here it needs also to be taken into account that the presentation
  in the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels still stems from a period in the
  development of Buddhist thought when the idea of aspiring to Buddhahood
   had not yet become a general option. As pointed out by Kajiyama
  (64), “the dictum that a woman cannot become a Buddha ... did not have
  a target to which it could have been directed,” since at that time “no
  one, neither man nor woman, aspired to Buddhahood.”53 In sum, then,
  the inability of a woman to assume the position of a ruler on earth, a ruler
  in various heavenly realms, or a ruler in the field of Dharma reflects
  leadership conceptions in ancient India.

The footnote says,

  53 Romberg (164) notes that once “the aim was no longer to become an
  Arhat, but to become Buddha ... this shift made, in fact, the situation for
  women worse, because a doctrinal foundation was laid for the necessity
  of changing the sex before being able to become enlightened.” In fact the
  Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that a woman will not realize the awakening of
  a Buddha because already an advanced bodhisattva has left behind womanhood
  for good and will not be reborn again as a female, Wogihara
  (94,3): na ca strī anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyate. tat kasya
  hetoḥ? tathā hi bodhisattvaḥ prathamasyaiva kalpāsaṃkhyeyasyātyayāt strībhāvaṃ vijahāti bodhimaṇḍaniṣadanam upādāya na punar jātu strī bhavati; cf.
  also Paul (212 note 7). Harrison (78) concludes that “women ... are generally represented in such an unfavourable light as to vitiate any notion of
  the Mahāyāna as a movement for sexual equality. Compared with the
  situation in the Pāli Canon, in which women are at least as capable as
  men of attaining the highest goal, arhatship, the position of women in
  Mahāyāna has hardly changed for the better.”


Is there a pali term for "natural concentration"? In the book, "Handbook for mankind" Buddhadhasa Bikkhu describes two types of concentration:

One "as a result of organized practice", which he refers to as vipassana-dhura, and is mentioned in post-tipitaka commentaries.
One that "come about naturally".

In the text, there are no pali words given for the latter, and the only reference given is that it is described in the Tipitaka.

My questions are,

Is there a name in pali for the latter type?
Are there specific descriptions of the second type of concentration somewhere in the tipitaka or elsewhere?

(Please note that i'm not asking for the correctness, efficacy, or other evaluations of the statements above. This is primarily a reference request).

I used to study Ajahn Buddhadasa very comprehensively. However, Handbook For Mankind was a book I was never partial towards. While it contains many basic teachings, I always found the verbal style of delivery difficult or abrasive to read. However, merely browsing and offering an answer:

The book is from 1956 lectures the Venerable Buddhadasa Bhikkhu gave to a group of prospective judges. Therefore, the two chapters on meditation are addressed to laypeople.
The chapter on "Nature Method" concludes: "Summing up, natural concentration and insight, which enable a person to attain the Path and the Fruit, consist in verifying all day and every day the truth of the statement that nothing is worth getting or being."
The statement: "nothing is worth getting or being" essentially comes from MN 37. It is a statement of Right Understanding: Samma Ditthi.
In his book Heartwood From The Bo Tree, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said about concentration: "As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi."
To conclude, the teachings above by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa accord with the following sutta teachings about samadhi:

sattahaṅgehi cittassa ekaggatā parikkhatā sammādiṭṭhi pubbaṅgamā: mind with single intent equipped with seven factors in use where right view is the leader (MN 117)
samādhindriyaṃ vossaggārammaṇaṃ: faculty of concentration reliant upon letting go (SN 48.10)
samādhisambojjhaṅgaṃ vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ: concentration factor of enlightenment that relies on solitude, dispassion & cessation maturing as letting go (MN 118).

In summary, "natural concentration" means "concentration without craving".


Tikapatthana in English I am looking for a proper translation of the Tikapatthana into English which might be available online as a PDF.

Is it possible to point me to such reference. I am looking for the complete set.

Have a look on that.
Might be a first step.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=7990

Much Metta.
Thierry


Did the Buddha have advice about dealing with social anxiety? Does anyone know if the Buddha said anything about social anxiety and how to deal with it?

