Does buying meat equate to approving of killing an animal? In the Kammapatha sutta AN 3.164(A i 297) a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows :

Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.{1} Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if
one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell.

Note

one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available,
cannot be carried out without approving their killing.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html
It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established.
(As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot).
With mettā.

"Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)... I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not heard, or suspected (that living beng has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)..."
Furthermore, the Buddha added: "If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances... (i) When he says:'Go and fetch that living being'... (ii) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter... (iii) When he says: 'Go and slaughter that living being'... (iv) When that living bieng experiences pain and grief on being slaughter... (v) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible..."

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained in sensuality,
greedy for flavors,
mixed together with what’s impure, annihilationists,
discordant1 & indomitable:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are rough, pitiless,
eating the flesh off your back,betraying their friends,uncompassionate,
arrogant,
habitually ungenerous,
giving to no one:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Anger, intoxication,
stubbornness, hostility,
deceptiveness, resentment,
boasting, conceit & pride,
befriending those of no integrity:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those of evil habits,
debt-repudiators, informers,
cheats in trading, counterfeiters,
vile men who do evil things:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained toward beings,
taking what’s others’,
intent on injury,
immoral hunters, harsh, disrespectful:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are very greedy,
constantly intent
on hindering and killing;
beings who, after passing away, go to darkness,
fall headfirst into hell:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html


In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the relation between nirvana and phenomenon? I have seen nirvana described as the unborn, unconditioned, etc, but then how is it possible to experience nirvana if the experiencer is a conditioned phenomena? I feel as though there is a causal connection implied by that, which would make nirvana dependently originated and subject to permanence.

Since you said individual interpretations are ok, here is mine. I'm approaching this from a secular Buddhist perspective, one which treats Buddhism as a psychology and rejects anything unscientific.

Everything is conditioned, including Nirvana.  Furthermore, since enlightenment is realizing the self is conditioned, it makes no sense to claim the enlightened "self" is unconditioned.

However, one can use "unconditioned" in a relative sense when speaking of Nirvana.  Our contentment is usually a function of what we encounter, and in this we are conditioned.  Yet if our contentment is relatively independent of what we encounter (Nirvana) then we can speak of us/Nirvana being unconditioned -- relatively speaking.

Again, this is to be taken in a very relative, phenomenological sense.  Our biology is still conditioned, what brought us to Nirvana was conditioned, etc... Yet our experience feels unconditioned as our well-being is not dependent upon the usual conditions, and in that sense we can say we are unconditioned or that Nirvana is unconditioned.

I hope this helps.


Garu kamma explanation garu-kamma (weighty karma) - if one has killed one's mother or father, for example. These types of karma outweigh any other possible result; one who has performed these at some time in this life cannot help but go to hell in their next existence.

This is a quote from Ven Yuttadhammos answer.

My question is does garu kamma relate to murder of ones parents or could it also be a reason to shame them which drives them to suicide?

Decision to commit suicide is an individual decision. So it does not cause Garuka kamma for the one who does the shaming unless one had the intention to make them commit suicide.

There are also Garuka Kusala Karmas like Jhanas and Maggapala.


Regarding mindfulness during practice On personal  practice now no likes or dislike on thoughts  no thinking too. what is the stage of mindfulness?

This stage is basic but proper mindfulness, which is to be constantly maintained. The suttas say:

  ...that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly
  contemplating... strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily
  and is mindful in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward
  the world.

  Anapanasati Sutta


Developing mindfulness doing complex activities like learning or programming? It is easy enough to see the power of developing mindfulness through walking meditation, eating meditation, and any repeated task including cooking.

How does one develop mindfulness capacities when doing new things involving struggle like studying, reading, problem solving or programming without hindering one's progress in such a task?

With a simple action we layman do vipassana like this:

feeling hunger
decided to eat
getting up (can be broken up into putting hands on desk, lifting butt, turning body, raising body, letting go of desk, etc.)
walking towards fridge

...and so forth

A layman computer-user could do the same thing like this:

thinking about project
realizing idea
moving (break apart the moving process step by step as in walking)
bring computer from stand by (break this apart)
typing password (this is not broken down into piece because it is automatic for most)
deciding what to do (vicara)
remembering goal (vitarka)
opening program (can be broken down to pressing windows, typing name, clicking program)
waiting for load
feeling: impatience
thought: wanting to check 9gag.com
thought: don't check, try to be focused
body awareness
noticing program loaded
deciding to continue project action

All of the above was less than a minute! *Making anything a meditation becomes a energy-creating, focused journey!*
One can definitely build up one's mindfulness power through daily activity while actually increasing the activity's focus level too! If there is some interference it is outweighed by the level of calmness, clarity, and focus brought to the project itself. It's a win-win.

So a few points to making it not impede efficiency itself:

notice your level of anxiety (and other hindrances) and use mindfulness to bring yourself back to present moment especially by breaking down automatic actions (break down the noticing to building blocks e.g. typing W-O-R-D, moving mouse left quickly, left-up slow, up slow)
notice when switching from one thing to another but don't get in the way of that switching by interpreting this meditation itself... just observe yourself accomplishing such things effortlessly! practice self-awareness meditation for this (also called cessation-contemplation). This can decrease your overall panic-level while working on projects and also help you stay off sites like 9gag and other distractions.
One should use a similar method as when one does mindfulness while eating and walking when it is noticed. Forcing oneself to notice everything is a type of anxiety and can be noted as well, vipassana style.


is chocolate an allowable after noon? i recently went to a meeting with some bhikkhus, and they served the monks a small dish with butter slices and little chocolate squares... i think it was dark chocolate if that matters.

So anyway, i was suprised to see it and was wondering other views on this.

and the underlying point to the question... i am obviously looking for loop holes for a snack-ish type thing before bed.

Cocoa is a powder made from the seed from the cocoa tree. Since seeds fall into the category of food, it would not be allowed outside of the morning hours.

Chocolate also has narcotic properties, so could potentially be considered a medicine. Wikipedia says it may reduce cholesterol and ease diarrhea symptoms, so for people suffering from either of those ailments, it could be used at any time and kept for life, provided that was the reason for use.

It is quite surprising to hear that otherwise strict monks are using it as a refreshment in the evening; I think they consider the natural fatigue and perhaps even hunger in the evening to constitute "sickness" that chocolate "cures". It is quite clear, however, that the Buddha allowed only fruit and vegetable juice for that purpose and using the oil found in much chocolate for this purpose is an abuse. Sugar might be okay, since it is technically dehydrated juice, but that is still a bit of a stretch.


How is liberation achieved? If the path leads to liberation then liberation should be conditioned and impermanent. But nirvana is beyond extremes so the path cannot lead to nirvana. How does it work then?

The eightfold path is said to be conditioned, as follows:

To whatever extent there are phenomena that are conditioned, the noble eightfold path is declared the foremost among them. AN 4.34

Where as Nirvana is said to be unconditioned:

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. Ud 8.3

What is plainly obvious is the liberation of an arahant (from suffering) is permanent (until the ending of the life of the arahant).

Tassata sā vimutti sacce ṭhitā akuppā hoti.Tañhi, bhikkhu, musā yaṃ mosadhammaṃmosa taṃ saccaṃ yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ
His release (liberation), being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. MN 140

Therefore, liberation (from suffering) must be unconditioned, just as Nirvana is unconditioned.
In summary, the eightfold path does not create or condition Nirvana. Instead, the eightfold only removes the obscurations to Nirvana (which was always there but unknown due to obscurations).

It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves & ponds, walled, delightful.
In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of... cessation...
Nagara Sutta: The City


Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts What are the Suttas which discuss self and nonself and under which contexts and angles?

To break it down:

What Suttas discuss no self as an extreme view?
What Suttas discuss what is not pleasent cannot be taken as not / non self? What Suttas discuss sensations and not / non self?
What Suttas discuss external controller as not / non self?
What Suttas discuss internal controller as not / non self?
What Sutas discuss the doer as not / non self?
What Suttas discuss action is not / non self?
What Suttas discuss body as not / non self?
what Suttas discuss consciousness as the last aggregate to realise as not / non self?
what Suttas discuss the aggregates as not self?
what Suttas discuss the 6 sense bases as not self?
What Suttas discuss the world is non / not self?
What Suttas discuss the contemporary notion of Atta?
What are the angles the non / not self is discussed? What angles and contexts that might be missing above? If so what are the Suttas in these contexts?

Above is just for guidance but it will be helpful if the Sutas can be grouped by context / angle, perhaps under a title or section. It is helpful if the relevant section can be quoted.

