Tolerance – Buddhist in Countries with a Non-Buddhist Majority Each religion has their own values and its – compulsory or recommended – rules. Tolerance begins where the rulings of the religions differ.
To what extent should a Buddhist follow the rules of a country, and where is the limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey? Which rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries?
I am asking for rights that are needed to grant religious liberty in particular to Buddhists, maybe signed as the absolute minimum (limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey) and fair treatment (rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries).

As in Yeshe Tenley's answer, the first thing that comes to mind for lay Buddhist are the 5 precepts. Perhaps no country would have a problem allowing this. Except that the first precept may conflict with military conscription (and historically some countries or rulers had a problem with that), so some Buddhist might want to be exempt from military conscription. Many countries don't have military conscription any more, and of those which do or did, some countries allow that exemption, not for Buddhists in particular but for "conscientious objectors" and "pacifists" in general.
Buddhist monastics usually need to be supported by lay society, for example via alms rounds. Again a country sometimes has a problem with that -- disapprove of people begging and being untaxable. And again it's tolerated by liberal western democracies, not only for Buddhists but for other religions too -- for example there's provision in the tax laws for people who have made "a vow of perpetual poverty".
There might be problems if a country has blasphemy laws. Buddhist doctrine might not be considered orthodox according to Islam, and vice versa. So far as I know, Islamic "blasphemy" laws (where these exist), apply more strictly to Muslims than to non-Muslims (e.g. the Dhimmi) -- similarly "apostacy". As well as blasphemy, fundamentalists may also take exception to the iconography of other religions (leading to the destruction of the Bamiyan statues, for example). Alternatively many countries guarantee "freedom of religion" as a right, allowing people to choose any religion or none.
Some totalitarian governments have a problem with alternative social or political structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I read for example that Christianity is allowed in China, but only of a form that's permitted by the government or Communist Party -- and not for example Roman Catholicism, to avoid a church that's headed by the Pope in Rome (and may be opposed to local authorities) -- perhaps you see that also, in their treatment of Buddhists and Muslims.
Civil wars and so on also happen because it isn't only religion but ethnicity and so on -- and nationalism. Sometimes it's what I think of as an over-reaction or a wrong reaction, for example:

A (social, religious, ethnic) minority is persecuted or just disadvantaged
There's some incidents of violence (motivated by poverty, revenge, terrorism), by some members of the minority
The reaction is, "[all] the members of minority is violent, therefore we must remove them from the country"

The members of the majority religion might find articles of doctrine which justify that "defence of the faith". It seems to me that's a bit extremist though, and that different religions co-exist peacefully in secular democracies.


In which current societies mainstream Buddhism is relevant for daily life? In which places or societies is the old Buddhism (mainstream Buddhism) a formative world-view which guides and dominates daily life?

Added to focus my question.

By mainstream Buddhism as guiding and dominating daily life I mean that the people do not follow the capitalist ideal, that they do not earn and spend their money for the newest technical equipment or the latest fashion. Instead, that they prioritize and practize Buddha's 8-fold path.

You can follow Buddhism and get results in any society. But as a Buddhist, you will come across less obstructions in societies in which Buddhism is the main religion. Especially for monks, life is easier in Asian Buddhist countries compared to others as the people almost consider it as a duty to support and protect the community of the Sangha.

Monks keep to the 227 precepts and the lay people keep to 5 or 8 precepts. Monks advice lay people on spiritual development and the lay people support the monks by providing the necessities of life and what is helpful for teaching the Dhamma.

The Buddhist lay people are not prohibited to spend money on the newest technical equipment or the latest fashion or any other sense pleasure that wouldn't break the precepts. It's just that they are being advised by the monks that those comforts are temporary and are encouraged to practice spiritual development whenever they can, in order to attain the final solace.


Loving Communication I am currently reading The Art of Communication by Thich Nhat Hanh and going through some rough spots in a relationship.

From a Buddhist perspective, what is the most loving way to communicate, in a relationship when both people are suffering and have opposite needs? One believes they need space to heal and find themselves, and the other needs understanding that comes through meaningful communication before that time apart will seem restorative.

Buddhism always recommends truthful (sacca) & gentle (soracca) speech in relationship.
Three other qualities emphasised are: (i) training (dama) in self-improvement; (ii) patience (khanti); & (iii) sacrifice (caga). See link.
At this time, the above qualities are obviously crucial in your 'rough spot'.
However, the most important quality of relationship in Buddhism is 'mutual or same needs'.

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have the
same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and the
same wisdom.
Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
with pleasant words,
Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease. When both are the same in virtue.
Samajivina Sutta: The Same in Living

A commentary on this teaching by Thailand's foremost scholar monk is below:

The compatible couple: there are principles for partners in life to ensure their compatibility, providing a firm foundation for a long married life, called the four qualities for a good match (samajivi-dhamma):
1. Sama-saddha: having compatible faith; they uphold the same religion, revere the same objects of worship, concepts, beliefs or principles,
and share the same lines of interest - they are equally firm in all
these or can reach agreement on them.
2. Sama-sila: having compatible morality; they have conduct, morality, ethics, manners and upbringing which are harmonious or compatible.
3. Sama-caga: having compatible generosity; they are in accord, not conflict, with each other in their generosity, hospitality,
munificence, sacrifice, and readiness to help others.
4. Sama-panna: having compatible intelligence; they are sensible and can understand each other; they can at least reason with each other.
A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life

Without same needs or goals, Buddhism would say a relationship is difficult to maintain.


Defilements or misperceptions that arise because of correct insight attainment Like subtle "conceit"? I can't  think of any others. I think there is a
Sutta that is something like, "10 misperceptions of a somewhat  achieved insight meditator". Bhante Yuttadhammo explained  it somewhere. I thought I already asked this but I couldn't find it, maybe it was another forum.

Defilements or misperceptions do not arise because of correct insight attainment. There might be some left. Maybe defiled insights, or "Gecko - Samadhi [vipassanupakkilesa]"

  ...To practice concentration without correct understanding may lead to wrong concentration, from which the person develops abnormal perceptions, the so-called vipassanupakkilesa... You may have heard that samádhi can cause mental abnormality. When it happens, all perceptions arising from the wrong samádhi are abnormal. This is the case when the practice is without wisdom, bringing about misunderstanding in the mind. ...[have you heard?]

was meant.

And! Be clear that the question and previous perception is act-ually exactly a case-sample for such.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]


Do Buddhists have sacred scripture to read? Christians have The Holy Bible, Muslims have The Noble Quran, Hindus have Bhagavad Gita and many more.

Do Buddhists have sacred scripture(s) to read?

Basically the answer is YES, OF COURSE.

The oldest completely available set of scriptures is the Pali canon, the so called tipiṭaka or "three-basket". It contains the vinaya-piṭaka on the rules of monkish life, the sutta-piṭaka which contains by and large the words of the Buddha as collected by disciples and fixed on a number of councils, and last but not least the abhidhamma-piṭaka, which is hardest to translate or explain in just a word. Maybe "basket of systematics" for a start.

In different schools, vehicles, sects of Buddhism there are also different canons current, some of these schools have perished and so parts or most parts of their canons are lost. As pointed out here, there are basically three different canons: What are the major sects of Buddhism?

But when I read your question, I was not hundred percent sure, whether it also somewhat refers to these scriptures being considered as "holy words". If yes, I guess this would be a matter of discussion and elaboration, but the words of the Buddha (sutta-piṭaka) are if I dare say, at the very least auspicious to be heard and read.


What would happen if everyone became a monk or nun? Theravada Buddhism holds that achieving nirvana is impossible for a lay person, hence my question.

"When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering?”
“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering".

MN 71  (Tevijjavaccha-suttaṃ)

The distinguishing principle in the quote from MN 71 is:

  'without abandoning the fetter of householdership'

I would assume (I will research later) 'the fetter' of householdship refers to concerns about & bondage to family, etc, as written in many suttas with the stock phrase:

  ...dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying Kasian sandalwood, wearing garments, scents and unguents, receiving good &
  silver... AN 8.54; Ud 6.2; SN 55.7; SN 55.53

A layperson can abandon 'the fetter' of householdership, as explained in the Haliddakani Sutta, which describes the 'household life' is a state of mind rather than a state of physical habitation:

  The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form,
  it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling...
  perception... fabrication is the home of consciousness. When
  consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of
  fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.

  "And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,
  or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata
  has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

  "Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of feeling... perception... fabrication...

  "Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of consciousness: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

  "And how does one live with society? One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions is said to be living in
  society. One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of
  sound-impressions... aroma-impressions... flavor-impressions...
  tactile-sensation-impressions... idea-impressions is said to be living
  in society. This is how one lives with society.

  "And how does one live free from society? The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions, its
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be living free from society.

  "The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of sound-impressions... aroma-impressions...
  flavor-impressions... tactile-sensation-impressions...
  idea-impressions, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be living free from
  society.

  "And how is one intimate in villages? There is the case where a certain person lives entangled with householders. Delighting together
  with them, sorrowing together with them, happy when they are happy,
  pained when they are pained, he takes on any of their arisen business
  affairs as his own duty. This is how one is intimate in villages.

  "And how is one not intimate in villages? There is the case where a monk lives unentangled with householders. Not delighting together with
  them, not sorrowing together with them, not happy when they are happy,
  not pained when they are pained, he does not take on any of their
  arisen business affairs as his own duty. This is how one is not
  intimate in villages.

Therefore, a layperson can end suffering (generally regarded to the degree of a Non-Returner).


Subjectivity Along the Buddhist Path I noticed that when I meditate on breathing, which I've done about as long as the four immeasurables, I tend to nevertheless hear sounds such as a television or sounds outside my house. When I meditate on the four immeasurables, I don't hear the sounds in the environment. I'm not distracted at all unless I get quite tired.

And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?

I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?

When doing breath meditation your mind is relatively more passive where you watch the breath. When doing the four immeasurables your mind is more active contemplating.

Therefore you can maintain your concentration and blocks out distraction as you refocus on different being.

  I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

This knowledge is only available to the Buddha. But through trial and error, one may find practices hard and some more easy and fruitful.

    The Tathagatha Buddha has realized in the exact way how a person’s abilities develop, how they deteriorate, and accordingly their potential to realize the Dhamma. This is His Sixth power.

Source: The Supreme Buddha with His Ten Powers

Also one can use the following as a guide:

    The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

    Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
    Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
    Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
    Faithful: the first six recollections.
    Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
    Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

    The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Kammaṭṭhāna

  How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

The dhamma preached by the Buddha does not need anything to be added or taken out. (Svakkhato) Therefore, there is nothing peripheral of not important.


What are some of the best practices for generating loving kindness? I came across many lectures from Ram Dass/Richard Alpert in the beginning of my meditation practice about a month ago, and I found the attitudes toward life and other people he espoused very liberating and were a good complement to the attention-focusing practice of samatha. I haven't found any good resources in the Buddhist school for something similar to Bhakti yoga a la Ram Dass. Moreover, even in Bhakti yoga, I haven't found and specific meditative practices to help bring about that very open, loving state of mind that listening to the lectures inspired.

Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out? I just feel more comfortable in the Buddhist framework. Also, any specific meditations for generating that feeling?

Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out?

I do not know about Ram Dass hence might not be similar but try:

"A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi
Knowing and Seeing by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw
The Practice of Loving-Kindness


Where does 'contentment' fit in walking the path of Dhamma? 'Contentment' means being at ease with what you have and not desiring more. But, of course, if I am content with my present situation I will not strive towards Nirvana, and if I am not content and desire for more I invite suffering. Is 'contentment' described in any of the Buddhist scriptures? How to make use of it in the path towards
Nirvana?

The sutta SN 16.1 is about contentment.
From SN 16.1:

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of robe,
and he speaks in praise of contentment with any kind of robe, and he
does not engage in a wrong search, in what is improper, for the sake
of a robe. If he does not get a robe he is not agitated, and if he
gets one he uses it without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it,
not blindly absorbed in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the
escape.
“Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of almsfood … with
any kind of lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if
he gets them he uses them without being tied to them, uninfatuated
with them, not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them,
understanding the escape.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be
content with any kind of robe, and we will speak in praise of
contentment with any kind of robe, and we will not engage in a wrong
search, in what is improper, for the sake of a robe. If we do not get
a robe we will not be agitated, and if we get one we will use it
without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it, not blindly absorbed
in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape.
“‘We will be content with any kind of almsfood … with any kind of
lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if we get them
we will use them without being tied to them, uninfatuated with them,
not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them, understanding
the escape.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
“Bhikkhus, I will exhort you by the example of Kassapa or one who is
similar to Kassapa. Being exhorted, you should practise accordingly.”

Also AN 6.114:

“Mendicants, there are these three things. What three? Lack of
contentment, lack of situational awareness, and having many wishes.
These are the three things. To give up these three things you should
develop three things. What three? You should develop contentment to
give up lack of contentment, situational awareness to give up lack of
situational awareness, and having few wishes to give up having many
wishes. These are the three things you should develop to give up those
three things.”


Can humiliation be liberation? Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publically serves to free students of their egos? What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching method? Why do you think it works or does not work? In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego attachment. That is a less common tactic nowadays, but I have seen it still show up occasionally. I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated. The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own suffering. The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me stuck in fixation.  Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar experience?

Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publicly serves to free students of their egos?

In general, no. To me, it is cultish behaviour.

  What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching
  method?

No general advantages. Probably some drawbacks, such as making the student project ego onto the guru. The student that cannot free the mind from ego will abandon their ego & take up the ego of the guru.

  Why do you think it works or does not work?

The Buddha, according to the Pali suttas, simply pointed the way/path & the student went off & practised alone. The capacity to give up ego can only occur in a mind ready & prepared for it.

  In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego
  attachment.

Possibly in Hinduism, Mahayana or Zen but I do not recall reading this as something that commonly occurred in the ancient Pali suttas. While I have read public admonishments in the Pali suttas by the Buddha for monks publicly preaching wrong views (e.g. MN 22; MN 38), I don't not recall many of these public admonishments leading to enlightenment (although there might be some, somewhere). For example, in SN 22.85, Venerable Yamaka was publicly preaching wrong views and the Venerable Sāriputta approached Venerable Yamaka, in private, addressing Venerable Yamaka as "friend", to rectify the wrong views, which resulted in Venerable Yamaka attaining enlightenment.

  I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated.

Indeed.

  The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own
  suffering.

Indeed.

  The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me
  stuck in fixation.

Yes, in your own meditation. If the teacher gently pointed out the ego-fixation in private, the same result may have occurred. I think public humiliations give a bad example to students. Often students imitate their teachers.

  Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar
  experience?

Yes. Teachers can disappoint us when they do not act with the virtue & care we expect however this gives us an opportunity to be more firm & mature in our own virtue & care. Even if a public humiliation resulted in your mind eventually abandoning 'false-self', this does not mean you should engage in this cultish behaviour.


Who are the Buddhas of the three worlds in Ryōkan's poems? In some of Ryōkan's poems such as this one he mentions the Buddhas of the three worlds

  While I gather firewood and wild grasses on this hill,

  the Buddhas of the three worlds

  Are also celebrating

Who are the Buddhas and what are the three worlds?

This phrase here means everywhere.

Specifically, probably the Trailokya, the realm of desire, form and formlessness.  The realm of desire is hell and earth. The realm of form and formlessness are different types of heavens.

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailokya

The 10 realms, 10 directions, a three times are all common stock literary phrases that meant everywhere and everything and all times.

And I've lost track of how many ways I've seen the realms sliced up, into the 4, 6, 10 realms, and now with this question, 3!


What am I doing to my self to make my natural state "I am trapped in pain" (This seems like a must for me and there is nothing I can do about it) Lets say for example I was trapped in pain before for a long time with no way out for long time and the pain kept torturing me. Now I feel better and not anymore in a no way out situation because I  found out about Buddhism that says "You are not your feelings",  "There is no self that feels" This new knowledge helped me to stop identifying as much as  a helpless victim trapped in pain with no way out and also now I knew I am not in a situation without a chance anymore as I was before when I had no teaching like Buddhism. (Trust me just the teachings I mentioned above was enormously important for me and it took me from the situation where "i was  trapped in pain with no way out" to "I am trapped in pain but I know there is a way out" with Buddhism because I am not my feeling ultimately. The scarry part and what kept my really trapped was that I saw no solution and it was just torturing me. But even if that has helped and can help me to stop identification for some moments when I am enquiring like I am not my feelings, nor is there any self i imagine as the feeler of my feelings I still cant really be free totally because if the enquiry goes well I find my self in a more peaceful state but when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" stops or is not as clear anymore it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am  trapped in pain (it has become my automatic state).  Now what is happening right there is it the job of ignorance  to keep me in this situation or is the Sankharas doing it and what are they doing to keep me in this state. If I knew what happen then I would stop it immediately i know it my mind just wants to see clearly what is happening and then it stops it but until I dont know what is happening and what is doing what I cant stop it and being trapped in pain is automatic.

I am sorry if a similar question has been asked and answered but I read it and it was not really the answer to my question, many thanks to all of you for your time to help.

when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am trapped in pain

I sympathise, I hope someone gives you a good answer.

I think my experience and the Dhamma includes something like,

Feelings arise, and cease (and arise again later, etc.)
Whether they arise depends on whether you "feed" them

I'm not sure how to explain feeding, it might include "delighting in" a feeling -- but "delight" doesn't seem a good description when it's a "negative" feeling like fear -- instead of "delight" maybe feeding a feeling also includes developing a "view" like "this is me" and "this is my feeling"

See also an answer to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for a further description of the difference between a "view" and a more transient conceit.
When they arise and cease (which might be frequently), there may be other feelings and thoughts (perceptions) and so on come to mind -- even including for example awareness of breathing, remembering Dhamma
Some changes happen quickly, and some slowly, the arising-and-cessation of a feeling may be a pattern which repeats itself -- and (perhaps if you don't feed it) changes gradually, by which I mean over the course of even a couple of years or more
I think we're taught that feelings arise from "contact" -- perhaps that means contact with a perception, a thought-object or memory -- one of the "slow changes" which might happen is that the contact (or trigger) continues to arise, but the feeling about it changes (or plural, the feelings about it change)
We're also taught that craving arises from feeling -- including for example the craving for cessation, the craving that a feeling might cease -- and that it's the craving (not just the feeling) which is dukkha -- so that's another point on the wheel at which to affect the cycle, i.e. to recognise that it's with craving that dukkha arises and ceases, recognise dukkha, let "craving" cease

that would mean that my mind,mind object and mind conciousness are contacting at the moment

Yes I think so from my experience -- some kind of "memory".

I'm not sure how exactly fits into the Dhamma of the 12 nidanas -- perhaps memory is a sankhara; and/or perhaps "memory" is simply our name for the re-arising of something, whether that's the re-arising of a view (perhaps a view of self), or a feeling, or situation (a memorable event).

I inexpertly classify those as, generally and simply, mind-objects (then there's contact between mind-object, mind-organ, and mind-consciousness).

How would I be able to stop it

My experience it you can't, contact just happens. But your reaction to it might change, become less painful, when you begin to see it from the perspective of the dhamma (non-self, uncontrollable, impermanent) and to identify components (e.g. craving and attachment) which are what make it painful.

Also if the mind is like a pool of water you might not control the waves which peak and drop, arise and disappear, each moment on the surface -- even so you might affect how agitated the water is, so it might become more or less troubled.

In other words is the feeling inside the mind object. or is it something different that arises after

I think the doctrine of the 12 nidanas says that contact causes feeling causes craving (which is suffering).

I'm not sure that's helpful since by the time you're suffering it has all already happened, so it might be more useful to think of them as "co-arising" or "arising together" -- and as beginning to cease when any of it weakens.

As those (suffering) thought-moments begin to pass or weaken, other moments arise, for example maybe contact with breathing or with memory-of-dhamma.

I'm not sure whether those other contact cause the cessation of suffering or merely co-arise with the cessation, it's probably true to say they at least don't "feed" the suffering nor serve to prolong it (which i.e. "not feeding" is kind of what I was trying to get at in the original answer above).

This seems to be a big confusion for me that would help me to understand

There's a famous story of a "Gordian knot" I heard as a child. It was a famous knot made of rope, a puzzle, and the two ends (beginning and end) of the knot were hidden away within the knot, and nobody could figure out how to undo it -- until someone (who was a Greek equivalent of a world-conquering hero) arrived and, looked at it and, took his sword and just sliced right though it and it fell apart into pieces.

I think that "knot" might be like a "thicket" -- A thicket of wrong views -- and possibly specifically related to any kind of self-view.

Maybe though, I don't know, the Abhidhamma tries to analyse or inspect that kind of detail.

Honestly just by doing this analysis I feel better inside my body beacuse I feel I understand better what I am doing to my self :D

Glad to hear that. Awareness of breath -- tension and non-breathing may co-arise too.

You might also consider doing something else -- being generous, acquiring "merit", doing (ethical) things you don't regret -- maybe that kind of thing results in a different (better) kind of contact.


Difference Between Walking and Sitting Meditation I wonder simply what the difference is between walking and sitting meditation in terms of value on the path. I have been practicing walking meditation for some time without any seeming result.

Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?

Walking meditation is great to developp awareness in everyday life. The setting is more likely to reproduce what you will experience throughout your day.

While in sitting meditation, there are usually much less distractions occuring.

So, from my point of view of a relative beginner, sitting meditation is effective to empty your mind and experience higher levels of concentration, and walking meditation is effective to help you carry this concentration into your daily life.

Walking meditation is also very convenient when you lack energy, you will usually feel much less sleepy walking than sitting.
In addition, if you already seat all day at work and meditate for long periods of time, alternating between sitting and walking meditation might be a good idea to maintain a healthy life style.


Can one learn meditation on their own? Can I learn Vipassana meditation or other Buddhist meditation techniques like Shamatha on my own using books and online videos?
This is because it is sometimes hard to find good genuine teachers.
Or do I definitely need to seek a teacher?

According to my understanding you can learn and start meditation (Samatha or Vipassana) using books and online videos. Of course there are some meditation practices which will be better to learn with a real teacher. Apart form that specially when you have any practical questions or troubles with the meditation or the practice, it is really helpful to get some advice from an experienced teacher.

Further, when you learn by yourself make sure to refer some credible resource (books or online videos) as there are a lot of verities available nowadays. Hope this helps.


What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon? This subsection of Wikipedia's Two Truths article says that the "two truths" distinction is not made in the suttas, but that there are some "suttas of indirect meaning".

Two Truths > Origin and development > Early Indian Buddhism > Pali Canon
In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth.
Nītattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: nītārtha), "of plain or clear meaning" and neyyattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: neyartha), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A nītattha text required no explanation, while a neyyattha one might mislead some people unless properly explained:

There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning.

If you diagree with these statements, please say so.
Or if you agree with these statements, then please explain again: what is "a sutta of indirect meaning" (either in your own words or by referencing someone else's explanation); and cite some illustrative example[s] of "a sutta of indirect meaning".
Also is there a specific, official, or famous commentary on the suttas where they're "classed" like that (i.e. classified or described as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra)?

From Neyyattha Sutta (A 2.3):

  Bhikshus, there are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. What are the two?
  Those who explain a sutta whose sense is direct as indirect. Those who explain a sutta whose sense is indirect as direct. These, bhikshus, are the two who misrepresent the Tathagata.

Examples of provisional teachings from Dharmafarer's analysis of Neyyattha Nītattha Sutta:

  Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc,
  need to have their meaning drawn out (neyyattha), as they do not directly refer to true reality.

  Certain passages in the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and related texts, for example, refer to a post-Buddha non-Buddhist situation, reminiscent of strategic placement or geomancy.

  "offering to the devas" as mentioned in the Ādiya Sutta (A 5.41)

  The Nandamātā Sutta (A 7.50) gives an account of dedication of merit to the deva Vessavaṇa.

  "Dedicating merit" is a provisional teaching.  The point is clear that merit is non-negotiable and non-transferable, as stated in the Nidhikaṇḍa Sutta (Khp
  8).

From interview with Ven. Bhikkhu K. Ñānananda ("comments on the Neyyattha Sutta, which seems to have been the seed out of which the Two Truths doctrine has been developed"):

  The traditional interpretation, as you get in the commentaries, is very simple: it says neyyattha would be such suttas where the ordinary concepts of beings etc. come in, but nītattha is where you get anicca, dukkha, anattā. That’s a very simple definition of it.

  There’s just a flux of life, a functioning, but no agent in it. But the language requires both. That is why we have to say ‘it rains’, leaving the room for someone to ask ‘what is this ‘it’?’. The fire goes out: where has it ‘gone’? The Buddha from time to time had to show the absurdity of such questions. In such contexts you come across the nītattha.

  For all practical purposes, the Buddha’s words are enough. But for those who do not practice, but who are armchair critics, there is so much contradiction in the Buddha’s words. Sometimes He says there is dukkha only, and sometimes He says you are suffering. This is also the reason why there is such a mess...

From Early Buddhist Teaching and Abhidhamma by ven. Tezaniya

  neyyattha suttas are, for example: „O monk, there is one individual, there are two individuals, there are three individuals" etc.

  nītattha sutta is „this is impermanent, this is sorrowful, this is soulless.“

From Wikipedia:

  According to Vasumitra, the Bahuśrutīyas considered the Buddha's teachings of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, anātman, and Nirvāṇa to be supramundane, while his expositions on other subjects were to be considered mundane.

From Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:

  "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

  "And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

  "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities [in terms of the four noble truths].


Overview of Buddhist lists Is there a book/website that gives an overview of all the Buddhist lists and explains what their elements mean, and shows how the lists are connected to each other?

As a matter of fact, yes! Here it is: http://www.thedhamma.com/buddhaslists.pdf
I highly recommend it.


Other physical (samatha) meditation objects besides breath? Does Buddhist samatha meditation allow for physical meditation objects other than the breath? I have noticed I feel much more contentment with the physical sensation of "back straight". Please give examples or references.

Ayya Khema writes (Know Where You're Going) :

  In the beginning we need the necessary meditation practice, the methods that will be our key to open the door, but within them we must find something that is of particular help to us. That element can be physical or mental, concerned with posture or with thoughts.

Upasika Kee writes (Pure and Simple):

  Sit straight and place your hands one on top of the other on your lap. Hold your head up straight and keep your back straight—as if you had a yardstick running along your spine.

yes, when it comes to rupa, there is bhāvana on ''rupa'', or better said, bhāvana  on each one of the five properties
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/mn/mn.062.than.ati.htm#p1

  "How, lord, is mindfulness of in-and-out breathing to be developed and
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, or great benefit?"

  "Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
  internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
  near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right
  discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
  what I am.'

  There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth
  property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property,
  and the space property.

  "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3]
  Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained
  [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property and the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
  makes the earth property fade from the mind.

  "And what is the water property? The water property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's water, watery, and sustained:
  bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus,
  oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself,
  that's water, watery, and sustained: This is called the internal water
  property. Now both the internal water property and the external water
  property are simply water property. And that should be seen as it
  actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is
  not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is
  present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the
  water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.

  "And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, and sustained:
  that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, and consumed with fever; and
  that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, and savored gets properly
  digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire,
  fiery, and sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now
  both the internal fire property and the external fire property are
  simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is
  present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me,
  this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present
  with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire
  property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

  "And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, and sustained:
  up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the
  intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing,
  or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, and
  sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the
  internal wind property and the external wind property are simply wind
  property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes
  the wind property fade from the mind.

  "And what is the space property? The space property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained:
  the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby
  what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where
  it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else
  internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained: This
  is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space
  property and the external space property are simply space property.
  And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and
  makes the space property fade from the mind.

  "Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or
  unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth
  is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way,
  when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable
  and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.

  "Develop the meditation in tune with water. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people wash what is clean or unclean
  in water — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the water is not
  horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you
  are developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.

  "Develop the meditation in tune with fire. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when fire burns what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.

  "Develop the meditation in tune with wind. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when wind blows what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.

  "Develop the meditation in tune with space. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with space, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as space is not established anywhere, in the
  same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with space,
  agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will
  not stay in charge of your mind.


Right view of the external modern world Did Gautama Buddha make any statements about the justices or injustices of the world?
I would like to elucidate the right view to a person who has undergone a certain injustice. The person in question has not got a particular position she rightfully deserved due to a conspiracy of people blocking said person from achieving it. I would also like a parallel to the contemporary world so that it is more practical when reaching this society's person.

The first thing that the story (i.e. "not got a particular position she rightfully deserved due to a conspiracy") reminded me of was verse 3 of the Dhammapada (i.e. "he robbed me" etc.).

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

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

The associated story is here.
I hesitate to tell this story because it seems like blaming the victim, not sympathetic.
I don't want to say, "you were robbed ... and I expect you to like that!"
But if the friend to whom the injustice was done now continues to hate their situation (or, it's called, aversion), if you're continuing to hold hate, then that's continuing to 'suffer', prolonging the suffering ... and that's maybe part of the types of suffering (see here and see also "not getting what is wanted is stressful") that the Buddha certainly made statements about: not injustice so much as our reaction to it.
Of course he also made statements about justice; for example,

Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built.

There's also,

The Vinaya Pitaka, the first division of the Tipitaka, is the textual framework upon which the monastic community (Sangha) is built. It includes not only the rules governing the life of every Theravada bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun), but also a host of procedures and conventions of etiquette that support harmonious relations, both among the monastics themselves, and between the monastics and their lay supporters, upon whom they depend for all their material needs.

And actually the Dhammapada does say more on the subject of justice. The story behind Verse 331,

Verse 331: It is good to have friends when the need arises; it is good to be content with anything that is available; it is good to have merit when life is about to end; it is good to be rid of all dukkha.

... starts with people being "ill-treated by some wicked kings".


How can I be sure if the Buddha actually woke up? waking up to the ultimate truth of reality and that anyone can do like him. I feel like I'm living in the matrix. but i'm not so sure if waking up is possible.

I feel the reason why people struggle to see that becoming " Awakened" is impossible or very difficult is because of ignorance. How can anyone possibly see something that they can't comprehend, it's a paradox!

But......this is why we know the Buddha was "enlightened" and "awakened" to the truth of suffering because He created the Dhamma, the Noble Eightfold  path, the way out of suffering.( It would be impossible for someone to show others the way out if they themselves were not free!)

The matrix you speak of is the delusion, it is the ignorance which blinds us of the truth, but once you come to realize the truth, you will see that in fact it takes more energy and creation to live in a world of fantasy, a world of fantasy that will bring pain and suffering to all!!

I hope i have helped you in someway!

Metta


Does a Buddha see the heart objectively? Does a Buddha or arahant like food and is mindful of that liking at all times or does liking just no longer arise? Does the Buddha like or dislike at the heart level and yet sees the heart objectively?

Related to this question:
What is the basis?

Feelings (vedana) are of one of these types: pleasant, painful or neutral.

Arahants will experience all these types of feelings.

However, the three poisons of lust or greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha) will not arise in arahants. Craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana) will also not arise in arahants.

Liking a feeling is basically lust or greed (lobha). So, this does not arise in arahants. They would only endure the pleasant, painful or neutral feeling mindfully.


Does a monk wearing a samue break a prātimokṣa vow? Monks and nuns take the vow of not wearing lay clothes. Zen monks sometimes wear a casual "working clothing" called a samue. It looks like a regular kimono, without the belt. Since lay people also wear it, I understand that a samue is actually lay clothes.

To distinguish the monks from lay people, the monks have to shave and to wear either the kasaya or a small version of it (the rakusu). Does a monk wearing a samue break a vow, even when he wears a kasaya or rakusu?

As others have pointed out, Japanese Zen buddhists (and virtually all other buddhist traditions in Japan) do not take the vinaya precepts when they ordain. In the Soto Zen tradition, we receive 16 precepts: the three treasures, the thee pure precepts (embracing moral codes, embracing beneficial action, and helping all beings achieve awakening), and the 10 major precepts (no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, intoxicants, slandering, self-praise, stinginess with the teachings, or insulting the three treasures). These are based on the Brahma Net Sutra, but are just a subset. Therefore, no vows about clothing are made.

Nonetheless, in Japan samu-e are understood to be priest's clothes and not lay clothes, although some lay people do wear them. If your vow was not to wear lay clothing, I would say wearing samu-e would not be a violation.

Also, my understanding of the Theravada vinaya is that only the three robes may be worn, and thus both Japanese and Tibetan buddhists are usually in violation of this rule.


Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings? In their writings, local languages or any painting, drawing?

No. There is no indication the Buddha ever left north-eastern India (now Uttar Pradesh, Magadha, and Nepal.)


What is the difference between Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca? In the Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey (MN 18), what is the difference between Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca?

Vitakka-vicāra is  'thought-conception and discursive thinking'.  Before we speak on something, always conscious, deliberate thoughts on what we are going to say (out loud) takes place within us. In Dhamma, this is called ‘vaci sankhara’.  Or as “vitakka vicara vaci sankhara“, which means “vaci sankhara are ‘vitakka  &  vicara“ - our conscious, deliberate thoughts.

‘Vitakka’ points the mind to a given thought object – the initial ‘thought’. ‘Vicara’ keeps the mind engaged on that thought object, i.e., generating new thoughts about it – thinking through/further on this initial ‘thought’. This has been compared to a bee flying to a certain flower (Vitakka) and then buzzing around that flower (Vicara) while drinking nectar.

Buddha said “dhammo ha vé rakkati dhammacari” or “dhamma will guide one in the direction of dhamma that one follows”. This happens once a person becomes a Sotapanna (stream entrant). Once you attain this initial state in the PATH, your internal dialogue ( any conversation that takes place that is 'inner' and 'unspoken') is in keeping with dhamma. This inner conversation always guide you in the direction of dhamma that you follow.

Vitakka (focused application of thoughts), when cultivated in the Dhamma Path become samma sankappa. Thus Samma Ditthi leads to the next step in the Noble Eightfold Path: Samma Sankappa. “Samma” means “san” (adding things to perpetuate the suffering/rebirth process) + “ma” (remove or get rid of). Thus Samma Ditthi is the vision (anicca, dukkha, anatta) that helps removing “san“; Samma Sankappa are the thoughts that help remove ‘san“.

There are people who attain ‘anariya jhanas’  or ‘mundane jhanas’ by focusing the mind on any thought object (vitakka) that come their way. This could be the breath, a kasina object, or any other religious symbol of any religion, and then fixating the mind on this object.

For one who contemplates the ‘Tilakkhana’ of anicca, dukkha, anatta at least to some extent, such thought objects (vitakka) are in keeping with Dhamma, and it is possible to attain Ariya jhanas. It is because this contemplation gives rise to ‘niramisa sukha’ or a ‘cooling down’ over time. This is what we call ‘kammatthana’ to cultivate jhana.  These ‘kammatthana’. The thing is one has to know the meaning of these Pali phrases, for one to think through. These phrases cannot be used just as a chanting object without understanding what is meant by it.

When meditating, in the first absorption, it reads in Pali "vivicceva kamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkam savicaram vivikajam pitisukham pathamajjhanam upasappajjha viharati." It is when Vitakka-vicāra comes to an end, and Savitakka-Savicāra remains.

Papañca can be said as an unhealthy direction that vitakka-vicāra would lead us to if we do not guard against this very Papañca. Papañca always lead to conflict. The Buddha once described this in the Attadanda Sutta (Arming Oneself– SN 4:15):

  “I will tell of how I experienced samvega. Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles, competing with one another– as I saw this, fear came into me. The world was entirely without substance. All the directions were knocked out of line. Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn’t laid claim to. Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent.  And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart. Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions. But simply on pulling it out you don’t run, you don’t sink.”
  Buddha wanted to see why rather than trying to solve the problem by looking for a larger puddle for oneself or ones fellow fish, as to why people would want to be fish in the first place. That is when he found an arrow embedded in his own heart. This arrow is papañca. Papañca is a type of thinking that causes conflict within those who think it, and leads them into conflict with people outside.

If we take Papañca  to mean “objectification”,  then it’s from treating yourself and the world around you as objects–rather than, say, as events or processes–that the perceptions causing inner and outer conflict derive. , It’s because you have passion, desire, delight, or craving for something that you identify with a given thing. In identifying with it, you become tied there. Then you see your sources of food within that puddle as dear, and anyone who blocks those sources as not-dear. From this distinction come envy and stinginess, hostility, violence, rivalry, and ill will.

If we take Papañca to mean falsification and distortion, then the three types of thought: craving, conceit, and views, functions to slow the mind down in its escape from saṁsāra. It is the previous memory of mental events play in influencing mental proliferations. These previous memories are equivalent to what are known as āsava in Pali - an important element responsible for defiling the mind. It is the Papañca that makes us think that people are such and such, when the truth be is the opposite of what we thought of it.


Misinterpretation of a Pali phrase - Rupan Jirathi Yesterday I saw in a funeral banner the following statement.

  Rupam Jirati Machanam, Nama Gottam Najirathi
  It means the body decays but the Name and the Tribe does not. But I have concerns on this.

The first part of the statement is valid but however the second part doesn't for me. If everything decays/dies then how is the name and tribe doesn't? For me this is clearly a misinterpretation and destroys the whole base of the Buddha's teachings.

I also found this article on this topic as well.

Is there any Tripitaka source to this statement? or anything similar? Where can I find it?

This appears in the Najīratisutta ( Najīrati - What does not decay / what does not age; version in Sinhala and English). From what I have heard and learned in this context what is referenced as Nama is reputation and not the mind.

E.g. the some historic people are long gone but they are still remembered for what they were.


How to use a Tibetan singing bowl when meditating solo? Tibetan singing bowls produce a binaural tone which is claimed to be conducive to deep meditation. However, if you are meditating you would need someone to play it for you or you'd need to listen to a recording. The former is not always available and the latter doesn't have the same effect.

Is there a practice of using tibetan singing bowls for solo meditation? Is it effective to play and meditate at the same time?

Traditionally, both Tibetan as well as Far East meditation masters, use singing bowl as a gong to mark beginning and end of meditation session. In a Korean Zen school I attended, the bowl is struck three times, in the beginning and at the end, with an oddly very slightly longer pause between the second and third strike. Tibetan Dzogchen master I once meditated with, striked the bowl once in the beginning and once at the end. The exact way the bowl is hit is an expression of the enlightened mind. Listening to how exactly the master strikes the bowl can show one the way to enlightenment. Trying to do it oneself, makes very obvious the lack of one's zen realization. During the meditation itself the bowl is not used, as meditation pretty much requires getting bored, so playing with the bowl would be too much entertainment.


Did the Buddha ever mention or encounter Jews? I understand that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived at the same time as the ancient Israelites (Jews) and that India knew of Israel and that ancient Israel knew of India and that the two nations traded with one another. I am also aware that at one time there were a small group of Buddhist staying in Jerusalem.

My question is, did Gautama Buddha ever mention Jews or did he ever encounter them? Or was he completely ignorant of their existence and nation all together?

Well, the "ancient Israelites" lived quite a long time compared with the lifespan of a single individual like Siddharta Gotama, the Buddha. Their own history, taken from the religious tradition, was from Abraham up to 0 BCE (or today, don't know when "ancient" ended...), and this means at least something from 2000 BCE; Moses is estimated to 1200 BCE if I recall right. But we (and also the Jews themselves) have this all only in the form of myths. Back to 1000 BCE and earlier I don't know whether there are any other reliable sources (besides the Torah) with such specific stories like that Torah ones about the kings Saul, David, Salomo, Rehabeam, ... and which were the first kings which were also mentioned by other tribes or nations (for instance Babylonian, Persian, Egypt) in governmental letters and statements.
From the Buddha we have only discourses (from one lifespan of about 40 years of teaching)  with Brahmins as foreign religions and some remarks about contemporary ascets, like Mahavira (I think the patriarch of the Jains - which have also survived as a religious movement up to today), the "naked ascetics" and the "white robed ascetics", the followers of Kassapa from Uruvela and so on. As far as I have read in the Pali-canon (the corpus of german translations) there was no explicite remark about other, more remote tribe/gentile/religion (also not about hellenistic ideas of the same historic times - but which in my view does not say that he might have or didn't have heard about it. In the contrary: why should you involve your disciples in a discussion about greek philosophy -even if you'd heard about it- when every important ingredient of it you can discuss with local examples...)


What is zen sickness? I was reading that the Zen monk Hakuin suffered a debilitating condition called zen sickness before his enlightenment. This seem to be a direct result of his practice.

Does anyone know what this was? Has there been a retrospective medical diagnosis of this? Are there equivalent stages of the path in other traditions? Should I be worried?

Thanks

I have done some research online and read articles about zen sickness.

There are a couple of problems when doing research, online, on an ailment which, can be "bearing" on enlightenment, because there are lots of  "me too is having this ailment", in other words "I too, am close to being enlightened"; And suddenly, zen sickness symptoms multiplied: psychological depersonalisation, etc.. are linked to zen sickness and the definition of zen sickness becomes vague and fuzzy.

Even when I confine my readings to only very few recorded accomplished zen/chan masters, who actually do intensive meditations, their descriptions of zen sickness differ, and that is perhaps due to incorrect attribution ( the "me too" phenomena) of an experience to zen sickness. (I decided, eventually, not to provide links because it would create more confusion/debate on it, so don't take my word on it).

The zen sickness of Master Han Shan, IMHO, seems to be a genuine description, but I don't agree to some of the discussion, especially the last but one paragraph which begins with:

  The situation of Zen sickness is not something you should desire, and certainly not something you want to force into occurring. Since it is a trouble or affliction, you want to avoid it if you can, but the important thing is that there is a remedy if it occurs. Think of it in terms of ....

It is not something you can force or get into easily unless you want to reprogram your own mind, but that's my view.

Theravada Tradition

From my reading and analysis it would correspond to an Anagami in the Theravada tradition working towards Arahatship, where at that stage the most prominent problem is restlessness.

IMHO, at the path stage of an Anagami it has seen emptiness clearly and enjoys the bliss of holding onto emptiness. To get to the fruit of Anagami it has to let go of that hold on emptiness. Once it has decided to let go of emptiness the bliss, vanished. The bliss makes the mind concentrated, I quote "the purpose of bliss is concentration"(.. in some sutta).

With the letting go of emptiness & bliss the mind will just grab at any thought,tune,occupations to concentrate the mind, because if it didn't, the restlessness of the mind is unbearable( we are here talking about a very sensitive fine mind; restlessness is one of the last five fetters ).

Why then can not an Anagami phala(phala sounds better than fruit, which reminds me of fruitcake) go back to holding onto emptiness again and get the bliss back? The answer is that it can't, but I won't go into that.

In Theravada we would call it restlessness rather than a (zen) sickness. In the articles on zen sickness I've read, the recommendation is lots of sleep, or get drowsy with alcohol, if permitted, and then get to sleep. But if restlessness is, like I say, unbearable sleep is not an option.

The answer is learning how to abide in emptiness after letting go of emptiness. How to do that is another topic.

The deep state of samadhi in which Master Han Shan was in for 5 days is, in the Theravada tradition equivalent to sanna-vedayita nirodha ( ceassation of perception and feeling) in which when one awakes, enlightenment is gain (but there are controversies, some say back to Anagami phala if it wasn't attained), I haven't a clue!

So it's a bit of way to go before you encounter it and when you encounter it just learn to abide in emptiness, then the restlessness will not go away but lessen. But if you practice jhannas the mind will lead you into sanna-vedayita nirodha for 7 days, like Master Han Shan. The you can tell us about it!


How compatible are Buddhism and Communism? Despite communism as practiced (as opposed to what Marx might have had in mind) being the source of some of the largest slaughter of lay and monastic Buddhists ever (except maybe the Imperial Chinese)... are the principles of Buddhism and communism (or socialism) compatible?

Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

Marxism is strictly materialistic. It builds on the idea that if you distribute all goods evenly, people will stop suffering. That was a reasonable assumption to make when the vast majority of the population suffered from uneven distribution of goods.

Buddhism on the other hand does not regard changing the outer conditions as being important in overcoming suffering. More precisely, it suggests that transcending the outer conditions is the key to overcoming suffering, so in essence it denies the core question that Marxism seeks to give an answer to.

So I would say that they are pretty much orthogonal. Buddhism could probably act as a formidable complement to the Marxist theories when trying to build a society. But to individual Buddhists, Marxism is not necessarily useful.


Is it possible to exercise Metta to all or is Metta only a mental state only? If so how does one act to remain dispassionate? Love, I mean the common one which cares only to the beloved and is indifferent to others, is accessible to many, but as I understand it this is the near enemy of Metta, not truly Metta. My question is the true Metta, which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception.

How does one wish goodwill to all in this world where nature itself works by compromise, where one's goodwill is another's misfortune? To give crude examples a lion eating am unborn calf or you frying unborn chick to feed you loving child.

I know the idea of Metta is not limited to Buddhism Laozi also has it in his gradation of the world we live in, he set the lover below the saint who champion a kind of universal love, which is Metta, but Laozi higher goal is even to abandon Metta and let go of everything to run as is...in a sense a lion eating a calf is part of the process of Tao so not evil.

How's Metta seen in the ultimate sense in Buddhism, and how does one practice goodwill for the entire cosmos and
cultivate a limitless heart in everyday life?

"Practise yourself, for heavens sake in little things, thence proceed to greater". Epictetus (Roman Stoic Philosopher)

You have to use wisdom in order to make metta stronger and you have to practise metta formaly and informaly.

With wisdom I mean perceptions you have to reflect upon many many many times:

• No one can escape aging, sickness, death as well as mental and physical suffering

• Everyone is heir of his/her thoughts, actions and emotions. If one acts badly it's because of the causes and conditions that are meeting then and there


Why did Buddha need a personal physician? Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Nowhere in the suttas did they say the Buddha "needed" a personal physician. People volunteered their services to Him and He accepted it in the spirit of good will and possibly allowing good opportunity for the donors to practice generosity and attaining great merits at the same time.


Did the Buddha give any advice on how to manage economy? I was wondering if the Buddha did give any advice on how to manage personal economics?

I assume that the advice would be the middle way as applied to everything else in Buddhism. To stay away from the extremes meaning e.g. spending all of ones money on one thing and instead divide ones amount of money in an equal way.

I remember once reading something about dividing one portion of ones money to food, bills, medicin etc., then one portion to enjoyment, then one portion to charity, then one portion to savings. Unfortunately i have no idea where i read it or if its actually really advice that came from the Buddha.

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

There is good discussion in this article, this article and this article. You can read those for much advice.

For canonical advice:

The Sigalovada Sutta states:

  The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

  "And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'

  "These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in
  sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.

The Adiya Sutta discusses the 5 benefits obtained from one's wealth. The fifth is charity.

And don't forget that income should come from Right Livelihood, as stated in the Vanijja Sutta:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.


why is all of Buddhas past lifes referes to times of kings The title says it all.

Why does all the recollections of past lifes of Buddha revolves around times of kings which were similar to the time the Buddha was living.

Why aren't there any mention of times that are similar to the times of what we are living right now ?

does this mean this is the 1st time in the sansara that we are living in a world like this ?

if it is the 1st time, that we are living in a world like this with so many technological advances, that would mean we are living in sansara which is not repeating, which in turns mean that new things can happen in the sansara. then how can we be even sure about enlightenment. if sansara can change what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

then how can we be even sure about enlightenment

I think there are schools of Buddhism which say that enlightenment becomes less possible, as the centuries go by and the Buddha's doctrine becomes distorted.

There are also schools which say that enlightenment is already attained (by the Buddha), therefore enlightenment is certain.

Or that all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent, but that some dhammas (especially nirvana) are unconditioned (and not-self), and "timeless" (or immediate).

People also often say that it (the path to enlightenment) is something you should experience for yourself, i.e. have direct experience of.

if sansara can change

I think that sansara is expected to change: that it's considered "impermanent" in Buddhism.

What seems more-or-less constant about it is a cycle of death and life (perhaps you you'll agree that death and life still exist), and suffering (oceans of tears), and causes of suffering, etc., as described in Dharma.

what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

I think that some schools of Buddhism assert that some relatively-enlightened beings are reborn (see for example "Bodhisatvas" and "tulkus").

But perhaps the statement "beings that achieved nirvana may be reborn" is a nonsense phrase, for example because it assumes that "the same being" may be "reborn" ... whereas, sansara and impermanence posit that anything "reborn" is necessarily a different being.

Also, enlightenment and "being" might be mutually contradictory. It reminds me of this Vajira Sutta:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.

I think that's connected with for example this discussion of 'trackless'.

Beware too that this is (or is nearly) a topic for which it's difficult to get sensible answers: the unanswered questions include questions about whether the Tathagata exists after death, and the four imponderables includes

  The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]

The warning is that speculation on these topics may be counter-productive -- not the right way.


Can meditation help me in my academics? As a student, is it beneficial for me to take the practice of Buddhist meditation? If so what type of meditation should I incline myself into improving my concentration(tone down distraction) and dealing with stress?

I am however familiar with the breathing meditation and have practiced it for some time. However, I call myself a beginner of this meditation and haven't reached any considerable depths in this technique. I would also like to know the benefits of using such method in a situation like this, if you are familiar with anapanasati.

I understand that their is another question related to 'exams'. However, I am not narrowing on just exams, but university life in general. And please don't hesitate to give any type of meditation within Buddhism that you would see somewhat useful for me, I am very pleased to hear such.

The negative affects on studies and overcoming them:

Distraction when you study means you cannot learn something properly - meditation can help keep focus.
Memory may lapse if you are scatter-brained - when doing exams you might not be able to recall something. Focus by meditation will help you remember things.
Time spent on studies - by pursuing other pleasure activities you lose time for studies. Meditation helps by taming your senses so you can study more.


Kammas are imponderable? Buddha says if one plants mango, he will reap only mango not something else. Short-lived and get killed are the result of killing living beings, poverty is the result of stealing, not trusted by others is the result of lying and so forth. Then why Buddha says the result of kamma is one of the four imponderables. Does it mean one who loves to kill living beings will experience poverty or not trusted by others which is the result of stealing and lying? How do we relate that with "sow apple seed, reap apple fruit?"

The kammas are imponderable because people tends to expect action 'A' resulting in the equal fruit 'A'. However as we know a single action 'A' is only one cause, there are many other conditions (other causes) which result in a fruit. Just as a cup of coffee implies the existent of coffee beans, but coffee beans by themselves do not necessarily result in a cup of coffee. There are so many other factors such as farmers, the sun, customers wanting to drink coffee for the outcome 'a cup of coffee' to result.

In my temple we like to say that the merit of a good deed is 'immeasurable'. Why is this? Because the outcome cannot be entirely predicted, a single good action, can lead to opportunities for further good actions to occur. For example, you help someone with a small task, and then that person gives you an opportunity to do more good, and eventually eventhough the original good action was only the beginning seed the final result is immense.

The only thing we know for sure is that good actions will result in good outcomes (if something consistently results in bad outcomes it is a bad action and you should stop doing it). So instead of trying to predict the final outcome, you should focus on the simple strategy of doing more good as opportunity allows.

Addendum regarding the comment

My understanding is that because the Four Imponderables can not be deduced logically therefore it is imponderable. For example a common stated effect of karma is said that killing leads to a shortened life span. There is no clear logical explanation why this is the case, you could argue it's through some kind of revenge, or perhaps susceptibility to illness caused by psychological damage, but it's only speculation.

Likewise, releasing animals doomed for butchering are said to be good karma for longevity, but once again there is no logical explanation why it would work.

Since speculations about the exact working of karma does nothing to lead to peace and end of suffering, the Buddha ask you to refrain from pondering about them and take it at face value.


Weird people and their Karma So many times I've read and watched in news that people are taking video in their phone while crime is happening and someone burning in fire, one badly bleeding and facing to the death. So does those people are mostly reasonable cause of victims death?

Do they need to pay more than actual criminal when they could save them?
I thought they are real criminals. I'm really afraid what's happening in this "Modern weird world". If I were there I could save those people. I'm really feel very very bad cause I couldn't help them out.People just taking video to viral on social medias. I really don't understand this kind of nature.

So what is waiting for them?

The uncaring kamma will probably affect their life in ways such as problems with their relationships, etc, & also contribute to a bad world, which, if not corrected, will bring a worse world in the future. This is what is waiting for them, namely, hell on earth, either for them; for their family; for their friends; or for their children. As for the hell you seem to be imagining, this is only of the imagination.

But if you realise the results of kamma are felt within the heart & also manifest in the quality of relationships & the world, then you will understand a lack of care inwardly brings a lack of care outwardly. This present "weird world" you see is itself the result of the kamma of not caring. There is no requirement to "wait" because the results of uncaring kamma have already come to fruition.


What is the real meaning of 'Knowledge and Vision' in the Pali-texts? Is there a difference between this two Pali expressions: 'janami passami' and 'nana dassana'?

'Nanadassana' can be 'knowledge & vision' of truth, per SN 56.11, as follows:

As long as my true knowledge and vision about these four noble truths
was not fully purified in these three perspectives and twelve
respects, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world
with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics
and brahmins, its gods and humans.
Yāvakīvañca me, bhikkhave, imesu catūsu ariyasaccesu evaṃ tiparivaṭṭaṃ
dvādasākāraṃ yathābhūtaṃ ñāṇadassanaṃ na suvisuddhaṃ ahosi, neva
tāvāhaṃ, bhikkhave, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake
sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya ‘anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ
abhisambuddho’ti paccaññāsiṃ.

'Nanadassana' can be the psychic power of 'knowing & seeing', per AN 4.41, as follows:

And what is the way of developing concentration that leads to gaining
knowing & seeing?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā
ñāṇadassanappaṭilābhāya saṃvattati?
It’s when a monk focuses on the perception of light, concentrating on
the perception of day,
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ālokasaññaṃ manasi karoti, divāsaññaṃ
adhiṭṭhāti—
regardless of whether it’s night or day.
yathā divā tathā rattiṃ, yathā rattiṃ tathā divā.
And so, with an open and unenveloped heart, they develop a mind that’s
full of radiance.
Iti vivaṭena cetasā apariyonaddhena sappabhāsaṃ cittaṃ bhāveti

'Janami passami' appears to be a synonym for the 1st type of nanadassana, as follows:

I know and see the scope of convictions, the scope of grounds for
views, fixation on views, obsession with views, the origin of views,
and the uprooting of views.
Yāvatā, āvuso, diṭṭhi yāvatā diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhiadhiṭṭhānaṃ
diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamugghāto, tamahaṃ jānāmi
tamahaṃ passāmi.
AN 10.96


Demotivation and Nihilism I am curious as to how Buddhism deals with demotivation, in the sense of lacking goals and aspirations, and with nihilism, in the sense of feeling things are dissatisfactory and devoid of reasons to crave them.

I am aware the second aspect of my question is intimately tied with Buddhism, but I am somewhat asking: for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?

From the Mahayana point of view, I feel compassion is a noble aim, but I have trouble developping compassion. From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency.

How does Buddhism deal with lack of motivation about mundane, every day things? What should one do in the worldly sense, when one isn't practicing?

Thank you.

This is what happens when you try to lead a monk life without leaving lay life.
Why not ask yourself the question "what am I doing in lay life if I'm not motivated to achieve the goals of lay life?"

This isn't the fault of Theravada Buddhism. It's the fault of the individual who cannot pick one lifestyle. Lethargy or laziness is one of the five hindrances and there's no place for it in Theravada Buddhism, whichever lifestyle you choose.

If a certain goal does not interest you, stop bothering about it and work towards the goal that appeals to you. If no goal in lay life appeals to you, get ordained and practice diligently towards attaining enlightenment.


How to get to know the state of mind How to get to know mind has reached sakadagami state or still in sotapanna?During  meditation experience no thoughts and Feel like clear emptiness. Reached clear darkness  with peace of mind and there is a light with dark in sometime. And sexual craving disappears when meditation feel free after that. At which state of mind dependent origin will break?whether it is  just a jhana state .

"clear darkness with peace of mind" is an experience of Samadhi. It's neither Sothapanna nor Sakadagami. When you attain Sothapanna, it makes a permanent change in you. The self view, attachment to rites and rituals and doubt are removed permanently. It's not any kind of peaceful feeling that you get while meditating. Same goes for Sakadagami. When you attain it your craving towards sensual pleasure and aversion are permanently weakened regardless of if you are meditating or not.


Why didn't some of the previous Buddhas preach the code of discipline? It is said that as some of the previous Buddhas did not set the code of discipline, the Dhamma did not last.

The Vinaya pitaka is preached only if the life span is less than 50,000 years. When the life span is higher, the human world is said to be similar to heavens. The Buddhas usually introduce Vinaya rules when someone commits a misdemeanor. But the people are very virtuous during these times. So the need to introduce new rules does not arise.

Ironically, the Dhamma lasts longer when there's no Vinaya pitaka, due to the much longer life span.

Additional info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CWFS-rca8


Why are we "trapped" in cyclic rebirth? If we are trapped in Cyclic Rebirth, we are then being held against our will..
If we are being held against our will, who or what has set this trap?
If I escape, where am I escaping to?
As with all of my questions, I am seeking a person who has experienced and truly knows the answer. Hopefully, and with respect I am not seeking mere recital of texts ☺

Who is that "we" which is trapped?
It seems to me that these questions are based on the assumption of an "I" who can be found separated from the conditions that made the perception of "I" or the constituents of beings possible. There seems to be a differenciation between the "we" and the "trap".
If the conditions are not there, no phenomena [whose arising and persistence depends on those conditions] will come to be.
As the Buddha said, there's a middle way between the extremes of existence and non-existence, namely, dependent origination.
SN 12.15

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence
and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right
understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding
the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with
right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding
the world.
The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and
insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation,
insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp,
and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or
uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what
ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is
independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle
way:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices
cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this
entire mass of suffering ceases.’”

EDIT: I think a big part of this issue arises from confusion in the use of language. From reading the question, it seems to me that two problems are present: assigning human-like features to processes and entities which are not human (for instance, when stating that "truth is playful"); and taking metaphors as explanations or descriptions of reality and its parts and processes (for instance, when stating that "suffering is a trap", maybe suggesting that "we" are inside something, which can be a reification
of the perception of identity).
I'd suggest to keep analysing your own question, trying to clarify to yourself the words you use and the implications underlying such meanings. Clarity of the use of language can dissolve problems, a lot of times.
Kind regards!


Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export? I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion  ....

  Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves
  living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living
  in the United States or India.

  Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in
  the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or
  reform it.

There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

While "Buddhism" is already quite a difficult terminus, since there is a host of sects, schools, vehicles and apart from that another host of indigenous practices that infiltrated Buddhism in places it went to, "Hinduism" is even more difficult.

Just an overview:

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India, dating back to somewhen between 1800 BC and say 1000 or 800 BC. The Vedic Religion is a religion of sacrifice. These are important in so far as practically all Hindus consider the Vedas as holy scriptures and their religion based on it.
By the end of the Vedic Era, maybe 800 or 700 BC the first Upaniṣads began to appear and with them the ideas of an eternal individual soul (ātman) opposed to an all-encompassing world-soul (brahman), rebirth in an endless cycle (saṃsāra) determined by the deeds of an individual (karman).
From about 700 or 600 BC onwards there was a movement of people who tried on their own, to find a way out of the cycle of rebirth by meditative and ascetic practices, the so-called Śramaṇa-movement. Theoretically this movement was heavily indebted to to the Upaniṣads.

Buddhism ultimately developed out of this heterodox movement (the Śramaṇa-movement) and except for the person of the Buddha and the theory of no-soul/not-the-soul (anātman) shares almost all of the common features of this movement, namely denial of Vedic authority and rejection of the caste-system. The Samañña-phala-sutta gives a good idea of views held in this movement and the relation of Buddhism to these views.

Now, as it comes to Hinduism, "classical Hinduism", if such a thing exists, surely did not exist in that time. In Hinduism there are six orthodox systems of philosophy, the first of which, Sāṃkhya, developed alongside with Buddhism, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later. All the other orthodox systems (Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mimāṃsā, Vedānta) developed later and under more or less heavy influence from Buddhism.

To give just on example: Nyāya is classically the school of logic in Hinduism. It was the theory of Pratītyasamutpāda, that generated a need for a deeper understanding of causation, conditionality and logic, which in turn gave rise to a development in logic in India and ultimately to Nyāya. Similar indebtedness has also been claimed for the Hindu philosopher Śaṃkara to maybe the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna.

Now, Śaṃkara is also responsible for the Hindu renaissance in India and for the final i-dot on the Vedanta-system. What Hindus believe in today is in no mean way shaped by his thinking (although we should always keep in mind, that it is impossible to point to that which "Hindus believe in") and therefore ultimately by Buddhist ideas and developments in refutation of Buddhist arguments.

Getting back to the question. It is very true, that Hinduism cannot or can hardly be exported, it is bound to a priestly class which in turn is bound to India (Brahmins not being allowed to defile themselves by leaving India), it does not or does hardly convert (sects like Hare Krishna disregarded here), the gods reverred are rather local deities without universal appeal and so on. And on top of that: missionary zeal is rather foreign to it.

Buddhism on the other hand had this "missionary zeal", though not to be compared with the Abrahamic religions, right from the beginning, embodied in the Buddha's wish and urge to teach the truth he had found. So what is true in Watts is that Buddhism is much more universal(ly appealing) than Hinduism. But the quote of Watts somehow implies two more things, both of them being wrong:

That Buddhism is some sort of Hinduism. That this is wrong should have been shown by the above historical sketch.
That Buddhism was designed to be exported. This is wrong since Buddhism was not designed.

The equally polemic counter-attitude to Watts would be that Hinduism is just Buddhism flavoured with some archaic elements (reverence of the Vedas) and stripped of anything too hard to understand for common people (like anātman) and anything that might offend a priestly elite (like "equality of men"). Like Watts statement it is basically wrong with a pinch of truth in it.


Choosing between contemplative traditions When choosing between the contemplative traditions—Vipassana, Tibetan and Zen, is the following saying accurate?

Zen is for poets, Tibetan is for artists, and Vipassana is for
psychologists (Robert Wright).

This would enable me to recommend them separately to future students of Budhism.

That quote has absolutely no founding in reality.  You could plumb the psychological depths of the alayavijnana in Tibetan Buddhism or Rinzai Zen, paint masterful works in Soto, compose gathas in the Theravadan, or do absolutely none of those things in any of those traditions.  A good teacher is worth more than the lineage he or she teaches.