Is being emotional means worthless? When it is come to "dana" I heard many times "First do something for loved ones".
I don't have any confusion regarding "dana" generosity.

But lately I'm thinking indulge partner is means worthless (being emotional or emotionally doing something for partner) or just fragile thing.

  If I'm buying something or even giving rose to partner, is it worthless?

Is being emotional means cheap, am I thinking wrong?

 Happy Vesak to all of you

There's some talk about that here -- A Happy Married Life:
A Buddhist Perspective

THE HUSBAND
The Buddha, in reply to a householder as to how a husband should minister to his wife declared that the husband should always honor and respect his wife, by being faithful to her, by giving her the requisite authority to manage domestic affairs and by giving her befitting ornaments. This advice, given over twenty five centuries ago, still stands good for today.
Knowing the psychology of the man who tends to consider himself superior, the Buddha made a remarkable change and uplifted the status of a woman by a simple suggestion that a husband should honor and respect his wife. A husband should be faithful to his wife, which means that a husband should fulfill and maintain his marital obligations to his wife thus sustaining the confidence in the marital relationship in every sense of the word. The husband, being a bread-winner, would invariably stay away from home, hence he should entrust the domestic or household duties to the wife who should be considered as the keeper and the distributor of the property and the home economic-administrator. The provision of befitting ornaments to the wife should be symbolic of the husband's love, care and attention showered on the wife. This symbolic practice has been carried out from time immemorial in Buddhist communities. Unfortunately it is in danger of dying out because of the influence of modern civilization.

That's a reference to DN 31

"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.
In this way, the western direction is protected and made peaceful and secure.


How is Qi Energy used in Buddhist practice? Ive seen television programmes and videos of buddhist shaolin monks who perfom incredible techniques such as breaking iron bars with their heads, impaling themselves with spears, throwing needles through glasses windows etc.

It was said that these monks create, harness and use Qi Energy which makes it possible for them to perform these techniques. I have two questions:

What is this Qi Energy?
Is it a strong and profound level of concentration like the Jhanas in Theravada Buddhism?

Thank you for your time.

Click on photos for full size

"How is chi used in Buddhist practice?"

Buddha ignored the fascination people had with all this and classified it as "the five elements" knowing that even the slightest attraction to these low physical phenomena would waste people's time and detract from the many more worthwhile goals. You don't have to know anything about chi in Buddhism because in Buddhism the method of true awareness is enough to dissolve all blockages and problems that might come up.

This is why so many uneducated Buddhist monks who didn't know anything about any of the other traditions still won the prize of Enlightenment! One of them was the patriarch of the Zen school, whom other jealous disciples tried to hunt down..

In those times, monks would be all too interested in those things, at the expense of understanding one's True Mind, which is beyond body and mind... If Buddha even mentioned the word chi, there would be a million and one distracting questions popping into people's head at those times--that would probably derail people's focus entirely... which is why Gautama supposedly returned as Padmasambhava and created the Tibetan school--much much later after the heart of Buddhism was established. (Tibetan school by the way is still aligned with Buddhism but has an integrated focus on the wisdom-energies.)

Nonetheless, chi is related to different karmic habits that we have and once these energies are dissolved the personality characteristic is also transformed--and vice versa.

Buddhism aims at a much higher target than physical perfection, beyond even physical immortality, and this is why it is possible in Buddhism to go beyond the body to transform the mind at its root, attaining things that are definitely Buddhist ("non-common supermundane achievements") and other things that are beyond form but common to all spiritual schools ("common supermundane achievements").

Buddhism aims at the highest possible level: transforming the 8th consciousness, the storehouse of karmas from our endless lives... becoming a radiant actualized Buddha helping all beings win Awakening, becoming free from cycles like birth-and-death and suffering. To Buddhism, these super-powers are nothing but wasting time developing tricks, totally distracted from our human and spiritual problem. That is, unless it is for skillful means (see the parable of the burning house).

With that Buddhist warning aside, to answer your first question, there are many different types of chi, based on various organs. This falls within the realm of TCM and there are many uses to knowing such things, especially in diagnosing one's body. I would love to have an intuitive TCM doctor analyze my sitting posture--lots of constructive advice can be gained from that!

So what is chi in related to Buddhist practice and meditation? How can we make use of such learnings to motivate our Buddhist practice?

The Taoists have mapped out a timeline for what the excellent cultivators and Buddhists go through:

jing > chi > shen > emptiness >> Tao

When one practices Buddhism 100% correctly (celibacy + samatha-powered vipassana), this process happens automatically all the way to "seeing the Tao"/bodhisattvahood.

Due to one's celibacy, one has stored up jing (semen) which after 3 months of jhana eventually starts to transform into chi. One will feel less hungry and can fast for a long time. One is qualified to do the things posted in the picture. Eventually after at least a year like this, one's chi will transform to shen. For several years this process will continue, one's sleep needs will drastically reduce. After even more refined letting go, one will be at the stage of "emptiness" free from dualities and one step away from turning around and "seeing the Tao"

Also, the Taoists have fancier, more interesting names than this - I'm just summarizing.

I recommend the dense book "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" for a complete understanding of this subject of energetics and where your concern on energetics absolutely must stop in order to progress and not subconsciously focus on lower things and hold yourself back from awakening the formless, nondual prajna wisdom.

Whether one is a monastic or a layman, in this day and age there is a lot of confusing bioenergetics fascination so it is important to clear up this matter for yourself because even if I say "just study Buddhism, and keep noting, all that fancy stuff is nothing they will lose it after they die"... you are still curious and vulnerable to false information--especially since you want to be able to do cool things like be free of sexual desire (when your jing is full), no longer need to ingest food (when chi is full), and no longer need to sleep (when shen is full)... at the best false information + fixation might lead to nonbeneficial/retarding practices and at the worst, a painful fiery death (I refer you to the Buddhist story of Hakuin).

2nd question: yes, it is a result of staying in that state. After achieving the 1st jhana on a mental level, one must reside in this state until the body completes transforming. After one's body and mind are in sync (this may take a few months if one achieved jhana/insight quickly), one's state will stabilize (and one can go to even higher states more easily)... and one can feel and train one's chi to do various tricks--beneficial and harmful. One can also ignore those lateral pathways and continue on the Buddhist journey.

Go here for more nondenominational info and definitions.
Also read "Master Huai-Chin Nan - Internal Martial Arts Nei-Gong" to have all your chi-related questions answered, especially related to Buddhist practice.
The dense book I mentioned earlier has excellent case studies as well on how chi manifested in different practitioners' lives.


Mindfulness and Pushing Away Emotions With objectless mindfulness, if I am in a bad mood the mood perseveres. I just observe the bad mood but it doesn't easily stop.

However, if I applied concentration on an object such as the breath, the mood immediately dissipates and even sometimes vanishes.

Does strong concentration repress emotions, or does it process them in a healthy way? In other words, does focusing on the breath still permit the emotions to be experienced naturally despite an absence of thought or feeling?

With objectless mindfulness, if I am in a bad mood the mood
  perseveres. I just observe the bad mood but it doesn't easily stop.

This may be because the attention you're giving to the bad mood is the wrong kind of attention. There may be a clue in you wanting for the bad mood to easily stop. Observe with no anticipation for anything.

  However, if I applied concentration on an object such as the breath,
  the mood immediately dissipates and even sometimes vanishes.

The dissipation of the mood by shifting focus may be a further clue to the mental proliferation that you could be adding to the 'watching' of this bad mood.

  Does strong concentration repress emotions, or does it process them in
  a healthy way? In other words, does focusing on the breath still
  permit the emotions to be experienced naturally despite an absence of
  thought or feeling?

It doesn't need to be strong concentration. One just needs to simply switch focus to something else. The something else can become a further problem like an escape though. Notice breath, movement, objects, light gradients... There are many wonderful harmless things to remove us from mental anguish. This is, indeed, healthy and not a repression technique.


Does "which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them" refer to nibbana or the knowledge that abides in nibbana? The essay The Progress of Insight includes the following definitions:

  Maturity Knowledge

  Immediately afterwards, a type of knowledge manifests itself that, as it were, falls for the first time into Nibbana, which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them. This knowledge is called "maturity knowledge."

  Path Knowledge

  It is followed immediately by knowledge that abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "path knowledge."[43] It is also called "purification by knowledge and vision."

In the first paragraph, does “which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them” refer to nibbana, or does it refer to the knowledge that abides in nibbana?

The roots (greed, hatred, delusion, non greed, non hatred, non delusion) creates conditioned fabricated state. When the root condition passes away so does what was fabricated. The root conditions are impermanent hence is the result. Each root condition and the result is tied with sensation which are unsatisfactory they neither last or in control of them.

