Relationships with fools: Interpreting the Dhammapada Dhammapada Verse 61: If a person seeking a companion cannot find one who is better than or equal to him, let him resolutely go on alone; there can be no companionship with a fool.

This is obviously self preserving pragmatism of the Aesop's Fables variety, it doesn't require a Buddha to say this, so perhaps there is a deeper meaning I don't spot.

Besides, I spot a couple of problems.

One: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion.

Two: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order.

The accompanying story of the Thera who blindly trusts his disciples is a little too simplistic, how is it that a senior teacher (Thera) needed to be schooled on such a trivial principle of common sense?

If someone is obviously lazy and scheming, even treacherous, he or she should not be trusted. Did the Thera get undermined by a false sense of duty or compassion?

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku. The verse should be understood properly:

The bad and good bhikkhus were searching for companionship.

They found companionship with Thera.

The bad bhikkhu did not respect Thera, was not obedient and dutiful and was offended and extremely angry when Thera said something to him. Why? Because he thought that Thera was not better or equal to him. Thus, the bad bhikkhu choose a wrong companion. He should have let Thera go on alone and find a companion who is equal or better than him. There can be no companionship with a fool.

The good bhikku was respectful, obedient and dutiful. Why? Because he thought that Thera was equal or better than him. Thus, the good bhikku choose the right companion. He was not in a companionship with a fool.

  One: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion.

This rule can apply and not be broken. If a man and a woman are seeking a relationship and they both think about each other as being equal or superior to the other, the relationship/companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as one will think about the other being a fool, or both will think about each other being a fool.

If a bhikku is seeking a companionship with a teacher and the bhikku thinks about the teacher being equal or superior to him, the companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as the bhikku will think about the teacher being a fool.

  Two: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order.

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku, not from the point of view of Thera/teacher.

If we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha would never have taught the Dhamma to people obviously inferior to him, or less developed than him.
Or if we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha is contradicting himself. But he is not, which can be clearly seen by his actions - he thought the Dhamma, even to fools.


Dealing with colleagues who hate me after mistake Im in the process of trying to 'wake up' I made a grievous error with a colleague recently. I sent a nasty email about something she was involved in. I was trying to manipulate her-even perhaps bully her with my views

I was drinking a lot at the time.
I have since realized the error of trying to control anybody or not to take the views of others to heart. I have realized my error after reading various guides to Buddhism.
I have offered an apology but now a considerable amount of my colleagues hate me.I see it in their eyes and way they communicate with me.
How does a novice Buddhist deal with this?

You are not going to become any better if you are just looking for a way to escape from the consequences of your mistakes. You need to put forth an honest effort to become better. Here are some steps that will help you in doing that.

If you haven't already done it, send another mail to all those who received the original mail, correcting the previous mail and apologizing for it. Mention that you have realized your mistakes after getting guidance from Buddhism.
Go to the Buddha and take the Triple Refuge and the five precepts. When you take the 4th precept, make sure to promise to refrain from all 4 forms of wrong speech: lying, hateful/vulgar speech, divisive speech, idle speech.
Practice on-the-go-Metta meditation towards your friends and colleagues regardless of the way they look at you. Meaning, you have to chant in your mind "may you(other) be happy, may you be well, may you be successful, may you be free from suffering" as you interact with them.
Whenever the thoughts of regret come to the mind, simply discard them as impermanent, suffering and non-self. Later as the mind becomes more matured and capable, try to observe these thoughts to see the 3 characteristics.


Time vs Impermanence What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "Nibbana is like a timeless space".

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ?

The two are very different concepts. Time can be thought of as the conceptualization of experience as a sequence of events. First this happens then this. Past, present, and future. Impermanence is a separate concept describing the fleeting nature of experience. Experiences such as emotion, the senses, material objects, and even life itself can be said to have a beginning and end and are thus, impertinent.

  I heard this from philosopher, "Nibbana is like a timeless space".

The speaker is trying to describe their experience of the ultimate nature of reality. They are trying to describe Nibbana, the experience that can only be had by seeing through the illusion of form.

In a very incomplete way, Nibbana can be thought of as the canvas on which all of the universe is painted. Imagine you are holding in your hands a photograph. When you look at the photo, you identify your favorite pocket watch within the image. In reality, there is no watch in your hands. You simply have a mental model of what a pocket watch is, and the paper and ink on the page has created the illusion that you are observing a pocket watch you have seen before. For the sake of explanation, one could say “the pocket watch arises out of the photograph”. Without the photograph, you would be unable to observe the watch.

Nibbana and time have the same correlation. Nibbana is like the photograph, and time is like the watch. In our experience, we believe we observe the past, present, and future. We see patterns that we identify as something real, creating a conceptual model that, when it becomes useful in predicting experience, we believe to fundamentally be a part of reality. In reality though, there is only Nibbana. For the sake of explanation, one could say “Time arises out of Nibbana”. Because of this, Nibbana can be described as “timeless”. When observing Nibbana, you do not observe time. For when you observe Nibbana, you are observing the universe before arising/creation occurs. All things that arise from Nibbana are impertinent, including time.

I hope my answer was helpful to you! I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime. =]


Continuity of memories as a proof of the existence of self Buddhism denies existence of any Self.But I think I can prove the existence of Self as fundamental by the logic of continuity of memories.
I define Self as someone who remembers the past essence.

Examples to demonstrate the applicability of the definition above:

Buddha. Buddha is the essence of Gautama. Buddha's knowledge is
immortal. Who remembers this essence? My answer will be that Self
remembers Buddha. And moreover because Buddha's knowledge is
immortal, that self becomes immortal and therefore fundamental.
MySelf. I exist. I can remember my past essence that Truth is
Supreme. Who remembers this essence of me ? My answer will be that
my Self remembers my essence.

Therefore we see that self can be found as someone who remembers past essence.This self is imperishable.

Which 'you'? The you that at 69 will likely become more conservative and less social? Or the you that at 5 had no concrete notion of Self, or the question the 'you' of about now poses? The me of 5 minutes ago had no knowledge nor memory of your question. There is a self - a self that is dependent on conditions - dependent on mother and father for birth, food for existence, conditions for death.
This is a conventional 'you' and such a notion is fine - convenient and useful within conditionality. The Buddha argued agaisnt an independent, permanent, unconditioned You - the soul or Atman, however envisaged.
Self is 'obliterated' through one link: of only those things which are observed directly by the senses (mind is included as a sense in the canon), all things are observed as subject to conditions for arising, subsisting and ceasing - subject to change.
Things that are subject to conditions, impermanent - as all that is observed is - cannot be the basis of a permanent and independent Self. (it's a tough switch to thinking.. for me for example, I kept 'summing up' all experience into one exact thing - but that is the process of making a permanent Self from an objective experience that only provides impermanent objects as building blocks!!). As such, if you think it, it's not Self.

Bodhidharma asked, “Can each of you say something to demonstrate your
understanding?”
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, “It is not bound by words and
phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is the
function of the Tao.” Bodhidharma: “You have attained my skin.”
The nun Zong Chi stepped up and said, “It is like a glorious glimpse of
the realm of Akshobhya Buddha . Seen once, it need not be seen again.”
Bodhidharma; “You have attained my flesh.”
Dao Yu said, “The four
elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual
existence. Not a single dharma can be grasped.” Bodhidharma: “You have
attained my bones.”
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence
and stood up straight. Bodhidharma said, “You have attained my
marrow.” (wiki)

Silence is as close to Self as you will get, as language is instantly limited by Gödel (and/or also being conditioned). Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism have sticking points, and whether the ultimate is seen as having a capital U gets a lot of chat, but at the very least, for the things that are the seen, the heard and the sensed, Self is at best an approximation of things as they are - subject to a frame of reference, relational, and dependently originated.


Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment? From this question, we see answers stating that one has the wholesome desire for enlightenment, and not craving for enlightenment. In this question, we read about the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha).

There are 3 types of craving - sensual craving (kama tanha), craving for becoming (bhava tanha) and craving for non-becoming (vibhava tanha) according to Iti 58.

Why would one have the desire for enlightenment? Or the desire to end suffering?

If the desire for enlightenment comes from aversion towards suffering, then isn't it due to a craving for non-becoming (vibhava tanha)?

