Can the elements of Buddhist Cosmology be confirmed? How are the elements of Buddhist Cosmology (31 planes of existence, hungry ghosts/shades, angry deities, etc.) confirmed?

Are there writings of recent gurus in the past 50 years or so, confirming, questioning or analyzing the elements of this cosmology in the light of modern science and their own experience?

Other than faith in the ancient texts, is there any other basis for modern Buddhists to believe in Buddhist Cosmology? If so, what is that basis?

Buddha's response to such questions has been that whether or not other worlds exist, his teaching is still beneficial if applied in practice.

So, for example, if it is said that acting on an extreme negativity-rooted-in-confusion leads to hell, whether the hell is taken literally as a place you go to or metaphorically as a highly disagreeable state of subjective experience, in either case it is something a sane person would definitely prefer to avoid, and so refraining from acting out one's negativity rooted in confusion should be beneficial in either case.

While I personally lean towards a more "secular" view, I feel that by shifting my focus from the metaphysics ("how things are") and towards soteriological methodology ("how to act towards Bodhi") I can avoid hurtful and non-productive arguments in the public space.


Asking questions a "childish" way to learn, to teach? In modern world it's often regarded as "poor" if asking questions. "What, you don't know?", others would fast lower others, yet forgeting that they have been given before as well.

It is also the subtil fear to be obligated, fall into debt, that people "force" not to ask or on wrong places, wrong people and so the tendency goes in direction "steal" thinking not causing debts.

The times of google and more or lesser anonymos exchange places make it even more common that people seek, if even, for places to gain, where they believe not to accumulate debts.

It's not seldom, out of this, that "asking questions" is estimated as childish, the way "unwise" and "poor", "people of less skill" come to gain Dhamma.

What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning? Is asking questions, asking for things childish?

(A maybe useful reflection that might make some parts understandable for answering the question: Giving, taking and the "new" world - "Labour makes (you) free!?")

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Is asking questions, asking for things childish?

Asking question is something that children do, but adults can do it too.

If I'm working with someone and (for example because I have worked there longer) if I know more about our work than they do, or if I know something about our work that they don't know but should know, then I want them to ask me questions. I want them to have good judgement (skill) too, in deciding how much to ask and how often, I expect us to weigh and find a balance between their spending too long (too much of their own time) trying to figure everything out for themselves, when instead I could have told them easily; or on the other extreme, their asking me too many questions (taking too much of my time), instead of reading the answers for themselves.

I am not a formal teacher, teaching someone else would be a part-time job for me, and the subject (which is, knowledge of the software that I might develop with co-workers) doesn't have a specific curriculum. But in general it's good if someone asks me questions: it's easier for me (and better for everyone) if they tell me they don't know something, than for me to have to supervise them and for me to have to try to guess at what they don't know. Also I distinguish between things they ought to know already compared with things they couldn't know already.

Anyway for these kinds of reasons (i.e. my experience at work) I think it's normal for adults to ask questions.

Children do sometimes ask questions to avoid work (for example, asking questions instead of putting on their shoes to go to school). It's a bit irksome when an adult asks insincere or unnecessary, unhelpful questions ...
On this site I'm grateful that people are willing to reply to my questions. I usually try not to waste their time, and try to only ask questions which will help to me, and whose answers I can't easily discover by a little work of my own (research and reading already-existing text).
The purpose of this site isn't to be a question-factory, keeping people busy  answering endless unbeneficial questions.

What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning?

At university we had lectures, with hundreds of students in the room. The lecturer would talk, students couldn't ask questions, we had books to read ... and some individual tutors/tuition, perhaps an hour a week, to talk about home-work.

Or sometimes there's learning by following (emulating) other people; or waiting to be told.

Comments on the paper you referenced in the OP.

So there was a neighbour who was hardly ever able to accept a gift, for example some fruits from the garden.

In the society I live in now I've never known anyone refuse such a (small) gift.

The benefactor, "the mother", is little by little devoured

Apparently that can happen in abusive (so-called codependent) relationships.

Everything is easier nowadays

People have been saying this kind of thing since ancient Greek and Roman times, at least: especially, saying that the younger generation is lacking in courtesy.

We cringe, usually, when we hear someone say "Labour makes (you) free"

I was amazed to read "Arbeit macht frei" as the title of the page. Because of the phrase's historical usage I consider it a phrase which "no longer means what you think it means" i.e. it has (historical) "meaning" that's not evident from its overt form. It's not the plain meaning I cringe from but the association with Auschwitz et. al., which makes it difficult for me to even consider the phrase, which evokes horror (or pity for the victims, to whom the phrase was a lie) as soon as I read it.

Anyway this was kind of a vague answer, I'm not sure whether it answered your question (because I don't understand the intent or motive behind your question).

If you refer to the suttas you can see that it's full of questions and answers: students asking question (which teachers answer), and teachers asking Socratic questions.


Do Beings go into total unconsciousness before attaining Buddhahood? I am asking the Vajrayana/Mahayana view as I already know the theravada view.I heard that Buddhas only have jnana and not vijnana wich means they are inert like rocks but 'act' based on past merit and deeds ,

there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states:

"Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?"
"Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or
consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not
differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata
arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation."
"Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free
from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors
arise without the action of formations?"
"Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom.
Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past
formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the
concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only
through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors
of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the
tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of
method and wisdom."
"Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?"
"Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless,
because minds are neither independent nor dependent."

so they're like robots.How true is this?and if it is true,isn't suffering but existing for all intents and purposes better than not existing and not suffering?.

There's a nice paper on the topic, called "Why the Buddha Never Uttered a Word" by Mario D’Amato - you can find it on Academia website.
You'd do best to read it all, although you may certainly prefer to skip to a section titled "Mindful Buddha versus Mindless Buddha".
There Mario cites some other work that says:

... Dunne goes on to specify that according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased”. Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind”.
…
Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharmakāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha... [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active”. Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

Mario then goes on to argue that, in his understanding,

... it is only metaphorically the case that buddhas do not use language. On the model of the awarenesses of a buddha considered here, a buddha possesses both a nonconceptual and a conceptual awareness, and it is a buddha’s possession of some form of conceptual awareness that allows for the use of words and language. However, through the attainment of nonconceptual awareness—through directly apprehending
thusness, the fundamental, ineffable nature of things—a buddha’s relation to conceptualization and language has been radically altered. In any occurrence of language use, a buddha would remain aware that putative linguistic referents do not actually exist. A buddha would employ language without falling
under the spell of words and objects—employing concepts and language in perfect accordance with conventional usage, while remaining aware that ultimately there are no referential objects. We might describe a buddha’s mindful awareness in terms of what some contemporary philosophers have referred to as fictionalism.
Stanley states: “On a fictionalist view, engaging in discourse
that involves apparent reference to a realm of problematic entities is best viewed as engaging in a pretense. Although in reality, the problematic entities do not exist, according to the pretense we engage in when using the discourse, they do exist”. According to such a fictionalist view, one might engage in conventional discourse without positing that the entities referred to in such discourse ultimately exist, for example, through adding an operator “in fiction F” (or “according to the conventional domain”) to any truth claim. Hence, on a mindful buddha account, a buddha may be said to use language “under erasure,” employing words while remaining mindful that words do not actually refer in the way they purport to—mindfully aware that referents are nothing more than fictions.

I, for one, agree and approve of this explanation.


When meditation goes wrong Although it has been claimed that meditation does help in several ways, I have read on the Internet that there are cases where psychotic episodes, schizophrenia and suicide tendencies arise after meditation retreats.

Where I have read that this has happened is in Goenka's Vipassana retreats, which are 10 days long retreats. In particular, the only way to start at Goenka's retreats is first with a 10 days retreat.

I did one of those retreats without any unhealthy consequences, but I do confess that during the retreat I was kind of 'watching' myself to avoid any unhealthy episode.

Is there any explanation to this unhealthy responses to meditation retreats?
Is it clear why this happens?
Is there any way to minimize chances to get that wrong ?

In articles of Vipassana Research Institute it is kind of stated that the main source of this problems is that meditators have tried 'other traditions'. Is this a credible scientific answer?

Some references I found on the web:

Mental Health and Intensive Meditation Retreats
Meditation-Induced Psychosis
For Whom May Participation in Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program be Contraindicated?
Psychiatric Complications of Meditation Practice
Terrible and Traumatic Experience at Goenka Retreat This one is quite an informal blog. I have found that it is frequently cited.
The Potential Downside To Vipassana. Again, an informal blog.