When you do Vipassana and keep eliminating to roots a stage will come where there is no more results of past conditioning nor is you mind creating new conditioning. At this state you experience the 1st glimpse of Nirvana. As the root and result is tied to sensation what you experience as Nirvana does not have any sensation hence is satisfactory (not unsatisfactory) and since not dependent on an impermanent root it is permanent though still it is not not in ones control (you cannot bestore it on someone else nor can you realise it by will or wish).


Can you meditate too much as part of a daily routine? Just to follow up from this question - is it possible for an individual to meditate too much? Is there a point when it becomes counterproductive and if so what would the signs be that someone should slacken off their meditation routine?

Just to be clear - I am talking about a meditation routine outside of a retreat setting. The question is about someone's daily meditation routine rather than during a retreat when the conditions and level of support one would receive would be very different.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Practice like your hair is one fire"

However, one researcher was looking for people who had so-called "Dark Nights of the soul" experience, i.e. unpleasant experience with meditation. She found that

  "She identified two susceptible demographics: a) men, 18 to 30 years
  old, who go to Asia and do 10 to 20 hrs of meditation/day, and b)
  middle-aged women w/an hr/day practice who go to “say, Spirit Rock
  Meditation Center ... for the last 10 to 20 years”.

ref: http://beyondmeds.com/2014/02/16/dark-night-of-the-soul/

In the case of a lay follower, I don't think we need to go outside of Buddhism to answer the question-- your job will determine the upper bound to how much you can meditate, which I suppose is the whole motivation behind renunciation, to allow more time to meditate. For a lay follower with a day job, fitting in 3 hours a day and maybe more on a weekend (16 maybe?) seems to be the most you can get away with without re-arranging your lifestyle and job to crank up the number of hours.

Anyhow, in my opinion quality trumps quantity, I wish I had a good objective metric for monitoring quality.

Also, in my own practice I've been working on doing more different sorts of meditation, since I already sit on my butt at the office all day staring at a screen (sometimes with concentration, sometimes scatter brained). So I've been trying to mix in prostrations, chants, walking meditation, etc.


Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'? I've heard the Yogācāra school of Buddhism called 'mind only'. What does that refer to? Does this school believe that the mind has a real inherent existence but nothing else does? Alternatively is it a more metaphorical designation or perhaps a provisional description of a deeper notion or maybe a name given to it by other schools (in the same way as Hinayana was used by Mahayanan schools)?

To fill out R Barzell's comment more and to venture my own answer in the hope of being corrected. It seems like the most satisfying explanation of this is from this source

  the reality we think we perceive does not exist except as as a process
  of knowing. Phenomena, anything that can be experienced, have no
  reality in themselves. At the same time, there is no "experiencer" who
  experiences except as a process of mind.

My further understanding of this though is that the Yogācāra school was a very practically based school and any philosophical discussions would have been secondary to meditation and personal enquiry so this kind of statement would have been provisional on this. This would contrast with the rival Madhyamika school which had a greater emphasis on philosophical discourse. Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism (pp129 2nd Edition) says of this

  Madhyamika has an analytical, dialectical approach [...] emphasizing
  wisdom; the Yogacara's emphasized samadhi (meditative concentration)


Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Just based on pure love and with equanimity?

Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Just based on pure love and with equanimity?

I won't say that all relationships must end; but if a relationship doesn't end, one of the partners will die.

When we knew that my partner was dying, I think then we both/each experienced more love and less attachment than we had previously.

Perhaps that is inevitable, the only sane response to dying.
Or perhaps we were fortunate, we allowed each other that experience towards the end.
Perhaps we were unfortunate, we didn't allow each other that experience when we were younger (and instead had less love and more attachment during our earlier life together)

Sankha might be right: we might have been better to have been friends than to have "loved" each other.

I'm not sure about Rabbit's answer; that answer says, "our natural state is non-discriminative love", but a typical, old-fashioned "romantic" relationship is perhaps discriminative and exclusive: it says, "I will love you and no-one else" (or, "I love you in a way that I don't love anyone else").

A famous saying about love is, "love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own." I suspect that love can cause attachment, which makes happiness more difficult, and makes your happiness less under your own control. You give your partner control over whether you feel happy: you allow them them to hurt you (and they feel hurt by you).

Whether it's "possible" to have a "romantic relationship, without attachment, just based on pure love and with equanimity" presumably varies from person to person. Maybe it becomes easier as you get older and if you become wiser.

Now after my friend died I still remember her. Perhaps I remember her without "attachment", i.e. without hurting myself by wishing that things are other than as they are. When I (still) dream about her, which I did last night, I feel less conflict between the dream (of her being present) and reality (her having died).

I suppose the above doesn't seem like a strong recommendation.

I suppose that on the plus side, if you are able to eventually (and it might take years or decades, if you're ever able to at all) overcome your many faults, it gives you an opportunity to help two people (you and your partner) to experience that love.

It might matter, whether you and your partner have the same "values": whether you value the same thing. For example, do you both value "relationship without attachment" and "love with equanimity"? Buddhism? If so perhaps that's a friendship, a community. If not, an unequal or one-sided relationship.


Can Stoicism be seen as something close to Buddhism in some aspects? I am asking this question, for I try to follow much of Stoicism, and I can see that there are certain similarities. But there are also many differences. Could some aspects be the same or at least alike?

For example, Stoics assert that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If one is cruel, it is because he is unaware of his own universal reason. If one is unhappy, it is because he "forgot" how his true nature actually operates (these concepts seem to me very similar to the Buddha Nature, which belongs to all living beings, but is often in a latent state).

PS : I am sorry if the tags are wrong, I am new here.

Stoicism can be seen as very similar to Buddhism in that it appeals to an ultimately indefinable reality which, through the denial of ego, awareness of which brings harmony to life.  Also, the stoic acceptance of whatever happens being in accord with nature is like non-attachment.  A Buddhist writer I read recently said that they are in many ways the same other than the Buddhist has greater joy to the extent to which their ego has dissolved.

Stoics permit suicide in a wider range of cases than Buddhists, although the principle that suicide is an option when spiritual practice is no longer possible is the same.


Suffering due to non-self-related preconceived notions in Theravada According to this answer:

  However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with
  anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other
  than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example,
  consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he
  is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea
  that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in
  your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch
  you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to
  do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have
  a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever
  there is a mismatch.

  So (Theravada) anatta can't help with this type of suffering.
  But (Mahayana) shunyata can.

Now this is a question directed to Theravada practitioners.

Let's say, somebody suffers from aversion when they see any person practising the gay lifestyle, because they have preconceived ideas about what is right or wrong about sexual orientation. This kind of suffering seems to be unrelated to craving or the self (because this is related to other unrelated people). Here, I use the example of a random stranger, not "my son".

Sexual orientation is just an example of a non-self-related preconceived notion. It could easily be something else like Brexit or communism or news of a natural disaster taking lives in a distant country.

According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, what is the cause of this suffering? Is it in any way related to the self, craving and dependent origination?
According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, how can this suffering be eliminated? According to the third noble truth, to end suffering, one must end craving. How does ending craving end this suffering?
Please provide references to the Pali Suttas, if possible.

I tried to do some research on this, from the Pali Canon, so I will post an answer.

A person may have a preconceived notion like the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, only the heterosexual lifestyle is correct. Or, communism and socialism are wrong, only democracy with capitalism is correct. Or, the view that the government must improve public transportation instead of building more roads is correct, while the view that the government must build more roads instead of improving public transportation instead is wrong.

The Mahayana view in general is that these preconceived notions or views are unrelated to the self and cannot be solved using anatta. Instead, the Mahayana shunyata must be used. If one can see that the sexual orientation, or political ideology, or government policies are truly without inherent substance, then one can avoid clinging to them, and thus be free of suffering.

While this sounds logical at a first glance, if we analyze this from a Theravada perspective, it is actually analyzing the wrong root cause. In my opinion, all types of suffering must have something to do with the self, however obscure this connection is. Why would I feel aversion at a concept or idea if it doesn't have anything to do with ME? There is obviously a clinging and I am clinging to it. I suffer not because a political ideology is real or unreal. I suffer because I cling to it. It has something to do with ME. The problem is that all of a person's views are relative to one's self or associated for or against one's self.

The following quotes from Sutta Nipata 4.5:

  When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost
  thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so
  he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's
  seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he
  sees all else as inferior.

When one makes one view as correct, and all other views as incorrect, it's because he sees some advantage or something related to himself. There's a reason why he clings to it. For e.g. I may have other arguments why new roads should not be built, and instead public transportation must be improved. The real reason could be that I am afraid that if a new noisy highway is built next to my house, the property value of my house will drop. Hence, every argument that I have to support my view, has something to do with me.

For e.g. if I argue why Theravada is better than Mahayana, it may be because I associate myself with Theravada. If someone disparages Theravada, then I feel disparaged, because I assumed my self to be the mental fabrication.