If the desire for enlightenment comes from wanting to become someone as revered as the Buddha or other Arahants, then isn't it due to a craving for becoming (bhava tanha)?

Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment?

Based on theoriginal question:

Householder,

Aside that craving (tanha), lit. thirst, does not really differ in meaning to desire, will, cetana..., it is not necessary unskilfull, but required all along the path => refined becoming (bhava), and becoming, caused by tanha, is also the prerequisite for being able to develop the path:

  "Fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite, consciousness has fabrications as its prerequisite, name-&-form has consciousness as their prerequisite, the six sense media have name-&-form as their prerequisite, contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite, feeling has contact as its prerequisite, craving has feeling as its prerequisite, clinging has craving as its prerequisite, becoming has clinging as its prerequisite, birth has becoming as its prerequisite, stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite, conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite." (Prerequisites)

For whom?

  the ending of the effluents is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what is there the ending of effluents? Prerequisites

One may look out for "The Four Right Exertions",  in The Wings to Awakening

  Perhaps the most surprising element in right exertion is the role played by desire, which is usually associated with the craving that acts as a cause of suffering. We will treat this topic in more detail under the bases for success [II/D], and simply note here that the Buddha recognized that desire can be either skillful or unskillful, and that he freely admitted that skillful desire is a necessary factor in the path to the end of suffering and stress...

Whats the problem with the use of the word craving, tanha?

The Buddha used this world, for the most, as craving after the world, the six senses:

  And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

Now think, better look with proper attention, of what you are actually g/crave for?

So when ever reading tanha, keep in mind that it is not thirst per-se, but desires in the world that distracts one from developing thirst after beyond.

(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)


If Buddha stayed unanswered on this matter, why do his followers preach that soul doesn't exist? Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that scanning the body and finding no atman or self in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul?

Also, I found today that Buddha himself stayed unanswered on this matter:

  The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self.

So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that believes in existence of soul?

Buddhism teaches that everything is 'conditioned', and so there is no independent/eternal self:

  The concept of no-self or anatman or emptiness of self is that it is not possible to identify an independent, inherently existing self; that the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions.

You mention "the practitioner himself who is scanning", however 'consciousness' too is seen as conditioned:

  There are four paramatthas; three conditioned, one unconditioned:

  Material phenomena (rūpa, form)
  Mental factors (the nama-factors sensation, perception and formation)
  Consciousness
  Nibbāna

I think this might be a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism:

Hinduism sees liberation/salvation in identifying an eternal self; for example, 'Tat Tvam Asi' or

  You are that, God himself; Meditate this within yourself.

Buddhism sees liberation/salvation in dis-identifying: for example 'Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)'

According to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta the reason why the Buddha was reluctant to talk about it was that having various (one or more) views about the self did not result in the cessation of dukkha:

  "How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"

  "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

Instead the cessation of dukkha results from the view that everything is impermanent:

  "Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

  "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."


What are the Five Pungent (Vegetables/Roots/Spices) and when were they first proscribed? According to Salguero (2017):

  The Five Pungent Roots generally refer to garlic, leeks, scallions, onions, and asafoetida, as well as their subvarieties. In some sources, the list includes ginger and chives.

I am looking for a more definitive reference for this. In particular, I am looking for any early Buddhist texts that proscribe the "Five Pungents" and, better still, explicitly names the five.

At the risk of posting something that's more of a comment rather than an answer ...

I thought of "Jains" (from the same kind of era as Buddhists) -- apparently they too don't eat garlic, leeks, scallions, onions (apparently their rationale is that these are root vegetables) -- but (I may be wrong) I read that they (and Brahmins) can eat asafoetida. I don't know the history of it though, nor the Buddhism.

I suppose you might look in the Vinaya (where else?), for what you're looking for.

Can monks and nuns eat garlic? (for example) gives a reference to this, which includes ...

  Monks, garlic should not be eaten. Whoever should eat it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

... and ...

  I allow you, monks, to eat garlic in the case of illness.

And the last post in that thread says ...

  Should the same approach of moderation be taken for all five "pungent spices," i.e., leeks, scallions, garlic, onion, and ginger (if I have them correctly)?

... which might make sense? Ginger is "pungent" and is another plant-root (avoiding plant-roots is, I think, part of being as harmless as possible -- in the Jain doctrine at least -- I think that forest-dwelling Buddhist monks, too, aren't supposed to dig i.e. disturb the soil).


What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths? For each of the Four Noble Truths, there are three aspects. The three aspects for each Noble Truth follows a pattern of Recognition (understanding it), Encouragement (what is to be done), and Realization (what has been done).

Please elaborate on the twelve aspects - are they the same in all traditions? In what ways are they helpful towards realizing the Path?

The actual terms for the three aspects (parivaṭṭa) are:

sacca - the truth
kicca - that something must be done
kata - that the kicca has been done

The aspects for each truth are as follows:

Suffering (dukkha)

sacca: the knowledge that suffering is suffering
kicca: the knowledge that suffering must be fully understood (pariññeyya)
kata: the knowledge that suffering has been fully understood (pariññāta)

The Cause of Suffering (dukkha-samudaya)

sacca: the knowledge that craving (taṇhā) is the cause of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that craving must be abandoned (pahātabba)
kata: the knowledge that craving has been abandoned (pahīna)

The Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha)

sacca: the knowledge that the remainderless cessation of craving is the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that cessation must be realized (sacchikātabba)
kata: the knowledge that cessation has been realized (sacchikata)

The Path to the Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha-gāminī paṭipadā)

sacca: the knowledge that the eight-fold noble path is the path to the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that the path must be cultivated (bhāvetabba)
kata: the knowledge that the path has been cultivated (bhāvita)

The realization of the four noble truths in these twelve aspects constitutes the attainment of Buddhahood; it is probably not necessary that a student come to full realization of these things, since they only need to do what needs to be done, rather than fully understand the nature of what they have done. Only fully-enlightened Buddhas understand the truths intuitively enough to teach them; even private-buddhas are not able to teach them to others.

As to their practicality, since they constitute the core of Buddhism, understanding them intellectually is of great importance. It will help ensure that your practice is in line with the Buddha's teaching; especially the first and last truths. The first truth reminds us that our intent is not to run away from suffering but to actually study it, so that we stop clinging to it. The last truth should be studied in detail, to understand all eight aspects of the path.

As to whether they differ between traditions, I doubt the understanding as to what the Buddha taught in his first discourse differs much between the Pali and the Chinese, but the interpretation of what they mean may differ, along with their place in one's practice (since Mahayana seems to see them as only 'relatively' true).

If you're interested, Mahasi Sayadaw's book on the first discourse is interesting:

http://www.buddhanet.net/wheeld01.htm

I wrote a (shorter) piece on them as well:

http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/lessons-in-practical-buddhism/simple-truth/


What is 'letting go' and 'detachment' actually? My experience of letting go and detaching

I know that meditating on letting go and detachment is a fruitful activity. I experience physical discharge when I see I am holding on to something, that isn't true, and I let it go. In other words, I detach from it.

As a variant to this meditation practice I also attach again. That is, I try to get myself back into that feeling that I had when I was attached. The moment that I notice the slightest mental activity of getting carried away again, I reevaluate that it isn't true and keep my focus there until I feel I am detaching again. I do this a couple of times until I know longer feel any interest arise anymore when I focus on attaching, and thus, the attachment doesn't happen anymore. To me it is like getting bored with the subject. There is nothing in it for me anymore that I want to grasp. It seems that all energy that caused any attachment dissipated.

Stop creating mental constructs instead of letting go of them

Now on the the purpose of this question. Today I realized that what I attach to is always a mental construct. And that mental construct is always created by myself. Then I came to think about the words 'letting go' and 'detaching'. These words seem to imply there is something there, that exist on their own, of which you 'need' to 'let go' and 'detach'. There is something, but not there in objective reality, but here in subjective mental constructs. What if, the moment I observe a mental construct, I realize I don't want to create that mental construct in the first place. Then there is nothing to let go, there is nothing to detach from, as it simply doesn't exist anymore. It isn't being created in the first place. That puts me in the chair of being the 'creator' of all my experience. So then I do not practice the 'letting go' and 'detachment' from anything anymore, I practice the 'stop creating' of unfruitful mental constructs, which leaves energy for creating mental activity that is fruitful.

