When was the word enlightenment introduced into Theravada Buddhism? I feel the word enlightenment conveys the wrong meaning if used in context of nibbana. For example, Buddha says that nibbana is similar to a lighted lamp, having taken away the oil and the wick, will not light ("as though a lamp was extinguished" Rathana Sutta - Sutta Nipatha, Chulla Waggo, 2-1, 237). I'm interested in knowing how this word was associated with Theravada Buddhism if anyone knows early references of such usage.

Thanks in advance.

One place where I know "enlightenment" is used is in this version (which was published in 1894):

A middle path, O bhikkhus avoiding the two extremes, has been discovered by the Tathagata-a path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana!

Wikipedia's Buddhism in the West suggests that's one of the early references (that there's nothing earlier than the 19th century).
It's word with a history of meaning in the West (see e.g. Age of Enlightenment).
Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the word "enlightenment" a lot, e.g. in his book In the Buddha's Words. He uses it to translate words like sambodhi:

sambodhi: [sam+bodhi] complete awakening, perfect knowledge, complete enlightenment. Designates the awakening of the Buddha and the arahants.

Some other translators choose variations on the word "awake" (e.g. "self-awakened") instead of enlightened; which (awakened) is apparently a more literal translation.
According to Wikipedia ("Enlightenment in Buddhism"),

The English term enlightenment is the western translation of the term bodhi, "awakening", which was popularised in the Western world through the 19th century translations of Max Müller. It has the western connotation of a sudden insight into a transcendental truth.
The term is also being used to translate several other Buddhist terms and concepts used to denote insight (prajna, kensho and satori);[1] knowledge (vidhya); the "blowing out" (Nirvana) of disturbing emotions and desires and the subsequent freedom or release (vimutti); and the attainment of Buddhahood, as exemplified by Gautama Buddha.

Very occasionally in Pali the Buddha is praised as ukkādhāraṃ translated "torch-bearer".


Are 'elements' defined as non-suffering? I'd like to question something from this answer without disputing it, i.e.  there was a phrase it in which I found novel:

  You do this by seeing that your suffering is impermanent and empty (entirely made up of non-suffering elements i.e. made of the joy of your relationship).

Is it generally true that the "elements" of something are non-suffering?

Is this a well-known, implicit part of (or a reason for) the doctrine of emptiness?

Is this part of the meaning of "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā", i.e. it's that combinations of elements, or compounded things, are dukkhā ... but that elements are not?

Is it difficult to identify what's meant by an "element"? The quoted phrase (the "non-suffering elements of a relationship") seems to me to have colloquial meaning, which might be neither an Abhidhamma-like single-moment-in-time or thought-element, nor the "earth, fire, wind, etc." type of classification of element. Can you summarize how to recognize what's an "element"? Do you aim to perceive elements rather than saṅkhārās, and how do you know when/whether you're succeeding?

I added the mahayana tag because I think the quote is from a Mahayana tradition, but other perspectives would be welcome too.

MN 115 is a comprehensive discourse on elements (dhatu).

In reality, none of the many elements described in MN 115 are intrinsically 'suffering' because they, as mere elements, are not yet mixed with attachment (upadana).

Thus, MN 115 states:

  When, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements... in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer.

The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as 'attachment' (upadana) and the 2nd noble truth explains the various cravings (tanha) do not give rise (samudhaya) to suffering (dukkha) unless craving creates new becoming (bhava), which is simply more solidified attachment (upadana).

To quote the 2nd noble truth from SN 56.11:

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

The teaching of the 'elements' ('dhatu') is the same as 'sunnata' ('emptiness') therefore any clear discernment of 'elements' quenches suffering because 'elements' are discerned rather than 'self'.

Again, to quote, this time from MN 62:

  Rahula... there are these five elements, Rahula. Which five? The earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element
  & the space element... Now both the internal elements & the external
  elements are simply elements. 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 elements
  and makes craving for the elements fade from the mind.

The phrase: "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" is unrelated to this answer posted in the question because the word 'dukkhā' in this phrase does not mean 'suffering'. Instead, it means 'unsatisfactoriness', i.e., the incapacity of saṅkhārā (impermanent conditioned things) to bring lasting true happiness.

This is clearly explained, also in MN 115, as follows:

  Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation
  as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It
  is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as
  permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is
  impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could
  treat any formation as pleasurable ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might
  treat some formation as pleasurable ― there is such a possibility.’ He
  understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person
  possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such
  possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary
  person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’

Therefore for example, inanimate objects, such as rocks, trees or stars in the sky, are 'unsatisfactory'; they cannot bring or be relied on for true pleasure; but they are not 'suffering'.

To avoid doubt, Dhammapada 278 explains the experience of "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" results in liberation rather than suffering:

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

  Dhammapada 278


How to apply meditation in the following difficult situations I have been practicing vipassanā and mettā at least six months and I have embraced the teachings and practice in my everyday life. However there are certain situations in life where I find difficult to apply the teachings, which are the following:

How to respond to hate and violence to oneself
How to deal with hypocrisy
How to respond in situations of injustice
How to deal when someone abuses of your kindness
How to deal when someone takes advantage of your good intentions
How to apply the teachings in a society where oneself and ego
predominates

I hope somebody can give me insights on how to deal with those situations.
Thank you.

EDIT:
Thank you everyone for your responses so far. I have learned something new in every single one of them.

To be more clear regarding the questions, the objective is how to find the balance in embracing the teachings in our interactions with other beings, but also living by the rules of the capitalism society, which most of us lives on.

As an example, consider the following: someone treats you with bad speech in front of others, and you  react mindfully. In the society we live in, if you do not defend yourself and let it happen, it is highly probable that he will do it again, or others will start to take advantage of you, since you are not defending yourself. How to balance this?

Good for you that you're following the path. However, that first year on the path can be a sensitive time as there is a power in meditation. The Buddha talked about this power as being both a way to build your path but also a trap if you dwell in it too long. Meditation is making you more sensitive to the world around you and allowing you to perceive people in a more honest way. As you're seeing, that's not always pretty.

I would suggest you practice right speech, which is a part of the Eightfold Path. Right speech forces us to be both compassionate to others while also being compassionate to ourselves. We should value ourselves as much as we value someone else. In every conversation -- in every relationship -- everyone should be equals.

The Buddha said that good speech honors the other person while also honoring yourself. If someone does something you don't like, it's not honorable to tear them down with hurtful speech. However, it's also not right to dishonor yourself by saying things you don't believe just to make them feel good. You've got to live your truth while also recognizing theirs and do so in a compassionate way.

It's a hard balancing act, but if you can do that, you'll find people will change the way they deal with you because you've changed the way you deal with the world.


Sign of respect to Sr Monk? I've seen a video where the Sr Monk's feet were being washed by laity or even Jr Monk.
Anybody know what purpose does it serve?

I think these practices crept into buddhism from local customs ,I doubt if buddhism is practised entirely in its true form in any country. As far as i know even while bathing in a river a junior monk should keep a certain distance  from senior monks and should bath further downstream.


Is rebirth essential to Buddhist philosophy? Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted rationally. A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime. A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing substantial transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference.

Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory? Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?

From Ven. Bodhi's excellent short essay "Dhamma Without Rebirth?":

  The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.


What are the main differences -- in meditation practice and discipline -- between different schools of Theravada? Wikipedia lists schools in this section ...

  Schools of Buddhism (Theravāda subschools)

... but, those pages which describe each school focus on doctrine or philosophical aspects (and don't always emphasise the differences with other subschools).

I am interested in aspects that have more to do with practice and disciplines, e.g.:

What are the main differences in how monastic life is led in each of these subschools?
What does meditation practice focus on and how does that change from one school to the other?

For instance: I know that in the teaching of Mahasi Sayadaw there is an emphasis on verbalising whatever is taking place in the present moment; whereas Ajahn Chah focuses on "opening the heart". I expect other subschools to neglect walking meditation of discourage verbalisation, others not to allow nuns, etc.

Edit --
an answer mentioned that Wikipedia also has another page ...

  Theravada (Monastic orders within Theravāda)

... which discusses nikayas rather than subschools and so which is more pertinent to my question. Unfortunately, those pages too don't discuss, detail, nor compare, the discipline and meditation practice.

The question quoted Theravāda subschools on Wikipedia.

There's another list on Wikipedia -- i.e. Monastic orders within Theravāda -- that identifies specific characteristics of various "monastic nikayas", which is part of what the question is asking about.


severe flu-like symptoms with profound malaise after intensive meditation I have been practicing intensive shamatha meditation for many months now. On workdays I manage ~4 hrs of meditation, two very early in the morning and two at night. At weekends I do meditation for 6-8 hrs in intervals. I do have certain basic experiences like intermittent appearances of what I believe to be uggaha nimitta and very rarely what seems to be some early Piti which stays for some time and then vanishes. What I am troubled by, however, are the intense flu-like symptoms that I have been having for the last few weeks or so. There are severe aches and pains all over the body with profound malaise and a severe chill that has crippled me. There is no actual physical disease as such- I know that because I am a doctor by the way- but the distress it has caused me is immense. I have continued with my intensive practice and have not given up on it.I am hopeful that in near future, my meditations will help me to conquer this disability, yet I am worried at the moment. I seek the opinion and help of my senior brethren on the path to deal with this problem. Thanks.

While aches and pains sound very general and while severe chill symptoms are not familiar to me, often various 'excess wind' (prana) & physical/nervous tension (nervous system) symptoms can occur when too much mental energy or 'suppression' is applied to meditation. Therefore, it is likely 'suppression' meditation could result in aches, pains, immature nimittas and other symptoms.
The renowned 'Buddhist' commentary called the 'Visuddhimagga' refers to the 'uggaha-nimitta' and describes the attainment of jhana (absorption) via "suppression" and mental application ("vitakka"). Many Buddhists follow the Visuddhimagga.
However, the techniques & definitions found in the 'Visuddhimagga' in relation to meditation & jhana often have little support in the documented teachings of the Buddha.
To the contrary, the Buddha taught jhana (absorption) is developed by making "letting go" / "surrender" / "relaxation" ("vossagga") the meditation object, as follows:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta


What did the Buddha mean by "no truth can be spoken?" What did the Buddha mean by "no truth can be spoken" in the Diamond Sutra?

The truth about the nature of reality is, strictly speaking,  cannot be spoken, because reality is so multifaceted that it can never be fully and precisely expressed in words and concepts.

This is in line with the rest of Diamond Sutra which tries to give the reader a taste of the experience of Emptiness.


In the five paramitas, what is patience and why is it on the list? I understand the English dictionary definition of patience, the ability to wait.

When reading about the paramitas, it seems like this word in the original language covered forbearance, i.e. the ability to suffer other people's anger and insults calmly, in addition to the sense of be capable of waiting.

Was patience added to the list because of the huge time required to achieve full Buddhahood? Or is patience a sloppy translation and is this paramita really about forbearance?

Anyhow, in personal practice, if it means the ability to wait, then it isn't actionable since, patient or not, there is little risk of me reaching full Buddhahood on any given day.

Patience is actually a great translation.  Think of the etymology of the English word:

  patience (n.) - c. 1200, "quality of being willing to bear
  adversities, calm endurance of misfortune, suffering, etc.," from Old
  French pacience "patience; sufferance, permission" (12c.) and directly
  from Latin patientia "patience, endurance, submission"

Patience is to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.  It is to endure, without complaint.  When one is patient, they turn headlong into discomfort and do so with a mind marked by equanimity.  Think of the countless lives of the Buddha - all of the suffering he had to endure in order to achieve nirvana.  His was a patience par excellence.

Patience is an indispensable virtue on the road to Buddhahood and absolutely deserves to be on this list!


What is the root condition for (each of the) unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)? Would it be helpful, wholesome, skillful and wise to investigate the root condition of (each of) the three poisons/unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)? [Why these three and not some random qualities like baseball, terpenes and a Farm Aid concert?]

And why do vast amounts of beings seem to tend more towards lust, ill-will and ignorance instead of wisdom, wholesomeness and skillfulness? Why is our true nature still mostly obscured?

All Buddhist teachings revolve around the same core, Dependent Co-Arising, usually described as the Twelve Nidanas.

Dependent Co-Arising refers to the process of development of informational (representational, semiotic) reality, starting with unconscious causational/informational tendencies, to basic inclings of rudimentary representation, to development of mind, to emergence of representational "entities", culminating in an idea of Self as Subject of experience and Agent of action.

This process grows hand-in-hand with (co-develops in conjunction with) development of behavioral tendencies for attraction, repulsion, and judgement in general (of things as "good" and "bad"). When these two things - the representational reality made up of entities and self - and the judgement-based attraction/repulsion - come to maturity, we end up having something that thinks of itself as a sentient being acting in a world of good and bad entities, trying to acquire the good, and get rid of the bad. But because the fundamental assumption this is all based on is false - because in fact the world is not made of fixed entities, and they are not inherently good (desirable) or bad (undesirable), this situation leads to all kinds of turbulence, that to these so-called "sentient beings" looks like a valid struggle against trouble and suffering, towards some imagined idealized happy state. The funny thing though is, the more each of these "sentient beings" acts to obtain happiness for itself, the more trouble they (us) create for each other, and therefore for all of them (us). So to them (us) it looks like they (we) are trying hard to make things better, but in fact they (we) end up perpetuating this confusion and struggle.

This situation is the core condition of the vast amount of uninstructed worldlings. They (we) think their (our) subjective idea of the world is what the world is, and they (we) seriously try to act within it, only causing more trouble, endlessly.

The Three Roots are a distilation of the above to three basic tendencies in the minds of sentient beings. A tendency for assuming something as desirable, a tendency for assuming something as undesirable, and a tendency for taking subjective (representational) things at the face value as if they were objective.

It's kinda sad, if you think about it.  Even tragic, if you ask me. Out of this vast field of energy develop formations capable of representation, and then these formations seriously think they need a new cell phone or a bigger breast. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.


How to reduce distractions in sitting practice? How are people supposed to practice sitting meditation
when there are so many distractions around like working,
internet social media pages and other things like that?

How are people supposed to practice sitting meditation when there are so many distractions around like working, internet social media pages and other things like that?

1.You can try to make the time to do sitting meditation.Even if it's just for 5 minutes.Put it down in your organizer or calender. Hopefully this will give you the motivation to do it.

2.Practice working meditation,social media meditation,and other things like that meditation.What i mean is practice being aware of what you are doing.If you are working be aware of working.If your on social media be aware of being on social media.Whatever you do just be aware of it.Nothing is beyond awareness.You can be aware of anything from the greatest happiness to the most torturing pain.

Basically what you need is Right Effort.


How to explain what Buddhism is? My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family.

At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age).

But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good."

So

Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it?
Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth?
Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth?
Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you").
Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

In a nut shell Buddhism revolves around the 3 trainings:

Living a life of morality so we do no create misery for one self and others
Developing mastery over the mind so we do not react but be proactive so we can be at peace with our selves and other
Developing wisdom of your cognitive process to identify how misery is generated so we can come out of misery


Did the Buddha speak the Mahanidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya? In the Pali suttas, there are scores of suttas about Dependent Origination which take the classic form of the 12 links, the benchmark being SN 12.2.

In the Digha Nikaya, there is the Maha-Nidana Sutta, called the 'Great Cause'. I find the name of the sutta strange since if it is 'great', why are there only 9 links instead of 12?

While there are many suttas containing less than 12 links, it seems strange the Maha-Nidana Sutta omits the six sense spheres, which the Buddha described as one of his core teachings in AN 3.61 & are central to so many suttas on Dependent Origination (such as MN 18, MN 38, MN 148, etc).

More importantly, the Maha-Nidana Sutta defines consciousness & nama-rupa differently to other suttas. In the Maha-Nidana Sutta, consciousness (which is only mental cognition in other suttas) is said to descend into the womb of a mother. Nama-rupa has a Brahmanistic meaning of 'naming-forms'.

Also, 'birth' refers to the birth of different animals & creatures rather than the birth of "beings" or "satta". SN 23.2 refers to a "being" as a mind that is attached to the five aggregates as "self". It is doubtful birds & snakes conceive the five aggregates as "self" or generate "self-views" of "beings" (as described in SN 5.10).

Are there any compelling reasons or grounds why Buddhists should accept the Maha-Nidana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya as the words of the Buddha?

It is true that Maha Nidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya points out Paticcasamuppada  (the process of Dependant Arising), and of Nāma-kāya Rupa-kāya - (mentality and materiality) together with vinnana (consciousness) somewhat different to some other suttas.  Paticcasamuppada is the most important of all other related teachings. It is a deep and complex doctrine, and understanding this is Key to seeing the Truth. So one cannot rule out Maha Nidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya by just such observations as that you’ve pointed out. We should remember well Buddha’s words:

  By not understanding, and not penetrating this doctrine of Paticcasamuppada, beings have become entangled like in a knotted ball of thread and have become like munja grass and rushes, unable to pass beyond the woeful states of existence, and Samsara, the cycle of existence.

For Buddha to exclude Ignorance, Volitional Activities, and Six sense-bases, there is a reason. It is just that you and I have not yet found out as to why it is so.  In Maha Nidana Sutta it is said:

  "Thus, Ananda, from Nāma-Rupa as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes Nāma-Rupa. Then from Nāma-Rupa as a requisite condition comes contact..."

It was shown thus because one cannot exist without the other. The Buddha showed this with an example of two bundles of reeds to make it easy to understand. Two bundles of reeds are kept on the ground with a little space between them leaning against each other with their top ends, that both the bundles are kept standing with the support of each other. Removing one removes the other.

I will try and find the answer to your question within the month, but let us keep in mind that learning is a gradual process. The Buddha said that his method is gradual training, gradual action and gradual practice. So I will look into ‘Pancha Bhaya Wera Sutta’, ‘Nalakalapa Sutta‘, ‘Loka Sutta’, ‘Maha Nidhana Sutta‘ etc. on Paticca Samuppadaya.

Until we find a proper answers let us not discard any of the original suttas. Let us not put away what we feel are contradictory statements till we have understood thoroughly the fundamentals. Only if when we detect the structural principles of such paticcasamuppada links, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would have arrived at the true Dhamma. So let us try to dig a little deeper.


What's the different between kusala (good) and akusala (bad)? What's the different between ku-sala (good) and a-ku-sala (bad), in regard of what the Buddha taught?

(ku - bad, sala - cutting away, a - not)

What are good and bad actions by deeds, speech and mind, and what qualities defines them as such?

Here   he grieves
    he grieves  hereafter.
In both worlds
the wrong-doer grieves.
He grieves, he's afflicted,
seeing the corruption
    of his deeds.

Here   he rejoices
    he rejoices hereafter.
In both worlds
the merit-maker rejoices.
He rejoices, is jubilant,
seeing the purity
    of his deeds.
Yamakavagga

So good to now really good of how to distinguish and alltime worthy to ask, remember and tell for many's benefit, and the own.

(Note that this is not asked/given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to escape this wheel here)

The explanation for Kusala can be found in MN-3 -> Maha Chattarika Sutta ( I can't find this in english translation site, but this is in Sinhala / Pali Thripitaka ), So if I explain it how I understood by reading it,

It's about noble eightfold path, and in each it's describe two things one is lokottara (= focusing on Nivana) path the other one is laukika (= focusing on good things in this world: eg -> samma kammanta = to do a decent job, not kill animals and sell).

And the opposite of this is Akusala which doing opposite things not knowing what the right view, resolve, speech, etc..

About lokottara path that person should have a correct view what is the problem with the world, why we are attached to things, and why we should not attached, what's the danger in that so on.

Hope my description led some lights and I should accept that I'm not a good translator.

Update:
Found more information on this. It's in Vibhangaprakaranaya-1, paticcasamuppada vibhangaya There you can notice what is kusala dharmayo, the explanation is given the paticcasamuppada cycle but it starts with sankara not with avijja that means when a thought is processed without avijja it causes to Nivana as it is a kusala


To what extend should I keep doing useless stuff with my friends? Recently my behaviour changed a lot thanks to buddhism.

I am no longer interested in watching movies, listening to music, and especially going out on parties and drinking alcohol.

This is creating a huge gap with my friends. My interests don't match theirs anymore.
I tried to speak about the reasons why I feel better now that I left all these trivial activities behind, but I lack eloquence and thus didn't convince anyone.

With my girlfriend things are easier because I can communicate a lot better with her, but I can still see that she suffers when I don't want to participate with the same activities as her.

Should I accept to do trivial stuff from time to time just to stay close to my friends and not cause them suffering ?

Following the noble eightfold path should make me easier to live with, but I just cannot watch TV one hour every night with my girlfriend anymore, nor can I spend my entire week-end going out and get wasted with my friends anymore.
People around me find me boring and pressure me to do stuff I don't like anymore.

On the other and I feel great compassion toward my friends and really wish to help them.
If I stop seeing them, it would only cause more suffering.
How can I adjust so that I can follow the path and not alienate myself by refusing to drink alcohol and watch tv ?

You are not causing suffering to others. They cause their own suffering if they want you to get drunk with them & you refuse. You should always have metta (friendship) towards old friends but this does not mean you engage in unwholesome actions with them.

Also get rid of this condescending attitude you have compassion for your friends and wish to help them. This is disgusting. Your friends are merely “ordinary people” who live ordinary worldly life.

As for your girlfriend, it is love & respect for her that you watch TV with her. It is only TV. You don’t have to attach or delight in what you are watching yet this should not stop you showing warmth and companionship towards your girlfriend.

I am typing this on an airplane because I am visiting my mother & sister. I watch TV with them even though I do not watch TV at home.  Watching TV can be a meditation upon the ignorance of the world.


Did Mara win over Buddha? There is incident where Mara is trying to get to Buddha even after he became enlightened.
Finally Mara win him over by his death.
With that knowledge is it correct to assume he had hunger feeling and sexual feelings too?

From Parinibbana Sutta

  There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.
  Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
  I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.
  And again today, Ananda, at the Capala shrine, Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples of the Blessed One — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding in the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; and when adverse opinions arise, they are now able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

  And now, O Lord, this holy life taught by the Blessed One has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular and widespread, and it is well proclaimed among gods and men. Therefore, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.
  And then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away.
  And in this way, Ananda, today at the Capala shrine the Tathagata has renounced his will to live on.

No, the Blessed One renounced his will to live-on on his own volition since the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples... just like the paragraph says. It's not like Mara could've done anything about it, had the lord said no.

Enlightened beings feel hunger, taste, smell and other bodily sensations caused by contact as long as they have functional sense doors. But they do not get sexual feelings as it requires lust to play it's part.


How do Buddhist monks find reincarnations of previous monks while filtering out the wrong persons? I'm skeptical about this actually working. I would appreciate if someone could provide a logical answer that will clear up my skepticism.

Sometimes it doesn't work very well: there are examples of reincarnations who behave badly.
And they must make it work: for example the current Dalai Lama wasn't keen to study, when he was young, his teacher had to make him study by threatening him with a whip.
At Home With the Dalai Lama

I also know that he wasn't a particularly good student when he was young. He had a mercurial temper and was impulsive. Monastic disciplines like meditation and scriptural study did not come naturally to him.
"Around seven or eight," the Dalai Lama told me in an earlier meeting, a mischievous gleam in his eyes, "I had no interest in study. Only play. But one thing: my mind since young, quite sharp, can learn easily. This brings laziness. So my tutor always keep one whip, a yellow whip, by his side. When I saw the yellow whip, the holy whip for holy student the Dalai Lama, I studied. Out of fear. Even at that age I know, if I study, no holy pain."
Despite his reluctance to study when he was a child, the Dalai Lama applied himself every morning. With perseverance and self-control, he learned to sit still for long periods. Gradually he was better able to control his errant impulses. Meditation and study came before play; delayed gratification became a matter of course.

See also Training.
Wikipedia has a description of how they found him, Searching for the reincarnation, which includes,

The High Lamas used several ways in which they can increase the chances of finding the reincarnation. High Lamas often visit Lhamo La-tso, a lake in central Tibet, and watch for a sign from the lake itself. This may be either a vision or some indication of the direction in which to search, and this was how Tenzin Gyatso was found.
It was here that in 1935, the Regent Reting Rinpoche received a clear vision of three Tibetan letters and of a monastery with a jade-green and gold roof, and a house with turquoise roof tiles, which led to the discovery of Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.[26][27][28]

There's a description of the theory and practice of it here on the Dalai Lama's web site: Reincarnation


Paradox of the ego - our desire to improve vs Buddhism There was a question on my mind lately, regarding ego. It is not paradox per se but I find it slightly paradoxical.

Because people have such a strong ego, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our ego was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.

If it wasn't for our ego, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Ego is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our ego?

I think that views about the self are problematic. For example the Sabbasava Sutta is quoted as describing an "identity view" ...

  This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

  As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... where "identity view" is one of the "fetters" associated with suffering, and "eradicating" this view is one of the stages of enlightenment.

So when I read your question about "ego", I associated the word "ego" with dukkha and with desire; and so I re-read your question, substituting "suffering" and "desire" instead of "ego" into the question:

  Because people have such a strong suffering, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our suffering was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.

  If it wasn't for our suffering, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical?  Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering?

  Because people have such a strong desire, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our desire was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.

  If it wasn't for our desire, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Desire is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our desire

You ask whether that's "paradoxical" and therefore the question reminds me of this question (and the answers to that question) about whether it's "paradoxical" to want to end desire: Stopping Tanha or craving. I recommend you read the answers to that question; but I won't requote those answers here.

If you phrase the question like that (i.e. "Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering") then I don't see see it as paradoxical. Phrasing it like that depends on the idea that "ego" (and/or a process related to ego for example "attachment") contributes to suffering. In the same way that there is wholesome desire and unwholesome desire, perhaps there is unwholesome ego; and to whatever extent ego contributes to suffering, to that extent we might want to forget ego.

This article, Selves & Not-self by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu, says,

  The path begins with discernment — the factors of right view and right resolve — and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: "What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?" [§8] The Buddha's teaching on not-self — and his teaching on self — are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra)." The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the "not-self contemplation (anattānupassanā)." Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?


Information Technology Careers and Right Livelihood Dharma As a Buddhist looking for perfecting his Right Livelihood: finding a Livelihood which is so perfect and Right that it not only avoids bad-karma-making (killing, stealing, intoxication, etc.) but even furthers the level of Dharma in the world (healing, love, connectedness, self-understanding)... seeing people involved in these kinds of work truly brings me joy.

What kind of information technology careers do you think most easily contribute to the Dharma and how?
If you are involved in IT and are Buddhist, how do you connect the two (other than through donating to Buddhist causes)?

I have a slightly less orthodox view on right livelihood than others might. I think for practical purposes right livelihood is

Your means of living doesn't harm others and accords with Buddhist ethics
Your means of living leaves you with enough time and energy to practice the dharma

So I was originally a teacher which is good on point 1 but exhausted me so no Buddhist practice was possible. So it was only when I moved into IT that a practice became possible so really a programmer was more right livelihood than teaching for me with is rather counterintuitive.

That said as things go on then point 2  becomes important. My last job had a big defence contract which although I never worked on it never sat right with me. So I've moved into healthcare computing which I feel is more in keeping with both aspects of right livelihood.

Generally IT is a neutral thing. It's a tool and it is the use that that tool is put to that gives it its ethical dimension. Healthcare, education and charity IT probably good. Gambling, poronography and activities that increase peoples suffering probably not such good uses of IT.


Wrong meanings commonly associated with the notion of Gratitude What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'?
As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude.
Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

Good householder asks in an enviroment where even gratitude for low goodness is denied. What does he expect to be capable to grasp the topic rightly if bond to such circumstances? How ever, for those capable to get healed:
The gratitude toward being given sensuality, is a gratitude that bind one in the world, makes one the servant of Mara. The gratitude toward wrong views, a gratitude that honors the food for defilements, is a gratitude that turns one downwardly. The gratitude toward giving sort lasting happiness is a gratitude the leads one to go after such...
If interested there are some points of kinds of giving, goodness, guṇa.
Proper respect and veneration means understanding gratitude: Respect and veneration
And it's because ordinary people feeling gratitude in regard of what has no essence, doesn't lead to essence, that essence and what leads to it isn't seen.
Much done is there, not really possible to repay:

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

[Note that this isn't given for trade, stacks, exchange and not for use for Vollkoffer, but for an escape from this wheel]


Practice of Dhamma and loss of masculinity Since the practice of Dhamma, I have experienced a loss of masculine nature like I am almost becoming a woman. I have given up aggression, anger, I make sure I am polite, not indulge in harsh speech (yesterday somebody was rude to me, but I didn't hit back like a man, I let-go, like I am now powerless), withdraw from addictions, not to eat meat as far as possible, no participate in actions hurting others like any kind of physical aggression, give up gambling, don't find the activity of going to gym and pumping up muscles any meaningful, instead I sit and watch my thoughts.

Under this discipline, any form of adrenaline triggering activity becomes almost undesirable. It is like I am psychologically turning into a woman. I don't know if this is helpful but certainly screwing up my sense of being a man.

question is,

Is this what anybody else experiencing? Is there any workout around the problem?
Is it inevitable?

What is masculine and what is not is only the product of collective thought, consciousness, and superstition in a given culture. Note how this differs among animals, there, it (masculinity) is not a fixed, unilateral idea.

It is not worth to be caught up by fixed ideas and divide masculine and feminine, for they are one and cannot exist without each other as there wouldn't be continuity of human life as we know it.

Such clinging to polarity brings suffering.

Rather, perceive it in terms of human virtue and nature in general and transcend such limited notion. Such notions lead to generalisations, generalisations lead to prejudice, and prejudice leads to suffering, inequality.


Can the noble eightfold path be followed in its entirety by a lay follower? Does the noble eightfold path fits a lay life perfectly? Or is there any part of it that cannot be followed/accomplished by a lay buddhist?

If that's the case, what part(s) doesn't have fit with lay life?

At a higher level the 8 fold path consists of 3 fold training:

Development of morality
Development of control or mastery over the mined
Development of knowledge of the reality pertaining to one's mind and cognitive process

There is nothing in the above which a lay person cannot develop or not reap benefits by developing.

Being a monk you have less responsibilities hence more time to practice. The key is to practice regardless of whether you are lay or a monk.


What is the perception of the body? I'm following the four foundations of mindfulness. This has given me round-the-clock body awareness. It can often be painful; but it can often be pleasant. The pleasantness is marred by its opposite.
I notice from time to time the density of my body disappears along with all ideas of pleasant and unpleasant and their respective sensations.
Questions
Is the body a perception like all other perceptions?
How does the subtle perceptions described in MN 121 translate into the body? - I'm asking this as there appears to be greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness.

The body is obviously a perception (sense object) but it also exists independent of perception. For example, the automatic functions of the body (such as breathing, heart function, liver function, digestion function, growth, cell division, etc) exist and operate independent of perception.
Therefore, scriptures, such as MN 43, say the living body continues to exist when (living) perception ceases.
The question about MN 121 appears irrelevant. MN 121 ultimately says in the supreme realization/experience of Emptiness, the body continues to exist. It says:

‘This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality, empty of the effluent of [ego] becoming, empty of the effluent of ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that
connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body
with life as its condition.’

In your attempt to practise Satipatthana, there is greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness because of your past kamma (actions). Restlessness is one of the Five Hindrances to meditation and the scriptures (AN 10.61) say the food (nutriment) of the Five Hindrances is the Three Unskillful Actions.
Instead of focusing on higher teachings, such as perception & Emptiness, you should focus on teachings for rank beginners, such as the Five and Eight Precepts, which include not watching pornography, not engaging in casual sex and, on a higher level, not masturbating.
Satipatthana is the 7th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes abstinence from all sexual activity in its 5th Factor. If a person actually is practising Satipatthana "around the clock" (as you claim) then they will be free from all sexual activity because Satipatthana means giving up all lust and distress towards the world.
Your experience of restlessness is like a detoxification. When a person enters into detox via abstinence, they will experience withdrawal symptoms for a time, until they fully detox. A person cannot detoxify if they keep taking toxins.


Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world) Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world).
If so give one or two names, please.

The Pali scriptures describe 4 levels of enlightenment, which equate to 4 levels of Nibbana.

The Nakhasikha Sutta states in the 1st level of enlightenment the vast majority of the previous suffering has been ended & extinguished.

Many Buddhist practitioners have tasted Nibbana (freedom from suffering). However, I suspect those that have reached the highest Nibbana are not many.

In Thailand, monks would say Ajahn Maha Bua & Ajahn Chah (both now deceased) reached the highest Nibbana. You can watch these videos:

Ajahn Chah - Bio 43 - Talking about enlightenment
Ajahn Chah - Bio 44 - How attained was Ajahn Chah?

I think Ajahn Brahm is close to the highest Nibbana.

The Buddha said if people practise the 8 fold path in the right way, people will know Nibbana.

This article, 'Nibbana for Everyone', may be helpful.


Does Dogen's wholehearted way say anything about the status of memory? Seems to me that memory is notoriously fallible, whatever we think about the nature of the self. I have a copy, but rather than reread it, I thought to ask, whether Dogen's wholehearted way, or right effort in general, from moment to moment, involves relying only on those memories of immediate relevance?

If you are referring to the intellectual capability of memory (隨念智), then this is not mentioned in Bendowa.

The whole-hearted way is, as you say, awareness from moment to moment. According to Zen, it is the experiential reality, not the memory or interpretation thereof (even if the memory is one of realization). The memory of a previous realization cannot help you. It will in fact hinder you if it arises. This is well explained in Mumonkan case 22:

Ananda asked Kashyapa, "The World-honored One gave you the golden robe; did he give you anything else.
"Ananda!" cried Kashyapa.
"Yes, sir!" answered Ananda.
"Knock down the flagpole at the gate," said Kashyapa.


Does loving kindness meditation help beings other than the practitioner? For an example when the practitioner wants every being to become free from sorrow, does it actually create a difference? At least when the practitioner concentrates on someone close to himself/herself. All answers are welcome and it's better if references from Pali Canon can be made.

I don't think it'd make other beings become "free" from sorrow, but it could bring certain level of peace to both the practitioner and the people s/he's interacting with. AN 11.16 mentions 11 benefits of cultivating metta:

"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?
"One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds."


Can there be another Dalai Lama? From what I understand, the Panchen Lama is supposed to choose the next Dalai Lama. If he has been captured, is there any hope for another Dalai Lama to be chosen?

Dedi,

The Panchen Lama is supposed to facilitate the recognition of the Dalai
Lama. However, depending on his devotion and his powers, the Dalai Lama himself can state the place and time of his reincarnation. If not, he would give to adversaries a way to hack the process (by capturing and controlling the Panchen Lama).

It's sad, but every monk has to be aware of the danger and to practice his way to enlightenment!

  Overall 'Dalai Lama' means an 'Ocean of Compassion.'

Hope it helps!


What to do for fasting on full moon? From this coming full moon I've to start fasting and keep it on, so what I've to practice on this day ?

Visakha Uposatha Sutta AN 8.43  and  Muluposatha Sutta: The Roots of the Uposatha AN 3.70  are good reads in this regard. Also in the Uposatha Sutta— Practicing uposatha —AN 3.71 the Buddha defines how lay people should practice Uposatha and describes the different types of devas.

Uposatha practice is the practice by which lay people rest from their daily work, devoting a day on the full moon, new moon, and quarter moon days,  to listening to the Dhamma and training the mind in meditation. The question is whether one does it the proper way or not. The practice of taking the eight precepts in the morning, then taking the five precepts again in the evening, is not proper. In the Uposatha Sutta, Buddha describe it as ‘the Cowherd’s Uposatha.’  It is not the Uposatha of the Noble Ones. The eight precepts should be observed for at least twenty-four hours.

Another thing to be mindful about is that those persons who, on uposatha days plan to go to quiet places to meditate they inadvertently fall into other trappings. They at times end up in the company of friends and get into other unrelated conversations, because they have no control over their minds. Even in meditation even when they attempt to direct their minds to the samatha (calm) or metta (loving-kindness), their thoughts get scattered aimlessly and they end up only with the visible manifestation of the recitation. The 24 hour uposatha is for the mind, and not for the body. Lastly, it is important for one be mindful to take the five precepts to formally end the uposatha, whenever one wants to terminate it.


How is a mindstream associated with human forms? I think this question is distinct from those asking what is reincarnated. I understand the distinction between the mindstream and a soul, and the simile of passing on a flame.  I also understand that an association is made between a mindstream and human form, most often in the womb.  What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime?  Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime?

It's an ongoing conditioned process whereby a state conditions the next.
Imagine a line of domino's. You tip one over, that one tips the next over and so on. There are the domino's; and there are different (invisible) forces playing a part in how the next domino is tipped.
(It's not a great comparison though. Cause the domino's in the line are already there when in actuality that's not the case. But I haven't found a better comparison yet, the candle simile doesn't work for me.)

So, a state of matter-mind-combination ceases and makes room for the appearing of the next matter-mind-combination (at least in the sense realm).
The ceasing of the mind-matter-combination is a condition for the arising of the next. But so are different other conditioning forces.

The Patthana (last part of the Abhidhamma) explains 24 different conditioning forces that play a role in the arising of the next states and the maintaining of the process. Important is also to understand that there are always several conditioning forces active, not just one.
You might want to read this book. Or just the chapter of the Patthana in the compendium of the Abhidhamma, by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

By the way, at a certain point it's possible to see the conditioning of this ongoing arising and ceasing in meditation. It's fascinating, at least for me.

  Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

That's due to conditioning. Delusion (which is there when one experiences this first-person sense of self) is basically embedded in every newly arising matter-mind-combo. It has to be broken down, replaced by new conditioning.

The practice of what's usually called vipassana meditation (or meditation based on the Satipatthana sutta) makes this possible. From own experience I can say that with vipassana the experience of first person becomes the experience of being the observer (2nd person) of the ongoing arising and ceasing of the matter-mind-combo. And later the experience shifts even further away to more and more neutral, so the feeling of being the observer also drops away. By then there is no more experience of liking, disliking; no identification with what ever khanda, no kilesa and so on. (Upekkha nana).

So, it's a matter of replacing old conditioning with new one. That can take time though. Depending, again, on the way your mind stream is conditioned and how quickly your mind can let go of old ideas and so on.

Hope this helps a bit.


Modern vs traditional Zen According to David Chapman, modern Zen was basically invented by D.T. Suzuki, and doesn't have much to do with original Zen or even with Buddhism in general. Is this true? Is modern Zen closer to other Western Buddhist traditions than to original Zen?

Someone else will answer this better than me, but I'll get the ball rolling.

Chan is the form of Buddhism that came to dominate Buddhist life in China up to the time of the communist revolution. It was a lot of meditation, mixed in with a lot of Pure Land Buddhism, scholarship and the whole gammut of Buddhist practices, including prostrations, repentance, everything.

Chan was then transmitted to Japan via Dogen around the time of the Kamakura era. At this point, Zen is radically simplified, loses the Pure Land component. Dogen is a medieval Japanese monk-- he's a nice guy, but no one is going to mistake him for a modern Oxford or Tokyo University intellectual.

Also at this time, when Japanese nobles needed to send their kids to school, they would send them up the road to the Buddhist monk, who knew how to read. While they were there, the parents figure the should also learn about calligraphy, tea ceremony and things that upper class Japanese noble kids needed to learn. This created the confusion about Zen's connection to these Japanese cultural arts. (And this confusion was later exacerbated by apologists for Zen, who wanted to appeal to skeptical, but nationalist countrymen in the revival or preservation of Buddhism)

Next big event is the Meiji reformations, where the Japanese imperial government, in a policy hostile to Buddhism, initiated reforms allowing (demanding?) that monks marry, eat meat and so on. From this we get the idea that Zen has nothing to do with strict morals, renunciation, vegetarianism, celibacy, and so on.

The last big event is the educated class in Japan learning pretty much everything that the Europeans knew and being heavily influenced by essentially European ideas. (among them ideas of the age of enlightenment and the protestant reformation) Not bad mind you, as a 3rd party, I could care less if the Indian ideas imported into Japan were being diluted of their Japaneseness by mixing with European ideas.

And the person to bring that "pre-westernized" Zen to the US was DT Suzuki. Before anyone had a chance to start mixing up western progressive ideas with Chan (as filtered through Japan), it had already been done.  DT Suzuki Zen removed anything that looked like religion from Zen.


Is there a Vipassana meditation in the Mahayana tradition? I was brought up in the Theravada tradition and have little knowledge on Mahayana. Recently some of my friends participated in a Mahayana retreat and praised it highly. One of them even claimed that Mahayana is for practical Buddhists and Theravada is for rituals and ceremonies etc. So I got a bit curious about this and started searching on Mahayana. But I couldn't find the answer to my main question.

As Vipassana meditation is the core of Theravada which finally leads to the end of suffering, can someone tell me if there exists such a meditation technique in Mahayana as well?

Mahayana is not a single tradition. It is a variety of forms the live teaching has taken as it was internalized by people belonging to different cultures and lifestyles over ~2600 years of the realization-transmission cycle.

The same direct experience (of Enlightenment) is introduced in different ways. Everyone agrees it is about seeing (aka insight) and cultivation (aka liberation), but how exactly the two are approached varies wildly.

The method of vipassana (insight meditation) is radical attention to present moment, with experiences interpreted in context of Buddhist teachings. We could say vipassana relies on three activities: the study undertaken before meditation, the active-watching during meditation, and the review in post-meditation. That's it, there is nothing magical about vipassana. It's all about what you study, and what you pay attention to, and how you connect the two.

Before you can do active watching, you have to tame your mind and make it into an instrument of insight. The same taming also serves as a pre-realization part of liberation-cultivation (remember, it's not just insight, there is also liberation). This preliminary meditation is known as samatha, but it really is not that different from vipassana. The only real difference is in the level of skill, familiarity, and insight. This is like with learning to play guitar: first you do scale exercises, then you play whole pieces, then you improvise. In all cases you are playing the instrument, the difference is in your sensitivity and control. Samatha is mostly about tranquility, vipassana is mostly about insight -- but there is no one without the other.

Not all schools of Mahayana differentiate between samatha and vipassana. Most Zen schools (I believe) teach one meditation, zazen (did you know "zen" is the same word as "jhana"?). This is like giving student a guitar and saying: here, learn to play this. No scale exercises, no sheet music. This is accompanied with plenty of very deep oral instructions on what a good music sounds like, but no specific mechanical exercises. I'm simplifying to make a point. Most teachers do provide some guidelines (e.g. basics of anapanasati; common mistakes etc.), but the emphasis is definitely on self-learning.

While in Theravada the pendulum seems to swing almost too far the other way: "Teacher, but when are we going to play music?" -- "Forget about music, dummy, and focus on your study and exercises, that's where music comes from!"

In Tibetan schools practice and study seems to be pretty balanced. They do differentiate between shamatha and vipashyana at beginner stages and speak about "unity of shamatha and vipashyana" at more advanced stages. As far as specific techniques, at least in some schools (Gelug) Tibetan vipashyana takes analysis of the four jhanas as its object of investigation. Four jhanas are also approached in context of Generation Stage meditation, while what you know as satipatthana in Theravada can probably be compared with Completion stage meditation in Vajrayana... And then there are Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which are like playing jazz improvisations...

Much of it depends on the student and on a particular teacher. An enormously talented student can learn playing just by watching a teacher, but most of us need gradual instruction. Some teachers believe in analytical understanding, others think technique can only come from drills, while yet others believe it's all about the feeling etc.


Purpose of scattered thing or food under tree? We often see things scattered under the main tree in the Buddhist Theravada temple yard. There is also fresh fruit cut open. It seems they are put under the tree deliberately and regularly. Does anyone know what is the purpose of this?

The fruit etc is probably offerings to the spirit that lives in the tree. Worship of tree spirits (or dryads) is widespread through South and South-East Asia, and a very common element of traditional Buddhism. In Thailand such spirits are known as Nang Mai.

A Buddhist Tree Shrine, Thailand.
Tree spirits (Pāḷi rukkhadevatā) can be found in the Cūḷadhammasamādāna Sutta (MN 45; p.406 in the Ñānamoḷi and Bodhi translation). Tree spirits along with other nature spirits are also found in the Gilānadassana Sutta (SN 41.10). They are also found in a number of Jātaka tales. According to Bhante Dhammika, in his essay Trees in the Buddhist Scriptures, it was common practice to make offerings to such tree spirits:

Other trees were worshipped and given offerings because the spirits were believed to grant wishes. Milk and water were poured on the roots, garlands were hung in the branches, lamps of scented oil were burned around them and cloth was tied around their trunks (Ja.II,104). There is the occasional mention of animal and even human sacrifices being made to trees. The victim’s blood was poured around the foot of the tree and the entrails were draped over the branches (Ja.I,260; III,160).
Note Ja = Jātaka.

Many animist elements, such as yakṣas and nāgas, are evident at every level of the early Buddhist texts and must have been assimilated very early on.
According to the London Buddhist Vihara website offerings of flowers etc, and food, are made from feelings of devotion and not with the expectation of reward.


Can there exist two Dalai Lamas at one instance of time? I am developing an application which calculates peoples age/ birthdays. In this app I have one entry for the Dalai Lama.

My understanding is that its the 14 Dalai Lama who is alive right now. So a concern is raised that should I use the name Dalai Lama or 14 Dalai Lama

I want to know if there can be two Dalai Lamas alive at the same instance if this is not true I can simply use the name Dalai Lama Please shed light on this aspect!

It should be "14th Dalai Lama" or "14th Dalai Lama", not "14 Dalai Lama".

I think that "Dalai Lama" is a title, not a name.

According to Wikipedia,

  The 14th Dalai Lama (religious name: Tenzin Gyatso, shortened from Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso, born Lhamo Dondrub,[1] 6 July 1935) is the current Dalai Lama

Another example of a title is "President of the United States". For example, Barack Obama is "the President", and he is also more specifically called "the 44th President".


What are signs of the three marks of existence? What are some signs that one might be seeing the three characteristics with more clarity or depth? What might represent that one is having a new and more profound experience of impermanence, dukkha or not-self during one's practice or during any time?

Here are some examples of what is  meant by sign:

When we finish sweeping the floor, that might be a sign of impermanence.
If an annoying song keeps repeating in the mind that we can't control then that might be a sign of not-self.
We strongly misidentify the body as the self. If while meditating we see past the concept of the body then we might strangely feel like we have no body at some point. This no body effect might be a sign of not-self.

Sweeping is a process made up of many experiences. An experience is made up of the five aggregates. Each of the five aggregates is Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in nature. That makes each experience Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. It's not about waiting for something to finish and calling it impermanent. That's obvious even without meditation. That is not strong enough to cut off craving or loosen your grip on conditioned phenomena. You have to develop Sati(awareness) through meditation until you can see these 3 characteristics here and now with each experience(moment to moment).

Yes, not able to stop unpleasant experiences or not able to prolong pleasant experiences is a sign of Anatta. Then again, reasoning it out like that is not what is expected from Vipassana. You have to be able see it then and there. You have to be able to note that each experience is born due to causes, not because there's a self in them or not because they belong to a self.

Feeling that there is a body or feeling that there is no body are both Anatta. Because both are mere feelings born of causes. Nothing more.


If each person's mind creates "reality" then why do we need to eat? My teacher has been talking about how each person's reality (including the body) is in fact an illusion generated by the mind in each moment. As an extension of this, she teaches that there are no "good" or "bad" people, things or circumstances - the way things appear and the qualities they have are all coming from my own mind.

I think I kind of understand this as a metaphor, but I don't understand how she can seem to literally believe this: for example, during the teaching session I was very hungry. I thought, "I can meditate and come to ignore how hungry I am- but if I did that every time, one day I would die of starvation, whether I was aware of that in my mind or not. So surely hunger is actually "real" and not just in my mind - because it will lead to me dying unnecessarily unless I react to it?"

Another example I thought of was murder. I can believe everyone is neither good nor bad, and via compassion, everyone will seem good. But surely it doesn't matter how I imagine a situation is going in my mind - if I meet someone who tries to murder me, for example, they will kill me, regardless of how loving I believe them to be. My death would occur regardless of my mind (but if I had listened to my mind, I might have been able to avoid the death that would result from interacting with that person).

I understand that death isn't "good" or "bad" either - but how does the dharma explain the division between "mind reality" and actual physical reality that can kill me no matter what my mind does? Another quick example: medication for mental illness. I had a teacher once who endorsed mentally ill people stopping all medication, because it was only a placebo - but if that's true then why is it that an unmedicated schizophrenic (for example) would be physically unable to meditate (and cure themselves, as my teacher suggested) most of the time, as they would be too ill to concentrate? Isnt that an example of physical chemicals (drugs) being "stronger" than the mind (calming the mind so that it can begin to meditate)?

Apologies if I'm being ignorant, or if I sound critical. I feel like I'm missing some vocabulary that would help me explain better. Thanks for reading :)

(Edit: I also have a very similar question/example: why does it result in good karma when you feed starving people, if the food, the pain of starvation, and even your good deed is just an illusion in the minds of you and the starving person? Obviously if I had a sandwich, and I saw a child who was hungry, I'd give them all of the sandwich. But then isnt the child receiving negative karma for causing ME to go hungry, even though it was my choice? And why bother at all if only karma is real - the child's hunger isn't "real", so why end it?)

an illusion generated by the mind in each moment
Hunger is a complex phenomenon:

"Name" and "form" (an absence of so-called food in the so-called stomach, with associated changes to the metabolism and sensory nerves)
Consciousness of the sensations (probably a series of moments of consciousness, not a continuous consciousness)
Feeling (how you feel about or perceive that sensation, for example, "this feels unpleasant")
Craving ("I want the feeling and sensation to be gone, I want my craving to be satisfied")
Attachment (deciding that "Food is the stuff which would satisfy this craving: I want food!")

Most of this is "mental", including your naming the components (hunger, stomach, food, etc.).
An analogy might be, watching a movie: the movie might be 'based on a true story' and even have 'real' actors, but by the time it's been turned into a movie there's a large illusory or mind-made component.
I think it isn't only an illusion though. Before he became enlightened the Buddha tried not eating: it's said he found that interfered with meditation, and he therefore chose the doctrine of the "middle way" (neither the extreme of asceticism nor the extreme of hedonism).
Buddhism has a lot to say to people about food (e.g. right behaviours and right attitudes to have, about food), and especially to monks.
why do we need to eat?
One theory is that human life is a good opportunity to experience dharma e.g. that things aren't permanent nor permanently satisfactory. Allegedly there are other, formless being in higher planes of existence, who don't need to "eat" as such, on the other hand it's hard or impossible for them to learn dharma.
So surely hunger is actually "real" and not just in my mind - because it will lead to me dying unnecessarily unless I react to it?
Consider the opposite side of that story too, though: people over-eat because they think they're hungry. Or they crave for the repetition of any number of other experiences.
The word "real" comes from the Latin word for "thing". I think that hunger has a real component, but also many mental components.
"My death" (i.e. "me" and "dying") are both concepts, too.
it doesn't matter how I imagine a situation is going in my mind
On the other hand it does matter: because most people aren't trying to kill you; if you go around thinking "this person may want to kill me" that has consequences (for example in how you behave, how you see yourself, and how people react).
why is it that an unmedicated schizophrenic would be physically unable to meditate
My experience is that an unmedicated schizophrenic may well be able to meditate; but they may have trouble communicating with other people, and/or other people have trouble communicating with them; and various social activities (wanting and keeping a job for example) may be difficult.
It depends on the person, and the situation, who's with them and how they react; depends on the medication too.
It's complicated, and psychiatric medications are simplistic, sometimes effective, sometimes not, often with undesirable physical side-effects but sometimes (depending) better than nothing.
So I don't agree with the teacher if they said "mentally ill people stopping all medication, because it was only a placebo" -- some medications aren't "only a placebo" and some patients benefit from them.
I also don't agree with your statement: it may be true that some people can't or don't meditate, it just isn't always true, in my experience.
I feel like I'm missing some vocabulary that would help me explain better
Two useful bits of vocabulary are "middle way" and "two truths".
"Middle way" has a specific historical meaning,

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

That historic meaning is especially relevant to food. I think "middle way" might also be used more generally, to mean avoiding other extremes: for example, "the world is just an illusion" is one extreme, and "thoughts are real" is maybe another extreme, and we're supposed to learn to avoid both these extremes, and to see each view in a proper context. There's a kind of nihilism that's explicitly defines as a "wrong view":

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

There's a lot written about "two truths" and I think that different schools of Buddhism may have said different things about it. I think that an example of "two truths" might be that, "I exist and I am Chris" is a so-called conventional truth, whereas "there is no thing which can be called Chris, Chris is a name applied to an assemblage of parts" is a so-called ultimate truth ... and they are both true, they are both truths (but perhaps also both untruths if they're merely concepts).
Then there's a non-duality doctrine (perhaps from later schools of Buddhism) which says that these two truths (conventional and ultimate) are one.
Another concept that may be worth remembering is that of "attachment to a view". A "view" is something fairly fixed or permanent (see e.g. the answers to this question). And having a fixed view, being attached to a specific view, may be unwise. Again it's a balancing act, i.e. Buddhism does define a set of views as "right" (i.e. "right view"), but also warns e.g. here or here or even here not to grasp at, not to argue about, not to be imprisoned by dogma.
why does it result in good karma when you feed starving people
A couple of reasons, one is that compassion and so on are meant to be the right way to behave socially:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, and in that they are akin to Brahma, the divine but transient ruler of the higher heavens in the traditional Buddhist picture of the universe.

Another reason is, I think, that we may tend to be selfish, to have thoughts like, "this is my hunger, this is my food, I am more important than they are" ... and that kind of egoism is a cause of suffering. See also Dana.
Within a lay context (i.e. if you're not a monk who has nothing) perhaps you're supposed to find some balance (i.e. non-extreme) in your giving too.
But then isnt the child receiving negative karma for causing ME to go hungry, even though it was my choice?
No: the giving is your choice, your intention, your karma.
And why bother at all if only karma is real - the child's hunger isn't "real", so why end it?)
I like this Zen story:

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

I think the point of the doctrines of emptiness and non-self is to avoid unwise attachment (e.g. "this is me! this is mine!"), which would cause suffering (e.g. "this is changing, this is being lost, so woe is me!").
And anger (and probably hurt pride) and so on is a prime example of an afflictive emotion (see e.g. "unwholesome factors" listed on this page; or "poisons" listed on this page).
There are other examples of Zen stories which I think are intended to inform us how we ought to be behave -- this one, for example, is relevant to feeding a hungry child:

Is That So?

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a
pure life.
A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near
him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was
with child.
This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was,
but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.
In great anger the parent went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he
would say.
After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had
lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good
care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything
else he needed.
A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her
parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who
worked in the fishmarket.
The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask
forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.
Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that
so?"


How important are incense and candles to a meditation practice? What is the function of incense and candles to a meditation practice? Are they used in all types of meditation or only some types?

Incense and candles are not essential to a meditation practice. They can aid in concentration, but they can also become an emotional crutch if we become attached to them. I did the ritual of lighting candles and incense during my practice for a few weeks, and quickly got tired of it.

If you are practicing vipassana (a.k.a insight meditation) as opposed to samatha (a.k.a tranquility meditation) then it's really not necessary to create that kind of environment. In fact in vipassana we want to become free from external dependencies, so creating a certain type of environment might actually be counterproductive to the practice.

I'm one of Venerable Yuttadhammo's students, and he teaches vipassana in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. Check out his videos and/or book if you haven't already.

Unfortunately I can't comment on samatha practices, as I haven't been taught in that area.


Is there a objective book on how vipassana of U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka works? I have been practicing Vipassana in S.N. Goenka's lineage for two years. I have read some of Mahasi's and Webu's Sayadaw writings as well. The biggest hindrance I've thus come across is Doubt. Every now and then I find myself full of questions regarding the technique, especifically about the way it works in pavimenting the path to liberation. I would like some pretty direct answers to questions as...

'why noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach
helps creating understanding' or
'how not reacting to sensations throught the body leads to insight'
or
'how restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation'
etc.

I'm aware that I may have read satisfactory answers to those questions in the past. But I really would like to get something directand easy to come back to, instead of reading full long texts full of heavy explanations.
Thanks.

Since most books are subjective, I doubt there can be found an objective book on how vipassana of U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka works. These methods are merely constructed out of theories. For example, the Buddha taught all conditioned things are impermanent. If you watch leaves falling from a tree or waves lapping on the seashore, you will see impermanence. However, this does not mean watching falling leaves or lapping waves will bring enlightenment. Similarly, just because U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka have chosen impermanent meditation objects, it does not mean these methods alone will work.

In the Pali suttas, it is reported the Buddha taught meditation as the development (bhavana) of concentration (samadhi). Properly developed samadhi has two fruits or results, namely, samatha (tranquility) and vipassana (clear seeing of higher truth). If the mind does not have samadhi (which itself is comprised of a degree of selflessness or mental purity) then watching the impermanence of falling leaves, lapping waves, abdomen rising & falling or painful sensations probably will not result in sufficient vipassana to end the defilements and liberate the mind.

Thus, to answer your questions:

Noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach is theoretically supposed to create understanding because the mind is supposed to see constant impermanence. If the mind can see every expansion of the stomach and every contraction of the stomach then it can see things (such as the stomach, breathing & mind consciousness itself) only last for a moment. If such clear seeing of impermanence occurs, then the mind will know all things, including life itself, are impermanent. The mind will be peaceful & calm when impermanence (such as loss of property, loved ones or life) occurs.  But, as I previously said, if the mind has too much ego, the meditation really won't be effective because there is too much ego in the mind. The mind is too impure. The seeing of impermanence is not clear enough and not strong enough.
Not reacting to sensations throughout the body theoretically leads to insight because two things occur: (i) concentration is developed via non-reacting; and (ii) since reacting is disturbing, non-peaceful or suffering, by non-reacting, the mind can have the insight that non-reacting is peaceful. However, if samatha (tranquility) and selflessness has not been developed then there will not be much peace to be felt via non-reacting. In summary, the Buddha's path is comprised of eight factors. Each of the eight factors must work together to get the result of liberation & peace.
Similar to the above, restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation because the mind is not stirring up reactions and defilements that are suffering. However, the mind must have some peace before restraint can lead to liberation. If the mind has many hindrances & defilements, trying to restrain the mind will be like trying to restrain a tidal wave or tsunami.

In conclusion, the Buddha's path is the Noble Eightfold Path. The whole path must be practised, which includes wisdom-based-morality and samadhi. Trying to follow moral rules without wisdom about them will also not work. Trying to develop samadhi without wisdom also will not work. Trying to develop wisdom alone also will not work.

Vipassana is one of the final results of the path, similar to the top of a tree. A tree is not climbed from the top. A tree is climbed from the bottom. Similarly, attempting to begin meditation with vipassana probably won't work. Instead, we should try to make the mind calm by learning how to end hindrances and sit at ease with awareness of breathing. "Vipassana" (knowing & seeing things as they actually are) is something that occurs without any act of will. You may refer to Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will.


Are there any exceptions to the first precept? I recently accidentally injured a bee, I did all I could to help it, but its wing was broken and so was its leg, it could not walk nor fly, it was clearly in a great amount of pain and distress. I tried to heal it with some energy work, but it was no good, I am just not experienced enough and for some reason on that day couldn't find focus with my energy work.

So I took the decision to do what was necessary to stop what I took to be unnecessary suffering, I killed the bee.

In another occasion where I was not responsible for the initial injury, I found a bee in great distress on the ground, I am not sure what happened to it, I think maybe it stung somebody because it appeared very hollow inside. There was nothing that could be done for it, and though it gave me great sadness, I also killed this bee to end its suffering.

I love all life, it greatly saddens me when I accidentally kill something, and even more so when I have to do it knowingly. But it would sadden me even more if I had to leave a being in suffering and not doing anything when I could and there wasn't a reason not to.

Am I breaking the first precept or can an exception be made to end the great and unnecessary suffering of a being who cannot be saved from their fate?

I heard a story about one of Buddha's previous lives where he sad that he found out about a murderer on a ship who was planning to kill everyone, and out of only compassion for the man the Buddha killed him with no hatred and only love so that he wouldn't have to go through all the terrible rebirths fore his actions of killing everyone on the ship (this is from a memory of someone telling me this story, I believe that they had read it somewhere, but I may be getting some the details wrong). And that by doing so he in fact cleared a huge amount of previous karma, rather than gaining any for this act. That is not to say though that I am doing this with the intent to clear karma, I merely want to help the bee.

Now although that is a different situation, could that be related at all to this?

Don't beat yourself up over it.  Precepts are an interesting thing.  Most people come at them with the idea that they are iron clad laws governing our behavior.  Don't get me wrong, in some ways they certainly are.  When you take this kind of legalistic perspective, however, I really think you are missing out on their greater purpose.

The precepts are decidedly simple.  Abstain from killing.  Abstain from stealing.  And so on and so forth.  But what does it mean to kill?  Did the Buddha really say steal?  The Pāli reads more like "do not take that which is not given".  What does that mean!?  Likewise, anyone with an opinion will give you their interpretation on what the "sensual pleasure" precept refers to.  Reading the precepts this way isn't to split legal hairs or an attempt to loosen restriction.  These are all valid and important questions - questions I think the Buddha intended us to ask by making his training rules so brief in content.

Rather than view the precepts as moral law, it might be helpful to see them as a kind of spiritual Rorschach test.  What you see is very much dependent on where you are in your spiritual development.  Please don't take that to mean that the more ironclad you are in your interpretation, the more advanced you are in your training.  The precepts are factories of insight.  They are meant to teach and enlighten not just govern behavior.


Does being Emotionial generate new sankaras? I just finished a vipassana retreat and well, I am still confused with just observing and feeling, and holy **** that was a h**** of an experience.... a-bomb (more bad then good, but we all need it, I felt pain from others in distance, and well I need this pain to project later on metta bavahna, but annicca,annicca,. The day I left (today) I was crying and well spotted a sensation in the throat, observed it, crying, don't even know why, should I look for the why? And is the crying equanamously crying, or was I? Didn't feel like doing stuff for 3 hours. Is that generating new sankaras? Or it's just old sankaras coming up? It like a bad sensation makes me forget ANNICCA, but a good sensation makes me more ANNICCA... I mean I am still confused if I am allowed to get angry and observe, then cry and observe, and being sure that, I am equanimous.... I do not want to read books anymore on this lol, I had enough, so I continue the body scan, I mean I keep calling the people from vippa... and everytime everything is different, and I am confused with the emotions....

Thanks to anyone who can clarify and guide me better on the DHAMMA!

Love to you all!
May you all remain equanimous!
alexei

You just finished a retreat. Give everything time to settle down. Currently, you are taking it all far too seriously.

Obviously, you had an arduous experience. Tears of relief; possibly some catharsis. There is no need to be concerned.

Give 'anicca' ('impermanence') a long term view; such as one month for those 'sankharas' to settle down.

'Sankhara' does not (exclusively) mean 'intention'. 'Sankhara' is any kind of mental formation, including non-intentional or automatic instinctual emotions.

For example. when the mind goes into 'shock' due to an accident, this is not intentional.

Similarly, during an intense retreat, emotions will arise that are not intentional.

It appears that a few emotions, more or less, is not going to increase or reduce the sankharas stored within your mind in any significant way.

I suggest, for the next few weeks, to forget the teachings you heard & return to some ordinary activity, particularly some physical exercise to burn off & settle the emotions & hyperactivity.


What is the state,the during vipassana meditation? Now there is no bodily sensation on sitting posture of meditation. Only thoughts are coming. Always  close  the eyes can see a oil lamp in the Middle. When  the lamp not appeared in the front negative thoughts were coming. When experience breath slowly  body disappears. Sometimes thinking loose and mindfulness  appears. Can anyone tell is it sankaraupeksha ?

Perhaps this is the state called "Passambayan Kayasankharam" or "Sabbakaya Patisamvedhi" state.
[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html