So, this connection, may not be obvious. It may be obscure. But the connection of my view to my self definitely exists. And clinging of anything to the self, is related to one of the three types of craving.

Perhaps a person has strong views and scorn towards homosexuality, because he either feels it as challenging his own heterosexuality, or perhaps he is trying to hide his own closeted homosexuality. Or perhaps it conflicts with the teachings of the religion that he belongs to, or it conflicts with his father's teaching to him, which he clings to, because it comes from "my father". If it has nothing to do with him, then why would he be for or against it?

If news that trees in the Amazon rainforest got chopped down illegally in huge quantities reaches a person who stays in Russia, he might feel angry. Why? He may be a self-identified environmentalist who feels that nature and the environment belongs to him and his descendants, that his descendants are being deprived of their rightful inheritance. So, it has something to do with his self-interests.

A person disagrees with high taxation and good social welfare. Perhaps he works hard and makes a good income and does not want to share it with others. It's HIS income. Perhaps another person is poor and jobless, and would love to receive state help, so he publicly sides high taxation and good social welfare. It always has something to do with self-interests.

To be part of a religion or to be an environmentalist or to identify with a sexual orientation, sounds like craving of becoming. To enjoy sexual pleasures or state help in the form of food stamps, sounds like the craving of sensual pleasures. Craving leads to clinging. Clinging leads to becoming. These are part of dependent origination. Due to clinging, we may feel aversion when what we cling to is removed from us or is challenged.

  That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on
  which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent
  on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor
  should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or
  precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't
  think himself inferior or superlative.

  Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he
  doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge;
  doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back
  on any view whatsoever.

And so the Buddha tells that a monk should not become dependent on what is sensed, conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge and compare himself or his interests against it.

The idea of comparing views and ideas against himself or his interests is continued in Sutta Nipata 4.9:

  Whoever construes 'equal,' 'superior,' or 'inferior,' by that he'd
  dispute; whereas to one unaffected by these three, 'equal,'
  'superior,' do not occur. Of what would the brahman say 'true' or
  'false,' disputing with whom: he in whom 'equal,' 'unequal' are not.

From Sutta Nipata 4.13:

  "Those who, dwelling on views, dispute, saying, 'Only this is true':
  do they all incur blame, or also earn praise there?"

  "[The praise:] It's such a little thing, not at all appeasing. I speak
  of two fruits of dispute; and seeing this, you shouldn't dispute —
  seeing the state where there's no dispute as secure. One who knows
  doesn't get involved in whatever are commonplace conventional views.
  One who is uninvolved: when he's forming no preference for what's
  seen, for what's heard, why would he get involved?

Here, we see that one dwelling on views, saying "only this is true", is actually because he developed a preference to it. Preference indicates that he formed an association with himself i.e. he assumed his self to be a mental fabrication, that is related to his view, or aligned with his self-interests.

From MN 22:

  "What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as
  he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's
  Grove, would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is
  gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

  "No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do
  they belong to our self."

  "Even so, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go
  of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't
  yours? Form isn't yours... Feeling isn't yours... Perception...
  Thought fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your
  letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

If a view has nothing to do with ME, why would I suffer from it? If a person burns leaves in a garden, why would I suffer from it, if I did not feel like those leaves belonged to me some how?

So, we only suffer from thought fabrications, preconceived views and opinions, because we think they are our's, or because they support something that belongs to us, or is aligned to our self-interests. That they are associated with us. We have to let them go. We have to stop clinging to them. They are not associated with our self. That's the way to end suffering from them.

From MN 1:

  “Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has
  no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
  Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he
  conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he
  conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’
  he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
  it, I say.

  “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
  completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
  earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
  conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
  does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
  to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
  has fully understood it, I say.

Here, earth is just an example. It can be any theme. Any theme is a mental fabrication. The sutta has many more such themes including unity and disunity, and things which are heard or seen or cognized. One should see the theme as-it-is. He should not form associations between his self and the theme.

In AN 10.96, Ananda knew this very well, when he said to another:

  "'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is
  worthless,' is a viewpoint. 'The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos
  is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the
  same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a
  Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After
  death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a
  Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything
  otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are
  viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views,
  the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know.
  That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I
  see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do
  see."

Ananda did take up any of those viewpoints. Instead he knows how one can become obsessed with them and how to remove those obsessions. He does not cling to those views. He does not associate his self with those views.

EDIT:

From Sutta Nipata 4.14:

  "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
  about seclusion & the state of peace.
  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
  clinging to nothing in the world?"
  "He should put an entire stop
  to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca):
  'I am the thinker.'

  Commentary (Thanissaro):
  On objectification-classifications and their
  role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to
  MN 18. The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of
  these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a
  set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought;
  identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and
  physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms
  a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine
  these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they
  are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that
  we would be better off to be able to drop them.


What are the criteria for calling someone a high or low capacity? Some Buddhist teachers and writings I have seen differentiate between (students of) “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity”. As far as I’ve understood, some of the criteria for saying that some people are of “high capacity” is intelligence and morality. It also seems to me that you actually have to have heard about the Dharma to be of “high capacity”.

Can someone give explicit criteria for what “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity” actually means? Or a reference to an explanation?

EDIT: coming back to the notes of some Buddhist lectures I attended, I did find some references!

Low Capacity: remains a "faith follower" for a long time. Does not really understand the explanations, but follows the teacher with enthusiasm and determination. Usually has good but rather superficial morals. Requires much study over a long time, to imbue clear in-depth understanding of Buddhist principle-and-function.
Medium Capacity: remains a "dharma follower" for a long time. Has thorough intellectual understanding, but no true insight into the principle-and-function of Buddhism. Because of this, has one's theoretical constructs disconnected from one's daily life. Requires lots and lots of practice over long period of time, to cleanse the blockages and overcome habits.
High Capacity: gets the point with little to no explanations just by watching the teacher in action. Has capacity for intuitive grasp of the Truth.


Buddha's Power of Seeing Other Beings Mind What is the proper Pali word for Buddha's power of seeing other beings mind? I think it starts with Paricitta or something. I want the proper Pali term. Also, can I have any sutta references to it as well?

Katamañca, kevaṭṭa, ādesanāpāṭihāriyaṃ? Idha, kevaṭṭa, bhikkhu parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ cittampi ādisati, cetasikampi ādisati,
vitakkitampi ādisati, vicāritampi ādisati: ‘evampi te mano, itthampi
te mano, itipi te cittan’ti.
And what is the miracle of telepathy? There is the case where a monk reads the minds, the mental events, the thoughts, the ponderings of
other beings, other individuals, [saying,] 'Such is your thinking,
here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.'
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta
ādesanā = pointing out, guessing, prophesy; only in phrase -pāṭihāriya trick or marvellous ability of mind-reading or guessing other peoples character

Parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ cetasā ceto paricca pajānāti
He knows the mind of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own mind.
Kayagata-Sati Sutta
paricca = distinguished or understood
pajānāti = knows clearly
para = other
sattānaṃ = beings'
puggalānaṃ = persons
cetasā = minds
ceto = mind

Hinduism: para citta ādi abhijñatā: knowing the minds of others


How is one supposed to be compassionate and 100% free of suffering while others are suffering? How is this possible besides if one simply doesn't mind if others are suffering?

But if one truly doesn't mind whether others are suffering or not isn't that a lack of compassion? Is one supposed to let go of compassion regarding others?

Even if there is nothing that one can do to help the other being, even if one is doing one's best, wouldn't the desire to end all suffering for all sentient beings still be present and therefore suffering still existing in one before that goal has been achieved?

I don't see how it is possible for a being to be compassionate and free of suffering while still knowing that others are suffering.

Is it supernatural? Does it transcend reason?

How is this possible besides if one simply doesn't mind if others are suffering?

Its not a matter of not caring. It is a matter of each person must end their own suffering.

  Even if there is nothing that one can do to help the other being

Correct. Well-spoken!!!

  I don't see how it is possible for a being to be compassionate and free of suffering while still knowing that others are suffering.

The above is a contradiction. When it is realised there is nothing one can do to help the other being; the mind let's go; and ends its suffering. However, the mind, free from suffering, is always willing to compassionately help another person help themself.

  Is it supernatural? Does it transcend reason?

Sorry. Please don't feel criticized but, in my opinion, your post does not accord with reason. When it is realised there is nothing one can do to help the other being, this giving up of desire or absence of hope is Nibbana.

  The phrase 'absence of hope' may be used in regard to the attainment of arahantship, but it's not the resignation of the foolish and lazy,
  it's a different matter altogether. It is the absence of hope of one
  who with true wisdom sees that there is nothing in this or any world
  that one should wish to have or be. Truly nothing is worth having or
  being at any time or at any place.