I will be accepting the answer with most of the mentioned / unmentioned categories covered followed by number of references. But if you have at least 1 reference not already in another answer this will be appreciated and upvoted.

In Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow gets you to see that the 6 sense bases as not self  IMHO… There’s a simile where a man is suffering from pain. He gets tied up in anxiety and misery around the pain. And the Buddha says it’s like being shot with an arrow and then shooting yourself with a second arrow. The physical pain is the first arrow; the mental pain is the second one. And it’s the mental one that’s important. As the Buddha says, the enlightened person, the awakened person, may still get shot with those first arrows but doesn’t shoot him or herself with the second.  It is because an Arahant has gone beyond the last of the four kinds of clingings – the Attavada Upadana (attachment or upadana is “firmly grasping”.) Attavada is the last of the attachments which is in other words a hindrance to the realization of Nibbana. So this tells us how not to shoot ourselves with that second arrow. The question is: How do we learn not to do that?  If a person who has gained very exalted states in meditation and responds by saying, “I am at peace. I am released”, the “I am” in those statements is what’s causing the problem. It shows that this person still has some connection, still has some clinging. After all, craving combined with clinging is what causes the suffering. You impose that idea of who you are on all kinds of experiences.

In the discourse of the snake simile Alagaddupama Sutta points to the contemporary notion of Atta IMHO… In this Buddha explained the doctrine of soullessness in another way, comparing Dhamma to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.  Sabbe Dhamma anatta—all dhammas are not‐self—applies here, where you might see nibbana as a dhamma, as an object of the mind. As long as you perceive it in that way, there’s going to be attachment, there’s going to be a dhamma to hold on to. At Nibbana, these dhammas have done their work, so an Arahant put them aside. A person who uses the Dhamma to criticise, to find fault, or for other reasons than for its intended purpose is like a person who has got hold of a snake by the tail or the coil.  The wrongly held ‘pseudo’ doctrine will destroy him / her.

In the Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka, SN 22.89  it discusses the doer as not / non self IMHO:

  Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted. Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’ the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted.

In the Dīghā¬vu ¬U¬pāsa¬ka¬ Sutta, SN55.5 internal controller as not / non self IMHO… ie., perception of impermanence (anicca,saññā), the perception of suffering in what is impermanent (anicce dukkha,saññā), the perception of not-self in what is suffering (dukkhe anatta,saññā), the perception of abandonment [letting go of defilements] (pahāna,saññā), the perception of fading away [dispassion] (virāga,saññā), the perception of cessation (of suffering) (nirodha,saññā).:

  "Therefore, Dighavu, when you are established in these four factors of stream entry, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself." ….. Dīgh’āvu later passes away and arises spontaneously in the Suddh’āvāsa as a non-returner.

Upasena Sutta: Upasena, SN 35.69 discuss the body as not / non self IMHO:

  Records the incident of the death of Upasena Vangantaputta from a snake-bite. Summoned by him, Sāriputta looked at him and said that he noticed no change at all in Upasena, either in his body or in his faculties. Upasena answered that that was because he had long before quelled all lurking tendencies of "I" and "mine."

In the Maha Satipatthana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya - discuss the world is non / not self IMHO…  We grasp the world as if it is our own. Seeing through eye, we grasp things as if they are our own. Hearing through the ear ,we grasp sounds, likewise by smelling, tasting and touching we grasp things as they are real and our own. Through all these, either we practice attachment or revulsion.

  The Buddha said "'This is the only way Bhikkhus, for the purification of beings (ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo sattanam visuddhiya). Buddha has clearly pointed out that both attachment or revulsion should be avoided by the wise. In this Sutta, emphasizing the four contemplation, namely, contemplation on the body, feeling, consciousness and Dhamma, the Buddha instructed one to contemplate the body in the body, feeling in the feeling, consciousness in consciousness and mental objects (Dhamma) in mental objects. That is in ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome in this world, covetousness and grief (atapisampajano satima vineyyaloke abhijjhadomanassam). Here, in this context the term abhijjhadomanassa is very important because abhijja is covetousness or attachment, its counter part is domanassa or revulsion. So the Buddha's advice here is to overcome both, attachment and revulsion. That is the path prescribed by the Buddhas for emancipation. It is the only way.

At the very outset Buddha preached on soullessness in the Anattalakkhana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya for the five disciples. Here Buddha discuss consciousness as the last aggregate to realise as not / non self IMHO…  In this sutta the Buddha takes up each of the five aggregates namely, form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana) shows that none of these should be viewed as ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’ or ‘this is my soul’. The belief in the soul is a vain attempt to keep within one’s control things which are dependently arisen and therefore not capable of bringing within the range of one’s supervision and control.  The Buddha clearly demonstrates that one cannot demand any of the aggregates to behave in the way one wishes it to be.

Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone discuss no self as an extreme view IMHO.. in seeing ‘self’ as view the four physical elements (dhatu) of nature: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind (pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo) as Elements of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion.
(1)        Earth element (pathavi-dhatu) has the property of hardness, strength, thickness, immobility, security and supporting.  - they represent the solidity property of forms.
 (2)        Water element (apo-dhatu) has the property of oozing, humidity, fluidity, trickling, permeation and cohesion.  - they represent the fluidity or cohesiveness property of forms.
 (3)        Fire element (tejo-dhatu) has the property of heating, warmth, consuming and grasping.  - they represent the heat or cold temperature property of forms.
 (4)        Air element (vayo-dhatu) has the property of motion, supporting, coldness, ingress and egress, easy movement and grasping.  - they represent the distended-ness property of forms.

The Mahahatthipadopama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya discusses the aggregates and as not self
The sutta shows that this so called man is nothing but “five aggregates affected by clinging” and are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering (chando alayo anunayo ajjhosanam, so dukkha samudayo). Once the Buddha said in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering (sankhittena pancupadanakkhandha dukkha). If one does not grasp things as one’s own and eradicate “I” concept (upadana) completely one can achieve the Enlightenment (Anupadana).

Uppādāsutta - The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma AN 3.136 shows us that action is not / non self. that is …
 “Subbe dhamma anatta…  All compounds are devoid of self.”  Or as this sutta shows:

  all conditioned phenomea are impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti)
  all conditioned phenomena are suffering (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā'ti)
  all phenomena are non-self (sabbe dhammā anattā'ti.)

which means: All states are not self...

  This body is neither yours, nor anybody else's...
  These feelings are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These perceptions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These mental constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These verbal constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These bodily constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  This consciousness is neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  They are results of old kamma, prior actions, something to be seen as generated and shaped by accumulations of past intention, emerging as effects to be sensed now...


Being "Present" with the help of body sensations then how to proceed? **

Practice Mindfulness of Body

**

I'm trying to being present with the help of body sensations.

As I'm a beginner . I place my hand over my chest to feel that I'm live and presence. This is to ensure that I do not "think" that I'm being present but as a fact I'm .

After few minutes , I do feel tightness of my heart , breathing rhythm. Then starts to feel energy flow (tingling) inside my legs and Torso .This is like being my attention expanded beyond the chest .  When thoughts come I bring my attention back to chest .

Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state . The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to whatever it "wishes" to be with .

Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be ? to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

This essay on A Guided Meditation by Thanissaro Bhikku can help you.

I include a quote here:

  If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

  When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...


Does dukkha apply to name-and-form? That is to say, anicca and anatta obviously apply to all 5 skandhas, but 'stress/suffering' is a psychological phenomenon. Is it the 'name' within name-and-form that links it back to dukkha?

'Dukkha' as one of the three characteristics is not a psychological phenomenon (unlike 'dukkha' in the four noble truths). As one of the three characteristics, 'dukkha' means 'unsatisfactoriness', namely, the inherent inability of impermanent conditioned things to bring lasting happiness.

For example, apples, motor cars & cocaine are 'unsatisfactory' because there is no characteristic within those things that can bring lasting happiness.

The following correct translation makes the different usages of 'dukkkha' clear:

  Sabbe baṅkhārā dukkhā'ti yadā paññāya passati Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.

  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.

  Dhammapada 278 translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita

As for 'nama', for Buddhist purposes, it is defined in the suttas (SN 12.2; MN 9; etc) as the 'mentality' or 'mental faculties' of feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and also mindfulness, zeal, energy, decision, etc (MN 111).

'Nama' for the purpose of converting & teaching Brahmans (eg. DN 15, DN 11, SN 7.6), namely, 'name', is not for Buddhist purposes & should be ignored by those wanting to comprehend Buddhism.