Things can go wrong in meditation. Some of the are as follows:

If you are not equanimous, i.e., you are reacting to different situation thus creating negativity. This can accumulate to an extent this might be very dangerous.
The basis of your meditation is greed, hatred or delusion. There are some techniques where the basis is this hence can easily go wrong. You have to be very careful and have a teacher to guide you if you do this type of meditation. E.g. in Kasina meditation you develop some attachment to the device. This should be very subtle but incorrectly practicing this can lead to an imbalance. In foulness meditation if you practice too much you might become polar to the other end where you even dislike your self and attempt suicide. This has happened in Buddha's time also.
Meditation you are area of different fears and other phobias and you closely be aware of them. This can result in imbalance of the mind if you are not strong and steadfastly equanimous. This can start tipping you over to the wrong direction.
If you strive way too hard always mindful of your progress and what you achieve you are continuously creating negativity hence you can fall into depression and anxiety. You should always do meditation for without attachment to the outcome or progress. You have to be balanced and equanimous.
You are trying to concentrate too much. This leads to disappointment when you fail. You are then accumulating negativity.
Meditation brings new experiences and sensations. If you react to them will cause problems as you are creating negativity.
You should be mindful of any polarity you have (temperament) you have and be sure you stop a particular type of samatha meditation when you are neutral if you do samatha
You have be be extremely mindful of the 5 hindrances and defilements and further be mindful that no Tanha or Upadana is in play. Sometimes you might be inadvertently developing some of these. If this continues you will go out of control so make sure you are on track. E.g. if something you are doing meditation is making you irritated, if you do not notice it soon enough and make amends to properly practice this will become stronger and can lead to depression. If you have doubts you this will have proliferation of thinking and logic followed by restlessness.
You have to be equanimous when Sankara comes up. Meditation shakes up Sankara. This means if you have something like mild depression, the intensity of this will also increase, as more and more Sankara comes up. The plus side is sooner it passes away better you become as this will eventually pass away.
Also we have built in to our self some form of ego defence mechanisms. Letting go of ego or perception of I or self can also cause lot of trauma. Best is to stay put, being equanimous and without reacting as reacting will cause more conditioning.

What is needed to be done is (so things don't go wrong):

you have to always be equanimous
you have the right concentration and awareness, i.e., not based in a slightest trace of attachment, hate, delusion and always be mindful of the arising and passing of sensation with 1) not reaction (equanimous) 2) looking at the 3 marks of existence
stick to Sathipattana and Anapana if you do not have a well experienced teacher
alway be mightful where any negativity arises even in meditation, i.e., you reaction to sensation / feelings
sensation / feeling is as part of us (5 aggregates), it also appears in the 4 noble truths (dukkha is also a feeling), dependent origination, Satipatthana. If you do not give adequate emphasis to this then you might not be practicing the right type of awareness or concentration. (see: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna)

One VRI reference I found where other techniques were discouraged: My experiences with Goenkaji. Here what is discouraged is the practice of Mantra and Tantra in the same time as practicing Vipassana. Though statistical / clinical trials may have not been done to the extent of drug approvals, this perception may have been formed based on experience. So to avoid danger it is best to accept it at face value.

Also see:

The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Discourse Summaries
Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness
Answer https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3774/295 to question Are the results of positive Kamma good from a Buddhist's perspective or good from a "Samsaric's" perspective? (unrelated but might be of some insight)
What can go wrong in Mindfulness Therapy as used in Clinics? (Related question)


The kamma of silence and/or "not acting"? Aside of Silas there is the matter of kamma which includes always the mind.

What's the impact of acting "political correct" or "according to laws", Sila, while having unskilful intentions?

Whould breaking Silas be possible when mind is skilful adjusted?

May skilful acting look like unskilful?

What's the impact of your surpressing a honest answer, well considered, here, while possible having unskilful thoughts an reasons to act so? Or simply guided by not knowing, ignorance?

Of cause it could be that one is limited by circumstances or "forced" to "lie" to fulfill contracts, but what should then be actually given up, left behind?

(It's of less support to answer in manners of ultimate, because even not possible, and does not help in getting started with basics and home tasks, but are purely speculations of defilements: excuses to act proper and to investigate one mind and intentions honest.)

I think the Sangha primarily exists to maintain the Noble Dhamma in the world for those few who search for liberation from the world.

When the world becomes rotten to the core, such as the American and most governments, and when these governments become totalitarian (which is gradually occurring), for bhikkhus to criticize these governments may endanger the Sangha and the maintenance of the Dhamma.

Ultimately, the Dhamma is lokuttara. Ultimately, the Buddha did not arise in the world to teach about kamma, worldly sila or sīlabbata-parāmāsa.

'Kamma' is not actually a teaching of the Buddhas. The Buddhas teach
 the following:

  Bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what
  is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled,
  irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?

  ‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
  ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental
  examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is
  the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable
  and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.

  AN 3.61

'Kamma' teachings the Buddha said are defiled with attachment, as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other world.

  MN 117

Kamma is this world & the other world; where as Nibbana is not this world & not another world.


Sensual Desire and Guarding the Sense Doors Sensual desire is a hindrance and thus it should be avoided and preferably eliminated (though I'm highly skeptical whether something in the brain can really be "eliminated" regarding emotions - I doubt it.)

But we humans have all day long sensual desires. Let it be for food, bodily comfort, music (sound), art (sight), sex, etc.
So should we remove all of them (ideally)?

Also what is meant by sense restraint? I cannot really fathom it. I doubt that it means to go out with closed eyes and ears, haha.

Does it simply mean to avoid certain triggers? (which would answer the first question simultaneously)

Thanks in advance

Sensual desire is like feeling thirst for something (Pali tanha, Sanskrit trishna).

If you feel cold and decide to put some clothes on, normally it has nothing to do with sensual desire. It's a normal act of regulating something.

If you develop thirst to possess some special clothes, that is developing sensual desire. When you see those clothes, your hands might start to tremble, your breathing might become heavy - because of that thirst.

It shows that sensual desire is developed by our own mental activity - with the attitude of unhealthy longing for something - and it generates vexations.

In that sense we can speak about guarding the sense doors:

observing what we perceive,
observing to stay natural, not developing unwholesome desires,
observing to dissolve unwholesome desires if they are already developed.

So that discipline relates not to hiding from original stimuli, but to how we react to them. For example, monks don't avoid seeing women, but they avoid looking at them with sexual passion. That's how they guard the sense doors: not allowing the thieves of vexations to steal our natural mind.


Was ascetic Sumedha with iddhi powers? I have heard that in the birth where Gautama Bodhisathva met Deepankara Buddha, he had many powers but he didn't use it to prepare the road the Buddha was supposed to walk across but used his own effort. Where can I find further details of this story?

It is in Thupavamsa. I doubt if there's any online version of the translation.

The Pali version of Thupavams in the following link says, at the time the people were building the road, Sumedha was supposed to be flying in the sky. When he asked if he could also help, as people already knew that he had iddhi powers they gave him to construct a difficult part of the road.

  Te puna divase asadisa mahādānaṃ sajjetvā dasabalassa āgamana maggaṃ
  sodhenti. Tasmiṃ kāle sumedhatāpaso attano assama padato uggantvā
  rammanagaravāsīnaṃ tesaṃ manussānaṃ uparibhāgena ākāsena gacchantā te
  haṭṭhapahaṭṭhe maggaṃ sodhente disvā kinnu kho kāraṇanti cintento
  sabbesaṃ passantānaṃyeva ākāsato oru ekamante ṭhatthāyaha te manusse
  pucchi.’Hambho kassa pana imaṃ maggaṃ sodhethā’ti te āhaṃsu bhante
  sumedha tumhe kiṃ naṃ jānātha, dīpaṅkaro nāma satthā
  paramābhisambodhiṃ patvā pavattavara dhammacakko janapada cārikaṃ
  caramāno anukkamena amhākaṃ nagaraṃ patvā sudassana mahāvihāre
  paṭivasati. Mayaṃ taṃ bhagavantaṃ nimantayimha tassa bhagavato
  āgamanamaggaṃ sodhemāti. Taṃ sutvā sumedhapaṇḍito cintesi. Buddhoti
  kho panesa ghosopi dullabho, pageva buddhuppādo tena hi mayāpi imehi
  manussehi saddhiṃ dasabalassa āgamanamaggaṃ sodhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti so te
  manusse āha, sace bho tumhe imaṃ magga buddhassa sodhetha - sayahampi
  ekaṃ okāsaṃ sampaṭicchatvā ayaṃ sumedhapaṇḍito mahiddhiko
  mahānubhāvoti jānantā dubbisodhanaṃ udakasambhinnaṃ ativisamaṃ ekaṃ
  okāsaṃ sallakkhetvā imaṃ hakāsaṃ tumhe sodhetha. Alaṅkarothāti adaṃsu.

http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/e1202n.nrf0.xml


Does each person have a particular True Nature, according to Buddhism? I know that there is what is described as universal True Nature - aspects common to everyone. I know about Karma, which can be seen as how beings have tendencies even from birth (which otherwise has no explanation that I can see). This question is whether each person (regardless how you think they exist or not) has a particular set of characteristics that are theirs to express in living their full potential?

Buddhism is sometimes accused of being nihilistic in the way that it seems to leave no reason for people to function when they overcome ignorance and realize the truths. This is your chance to explain, using references, that no, every person is a valid and necessary part of the complex web of Experience, not just a wrinkle that escaped temporarily from The Void.

To the best of my knowledge Essentialism is not a part of any school of Buddhism. Essentialism deals with metaphysical essentialism, and is essentially on the opposite end of the spectrum from emptiness/sunyata, which might be refereed to by some as Metaphysical anti-realism. However I have not met many Buddhists that want to jump into that classification. Taoists love it though. The Buddhists will assert that there is an Ultimate truth, and so can never truely be metaphysical anti-realists. At least not in the most extreme case of the view. They do show some grey areas from time to time.

A quick dirty and brief summery of metaphysical anti-realism is that there is no "Truth"
but some views are more true than others. It is found in various places within eastern philosophy.

Also Buddhism is not nihilistic, never do they throw up their hands and say, nothing matters do whatever you want. The only term with nihilism in it that might come close to paralleling with the Buddhist worldview that I can think of is Mereological nihilism.


How to develop patience? I want to know how can I develop patience?
What Buddha said on this?
And also what is the reason of being impatient?

In my understanding, it comes back to a central Buddhist concept of "attachment".

We feel frustrated or angry, we get emotional about things, when we have a strong attachment or prejudice about how things are supposed to be.

These prejudices or preconceptions come from some strong experiences we have in childhood, or from some books we trust, people we highly respect etc. They also come from pain, when we did something and got in trouble. In most of these cases we have some basic formula in our head "this is bad" or "this is good" (why - because blah blah blah). And we are so convinced that this is correct, that we feel like we will never change our opinion in the entire life.

So when we see something or someone doing something that goes against this preconception or attachment, then we feel like they go against Truth (or the way we see it anyway). This makes us frustrated or angry or upset etc.

There are multiple ways to develop patience in Buddhism. On the basic level, we just try to calm down. We tell ourselves how bad it would be if we lose control and start yelling etc. But in my experience this does not work as soon as situation gets serious. We just forget everything and jump right back into emotion.

The next method is to be mindful of one's emotions on the body level. This way we can notice ourselves getting nervous far before it gets out of control. So if we develop feeling of presence of body, and always feel all tensions etc., we get this convenient weather indicator that can show a storm coming 5 days in advance (really maybe 5 minutes, but still good). It is much easier to fix e.g. a conversation that goes towards a scandal 5 minutes before it gets out of control, when things are still calm, but you feel it coming.

And then the most powerful method is to see the attachments or preconceptions that give rise to emotion - and learn to let them go. This is the most difficult, because it means you have to learn to see situation from another perspective, and to not assume that you are 100% right. This can be very difficult in the beginning. But at the end this ability makes you practically immune to all disturbances, 100% patient at all times. It is a very helpful feature to have in life.

My teacher said, enlightened person is like a lawyer. He or she sees every situation from all sides at the same time. This helps him to never lose patience and to make better decisions than anyone. The point is, Buddhist patience is not self-restraint and self-torture, it is freedom from single point of view, freedom from attachments.

P.S.

Same exact logic applies to impatience towards desirable objects. Attachment, preconception etc. - except in this case it's a preconception that the object is "good", usually based on some overgeneralization or idealisation. So the method Buddha prescribed for that is to analyze the object and see that it has negative sides and not only positive. This helps to let go of attachment and come back to patience and balance. All the same advice about being mindful of your body to sense the attachment getting out of control, applies here as well. In Buddhism desire and aversion are considered things of the same nature, one is positive and the other is negative but the principle is the same.


What is 'discriminating wisdom' in the early Buddhist texts? I have been discussing online whether there is a counterpart to the Greek idea of 'nous' (intellect) in the early Buddhist texts. The discussion was about discriminating between sensory experience and rational thought. I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy. Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties?
I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom. The word that came to mind was the Sanskrit 'viveka', for which I found the definition 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent.'
However, I'm not aware of much discussion of this in the texts. I'm wondering if there's any discussion in abhidharma texts of this distinction and the faculty of discriminative wisdom?

From MN 137 below, we read about the six sense media, one of which is the intellect or mind medium which senses ideas and thoughts.
From MN 137 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'The six internal sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the
nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the
intellect-medium. 'The six internal sense-media should be known':
thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium,
the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile-sensation-medium,
the idea-medium. 'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to thus was it said.

It further talks about eighteen explorations of the intellect, basically examining the six sensations for basis of pleasure, pain and neutrality. This includes the idea or thought sensations sensed by the intellect.

"'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus
was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via
the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness,
one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one
explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. Hearing a
sound via the ear ... Smelling an aroma via the nose ... Tasting a
flavor via the tongue ... Feeling a tactile sensation via the body ...
Cognizing an idea via the intellect, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores an idea that can act as
the basis for unhappiness, one explores an idea that can act as the
basis for equanimity. Thus there are six happiness-explorations, six
distress-explorations, and six equanimity-explorations. The eighteen
explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to this was it said.

Discussing "discrimination" specifically, there's AN 5.95 quoted below:
From AN 5.95 (translated by K. Nizamis):

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk
penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five?
Here, monks, a
monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who
has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained
discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of
the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the
mind as liberated.
When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a
monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.

The word "discrimination" here is paṭisambhidā. The translator's commentary states as follows. There are more commentaries on other terms in the link to the sutta.

Paṭisambhidā: formed from paṭi- + saṃ- + bhid, where paṭi + saṃ should probably be understood as 'back together', and the verbal root bhid means 'to break, split, sever'. Rhys Davids and Stede
propose that a literal rendering would be "resolving continuous
breaking up", and gloss this as 'analysis, analytic insight,
discriminating knowledge'; moreover, they associate it with the idea
of 'logical analysis' (Pali-English Dictionary, p. 400.2). Bhikkhu
Nyanatiloka similarly renders the term as 'analytical knowledge', but
also as 'discrimination' (Buddhist Dictionary, p. 137). Bhikkhu
Ñāṇamoli voices a divergent view in a note to his translation of in
Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, XIV.8, where he renders paṭisambhidā as
'discrimination':

Paṭisambhidā is usually rendered by 'analysis'... But the Tipiṭaka explanations of the four paṭisambhidā suggest no emphasis on analysis
rather than synthesis... 'Discrimination' has been chosen for
paṭisambhidā because, while it has the sense of 'division', it does
not imply an opposite process as 'analysis' does. Also it may be
questioned whether the four are well described as 'entirely logical':
'entirely epistemological' might perhaps be both less rigid and
nearer; for they seem to cover four interlocking fields, namely:
meanings of statements and effects of causes (etc.), statements of
meanings and causes of effects (etc.), language as restricted to
etymological rules of verbal expression, and clarity (or perspicuous
inspiration) in marshalling the other three. (The Path of
Purification, 5th ed., 1991, p. 804, n. 4)

In this translation, I have decided to follow Ñāṇamoli's rendering of
the term. Even so, 'discrimination' does not so clearly capture the
double sense of both 'taking apart' ('analysis') and 'combining
together' ('synthesis') that seems to be suggested by paṭisambhidā.
One kind of epistemological process which involves both of these
activities is 'classification', in which various things, even within a
given class or group (e.g., attha, 'meaning, result', dhamma,
'principle, cause', nirutti, 'language, means of expression'), are
divided and grouped according to their peculiar differences and
similarities with respect to one another. So, while each of the
paṭisambhidā is itself a classification of a kind of knowledge, it is
also possible that each one is also understood to be a kind of ability
to 'classify' correctly the elements belonging to the kind of
knowledge that falls into its scope.
In Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa (PTS Vism 438), presents a list of what
he considers to be twelve different kinds of paññā ('understanding',
'wisdom'); the set of catasso paṭisambhidā, 'four discriminations', is
the twelfth of these. He goes on to give an extensive discussion of
them (XIV.21-31, PTS Vism 440-443), which, although of interest, is
very much influenced by the Abhidhamma interpretation of the term:
Buddhaghosa begins by citing the definition of the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga
(Vibh 293), and then proceeds to follow the subsequent Vibhaṅga
discussion (XIV.24, Vism 441, citing Vibh 293-295). If Buddhaghosa was
indeed the author of the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (see note 8 below for
details), then his Abhidhamma-based account of the four paṭisambhidā
may well diverge from the original meaning of the term in the period
in which the Suttas evolved and were committed to memory. For the same
reasons, this is very probably also the case for many commentarial
interpretations of earlier Sutta concepts.

Just for comparison, Ven. Sujato's translation of AN 5.95 reads:

“Mendicants, a mendicant who has five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.
“Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhati.
What five?
Katamehi pañcahi?
It’s when a mendicant has attained the textual analysis of meaning,
text, terminology, and eloquence, and they review the extent of their
mind’s freedom.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu atthapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, dhammapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, niruttipaṭisambhidāpatto hoti,
paṭibhānapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, yathāvimuttaṁ cittaṁ paccavekkhati. A
mendicant who has these five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.” Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato
bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhatī”ti.


Mindfulness during walking meditation During walking meditation and day to day activity if sees the mind intention of doing something is earlier than that of bodily action. Is that mindfulness enough to generate right view in a person and disappearance of sakkaya ditti?

Very good question. :)

The answer is: Yes and no.
Yes, seeing intention before the doing is a great way of getting to see anatta in action (so to speak).

No, because I fear you won't be able to keep this up. Plus it's not necessary to go into that much detail.
Don't forget that every single action is preceded by intention. You really can't keep this up. Also, the mind is way, way faster than the body. You will miss a lot which is not a problem, but it could discourage you.

Here is a proposal of what you could do:

Day 1: Pay attention to the intention related to the change of posture. So, see if you can catch the intention to stand, to sit, to lie down or to walk.
This goes for daily life as well as walking meditation.

Day 2: Pay attention to the rising and falling of the abdomen in daily life.

Day 3: Pay attention to the four elements throughout the day.

You can create your own 'trainings schedule'. Point is that it should be doable for you, challenging but not too overwhelming so that it would be discouraging.
You can play with what you want to keep an eye on any given day. As long as it is in the realms of the four satipatthana. Then the mind will pick up the right knowledge and wisdom along the way.

In addition:
Don't forget to remind yourself. "Intention to sit, intention to sit, intention to sit"; "intention to walk, intention to walk, intention to walk"; "hard, hard, hard"; "soft, soft, soft"; "rising, falling; rising, falling"... and so on.
That reminding yourself is the sati-part of the practice (mindfulness).

Have fun! :)


Paths of Buddhism & Possibility of Compassion I have read about different types of paths for spiritual aspirants. Namely:

  Śrāvakayāna
  Pratyekabuddhayāna
  Bodhisattvayāna

Of the first, Asanga states their faculties are limited:

  "These people are described as having weak faculties [...]"

Of the second, he states they have medium faculties:

  "[T]hey are said to have medium faculties [...]"

Finally, he describes the bodhisattva as with sharp faculties. In the Sutra on the Ten Levels, it says the sravaka will have practised:

  [...] through fear of cyclic existence and without [great] compassion, [...]

I know that this is mainly a Mahayanist view. Nevertheless, my questions are :

(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?

(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even  at some later point?

I always feel guilty giving interpretative answers with no references, but since that's exactly what you seem to be asking here, here we go.

Sure, there are people of different skills and capacities. I wouldn't blame it on them, it's just a matter of circumstances, previous lives karma, old ignorance, we all were ignorant at some point.

But yeah, as my teacher explained, there are people who get it immediately, people who never seem to get it and just keep worshiping it as religion, and most of us in between, who get it with enough instructions and practice. As Buddha said, it is for this category that we teach.

Enlightenment is feasible in one lifetime if one makes it a priority and stays honest with oneself. I can't say some people are hopeless, that would not be fair. But yeah, for some it's more difficult, because of conceptual stereotypes, karmic inertia, or emotional blockages.

Traditionally, it is said that Buddhist path does not always result in awakening of compassion. Traditionally, you can be an isolated Buddha, who just can't stand the pain of engaging, and keeps to the peaceful abiding at all times.

However in practice, I just don't see how someone who really gets it can help but develop grand,  immense compassion for all sentient beings. So if you ask me, I'd say, if you're honest with yourself, compassion always arises. But then again, I'm a Mahayana guy, maybe it's my bias, maybe I should learn to feel less pity for everyone :))


Dogen writings on reality and death What is meant by body mind and the world is born simultaneously ...Buddha nature will never break apart. Do we die or is life eternal.

Buddha-Nature refers to the mind free from suffering or free from 'self-views'. Buddha-Nature is the pristine purity of clear-light-radiant mind.

'Death' does not occur to Buddha-Nature because Buddha-Nature does not have any ideas, thoughts or views of 'self'.

Try to realise the worries, fears & traumas about 'death' are all related to beliefs in 'self'.

When there is no belief in 'self', both internally & externally, there is no 'death'.

This is called 'The Deathless'.

  To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad
  things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well
  as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment
  remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

  Dogen

As for 'body & mind', these are just elements of nature that form the natural world. Dogen, above, emphasises dropping way the false idea that various bodies & minds are 'myself' & 'other selves'.


Buddha dealing with pain If enlightened beings aren't bothered by pain, why did occasions happen where Buddha was unable to give a lecture because the pain was so severe or when he had to meditate to lessen the pain he was feeling.

Surely if the pain truly didn't bother him, he could have just continued as normal without needing to do anything special.

Thanks.

Enlightened beings are not bothered by pain. But if you try to sit through severe back pain, it could lead to further complications. The body requires lying down to recover from back problems. So it's the sensible thing to do. When the Buddha is resting, he usually resides in the Jhanas. Even when the Buddha is not resting, it is said that he enters the Jhanas between every sentence he speaks.


Agitation during mindfulness tickling I was following an older thread, however I would love if someone could respond with an answer as to how I can handle the following situation.  This happens almost every time I do mindfulness.

As I sit in mindfulness I almost always get a tickling or tingling sensation from my clothing, whether its the bra or underwear etc. As I sit there I try to continue breathing in and out focusing on my anchor, but inevitably the sensation gets the best of me, I feel exasperated and do what I ned to do to relieve the sensation. I feel like I could burst from the agitation sometimes, and I have never been able to sit through the agitation long enough for it to go away, the agitation can persist for 10 plus minutes.

This could be the hindrance of Restlessness-worry which accompanies irritable tingling tingling sensations.

This is increased by not giving wise attention to it. That is to look at the sensation with equanimity noting that it arises and passes away.

  There is, bhikshus, the lack of mental calm (cetaso avupasamo). Frequently giving unwise attention
  to them is food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, and for the growth and abundance of arisen
  restless and worry.

  ...

  There is, bhikshus, mental calm (cetaso vūpasama). Frequently giving wise attention to them is not
  food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, nor for the growth and abundance of arisen restless
  and worry.

(Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta

The enlightenment facts to cultivate and not to cultivate are as follows:

  And should cultivate:When the mind is restless it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of the doctrine, energy and rapture, because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them.

  When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.

Aggi Sutta | The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest


Circular logic and Practice After many years of Buddhist considerations, I finally admit to myself that I fight a constant battle for certainty and self-gratification. I guess those encompass the three aspects of dukka well enough.
So with somewhat of a renewed determination to practice, I have searched this generous website (and elsewhere online) for "my" book and "my" practice, and possibly my path/teacher.
The circularity I mention in the title of this question refers to the acknowledgement that these self-placating enterprises stand in marked contrast to the work that need to be done.
Sometimes i the past, in going to a website I have wondered if the drop-down for "Reading List" might say none. And more farfetched, if the "Meditation Instructions" say: figure it out yourself; no one is coming to save you.
I'm open and appreciative to any comments, admonitions, and advice.
EDIT (In response to @Rain) How to practice? Or better yet, how to find a teacher or some context (book, maybe)? Hence the circularity, so as to be my own teacher and this does not lapse into lip-service.
With kind regards.

Sometimes i the past, in going to a website I have wondered if the
drop-down for "Reading List" might say none. And more farfetched, if
the "Meditation Instructions" say: figure it out yourself; no one is
coming to save you.

You're on to something here. No one is indeed coming to save you. When you truly get that, all hope falls by the wayside, and you are forced into the body where we see feelings and their causes: the mind. These are three of the four foundations of mindfulness: body, mind and feelings. The last one is truth or dhammas which comes about through unflagging persistence with the previous three. Crucially, we take a backwards step and learn to be in the body with all of its contractions, squirms and other whatnots. Our minds can throb and thrash like a fish out of water but various 'higher insights' are revealed along the way giving us encouragement.

“You should therefore cease from practice based on intellectual
understanding, pursuing words and following after speech, and learn
the backward step that turns your light inwardly to illuminate your
self. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original
face will be manifest. If you want to attain suchness you should
practice suchness without delay.”
Zen Master Dogen - Fukanzazengi


Beautiful Balloons for Buddha Can someone explain the tradition of releasing balloons with candles inside for Buddha? What is the meaning? Is it a Theravada or a Mahayana tradition? When and why people do it?