  Heartwood from the Bo Tree


Where can i find the original text of learning the jhanas I want to find the cannon text on learning the jhanas. Is there a pdf or something in english i can download? Any help would be appreciated

On this page, you can find quotes from the Pali Canon on jhanas together with their sources.

For further commentary on jhanas, please see this page.

This question may also help you.


if the self is an illusion - all my relationships are illusion too? If the self is an illusion - of little importance - where does that leave my relationships?

All the people I know, have a relationship with this 'fake self' of mine -- so the relationships are groundless? an illusion also?

You are asking something like "If superman is fictional, what happens to his relationship with Lois Lane?".

In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.


What are the Pali's suttas commentaries on the three higher knowledges? Recently, I read an insight by the Dali Lama in the book "Buddhism:One Teacher, Many Traditions" that caught my attention:

"When I reflect on the three higher knowledges mentioned in the Pāli suttas, I recognize a correspondence with what the Tibetan sage Tsongkhapa later called the three principal aspects of the path— renunciation, bodhicitta, and correct view. While these are generated before one becomes a buddha, they reach their fulfillment at buddhahood. With the first higher knowledge, the Buddha saw his previous lives— their duḥkha and transience. Knowing all that misery was caused by afflictions and karma, he responded with full renunciation of saṃsāra, making the determination to attain liberation. With the second higher knowledge, he saw the passing away and rebirth of sentient beings under the influence of afflictions and karma. His reaction to this horror was impartial love, compassion, and bodhicitta . To fulfill this altruistic commitment, he freed his mind of all pollutants and obscurations by realizing the correct view of the subtle selflessness of persons and phenomena. Through repeatedly using this wisdom to cleanse his mind, he gained the third knowledge and knew that his mind was totally purified and that he had attained nirvāṇa." - Dali Lama

What are the Pali's suttas commentaries on the three higher knowledges?   How may I integrate them into my meditation practice?

Thank you for your time and consideration.  All the best!!!

The Threefold knowledge(Tevijja) is mentioned in many suttas. In MN 36, the Buddha describes obtaining each of these three knowledges on the first, second and third watches respectively of the night of his enlightenment. A nonexhaustive list of other suttas is available here


Traits of a person manifesting in certain ways in the next life Somewhere on this site I read in an answer that certain traits you develop or inherit are responsible for your physical appearance. Now of course good deeds in one life will lead to positively perceived things in the next life (wealth, health, noble birth etc.), however my question is this:

Can one deduce ones physical appearance from traits in a previous lifetime? Again, of course, there are many factors coming together, but I think there could also be a general trend in this. What I read here for example was that if you are a calm, patient and kind person and/or practiced and developed patience and kindness, you would be reborn as a person that other people perceive as attractive.

I'm aware of karma and if you are generous, you lay the ground for other people being generous to you at some point in a certain way, but I'm interested in certain traits manifesting in your physical appearance, or influencing your behaviour/demeanor/impression on other people.

For the physical appearances you should read Lakkhaṇa Sutta. But it is not guaranteed that you can have specific physical appearance in next life because how much extent averse effects you did previous lives and current life. Buddha only have this exceptional and scientifically impossible physical characteristics by practicing specific wholesome acts in many uncountable lives. By practicing the Sila, Samadi and Panna taught by Buddha in this sutta you can attain Nirvana as Buddha or student of Buddha, that is for sure.


What does female Buddha mean? I got introduced to this "Female Buddha" when I was looking name for my friend's daughter.
So what does female Buddha mean?
Wikipedia :

Tara (Buddhism)
Tara (Sanskrit: तारा, tārā; Tib. སྒྲོལ་མ, Dölma), Ārya Tārā, or Shayama Tara, also known as Jetsun Dölma (Tibetan language: rje btsun sgrol ma) in Tibetan Buddhism, is an important figure in Buddhism. She appears as a female bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism, and as a female Buddha in Vajrayana Buddhism. She is known as the "mother of liberation", and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements. She is known as Tara Bosatsu (多羅菩薩) in Japan, and occasionally as Duōluó Púsà (多羅菩薩) in Chinese Buddhism.

My question is what does this concept mean is she a person who appeared in past who's name is Tara?
Or is it philosophical concept that meditators seen she's appearing?
Also why this is not exist in Thervada Buddhism when statue is in Bihar state of India?

Also why this is not exist in Thervada Buddhism when statue is in Bihar state of India?

Probably because there's no concept of a female Buddha according to Early Buddhism (by Early Buddhism, I mean the earliest text strata translated into both the Theravada's Nikayas and Mahayana's Agamas).

“He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a woman could occupy the position of Sakka [66]…that a woman could occupy the position of Māra…that a woman could occupy the position of Brahmā—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a man might occupy the position of Sakka…that a man might occupy the position of Māra…that a man might occupy the position of Brahmā—there is such a possibility." ~~ MN 115 ~~

Now before some modern-day feminist about to start a massive protest, pay close attention to the next sentence too, basically it said that on the flip side, men's evil has no equal, so much that this gender is the only one capable of occupying the most evil office ever exists, Mara!


Selling an animal to butcher will break first precept? Farmers who breed animals and sale to butcher or for food concern is considered as intentional killing and break first precept?

With regard to precepts, one should not kill or encourage others to kill. If one is supplying animals to a slaughterhouse one is encouraging others to kill the animal though one is not participating in the act. So this breaks the present.
The conditions for killing are:

i) The being must be alive.
ii) There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
iii) There must be intention to cause its death.
iv) Action must be taken to cause its death
v) Death must result from such action.
If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the precept has been
broken.

FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)
When one is trading in livestock, the animals are alive and one knows the animals are indeed alive. One knows the fate of animals sold to the saluted house. Knowing that if one giving an animal for slaughter, by the act of giving one is condemning the animal to its ultimate fate. By doing so one seals the fate of the animal. In the slaughterhouse, the animals are ultimately killed.
Also, Right Livelihood component of the Noble 8 Fold Path says one should avoid 5 trades:

A lay follower should not engage in 5 types of trades. Which five?
(1) Trading in weapons sattha vaṇijjā,
(2) Trading in humans satta vaṇijjā,
(3) Trading in meat maṁsa vaṇijjā,
(4) Trading in intoxicants majja vaṇijjā, and
(5) Trading in poisons visa vaṇijjā.

I guess trading in livestock may be classified under trading in meat as ultimately this is what happens when you sell animals to a slaughterhouse.
One can accept “available meat” (pavatta,maṁsa) which is per killed not specifically with oneself in mind


Do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity? I don't think "self" is the right term in English for the sort of quality I want to ask about.

So, regardless of its ontological status, or that of what it relates to (objects), do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity?

Some person got wet in the rain, and so he feels wet. Some other person didn't walk in the rain, and so he feels dry.

Thus feelings of people standing side by side in the same room can be very different.

Likewise, their thoughts can be very different. Likewise, their actions can be very different.

To explain that, it's enough to have understanding of causes and effects. Thus the explanation doesn't need notions like "subjectivity" or "self".

Investigating our experiences from the point of view of causality, we can discover illusoriness of "self" and "subjectivity".

Imagine such ideas - "self" and "subjectivity" - as opaque spots which taint our field of vision. When we realize that such ideas are illusory, it's like the spots became transparent. If we focus on them, we still might see them, but they don't hinder our sight anymore. We just look through.

Then we don't need to rely on such ideas anymore. Thus they will not lead to attachments.

That's what Mahayana (and Buddhism in general) teaches. "Self" and "subjectivity" are opaque spots where actually everything is transparent. Likewise, all the other ideas are like opaque spots, if we don't see through them.


Would an advanced practitioner ever stop meditating? The founder of the Buddhist community I attend said in an interview that he doesn't meditate anymore. I kind of found this really surprising. If we can say (just for arguments sake) that he is an advanced practitioner - is there any precedence for people once they reach a particular advanced stage in the path stopping meditating? Do people do this? Does it depend on the individual or is he very unusual in this and even potentially doing the wrong thing?

Would an advanced practitioner ever stop meditating?

If we take the Buddha & his disciples as an example, I would say, no. I would also not see a reason why. In the texts, the jhānas are referenced as pleasant abidings here-&-now and that is what the arahats do.