In other words, in the context of Buddhist suttas such as SN 12.2, MN 9, etc, 'name-form' is an incorrect translation. The correct translation here should be 'mentality-materiality'.

'Name-form' is only a correct translation for Brahman suttas, such as DN 15, DN 11, SN 7.6, etc.

Thus, in terms of the three characteristics, nama-rupa is dukkha (unsatisfactory); just as SN 22.85 states the five aggregates of a Buddha are unsatisfactory (dukkha).

However, in terms of the four noble truths, nama-rupa is not dukkha because the 1st noble truth summarises all psychological dukkha as attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates.


Is there any mention of child adoption in any Buddhist writings and what is the view on child adoption with regard to Buddhism? Being married, I have of late been coming across the dilemma of whether to have a child or not and if yes, if a biological child or not (which by itself may be another question which I may ask separately).

So, when I ponder on the subject, I get the thought if it may be more meaningful to adopt an orphaned child instead of having a biological child. But again, although at the surface adoption appears to be an altruistic and more meaningful thought, if I think deeper, I really wonder if the desires as a result of which I would want to have a biological child (and which I want to avoid) are pretty much the same as those which want me to adopt one. Additionally, adopting a child has its own administrative and emotional complications, which may result in unhappy experiences and which may therefore defeat the entire purpose.

So, I thought it may help me build a perspective on the subject, if I come to know what is the opinion on child adoption with regard to the Buddha's teachings. So, my questions are:-

Is there any mention of the merits/ demrits of adoption in the Tipitika or any other Buddhist writings?
Is there any incident from during the life of the Buddha in which child adoption was involved?
Would it help to strengthen one's ethics by adopting a child?
How can we compare or weigh the merits of dana to several orphan children vs adopting and nurturing one?

I view it as adoption can be nothing but good. you are providing a child with a home, food and most importantly love. if it is done with good intention then it cant be bad.


Where does the Buddha mention a craving for non-existence? In which pali canon texts does the Buddha mention a craving for nonexistence? I'm just curious to see what it means in its wider context. I suspect its mentioned in a number of different places but any reference will be good.

The Buddha mentions the 'craving' in his first sermon, which is/was the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, in which he describes the 'four noble truths'.

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

See also Vibhava-tanha (craving not to be).
Note that this commentary equates that with what's called annihilation-ism, a.k.a. materialism (ucchedavaada):

99 Kāma-taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to pleasures of the senses. Bhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to continued existence, either the current sensual existence or a better and higher existence in the rūpa (fine material) or arūpa (non-material) brahmā realms, or becoming attached to the rūpa and arūpa jhānas. Vibhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to the idea that there is no kamma for rebirth, and hence no future existence.

Wikipedia says,

Pali discourses that use this three-fold typology include DN 15, DN 22, MN 44, SN 22.22, SN 22.103, SN 22.104, SN 22.105, SN 38.10, SN 39.10, SN 45.170, SN 56.11, SN 56.13 and SN 56.14.

For example, DN 15 says e.g.,

[...] craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming [...]

... and the same in MN 44 and SN 22.22, etc.


Level of Focus in Anapanasati I've been practising meditation with the breath as an object. While meditating, I am mindful of whatever arises. I feel that such awareness gives insight into the mind.

However, I am wondering whether one should investigate the mind this way, or try and increase focus by narrowing onto the breath. Would narrowing onto the breath provide more benefit?

Hence, I wonder how close to the breath one should be in meditation? Should all thinking be ideally diminished?

Yes, once you have reached sufficient level of concentration you may continue on the breath (samatha) or investigate the mind (vipassana). In my own practice I have a preference for reaching the calmest level possible, so I simply stay with breath, but more quietly, gently, less control, just allowing it to be, no more. At the same time, I don't ignore or suppress things as they arise, i just let them arise, fall, arise, fall. In one door, out the other. It's "kind of" a combination of both Calm and Insight.


Why is mentally reproducing music so hard to control? How can it be counteracted? I started decreasing the amount of music I listened to before and especially after I started meditating so that I had to cope less with replaying music passages and enjoy a clearer and more silent mind. Even though now I do not actively listen any more music, sometimes I happen to hear some passages from a TV, a radio or randomly on the Internet, and on certain occasions, while sitting or doing some work, it happens that a certain "mental process" starts reproducing music fragments that I've been exposed to, or that for some reason - for example, through a synesthetic "link" - I've recollected from the past.

I would like to receive some suggestions, and even some observations based on what fields like neurology, psychology etc. offer when relevant, on how to silence my mind when it tries to reproduce fragments of music automatically.

This question originates from a personal need, but I think that it could apply more generally even to other circumstances and for other people. When several months ago I was trying to weaken this automatic habit of reproducing music in my head, I remember I had to apply myself with perseverance for several days, and that the kind of noise from music seemed unusually stronger than any other I had experienced before.

When we sit, we pass through different phases of consciousness.  At first our mind is active and discursive.  It ruminates over all manner of things, rehearses events to come, and rehashes those that have past.  As we move towards stillness - which can be done simply by sitting quietly in one place - our mind settles into a more passive state.  Rather than taking an active role in the creation of our thoughts, our mind relaxes, revealing its deeper layers.  At this point, things may begin to spring up unbidden.  Sometimes we can experience memories from long ago, other times we may see fragments of pictures in our minds, and sometimes we may experience traces of emotion that have no obvious cause.  If you spend any amount of time listening to music, recollection of song is also exceedingly common.

Don't worry about about the music.  If you persist in your sitting, it will begin to fade.  Song is just a different kind of thought.  Treat it like you would any other - let it have its space, don't try to chase it down or drown it out, sit still, and do your best to maintain attention on your breath.


Did the Buddha ever delve on the dangers of one's own spirtual achievements feeding the ego? This question came up when I really thought back on both my and many others' spiritual journey. In the New Age community, especially, the sense of viewing things as illusions and making progress in one's spiritual path can easily steer you to be more condescending or arrogant (i.e viewing others as somehow lesser or more immature than you) and in the process, feed the Ego.

Often you see this in spiritual teachers as well, who seemed to have, in their journeys to eliminate the Ego, fueled their Ego.

Did the enlightened Buddha ever touch on this subject?

There is one good example of the Buddha delving on the dangers of one's own spirtual achievements feeding the ego.  It is that of the erudite monk called Potila. Buddha dismissed him with just one word “THUCCA POTILA”  (meaning empty Potila), because he only taught others, but did not practice. It was his EGO that prevented him from achieving even the level of a stream entrant. The story is best described in THIS BLOG.

  During the time of the Buddha there was a bhikkhu named Pötila, who was well-versed with deep Dhamma concepts and was a well known teacher; he had developed abhinna powers as well, but had not attained even the Sotapanna stage. His desanas (discourses) were deep and only those at the Anagami stage (at least Sotapanna stage) could follow them and get to Arahanthood. One day he went to see the Buddha, paid respects, and told the Buddha that he had been a Dhamma teacher during the times of several earlier Buddhas too, and helped many to attain Nibbana (Arahantship).

  The Buddha asked him whether he has attained any magga phala and Bhikkhu Potila admitted that he had not. The Buddha just commented: ”Thucca Potila” and turned his attention to other matters; thucca (pronounced “thuchcha”) in Pali means despicable or “lowly”.

  So, bhikkhu Potila, who had expected praise from the Buddha for helping others, realized that he needs to work on his own salvation before helping others. He strived by himself and could not make any progress; he was trying very hard to “give up all attachments”, following the same instructions he was giving others. But no matter how hard he tried, he could not succeed.

  When he sought help from other bhikkhus, they were reluctant to become his teacher because everyone knew he was very knowledgeable in Dhamma. Eventually, he went to this very young Arahant, who was well-known for his teaching abilities, and sought help. The young Arahant agreed to help, only if bhikkhu Potila agreed to carry out everything as instructed, and Potila agreed.

  The young Arahant decided to use an unusual kammatthana (instructions). He took Potila to a large area covered by mud, and asked him to wade into the mud and keep going until told to stop. Potila started wading in mud and kept going until he was told to stop when the mud was all the way up to his chin; he was barely able to move at this point because mud was heavy.

  The Arahant told him that, “if someone is stuck in mud like that any knowledge about cleaning oneself by taking a bath is not going to help. One needs to get out of the mud first”.

  Then he asked Potila to come back. Potila had great difficulty in moving forward initially, since he was all the way up to the chin in thick and heavy mud. While dragging himself out of the mud with great difficulty, Potila realized what the young Arahant was talking about. It is not possible to get out of mud until one realizes that one is stuck there, and getting out of mud required sheer will power. Similarly, he had not realized that he was stuck at a much lower moral level; he needed to cleanse his mind first.

  The “giving up” part comes with a mind that has removed the wrong visions (micca ditthi); and that comes via comprehending anicca, dukkha, anatta. If someone at a level below at least the Sotapanna stage, “giving up worldly things” is not possible; that could easily lead to patigha or “friction” or “anger with oneself for giving up things”. One’s mind has not advanced to that stage yet.

  The simile can be made even better by looking at what happens to ants who get stuck in honey. Here unlike mud, the sense pleasures are appealing and there is no incentive to get out either. Those ants who get stuck in honey, would not even try to get out because they are too busy enjoying the honey. Even when they are barely stuck, and can move out of honey, they would not because they like the taste of honey. Just like that, any living being, whether a human or even the lowly worm, likes to indulge in the sense pleasures, and thus gets stuck.

  And even when one realizes that one needs to get out of “the honey pot” it is hard, at least initially.
  For that one needs to see the perils of staying in this rebirth process, where birth in lower four realms will lead to unimaginable suffering. Even if one can strive to be born in higher realms, that will not last long. This is “anicca“: no matter how hard we try to find refuge in the 31 realms it is not possible to do so in the long run.

  With much effort, Potila slowly made his way up to the waist level, and started feeling the lightness of being free of mud. He could now move faster too. He felt the relief when he was out the mud, and was asked to go and take a shower. Now, cleaning up with soap could be done; but while stuck in mud, there was no use of soap and water. Just like that the deep Dhamma that he had memorized was of no use to him while he was still stuck in mud.

  Eventually, when one comes out the mud that is like the Sotapanna level. One is still covered with mud, i.e., one still likes to enjoy sense pleasure. But now one KNOWS that one needs to take a shower, use soap and shampoo, and remove all that mud.


Was there a period when "Consensus Buddhism"/"Buddhist Romanticism" dominated Buddhism in the West? Consensus Buddhism is a term invented by David Chapman. To me it seems to be another name for what Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls Buddhist Romanticism. Here are some characteristics of the supposed consensus, according to Chapman:

consensus Western Buddhism is—supposedly—egalitarian, democratic, anti-hierarchy, ecumenical, accepts all religious traditions (except of course Bad forms of Buddhism), respects and sometimes incorporates psychotherapy, is ecologically aware, talks about social justice, promotes internal and external peace, etc.

Moreover:

Western Buddhism kept some traditional Buddhist mythology (in the same way liberal Christianity keeps some traditional mythology), but you aren’t expected to believe in it. It’s a bunch of “teaching stories,” not Truth.
Consensus Buddhists mostly don’t believe in Buddhas, either. The important thing is not enlightenment, but a morality of good intentions, harmonious behavior, and inoffensiveness.

And:

The main practice of Consensus Buddhism is vipassana. This method is meant to shatter the self and break connections. Western Buddhists mostly want and expect the opposite results.

When describing "Consensus Buddhism", Chapman writes a lot about "hegemony", "monopoly" that "Consensus Buddhists" want to achieve, as well as "suppressing other alternatives". And he writes that such an approach dominated Buddhism in the West for a long time and only recently that "consensus" is "starting to break down".
Despite having contact with various Buddhist groups in the last years, I hardly came across anyone who fits with the description of Consensus Buddhism, so I have the following questions:

In your experience, does/did mainstream Buddhism in the West really match the definition of Consensus Buddhism?
In your experience, what was the period when it dominated the mainstream Western Buddhism (in terms of printed media, number of followers, etc.)?
In your experience, does/did it really try to supress its alternatives?
If the answer to the first question is "yes", was the phenomenon of "Consensus Buddhism" restricted to any particular country or part of the world? (I have a feeling that there may be big differences in this regard between, say, North America, Europe and Oceania.)
What are the names of the "Consensus Buddhist" groups you know about?

Chapman has drawn a circle around his own practice of Aro g'Ter, which he describes as "neither traditional nor modern" but as "terma." Everything outside that circle is "Consensus Buddhism" or infected by it. He also likes Shambhala, which he practised before the Aro sect. I live in Halifax, which is the International headquarters of Shambhala. The dominant form here is Vajra-Tantra; it totally dominates Buddhism in Atlantic Canada in numbers, wealth, teaching and practice. But I don't call it a "consensus"; I don't practice it and it has no affect on what I choose to practice.

Chapman's thesis on Consensus Buddhism approaches conspiracy theory. He purports that there is this loosely coalesced conspiracy, led by the Dalai Lama, Jack Kornfield, and other published teachers, to make us all practice the same thing ("One Dharma"), which deliberately excludes tantric practice from that consensus, thus suppressing the practice of tantra. He offers no evidence to explain how this Consensus Buddhism dominates US practice, or that it deliberately suppresses tantric practice--not even anecdotal evidence. It's a conspiracy theory which he proffers as a way to defend his own views.


Understanding the mix of karma I'm still struggling with the concept of good karma, bad karma, and both good and bad karma.  If all actions are one of the above- and, as I understand it, mostly the latter, it seems as if we will always be generating bad karma.  Is following the 8-fold path going to insure only creating good karma or will we still be generating both as we struggle on the path?

I think its helpful to bear in mind the different between Karma and it's fruit (or vipāka). An action may have a karmic effect if it has ethical or volitional weight but it's fruit doesn't occur immediately. It might occur years later, in another life or it might fizzle out before it ever occurs.

The relevance of this is that a person might generate a whole lot of 'bad' Karma but this karma might only bear fruit well after the person has undergone a tremendous amount of spiritual progress. So 'bad' Karma storing up to bear fruit won't stop them on the spiritual path. They might however have to deal with the effects of that bad action when they are an entirely different sort of person.

A good example of this (from the Pali Canon so this has a Therevadan focus now) is the story of Angulimala. He was a notorious bandit and murderer who encountered the Buddha and then became the Buddhas disciple. His 'bad' Karma didn't stop him ultimately becoming a ahrant. However he still had to deal with the fruits of his bad conduct well after his conversion. At one point his was seriously attacked by resentful villagers while on his alms round. Even though he was no longer a murderer he still had to deal with the consequences of his 'bad' Karma.

So just to summarise, your previous bad Karma won't necessarily stop your progress on the spiritual path. But it's likely that you will at some point have to deal with the fruits no matter how spiritually adept you may become.


What was the reason behind the fall of Buddhism in India? Buddhism was originated from India.It spread all accross the world, many countries are called as Buddhist countries.

Lord Buddha was the most scientific, serene, logical and kind person of the world, anyone becoming his enemy seems to be impossible. There was a time when almost whole of the India was Buddhist. Then, what caused the decline of Buddhism in India?

After the Pari-nibbhana of The Buddha, there was a decline of Theravada Buddhism ( those who follow the teaching preserved in the Pāli), and a rise of the Mahayana Buddhism. The third council got underway to make the monastic order of those who follow the teaching preserved in the Pāli.  With time Mahayana Buddhism rose up again. It was a death blow to those who wanted to keep the teaching preserved in the Pāli.  Mahayanists translated the Dhamma into Sanskrit and rejected attaining of the Marga- phala of the Theravada School.

At the time only the Brahmins’ Veda was written in Veda and Sanskrit languages. Brahmins never felt that other religions will be a threat to their own since Veda as it was the only religious script written in Sanskrit. However, after the translation of the Mahayana scriptures into Sanskrit by the Mahayanists, the Brahmins started reading these translated texts and to argue pointing out its content.

In trying to defeat these Brahmins, the Mahayanists built large universities like Nalanda with the aim of learning the Veda. The language used in these universities was Sanskrit. They tried to outdo the Brahmins. They tried to argue with the Brahmins. Thus what came to pass was exactly as mentioned in the Alagaddūpama Sutta, which states that “if anyone tries to learn my teachings to argue with others, then he will be destroyed like the man who tried to catch a snake by its tail.”

When the monks won an argument the monks got the king to make the Brahmins their servants in the Nalanda University. The monks were beheaded when Brahmins won their arguments. The Brahmins went for the kill, because of the change that these monks have made to the Brahmin society. A Sothern Indian Brahmin called Sankarāchārya rose up to destroy the power of these monks. The Musālman invaded India at this time. The Brahmins got them to first destroy Buddhism, or at least what was left of it. This was how the Buddhism got wiped out from India.

It was the moguls that did most of the killing of Buddhist Monks, and the process of decline continued until Buddhism got fully wiped out in India by the end of the 12th century, when Somapura Mahavihara (in the present day Bangladesh) was set ablaze. In 1199 CE Odantapuri Mahavihara close to Nalanda was burnt down after killing all the monks. Buddha’s place of Enlightenment, Bodhgaya too was attacked.


Compassion to friends: stepping in vs. letting them learn on their own There is a story about how the Buddha will knock on your door if your house is on fire, but he will not kick it down because you have to answer the door yourself. This is analogous to the Four Noble Truths, in which one must realize their suffering, and from that they can make the effort to find the path to the cessation of suffering. The Buddha will not force you down that path, nor will he be your savior; he will only help you if you ask him. However, the Buddha also asks those to practice sincere compassion for others.

My question is: if I see a friend suffering (let's say from a slight alcohol abuse or they think that they are ugly), yet I think they will never understand their suffering, how can I give my compassion to that being that needs help to deal with their suffering, when their understanding of suffering must come from within? They need to come to the realization of their suffering, but I know that these people will never see the light themselves. Where's the balance in this tricky situation? These friends are unwilling to change their unhealthy habits, but I, as one who tries hard to practice compassion, find it hard to just let it slide and hope someday they will realize their suffering and understand that it exists, and that there's a path to the cessation of it.

Any insight would be much appreciated. And I hope my thoughts make sense to some of you.

The truth about the Buddha, as far as I can see, was that he was disinclined to do much of anything after his enlightenment:

  'With great pains have I acquired it. Enough! why should I now proclaim it?
  This doctrine will not be easy to understand to beings that are lost in lust and hatred.
  'Given to lust, surrounded with thick darkness, they will not see what is repugnant (to their minds),
  abstruse, profound, difficult to perceive, and subtle.'

  -- Mv. 1.5 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Of course, we see a complete reversal of intention after the Buddha was first asked to teach and he looked and saw "beings whose mental eyes were darkened by scarcely any dust, and beings whose eyes were covered by much dust, beings sharp of sense and blunt of sense, of good disposition and of bad disposition, easy to instruct and difficult to instruct, some of them seeing the dangers of future life and of sin." (Ibid)

  'Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear;
  let them send forth faith to meet it.
  The Dhamma sweet and good I spake not, Brahmâ,
  despairing of the weary task, to men.'

  -- Ibid

But the point remains that his whole life of teaching depended upon being asked to teach. The first question you have to ask yourself is, "why help someone else at all?"

Some of the things you have to keep in mind when answering are:

Will I actually be able to help this person, given I'm not a fully enlightened Buddha?
Will they accept my help or will they reject it?
Will helping this person distract me from my own practice or will it help make me a better person?

What you shouldn't do is let your partiality for this person lead you to spend more energy on them than is appropriate; if the same amount of energy could obtain greater results elsewhere, it stands to reason that you work for the greatest gain possible.

Compassion means an attitude of non-harming; it fails when it becomes a desire to free others from suffering, because that is a type of craving that leads to suffering when it is unable to obtain its desire. This means that true compassion requires the person to approach you in some way - approaching them to probe into their personal life or nagging them about seeking help is not compassion.

  Compassion  is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering.
  Its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by
  suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside and it fails when it produces
  sorrow.

  -- Vism IX.94 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Of course, simply crying in your presence or making a fool of themselves would be enough to elicit an appropriate response, since it would be cruelty to repress the intention to comfort others or warn them of their bad behaviour, etc.

In most cases, your friendship with the person will put you in a position to nudge them in the right direction as a simple matter of course. What you don't want to do is want to help them, since that will have negative consequences, most likely for the both of you. In the end, we are all responsible for our own fate; this is what sets Buddhism apart from theistic religions, that we have to save ourselves.

  Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great.
  Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

  -- Dhp. 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Still, you should not underestimate your influence on others, nor should you dismiss the power of small acts of goodness.

  Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

  -- Dhp. 122 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Simply being mindful and conscientious around other people can have a profound impact on them over the long term, if you are patient and truly compassionate with them.


Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings? A number of Suttas make very clear the practitioner's duty to his/her parents. Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings?

Thank you

Yes in several places Pali Canon says to help one's relatives such as parents. In the Mangala Sutta in one stanza says to support mother, father and cherish wife and children while in another stanza says to help the relatives. So relatives should include siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc.

"To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing"

"To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct,[11] to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.5.nara.html

Although I am unable provide any other exact instances, there can be other instances too.


Ambitions - Are they Real or just an Illusion Do our passions and ambitions need to be fulfilled or is it just an illusion created by our mind? According to the dhamma, is it considered to be helpful or unhelpful to fulfill goals?

In my opinion, it is good to have goals, but the "why" and intensity is very important. If you thirst for it, because, let's say, you expect outer praise from someone, that is not very wise and will eventually lead to disappointment and frustration. Your intention is very important (why you want something). If you think, speak and act in such a way that supports a relative harmonious life for both you and others -then go for it! Another thing to consider: Usually people have a rather short sighted view and wear pink coloured glasses. They focus only on the short term pleasures, see only the beauty in the object (or pleasure), but don't consider the long(er) term drawbacks. For example: Humans enjoy sensual pleasures because they feel good (now) and therefore they repeat it over and over again.  This might not sound problematic, but this causes all kinds of addictions like binge eating, alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction followed by lack of self control, rationalizations ("it's fine what I'm doing".. so basically short sighted), a mind which is never restless, attachment, problems with oneself (self hatred, lethargic), problems with friends/family and even with society.  If you don't have what you crave/if it's gone/if someone takes it away from you you become angry, upset, lament etc. People never ask themselves, why they had to repeat the sensual pleasures over and over again**.
And what, Bhikkhu, was the cause for you indulging in the sense pleasure over and over again? Impermanence, that is, the shortness/transience of the pleasure, is the first reason. Craving for the pleasure is the second reason. Attachment (which follows from craving) is the third.
This wasn't said by the Buddha. I just like his way of words


Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists? Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists? I can't believe I don't know the answer to that question, the amount I've read about Buddhism.

Off the top of my head, some say it has svabhava, those that equate it with emptiness probably say it does not have svabhava, and some say it is the self.

Nibbana is an element (dhatu).

  There are these two elements:

  Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—

  the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

  saṅkhatādhātu, asaṅkhatādhātu.

  When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements,

  Imā kho, ānanda, dve dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—

  they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.

  ettāvatāpi kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṃvacanāyā”ti.

  MN 115

The Pali suttas use the term "sa dhatu" rather than "sabhava".

  Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this element
  persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
  natural principles:

  Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva
  sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.

  AN 3.136

The term "sabhava" has a valid meaning in Theravada Commentary but because the term contains the word "bhava" (which has different meanings & can mean "ego"), the Mahayana misconstrue "sabhava" and use for for their propaganda. Also, the Mahayana teaches emptiness different to the Buddha. Mahayana exists because people have different ideas. In the Pali suttas, the term "emptiness" does not mean "empty of inherent existence". It means empty of "ego" or "I-thinking" & "my-thinking". Theravada does not concern itself with whether "things" exist or not. Theravada only concerns itself with ending suffering; which occurs with the ending of craving, attachment & egoism. If I believe a computer exists, this does not cause suffering. Suffering only occurs when I regard a computer as "my computer".


Difference between Pacceka Buddha and Arahant? The Sammasambuddha (Skt: Samyaksambuddha) is also an Arahant according to the Dhajagga Sutta.

Is the Pacceka Buddha (Skt: Pratyeka Buddha) also an Arahant?

What's the difference between Pacceka Buddha and Arahant?

Why are disciples of the Buddha who achieved Nibbana called Arahants, instead of being a type of Buddha? Although wikipedia calls them Sāvakabuddha (Skt: Śrāvakabuddha) though stating that this was not in the Pali Canon.

Sravakabuddha is a Mahayana terminology so it's not found in the Pali canon.

Sometimes the Buddha refers to himself as an Arahant because they have all attained releases which are the same, abandoning of greed, hate and delusion (it is like saying we are humans instead of men and women).
Only the wisdom of the Buddha is different to the rest, as the wisdom of Maha Arahant Sariputta is different from the other Arahants.

In Theravada Buddhism a Buddha is one who discovers Dhammma and starts a Buddha sasana. A Buddha usually mean Samasambuddha, self-enlightened one, not dependent on another's teaching. This definition is different from Mahayana, Vajrayana.

A Pacceka Buddha is also one who has abandoned greed, hate and delusion but he does it by himself, when in an aeon, or time when there is no Buddha's teaching but his wisdom is limited in that he cannot start a Buddha sasana, He is called the silent Buddha.


In what order should I read the various Buddhist scriptures? Well, first of all, I don't consider myself a strict Buddhist, but I want to study Buddhism -- both Theravada and Mahayana -- for educational and spiritual purposes. I am very excited with scientific studies of Buddhist meditation, and I'm sure that the Buddhist teachings have a lot of interesting and helpful things to offer...

I have one small book on the philosophy of Buddhism, there are 19 sutras with the commentaries on each sutra. But the book is a bit wordy due to its specificity, and heavily influenced by the author... The texts (I suppose) are translated well, with the meticulous description for every specific term (like, "Tathagata", or "dukkha" etc.)...

But when I decided instead to start to read the Pali Canon directly, not this compilation, and found out that Pali Canon is huge, even Sutta Pitaka alone seems to be way bigger than the Bible...
And it seems that the sutras are not composed chronologically or from simple to difficult, so I suppose there is no need to read the book in strict order...

So, how do you suggest reading the sutras? In strict order? Randomly? Or, from the 'popular' sutras to the 'unpopular' ones?

Do I even need to read the whole Sutta Pitaka? Do I need to read Abhidhamma Pitaka and if yes, in which order?

And what of Mahayana's important texts?

I'll appreciate all of your recommendations (and don't be afraid to correct my grammar, because English is not my native language).

I have read MN, then SN, then AN - so that's another way to sequence it. Then you can read Questions of King Milinda.  Then Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman also known as Satyasiddhi Śāstra, Then Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. Then the Rice Seedling sutra. Then try Vimalakirti sutra. Then Diamond sutra. Then Heart sutra. Then Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika.


Meditating on Public Transport I saw there was one post about mindfulness on public transport. However, I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than meditation. I wonder:

Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?
Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

Meditating on Public Transport
Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Proper practice revolves around an integration of mindfulness meditation into daily life. Sitting (cushion) meditation practice is meant to develop mindfulness to such a degree that it can be transferred into daily life and ultimately into constant mindfulness until one can ultimately become free from Samsara. Walking meditation is another great way of bridging ones practice into daily life.
Meditation in gradually noisier environments will be challenging but that's the idea. If one only practices at home but can't use the practice outside of ones sitting practice, then it's not beneficial.
It's beneficial to meditate everywhere and all the time.
As an example; when I have patient consultation, I'm mindful of my abdomen rising and falling with each breath, the feeling of my lips moving when talking, the sound of my own voice, the seeing that goes on when seeing a patient, the feeling of pressure from sitting on a chair, the sound of birds chirping outside etc. One object at a time.
Even though it might be difficult to practice in public transport it should be done and with time it will become effortless. Don't worry about the quality it will become refined with practice. It's like learning to shoot a bow. With time and consistent practice one will finetune the movements, reduce energy consumption and eventually be able to do it effortlessly. It's the same with meditation practice in noisy environments.
At some point the mind will begin to incline towards being mindful due to the purity and simplicity of being in the present moment. When that happens there will be a strong momentum driving the mind towards mindfulness and away from unmindfulness. At that point it begins to become effortless. One does not have to apply and direct (vitakka and vichara) the mind anymore.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

No, never. It will build, develop, cultivate and add to "general meditation practice".
A doctor who specializes in a field will be good but a doctor who specializes in several fields will be even better.
A fighter who specializes in one school of martial arts will be good. A fighter who specializes in several schools of martial arts will be even better.


Can vipassana cause mental stress? I tried Vipassana for some time. I feel some fear of death and reality of life. So what do I want to do? When I do anapanasathi, I feel relaxed.

Vipassana is about seeing things as they are. If you fear death during vipassana meditation then be mindful of the fear. One has to let go of comfort when practicing Vipassana. Anapana leads to temporary comfort, calm and relaxation but one could not become liberated with an anapana practice alone.


Does DN2 and MN36 provide an irrefutable statement on the fact of rebirth? Some Secular Buddhists and some members of Buddhism.SE do not accept that "Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition" (according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu in this essay). They usually interpret this as something else, e.g. rebirth in the animal realm, as momentary animalistic states of mind etc.

In my view, the DN2 excerpt below, provides an irrefutable statement by the Buddha on the fact of rebirth.

A very similar statement can be found in MN4, MN36, MN19, MN119, SN12.70, SN51.20, AN9.35, AN5.28, AN3.100(xi-xv), DN1, DN12 and KN (Iti 3.50). This statement can be found in all the five nikayas. MN36 is said to be one of the earliest suttas by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Questions:

How could this be interpreted in any other way?
Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the accuracy of the translation of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas?
Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the authenticity of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas?

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
  recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his
  manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand,
  one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of
  cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion,
  [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had
  such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure
  and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I
  re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan,
  had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of
  pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
  state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
  their modes and details.

  Just as if a man were to go from his home
  village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
  village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
  thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
  village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
  talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
  village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
  way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
  such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
  with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
  the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
  lives... in their modes and details.

In response to the comment of Ilya Grushevskiy

Rebirth has everything to do with the Buddhist soteriology because if it weren't for rebirth suffering could have been easily ended at natural death or at any moment "in the here and now" with suicide, and the entire teaching if the Buddha would be pointless and vain.

But it is because of rebirth that beings need a method of salvaging themselves from suffering, propagation of which was the purpose of the Buddha's ministry.

It is exactly because of rebirth that liberation must be attained here and now, otherwise next birth follows.

The stock phrases are not to be dismissed, it's agreed that they actually constitute the core of the Dhamma. Besides these stock phrases there're many suttas which deal with destinations for next existence based on the behavior in the current life.

Secular Buddhism is a cherry picking Buddhism, its proponents only select what conveniently fits in with their preconceptions rooted in Western rationalism, discarding the rest as 'superstitious'. They don't seem concerned with samsara and ultimate predicament of existence, they're happy enough to alleviate some suffering in this life using the Dhamma as a psychotechnic. But this is not exactly the gist of the Buddha's teaching.


Why is Nibbana referred to as "The destination and the path leading to the destination"? Why is Nibbana referred to as "The destination and the path leading to the destination" ?

What does this mean?

Is it referring to the cessation of defilements?
Is it referring to anything other than the cessation of defilements?

In what way is Nibbana "...the path leading to the destination" ?

reference: https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Nibbana#33_synonyms_for_Nibbana

The Nibbana page at dhammawiki.com states:

  33 synonyms for Nibbana:

  .....

  The destination and the path leading to the destination

  (from Samyutta Nikaya 43)

I found the original quote in SN 43.44 and it actually says:

  “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the destination and the path leading to
  the destination. Listen to that….
  “Parāyanañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi parāyanagāmiñca maggaṃ. Taṃ suṇātha…

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the destination? The destruction of lust, the
  destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the
  destination.

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the destination?
  Mindfulness directed to the body: this is called the path leading to
  the destination.

  “Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the destination and the path
  leading to the destination. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a
  compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring
  their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees,
  bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be
  negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.”

  Each to be elaborated in full as in §§1–12.

So, the dhammawiki page appears to be incorrect.


Any further question? What best to ask on one's last chance? What would one, certain wise but not free, ask/request if there is just one chance left?

You have the one final chance to ask one thing. What would it be?

That was Bahiya's problem in Udana 1.10 (quoted below). Bahiya, the advanced ascetic who was not enlightened, sought to understand in a short teaching the gist of the Dhamma that would free him.

This question would be like "What would be the shortest summary of the Buddha's teachings that is enough to liberate me from suffering?"

  Then Bāhiya, hurriedly leaving Jeta's Grove and entering Sāvatthī, saw
  the Blessed One going for alms in Sāvatthī — serene & inspiring serene
  confidence, calming, his senses at peace, his mind at peace, having
  attained the utmost tranquility & poise, tamed, guarded, his senses
  restrained, a Great One (nāga). Seeing him, he approached the Blessed
  One and, on reaching him, threw himself down, with his head at the
  Blessed One's feet, and said, "Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."

  When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the
  time, Bāhiya. We have entered the town for alms."

  A second time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."

  A second time, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the time,
  Bāhiya. We have entered the town for alms."

  A third time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."

  "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

  Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed
  One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was
  released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having
  exhorted Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the
  Dhamma, the Blessed One left.

  Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bāhiya was attacked &
  killed by a cow with a young calf. Then the Blessed One, having gone
  for alms in Sāvatthī, after the meal, returning from his alms round
  with a large number of monks, saw that Bāhiya had died. On seeing him,
  he said to the monks, "Take Bāhiya's body, monks, and, placing it on a
  litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your
  companion in the holy life has died."

  Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, the monks —
  placing Bāhiya's body on a litter, carrying it away, cremating it, and
  building him a memorial — went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they
  said to him, "Bāhiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial
  has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?"

  "Monks, Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in
  accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related
  to the Dhamma. Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."


Describe the Mahayana path This comment writes, reasonably enough:

  Worth mentioning regarding Tantra and Vajrayana that Vajrayana is not a path of renunciation

So I was wondering what it is, if it isn't that.

I remembered that I've read that there are, but know very nearly nothing about, Five paths -- starting with the "path of accumulation".

Is this doctrine ("five paths") for/from all (or most) forms of Mahayana, including East Asian and Zen for example, or is it more just Tibetan?
This wiki entry says,

  It is called the path of accumulation because it is the stage at which one makes a special effort to gather the accumulation of merit, and also because it marks the beginning of many incalculable aeons of gathering the accumulations.

  On the lesser path of accumulation it is uncertain when one will reach the path of joining. On the intermediate path of accumulation it is certain that one will reach the path of joining in the very next lifetime. On the greater path of accumulation it is certain that one will reach the path of joining within that very same lifetime.

There seems to be some controversy about whether (in "Theravada" for example) the doctrine is applicable "this very life" or whether it's understood as happening over multiple lifetimes.

Can you comment on that from a Mahayana view?

I'm not sure that I see the path[s] described in the Pali canon even as a "path of renunciation", though it's true that Nekkhamma is translated as "renunciation".

In formal Christian doctrine I think the word "renounce" is used in the context of "renouncing evil" or "renouncing the devil", and that the word "renounce" comes from a Latin word meaning "to protest".

I think that more informally/conventionally, though, the word is maybe used to imply something like, "try to do without what you like, at least temporarily" -- a person might try to renounce cigarette smoking, for example, or to eat less chocolate, or perhaps vow to stay with only one sexual partner.

I thought that Nekkhamma isn't quite like this informal meaning -- instead it involves clearly seeing the disadvantage of something, and therefore deciding that you don't even want it.

And so I think it might be more accurately described as a "path to cessation" rather than a "path of renunciation" -- cessation of suffering, of hindrances and afflictions etc. So:

Are any/various forms of Mahayana too a "path to cessation", or not exactly?

The definition of a path is: A virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation.

As it says in Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization:

  A path is a virtuous mind conjoined with spontaneous renunciation.
  Boundaries are from the path of accumulation through the buddha
  ground. The synonyms of path are: knower, exalted wisdom, exalted
  knower and clear realization.

Thus, all paths are 'paths of renunciation' in this sense, although I have never come across the expression 'path of renunciation' before.

A Mahayana path is a virtuous mind conjoined with bodhicitta (which renunciation). For instance, generosity in the continuum of a bodhisattva is a Mahayana path. Generosity in the continuum of someone who is on a so-called Hinayana path is a path.

Traditionally, we say that tantra must be practiced in dependence upon the three principles of the path.

Renunciation
The wisdom of emptiness
Bodhicitta

Therefore, it is aimed at bodhisattvas that are at least on the path of preparation, having realized emptiness by way of an inferential cognizer.

There are five paths:

The path of accumulation, where one becomes a bodhisattva by way of generating the spontaneous mind of enlightenment (bodhicitta)
The path of preparation. One enters this path by way of a first inferential (not direct) realization of emptiness, that is a union of samata and vipassana realizing emptiness.
The path of seeing. One enters the path of seeing by way of a first direct realization of emptiness, whereby all dualistic appearances vanish. This wisdom directly realizing emptiness acts as an antidote to the grossest levels of afflictions, therefore it is called the first true path. It is also an arya path. It is the first ground (which continues on to the path of meditation). We say that the ultimate Dharma jewel is true cessation and true path in the continuum of an arya being. This echoes your statements with respect to "path to cessation". Here, the first true cessation occurs upon entering the path of seeing. The buddha-ground or 'path of no-more-learning' is the final true cessation. There are various true cessations before.
The path of meditation. It has the ten grounds (bhumis) but there are also divisions into 11, 13, and 16. At the level of the 8th ground, a bodhisattva is free from all afflictions (just like a so-called Hinayana arhat). He still has to abandon "knowledge obscurations" which are the imprints of the afflictions (like the scent left by the garlic even after it's been removed from a container).
The path of no-more-learning or "buddha ground". One enters it when he is free from the two obscurations: afflictive and knowledge obscurations. From there, one obtains the four kayas (which can also be divided into 2, 3, and 5).

The Mahayana path is called 'path of perfection' because we perfect the perfections (paramitas) on each of the grounds.

From a tantric viewpoint, Tantra could be practiced from the generation of the three principles of the path, or as late as the last moment of ten bhumi. From a tantric point of view, one cannot achieve enlightenment (abandoning knowledge obscurations) without tantra.

The five paths are common to Mahayana traditions, including Zen, Tiantai, etc. It is classic Mahayana Abhidharma.

For instance:

The Blue Cliff Record mentions the 'path of buddhahood', 'path of meditation', etc.
Dogen mentions the 'path of seeing', the ten grounds, including the 'buddha ground' (佛地 butchi).
Wonhyo alludes to the 'path of cultivation' (accumulation), 'path of seeing', 'path of meditation', etc.
Chinul mentions the 'path of meditation', the ten bhumis, etc.
In the Mahaparinirvana sutra, that is commented upon widely, there is mention of the five paths. In 'A study of the unfolding of sinitic mahayana motifs', Wai-lun Lan alludes to 'path of perfection' and 'path of meditation'.
Zhiyi (founder of the Tiantai tradition) also speaks of the five paths and the ten grounds.


What is meant by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw in regards to "The Attainment of Fruition"? In The Progress of Insight by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, in the section The Attainment of Fruition, it is said that:

  This occurs in precisely the same way as the path and fruition consciousness that occurred earlier in the consciousness-sequence belonging to the initial attainment of the first path. The only difference here is the capacity of the fruition attainment to last long.

Whereas, in A Manual of Abhidhamma by Narada Maha Thera it is said that:

  Each of the four Supramundane Paths arises only once in the course of one’s life.

Is Mahasi Sayadaw taking a differing position than what is said in the Abhidhamma or am I not understanding him correctly?

Fruition Knowledge : That again is immediately followed by knowledge that belongs to the final stage and continues in the course of its predecessor. It abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "fruition knowledge."

It seems they are both talking about the knowledge of cessation that arises after cessation.

Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw is saying that each experience of Nibbana is approached and achieved in the same manner, each time( Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant). Each time it is attained, however, it may last longer and is more purifying than the previous time, more complete.

What Narada Maha Thera is pointing out is that each of the four instances of "intuiting nibbana", as he puts it, i.e. attaining Sottapana, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant, each occur only once.

Thats the jist of it as far as I understand. Hopefully I didn't fumble any technicalities!


I want to pray and meditate like a Buddhist, but I do not know how because I am Arab and I have not found sources in Arabic so can you guide me I want to pray and meditate like a Buddhist, but I do not know how because I am Arab and I have not found sources in Arabic so can you guide me

I found this PDF copy of the Dhammapada in Arabic online. I don't read Arabic, so I cannot guarantee the authenticity of this copy.
The Metta Sutta (خطبة البودا عن المحبه) in Arabic translated by Ven. Dhammarakkhita and hosted on SuttaCentral.
You can read AccessToInsight.org in Arabic through Google Translate. This contains a large collection of the Pali Canon. For e.g. the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta in Arabic translated using Google Translate. This is the discourse where the Buddha declared his teachings just after his enlightenment, and set the wheel of the Dhamma in motion.
I have found and used Google Translate to translate some important prayers/ chants/ statements here.
This is the undertaking of the five precepts (قواعد التدريب الخمسة):

أتعهد بمبدأ الامتناع عن تدمير الكائنات الحية.
أتعهد بالامتناع عن أخذ ما لم يؤخذ.
أتعهد بمبدأ الامتناع عن سوء السلوك الجنسي.
أتعهد بالامتناع عن الكلام غير الصحيح.
أتعهد بالامتناع عن المسكرات والمخدرات التي تؤدي إلى الإهمال.

For meditation, I'm again putting through Google Translate, the pages from Ven. Yuttadhammo's e-book How to Meditate:

Chapter One: What Is Meditation (الفصل الأول: ما هو التأمل)
Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation (الفصل الثاني: جلوس التأمل)
Chapter Three: Walking Meditation (الفصل الثالث: المشي التأمل)
Chapter Four: Fundamentals (الفصل الرابع: الأساسيات)
Chapter Five: Mindful Prostration (الفصل الخامس: السجود اليقظ)
Chapter Six: Daily Life (الفصل السادس: الحياة اليومية)
Appendix: Illustrations (الملحق: الرسوم التوضيحية)


Are there NDE known where Buddha is met? It happens to people when they get for example a heart attack they will get a near death experience (NDE). Sometimes they encounter a very bright light but sometimes persons like Jesus encounters them. Probably such experiences are very cultural influenced but are there studies of NDE in more Buddhist countries where Buddha appears in a NDE?

Not that I know of. I know some people encounter Lord Yama in their NDE but not Buddha. Maybe because Buddha has attained parinibbana.


Taking care of perineum How can one take care of the perineum

Does anyone have any knowledge about this part of the body being affected by excessive sitting in meditation. I have had medical help, removal of cysts, haemorrhoids and general stiffness over my course of meditative life.

Is this a normal problem with meditators and if yes how can one take care of this?

About me:
I am male, late 20s(fairly young to be having problems in that region?), sit cross legged (no lotus or half lotus), use a simple block, have had a history of stomach ailments since 12 (appendicitis, liver repair, bad digestive system), currently simple wholesome diet with no meat, eggs, do not drink/smoke.

If this is the case:

you can use a stool / chair or stadium seat
you can use orthopaedic cushions to added comfort
if sitting is a problem you can use another poster like lying down (don't use a cosy or luxurious bed as you will soon fall asleep. A hard surface may be best using a Yoga mat perhaps laying beaded seat cushion on top even if this causes you to fall asleep.)

Also when meditating try to keep your attention a bit longer in this region looking at the arising and passing away of sensation equanimously. Don't think of any healing or removing discomfort. Just keep your attention on the sensations. If this is Karmic, reducing your mental reaction for sensation resulting from karma means you will not be adding fuel to the karma prolonging it's results. If you react with any thing, like disappointment if any issue pops up, being happy when something does not pop up, etc. You are adding fuel to prolonging the ailment.


Why can't a Buddha's power just save us already? Like Jesus I am a faithful believer in the Buddha's teachings and I even believe in the iddhi powers they all had and that show up in our day as well. I also believe in the various Bodhisattvas and Buddha's even within Taoism and contemplate and marvel at them every day, their mysteriousness, hard work and wisdom. Some of the scriptures have some astounding excerpts though of millions of bodhisattvas and deities...

Which is why I wonder why, if we are:

a bundle of skandhas with no central core;
quite subject to cause and effect;
crying for saving;
individuals the omnisicient, omnipresent, omnipotent (iddhis) buddhas and bodhisattvas have vowed to save from actual suffering and also awaken;

Then why don't the billions of bodhisattvas and buddhas just make manifestation bodies and march across the universe and pacify and awaken everything as the first Buddha vow states?

What is your opinion on this matter?

If you are "a faithful believer in Buddha's teachings" you have missed his point entirely.

You should not believe a single thing. Instead, your own experience should lead you to your own conclusions.

This is what Buddha left behind. Techniques for waking up, so that you may dissolve into pure experience, as did he and countless others.

Only you can save yourself.


Does avoiding a person mean I have not truly forgiven them? This individual has been belligerent in the past causing a lot of grief to myself. I've felt a great deal of animosity towards this individual in the past but after some time forgave them.

The forgiveness felt cleansing, but I still avoid contact. I feel that the spirit of forgiveness should be like starting from a tabula rasa but am concerned about a repetition of the past.

How should I react according to the precepts of Buddhism ? I feel that if I avoid the person, I have not truly forgiven them in my heart.

I believe forgiving and avoiding are two different things. It is important to forgive people for your own peace of mind. Let go of anger and resentment, this will be good for both you and the other person.

Avoiding may be important if this person is dragging you down somehow, continuously doing bad things. You can find it several times in the Buddha's teachings. However if this person is not doing bad things anymore and you still feel bad around him because of the past, the issue is in you. You haven't let it go completely, you are still attached to your image/bruised ego.

Meditate and let go of the ego if that's the case. I know it is not easy, but it is the best thing to do.


How to make my thoughts non influencial on my happiness and presence? I feel like I am ruled by my mind and it's illogical behaviour what to do. Thanks

There are several Sutta that deal with this namely;

Dvedhavitakka Sutta: Two Sorts of Thinking
Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Relaxation of Thoughts

They are very self explanatory

There is another Sutta that will be helpful -- this one in particular will help understanding the cause of the particular thoughts you are having:

Tanha Sutta: Craving

If you want to take it to the next level yet study "the 18 mental explorations" and "the 36 states of attachment", mentioned in this sutta:

Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Six Sense-media

These are to be studied and remembered, they are quite easy to understand and i recommend just writing them down. This will be very useful in shedding light on how the mind works in general.

If you are having obsessive thoughts that are making you restless you might also consider these things ;

Settling your quarrels

  Avoiding restless people & seeking out calm people

  "Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.
  "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors.

  There is quietude of mind; frequently giving wise attention to it — that is the denourishing of the arising of restlessness and remorse that have not yet arisen, and of the increase and strengthening of restlessness and remorse that have already arisen. — SN 46:51

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:
  1. Knowledge and pondering of the Dhamma;
  2. Asking questions about the Dhamma;
  3. Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
  4. Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm
  5. Noble friendship;
  6. Suitable conversation.
  (List from commy to satipatthana sutta)

Practice not getting involved in conflicts and restraint of speech leading to much discussion

  Moggallana, should you train yourself: 'I will speak no confrontational speech.' That is how you should train yourself. When there is confrontational speech, a lot of discussion can be expected. When there is a lot of discussion, there is restlessness. One who is restless becomes unrestrained. Unrestrained, his mind is far from concentration. (Nodding sutta)

Lower your expectation in regards to being liked or being attended
to properly by others

  "Furthermore, Moggallana, should you train yourself: 'I will not visit families with my pride[3] lifted high.' That is how you should train yourself. Among families there are many jobs that have to be done, so that people don't pay attention to a visiting monk. If a monk visits them with his trunk lifted high, the thought will occur to him, 'Now who, I wonder, has caused a split between me and this family? The people seem to have no liking for me.' Getting nothing, he becomes abashed. Abashed, he becomes restless. Restless, he becomes unrestrained. Unrestrained, his mind is far from concentration.

Training supportive mediations such as ie Metta, even if done very briefly will snowball and be of great benefit.

Mindfulness is always useful. Choose wisely which thoughts and themes you let stay in charge and where effort is directed.

Gl


Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening? Specifically, I am wondering if it is better to meditate at 7am or 7pm (even though doing both would be ideal).

The number of times or the time of day depends on the type of meditation that you do. If it is ‘Loving Kindness Meditation, it is good to do it for even a couple of minutes both morning, noon and night. That is what Ajaan Mun did as told to us by Thanissaro Bhikku. He said that,

  Ajaan Mun  spread thoughts of goodwill to all living beings three times a day: in the morning when he woke up, in the afternoon when he woke up from his nap, and at night before he went to sleep. In this way, the desire for goodwill, the desire for true happiness, framed his practice.

The best time to meditate is when you are not sleepy or drowsy or weighed down by the food. It can be in the morning or the evening. Most of the meditation practices that have become popular today are not in line with the Dhamma. Some ‘so-called teachers’ would erroneously advice a student of mediation to note in your mind, “pain, pain”, when you feel pain in some part of your body during meditation. For them it is vedananupassana – contemplation on feeling. Then your mind goes astray, they will get you to note “going, going”. Some view it as cittanupassana – the contemplation of mind. Likewise if sleepy, to note “sleepy, sleepy”, and, if a desire or agitation come to pass, to note “desire, desire”, or “agitation, agitation”. This to them is dhammanupassana – the contemplation of mind objects. These are incorrect practices that people are being taught as meditation.

So it is not the time of the day as we do not know the nature of each individual. But no one should develop the idea of doing meditation in a hurry. Your goal should be to develop mindfulness, and not doing it in a hurry. So if you are more relaxed and have more time in the evening then that is the best time. Then do it little at a time and generate mindfulness. If too distracted or restless, then that is the time to stop. After generating mindfulness in that manner you will realize that you can maintain the object of meditation without becoming sleepy or without allowing the mind to get dispersed. Thereafter gradually increase the duration.