Through a search I've found use of releasing lanterns to be common in a few Buddhist areas that host both traditions. In Burma (Myanmar) there is the Tazaungdaing festival, which is celebrated as a national holiday and marks the end of the rainy season. It also marks the end of the Kathina, during which monks are offered new robes and alms.

Most of them sound like lay practice to me. Many countries traditionally celebrate with balloon lanterns.
Is there a specific festival you are referring to?


Any pantheist Buddhists? I know a lot of the Kyoto school were / have been defined as being as panentheists: but were there any pantheist Buddhists? And, has any comparative religion scholar defined it as pantheism?

Samuel Beal (1825-89), in his translation of the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha), has defined the Vaipulya stage of Northern Buddhism as a pure form of Pantheism:

Northern Buddhism, again, may be divided into two, if not three, distinct periods of development, or epochs.
...
Thirdly, the 'indefinitely expanded' form, known as Vaipulya, which is founded on the idea of a universal nature, to which all living things belong, and which, by recovering itself in each case, secures for the subject complete restoration to the one nature from which all living things have wandered. This is evidently a form of pure Pantheism, and denotes the period when the distinctive belief of Buddhism merged into later Brahmanism, if indeed it did not originate it.
Source: The Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha)

The following Sutras are commonly defined as Vaipalya Sutras:

The nine Dharma Paryaya texts are otherwise named vaipulya sūtra, because vaipulya literary means 'extensive'. Nine Dharma Paryāyas are generally enumerated as follows:
Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra
Saddharma-puṇdarīka-sūtra
Lalitavistara-sūtra
Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra / Saddharma-Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra
Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra
Kāraṇḍyavyūha-sūtra / Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra
Tathāgataguhyka-sūtra / Tathāgataguṇa-jñāna-sūtra
Samādhirāja-sūtra
Daśabhūmīśvara-sūtra.
Source

According to the Dictionary Of Chinese Buddhist Terms:

Vaipulya is extension, spaciousness, widespread, and this is the idea expressed both in 廣 broad, widespread, as opposed to narrow, restricted, and in 等 levelled up, equal everywhere, universal. These terms suggest the broadening of the basis of Buddhism, as is found in Mahāyāna. The Vaipulya works are styled sutras, for the broad doctrine of universalism, very different from the traditional account of his discourses, is put into the mouth of the Buddha in wider, or universal aspect.


Is jhana taught in Pure Land Buddhism? Most of the books I have read really don't cover the Pure Land segment. There is a local Pure Land group and I was wondering if they (Pure Land Buddhists in general) teach and practice jhana as part of the path to awakening?

Pure Land practice survived only in the Chinese lineage, for only the Chinese Canon has the totality of the Twelve Sections of the Sutras. The other lesser lineage has only one section of the Sutra (Sutta) with large portion missing, could be due to their lack of writing media relied only on oral memorizing. Example, Madhyama Āgama [Wikipedia has most of the articles on Buddhist topics written by Theravadin sympathizers with distorted accounts or misleading narrations] has 222 Sutras but the counterpart Pāli Majjhima Nikāya kept barely 152 Suttas. The Twelve Sections of Sutras such arrangement of all the Buddha's teachings were recorded in the Vinaya(s) recounting the historical event of the 500 Arhats collecting the Sutras:

Mahisasakas Pratimoksa

迦葉即問阿難言。佛在何處說增一經。在何處說增十經大因緣經僧祇陀經沙門果經梵動經 (Do these Sutras exist in the Pali Canon?? Anyone without bias knows the correct answer)。何等經因比丘說。何等經因比丘尼優婆塞優婆夷諸天子天女說。阿難皆隨佛說而答... 名雜阿含。此是從一法增至十一法。今集為一部名增一阿含。自餘雜說今集為一部。名為雜藏。合名為修多羅藏 (Sutra Treasure)。我等已集法竟。
(A Vinaya existed in Ceylon belonged to Mahīśāsaka School, collected by
Faxian (337-422CE). However, it's so unfortunate we found none this Vinaya existed in the Theravada Pali Canon, who self-claimed the oldest tradition or of the "Early School" - how does it relate to the old Sthavira apart from holding a name that meant "elder"?)

Sarvāstivāda Vinaya

三轉十二分法輪行 (Three turning of the Twelve Dharma Wheels)... 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。(The Twelve Dharma Wheels are the Twelve Sections of the Sutras, with Prajna Paramita as the 2nd Wheel, which reconfirmed if one read the Prajna Paramita Sutra in it said as the 2nd Wheel)

Dharmaguptaka Pratimoksa

大迦葉即問阿難言。梵動經在何處說。增一在何處說。增十在何處說... 如是生經本經善因緣經。方等經 (方等: Vaipulya, meant deep deep very profound teachings = Mahayana teachings, survived only in the Chinese Canon, one of the Twelve Sections) 未曾有經譬喻經。優婆提舍經句義經。法句經... 集為阿毘曇藏 (Collected as Abidharmas Treasure)... 時即集為三藏 (at that time there collected Three Treasures (Tripitaka))。

Tibetan Buddhism has practice based on Amitabha, and very high level of visualization meditation related to Amitabha (very few got such knowledge) - correct me if I missed something.
All cultivation the fruition must come through some form of Dhyana (Pali: Jhana), even dealing Koan the mind must be in a state of Dhyana so that the clarity of mind be obtained to see beyond the conceptual contriving.
Therefore the real Pure Land practice is a Dhyana practice, in short. However, I cannot know what you saw of that local group, since most of the real Buddhist practices are done in the wrong way the meanings are lost these days.
Pure Land the practice method is generally called 念佛 (Niànfó, Japanese: Nembutsu). The real meaning of this character 念, is remembering, or recollecting, even with a sense of missing (missing like missing someone dear to you, here the dear one is Buddha Amitabha, in simplicity). This remembering most common expression is by chanting the name. Chanting can be a loud chanting, or chanting for your own self to hear, or chanting in your heart silently. By this very method, the practitioner's thoughts (fetters) are abandoned, focusing only on ONE thought, that is Amitabha. He should chant and hear his own chant, he should "lose" himself, the chanter and chanting becomes one... This the most effective for modern man to achieve Dhyana, since human faculty in general is in declining cycle from the Buddha's time. Of course there are exceptions.
More sophisticated practice is related to visualization meditation, taught in  Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, of 16 scenes. Each of these scenes has profound effect, and meaning.
A related post is here. There are more important Sutras related to Pure Land, also the higher meanings, however it seems here to keep this simple is just right. Often time, Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) may incorporate Pure Land, or vice versa.

Who is Amitabha? For modern man who incapable of relating to immaterialistic existence this can be explaint neatly with modernized materialistic etymology, same as Avalokiteshvara, or Manjushri...


Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe? The Buddha knows everything in this universe via his mind alone. Can I do the same? I want to know what is inside a black hole.

Please consider having a better look at MN 63. Here's an excerpt which might be relevant for you:

  It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.


Taking care of the dying What advice did the Buddha give to laypeople or monastics about taking care of a dying loved one or anyone dying in their deathbed?

Please read "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill" by Lily de Silva.
All teachings from the suttas related to this topic are summarized in this essay.
Here's a quote from it.

The Sotapattisamyutta contains a valuable discourse on the question of
counseling the terminally ill (S.v,408). Once Mahanama the Sakyan
inquired from the Buddha how a wise layman should advise another wise
layman who is terminally ill. Here it should be noted that both the
counselor and the patient are wise lay Buddhists. The Buddha delivered
a whole discourse on how this should be done.
First, a wise layman should comfort a wise layman who is terminally
ill with the four assurances: "Be comforted friend, you have
unshakable confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, that the
Buddha is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed, and the
Sangha is well disciplined. You also have cultivated unblemished
virtuous conduct which is conducive to concentration."
Having thus comforted the patient with the four assurances, he should
ask him whether he has any longing for his parents. If he says yes, it
should be pointed out that death will certainly come whether he has
longing for his parents or not. Therefore it is better to give up the
longing.
Then, if he says he gives up his longing for his parents, he should be
asked whether he has longing for his wife and children. With the same
reasoning he should be persuaded to give up that longing too.
Then he should be asked if he has any longing for the pleasures of the
senses. If he says yes, he should be convinced that divine pleasures
are superior to human pleasures, and should be encouraged to aspire
for divine pleasures.
Then he should be gradually led up the scale of divine pleasures and
when he comes to the highest heaven of the sense sphere, his attention
should be diverted to the Brahma-world. If he says he has resolved on
the attainment of the Brahma-world, he should be admonished that even
the Brahma-world is characterized by impermanence and the rebirth
personality.
Therefore it is better to aspire for the cessation of the rebirth
personality. If he can establish his mind on the cessation of the
rebirth personality, then, the Buddha says, there is no difference
between him and the monk who is liberated.


Is there a contradiction in the translation of the Bhūmija Sutta? The Bhūmija Sutta in the Nidanasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya appears to be a very important sutta for the Sri Lankan Mahavihara & Buddhaghoṣa school that came to dominate south east Asian Buddhism. For example, it appears that from the Bhūmija Sutta comes the rationale for the translation of the Dependent Origination terms 'kāyasaṅkhāraṃ, vacīsaṅkhāraṃ & cittasaṅkhāraṃ' as 'volitional or kamma formations' despite these terms being explicitly defined in a different manner in MN 44.

(Of note, monks such as Buddhadasa, Nanavira, Nanananda & even a certain work by Thanissaro have used the MN 44 definitions in their explanations of Dependent Origination).

The Bhūmija Sutta appears to begin by stating the Buddha does not teach as the "proponents of kamma" do, namely, maintaining that happiness and suffering are done by oneself or by another.

Yet the common translations then appear to later show the Buddha explaining that:

  "...on one’s own initiative (sāmaṃ), Ānanda, one generates (abhisaṅkharoti) that bodily volitional formation (kāyasaṅkhāraṃ) conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise
  internally...."

More questionable is the different terms 'kāyasañcetanā' (as 'bodily volition') & 'kāyasaṅkhāraṃ' (as 'bodily volitional formation') appear to be translated in essentially the same way, as follows:

  Ānanda, when there is the body, because of bodily volition (kāyasañcetanā) pleasure and pain arise  internally...with ignorance as condition...Either on
  one’s own initiative, Ānanda one generates that bodily volitional
  formation (kāyasaṅkhāraṃ)...

Now it should be noted the suttas, such as AN 6.63, clearly state that: "volition is kamma" & conform with the start of the  Bhūmija Sutta by starting happiness & suffering are dependent on contact.

  "Intention (volition), I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & intellect....Contact is the cause by
  which kamma comes into play."

Therefore, is there a contradiction in the translation of the Bhūmija Sutta where the "proponents of kamma" are refuted yet essentially the same doctrine of 'self-generated-kamma' is translated as the doctrine of the Buddha?

There's no such contradiction. Karma can indeed be categorised as prompted and unprompted as in if it was instigated by another or not.

What's refuted here is a person or a third party being able to create pain, pleasure or neutral feelings at will. Feelings arise due to contact.

Ex: One cannot say "let there be pleasurable feeling at the ear" and make it arise, if there's no contact at the ear. Even if one performs the physical act of playing a song, if one is deaf, pleasurable hearing won't arise since there's no contact.


Appamāda - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits? In this video, Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu says that the whole of the Buddhist teachings could be summarized as Appamāda (heedfulness), at the risk of oversimplification.

In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN16), the Buddha conveyed the last message of his life:

  Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort
  you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by
  being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words.

According to the Appamāda Sutta (SN3.17):

  "There is one quality, great king, that keeps both kinds of benefit
  secure — benefits in this life & benefits in lives to come."

  "But what, lord, is that one quality...?"

  "Heedfulness, great king. Just as the footprints of all living
  beings with legs can be encompassed by the footprint of the elephant,
  and the elephant's footprint is declared to be supreme among them in
  terms of its great size; in the same way, heedfulness is the one
  quality that keeps both kinds of benefit secure — benefits in this
  life & benefits in lives to come."

Questions:

What really is Appamāda (heedfulness)?
How does one practise Appamāda (heedfulness)?
What are the benefits of Appamāda (heedfulness)?
Why is this one of the most important concepts in Buddhism, that the Buddha chose this to be his last message?
What is the relationship between Appamāda (heedfulness) and mindfulness? This answer equates the two.

Pamada is a condition of a happily misbehaving child or a drunken person enjoying oneself too much. A type of silly joyful carelessness that assumes no concern or responsibility for results of one's actions. There are many translations of this word - laxity, sloppiness, but the one I find particularly insightful is "indulging".

Appamada then is a sober, grownup, calculated attitude to things. A grownup may relax a little, but never loses sight of what results will the actions bring. Hence the usual translation, heedfulness, or my preferrence -  "sobriety".

One metaphor Buddhism uses a lot is that of intoxication. The three basic intoxicants of desire/obsession, negativity, and confusion/delusion cause the state of pamada, when one acts without proper regard for the consequences.

The practice of Appamada is certainly related to mindfulness, remaining aware and remembering the teaching at all times, but here the emphasis is on karma, or action and its expected result. Not only the physical action of course, but mental activity as well, including upadana, or fueling certain thoughts by giving them attention. We can either indulge in harmful thoughts uncontrollably, further fueling our intoxication, or be deliberate about our thinking, which leads to cessation of suffering. This last application of appamada can't be emphasized enough.

Appamada means always staying in planned, deliberate, results-oriented frame of reference, as opposed to merely acting out one's emotions and impulses. Every time before we think or say or do something, we ask ourselves, what will this achieve?

So that's one aspect, always being deliberate, and the other aspect is not letting oneself get intoxicated. We get intoxicated every time we get aroused by the scent of an external source of joy, or by a particularly inspiring form of negativity. We get excited off balance by the thought of either reward or righteous anger. If we let ourselves get emotionally intoxicated all the time, we practically never spend time being emotionally sober, which makes us mentally weak. Instead, staying sober and collected requires a certain kind of strength and will power. In a way, you always keep your spine straight, your feet on the ground, your eyes open, your mouth shut. That's appamada, sobriety.


Buddha's relation to Hinduism Q:

  Did the Buddha copy Hinduism and add his own stuff? Why is Buddhism
  connected to thoughts in Hinduism if he didn't do so?

'Hinduism' did not exist when the Buddha was alive, as follows from Wikipedia:

  This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300
  CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 to 500 BCE), and
  flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in
  India

  Wkipedia: Hinduism

When Buddha was alive, the religion of the Brahmin priests we call 'Brahmanism', which was far more limited in scope than Hinduism, per the stock description from the Pali suttas below:

  Now at that time the brahmin...had mastered the Three Vedas, together
  with their vocabularies, ritual, phonology and etymology and the
  testament as fifth. He knew philology and grammar, and was well versed
  in cosmology and the marks of a great man.

  MN 91

The Three Vedas are explained in Wikipedia as follows:

  The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold (turīya) viz.,

  Rigveda (RV)
  Yajurveda (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
  Samaveda (SV)
  Atharvaveda (AV)

  Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also
  called "trayī vidyā"; that is, "the triple science" of reciting hymns
  (Rigveda), performing sacrifices (Yajurveda) and chanting songs
  (Samaveda). The Rigveda is the oldest work, which Witzel
  states are probably from the period of 1900 to 1100 BCE. Witzel, also
  notes that it is the Vedic period itself, where incipient lists divide
  the Vedic texts into three (trayī) or four branches: Rig, Yajur, Sama
  and Atharva

  Wiki

If you read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, there was no Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism, as inferred by Wikipedia (in the 1st quote above), probably copied from Buddhism.

For example (while I am happy to be corrected), I do not recall reading in the Pali suttas any detailed discussion/debate between the Brahmins & the Buddha about respective theories/doctrines of karma & reincarnation. In the little I researched, I found no systematic doctrine of karma & reincarnation in the Three Vedas. Even when I browsed some later 'Upanishads', I found no mature systematic doctrine about karma & reincarnation (apart from the ideas of one certain individual philosopher).

Again, if we read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, we find the Brahmins were similar to the Hebrews (and probably many other tribal groups), where their belief system was about how they were 'God's chosen people' or 'born from Brahma's mouth/breath' (while the other castes were born from lesser parts of Brahma's body).

Some useful links from Sutta Central, with lots of links, books & research, are:

The early Upanishads: a nice introduction to the pre-Buddhist tradition
Rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahman Vedas

Note: While the Pali suttas never mention the 'Upanishads', the reincarnation orientated leader of Sutta Central, namely, Bhikkhu Sujato, appears intent to follow conventional historians rather than follow the Pali suttas, in his efforts to back-date the Upanishads to prior to Buddhism. If we place our trust in the Pali suttas, we find what existed prior to the Buddha was the Three Vedas & their accompaniments.

An answer about this topic by Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo is here: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

Lastly, if you wish to be a real Buddhist, it is not possible to believe the Buddha copied any of his core teachings from Brahmanism/Hinduism because the suttas say what the Buddha taught he "never heard before". "A Buddha" cannot copy other doctrines otherwise he/she cannot be called "A Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha" ("Sammasambuddha").

  'Arising, arising!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light.

  'Cessation, cessation!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light."

  SN 12.10

  Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:

  Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta


Why are there so many fire incidents happening around the world? Recently there was fire in Australia and before that there was fire in USA.
In India fire incidents keep happening.

My question is given the fact fire is a natural element, what causes such fire disasters?

Cosmic order is governed by the 5 Niyama Dhamma:

utu-niyāma “the constraint of the seasons”, i.e. in certain regions of the earth at certain periods the flowering and fruiting of trees all at one time (ekappahāreneva), the blowing or ceasing of wind, the degree of the heat of the sun, the amount of rain-fall, some flowers like the lotuses opening during the day and closing at night and so on;

bīja-niyāma “the constraint of seeds or germs”, i.e. a seed producing its own kind as barley seed produces barley;

kammaniyāma “the constraint of kamma”, i.e. good actions produce good results and bad actions produce bad results. This constraint is said to be epitomised by [Dhammapada] verse 127 which explains that the consequences of actions are inescapable;

citta-niyāma “the constraint of mind”, i.e. the order of the process of mind-activities as the preceding thought-moment causing and conditioning the succeeding one in a cause and effect relation;

dhamma-niyāma “the constraint of dhammas”, i.e. such events like the quaking of the ten thousand world-systems at the Bodhisatta’s conception in his mother’s womb and at his birth. At the end of the discussion Sumaṅgalavilāsinī passage the Commentary says that dhammaniyāma explains the term dhammatā in the text of the Mahāpadāna Sutta (D ii.12) (Cf. S 12.20 for a discussion of the use of the word dhammaniyamatā in the suttas)

Bush and forest fires generally happen due to dry weather which is utu-niyāma.


Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana? Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana?

See e.g. the heart sutra

  No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also
  no attainment with nothing to attain.

The teachings that describe how there is nothing to attain can easily be misleading. I think, the answer to your question is twofold.

Nirvana is not something that can be attained. This is simply because when you experience the highest truths, you realize that there is no self.
Since there is no self, there is no one present to attain anything.

For the illusory self who has not yet experience enlightenment, it appears as if there is a path to walk. It begins as soon as you choose to learn who you are. The illusory self will learn things and practice meditation. Then, the illusory self will see itself as a farce.

Do not get caught up in the trap that some do when reading these quotes. The Buddha very specifically tailored his teachings to the level of understanding those listening had. These quotes are not useful for people who are still experiencing suffering. They are an arahants understandings, meant for other enlightened beings. They are very easy to be misunderstood.

Someone commented on your post and said something id like to clarify. When it is said "Realizing there is no learning then all the learning is completed", what is being referred to is not the path of the illusory self, but what occurs once enlightenment occurs. If you still believe you are this and not that, there is still more to learn. If you still feel suffering, there is still more to learn.

The bottom line is, be careful while reading some of these teachings. Know who they were meant for, because although they may be true from a perspective that holds specific knowledge, that may not be the readers perspective.


Why do Buddhists have children? In Buddhism they teach that life is suffering, that it's all about pain (which is true) and that you should try your best to achieve Nirvana and become someone who won't have any more rebirths. This is something that I've learnt since I was young. So I was wondering, if parents love their child, why do they decide to have a child? I mean Buddhist parents. Now think about it. If parents know life is about suffering and pain and it's not the best thing why would they want it for their child? I mean seriously, if they really love their child and they are pure Buddhists, according to Buddhism they should not feel the need to have a child because that will cause the child to experience all the pains, etc. So as a mother or father, who wants their child to be in pain? I just don't understand, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a Theravada Buddhist.

I think you mix up pain with suffering.
Pain is something that happens. Suffering you do to yourself, a second arrow

And from what I understand Buddhists view being born human to be lucky, as you get the chance to have influence on your own fate. You can get the chance to hear about and perhaps understand the Four Noble Truths and start following the Eightfold Path that leads to an end of suffering (but not pain(1)). And perhaps even an escape to the cycle of rebirth.

So Buddhists don't really have a reason to not have children.

(1)Be happy, you have done the first steps.


Why our mind always live in habits? Why we are always making new habits? What will happen if habits are not formed? QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?

QN 2: We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all.

Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits.

I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it.

Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits?

  Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

OP: QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?

The answer for this is given in MN 19:

  “Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon,
  that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently
  thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the
  thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation,
  and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he
  frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will…upon
  thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to
  cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to
  thoughts of non-cruelty.

The inclination of one's mind translates to habits in thoughts and actions.

  OP: Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in
  habits?

This is because we have the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) as found in AN 7.11 (or from here):

  "Monks, there are these seven obsessions. Which seven?

  "(1) The obsession of sensual passion (or sensual desire).
  "(2) The obsession of resistance (repulsion).
  "(3) The obsession of views.
  "(4) The obsession of uncertainty (doubt).
  "(5) The obsession of conceit.
  "(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.
  "(7) The obsession of ignorance.

  "These are the seven obsessions."

Forming habits of sensual enjoyment e.g. sex , coffee, desserts etc. is due to the obsession of sensual passion.

Forming habits of self-improvement e.g. reading, fitness etc. is due to the obsession of passion for becoming.

According to this answer, the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) are a type of defilement (kilesa) or mental impurity that is caused by ignorance (avijja) in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).


What are the Four Noble Truths? What are they?  Where are they found in the literature?  Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

Here is a version from the Triratna site

All existence is dukkha
The cause of dukkha is craving
The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving
There is a path that leads from dukkha - (The path most commonly associated with this is the eightfold path).

Dukkha is commonly translated as suffering but the translation that I find more useful is unsatisfactoriness. The original meaning comes from an ill fitting chariot wheel. A bumpy ride if you will.

The formulation is related to a medical diagnosis e.g.

The illness
The etiology (cause)
The prognosis
The cure

As far as I am aware the 4 Noble Truths are a central teaching in Buddhism perhaps comparable to the divinity of Christ for Christian's (controversial comparison maybe). I have not heard of any significant variations. I would be very interested to hear if they were any.


Does Samadhi realm of desire require single-pointed focus? I read there are 3 realms of samadhi: realm of desire, realm of form and realm of no form.

If I read correctly, Samadhi is one-pointed focus. But if I achieve samadhi by, let's say, the desire to win a sports game: I'm locked in, well doesn't my mind have to be focused on many aspects? There isn't a single-pointed focus, of having only one object like a kasina, in mind. Same for form.  Can one still achieve one-pointed focus with multiple things in mind, if he is only focused on them and nothing else? Can I still reach happiness and the other jhana factors?

There are no 3 realms of Samadhi(Jhana). The jhanas have nothing to do with sensual desire. First four jhanas lead to birth in fine material realms. The last four lead to immaterial realms. One-pointeness by definition is pointed at one object. At that moment all sensual desires are subdued.

But it is possible to get in and out of the Jhanic  states quickly if you master them. ex: It is said that the Buddha enters the Jhanas between each word he speaks while maintaining a normal speaking speed.


Can Buddhist accept prayers from other religions? Subject refers, can a Buddhist accepts prayer from other religion say Muslim or Christian? I understand the answer is yes.

We do not pray for religion. We pray for people. People of all kinds. No discrimination. If Christian or Hindu or Muslim prays for us then we should accept it gratefully...


Where is the mind referred to as being luminous? I recall the natural state of mind being referred to as luminous somewhere in Buddhist canonical texts. I've always been very taken with that imaginary. I'm sure it's quite a common image in the texts but can anyone give me one or two examples of it. Also is this concept/image linked to the notion of Buddha Nature in some way?

The earliest reference is from the Pali Tipitaka, AN 5.49-50:

49. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhan”ti.
50. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi vippamuttan”ti.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed by those invading defilements it is defiled.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed from those invading defilements it is released.


As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right? As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right?

If it is not right to say so, how right or wrong is it to assume that?

Myself as a "traditional Buddhist" from Myanmar, I find it pretty disturbing to see Buddhists here having blindfolded faith in Buddhism and every act of monks and religious leaders.

Above question might also relate to this question: as a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyse if your thoughts or actions are right, without having much knowledge about Dhamma (Dharma)?

As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right?

I assume that "right" might have any of several different meanings:

A correct or truthful, beneficial, description of the world and its processes
Noble, or ariya
Better than other people or beliefs

The first ("truthful, beneficial") is a broad subject:

See the Kalama Sutta for example -- if Buddhism consists of doctrine which you know yourself to be true (sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, opanayiko), praised by the wise, it's hard to see how that could be wrong
It's a broad doctrine -- being prosperous, prudent, and kind if you're a layperson, perhaps other ambitions (including nibbida) if you're ordained -- it's so broad and detailed that it's difficult to understand, or it may even sometimes seem self-contradictory in places, or consisting of truisms (e.g. "do what is skillful and don't do what leads to suffering")
Whether you believe it's right, emotionally feel it's right, may depend on finding and seizing a specific aspect of it -- for example, "yes, Buddhism really speaks to me about dukkha, it's got that right"; or, "yes, Buddhism is really kind and harmless, isn't it, that's something I can really admire"; or, "yes, the Buddha is definitely the best person I've ever heard of" -- but some people don't see everything as dukkha, some people might see pacifism as some un-energetic failure, etc., so (for whatever reason, maybe many reasons) it doesn't seem right to them
It's arguably unreal unless it's actually practised -- it exists in the mind of the beholder, and (perhaps like Mathematics) it's kind of meaningless (even if other people find it predictive) when you're not mindful of it.

The second ("noble or ariya") I've not much to say about -- bits of Buddhism or doctrine are ariya by its own definition.

The third ("better than others") is difficult to generalise about. I expect stream-winners have a clear view of what Buddhism is (before that it's difficult to be sure of what you're talking about). According to this answer, making comparisons is a form of "conceit", and only a stream-winner will only give rise to true conceit i.e. true comparisons.

If it is not right to say so, how right or wrong is it to assume that?

I think you're asking, "If it's wrong to say so is it alright to assume it?"

Firstly I think that whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend on whether you say so.

Still there may be circumstances (perhaps when you're working with someone, and therefore busy with something else, or not wanting to proselytise  when that's not welcome) when it's inappropriate to say so.

If it is wrong to say so, it may be wrong to assume it.

And according to some doctrine -- e.g. Paramatthaka Sutta (SN 4.5) -- I think that views themselves, attachment to views, seeing a view as supreme, is itself a kind of fetter.

Myself as a "traditional Buddhist" from Myanmar, I find it pretty disturbing to see Buddhists here having blindfolded faith in Buddhism and every act of monks and religious leaders.

I guess that's so, yes. Living in the West, here, I haven't seen many monks in person, nor acting as leaders -- and I haven't seen any who seem to be misbehaving -- but I do see news, sometimes, interviews, where a monk seems to be quite hostile for example, which I find strange -- like a lot of news though that might be exceptional, news tends to report on what's scandalous rather than on what's normal, which can lead to a false (or extremist) impression.

I did read a booklet called The Broken Buddha once, so I hope I don't have a false (over-idealised and blindfold) view of modern society.

  This book, Broken Buddha, although critical of much of what goes on in some Sanghas, could help provide some valuable information for some aspiring monks so that there are no unreasonable expectations.

I suppose some people might say that Buddhism is in decline, or perhaps was even lost after the first few hundred years -- I don't think so, I suppose that even at the time (which the suttas talk about) there was a variety of people.

Still, I like reading, too, to understand what the ideals are.

as a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyse if your thoughts or actions are right, without having much knowledge about Dhamma (Dharma)?

I think that maybe, without a knowledge of the Dhamma, you can't (determine whether your thoughts are right and wrong) -- that's a reason why you might (or should) want to know more about Dhamma.

People have recommended several books (e.g. here and here and here).
There are suttas (each is shorter than a book)
There's the Dhammapada (each verse is shorter than a sutta).

There are some rules of thumb, for example ...

  All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

... so you might try to avoid doing anything with "a mind of hate", for example, e.g. motivated by revenge.

Apart from literature, people recommend you practice (actions, e.g. generosity and ethical behaviour; and meditation); and that you should have "good friends".

There's two little bits I find helpful, to "know what's right without having much knowledge about Dhamma".

One is that some of the suttas conclude with the Buddha's saying, "Both formerly and now, what I teach is dukkha and its cessation."

There's a children's game where you have to guess where some object is, that someone else is thinking of -- so you walk around, and as you do they say "you're getting colder" if you're moving away from the object, and "you're getting warmer (or hotter)" when you move towards it ... until eventually you put your hand on it.

Similarly if what you're doing is increasing dukkha then maybe that's not right, conversely if it tends toward cessation (of dukkha, of craving, and attachments) that may be closer to what the Buddhism of the Pali canon has in mind.
The second bit of doctrine that I think it's helpful to know about or keep in mind are the Brahmaviharas:

  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.

  The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind...


How does Ajita Kesakambali compare to the Buddha? DN 2 states:

  When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, 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
  other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
  brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
  proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
  realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
  elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
  the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
  the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
  external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
  external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
  men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
  sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
  pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
  idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
  false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
  foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
  death.'

Ajita Kesakambali is similar to another wrong view, found in DN 1, namely:

  Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Now the Buddha taught extensively about the elements, such as in MN 115 & MN 140.

Or in MN 43, Sariputta mentions how the sense faculties are scattered at the termination of life, as follows:

  Yvāyaṃ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhāniruddha paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā
  paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni
  paribhinnāni.

  In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications
  ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is
  exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.

How do the teachings of Ajita Kesakambali & other annihilationists compare to those of the Buddha? What makes them different?

his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided

This refers to the mental activity in this body. It doesn't mean that there's no next life after death, unless we are talking about an Arahanth. This is why having a good teacher is important. If someone with materialistic views try to interpret this sutta by himself, he might conclude that it all ends after death.


Feeling guilty of something I did First of all, I am not sure whether I am posting in the right forum. My apologies if this is not the right place.

I recently went to a restaurant and when I ordered dessert, I found a mosquito inside the bowl of the ice-cream. I asked waiter and he apologized right away and replaced it. In the suggestion book even though my family said not to write, I ignored them and wrote my complaint in anger that "I found a mosquito in my dessert." And the manager was reading that book. The waiter apologized again while I was leaving and he meant every word he said. I could feel it. Now, I am feeling guilty that I should not have written my complaint. I am worried that the manager might fire the poor guy or deduct some money from his salary.
I want to know whether I did the right thing or I shouldn't have written about it in the book? I am very disturbed thinking about the incident.

Getting angry is certainly wrong. If this is the first time it has happened to you in that restaurant, a verbal complaint would've been enough. Waiter apologizing and replacing the ice-cream is a clear indication that he took it seriously. Written complaints are usually used for intentional errors or when they don't take you seriously after complaining.

To deal with your sadness, do Vedananupassana: Note the sadness as sad... sad... sad...

To deal with regret, do Cittanupassana & Dhammanupassana: thinking... thinking...  regretting... regretting...


Buddhism view regarding happiness and contentment The original teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the satipatthana sutta, centres mainly in the development of an equanimity state of mind. Not driven by desire, greed or delusion. My question is what is the view of Buddhism (referring to the original teachings of the Buddha in particular) in terms of happiness and contentment not driven by the hindrances?

This sort of happiness is certainly recognized by the Buddha; it is encouraged in many places as being conducive to concentration, e.g.:

2.“I thought: ‘Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?’ I thought: ‘I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

In final analysis, however, it must be discarded as useless - unstable, unsatisfying and uncontrollable:

(i) “And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of feelings? Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
33–35.“Again, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…With the fading away as well of rapture…he enters upon and abides in the third jhāna…With the abandoning of pleasure and pain he enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna…On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
36.(ii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the danger in the case of feelings? Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change. This is the danger in the case of feelings.
37.(iii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the escape in the case of feelings? It is the removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for feelings. This is the escape in the case of feelings.
-- MN 13 (Bodhi, trans)


How to overcome fear for lost of opportunity? I get fear when I'm trying to choose something over buddhist teaching.

Listening to Dhamma instead of studying something else
Reject a job offer to get some free time
Not having relationship (with a person who have great qualities) because it increases clinging, lust etc. and it causes suffering

My doubt is that those opportunities may help my journey to enlightenment.

Having a good job may make free time later
Good person may help me to understand buddhism more.

So, How can I decide what to give up and what not to give up ? Prince Siddhartha gave up lot of great things. (Kindom, Wife, Parents). But I don't have such a great mind like him. I have ignorence. So how to overcome this fear? Did Lord Buddha mention these kind of situations in his teachings?

In Buddhism, you can choose to be a lay follower, who observes the five precepts and the non-noble version of the path (which has defilements remaining) as a lay person, or you can follow the Noble Eightfold Path of a monk who renounces the worldly life.
If you choose to be a lay follower, then you obviously need a source of income and you can choose to have a life partner - in both cases, subject to the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. You may also need to spend some time learning non-Dhamma knowledge that may help your worldly life. To feel guilty or remorse for any of that is not skillful.
Please read this answer to "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?". That should remove your doubts about the lay follower path. Also in this answer, you can see that lay followers are told to set aside some time for meditation. Also please read this answer to "Is it “bad” to want a “materialistic” happiness?"
So, you should make your choice of being a lay follower or a renunciate, and follow the path laid out, without feeling guilty or remorse. You can also change your mind later. But don't choose to remain a lay follower and feel conflicted about it - that's unskillful.