  "Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you: 'In what dwelling,
  friends, did the Blessed One generally dwell during the rains
  residence?'-being asked thus, you should answer those wanderers thus:
  'During the rains residence, friends, the Blessed One generally dwelt
  in the concentration by mindfulness of breathing.'"
  ...
  "Those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose taints are destroyed, who have
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached their own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, those completely
  liberated through final knowledge: for them concentration by
  mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads
  to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and
  clear comprehension."
  -SN 54.11, At Icchanangala

  But having heard that Dhamma, those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose
  taints are destroyed, who have lived the spiritual life, done what had
  to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, utterly
  destroyed the fetters of existence, and are completely liberated
  through final knowledge, are devoted simply to a pleasant dwelling in
  this very life.
  -AN 9.4, Nandaka

  And how does the disciple of the noble ones obtain at will — without
  trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute heightened
  awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now? There is the case
  where, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
  mental qualities, the disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in
  the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied
  by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed
  thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana:
  rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free
  from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the
  fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses
  pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of
  which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant
  abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier
  disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the
  fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor
  pain. This is how the disciple of the noble ones obtains at will —
  without trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute
  heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now.
  -MN 53, The Practice for One in Training


Samma ditthi vs Miccha ditthi Can someone guide me? Whenever I try to concentrate on Samma Ditthi, some obstacle generate within this body? It's like mirage of something real! Its like a whirlpool of mass of atoms.  Help me!

Arduent grasping for samma ditthi will result in renewed sankharas. What you describe seems like you are in fact intensifying sankharas. Samma will arise spontaneously, provided that you have stilled the sankharas (samatha-bhavana).

You could try renunciating your eagerness by following the tetrads of the anapanasati sutta step by step. As a suggestion, try to sustain the first tetrad until you have established samatha.

This enables further investigation (vipassana bhavana), which will gradually facilitate deepened samma ditthi.

https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi


Are people younger than 20 forbidden to ordain? According to a precept it is forbidden to integrate a person under 20 years of age into the Sangha. Is that correct? So are the young monks, not monks, but something different?

According to The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Becoming a Novice
The first part[16] of the ordination[17] procedure for bhikkhus is known as the Going Forth into Homelessness (pabbajjaa). If it finishes with just that — without going on to the Questioning of the candidate and the Acceptance of him by all the gathered bhikkhus into the Bhikkhu Sa"ngha — the candidate is known as a saama.nera or novice. This is usually the case when the candidate is less than the twenty years of age necessary to become a bhikkhu. A very young boy is not allowed to become a novice either, but the minimum age will vary according to place.[18]

Footnote:

[18] "One under 15 years of age, unless he can scare crows (i.e., is mature) should not be given the pabbajaa for becoming a saama.nera (Vin.I,79). After receiving their parent's consent (Vin.I,83), they were to shave their head and beard, put on the ochre robe and, paying respects to the bhikkhu, receive the Three Refuges and the Ten Training Precepts." (HS ch.19)

See the Wikipedia article Śrāmaṇera for a description of Buddhist novices.


What is the difference between Suttas and Sutras? Reading this question and its accepted answer prompted me to ask the following question:

Is there a difference between Suttas and Sutras? and, if so, what is the difference?

Thank you

TO start, Sutta is Pali and Sutra is Sanskrit.  Just like Latin and Greek.

One of the meanings of Sutta is "acquired knowledge".  That is why most if not all, Pali sutta start with Evaṃ me sutaṃ (sutta).  [one time, i  have heard...]


Animisa Locana Pooja. Is it really what it is? This is probably by far the most interesting theory that I have heard (Yes a theory or you may call it a story. I just don't have a reference to back this up!) about the life of Gautama Buddha.  The "Animisa Locana Pooja" was a act of gratitude. This is what I know and have been taught. Lord Buddha stared (wish I had a better word for this) without blinking at the Bo tree that gave him shelter during his enlightenment. But is it really the reason why he kept looking at this tree? For one whole week? I met this really interesting guy when I went on a pilgrimage that asked me these questions. And all I had to say was "Yeah he was being an example to us all by showing how to show gratitude". Then the man asked "Son, Buddha is possibly the most perfect being we know, at least from a Buddhist's perspective. Couldn't he have been a better example by showing gratitude to his father perhaps right after enlightenment? Even as normal people whenever we achieve something the first person that we tell to are our parents. If you win the Nobel prize for literature would you rather show gratitude to your parents/teachers or your pen?"

I would be lying if I said I wasn't annoyed at this point. "Do you mean that as an insult?" I asked. He burst into laughter and said "Yes, but not an insult to Buddha but to the person who came up with the gratitude story. Son, he never showed gratitude to the tree. When Buddha attained enlightenment, at first, he felt that he had been liberated from all of the sorrows. But there was still doubt within himself as to whether he was actually a Buddha or just an Arahath. So he sat facing the tree. Using all his past lives experience and knowledge he looked at the tree and imagined that it was another Buddha and started a mental conversation with this imaginary Buddha to convince himself that he himself was a Buddha". Honestly I was astonished! Was this man lying to me? To be honest I sort of do believe he is correct but I just could not ask him where or how he found this piece of information. What do you think? Is it what it is?

"Animisa Locana Pooja" was indeed an act of gratitude to set an example to the world. It was also done to sanctify the tree as it would become the symbol of the Buddhahood.

The story your friend has told seems to be his own imagination. King Suddhodana was doing all he could to keep prince Siddhartha in lay life. So showing gratitude to him for aiding in the quest of attaining Buddhahood is out of the question. In any case, the Buddha later visited his father and saved him as well.

  But there was still doubt within himself as to whether he was actually
  a Buddha
  Blockquote

The Buddha is omniscient. He has no doubts and needs no 1 week long mental conversation with a tree to know something :)


Metta and Loving-Kindness as a Team Can Metta be practiced in a partnership or as a team?

I can think of

two people practicing Metta together, or
a group which meets for meditation, or
across borders, across continents people meditate together at a certain time.

Are there any indications of a Sutta?

Are there practices of a tradition?

Meditation influences the surrounding by vibration created. (You can really feel the vibration when you experience Piti) So when you pratice as a group these vibrations influence others, especially when you are having a bad patch in meditation then the influence of others will help in to develop calmness and concentration and perhaps dispel agitation and other hindrances that might have surfaced during your worldly interactions.

This is true for all types of meditation but most effective when doing Metta as vibrations tend to be stronger.


How are the fetters by Anapanasati diminished? According to the Anapanasati Sutta it is this practise that leads to liberation but how does the destruction of (a) fetter(s) exactly happen? Let's take the stage from once-returner to non-returner. The latter one has removed sensual desire and anger. How did this exactly happen during Anapanasati?

I think the progression described in the Anapanasati Sutta can only lead to stream-entry and once-returner but not to non-returner or Arahant because the Anapanasati Sutta includes knowing of in & out breathing at every stage therefore does not yet include the jhana (that has no knowing of breathing) required for non-returner or Arahant.

This said, both the stream-enterer and particularly the once-returner have significantly reduced sensual desire and anger.

How this exactly happens during Anapanasati is insight (vipassana) into not-self (anatta) reduces the self-centredness that is the root of sensual desire and anger and particularly the calming (samatha) stages (4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15) provide the non-sensual happiness that allows the mind to naturally lose interest in sensual pleasures. Once sensual desire reduces, the impulse to worldly anger reduces (although some tendency to anger due to moral righteousness may remain).

Stages 5, 6 & 7 are also important (vipassana) because they allow the mind to transcend or decouple from enslavement to pleasant feelings; when it is discerned the peace of non-attachment & samatha is more pleasant than the strong vibrations of pleasant feelings; particularly the agitating quality of rapture (piti). Naturally losing interest in rapture by intimitately experiencing rapture's true nature is a very significant step to losing interest in sensuality.

Stage 9 is also important, where the ugly polluting nature of defilements are discerned directly; like coming face to face with the devil.

In summary, an important result of Anapansati is calm (samatha). When calm is experienced, it feels better than sensual desire or anger; thus breaking/reducing these fetters. Feeling this calm starts at stage 3, which is actually called: "experiencing all bodies (kaya)". The word 'kaya' refers to the physical body, breath-body and mental-body (nama-kaya). Stage 3 is experiencing how a mind of non-desire, non-anger & non-attachment results in the breathing calming and the physical body calming. Stage 3 is about experiencing the 'inter-relatedness' between the mind, breath & body. At stage 3 alone (when properly practised), it is experienced how a mind without sensual desire & without anger causes the breathing, body & mind to calm & feel satisfying peace.


What does sati mean? This normally gets translated as mindfulness.

In particular, does it mean remembrance, as in to actively think using words about the past.

Or is it about thinking about the present, and not the past.

Or is it about suppressing ones internal dialog.

If the meaning has changed, is it a relatively modern thing, or does it trace back to some sort of new development in the history of Buddhism.

The word Sati (Smrti in Sanskrit) literally means remembrance or recollection, but as with many Buddhist technical terms has a more specialized meaning in a meditative context. In the context of meditation the word Sati has a more general meaning to set the mind on the object of meditation. For example, the meditation in which one contemplates the attributes of the Buddha is called Buddhanusati.