Questions:

Then I came to wonder, did Buddha really ment 'letting go' and 'detach'?
What are the actual sanskrit and pali terms for 'letting go' and 'detach'?
And do they really mean the same, or is it more like 'Dukkha' which is best translated to 'suffering', while it is not exactly the same. But suffering is the closest matching description.

What are the actual sanskrit and pali terms for 'letting go' and 'detach'?

Quoting from "Re: What is the last thing to let go?":

  In the Suttas paṭinissagga and its synonym vossagga are the words that usually get translated ‘relinquishment’, ‘letting go’ and suchlike. What is relinquished is appropriation (ādāna) which is a term for taṇhā and upādāna.

And:

  Paṭinissagga (letting go) is the broad term and then nekkhamma (letting go) is a more specialised one. Nekkhamma is paṭinissagga with respect to desire for sense-pleasures.


Online Sangha groups What Internet-based Sangha groups are out there?

For the Plum Village tradition there is a list on plumline.org

Are there any other lists of online Sanghas you can share?

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

There is a Theravada group which is run by monastics at Bhavana Society. They run the group through Discord, they do group meditations, sutta readings and book study sessions. You can join their Discord server here

There is also an online meditation group who use google hangouts. They usually do meditations twice every weekday. They aren't affiliated with any Buddhist tradition although there is a monastic who hosts meditations regularly. This is their google plus page


What difference is there in reciting and listening to mantras? When reciting or listening to mantras such as Om Mani Pade Hum, what difference does it make when either listening, reciting or both?

The esoteric vibrations are what its all about. This is why the best mantras are in their original language (usually Sanskirt) not the transliterated and especially not the translated versions.

To answer your question: How much stronger would the vibrations be if you say it with your voice than your mind? Much much stronger. You are basically doing a magic summoning spell, summoning good karma and asking for the respective forces to help you. The more in-sync you are with the vibration the more likely they will be able to "hear"/feel your call and help you.

At higher stages of focus, where you are doing it mentally and you can ignore everything else, it does not make much of a difference because the focus is the same and the vibrations have already sufficiently transformed the body.

Thus, do it loudly verbally, using it as your focus.
Once your focus is developed (jhana) then you can do it silently.

I would recommend "How to mantra" by William Bodri for more esoteric information in regard to this subject.


Can the "Senika heresy" be useful? The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism
By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs")

Wiki says

  In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy
  (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while
  the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual
  intelligence contained in our body that is the source of
  self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence
  alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues,
  when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha),
  takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings
  is itself the buddha"

Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158
The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self.

I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful.

I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

What Dōgen calls sennigedo is a view found in several schools of Buddhism, for example in the teachings of Tendai contemporary with Dōgen in Japan. But this is not what Matsuo Basho was expressing in "Mind itself is Buddha", the poem Dōgen used to argue the criticism you expressed in your quote. He quotes this poem in the story of Damei Fachang (Daibai Hojo) in both his Shobogenzo and Eiheikoroku. What he actually argues is:

  “The mind that has been authentically transmitted is ‘one mind is all
  dharmas; all dharmas are one mind.’….. We clearly understand that the
  mind refers to the mountains, rivers, and the great earth; the sun,
  the moon and the stars. …. Therefore, ‘mind itself is buddha’ refers
  to all the buddhas who carry out arousing bodhi-mind, practice,
  awakening, and nirvana. Those who have not yet been carrying out
  arousing bodhi-mind, practice, awakening and nirvana are not ‘mind
  itself is buddha.'”

Stated differently, Dōgen argues that until you realize (in both senses of the English word simultaneously, not just intellectually) that "Mind is Buddha", you risk to conceptualize Buddha-nature as eternal & transcendent of causation and death. He is therefore not criticizing Basho, but the concept underlying the interpretation that all factors of experience (hō in Japanese, Dharmas in Sanskrit) are somehow not subject to causation (which implies they are timeless).

The best elaboration on this argument I know is in Heine's Existential and Ontological Dimensions of Time in Heidegger and Dogen Chapter "The Question of Time"


What are some ways to improve my practice? I meditate for 30 minutes each day, focusing on the feeling of my breath moving through my throat. When I am not meditating, I try to mentally "say" whatever it is I am doing (e.g. if I am angry, I say "angry" in my head). I also adhere to the five precepts. I have been following this routine for about six months now, and at this point I feel like I am seeing fewer results than ever before. I often am unable to maintain focus for the full 30 minutes or even a substantial part of the meditation time; I still find myself becoming irrationally angry towards people...it is discouraging.
How can I augment or change my practice to find peace and be less angry?
Thx!

It is hard to offer concrete suggestions or even precisely guess what's happening without more information about your practice and your background;  that said, it looks like your practice is sincere, and it is working. Often when the practice begins to bite, irritability and impatience may increase - it is a learning moment, and a teacher. Find the three characteristics of impermanence, non-self and suffering in each of those moments of irritability, dullness and anger.

Without getting into too many technical details, I'd say, think of it as the next level in a game, your opponents are tougher, and that is what makes it more interesting.

The most important thing is not to abandon practice at this point, but to continue, this is exactly when you need faith and perseverance.

I assume you practice insight meditation (also called Vipassana), if you do, it is not about indulging in the pleasant moments, or treating ourselves to some peace and calm - it is about understanding reality - which means one encounters the good and bad mind moments, and learns to remain equanimous.

Everything is impermanent - even the good and calm times in meditation will go away, and be replaced with difficult times - this is the moment of wisdom, that reveals the suffering in being attached to any feeling.

You might want to take a look at another question where I've offered more advanced help - Working with cycles in meditation . Stop reading it if it gets confusing.


What could a lay follower do to increase his zeal to become a monk? I wasn't lucky enough to be born in a Buddhist society and I only discovered Buddhism late in life mainly because of my innate dissatisfaction with life as a whole.

Actually, I was born into a middle-class family and life wasn't that grim when I grow up, but even at my young age, I saw life as a journey that one has to pass through without his will. Funny enough, I used to envy old people because I thought that they are approaching freedom which is death.

Obviously, I was wrong, death according to Buddhism is just one step in the cycle, I mean for those of us trading the circle of Samsara.

Now, I'm convinced and I have faith in the teaching of the Buddha, but I sometimes fear that I'm too old to abandon the world and become a monk. I'm in my mid thirty have I missed the boat?

I have vowed to follow all precepts stated for the lay followed, however, I don't want to feel comfortable in the worldly life and I want to maintain my zeal to become a monk, if not now may be in the next life.

What should I do friends?

Many thanks.

I could easily have written your query. At this time however there are a few differences which may be helpful if shared.

Am in my mid 40’s. Never thought that it was actually possible. Met a Venerable at the local Vihara who stated otherwise and has taken me under his wing so to speak with ordination to be the outcome. Yes, it’s a long road, lots to learn. But if it’s truly in your heart, it will be. Make yourself visible and learn as much as you can from as many as are willing to share. Have you decided upon a school of thought? So much to consider.

Please forgive for giving what equates to being advice, but the same is also my personal experience. Hope this is helpful in some small way.

All the best to you.


U ba Khin / Goenka Vipassana putting stress only on vednanupassana The Vipassana as taught by Gautam Buddha in his Maha Sati Patthana Sutta talks about  four different feilds of meditation : Body, Sensations,mind and mental contents.

Goenka focuses solely on sensations - Isthis not an incorrect application of Buddhas teaching. If focussing on only one frame of reference could liberate the bhikku, why then would he have specifically mentioned four?

'Sensations' of the body are generally not 'vedana' (feelings). Instead, they are generally mental formations (sankhara) of stress stored in the physical body, as follows:

  The craving that makes for further becoming —
  accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that —
  grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow.
  His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses &
  mental distresses grow. He is sensitive to bodily stress & mental
  stress. MN 149

'Feelings' ('vedana') refer to the pleasantness & unpleasantness that is associated with sense contact via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind.

  There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. MN 74

  And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from
  nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from
  body-contact, feeling born from mind-contact. This is called
  feeling. SN 12.2

Observing only genuine vedana (feeling) can liberate a bhikkhu, per the Culatanhasankhaya Sutta.

  Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering
  to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether
  pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides
  contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings,
  contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing)
  cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go).
  Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the
  world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally
  attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life
  has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
  Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated
  in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end,
  the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the
  ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans. MN 37


Is there a connection between Guilt and Fear? This is something a friend brought to my attention, something that he noticed in himself. He said he didn't start feeling guilt unless he was afraid of something. Is fear the cause of guilt? If not, are they at least connected?