I believe social anxiety is common in our day and age because people are more isolated now, but may not have been as common in the time of the Buddha. So if there is nothing specifically about social anxiety, can you provide info on what the Buddha said about dealing with anxiety (in general)

(Also as a related question: Is anxiety considered a mild form of fear or are they separate in the Buddhist teachings?)

Please provide sources if you can, thanks!

Anxiety from loneliness is overcome with concentration; with developing calmness.

Anxiety from worries about social conformity is overcome with clearly understanding of right & wrong, i.e. morality.

The Dhammapada says, for example:

  Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false
  views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.


Don't Arahats know Buddha? While reading Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices, I found Bodhidharma telling Arhats ain't enlightened.

  Among Shakyamuni's ten greatest disciples, Ananda was
  foremost in learning. But he didn't know the Buddha. All he did
  was study and memorize. Arhats don't know the Buddha. All
  they know are so many practices for realization, and they become
  trapped by cause and effect. Such is a mortal's karma: no escape
  from birth and death. By doing the opposite of what he intended,
  such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be
  wrong. The sutras say, "Since icchantikas45 are incapable of belief,
  killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach
  the state of buddhahood."

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?

Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?
I don't know about Bodhidharma or Zen, specifically, but I think that is inline with what you can read in or about some other "Mahayana" doctrines  e.g. Wikipedia -- Arhat:

Arhat is defined in Theravada Buddhism as one who has gained insight into the true nature of existence and has achieved nirvana. Other Buddhist traditions have used the term for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.
The understanding of the concept has changed over the centuries, and varies between different schools of Buddhism and different regions. A range of views on the attainment of arhats existed in the early Buddhist schools. The Sarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, and Caitika schools all regarded arhats as imperfect in their attainments compared to buddhas.
Mahayana Buddhist teachings urge followers to take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. The arhats, or at least the senior arhats, came to be widely regarded[by whom?] as "moving beyond the state of personal freedom to join the Bodhisattva enterprise in their own way".

See also e.g. Śrāvaka -- Mahāyāna view:

In Mahayana Buddhism, śrāvakas or arhats are sometimes contrasted negatively with bodhisattvas.
In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvakayāna. These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation. Those in the Pratyekabuddhayāna are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment. Finally, those in the Mahāyāna "Great Vehicle" are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.


Ultimate reality and tilakkhana Is it correct to say that the tilakkhana (anicca, dukkha, anatta) is ultimate reality?

Tilakkhana is Pali for "three lakṣaṇa". "Lakshana" means indication, symptom, attribute, feature, omen, that by which a thing is recognized.

Anicca, dukkha, anatta are the three aspects of all dharmas or all phenomena. Dharmas have many different attributes or qualities, but these three are the subset of qualities that helps us let go of our simplified assumptions about dharmas and to realize their true mode of existence aka "ultimate reality".

The way dharmas really exist does not come in three pieces. Anicca is not separate from dukkha is not separate from anatta. Instead, the ultimate reality is this fluid stuff. We, being equal parts naive and fearless, try to describe this stuff in terms of distinct dharmas, but every time we create these distinctions they are inaccurate, unreliable, and unstable - and that's what trilakshana refers to.

So it would be more accurate to say that trilakshana is a characterization of our description of reality than something that applies to reality itself.

In other words, trilakshana is Samsara we overlay on top of Nirvana - not Nirvana itself which is free of the three marks.


Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the" Wikipedia uses "the Buddha" to refer to the founder while a book uses "Buddha" without the definite article.

from "Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho"
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"? If yes, when should I use which?

I think "the" Buddha is more normal and more formal.
Without "the" sounds to me more casual -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as several languages don't use articles.
If you think of the word "Buddha" as being a title like "Teacher", well in formal English you'd usually include the article and say something like, "The Teacher said, ...".
It's not incorrect, perhaps a bit familiar, to say something like, "Teacher said, ...".
Also "Buddha" without an article would be right if "Buddha" were a proper noun, i.e. a name -- but I think it's more like a title or a common noun (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about is Gautama Buddha).


If i am the result of an aggregate, how does one refer to oneself? It is my understanding that illusion, reality, rebirth and reincarnation are a result of the aggregates i.e. vision, taste, sound, emotions, smell and mind. - Source

If one is am simply a composition of these aggregates, how does one refer to oneself in everyday conversation? For example, when using the term i, in sentences such as i am ..

The reason for the question is to step away from being attached to one's identity which is generally reflected in i.

Short Answer: Use "I" like you always did, but be mindful of what it does (and doesn't) refer to.

Longer Answer:

It isn't that "I" doesn't exist; rather, it doesn't exist in the way we normally think it does.  "I" does not denote a stable, independent entity that is "us".

However, "I" does exist in another sense; it's Conventionally Real. For instance, imagine you are with friends and you say something.  Then someone asks "Who said that?". How will you respond?  Will you say...

The Skhandas did?
Talking is happening?
This biological unit has spoken?

I hope not! You can respond with "I did", because that is the correct response.  After all, the other people didn't say that; if they didn't say that, then who did?  Further, if you talk about other people normally, but talk oddly about yourself, then aren't you still clinging to yourself, by holding yourself out as something different than what's around you?  Clinging is clinging; it doesn't magically stop being clinging because you clung to something different.

The issue isn't using "I", but your beliefs about it. Although language can affect thought, changing your words won't necessarily address the problem.  It's the thoughts and feelings behind those words that matter.

Words are meant to be used publicly, and as such, conventional rules regarding them should be observed if they are to be used effectively.  However, be mindful of those words; gauge the impact of certain words on your mind. When you say "I" are you really just being conventionally real, or is there a trace of clinging to self when those words leave your lips?  What feelings arise from using "I" when you are criticized or praised or threatened?

If you talk funny, you won't gain enlightenment; you'll just lose the ability to coherently communicate.


What to do when a thought comes up while meditating From the meditation podcasts I have heard when a thought comes up acknowledge it by saying "thinking" and then try to gently return back to your breath.

There is something else I tried experimentally. In this case I was not noticing my breath, but was noticing my thoughts. I did this by asking, "what's the next thought" and tried to observe my thoughts mindfully. Obviously more thoughts arose, but it felt like I was still practicing mindfulness. And it seems easier to do this type of mindfulness while in an environment with a lot of distractions. (Walking, running, etc.)

I wanted to know if it is ok to do this?

Also, are there other methods for handling my thoughts?

It is important to understand what is meant by 'right view' (samma ditti) which covers the origination of thoughts, the causal arising of thoughts, and the non-self nature of thoughts and the entire thinking apparatus.

This understanding will help one to be mindful of the arising and passing away of thoughts during meditation without identifying with them. The default view that a thought is mine, created by myself naturally causes one to pursue them. While the right view of the true nature of thoughts eventually leads one to be unbounded from thinking.


Where can I do a long retreat? Could different people here recommend places I can do long retreats (in 2 months for example)?

I wanted to do a retreat in the style of meditation I do right now: Mahasi Sayadaw following Ven. Ajhan Tong sirimangalo technique -- where you do mindful prostrations, then walking and sitting while using labeling.

But they only agree for 10 days, and at the end of 10 days they tell you whether you can stay for another 10 days.

So I'm looking for a place to go do a long retreat, of say 2 months -- it can be in different technique even  (say even only metta for example) , that isn't close to it.

You can try the Kanduboda Meditation Center which teachers Mahasi Meditation. You have to inquire before hand about the length of your stay.

Also you can try Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya. Again double check the particular days. This teachers both Mahasi and Pa Auk methods under Most Venerable UdaEriyagama Dhammajiva Maha Thero

Also there are centres in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thai Land and Malaysia which you can try.

Also see: Meditation Centres in Sri Lanka by Andrew Quernmore

Also you might try to use World Buddhist Directory.

Also Goenka Centres does have long retreats if you fulfill some conditions:

  10-day Courses for Old Students have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. These courses are open to serious old students who have completed at least three 10-day courses and one Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta course, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, are trying to maintain the five precepts in their daily lives, and trying to maintain daily practice.

  Special 10-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  20-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses , one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  30-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of six 10-day courses (one since their first 20-day course), one 20-day course, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  45-day Courses are open only to persons involved in Dhamma Service and Assistant Teachers who have completed a minimum of seven 10-day courses (one since their first 30-day course), two 30-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least three years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  60-day Courses are open only to active Teachers and Assistant teachers who have completed two 45 Day courses and conduct at least 4 courses annually.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  Satipatthana Sutta Courses have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. The difference is that in the taped evening discourses the Satipatthana Sutta is carefully examined. This is the principal text in which the technique of Vipassana is systematically explained. These courses are open to serious old students who have sat (not including courses served) at least three 10-day courses, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, and who are trying to maintain their meditation practice and the five precepts in their daily lives, at the very minimum from the time of applying to the course.

  Old Student Short Courses (1-3 days) are for any student who has completed the 10-day course with S.N. Goenka and his assistant teachers. All old students are welcome to apply to attend these courses, including those where it has been some time since their last course.

Source: https://www.dhamma.org/en/schedules/schtapovana


Did the Buddha ever say something proven wrong later? Is there any teaching of the Buddha one can say has been proven wrong, any statement about the universe, the world, the future or the past maybe?

The Buddha's Dhamma is Universal Law of Nature, open for scientific examination, timeless, when practiced lets you to understand the ultimate realities and is something that can be realised at the experiential level.

There can be issues with the different interpretations after 2500+ years and some may be miss specified in transmission, and some sayings may be even later compositions incorrectly attributed to the Buddha.

But having said this there cannot be anything which the Buddha said which can be wrong since what he taught is (according to him) what he experienced directly which can also be experienced by any body by practicing the well laid out path.

Ultimately what you should believe is what you experience for your self within the framework of the body. This is what you should take as the teaching of the Buddha, as he has emphasised.

The 6 qualities of the Dhamma in detail:

  Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed" or "self-announced"). The Buddha's teaching is not a speculative philosophy but an exposition of the Universal Law of Nature based on a causal analysis of natural phenomena. It is taught, therefore, as a science[11] rather than a sectarian belief system. Full comprehension (enlightenment) of the teaching may take varying lengths of time but Buddhists traditionally say that the course of study is 'excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end' (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom).

  Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dharma is open to scientific and other types of scrutiny and is not based on faith.[12] It can be tested by personal practice and one who follows it will see the result for oneself by means of one's own experience. Sandiṭṭhiko comes from the word sandiṭṭhika which means visible in this world and is derived from the word sandiṭṭhi-. Since Dhamma is visible, it can be "seen": known and be experienced within one's life.

  Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "timeless, immediate"). The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now. There is no need to wait for the future or a next existence. The dhamma does not change over time and it is not relative to time.
  Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" — from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma invites all beings to put it to the test and come see for themselves.

  Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). Followed as a part of one's life the dhamma leads one to liberation. In the "Vishuddhimagga" this is also referred to as "Upanayanam." Opanayiko means "to be brought inside oneself". This can be understood with an analogy as follows. If one says a ripe mango tastes delicious, and if several people listen and come to believe it, they would imagine the taste of the mango according to their previous experiences of other delicious mangoes. Yet, they will still not really know exactly how this mango tastes. Also, if there is a person who has never tasted a ripe mango before, that person has no way of knowing exactly for himself how it tastes. So, the only way to know the exact taste is to experience it. In the same way, dhamma is said to be Opanayiko which means that a person needs to experience it within to see exactly what it is.

  Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be meant to perceive directly"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Buddha) who have matured in supreme wisdom. No one can "enlighten" another person. Each intelligent person has to attain and experience for themselves. As an analogy, no one can simply make another know how to swim. Each person individually has to learn how to swim. In the same way, dhamma cannot be transferred or bestowed upon someone. Each one has to know for themselves.

Sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)


How does the practice of Buddhism look at preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions? Often in conversation or interaction, one may have preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions.

For example, since humans are creatures of habit and over time, one may have recognized a pattern of behaviour with a particular group of people or person, how does the practice of Buddhism approach this?

How does the practice of Buddhism look at preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions?

Preconceived ideas, assumptions, notions and habits are what we try to understand and do away with in Buddhism.

Through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path we come to understand the Four Noble Truths. We gain Samma Ditthi - Right View, i.e. the understanding of the four noble truths and the true nature of reality.

When practicing insight meditation one is observing ones mind with detachment, objectivity, non-judgement and non-interfering. That allows the mental and physical phenomena to show themselves, to reveal there true nature. They are allowed to "speak" for themselves without us extrapolating on them.

When not being mindful and not guarding the sense doors, the third and fifth aggregate, i.e. Sanna and Vinyana creates misconceptions and extrapolates on phenomena.

Paticca Sammupada - The doctrine of dependent origination shows how our misconceptions of reality arise. How we begin to like or dislike phenomena because we have wrong view. We think phenomena are permanent, satisfying and controllable and therefore we want them, we cling to them or we dont want them and try to get away from them.

When guarding the sense doors one is not falling into delusion. Instead one is seeing reality for what it is, i.e. the 3 signs of existence: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta.

When one is practicing insight meditation one sees for oneself how conditioned habits, ideas and notions arise. Things that have been build up over a long period of time. In a way we learn to "unlearn". When practicing this path we shed our delusional shell. We do away with illusions about reality. Things go from complex to very simple.

When practice gets more advanced one begins to see non-self, i.e. that phenomena are uncontrollable, ungovernable and thereby oppressing. One sees that there is no substantiality, no inner-core, no permanent self, no experiencing entity. Instead one sees that there is only phenomena arising and ceasing and mind arising to these phenomena. Thats all there is.

Preconceived ideas, assumptions and notions are conditioned and a product of having wrong view. It's like a scientist having a theory about gravity. When he is only intellectually interacting with the theory he will have no real point of reference and therefore he does not know whether or not his theory is correct.
He then decides to test his theory on reality and then finds out that his theory was not correct. He then got a point of reference. He has done away with wrong view and have now seen reality.

This is example is not the best one but i hope it gives an idea of what we are talking about here. Before practicing insight meditation one might believe that conditioned phenomena will make one happy. After having practiced insight meditation and gotten some insight into how reality functions and one has seen that phenomena are impermanent one come to the conclusion that conditioned phenomena are not lasting and therefore not satisfying. One has then achieved a greater deal of Right View.

So to sum up. Preconceived ideas, habits, notions and assumptions cannot help us if they are blocking us from seeing the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality will reveal itself when practicing insight meditation and being mindful of phenomena. Then we come to develop right view and naturally wrong views fall away.


Can bad karma be created and paid back in the same lifetime My father was mentally very unwell. As a result my mother worked to support her children. We grew up embarrassed by my fathers behaviours and effectively excluded him from our lives even though he still lived in the house with us. To be fair though, he was not capable of interacting, mostly staying shut in his room during the day, and living nocturnally.  My mother who was a very kind person found solace by having a relationship with a married man whilst my father was at home . On leaving home, marrying and having my own children, I became reflective and angry and confused so for a short while I cut my mother out of our lives. Now, my own children grown, have done the same to me. Am I witnessing Karma in action? Does Karma that’s played out in the same lifetime mean that you won’t have to carry the consequences into you next lifetime? I see so many examples of direct cause and effect in my own life that I hope that if I deal mindfully with my feelings as a result, that I am paying Karmic debt now .. not in future reincarnations. Is this possible?

Sue. While I am not suggesting you write an auto-biography, your post is lacking in information. However, making assumptions based on what you wrote and offering mere speculative examples based on what you wrote:

Your mother was probably lonely and without support.
Having an affair with a married man was possibly a way to have a relationship or gain some companionship and physical affection without the perceived threat of a committed relationship that impinged upon her family and a duty of care she felt she had towards her disabled husband.
If you cut your mother out of your life because she had a affair with a married man, this can be perceived as both reasonable and unreasonable.
HOWEVER, IMPORTANTLY, you should list or define (to yourself) the reasons why you cut your mother out of your life because these are the actual causes of why you cut your mother out of your life.
You should then list or define the reasons (to yourself) why your own children cut you out of their life.
These reasons could be related to the mental attitude you had for cutting your mother out of your life; such as you having a lack of forgiveness, a lack of tolerance, being demanding, having a lack of understanding, being morally overzealous, etc.
Or the reasons for your children's decision could be due to their own unwholesme mental attitudes.
The point is the reasons & causes are either your mental tendencies, your children's mental tendencies or a combination of both.
Buddhism teaches various mental attitudes & behaviours are either: (i) wholesome; or (ii) unwholesome.
If you get angry a lot or criticise a lot, this can be unwholesome. Therefore, others may reject or avoid you for this.
In summary, its all about current attitudes, habitual tendencies & behaviours rather than past & future lives.
Therefore, if you have habitual unwholesome qualities that are not changed; the same rejection from others may occur in the future.


Benefits of five precepts I believe in karma and rebirth but I don’t understand one thing. How does five precepts give you merits? Isn’t it only preventing bad karma? If you don’t kill any living beings or don’t steal anything then how do you get merits when you are not doing anything. You are only preventing bad karma.

Actually abstaining from breaking the precepts does a lot more than just passive non-doing. By asbstaining from killing, one's given a great gift to many others: the freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction:

  "“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness." ~~ AN 8.39 ~~


Why does insight lead to to compassion? Am I correct in asserting that an increasing level of insight into the true nature of things leads to compassion. Or to put it another way insight is a condition for compassion. From my reading it seems that that is true and the more one practices the more one experiences compassion for other beings.

Assuming that is true, how does that occur? It has never been obvious to me how insight and compassion are connected. Or am I wrong and they are not connected at all and they are different aspects to the Buddhist path that are developed separately.

When one gains insight into how reality functions, i.e. the 3 signs of existence and one experiences how mental and physical phenomena are unsatisfactory and suffering then one gains a great deal of compassion for other beings.

One realizes that all other beings in conditioned existence is "suffering" from the same illness and that the Buddhas medicine can be applied for everyone to gain emancipation.

When one experiences that reality is oppressive and concealed Dukkha and one sees other beings who has not gotten these insights, then great and deep compassion arises because one understands that everyone is in the same boat. Especially when seeing other beings trying to achieve happiness by clinging to phenomena that will slip away and become dukkha a profound level of compassion arises.


Meditating as sleep aid Every book that I have read about Buddhism and medititation says that, as meditation cultivates concentration and awareness, one should never fall asleep while doing it.

So, what about when I cannot sleep? Can't I meditate to help me sleep, or only before I go to bed?

(I mostly practice Vipassana meditation)

Yes Meditation can help you sleep...
There is a meditation called "Meththa" also known as the "Loving kindness Meditation". This Meditation is very helpful to the daily life as well as the path. It can help you sleep better, But Let me provide the details....
The profits of doing "Meththa" (Loving kindness Meditation) as to Lord Buddha

Not seeing bad dreams
Calmly falling into sleep
calmly waking up
Friendly attitude from other beings like Devas (gods),demons,spirits & animals
Loosing enemies and gaining friendly's
Being born in higher realms after death (Deva realm,Brahma realm)
and many more....
Here's a link to learn more to learn more.

So if you have trouble sleeping this is your answer, Let me provide a Audio link so you could learn and practice. We all do it and it is very easy to learn.
Loving Kindness Meditation - Click to open


Mindfulness with medications and difficult situations With certain antihistamines I get very drowsy and confuse.
I seem to get clingy in these sensations and then when I’m aware of the clinginess, I try to detach the sensations. I just somehow do the opposite of detaching by forcing the detaching and hook up with mind talk.
How to keep mindfulness in these situation? And how to be mindful in difficult situations in general?
What would be the Buddhism direction  on these situation?

Antihistamines have side effects that can include drowsiness or restlessness.
Drowsiness is tough to conquer. Venerable Moggallāna struggled with that a lot even though it was not from antihistamines. Perhaps the longest sutta on drowsiness is AN7.61, which has a list of many things to try:

AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.

Discuss your medication with a doctor. Treatments very tremendously between individuals. For example, my allergies were gone after I became a vegetarian. And meditation itself helped:

MN62:5.3: “Rāhula, develop mindfulness of breathing. When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial.”

In general, whatever you experience, the Buddha's advice to Rahula may help detaching:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”


Kamma and (psychiatric) delusions / madness if I am mad and my action would not have been performed if not for loss of reality (i.e. psychosis) will I still bear its -ve fruit?

As a Buddhist or otherwise.

Please answer sensitively :)

"The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma"

You have to look at the action (good or bad) and the  consequence( Kamma & vipaka). whether one has a sound mind or unsound mind doesn't matter, without intention there is no action.

Even a person suffering from psychosis uses his mind to do things,  so without thoughts nothing good or bad  happens( the thoughts may be abnormal,incomplete,unclear or confusing)  ,but a person with psychosis may not feel the consequences like a normal person ,so the magnitude of suffering may differ for the same actions committed by different people.


Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics? Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding).
Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong?
Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).

You're going to find two schools of thought on this:

Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding
Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward

Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings will fade away, and they will be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.
Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we create through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead beyond the teaching to bone-deep understanding.
Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to learn, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to see: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.


Era in which the past Buddhas appeared Does anyone know in which era each of the first 27 Buddhas appeared?  I know the 28th Buddha's lifetime is generally accepted to be circa 563 BC to 483 BC.

Gautama Buddha, the traditional Buddha is thought to have lived towards the end of the 5th century BC, about 480-400 BC. This date is the scholarly consensus. Traditional groups accept other dates, and there are a number of these.

The previous Buddhas are a myth. By which I mean that no one thinks that they actually lived. The previous Buddhas were probably an invention along the lines of the Jain myth of the Jinas. The Buddha's mentioned in the Pāḷi Canon lived in the universes that preceded this one - an incalculably long time ago. This is based on the idea that the universe goes through cycles of creation, evolution, devolution and destruction over incredibly long periods of time (much longer than scientists give for the present age of our universe).


How should one teach the Dhamma to others? Answering questions here in buddhism.stackexchange.com is often Dhamma teaching, or at least an effort of it. How can that be rightly done?

I think most of the people contributing on Buddhism.SE do not qualify to call themselves Dhamma teachers. Their answers also cannot be considered a Dhamma teaching.
The following is a better approximation, from Mahāgosiṅga Sutta (MN 32):

“Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion
about the teaching. They question each other and answer each other’s
questions without faltering, and their discussion on the teaching
flows on. That’s the kind of mendicant who would beautify this park.”

As a side note - a question arose in the comments whether the MN 32 quote should be translated as "about the teaching / Dhamma" (Sujato translation) or "on the higher Dhamma (Abhidhamma)" (Bodhi translation).
The following opinion by Bhikkhu Analayo supports the Sujato translation.
From pages 70 - 71 of the book "The Dawn of Abhidharma" by Bhikkhu Analayo:

In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel the reference to “abhidharma  talk”  or  to  discussing  the “abhidharma”
occurs alongside “Dharma talk” or “teaching the Dharma”. This gives
the impression that the two terms Dharma and abhidharma are here
interchangeable. In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta,  the  prefix abhi- would
thus  convey the  sense  of “about”  or “concerning” the Dharma. The
passage  would then describe having a talk “about the Dharma” and
discussing “about the Dharma”, abhidharma.49
The notion that the prefix abhi- conveys a sense of superiority appears to reflect a later understanding of the implications of the
term. In line with later understanding, the commentary on the
Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Atthasālinī, refers to the present passage in
support of the authenticity of the Abhidharma-piṭaka as the Buddha’s
word.50
A discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya describes a group of elder monks seated together “talking abhidharma talk”.51 In this
case the Madhyama-āgama parallel does not employ the term abhidharma
at all, but rather describes that these monks were “wanting to settle
a matter of dispute, namely  to  discuss  what  is  Dharma  and
Vinaya,  what is the  Buddha’s teaching”.52 This case would
be in line with the impression that abhidharma talk can simply stand
for talk about the Dharma.