However quite often when people say Sati, they mean a specific kind of Sati. That is to say, Samma-Sati, or right mindfulness, which is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Suttas define Samma-Sati as follows:

  And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html)

So with right mindfulness one is specifically directing the mind to the body, feeling, mind, and mental qualities. The word which the translator translates as Alert is the term Sampajanna, which others often translate as "fully aware" and quite often when people say mindfulness, they are actually thinking of Sampajanna although they aren't totally distinct, as you need Sampajanna to have Samma-Sati.


What is the sutta in which the Buddha described focusing the mind as similar to whittling? I believe there is a sutta in which the Buddha uses an example of whittling or carving a piece of wood to describe the process of refocusing your mind in meditation. What is this sutta?

I am not sure that these are what you asking for.

Maha-Malunkya Sutta: Insight Meditation To Be Anāgāmi-Ariya

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Maha-Malunkya_Sutta

Maha Saropama Sutta: The Longer Heartwood-simile Discourse

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

Angulimala Sutta: About Angulimala

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html


"Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do" as a characteristic of karma Referring to the Four Characteristics of Karma (catvāri karmasvabhāva), as taught in Tibetan schools:

The certainty of karma.
The magnification of karma.
Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do.
The actions you have done do not perish.

(From "The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Tib. Lam rim chen mo, Volume 1: Volume One" by Tsong-Kha-Pa.)

I have no issue with 3 of the 4 characteristics of Karma, but it seems to me that #3 Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do has been incorrectly extended by many to nothing can be experienced unless you have created the cause. The problem with this is that there must be some random events mixed in with cause and effect.

Same situation can have many results from many causes.

For the example: eyes have 34 elements that are formed from 4 kinds of difference causes (kamma, consciousness, temperature, and nutrient).

Another example: pathavi-dhatu, that is arise by temperature in eyes, also depend on the other co arising elements, same time arising causes, too.


Why Vipassana meditation need a base object? I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that Vipassana is about letting go of control and judgement, and the meditator will just become aware and accept things as they are. Be it pain, thoughts, sound, or physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath).

I wonder we need to have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why don't we just let go from the very beginning and just become aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object?

I think (please kindly correct me if i wrong) Vipassana is about letting go of control & judgement, and the meditator will just aware and accept things as it is. Will it be pain, thoughts, sound, and physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath).

That sounds more like shikantaza/zazen.

Vipassanā means insight into reality: seeing the three marks of existence dukkha, anicca, anatta. The practice is described in suttas such as Satipatthana and Anapanasati. So, the actual goal is not "letting go of control & judement" -- however, "letting go" is a useful tip at some points in the practice.

  I wonder why do we have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why dont we just let go from the very beginning and just aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object?

Because insight into reality need some faculties developed. Two of them are concentration (samadhi) and mindfulness (sati). It so happens that is very difficult to develop concentration without something to anchor our attention: meditation objects.

Finally, samadhi and sati are not just random faculties. Both are listed in the Noble Eightfold Path and in the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.


Group meditation vs. Solo meditation Other than personal preference, are there known to be advantages or disadvantages to meditating in a group instead of alone?

Think about it - we go to refuge to the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha.  If community wasn't important, it wouldn't be one of the Three Jewels.  There's ample scriptural support for this as in Dhp 6.78, the concept of the kalyaṇa-mittata or spiritual friend, and the Upaddha Sutta where the Buddha called admirable companionship the "whole of the holy life".  While it can be difficult to find a group where you feel "at home", being around like minded individuals striving to the same end will only bolster your practice.  Furthermore, even those tiny annoyances like someone shifting during meditation, someone coughing, or a loud breather help strengthen your concentration and resolve.  Life is not perfectly collected samadhi!  We need to learn how to overcome obstacles.  What better time than when you're on the cushion!  I think it important to add that monasteries are supposed to be places most conducive to the spiritual life.  If solo meditation was somehow "better" than group meditation, then monks would not sit with each other.  Needless to say, this is clearly not the case.

I will also say that personally, I always sit more deeply when I meditate with others.  The ritual of driving to the same place, seeing the same people, and feeling the energy in the room - nothing can replace that!

As off color as this metaphor is, I feel the need to share it.  One of my teachers once told me that meditation without community is like sex by yourself - it's pleasant and effective, sometimes something dramatic occurs, but always there is the sense that something is missing!  :-)


Occasional doubt in Buddhist Teachings For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt?

These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear.


Do Buddhists believe (as do some Christians) in non-material forms of healing? Not necessarily spontaneous, but any type of spiritually assisted healing.

If so, can you elaborate?

If not, can you offer a reference?

There are several cases of working cures mentioned in the suttas many more in the Jataka stories which are much later. Two oustanding cases found in the suttas are the one where Angulimala
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/personalities/angulimala.htm
did an act of truth to relieve a woman of a painful labor, another is the case of the Buddha himself 'bending down his mind' to the suppression of an illness.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bs/dn.16.rhyt.bs_1.2.htm
scroll down to #28

The 'act of truth' is a declaration made to the gods of the truth of some statement in the form of a wish: "If such and such is the truth, let such and such happen." Usually the thing being declared to be the truth must be something hard to believe or embarassing, something not likely to be revealed unless under strong motivation to do so.

Generally the Buddha suggests not working cures with the idea that beings have their kamma to live out. Working a cure does not relieve a person of the experience of his bad kamma, it just postpones it and that may not be a wise idea if it postpones the experience beyond its manifestation in this life there is the possibility that the next life will be so hazardous (as in animal life) that insight and taking counter-measures would be highly unlikely. Consequently curing someone may not be doing them any favor.


What is meant by this description of a type of person in the suttas? There seems to be this reoccurring phrase to describe a specific type of person in the suttas. For example in MN 45

"And what is the taking on of a practice that is painful in the present and yields pain in the future?"
"There is the case where someone is a cloth-less1 ascetic, rejecting conventions, licking his hands, not coming when asked, not staying when asked. He doesn't consent to food brought to him or food dedicated to him or to an invitation to a meal. He accepts nothing from the mouth of a pot or from the mouth of a bowl. He accepts nothing from across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing woman, from a woman lying with a man, from a food collection, from where a dog is waiting or flies are buzzing. He takes no fish or meat. He drinks no liquor, wine, or fermented drink. He limits himself to one house & one morsel a day, or two houses & two morsels... seven houses & seven morsels. He lives on one saucerful a day, two... seven saucerfuls a day. He takes food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so on up to a fortnight, devoted to regulating his intake of food. He is an eater of greens, millet, wild rice, hide-parings, moss, rice bran, rice-scum, sesame flour, grass, or cow dung. He lives on forest roots & berries. He feeds on fallen fruits. He wears hemp, canvas, shrouds, refuse rags, tree bark, antelope hide, strips of antelope hide, kusa-grass garments, bark garments, wood-shaving garments, head-hair garments, animal wool, owl's wings. He is a hair-&-beard puller, one devoted to the practice of pulling out his hair & beard. He is a stander, one who rejects seats. He is a hands-around-the-knees sitter, one devoted to the exertion of sitting with his hands around his knees. He is a spike-mattresser, one who makes his bed on a bed of spikes. He is a third-time-in-the-evening bather, one who stays devoted to the practice of bathing in water. Thus in a variety of ways he stays devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body. With the break-up of the body, after death, he goes to a bad bourn, destitution, the realm of the hungry shades, hell."

I really don't understand what is meant by this. Can anyone please give a simple explanation or some reference to other translation or commentaries?

Can anyone please give a simple explanation or some reference to other translation or commentaries?

The sutta is describing four ways to practice:

"practice that is pleasant in the present but yields pain in the future" -- seeing no harm in sensual pleasures
"practice that is painful in the present and yields pain in the future" -- an ascetic life, which is "devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body"
"practice that is painful in the present but yields pleasure in the future" -- someone who is passionate/aversive/deluded and consequently experiences grief (in the present), yet lives the holy life
"practice that is pleasant in the present and yields pleasure in the future" -- someone who is not passionate/aversive/deluded, who is equanimous, withdrawn from sensuality, entering the four jhanas

What you quoted in the OP is a list of various (several) ascetic practices. I presume these were actual (current/contemporary) behaviour practiced by some people at the time.

There's a bit about Ascetism in Indian religions on Wikipedia.

Siddhārtha Gautama tried to practice austerities himself, but found it unhelpful; e.g. MN 36 describes many types of austerities he practiced, which end with his thinking:

  But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

That "other path" is the Middle Way which he tells to his five (former) companions when he meets them again after his enlightenment.

So the details are not important, just the fact that one tortures oneself?

They were presumably actual practices, which the sutta is listing as explicitly austere (unnecessary).

See also Dhutanga practices which are optional (regarding which this commentary says these are not extreme, and may optionally be adopted to further simplify a monk's life).