In Buddhism, there are two important related words that are generally used as a word compound, namely, 'hiri-ottappa'.

'Hiri' means to feel personally & inwardly ashamed of hurting others or oneself.

'Ottappa' means to have an innate 'fear', 'apprehensiveness' or 'caution' about hurting others & oneself.

A translation of these two words which captures their meaning is 'conscience & concern'. A short essay on hiri-ottappa can be read at this link: The Guardians of the World (by
Bhikkhu Bodhi).

These two natural psychological self-protective mechanisms, which are mentioned in Lokapala Sutta: Guardians of the World (AN 2.9), can be related to 'guilt' & 'fear'.

However, 'guilt' & 'fear' are very strong words & emotions, which often are not related to the natural psychological conscience but related to guilt & fear imposed by external authorities ('asura').


Are there universal experiences associated with seeing through individual aggregates? To further refine the question: the falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, may leave behind a sense of wholeness, awe and wonder as there is no longer the conditioned interpretation of the world; there is no longer a tree, a cloud or a person in the sense of their words. All divisions thus cease to be and the tree, cloud and person (everything) are seen in their glorious enigmatic depth and wonder. Forms cannot merely be confined to single words - so I've learned!

In another instance, the absence of rūpa (forms) could produce a sense of emptiness or spaciousness where one is intensely conscious of the space around forms but also sees that this same space pervades the very nature of forms themselves. Note: I'm not referring to 'emptiness' in the fullest sense of the Buddhist interpretation but more just generally.

I believe the trick is to see through all aggregates to make the ultimate realisation.

The falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, does not leave behind a sense of wholeness because the falling away of saññā (perception) results in the state of unconsciousness. In Buddhism, this is called "saññāvedayitanirodha".

What has fallen away in the experience of "wholeness" referred to above is "thinking" (sankhara) and "themes" (nimitta) rather than "perception". In other words, the sense of "wholeness" is also a "theme" born from "perception". MN 18 says:

  With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.

  MN 18

As for the state of "awe & wonder", this is a delusion or beguilement in Buddhism. In Buddhism, when right seeing occurs of the five aggregates, the result is "disenchantment & dispassion" rather than "awe & wonder"; as follows:

  Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released.

  SN 22.59

When all divisions thus cease to be, in Hinduism, this is called "Advaita" or the "One God".


How to practice vipassana meditation? I practice  vipassana meditation since 2008. My recent experience is  breathing can't be noticed. But sensation of the body is present. And thoughts are coming and passing away automatically. Most of the time sensation  of the body  appears such as pain , dissolves without any discomfort. Thoughts are less. Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard.

What is this state?

How to continue from  here?

OP: My recent experience is breathing can't be noticed.

As you progress in meditation breathing becomes subtle and stops. As many prematurely think breathing has stoped when it becomes subtle but not completely stopped as one is not sensitive to detect it.

Breathing is tied to bodily formations.

  The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body.

  Therefore,
  they are bodily formation.

  Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech.

  Therefore,
  thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

  Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind.

  Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

  When a monk is attaining cessation of perception and feeling,  ayya, which states
  end first:

  bodily formation, or
  verbal formation, or
  thought formation?

  When a monk is attaining cessation of perception and feeling, avuso Visākha,

  verbal formation ends first,
  then bodily formation, and
  then thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

  OP: But sensation of the body is present.

Perception and feeling \ thought formation is what ends last.

  OP: Most of the time sensation of the body appears such as pain, dissolves without any discomfort.

As you progress most of the sensations are pleasant but unpleasant sensations disappear fast.

  OP: Thoughts are less.

Thoughts/ verbal formation is what ends 1st. They initially reduce and subside.

  OP: Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard. What is this state?

This seems like a preliminary stage in meditation.

  OP: How to continue from hear?

Keep doing more meditation to go deeper. Double-check if you are practising correctly and have selected a proper technique which is conducive to you further in meditation.

Also, try increasing the number of hours.


Material wealth and dukkha This article on money and happiness prompted my asking myself:

Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?
If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?
What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?

1.Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?

We all experience dukkha differently depending on our karma.The wealthy can afford to experience happiness born out of sensual pleasures than the poor.

2.If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?

How refined their dukkha is depends on how strong they attach to the happiness their wealth brings to them.The more they attach to it the more painful their dukkha is the less they attach the more subtle it will be.

3.What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?

Money or wealth does not bring suffering.It is our strong craving/attachment to it that brings suffering.Wealth is actually in a way kind of like a blessing.It is one of the karmic resultant of practicing generosity in previous lives and the result of being hard working and industrious.The Buddha often instructed lay people on how to preserve their wealth.And in the Adiya Sutta even describes the benefits to be obtained by having wealth.Adiya Sutta:Benefits to be Obtained from Wealth So don't see money or wealth as a cause of suffering.you can easily substitute the word money for anything under the sun and the only way it will cause us suffering is through our strong attachment to it.


Dependent origination arising of feeling I'm just reading about dependent origination and wonder how different individuals have different feeling even if contact is the same?

It only makes sense if condition for arising of feeling is not only just phassa (contact).

Let's say if I hear a sound and feels unpleasant. Others might not necessarily feel the same. So what would be the other factors in arising of feeling?

"From phassa as a condition, vedanā arises. With the absense of phassa, vedanā does not come to be" (paraphrasing).

The above is not quite a description of a detailed cognitive chronological process for the arising of a specific pleasant/unpleasant feeling. It declares on what basis something (eg. vedanā; any vedanā) comes to be, and on what basis something does not.

It's also strange to see it as "two people experiencing the same contact", which may also lead one to think that two people experienced the same experience (which they never do).

A summary of a not-quite chronological cognitive process is described in the suttas as originating in phassa (from external sense base, internal sense base and corresponding viññāṇa) going through sañña and vedanā. A detailed analysis is elaborated in abhidhamma (image from Abhidhammatha Sangaha):


Correlation between vedanta and Dhamma Is there a correlation between vedanta (non-dualism) and Dhamma? Are there references in the Pali-canon to vedanta?

What was before the Buddha? The Vedas and the earliest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya) came before the Buddha.
A few other Upanishads (Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki) and the Nyaya school of logic may have developed around the same time as the Buddha.
If you look at the scholarly dates given in Wikipedia, all Vedanta schools, Samkhya, Yogasutras of Patanjali, Purva Mimamsa school, the rest of the Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita all came after the Buddha's time.
If you read the Vedanta page on Wikipedia, you will find this info:

Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu
philosophy.
Some of the better known sub-traditions of Vedanta include:

Advaita Darshan - established by Adi Shankara (788–820 CE)
Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE)
Dvaita Darshan - established by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya (c. 7th century CE)
Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE)
Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE)

On the other hand, if you read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha:

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians
in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while
at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those
who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side
of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies,
however, have not been accepted by all historians.

So, Vedanta (as a school) came after the Buddha. So you will not find references to Vedanta in the Pali Canon. The only reference is to the three Vedas in the Canki Sutta (MN 95) and Tevijja Sutta (DN 13). The composers of the Vedas are also mentioned in these suttas by name.
I imagined that Advaita Vedanta influenced Indian Mahayana schools, but it turns out that it may be the other way round. Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school, lived around 150 - 250 CE. Asanga and Vasubandhu, the founders of the Yogacara school, lived around 3rd to 4th century CE. This predates all schools of Vedanta.
The best correlation between Buddhism and Vedanta that I can find is from  "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" (1995) by Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp:

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
(true substance)," or similarly.

And another one from "Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm Shift)" (1994-95) by Acarya Dharmavajra:

To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an
ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as
something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate
truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing
or ultimate reality.


Are arahants infallible? I've heard it said that Popes are infallible,(whether one believes this or not).

Although the arahant has removed all the defilements, can they still be wrong, make mistakes, or are they all-knowing? I vaguely remember a story of an arahant playing a dirty trick on his less than wise brother?

Yes and no in the case of infallibility.

Infallible - what ever they do their actions do not created new conditioning. The actions are not based on the 3 unwholesome roots.

Fallible - though the actions are not based on unwholesome volition, they may not always be the optimal or best cause of action. Their infallibility is based on the fact they are never wrongly motivated, though the outcome of any action may not always have the desired or optimal results and also some action can be done differently to make a bigger impact.

They know the cause and effect regarding the mind and matter process hence understanding enough about the cause of misery and the elimination of misery.


How this quote by Mahathma Ghandi is compatable with non-violence teaching of Buddhism? Here is the famous quote by Mahathma Ghani the great leader from India;

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."
Mahatma Gandhi

My simple question is; Is this acceptable? How can it be compatible with non-violence teaching of Buddhism?

It's a common missinterpretation that Ghandi-like approaches, Mahātmā (Maha Atma, "great Ego, great selfishness"), of kind of passive aggressivism goes allong with the good teachings of the Buddha.

For a large he used affliction to "force" people, like with his well known extortion by hunger strike. It's merely unattentive to put exortions and alike under non-violent. Non-violence has it's root in the mind, has being impotent (for becoming and desire) as case. When one acts with big desire, big potence, yet cover one self with the cloak of non-violence one might become the hero of fools, playing with their affections.

Another outwardly indication, as a result if one has rightly developed metta one might prove:

  One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.

Those common views, that "non-violent" aggression and actions of politic and "manipulation", yet most for an opinion, one side, and in opposition, are merely a notion of secular approaches and in Mahayana spheres often accepted "doing evil for a good", which is common tolerated by normal people, given the titel "hero" to one taking side.

There are NO of such "heros" who had not caused a mass on suffering, and if we think on what Maha-Atmas approach caused on wars and death in the following, to what has been giving rise to ripe, it's merely the observation of blind to gratify such as good.

Virtue which is not based on right view can not be real virtue but falls for the most into the frame of just another hypocrisy.

So in this regard it's possible better (althought aggressive as well) to listen more on such as Oshos statements on heros, like Ghandi (not, it's merely vulgar speech or better provoking)

As for the Buddha and his Dhamma, uprooting the flag, the potence, as well as giving up holding to being, becoming and birth (and its effect death) clearly contradicts not only the words but also the conduct of what ever might cover himself with non-violence, yet still on a fight and after win in the world and outwardly.

In somehow it seems in this way merely like a selfreflection, this quote, by him.

Opposing ones leader, father and mother, contemplatives, disrespect toward them, even if covert in "non-violence", leads to violence and to the other extrem on the same coin.

The Pema, love-sutta might explain it well.

It shows the four kind of tools to win fools in politic in detail:

  These four things are born. Which four? Affection is born of affection. Aversion is born of affection. Affection is born of aversion. Aversion is born of aversion....

and the notions in levels of having become really non-violent, with the attributs of the Arahat at last:

  "And how does a monk not burn? There is the case where a monk's conceit of 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk doesn't burn."

To be outardly potent and give birth and becoming, is not the noble intent seen within the Noble Ones, but to uproot and destry the Linga at its root, cut it of, for oneself.

Jesus-like self-sacrify, martyr of all kind, the wise and the Dhamma does not see as prais worthy but merely as "impotence" to be winner over one self and have failed to even trace the cause of suffering in ones own heart.

Understanding the quote in this way in regard of potence, than it fits to the Dhamma, for one who ignores the real enemy within one self, fighting outwardly, has put a cloak of ignorance, with favoring colors above ones ability (potence) to get a real hero.

So to rephrase:

  "It is better to accept anatta, if there is mahatma in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of anatta to cover incapacity (to uproot it). Mahatma is any day preferable to incapacity. There is hope for a Mahatma man to realice Anatta. There is no such hope for those incapable to see, those without faith in the path, those not after cutting of Mahatma."

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


Dealing with angriness or sadness that comes up with "meditation" Ok, my "meditation" is physical exercise where I

concentrate on what I am doing
concentrate on my breath

If I exercise in morning, I feel violent anger.
When I confront why I feel such anger, I start to cry and talk to God Almighty (that is my believe system. I understand Buddhism doesn't believe in God, but rather, the awareness that we are living in illusion breaks you free. Similar belief in Hinduism except they believe in outer God and inner God and when those two reconcile, it gives awareness that we are living in illusion)
If I exercise in afternoon after I come home from office, I feel heavy sadness.
It's as if I want to cry, but the tears cannot come out, and the only comfort I can get is a nice hug from a big teddy bear, or I will feel comfort in wearing a warm sweater, even though it is summer.
How to deal with it without being ashamed of such feelings?
I know Buddha just looked these feelings straight in the eye, but were these feelings ever so bad for him?
Maybe Buddhism and Hinduism say those feelings come from actions in past life, i.e. we weren't humans, but rather animals in the jungle who has a "kill or be killed" mentality, which is really similar for many humans.
I considered posting this in fitness.stackexchange.com, but I believe this falls more in line with meditation and what Buddha teaches.
Addition
I believe the following is relevant.
When I was younger I had patellar sublaxation, where the knee patella would be unstable, come out of joint, and I would cry and scream in pain till the patella was put back in place. I would be traumatized rest of the day.
I was told to do exercises for patellar sublaxation, and to increase strength around knee.
When I jog (which is great for knee strength, and resistance), I have horrible flashbacks of that traumatic pain, and I keep trying to reassure myself that everything is ok, I am working towards a solution with exercise, but my thoughts keep going back to that dark place, and I keep thinking, what karmas must be worked out and resolved?
Thanks for any guidance!

How to deal with it without being ashamed of such feelings?

There's nothing wrong with feeling shame. How to deal with it? From a Buddhist point of view, you should practice meditation, and in my opinion, Vipassana meditation.

By doing so you will come to terms with these feelings as they arise and they will no longer effect you in such a way, and by the sound if it, you will also be able to come to terms with this aversion you've built up to the intense experiences of pain you had in the past, which may have had some role to play in leading to your present experiences of anger and depression.

Here is a brief article on pain and how meditation can help you come to terms with it: http://www.shinzen.org/Articles/artPain.pdf

And here is a good talk from a Buddhist point of view on the experience of pain and how it can be useful for us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldDclolLCg

In any case, I would suggest you shift your focus from the healing of your knee, to the healing of your mind, as that is where both these negative emotions are arising, and the suffering from the pain in your knee. We dont always have a choice in experiencing pain, but suffering because of it is a choice. Best of luck.


Momentum Within Meditation I'm curious as to what the difference is between meditation 1) with distractions / without distractions, and 2) for a long and motionless period / while in the business of motion and surroundings.

I have been practicing mindfulness in my day to day life, and I wondered whether this was not meditation, or even a complete waste. I feel as though certain states or insights are achieved in the process, but I'm really wondering the following:

Does meditation, to even 'begin' or 'gain momentum' require the succession of non-distracted states which bear a similarity to one another? I.e. by varying the type of meditation or the states one experiences, and by having some slight distractions between them, is the whole meditative effort undermined?

Also, I feel a great resistance to actually sit down motionless and attempt to concentrate on a specific point, or engage in a continuous / repetitive mental effort. I am unsure why this is, as I believe I can apply much effort otherwise.

Ideally, I would like to practice dry vipassana, and I hope someone can answer how this would be achieved in the context of what I have explained. I am willing to expend time and effort, but simply wish to know what is the ideal way to proceed.

Thanks for any answer. (Also, how many distractions can one tolerate without too much impediment to one's meditation? Especially in regards to noise.)

Yes. 'Momentum' requires a succession of non-distracted states. 'Momentum' is a product of purification & samadhi.

Dry vipassana itself will not result in momentum because dry vipassana uses 'noting' or 'mental labeling', which are essentially 'distractions' or 'speed bumps'. It is only when the mind 'lets go' that 'momentum' will develop.

It is like letting go of a boat to flow down a river. Dry vipassana keeps the boat attached to the bank.

That said, dry vipassana is useful for developing 'sampajanna' ('clear comprehension'; 'applied wisdom'), which is a very important factor for samadhi development.

'Sampajanna' is necessary for negotiating speed-bumps but, naturally, when a speed bump is experienced, this results in a loss of momentum, however temporary.

The scriptures describe four kinds of meditative results (AN 4.41), the 3rd being the development of sati-sampajanna, for which dry vipassana is helpful.


Why Dharma(धर्म) is pronounced as Dhamma in Buddhism? First for all I know that the correct Sanskrit word is धर्म (pronounced as Dharma) same goes with Nibbana (Nirvana, निर्वाण in Sanskrit) as Siddharth was born in India.

So either Pali is just a local dialect as people in Nepal region are not able to pronounce R र.

Same goes with native English speaker they roll R, I mean when we say car in India our tongue vibrates, which doesn’t happen with Native english speaker.

Why do we use Dhamma instead of Dharma?

Dhamma is the pali version of the word- In the time of Buddha , there was a conscious decision to record the teachings in Pali rather than Sanskrit. As sanskrit was not accessible to all and created a division between those who has access to it and who were interested in higher knowledge, but Pali was a common tongue in the region.

But it is to be understood that Dharma(be it sanskrit or pali) in the context of Buddhism means much more than mere Duties as the common usage in Sanskrit means.
Dhamma is the very body of Buddhas teachings which is said to be universal in truth.


Why is human population increasing? Better kamma? Human population is increasing whether we like it or not and might even hit 10bn in the next few decades. But why is this happening according to a Buddhist's perspective? Some that I know that don't believe in kamma use this as a counter example saying that if people are becoming more sinful they ask how come the population is increasing. While I have my own understanding (devas being born back among humans, kamma alone doesn't determine the next birth "cuti sitha" does) I would like your expert opinion this.

Here is not an expert opinion: which is that I don't know why you expect that the total number of sentient beings is finite, countable, and constant.

The perspective in the OP seems to be that the total number is constant, and is asking, "If the number of humans is increasing, then where (which realms) are they (pre-existing beings) coming from and why?"

It has a view of, "this used to be (countably) one old sentient being, and that (same) being is now being reborn as (countably) one new sentient being" ... it has a view that, the type of being and/or realm might change (hell, animal, human, deva), but the total number of beings must be constant.

I don't see why you'd expect that view to be true, though: it seems to me an atman (self/soul) view, not an anatman view.

So far as I know a more anatman view might be look "there's no person now" (there are are just skandhas, an assemblage of parts, c.f. the parable of the Milinda's chariot), "the number of sentient beings isn't countable" (except perhaps to the Buddha), and fabricated things are inconstant.


What does Buddhism teach on cultivating energy for those who are drowsy? This is rather a personal question.

Sometimes, I am a very depressed individual, and besides other things, I'm struggling with a lack of energy.

It happens that I sleep for 10 or more hours. Usually, after waking up, I'm not actually awake, but just keep on dreaming, being half-asleep. It's very hard to get up: the urge for sleep and dreaming is so strong, while consciousness is not awakened yet... In sleep, often there are nightmares about the conflicts and rejection, although I usually forget everything.

Also, sometimes I feel drowsy during the day. It's very hard for me to maintain mindfulness, often I keep on doing a dull, pointless activity, probably again because I'm deprived of energy.

In AN 7.58 Buddha says:

  But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then — reclining on your right side — take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with your mind set on getting up. As soon as you wake up, get up quickly, with the thought, 'I won't stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of reclining, the pleasure of drowsiness.' That is how you should train yourself.

I really try to train myself like that, but forget about everything in the morning and just "stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down."

So, what would you recommend me to be more alert and mindful during the day, to sleep less and to get up more quickly?

Present situation is the result of past causes, so it would be interesting to see what led you to that constant state of fatigue in the first place.


Samsara and States of Being (reference request) One book I like very much is The Myth Of Freedom by Chogyam Trungpa.  Of particular interest is the section where he distinguishes the realms of existence as mental states and ways of being.

I've yet to find this discussed elsewhere in any way that resonates.  Everything I find merely talks about Buddhism and psychology and speaks about it in terms defined in the latter.

Trungpa nourishes the metaphor and generates a rich unanswerable question.  Other writings I've found prey on the metaphor and regurgitate a definitive answer.

The former offers opening for insight; the latter suppresses thought.

Does anyone know of anywhere else this subject is written upon with the type of creativity I've alluded to?

Did you try Trungpa's Transcending Madness: The Experience of the Six Bardos?

Another Trungpa's work that touches similar topics is Glimpses of Abhidharma: From a Seminar on Buddhist Psychology


What is it like to perceive without 5 Skandas? My understanding of Nibbana is a person who has overcome 5 skandas.
I could not perceive the state as we are constantly bombarded with internal and external stimulations which makes me assume that this state can never be achieved and only an incremental change towards nibbana can happen. This leads to another interesting observation, if 5 skandas are overcome, does one really need a body? If body is not needed, then is Nibbana attained only at death?
What is it like to be without skandas?

Nibbana is the 5 skandas have overcome the idea of a "person" & "who".

The Pali scriptures define Nibbana as the end of greed, hatred & delusion and occurring to a living conscious mind. The following is merely one teaching from many:

  Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element...

  Iti 44


Once ignorance is removed ,is the cessation of suffering automatic? As per my understanding the only effort I have to make for the cessation of suffering is to realize the Truth as it removes the ignorance. Once I have removed the ignorance rest of the things happen automatically.

With cessation of ignorance comes the automatic cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the automatic cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the automatic cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the automatic cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the automatic cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the automatic cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the automatic cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the automatic cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the automatic cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the automatic cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease automatically.

Are there any other choices(other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering?
Because as per my understanding cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth.

If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? Because realizing the Truth would mean automatic cessation of Consciousness.

Have you met anyone who has realized the Truth but has no intellect consciousness ?

Here is the definition of consciousness :

  "And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness:
  eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness.

Ignorance does not cause consciousness. In your studies of Buddhism, please avoid this materialistic error many Buddhists have. As a beginning student, it is important to learn the right way, from the beginning. The suttas (SN 22.82) say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa).

In reality, dependent origination is describing how ignorance pollutes consciousness, similar to how dirt pollutes pure water or how dust covers a mirror. SN 46.55 provides some good analogies.

This is why there are many suttas that describe how a Buddha has no ignorance but remains conscious, such as SN 22.53, Iti 44 and the end of MN 38.

When ignorance ceases, what occurs to consciousness is it become pure. In other words, what ceases is 'ignorant-consciousness' or ignorant-sense-contact (called avijjāsamphassajena).

  If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
  is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
  not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
  is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
  contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
  totally unbound right within. SN 22.53


Avalokitesvara real miracles? I have read in the lotus-sutra that chanting the name of avalokitesvara can for example break sticks if one is about to get beaten. Are there recorded miracles that happened to people out there?

I don't think recorded miracles will help you much for even if there're detailed records, there'll always be 2 camps: the skeptics will always have their own explanation/interpretation while the believers will always believe it their way. So the best way is to practice and see it in your own experience. Check out Ven. Hsuan Hua's great commentary on the Lotus Sutra at http://www.cttbusa.org/dfs25/dfs25.asp . And per his explanation from the website, if one chants/recites half-heartedly simply for the sake of "testing it out", then s/he's gonna be disappointed.

  At that time, the farmer did not remember that E shi yun was a line from the Great Compassion Mantra. After the man left, he remembered, "He is a Dharma Protector in the Great Compassion Mantra!" This is an inconceivable state manifest from the Great Compassion Mantra. But if you recite it just to test it out, E Shi Yun is not going to show up. It is only if you recite and believe in the Mantra that unlucky circumstances can be turned into lucky ones. If you run into E Shi Yun, be sure to recognize him. Do not be like the farmer who did not remember who he was until he was gone."


Are the Sins in dreams, sins? Background: Recently when I was in the deep sleep I saw some dreams, which showed that I am going against the five precepts.
For Instance, I lied somebody. I felt that as I lie in real life; I remember that I planned about revealing disinformation and creatively managed the flow of false information.
If it was a real situation I may not act in such way.

Is this scenario really cause to break the fourth precept?
As we know, dreams are born based on the feelings of our subconscious mind. Therefore, Isn't it my own fault to see such a dream?

According to Buddhism, to do a sin, you have to consciously do something using your body, speech or using sitha.

In a dream you are not doing anything consciously. Therefore simply you can not sin in dreams.


How to learn to trust one's fundamental goodness? In this answer it says "Learning to trust one's fundamental goodness" is one of the way to practise seclusion.
I want to understand what this means in context of the question on Rhinocerous sutta. Also how can this trust be cultivated so that it leads towards meditative absorption?

If one interprets Buddha's teaching superficially, one may assume - and some indeed do - that the world is fundamentally broken. The world is samsara, its nature is dukkha, our journey begins with primordial ignorance, the senses inevitably tempt us to hell, and the best we can do is stay cold and constantly on guard against our own flawed nature.
The more mature understanding paints another picture. In this interpretation, the world works a certain way, and in that sense its not broken, in fact we can say everything has its reasons and works due to its causes, resulting in every thing and even every person taking their places accordingly. From this standpoint the world is Perfect and works perfectly well according to its natural laws.
In the same vein, before the conceptual mind develops while building its subjective world and its notion of self or ego, there's indeed that great nondifferentiation. Rather than painting it in dark colors as "ignorance" we can see it for what it is - a blank slate! Starting from that blank slate there's a process of learning, driven by the mind's innate instinctual attraction to Peace. Yes, the childish mind's methods for seeking peace are very naïve - it clings to its pleasant experiences, resists change, fights enemies - but fundamentally it's driven by its instinctual desire to make things good.
From this standpoint, the ego is a process of seeking peace, or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said, "our sense of self is an activity, a strategy for avoiding suffering, for maximizing happiness" -- it's just that its a childish and naïve phase of the larger Path ("Ultimately, though, self as a strategy can only go so far. This is where the not-self strategy comes in." - T.B.) The path into and through samsara is the beginning of the path to Nirvana, it is the path in the right direction - not away from it, even if it gets stuck in this childish phase for a few hundred billion lives - eventually it moves on and graduates.
Based on the above, we arrive at the Fundamental Goodness or Fundamental Sanity as a key Mahayana concept. To cultivate it in our lives means to be at peace with the larger picture, at peace with our past, our mistakes, our baby steps, our growing pains. It means to cultivate a deep confidence that at our core we want Peace, we want Goodness, and that our mind is fundamentally capable of figuring things out right, even though it takes time.
Ultimately, to cultivate one's fundamental goodness requires accepting the fact that the Buddha came from the same evolutionary background as we did, and therefore every one of us is a buddha in the making. Hence Buddha-Nature.
We are not wrong, we are not bad, we are just growing - that's the mantra.
"I may be confused or mistaken when it comes to particulars - and indeed I keep reviewing and adjusting my understanding all the time. I may have done some crazy things in the past, as part of my learning - but all of that was driven by my intent to do the best according to my state-of-the-art at the moment. I'm not an evil person I swear my intentions are pure - but I am not perfect, I'm only learning, and I will keep at it." - that's how.
And of course the physical practice of moving around gracefully, keeping good posture, sitting down slowly, mindfulness of the body.


What is the opposite of love? There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

Loving kindness(Metta) is a state of the mind that arises and vanishes. It's not something that exists. For loving kindness to arise, one should see the lovable nature of beings. It does not require suffering. On the other hand, compassion requires seeing the helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering.

Happiness is also a state of mind that arises and vanishes. It does not require suffering. Happiness arises even in the minds of enlightened beings.

Far enemy of love is hatred/aversion. Near enemy of love is lust.


Questions on the five Skandhas I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go.
The first Skandha: Form
Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs?
The second Skandha: Sensation
Are these just sensations from the sense organs?
One description online describes sensation as follows:

... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with
visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body
with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts.

If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation?
The third Skandha: Perception
A description I found:

Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna.
The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the
capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them
with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we
associate them with our previous experience with shoes.

My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different?
The fourth Skandha: Mental Formation
A description I found:

This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and
perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors
noted in Buddhism.

I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas?
The fifth Skandha: Consciousness
A description I found:

Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object.

If this is the case, then is consciousness that which observes sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which experiences sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context?
I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day!
Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Rupa

  Does this refer to physical form?

Yes, anything physical is included in this category. Ex: light, sound, aromas,earth element, water element, heat element, air element  etc.
However, with regards to the five skandhas, a thought is also called a rupa when it becomes the object received by the mind sense faculty. Ex: a memory

  Can we only know form through the sense organs?

Yes, there'll be no knowing without the 6 senses.

Vedana

  Are these just sensations from the sense organs?

Sense organs cannot produce sensation by themselves. The contact should occur. That is the union of Rupa, sense organ and the relevant consciousness.
ex: light, eye and the eye consciousness

There are basically 3 kinds of sensations: pleasant, painful and neutral.

  If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation?

No, that is Sankhara(Mental Formation).

Sanna(Perception)

  My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness

No. Consciousness is just base awareness.

  how is perception and consciousness different?

Sanna(perception) is what recognizes the object specifically. Awareness cannot tell what it is. But awareness is present at this stage as they all rise together.

Sankhara(Mental Formation)

  I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is
  loving-kindness an emotion?

Yes, that's right. Happiness, loving kindness, hatred, jealousy, craving etc. belong to this group

Vinnana(Consciousness)

  If this is the case, then is consciousness that which observes
  sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which
  experiences sensation, perception, mental formations and form?

A single experience contains all 5 of the Skhandas. They make up the whole experience. Think of it as drinking a chocolate milk shake. When you drink it, do you feel the taste of milk, chocolate, sugar separately? No. You feel them all together. Consciousness is like the water they are all mixed in. Consciousness cannot separately observe anything. Observing itself is an experience where all 5 skandhas are present.  In an experience, consciousness simply plays the role of being aware. When you are asleep, the ear consciousness may not be present at the ears. That's why you won't be able to hear, even if the sound hits the ears.

  Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it?

No. Every experience has all the 5 skhandas.

  Are animals conscious?

Yes, they are beings. It's Panchaskhandha for them as well

  what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Consciousness is what plays the role of being aware in an experience. Self-awareness is an experience(5 skandhas) in which the perception identifies the object of the experience as a self.

To give a common example to illustrate the functions of the Skandhas, say you are smelling something delicious. The smell and the nose here are Rupa. When they get together with the nose consciousness, contact happens. At that moment the Vinnana is aware that an object is present at the nose sense door. Vedana tells that it is pleasant. Sanna tells what it is: whether it's a pudding, cake, ice cream etc. Sankhara tells it's good and desires for it. Keep in mind that the event of smelling here involves many instances of five aggregates rising and passing away.


Can you explain "nirvana"? Can anybody explain to me about "nibbana" and how it is different form "nirvana"?

Are there views about it and ways to get to it?

Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna - it's all the same word)

  Extinguishing the fires

  In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause suffering.
  These fires are typically identified as the fires of attachment
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya).   For
  example, Rupert Gethin states:  Literally nirvāṇa means ‘blowing out’
  or ‘extinguishing’ [...] What the Pali and Sanskrit expression
  primarily indicates is the event or process of the extinction of the
  ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. At the moment the Buddha
  understood suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the path leading
  to its cessation, these fires were extinguished. This process is the
  same for all who reach awakening, and the early texts term it either
  nirvāṇa or parinirvāṇa, the complete ‘blowing out’ or ‘extinguishing’
  of the ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. This is not a ‘thing’
  but an event or experience.  Contemporary Buddhist scholar Ajahn
  Sucitto emphasizes that when these fires are extinguished, the mind is
  freed. Ajahn Sucitto states:  The metaphors associated with nibbāna
  often liken it to the blowing out of a fire. When it is no longer
  burning, the fire has “nibbāna’d”—the elements on which it was based
  are no longer in a state of combustion. This may seem like sterility
  and lifelessness from the viewpoint of the fire, but from the
  perspective of the elements it means life and potential. That is, when
  the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are extinguished, the mind is
  free to operate in terms of its fullest capacity.

  Freedom from suffering

  In the Buddhist view, when the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya)
  are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to an end. The cessation of
  suffering is described as complete peace. Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  The
  state of perfect peace that comes when craving is eliminated is
  Nibbāna (nirvāṇa), the unconditioned state experienced while alive
  with the extinguishing of the flames of greed, aversion, and delusion.

  Freedom from rebirth

  In the Buddhist view, the fires of attachment (raga), aversion
  (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya) are the forces which propel
  the cycle of rebirth (samsara). When these fires are extinguished,
  freedom from rebirth is attained.   Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  For as long
  as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the
  cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated,
  one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death.
  Paul Williams states:  Nirvana is broadly speaking the result of
  letting-go, letting-go the very forces of craving which power
  continued experiences of pleasure and inevitably suffering throughout
  this life, death, rebirth, and redeath. That, in a nutshell, is what
  nirvana is. It is the complete and permanent cessation of samsara,
  thence the cessation of all types of suffering, resulting from
  letting-go the forces which power samsara, due to overcoming ignorance
  (thence also hatred and delusion, the 'three root poisons') through
  seeing things the way they really are.

  During life and after death

  In the Buddhist tradition, a distinction is made between a person's experience of nirvana during
  their life and after their death. These two aspects of nirvana are
  described as:  Nirvana during life Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also translated as: nirvana with
  remainder; nirvana with residue  Indicates the experience of someone
  who has experienced nirvana in their lifetime but still remains in
  their physical body   Nirvana after death Pali: an-up ādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also referred to as: nirvana without
  remainder; nirvana without residue; or parinirvana  Indicates the
  experience of nirvana for someone after their death

  Nirvana in this life

  In the Buddhist tradition, it is believed that a practitioner can achieve nirvana during their life, or at the
  moment of death. When a practitioner experiences nirvana during their
  life, this experience is referred as nirvana-in-this-life, or more
  traditionally, "nirvana with remainder" (Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna;
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).   Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin
  explains:  Like the Buddha, any person who attains nirvāṇa does not
  remain thereafter forever absorbed in some transcendental state of
  mind. On the contrary he or she continues to live in the world; he or
  she continues to think, speak, and act as other people do—with the
  difference that all his or her thoughts, words, and deeds are
  completely free of the motivations of greed, aversion, and delusion,
  and motivated instead entirely by generosity, friendliness, and
  wisdom. This condition of having extinguished the defilements can be
  termed ‘nirvāṇa with the remainder [of life]’
  (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/sa-upādisesa-nibbāna): the nirvāṇa that comes
  from ending the occurrence of the defilements (kleśa/kilesa) of the
  mind; what the Pali commentaries call for short kilesa-parinibbāna.
  And this is what the Buddha achieved on the night of his awakening.
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to result in a
  transformed mind that has the following qualities:  free from negative
  mental states  peaceful  non-reactive

  Free from negative mental states

  The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to be free from all negative mental
  states. For example, Walpola Rahula states that one who has achieved
  nirvana is "free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and
  troubles that torment others."   Damien Keown states:  Nirvana [...]
  involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free
  of the obsession with ‘me and mine’.  Rupert Gethin states:  Any
  person who attains nirvāṇa [...] continues to think, speak, and act as
  other people do—with the difference that all his or her thoughts,
  words, and deeds are completely free of the motivations of greed,
  aversion, and delusion, and motivated instead entirely by generosity,
  friendliness, and wisdom.  Contemporary Buddhist teacher Ajahn Sucitto
  states:  When the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are
  extinguished, the mind is free to operate in terms of its fullest
  capacity.  Anam Thubten states:  Nirvana or whatever you want to call
  it means the complete deconstruction of all of our rigid mental
  patterns and habits as well the deconstruction of all of our limiting
  beliefs. This deconstruction creates a space for true inquiry. When we
  open our hearts and our minds completely, we are in a place where we
  can experience something new, a new truth, a new reality, a miracle
  that we haven't experienced in the past. We can see things differently
  and they present new, expanded opportunities, new horizons.

  Peaceful

  Nirvana is described as a state of perfect peace that comes when all negative mental states are eliminated. For example,
  Walpola Rahula states:  He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the
  happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and
  obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental
  health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over
  the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates
  and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is
  joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free
  from anxiety, serene and peaceful.  Damien Keown states:  It is clear
  that nirvana-in-this-life is a psychological and ethical reality, a
  transformed state of personality characterized by peace, deep
  spiritual joy, compassion, and a refined and subtle awareness.
  Negative mental states and emotions such as doubt, worry, anxiety, and
  fear are absent from the enlightened mind. Saints in many religious
  traditions exhibit some or all of these qualities, and ordinary people
  also possess them to some degree, although imperfectly developed. An
  enlightened person, however, such as a Buddha or an Arhat, possesses
  them all completely.

  Non-reactive

  In the state of nirvana, the mind is no longer reactive. Phillip Moffitt states:  Nibbana literally means "cooled"
  and is analogous to a fire that's no longer burning. Thus, when there
  is cessation, your mind no longer burns in response to the arising of
  pleasant and unpleasant in your life; it isn't reactive or controlled
  by what you like or dislike.  Ringu Tulku explains:  Someone who has
  attained [...] the state of nirvana, will no longer react within the
  pattern of aversion and attachment. The way such a person sees things
  will be nondualistic and therefore non-conceptual. [...] When this
  dual reaction is gone, nothing is haunting or fearful anymore. We see
  clearly, and nothing seems imposing, since nothing is imposed from our
  part. When there is nothing we do not like, there is nothing to fear.
  Being free from fear, we are peaceful. There is no need to run away
  from anything, and therefore no need to run after anything either. In
  this way there is no burden. We can have inner peace, strength, and
  clarity, almost independent from circumstances and situations. This is
  complete freedom of mind without any circumstantial entanglement; the
  state is called "nirvana" [...]. Someone who has reached this state
  has gone beyond our usual way of being imprisoned in habitual patterns
  and distorted ways of seeing these things.  Ajahn Sucitto states
  "qualities like calm, clarity, and kindness are all enhanced [...] the
  tinder and the sparkiness of the heart are removed."

  Nirvana after death

  In the Buddhist view, when an ordinary person dies and their physical body disintegrates, the person's
  consciousness passes onto a new birth; and the person is reborn in one
  of the six realms of samsara. However, when a person attains nirvana,
  they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies,
  their physical body disintegrates and their consciousness is said to
  be completely liberated. They are not reborn in the ordinary sense.
  Their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form.
  Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin explains:  Eventually ‘the
  remainder of life’ will be exhausted and, like all beings, such a
  person must die. But unlike other beings, who have not experienced
  ‘nirvāṇa’, he or she will not be reborn into some new life, the
  physical and mental constituents of being will not come together in
  some new existence, there will be no new being or person. Instead of
  being reborn, the person ‘parinirvāṇa-s’, meaning in this context that
  the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being cease to occur. This is the condition of ‘nirvāṇa without
  remainder [of life]’ (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/an-up ādisesa-nibbāna):
  nirvāṇa that comes from ending the occurrence of the aggregates
  (skandha/khandha) of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being; or, for short, khandha-parinibbāna.[f] Modern Buddhist usage
  tends to restrict ‘nirvāṇa’ to the awakening experience and reserve
  ‘parinirvāṇa’ for the death experience.  The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (paranirvana) is said to be beyond words or
  description. Walpola Rahula explains:  Nirvāṇa is beyond all terms of
  duality and relativity. It is therefore beyond our conceptions of good
  and evil, right and wrong, existence and non-existence. Even the word
  ‘happiness’ (sukha) which is used to describe Nirvāṇa has an entirely
  different sense here. Sāriputta once said: ‘O friend, Nirvāṇa is
  happiness! Nirvāṇa is happiness!’ Then Udāyi asked: ‘But, friend
  Sāriputta, what happiness can it be if there is no sensation?’
  Sāriputta’s reply was highly philosophical and beyond ordinary
  comprehension: “That there is no sensation itself is happiness’.

  No words to describe the experience

  In the Buddhist view, there are no words to describe the experience of nirvana-after-death.
  Walpola Rahula explains:  Now another question arises: What happens to
  the Buddha or an Arahant after his death, parinirvāṇa? This comes
  under the category of unanswered questions (avyākata). [Samyutta
  Nikaya IV (PTS), p. 375] Even when the Buddha spoke about this, he
  indicated that no words in our vocabulary could express what happens
  to an Arahant after his death. In reply to a Parivrājaka named Vaccha,
  the Buddha said that terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in
  the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation,
  perception, mental activities, consciousness—with which the terms like
  ‘born’ and ‘not born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and
  uprooted, never to rise again after his death. [Majjhima Nikaya I
  (PTS), p. 486]

  Physical existence is like a fire gone out

  When a person who has reached nirvana dies, their physical existence is compared to a fire
  that has gone out. Walpola Rahula explains:  An Arahant after his
  death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is
  over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are
  finished.[Majjhima Nikaya I (PTS), p. 487] Here it should be clearly
  and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is
  compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’
  composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has
  to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have
  misunderstood and misinterpreted this simile as referring to Nirvāṇa.
  Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out.

  Source: Wikipedia