I'm not sure what the motive is or was for asceticism; I could guess (e.g. ascetism is also associated with devotees of Shiva), but with the Buddha stating that asceticism is fruitless (or, more specifically, is painful in the present and leads to hell in the future) I don't see much point in pursuing that topic.


How do you "meditate on" a saying or subject? When you search for "meditate on" on Google, suggested completions include scripture, love, death, a word.

I have read a lot about meditating by using your breath as a focal point, but have never come across an example where a word, phrase, or feeling is the desired focal point.  What is the process of doing that?

For example, how would I meditate on Yoda's well-known quote "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try."?

For another, how would I meditate on a feeling, like love or fear?

The breath is one of forty meditation objects according to the Visuddhimagga. For the full detail, see here, for a brief summary, see here


How many different techniques of meditation did Buddha teach? I was just wondering how many different types of meditation techniques did Buddha teach?

I know the below

Anapana,
Vipassana,
Charnal Ground,
Metta Bhavana,

I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

Anapana, Vipassana, 32 body parts meditation, Metta Bhavana,
I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

They're parts of what's called the Kammatthana, the Forty objects of meditation as classified in the Visuddhimagga. The wiki page also gives a pretty good summary about them.


Can you actually focus on how birth leads to aging, death, suffering, stress as direct experience in dependent co-arising? Can I focus on the link between birth and aging, death, suffering, in dependent co-arising in my own mind? Or do I have to know how birth leads to aging etc. intellectually.

Does birth in dependent co-arising appear in the mind?

Dependent origination is the truth that the Buddha himself saw under the Bodhi tree at the moment of his enlightenment in the third watch of the night. This after recollecting countless past lives in the first watch and observing countless beings being born and passing away in the second watch. So yeah, it probably entails a lot of abstract thought about past and future.

This is controversial, though - many Buddhists would have you believe that DO is an entirely momentary teaching to be understood as referring to a single moment in time, rather than multiple lifetimes. This seems unwarranted given the context mentioned above.

So, if you want to become a Buddha, then full understanding of DO is essential. Unfortunately, it seems to come after (at least) four uncountable aeons plus 100,000 great aeons (great aeons being the smaller of the two types and perhaps equivalent to a big bang).

Ordinary individuals are not required to understand DO in its entirety, though it is useful as a framework for understanding reality intellectually. In terms of practice, it is enough to understand that all arisen phenomena are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. This removes any craving for arisen phenomena and frees one from ignorance, thereby severing the connection to becoming and birth.


What is the 3 lifetimes interpretation of the 12 nidanas? Can anyone outline the 3 lifetime interpretation of the 12 nidanas. To me there only seems like there are at most two lifetimes in there. One goes from ignorance to becoming then the other goes from becoming to death. I know this is a misunderstanding so I would appreciate anyone clearing this up for me.

Here is an excerpt from the source of the three life-times interpretation:

  287. The past, the present and the future are its three times. Of these, it should be understood that, according to what is given as
  such in the texts, the two factors ignorance and formations belong to
  the past time, the eight beginning with consciousness belong to the
  present time, and the two, birth and ageing-and-death, belong to the
  future time.
  -The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), p.600

For additional information, I suggest reading the entire page from which the above excerpt was extracted and the pages that succeed it.


How to exercise goodwill in social circle? Knowing that people in our social circle are not versed in the Dhamma, they seek gratification through the sense spheres (sensuality).

For example, most people like to be praised and engage in idly talk. But we know that these things strengthens the kilesas (especially when the topic is about political or social issues).

The Buddha said that the Dhamma is the greateast gift. But common social occasions are unfit to talk about the Dhamma (or even anything really meaningful which will lead to a long term benefit).

If I don't engage in idly talk with someone, He/she will probably think I'm being cold.
But if I do, I will be contributing for the increase of their attachments and unwholesome mental states.

So, I wonder if there is a proper way to exercise goodwill and merit towards someone in such situations.
Or am I thinking too much and should only intend to keep a heart of goodwill rather than make a active effort to preserve or increase their wellbeing?

Danilo,
If one understands goodwill or meritious deeds as something to nurish on, to "experiance", to gain pleasure out of it, at first place, one has failed the deeds so that they bring benefit. Practicing means to watch over causes (e.g. ones actions, state of mind) and not grasping ofter effects at fist place: "Because I like to have this, I do that..."
How ever, what ever you can contibute is aside of outwardly things for others benefit, if able to fill a lack, virtue (abstain to harm) and thoughts of goodwill. What ever they might be able and willing to take or give, that's their case. No one can help others so also others if they feel fine and have thoughts of metta torward you, might not be able to really help you out of missery. Ever thought that all around you have actually thoughts of metta torward to you?
Why would you or do you like to put nurishment into a unbenifical relation (e.g. lower than you?), if not simply for your own desire or expected rewards from it (in the sphere of sensuallity and identification), hmm?
Are you really that willing to associated with admirable people? Or do you actually seek simply after relations and like to nurish on Dhamma together? Well, there are plenty of such "feeding away the Gems social groups" and they are really hardly bound to each other :-)
So like always, the arrow can be found in the own heart and it's of cause not easy to come accross one who might point out and directly touch the suppurative focus. That's why they usually put a lot of effort into defend against those who are above them.
Do you fight them as well or do you seek after those who seem to have not a little metta for you?
Metta, if really right practiced gives realease, releases from feelings of being in dept, and does not bind or nurish for unskillfulness.
At least, hold on of what has real value:

"Bhikkhus, I do not know anything else that arouses non arisen merit [1] and fades arisen demerit[2] as good companionship. Good companions arouse non arisen merit and fades arisen demerit. This is the first.

"Bhikkhus, I do not know anything else that arouses non arisen demerit and fades arisen merit as evil companionship. Evil companions arouse non-arisen demerit and fades arisen merit. This is the second.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of relations is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the sixth.

"Bhikkhus, the increase of relations is nothing in comparison to increase of wisdom. Therefore you should train, we will increase in wisdom. This is the seventh.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of wealth is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the eighth.

"Bhikkhus, the increase of wealth is nothing in comparison to increase of wisdom. Therefore you should train, we will increase in wisdom. This is the ninth.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of fame is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the tenth."

Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others

If wishing to grow, you have to seek for ways to step out of your usual relations and bound that you are able to find more sublim. If you just nurish around with likeminded wasters of merits, just go out for some hunts from the more sublime to go them back to nurish it of, like not proper social communities are usual working, then, what is it's benefit?
The more sublime are no more avaliable, sind having not put nurishment into a relation, your current community, relation with it, it's just a matter of time, that it will break apart and nothing has been gained aside a big belly or a hydrocephalus from filling up with unwise thought.
You asked:

Or am I thinking too much and should only intend to keep a heart of goodwill rather than make a active effort to preserve or increase their wellbeing?

What do you think?
If you find a group delighted to visit the monks (e.g. those not sitting on such tables), if you find relation and ways to nurish it, if you invest into the more sublime rather to nurish on the inferior, that would be of benefit for you and properply the best you could do for those you "leave behind", with a heart of goodwill, compassion, joy and equanimity, approaching the some times, "Come, lets visit the monks and do something for our longtime benefit."
If comming, good. If not: even more release or?

"Jivaka, when a lay follower himself is consummate in conviction and encourages others in the consummation of conviction; when he himself is consummate in virtue and encourages others in the consummation of virtue; when he himself is consummate in generosity and encourages others in the consummation of generosity; when he himself desires to see the monks and encourages others to see the monks; when he himself wants to hear the true Dhamma and encourages others to hear the true Dhamma; when he himself habitually remembers the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to remember the Dhamma they have heard; when he himself explores the meaning of the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to explore the meaning of the Dhamma they have heard; when he himself, knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practices the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma and encourages others to practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma: then to that extent he is a lay follower who practices both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others." On Being a Lay Follower

Fullfil the duties you have as a recipient, fullfil you duties toward the releations of your desires. And if the fulfillment of the duties goes agains of what is good, praisworthy and requires harm, quite to further nurish the relation In that way you arrive at good relations if avaliable to you or to minimum do not nurish unhealty bound for times later, when circumstances might be better. At least don't forget that you could be the only one able to escape the circle of death and suffering amoung your tripes and what would be the benefit for all if you don't take on a seldom change for you and all others? Beings are food and nurish on food. So there is nothing that is wiser as to use useful food to seek after freedom of desire for food. If that is reached one may return but it's seldom that you might be that welcome if you can be no more regarded as giver of food they desire.
Thats is why you would never find wise or people having chanced their ancestor-ship sitting together on a table with common people and even the proper occasions for eating together with ones kind, are less and not for the sake to increase boundage.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]


How can I make amends with the one I wronged? I had been cruel to a cat before and it bothers me a lot that I had been unkind to him. He's been dead for more than a year but I still think about how he suffered because of my callousness at the time. Is there a way for me to send him love now, or any way I can make it up to him somehow?

The Kamma has been laid down.

Now there's no use in scruples over the past.

The best and the most constructive thing to do I think is make a commitment to never repeat acts of callousness and actually fulfil it.

It is possible to mitigate acquired new bad Kamma, counterbalance it as it were, by development of wholesome qualities such as good will, cheerfulness and compassion.


Do we indulge or take pleasure in jealousy or the feeling and sensations associated with jealousy? An ode to envy highlights some interesting perspective of jealousy. In a Buddhist perspective how can jealousy be viewed and analysed? What is the root cause and do we indulge in jealousy?

More particularly:

Why do we enjoy stories and movies inspired by jealousy?
How can we be motivated by jealousy? Is it by creating an imaginary outcome and indulging in the sensationalising of this story.

The Dhammapada says,

  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

If or because that's so, I'm not sure that you can even want to view or analyse jealousy.

The "opposite" of jealousy is Mudita.

Perhaps the four immeasurables should be studied, not jealousy?

I admit that I experience some anger occasionally, and then I have to view/analyse that.

From what I remember of jealous-feeling in the past, I don't see how you could take pleasure in it. I think it's a form of (i.e. it arises from) craving, i.e. a craving to gain what you don't have, and/or a craving to hold on to what you are losing.

I have't watched the "ode to envy" you referenced in the OP.
If you want to find something good/complimentary/encouraging to say about envy, if you want to say how it's constructive, perhaps there's an example of that in Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun,

  "'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Very young children are said to go through (i.e. become capable of) different developmental stages as they get older, including:

Parallel play
Simple social play
Cooperative play

I suppose that perhaps envy in adults might be like that too, an early (unskillful) stage of development, for example the following progression from less to more developed/skillful:

I want their toy!
I have my own toy.
Everyone has their own toy.
We share.


How to balance samatha and vipassana practice? Should one practice vipassana every day in a formal sitting? If so, how long should it be compared to samatha meditation, should it be practiced right before/after (not asking which comes first!) samatha or at anytime during the day?

When meditating from person to person and even from session to session the following can happen:

insight develops before calmness
calmness before insight
neither calm nor insight
both calm and insight

Calmness and insight should be balanced through personal effect and also you should seek guidance on balancing both. [(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 1 - 3]

Also it is helpful if the calmness is developed through concentrating on one of the Satipatthana [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta] as the object of meditation is not tainted by a Vipallasa [for more on Vipallasa see: Vipallasa Sutta].


Why should I give a bowl full of rice to a monk if there is no rebirth? If there is no rebirth, what is the response for a layman asking as below?

Oh, monk, I have been feeding you for ten years and I was told that my good deeds could secure me a better fortune on my re-birth, and that I will be paid a hundred or even a thousand times more. I was told that this deed of mine could even secure me a place among the Devas. But now I hear you say in secret amongs you that there is no re-birth, so tell me why should I give you this bowl of rice if there is no reward for me?

I feed my son too for ten years, but he gives me delight and I also know that he is going to support me when I'm aged and weak from feeding you and him. But you, you say that you will be extinguished like fire and be here and nowhere, so why should I feed you?

Ooh, is it because of my compassion that I feed you? But if so where is your compassion when your aim is to delight in the Jhanas and at last be extinguished leaving me and my son at lose? Tell me why I shouldn’t call you a hypocrite?

Buddhism is not an obligatory religion but a religion of voluntary individual participation. There is no obligation to feed monks for non-Buddhists who have not gained appreciation and thus gratitude towards Buddhism.

Monks have carried the teachings over the centuries & established places for dedicated practice. Therefore, grateful Buddhists feeds monks who they have personal faith in & respect for. For example, I once expelled a monk from my home & advised him he was not welcome for alms, because I had no faith in that monk.

In short, non-Buddhists or non-faithful have no obligation to feed monks.

Also, Buddhism states monks should be easy to look after & not cause hardship to supporters. In other words, if your family will be deprived due to feeding a monk, Buddhism does not expect you to feed a monk.

  Dhammapada 49. As a bee gathers honey from the flower without injuring its color or fragrance, even so the sage goes on his
  alms-round in the village.


Is Papanca (i.e., hindrance) always unwholesome? Is Papanca always unwholesome?

The above question is based on MN 18 the honey cake --
https://suttacentral.net/mn18

Ven. Thanissaro has given a detailed explanation in his translation --
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

With asekkhā sammāvimutti, or Right Freedom, there is no longer any need for a spiritual search. From DN33 we have:

  Ten qualities of an adept: an adept’s right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right immersion, right knowledge, and right freedom.

With the cessation (and therefore non-arising) of defilements, the work is done.

If you consider the spiritual search to be a hindrance, then the answer to your question is, "Yes."


Is being conscious of actions' consequences enough to attain nibbana? I apologize if this has an answer on this site or if this does not make any sense. I am wondering if being conscious alone is enough to attain nibbana? If not, why?

I think conscious person will (always?) act in a way that will not cause sorrow to themselves (and others?). I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness of it's consequences.

However, I am not sure if being conscious alone is enough to develop the wisdom required to attain nibbana. Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds? I would like to clear this up. Any help is appreciated.

It seems to me you are defining consciousness as "being fully aware of consequences" and therefore "acting towards a better state", correct? (Just so you know, usually this is called "acting with virtue".)

If this is how you define it, then yes - acting with virtue is enough for Nibbana. The cool thing about acting with virtue is, the more you do it, the more it changes your life in the direction of Nibbana, the easier it gets to act even more virtuously. In fact, clearly understanding this self-fulfilling principle is exactly what's called Stream Entry.

The only other factor you need for Nibbana is to always keep improving  your virtue, always looking for ways to make it more sublime and more refined. For this, you need to be 100% honest with yourself, even critical.

Taken together, these two factors - Acting with Virtue and Continuous Improvement - will create the right cyclic engine to propel a sentient being to more and more sublime forms of happiness until complete Nibbana.


How to view people with metta and karuna? There are definitions of metta and karuna here: What are metta and karuna?

There's a metta-bhavana meditation.

I'm wondering how to practice these socially, though, e.g. as a lay person when talking with people individually or in a group (or perhaps even as a monk talking with people).

In particular what type of view should you try to have of (or see in) people?

My question is sparked by this comment:

  I posted the way of the Buddha, which is metta plus asuba. Asuba alone won't work. Metta is to view women as mothers, sisters & daughters rather than to view them as sex objects. If you can see that sexual promiscuity of women diminishes & often destroys the capacity for good motherhood, then you might understand the teachings of Gotama better. In summary, asuba is not really necessary for laypeople. It is generally pointless suggesting asuba to a layperson who does not have the disposition to be a monk.

I found that comment questionable, because why not view women as people?

Viewing "women" as "mothers" sounds like pigeon-holing "them" as just another type of sex-object (gender-specific-object) or social role/stereotype/function (slave).

I mean, "yes" to metta -- but "metta" isn't  necessarily to "view women as mothers", or is it?

But then the question occurred, if metta isn't as described in the comment then what does metta mean?

The reason I found the above comment questionable is because I expect a person (a woman) might view him- or her-self in a variety of ways: as a mother, as an adult child, as a consumer, as a worker, an athlete, a friend, a volunteer, a voter, and so on ... different views (different ambitions or roles) at different times.

I think that holding a view of someone that isn't the same as their own current view of themselves is a form of harm and a cause of suffering (e.g. a view like "you can't be a friend because you're a woman", "you can't be an employee because you're a mother", "you can't be political because you're a girl", while she wants to be a friend or employee or etc).

So maybe "sympathy" means that you should see other people as they see themselves?
But someone's view-of-self might be a cause of suffering too, so maybe it's better if you don't try to see each person as they see themselves? Perhaps it's fantasy to hope that you can see others as they themselves, except in limited circumstances (e.g. in a job interview)?
In summary this question (about metta and interacting with people) has devolved towards views-of-self and the thicket-of-views.

So what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view?

What does a kind of transactional behaviour (attitude) sound like (is it good or bad?) e.g. a view like, "you're a bus driver and I'm here because I'm on the bus ... it doesn't matter who you think you are, nothing matters except your driving the bus and me having an absolute minimum standard of politeness so as not to be actually offensive"?

Sorry if this is a confused question. The suttas (e.g. Sigalovada Sutta) necessarily talk about general truths, and ends up maybe seeming impersonal, cold, robotic, and I'm not sure if that's the right impression or the whole lesson.

Metta is wishing for all beings to be happy and be at ease.

Looking at women as mothers is not metta.

But I can find a reverse-mother reference for metta below.

The metta practitioner should feel loving-kindness towards all beings just as a mother would want to protect her only child.

Metta can be used to counter one's own impulse to cause harm or unhappiness to others by considering the welfare and happiness of others.

From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

  As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.
  With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart.