Mindful meditation, problems with anger. Where do I find other Buddhist for learning support? I consider myself new to being a Buddhist. I've been practicing mindfulness for the past two and a half years . Most of what I have learned and what seems practical are teaching from books written by Thich nhat hanh .

I've had much success dealing with anxiety. Lately though I've been unable calm my anger and it seems to be getting worst not better. No matter how much I focus on breathing.

I live near Vancouver BC, Canada. How do I find other Buddhists or teachers for support? Something in line with Thich nhat hanh's books.

The 2 components to this:

the 1st case that made you angry
what kept you rolling in anger

Initially when some unwanted thing happens you get angry. The subject of anger can be towards a person of situation you are in. The 1st the initial experience cases your 1st unpleasantness (i.e., you get angry) and then subsequently through proliferation or thinking and pondering on the experience, how you could have handled it, how you would retaliate, etc. keep you in misery or sustains the unpleasantness (in this case your anger).

If you are angry or unpleasant due to what someone has done then you keep rolling in anger when you think "x did y to me". Here you have a notion of a doer and you the receiver or experiencer or some other association. When it is a situation you still may have the self identification as experiencer or receiver or some other association with the situation.

Now this can be due to your Karma and also the experience of what was done maybe in the past. Dwelling on this makes anger into feud if it is to do with a person. Contemplating this as past Karma, disidentification of the action from the identity of self as oneself and the other person or people, contemplating that situation will not last for even and subjected to change, also contemplating that there is no entry who did this and no entity who experienced this and whoever perceive has the doer has changed and no more and whoever you perceive as the experiencer has also changed and no more, etc. can help reduce this. Here the remedy is at rectifying the perceptional or the view which cases anger to arise.

At a more advance stage you can contemplate on the sensation this bring. You have a Perceived ideal as in how you should be treated or an ideal situation you should be in which what you experience deviates from then this results in unpleasantness. Similarly for when a pleasant situation or treatment changes and finally when you are in a situation or treatment which you do not evaluate positively or negative hence which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Though this you study the full sphere of sensation (vedana) or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). This is more or a permanent solution whereby you eradicate the roots which case this type of unpleasantness and your bondage to becoming which can cause future experiences of such nature.

This is easy said than done for and also influenced by personal temperament.


Perception of light - a twist in the Bhaya Bherava sutta? In the Bhaya Bherava Sutta MN 4 translated by Bhikkhu Tannissaro this is stated as said by the Buddha.

"There are some brahmans & contemplatives, brahman, who have the perception of 'day' when it is night, and of 'night' when it is day. This, I tell you, is their being in a dwelling of delusion. As for me, I have the perception of 'day' when it is day, and of 'night' when it is night..."

However in the Capala Sutta A 7.58 and several other suttas the Buddha encourages meditators to develop the perception of light so that one "dwells by night as by day, and by day as by night."

How are we to reconcile these two statements?

There is a famous quote in the ancient Hindu tradition, "what's day for the worldly is night for the sage" - meaning, the worldly and the spiritual people have the diametrically opposite sets of values, what's considered good by one is considered bad by the other:

  What everyone considers night is wakefulness for the renunciate, and that in which all are wakefull is seen as night by the wise sage (BG 2.69).

The quote in Bhaya Bherava Sutta is a sarcastic joke on Buddha's part:

  There are some brahmanas-shramanas, oh brahman, who see the day in night, and night in day. This, I tell you, is their delusion. As for me, I see the day in day, and night in night.

What Buddha says here is that his teaching, the True Dharma, actually reconciles the two value systems and demonstrates how ethical and skillful action, sensual restraint, concentration, emotional intelligence, and wisdom - are the path to positive outcome for both the worldly as well as spiritually motivated people.

The quote in Capala Sutta A 7.58 is simply a casual reference to the serious meditator's preference to spend the nights in restful vigil, while spending days in meditation (SN 51.20):

  "And how does a monk dwell by night as by day, and by day as by night? There is the case where a monk at night develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by day, and by day he develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by night. This is how a monk dwells by night as by day, and by day as by night.


What do we know about the historic Padmasambhava? I had heard Padmasambhava referred to as a semi-mythic figure. Some of his reputed activities would fit a mythic character. However to what extent is he also a historical figure. What do we know about the historic as opposed to mythic Padmasambhava and what if any historic sources do we have about him and his activities.

The Tibetans think of Padmasambhava as the second most important person for their lineage.

http://www.dharmafellowship.org/biographies/historicalsaints/lord-padmasambhava.htm

Here is a sample from the link above - more is available for your reading or study

  There is no doubt in the mind of every practitioner of Tibetan
  Buddhism that the second most unique and extraordinary exemplar of our
  whole lineage after Pramodavajra himself, was the powerful Lord
  Padmasambhava, the Wisdom Master who was chiefly instrumental in
  bringing the tradition to Tibet. Known as the Lotus Guru (padma-guru),
  the Saint Lama (guru Rinpoche) of Tibet, and as a "second Buddha",
  Padmasambhava1 shines with the incomparable brightness of the morning
  star in the world's firmament of stellar saints. Long before he was
  born, mystics and prophets were signaling his advent. During his life
  he drew the respect and veneration of kings and emperors and after his
  death the multitude made his memory into an imperishable icon of the
  Absolute.

The history offered is extensive so will let this quote be the introduction to a very long web page.


Are we born on this Earth because of our personal kamma? I read the following words on the internet:

  A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant. The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.

These words appear to say it was a personal act of kamma of a person that resulted in life or the five aggregates to come into being; similar to how the Bible describes an act of God that lead to the creation of the physical world, life & the social world.

Why were we physically born? Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this? If so, how did this self or person who makes a choice come into being before there was kamma? Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma? Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken? Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?

In case you're interested the way I see it is that something is born -- something physical, biological -- e.g. starting at conception with sperm and ovum etc.

That causes a blastocyst and so on -- which I doubt is a "sentient" being yet, though what do I know?

After (physical) birth the infant develops (psychologically), maybe acquires a sense of "Mum" and "Me" and "Dad" and "Food" and "Cold" and "wet" and so on and so on.

I suspect that ability to distinguish "self" results of acting semi-autonomously (e.g. "if 'I' start to cry, then Mum arrives") -- eventually the whole DO cycle, e.g. "I've learned I prefer the feelings associated with Mum being here, maybe feelings of needs (and eventually "cravings") satisfied, therefore I want Mum to arrive, therefore I intend to cry".

People (on this site) interpret "birth" and bhava and so in different ways, but I think that this (above) is at least one or two of those ways (i.e. physical birth plus the arising of a self-view or conceit, plus kamma as an intentional action, resulting from previously acquired/stored/interpreted/associative experience).

This is further complicated by two factors:

This answer associates a self (i.e. "I" or "we") e.g. with physical form, a body (which anatta may suggest is a wrong view and/or well worth unlearning)
There's more to a person (and a person receives more from their parents) than just DNA -- also food, a formal education, all informal experiences -- and not only from "parents" but from teachers, friends, the world -- and from "themselves" i.e. people are shaped by "their own intentions/actions"

Why were we physically born?

That's biology, isn't it? So e.g. "ask your Mum and Dad" about that?

Or do you mean, "why do 'we' associate 'me' with 'this body' or 'our body'"? In which case, I don't know, I think there was a metaphor in a sutta of "a dog, tied to a stake"...

Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this?

I think it's better not to blame other people -- e.g. "you made me like this, you made me do this, it's your fault that I exist" and so on.

Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma?

So far as I know, the text says that "people inherit their own kamma".

Also I think the Dependent Origination is taught as a (repeating) cycle, a.k.a. "the wheel of life".

Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken?

It's "a beginning is not evident", isn't it?

Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?

Well ... indirectly? Perhaps?

There are personal reasons, but I don't know that I can attribute those (project them onto) "many Buddhists".

That kind of doctrine (vegetarian) is more a feature of some schools than others.

I think the Buddha in the suttas says more about e.g. "gratitude and parents" than about "chickens and eggs" (though "not killing" and "metta" and so on is also, I think, clearly mentioned).


How does one decide whether one lives a lay married life or a celibate life? A bit of background. In my mid-20s, I spent a lot of time (cumulative 1 year) in different monasteries in Thailand, Myanmar and Nepal. I understand experientially the importance of consistent and regular practice. I am now 33, have a decent tech job. I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

If one is married, one can first understand that desire is more often asymmetrical than not. One can also observe resentment arising out of asymmetrical desire.

Asymmetrical desire therefore provides an opportunity to explore the problem posed. For example, suppose that one has desire. Then one can consider whether that desire is asymmetrical or not. And if it is indeed asymmetrical, then we can give it up. Doing this puts one gently on the path to restraint and ultimately celibacy out of consideration for others. It is also serious practice that can gently change a married relationship to one of understanding and consideration absent lust. In other words, rather than fighting the daunting dilemma posed, one addresses it day-by-day within that day's context, moment by moment, breath by breath.

  MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

Relinquishing asymmetrical desire for shared sensual pleasure is a small step that can help one start the practice of seclusion from sensual pleasures altogether. Seclusion from sensual pleasures is required to proceed on the Noble Eightfold Path. It is required for immersion, for jhana:

  MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.


Dhammapada – What is the "beyond"? In the chapter of the brahmin this is one of the paragraphs:

  Whoever is
  Untied and free of distress,
  And for whom neither a "beyond," a "not-beyond,"
  Nor a "both beyond-and-not-beyond" exist,
  I call a brahmin.

What is the meaning of "beyond" here? What would be the "both-beyond-and-not-beyond"?

Thanks.

Here is another translation

  385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered — him do I call a holy man. [27]

Here's a footnote:

  (v. 385) This shore: the six sense organs; the other shore: their corresponding objects; both: I-ness and my-ness.

Here's a Sutta which includes the parable of the 'raft' and 'other shore':
Asivisa Sutta: Vipers

  "'The great expanse of water' stands for the fourfold flood: the flood
  of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood
  of ignorance.

  'The near shore, dubious & risky' stands for self-identification. 'The
  further shore, secure and free from risk' stands for Unbinding. 'The
  raft' stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration. 'Making an effort with hands &
  feet' stands for the arousing of persistence. 'Crossed over, having
  gone to the other shore, he would stand on high ground, a brahman'
  stands for the arahant."

I'm not sure why the Sutta praises "the further shore" whereas the Dhammapada praises non-awareness of shores. I suspect that the former is 'renunciation' whereas the latter is either 'middle way' or 'meditative absorption/concentration' ... but this/my interpretation might be non-standard i.e. wrong.

Here's a version in French (I don't know whether buddha-vacana.org has an English-language translation of the Dhammapada)
whose footnote gives the same explanation/interpretation of 'shore' as the accesstoinsight.org footnote does:

  1 cette rive, l'autre rive: 'cette rive' correspond aux six āyatanas internes (œil, oreille, nez, langue corps, esprit), et 'l'autre rive' correspond aux six āyatanas externes (objets externes correspondant chacun des six āyatanas internes).

At the bottom of the page it says its translation is based on work by Daw Mya Tin and documents on the DLMB web site.

So, here (on the DLMB web site) is a detailed analysis of the Pali. It ends with a commentary which says,

  Mara once approached the Buddha and asked him what does the word para (the other shore) mean. The Buddha knew that it was Mara and replied with this verse, saying that the other shore is the Nirvana, which only the Arahants can reach.

On this page (the work by Daw Mya Tin) is perhaps the simplest or most complete description. I copy-and-paste the whole below (but note that this web site has a similar page of description for each other verse in the Dhammapada):

  Dhammapada Verse 385
  Mara Vatthu

  Yassa param aparam va
  paraparam na vijjati
  Vitaddaram visamyuttam
  tamaham brumi brahmanam.

  Verse 385: Him I call a brahmana who has for him neither this shore (i.e., the sense-bases) nor the other shore (i.e., the sense objects), and who is undistressed and free from moral defilements1.

  1 'This shore' and 'the other shore' are used in the sense of the internal and the external ayatanas. The internal ayatanas are the sense bases, viz, the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind; the external ayatanas are the sense objects, viz., visible object, sound, odour, taste, touch and mind-object.

  For a true Brahmana (i.e., arahat) there is neither 'this shore' nor 'the other shore' which means that the senses of the arahat are calmed, and his passions extinguished.

  The Story of Mara

  While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (385) of this book, with reference to Mara.

  On one occasion, Mara came to the Buddha disguised as a man and asked him, "Venerable Sir, You often say the word 'param'. What is the meaning of that word?" The Buddha, knowing that it was Mara who was asking that question, chided him, "O wicked Mara! The words 'param' and 'aparam' have nothing to do with you. 'Param' which means 'the other shore' can be reached only by the arahats who are free from moral defilements."

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

  Verse 385: Him I call a brahmana who has for him neither this shore (i.e., the sense-bases) nor the other shore (i.e., the sense objects ), and who is undistressed and free from moral defilements.

Given this translation I don't understand why the 'further shore' are 'sense-objects' and why that further shore can only be reached by the arahats. The internal/external ayatanas are introduced e.g. in this Wikipedia article.

  Āyatana (Pāli; Sanskrit) is a Buddhist term that has been translated as "sense base", "sense-media" or "sense sphere."[1] In Buddhism, there are six internal sense bases (Pali: ajjhattikāni āyatanāni; also known as, "organs", "gates", "doors", "powers" or "roots"[2]) and six external sense bases (bāhirāni āyatanāni or "sense objects"; also known as vishaya or "domains"[3]).

My only guess is that it might be related to some desire to 'see things as they really are, beyond illusion/subjectivity' or something like that.


About the doer and knower During my meditation ,I experience automatically switch on  to breathe.what is this?Is it letting go of doer and knower?

Yes.

When the mind is quiet the breathing automatically becomes the object of meditation.

There is no need to try to watch the breathing. In fact, trying to watch the breathing is an obstacle to deep progress.

The Pali scriptures (SN 48.10; MN 118 at the emd) state the meditator makes 'letting go' the object of meditation.


What is appropriate punishment for heinous crimes by Buddhist standards? I've been looking into this lately and am curious how should we address crime and punishment? I know all about the story of Angulimala, but we can't expect all murders, rapist etc., to experience liberation in this fashion. If capital punishment  is out and so many seem opposed to excessively long  prison sentences what's the practical alternative? Yes programs and such to deal with the root cause of these issues are needed but in the here and now how can we best protect society and give these individuals an opportunity to reform.

Also people don't like the idea of prison as retaliation or revenge "justice", but shouldn't all social actions have social consequence other than just allowing for kamma? And maybe the social consequence of jail is your kamma.

Though Buddhism does not make a stance on punishments, they should be there as a deterrent. But there should be also a opportunity to reform one self through the practice of Vipassana. Meditation will lead to reform, as it is latent tendencies of aversion, craving and ignorance which lead to crime, and meditation helps alleviate them.

I do not think capital punishment should be acceptable this does not give an opportunity to correct oneself is depriving of life.

Also see: Vipassana Meditation Courses For Correction Facilities, Doing Time Doing Vipassana


What do Birth, Age, and Death mean in the first noble truth? Below is from Ariyapariyesana Sutta

  "Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search.
  And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
  subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
  subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
  death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
  likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

  "And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
  goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
  gold & silver [2] are subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
  them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
  subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
  illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

  "And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person,
  himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks
  the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being
  subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing
  the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
  seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled,
  unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search.

When this is closely read, it seems the word Birth which is relevant to  Buddha's noble search (and this comes in the first Noble Truth of Dukkha as well)  is not about birth from a mother -- because if it is, then how come the gold & silver are there?

Although this footnote 2 says ...

  The Burmese, Sri Lankan, and PTS editions of the Canon exclude gold and silver from the list of objects subject to illness, death, and sorrow, apparently on the grounds that they themselves do not grow ill, die, or feel sorrow.

... however it's not excluded in Sri Lankan editions of the Canon, no it is not. And who can do such a change? Only Buddha or Arhat only can understand this totally, isn't it?

And in the last paragraph, it's very clear that noble search is concluded to unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Is it unbinding from birth? Yes (because that's told). But birth of what? it's not the someone's birth is it? It should be birth of Yoke.

And this yoke is generated on the mentioned objects (Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver) thinking they are worth or nice.

Then what we should think: Birth is dukkha, or Yoke is dukkha? Because birth, ageing or death can be a pleasurable things for some people, while some other people suffer (Dukkha) on that (e.g. death of a terrorist is not a suffer, birth of a baby is not a suffer to his parents, ageing is not a suffer to 17 years old boy...)

What do you think, am I mistaken on this? If so please explain why the gold & silver is there? And why Birth, Age, Death are treated as Dukkha?

Here, "X is subject to birth, aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement" - means that X has beginning and end, that X changes with time and slowly falls apart, that X depends on external conditions to be just right for its existence, - and that therefore X is not 100% reliable, so you can't use X as foundation for building 100% stable peace and happiness. That X is never really what it looks like, so if you build your happiness on top of X, it will betray and disappoint you. Even if association with X may seem like bringing happiness on the short term, on the long term it will definitely bring eventual suffering. That's what this means.

Gold and silver are there as examples of worldly pursuits and worldly possessions. No matter how much you have, you can't buy happiness, can't buy health, and can't buy eternal life. At their best they can only bring intermittent short-term happiness mixed with troubles and pain, ending in eventual destruction.

So Birth here is coming together of any form (samskara) - and Aging-and-Death is its falling apart. Bhava is the continuity and cohesiveness we imagine in between the two.

Births and Deaths are not dukkha if there is no attachment: craving, grasping, denying - either "for" or "against". Attachment, in turn, comes from getting stuck on a certain mental context. If you stop getting stuck you can learn to be free. This is what they call Unbinding.

Not being stuck means things are just such, regardless of births and deaths. Being wrong against some definition of right is the nature of dukkha. Being just such is the nature of peace.


Therapeutic Effects of Masturbation I've read in an article on religious views on masturbation that there were individuals in the Buddha's time that viewed masturbation as therapeutic. The reference given was (Vin. III 109) which I'm guessing stands for a part of the Vinaya, but I cannot really navigate my way and find the source. I'm wondering if anyone knows about these arguments for masturbation, and those which the Buddha gave in disagreement to these views. Ultimately I'd like to know whether masturbation is always a fetter, if one gains many benefits from its non-practice.

Thanks.

Celibacy and Religious Traditions, edited by Carol Olson (https://books.google.ca/books?id=apq1G-o2OzoC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=masturbation+vinaya+pitaka&source=bl&ots=YtJc3M7TAs&sig=DShKDVt6HKWn1yGu2D-tjf9dlSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBkO3Sy8TQAhUkS2MKHXnYBlwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=masturbation&f=false) mentions Vinaya III.109 on page 222.

The reference appears to be to Sanghadisesa I, which appears on pages 192-98 of Horner, The Book of the Discipline, Vol. I (PTS ed.), where the venerable Seyyasaka was emaciated with yellowish skin and varicose veins. The ven. Udayin saw this and recommended that he eat, sleep, bathe and engage in the activity asked about "as much as you like," for reasons of health. This cured him, "and in a short time the venerable Seyyasaka was nice-looking with rounded features, of a bright complexion and a clear skin." Since the 5th cent. BCE was the golden age of Ayurveda, one wonders if there might be an Ayurvedic precedent for this? In any case, the Buddha rebukes Seyyasaka for this practice, saying that it is not appropriate for a monastic to engage in such a practice, which leads to passion, bondage, and grasping. The actual rule to which it gave rise is stated on page 195. As an infraction of the second order (disesa), it entails a formal meeting of the order. Also see the example referred to on page 359 (Vin. III 112).

The prohibition reminds me a bit of the Qur'anic prohibition against drinking alcohol, which simultaneously recognizes its health benefits yet prohibits it.


What is the benefit of staying with one method, lineage or Dharma tradition? I've been thinking around this recently ... we are privileged as a generation to have access to so much information - contemplative methods, traditions, teachers, books etc. How does this inform our Dharma - finding and sticking to one method, tradition, lineage or ... studying and practicing many in a more eclectic way?

This leads to great breadth, but little depth. If you want to get to the depth of a practice, where the true wisdom is, you need to stick to a practice and see it through. As Goenka said, if you are looking for water, you dig a well. But you don't start digging a well, stop digging down after 2 feet, then start a new well. Over and over again like this, you will never find the water that you are looking for. You must dig down deep to the depth that the water table is at. So you may start one or two wells, but you don't stop digging until you've gone to sufficient depth to know there is no water there.


Can someone be a monastic in their own home? If someone has the necessary financial resources and is fully dedicated to the Dhamma, would it be possible for them to be ordained as a monk yet live outside of a temple, in a place of their choosing?

Or, on the other hand, if they do not have the necessary financial resources, but rather they live either off of producing goods relating to the Dhamma, or off of the generosity of others, but are still fully dedicated to the Dhamma, could they be ordained and live where they please?

In Mahayana traditions, there are monastics on their own (in their house, hut, living with their parents and taking care of them, etc). It is not that monks have to give everything away (savings and all) before they take ordination. As a matter of fact, both the FPMT (Tibetan Gelug) and the Kwan Um School of Korean Zen encourage monks and nuns to keep what it takes to live at least 3 or 4 years, because they are not incline to sponsor newly ordained monks. A monk is not supposed to work for a living, but it happens that the teacher encourages someone to do just that. A monk is not supposed to have debts either, but some own a loft that they bought or inherited and did not completely pay yet. A fully ordained one is not supposed to sleep in the same house as laypeople for more that four days, but some live with their parents. These are minor breaches. The most important is to follow your teacher's advises. I know of teachers who encouraged specific students to work.

For instance, in the Tibetan Gelug tradition, H.H. the Dalaï-Lama encourages newly ordained renounciates (rabjung) and novices (getsül) to stay and study at a monastery for at least 4 years. He also encourages fully ordained monks (gelongs) to stay in a monastery for 5 years after ordination. This is because he does not want unlearned monks to roam free. It makes sense, since monks are representative. He wants monks to be able to answer Dharma questions.

The short answer is: yes, it is possible, at least in most (if not all) Mahayana traditions, but I suggest you rely on a qualified teacher.


"Monks" includes everybody? I have often heard that in many places in the suttas where the Buddha says Bhikkave, (monks!), he really means to include the four parisā (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all.

Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself?

I can readily see why one would wish it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it is so.

I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example.

Edit:  I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.

It is an effect by wrong way commentary reading of the western professors and thai professors, because they have not enough skill to read pāli tipitaka and commentary.

Commentary just want to said:

  Buddha called "bhikkhave" because the listeners in front of buddha are bhikkhu. But it doesn't means the other buddhist people can not practice follow that sutta.

But in the appearing commentary doesn't said  "because the listeners in front of buddha are bhikkhu", like above, because it is simple in mukkhapātha tradition to call just the specify target, most cases are the nearest. And the most buddha's nearest people were bhikkhu.

Today, you can see in the classroom, when the teacher ask someone to teach
, such as "Peter! don't break the school's rule", it doesn't means "just that one can't break", but it means "everyone in school can't break". It is simple, so it doesn't need to explain as "the others can't break, too."

There are some excepted cases that should use the difference meaning of "bhikkhave", such as in 1st vinaya rule. For those, there had the explanation in commentary, case by case. It does't means "commentary commented by there own opinion", but it means "that sutta's context or the other related sutta make the commentary commented like that". Because the commentary teacher must be tipitaka memorizer in ancient theravāda tradition, such as ancient mahāvihāra monastery.

I don't want to blame the others, but I must specify an actual main problem cause of new age buddhist students, that make them feel so hard to study buddha's teaching.


Then where did the concept of "rebirth" come from? This blew, and is still kinda blowing, my mind:

  "The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as
  "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against
  orthodox early Buddhist teachings." (from this comment by
  Yuttadhammo)

So... I have always thought of "rebirth" as being a fundamental concept of Buddhism. Sure, it's "real" meaning is debated, but the fact that there is something to it has, in my studies thus far, never been brought into question.

My real question might be something like, "What the heck?!".... But in terms of presenting something here more formal, I ask: If this is the case (and if not, perhaps you can explain why you disagree with Yuttadhammo's assertion), then where did the concept of "rebirth" come from? Why is it a topic of discussion?

Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

  The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.

The word "rebirth" might be inappropriate since it implies something that borns again (and that's unlikely the meaning of what the Buddha meant). I understand this is what yutthadammo was saying. But, for better or worse, it is this english word that has been used to describe the process of "continuous becoming" in buddhism in english.

"With the break up of the body, after death, he/she reappears at ...", that's what we read. As ven. Bodhi said, The difficulty with this is the doctrine of anatta: if no part of our constitution is fixed, we can't talk about something that transmigrates or is reborn.

But at the same time, we can't say the being that died and the one that reappeared are completely unrelated. What has been said is that the "relation" (or, perhaps better, continuity) is the kamma.

  "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas a as their homing place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."
  -- MN 135


Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias? Why do Buddhists seem to take such a strong anti-thought bias? All I could find regarding this issue is this blog post:

Thought is Bad? Enlightenment Means Not Thinking?

He provides great examples of this anti-thought bias, and has an attitude that is similar to my own towards it.

This is something that has disturbed me for a while, and is leading me away from Buddhism. Although direct/pure awareness allows freedom from compulsive thought, why should I not choose to conceptualize? Is there no place for abstraction nor ideas? What about language and cultivation of the intellect? Creativity?

The Buddha himself did not cease having thoughts, although he was fully enlightened. Please see this question for details.

In this answer, there is a quote from the Ayacana Sutta, where it says:

  Then, while he (the Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of
  thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained
  is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. ....."

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta, we find that unskillful thoughts "imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion" have to be removed.

In the Vina Sutta:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

And the same applies to the other senses.

You can find a similar discussion in the Aparihani Sutta where it talks about removing "evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress".

There is a slightly different message in the Sacitta Sutta, but also teaching us to remove unskillful thoughts:

  "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with
  thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless,
  uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or
  unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort,
  diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the
  abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

Hence the recommendation here is to remove unskillful thoughts, but not stop thinking altogether.

Of course, if one is meditating and trying to achieve the state of jhana, then in that situation, he has to concentrate his mind and cease thinking. Even this is only for the second jhana and beyond. In the first jhana, there is still directed thought and evaluation. From the Maha-satipatthana Sutta:

  "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk —
  quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure
  born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
  With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure,
  unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation —
  internal assurance.

So, it is inaccurate to say that the Buddha taught to stop thinking altogether (when you're not meditating). He only taught to remove unskillful thoughts.

Constantly ensuring that you don't have unskillful thoughts, is considered a practice of heedfulness (or appamada). Please see this question for details.


Which path might be appropriate for me? I've been learning about Dharma traditions for a while now.

In short: I am attracted by the figure of Siddhartha Gautama and by the fact that Buddhism is not based on faith in the scriptures (nastika). I am completely convinced by his speech on dukkha.

Besides that, I'm not convinced at all by the anatman. I believe in the atman, I am convinced by the vision of the advaita védanta, and I love the simplicity of Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga and its 8 clear and defined steps to the Absolute (Samadhi).

All this being said, which path to take? Which one would be the closest to my position?

I was told the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna?

Buddha is pretty cool. Jesus is too. Shiva is pretty cool. There are cool guys everywhere. The real question is what kind of teacher are you willing to understand? Shiva is like falling down a bottomless pit. Which is safe as long as it's bottomless. Jesus knew others like he knew himself and that creates a wonderful basis of good. Buddha didn't like things complicated. a direct approach. He would tell you it's not their responsibility nor his to carry you to the place you want to go. That's on you. They tell us where we could go if we choose to. Now these cool guys look like they might not agree but That's not true. They could see themselves and others well enough to understand they're doing the same work. People have a hard time hearing it. So just take some time a listen. I'm a Buddhist. If I thought there was a superior way to live my life I'd do that. Even if it was prostitution. Gautama did too. So find your love language you wish to speak and use that to learn and share in it.


Did the Buddha try to effect social change? This month is Buddhist Action Month in the UK when we try to be a bit more socially engaged. To quote from the website

  Despite Buddhism's reputation for stillness and withdrawal from the
  world, UK Buddhists are engaged in a wide range of social-change
  projects, alleviating suffering at home and abroad

So leading on from this, I was wondering whether the Buddha promoted this kind of social engagement. Was the Buddha active in addressing political and social injustices of his time or did he more work within the social norms and bring about liberation in that way. I'm particularly interested in references to the Pali Canon to illustrate answers but answers from other traditions and texts would also be interesting.

Let me narrow down "engaged Buddhism" to "applying the Dharma to social and political injustices".

In the Kathavatthu Sutta, the Buddha did not prefer monks to engage in discussions concerning mundane things:

  Then the Blessed One ... addressed the monks: "For what topic of
  conversation are you gathered together here? ..."

  "Just now, lord, after the meal, ... we ... engaged in ... conversation about kings, robbers, &
  ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing,
  furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns,
  cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street &
  the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the
  world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."

  "It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone
  forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged
  in such topics of conversation ....

  "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk
  on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on
  arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on
  release, and on the knowledge & vision of release.

At the same time, the Buddha advised the lay followers in the Sigalovada Sutta on how good friends should be. From here, I extrapolate that lay Buddhists can become good friends of their fellow members of society, and exhort them to be likewise. This can be one way to Engaged Buddhism.

  "Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.
  "The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.
  "The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
  "The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
  "The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."


Can someone explain "Noble Eightfold Path" in depth? This is the common answer:

Right view,
Right intention,
Right speech,
Right action,
Right livelihood,
Right effort,
Right mindfulness,
Right concentration,

But what is e.g. the Right view?

How do i know my efforts are correct?

Can someone explain these 8 in day to day practice?

The whole of the Noble Path can be summarized as the action, speech, effort, intent etc. coming from the two kinds of thoughts as explained in MN 19:

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes [-- useful and harmful].
...
As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of [the harmful kind] arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought [of the harmful kind] has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’
...
As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of [the useful kind] arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of [the useful kind] has arisen in me. This does not lead to my own affliction, or to others’ affliction, or to the affliction of both; it aids wisdom, does not cause difficulties, and leads to Nibbāna.

Briefly, my personal opinions / commentary.
Arya marga. Here, "arya" ("noble") stands for "advanced person" and "marga" ("path") stands for "training method". Together it means "The advanced person's training method".
Each of the eight points starts with the word "samma" (Sankst. "samyak") - "right", which in this case means "high-quality", "adequate", "effective", "useful" - in bringing about the good results.

The right view (or useful philosophy) stands for one's perspective on life in general.
The central point of the right view is that our life can get better (away from afflictions & difficulties and towards wisdom & peace) or worse (away from wisdom & peace and towards afflictions & difficulties) -- depending on the choices we make. The subsequent points build up on this basic idea.

The right intention (or useful attitude) stands for one's attitude as one goes about life.
Right intention is trying to improve things, not to harm or make things worse. It is a deeply constructive attitude, not a destructive attitude.

The right speech (or useful speech) stands for one's skill in interacting with others.
Basically, it is speech of a wise person who knows what to say, how to say, and when to say it in order to achieve well-being for oneself and others.

The right action (or useful behavior) stands for one's self-control in acting strategically and not impulsively.
As with the rest of the points, the idea of right action is to not do anything (stupid) that will have an adverse effect, but to act skilfully in order to maximize the net benefit, esp. long term. The useful behavior is characterized by sobriety, discipline, moderation, and making wise choices about what one is getting into and with what kind of people one is connecting one's destiny. The useful behavior comes from the thought like "what kind of long term result will I get if I do this?"

The right livelihood (or useful lifestyle) stands for the circumstances and environment one chooses or agrees to live in.
Useful lifestyle is a lifestyle more or less supportive of the useful thoughts and useful actions towards a good result -- not a lifestyle that forces one to go in a completely opposite direction.

The right effort (or useful effort) stands for self-improvement.
Specifically, it means the ongoing effort to stop and get rid of the pathological habits/impulses/hangups, and to develop the "right" (useful) skills.

The right mindfulness (or useful frame-of-reference) stands for watching for the two kinds of thoughts as one goes around the day.
The idea is to not let oneself be carried away by the pathological currents, but to go around one's day while staying within the perspective of arya marga.

The right concentration (or useful mood) stands for one's ability to control one's attention and therefore one's perspective and mood.
The point of right concentration is to stop being the slave of information and to become the master of mind.

In short, in our day to day practice we must have a good sense of direction -- which way is feeding our ego and weaknesses, and which way is being an "arya" (advanced person). Your know your efforts are correct if you become less frustrated and more successful with whatever you do.
Because Sat-Dharma is "good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end", the Noble Path works on all levels:

On the mundane level it helps one achieve success and better quality of life through developing self-control and discernment for constructive strategic action.
On the personal level, it guides one towards overcoming neuroses, attaining the mastery over one's emotions, and achieving a stable & happy state of mind.
On the social level, its emphasis on overcoming the harmful impulses, developing self-control, and the focus on constructive positive action - encourages cooperation, harmony, and seeking a compromise for the greater good.
On the intellectual level, it encourages intellectual agility, open-mindedness, and anti-dogmatism as necessary conditions for skillful response.
On the level of the spiritual quest, it provides a working framework and a practical way of gauging one's progress for abandoning obstacles on the way to Enlightenment - from overcoming coarse emotions, to dismantling the ego, to uprooting the preconceptions, to realizing the nature of mind, to attaining prajna-paramita.


Mahasi Sayadaw / Yuttadhammo noting question When I'm sitting, I have a lot of trouble making it through all the touching points.
One issue I'm thinking that I might be having is that maybe the progression of objects is incorrect: I do rising-falling-sitting-touching and then repeat for the entire hour that I sit. Maybe I am supposed to be doing: rising-falling-sitting and then rising-falling-touching and repeat those two progressions alternatively?
Assuming the former is correct - is it ever permissible to, I'm weary about using the word but, ignore very subtle objects of awareness and continue noting through the progression? I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point. feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just practicing incorrectly.
Thanks in advance!

I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching
point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like
I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point.
feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just
practicing incorrectly.

You're experiencing disenchantment and dispassion which comes about through the recognition of transience, suffering and not-self. What you claim as a setback is the actual knowledge to be understood.
In your quote above there is classic transience, suffering and not-self mostly through seeking continuity of practice and becoming frustrated that its continuity has been lost. That's the knowledge right there.
It is not a mechanistic understanding governed by conventional learning, it is a wisdom-understanding governed by how the mind has been previously exposed to practice.


Is my Meditation Practice Too Busy? I've been meditating fairly regularly for the past 5+ years, but have really only begun to follow Buddhism the past year or so. As such, my meditation practice has changed. I admit, I am not presently working with a teacher or monastery, though it is on  my radar.

I meditate every morning, from 20-30 minutes, and then usually a short one at night, around 5 minutes. Yes, I'd like to meditate more often, I'm working towards that.

I wonder if my meditation is too 'busy'. I begin with focus on the breath, generally counting up to 10 a few times. I also throw in the "I have arrived, I am home..." mantra during this period. I then move to a short 'prayer' routine that I developed in recovery from drugs/alcohol - this is only about a minute or so. I typically then spend a bit focused on non-self, passing through the body and saying 'I am not any singular part - I am not the senses, the flesh, bones, blood, organs, etc'. This often leads to contemplation of the 4 Noble Truths, with which I sit for a bit, maybe 5 minutes or so. I wrap up usually with metta, going through the various people (myself, an honored person, loved, disliked, etc.).

Writing this I'm like "wow", I do all that in 20-30 minutes??? So that's why I pose the question here - might it be wiser to just stick with one of those? Abandon all? Center on just a few of them?

I feel like it works for me, I do enjoy it, but I do wonder if I'm sorta 'cheating' in the sense that I'm doing too much, keeping the mind too occupied in order to pass the time 'quicker'.

The reflections you are doing are both excellent & necessary however they are the development of right view and not the development of right concentration. The development of concentration is developing a quiet & still mind. In developing a quiet & still mind, the right view reflections you are doing are used only when a hindrance arises or when grasping/attachment to meditation arises.


Are Samatha and Vipassana mentioned in the Pali Canon as different styles/techniques of meditation? I've seen in a lot of discussions that there are two kinds of meditation methods with different but complementary goals: meditation for establishing tranquility (samatha) and meditation for establishing insight or clear vision (vipassana).

But in a few places, some authors and practitioners say that both are not different styles, but two quatities and aspects that are developed during Samma Samadhi (Right Inmersion), and that in the Pali Canon there are no mentions of those two aspects being reached through different methods.

So, what do the Pali Canon tell us about this? Are these two different methods, or just two different aspects that are eventually developed hand-in-hand?

Thanks in advance for your time, wisdom and patience.

Kind regards!

Yes, but not as seperat for the taught purpose:

  "These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana)... A Share in Clear Knowing

(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to come out of this wheel)


Queen Mallika story and stream entry I was wondering about the story of queen Mallika, she seems like someone who entered the stream, nevetheless she went to hell after passing away.

Is it possible for someone to be reborn on the awful planes after entering the stream? I thought it was impossible

In AN 3.86 it is taught that a stream enterer will be born in human and deva realms for a maximum of seven life times:

"[Some,] with the wasting away of the three fetters, are
'one-seed-ers' (ekabijin): After taking rebirth only one more time on
the human plane, they will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'family-to-family-ers'
(kolankola): After transmigrating & wandering on through two or three
more families [according to the Commentary, this phrase should be
interpreted as 'through two to six more states of becoming'], they
will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'seven-times-at-most-ers'
(sattakkhattuparama): After transmigrating & wandering on among devas
& human beings, they will put an end to stress."
AN 3.86

In Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy, by Nyaponika Thera it is mentioned that she wasn't a stream enterer at the time of her death. He gives the reason for her birth in hell as:

When Mallika died her twofold transgression-her sexual contact with the dog and her mendacious attempt to free herself from blame-caught up with her and brought about a rebirth in hell.

and later he says,

Although it was a very short-termed sojourn there, one can see that Mallika had not yet attained stream-entry during her life on earth...


Is there a distinction between "ego identity" and "craving/hating"? I'm confused. What is the distinction between craving/hating (desire/aversion) and "ego"? I am inclined to believe that ego, i.e. one's false sense of an independent separate eternal self, learns and developes craving/aversion, beginning during childhood. Perhaps there is no distinction, and the query is really a matter of semantics. Might "ego" be the noun that represents the verbs "craving and hating"; or, might the ego represent a broader condition than craving and hating? The word "ego" brings to mind "I me mine" identity, which might include "craving/hating".

The three poisons, greed, anger, and delusion, constitute the base-causes for beings stuck in samsara. Of these, delusion is the root cause from which greed and aversion arise. Avidya (delusion) is the root chain of the Twelve Nidanas , from which all other conditions for continued becoming arise.

Through the arising of these twelve nidanas, based on ignorance/misapprehension of reality as it is, the constituent parts of what we consider an "ego" arise ( consciousness/perceptions of the sense organs, feelings, sensations, etc.)

From this misapprehension of reality (ignorance) as either pleasant and something worth possessing, or unpleasant and unfit to endure, desire and anger arise.

I hope this helps clear this up!


Reference request: Can a king rule justly without killing? I recall reading a sutta in which the Buddha rises from meditation and says that while he was meditating, it occurred to him: Is it possible for a king to rule righteously without killing? If anyone knows the text I am talking about, it would be much appreciated.

What you are referring to comes from the Discourses of the Sutta Pitaka, and can be found within the book The Connected Discourses of The Buddha; A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikku Bodhi, Vol. 1, pg 209.

"On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Kosalans in a small forest hut in the Himalayan region.  Then when the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: 'Is it possible to exercise rulership righteously: without killing and without instigating others to kill, without confiscating and without instigating others to confiscate, without sorrowing and without causing sorrow?' "

--SN 4.20


How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous? How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous?

Because I read it might cause someone to commit suicide, so how do I make sure I won't reach that situation? And how exactly should I do this meditation - and for how long each time - and how many times each day?

How to do "contemplation of death" meditation ?

With each and every in and out breath reflect: "life is impermanent, but death is certain, hence will attend to what need to be done without delay."

    “But how, bhikshu, do you cultivate the mindfulness of death?”

    “Here, bhante, I do it thus:

    'Indeed, should I live just the time it takes to breathe in and then out, to breathe out and then in,
    I would wisely attend to the Blessed One’s teaching, much indeed would be done by me!'

    Thus, bhante, I cultivate the mindfulness of death.”

Source: (Aṭṭhaka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 1 and also similar passage is in: (Chakka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 1

A more detailed outline of the pratice is covered in: Maraṇa Sati Kathā by Piya Tan

  and is it dangerous ?

Not if you pratice it correctly. Even crossing the road the wrong way will have dangers so does meditation. Key to do it the right way as with any other endeavor.

The intention of this pratice is to create urgency and eliminate procrastination as time is running out and what can be done within a lifetime ends with death. (Also see section How do you banish laziness?) Instead if you are developing a phobia or fear of death or some attraction to death or romanticizing with the concept of death or developing sorrow towards your pending death or of loved ones, then you are doing it wrong.

  Cause i read it might cause someone to suicide - so how do i make sure i won't reach that situation ? and how exactly should i do this meditation - ...

As far as I know repulsive meditation has resulted in suicides, but not sure on contemplation of death. These are 2 separate practices. The purpose of repulsive meditation is to counteract the perception of beauty in the form and shape of oneself and others and developing lust and taking pleasure and delight in such formations. If you are developing aversion towards the body one oneself as unclean or the perceived lack of beauty then you are doing it wrong.

Both these practices do also reinforce the perception of impermanence, more particularly impermanence of life as well as our corporal body.

  ... and for how long each time - ...

I think a few minutes will do or as much as to keep you motivated to attend to what need to be done without procrastination.

Also an occasional reminder on the need of urgency as time is running out during the day may be helpful.

  ... and how many times each day ?

(Aṭṭhaka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 2 and (Chakka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 2 mentions you should do it 2 times at least when the day has ended and when the night has ended. You contemplate some mishap can happen your life can end in the next part of the day hence be attentive to what needs to be done without fail.

Also see my answer to: Is contemplation of death auto-suggestion?


Does an Arahant yawn? Or: What are the characteristics of the Noble Ones: Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi and Arahant? The Abhidhamma seems to talk only in terms of eradications. According to the Abhidhamma the following defilements are eradicated (different list than the fetters):

by Sotāpanna: wrong view, avarice, envy, doubt;
by Sakadāgāmi: nothing; He 'just' eliminates grosser forms of lust, hatered and delusion;
by Anāgāmi: sensual greed; hatred and worry;
by Arahant: delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrong, restlessness, greed (other), conceit, sloth and torpor.

With other words: once eradicated those emotions will never ever show up in ones mind. So far, so good.

I'm interested now in the following:

What doe the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones?  The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.

Are there more? What are noticeable characteristics of the other stages?

So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?

So, I'm not really interested in the list of the fetters. But more in the characteristics by which Noble Ones could be recognised. Like the not breaking of the 5 precepts by the Sotāpanna.

This answer, for instance, is not what I'm looking for.

Edit:
In case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for characteristics noticeable by others. So, not internal ones only noticeable for the person in question.
Thanks. :)

What does the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones? The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.

It's from Sutta, not Abhidhamma. Sutta Pitaka Vol 10 : Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. pāṭaliyaSutta...

“Gāmaṇi, I know the destruction of living things, results for the destruction of living things, I know the method by which the destruction of living things after death lead to loss, to birth in hell.

...

“Here, Gāmaṇi, the noble disciple gives up and abstains from destroying the life of living things, gives up and abstains from taking the not given, gives up and abstains from sexual misbehavior, gives up and abstains from telling lies, gives up and abstains from slandering, gives up and abstains from rough talk, gives up and abstains from frivolous talk, giving up the coveting mind abstains from coveting, giving up the angry mind abstains from the defilement anger, giving up wrong view develops right view.

So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?

In short you can see this search result.
In detail, Sotapanna has the powerful craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings, but he understood the dependent origination (right relativity of five aggregates) already, so he clearly realizes the result of all unwholesome formations. However, he can completely decide to cease only the craving in the actions which caused by wrong view, such as the five precepts because he still has the powerful craving in five strings.
Sakadagami has the weak craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings. Sotapunna is just at the beginning to cease craving, but Sakadagami is at  more than half of the cessation way. It's similar to a fresh man and a senior because both of them still not graduate, but they are completely different from each other because of their experience in the university. Sakadagami is seasoned.
Anagami has no sexual feeling any more. He has no craving in any five strings. He still has only the sleepiness in meditation, the forgetfulness in meditation, the craving in being, the craving in not being, and the craving in the difference of own being and the others'.


Relationship between truth and compassion Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism?
What is the relationship between truth and compassion? e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

there is no compassion without truth
when the truth is not beneficial for another person, what is practised in 'equanimity' rather than 'compassion'
how can something be 'altruistic' if it is not the truth?


Finding a dharma teacher I am examining ways of going further on my dharma road. At this point i am entirely self taught, for better and worse. I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.

Does anyone know if there is someone committed to teaching in west sweden?

Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.

Erik,

If the are Sanghas (of the Buddha's monks - a mixed or lay community shouldn't be called a "Sangha") or possible one or another monk alone, it's good to visit them, observe them, and to ask them -- if it's the case that you can trace a good amount of independence between the monk[s] and the "students" (e.g. the monks don't live from students, and instead go for alms independently). If such a person is traced, one might ask questions on any matter of doubt, having found trust, to possibly gain right view. If having gained right view after listening the true Dhamma, there is no more much to worry and the path will develop step by step.

If not finding such, take, if given by a Monk personally (!), the Tipitaka. Usual ways, although common, seldom or never bear any fruits, and it's far better to simply avoid the many teachers who teach for a trade (i.e. for reward). Even if they knew what water was, you would only get an empty bottle: to be sure you would have to return to them!

Maybe this is your personal guide heading toward independence: Into the Stream

And for the case that Erik has already found firm faith, it is because of doing it to an end that the Buddha has found this religion, Sangha, open to make use of it and such might then be not so much a matter of "west Sweden".

[Note: This is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks or what ever ordinary gains within the world.]


Canonical passages mentioning the 13 dhutaṅga practices I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

I doubt passages will be found in the Sutta Pitaka (discourses and sermons of the Buddha) however they are mentioned in the later Canonical texts, such as the Milinda Pañha and Mahā Niddesa.

And what are these thirteen? Wearing raiment made up of pieces taken from a dust-heap—Wearing three robes, and three robes only—Living on food received by begging—Begging straight on from house to house—Eating only once a day, at one sitting—Eating from one vessel only—Refusing food in excess of the regulations—Dwelling in the woods—Dwelling at the root of a tree-Dwelling in the open air—Dwelling in or near a cemetery—Not altering the mat or bed when it has once been spread out to sleep on—and sleeping in a sitting posture. It is he, O king, who, in former births, has undertaken and practised, followed and carried out, observed, framed his conduct according to, and fulfilled these thirteen vows, who acquires all the results of the life of a recluse, and all its ecstacy of peace and bliss becomes his very own.
Milinda Pañha Book 6 The Voluntary Extra Vows


What, if anything, do the texts say about habits versus mindulfness? SUMMARY

(Note: I searched the group before posting and although there are several questions about habits, none are asking about this specific point. This is close, but it's not the same (and it's framed so as to allow personal opinions which I'm expressly not (here) interested in. So this is not, as far as I can see, a duplicate.)

Do the Buddhist texts say anything that could resolve the apparent tension between on the one hand the mindfulness involved in the paying attention to every passing moment that is part and parcel of a lot of meditation practice, especially Vipassana, and the useful mindlessness of even a good habit, whereby we train ourselves to do certain things without having to consciously pay attention?

DETAILS

There is a growing amount of modern writing on habits and habituation, covering both the scientific and theoretical aspects of the underlying brain correlates, and also the practical life-affecting aspects relevant to the challenge of how to form useful habits and break problematic ones (e.g. Duhigg, Babauta). And that's not just recent material. Here's a condensed section from William James, written in 1890, dealing with that practical side.

The general opinion of such writers is that (good) habits are a Good Thing, specifically because they lower the load on our limited brains by making certain decisions--Shall I floss my teeth? Shall I go out for a run? Shall I sit down to meditate? and so on--more or less automatic, and as a result let us focus our limited non-automatic "will power" where it is most needed.

But the whole basis of habits seems to be the development of a kind of mind-less-ness, and that sounds fundamentally opposed to the mind-ful-ness needed for much of meditation. One possible way of resolving the apparent conflict would be to see habits as useful for establishing the boundaries that exist between the various activities throughout our day, but not for use within the activity itself. In other words, we make the act of sitting down to meditate as mindless/automatic as possible, but we then meditate mindfully.

But then that too could be at odds with the view that over time what began as an occasional mindful state should eventually become just our constant state of being, so that we were effectively meditating all the time. Presumably at that advanced level there no longer are any habituated boundaries, and everything is under awareness.

Perhaps the answer is that habits are to be seen merely as a learner's "prop"; training wheels we use until such times as we have no need of them because by then the elephant has become docile, the monkey and rabbit have departed, and we have finally reached our goal.

So what, if anything, do the established writings say about this?

To stress: although I've no doubt there are lots of good opinions out there (and for sure there are indeed lots of opinions!), I'm looking for answers with some backup from a source--old or current, either is fine--with at least a modicum of reliability. So the suttas and commentaries, obviously, but anything else of reasonable authorship including the modern.

Thanks!

Some modern references:

Conscious, preconscious, unconscious, subconscious by Piya Tan
Viññāṇa (Consciousness) by Piya Tan
Unconscious Views by Piya Tan
The Unconscious by Piya Tan
Anusaya by Piya Tan

Suttas:

Cetanā Sutta 1-3

There many more Tipitaka references bibliography of the essays.


How to meditate after become sotapannna? If someone sees self is an illusion.it disappears with  dvesha.is that  the state lord buddha said, anatta ?how do you meditate thereafter?

The Noble 8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna.

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta intorduction

To go beyond Sotapanna one must add 2 more elements under liberation/release which are:

right knowledge
right freedom

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta


2 words/phrase like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) to strengthen contemplation Q/.Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.

Try,

Let--go
Pad -- me
Maha -- Muni (Great Sage)
Gate -- Gate


What is the purpose of the 5th precept? “Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings.”

To be clear, I am trying to figure out the spirit behind the 5th precept. To see how far it spans and what exactly constitutes intoxication.

To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is the loss of heedfulness (appamada), moral scrupulousness based on a keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. Heedfulness is the keynote of the Buddhist path, "the way to the Deathless," running through all three stages of the path: morality, concentration, and wisdom. To indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from each stage. The use of alcohol blunts the sense of shame and moral dread and thus leads almost inevitably to a breach of the other precepts. One addicted to liquor will have little hesitation to lie or steal, will lose all sense of sexual decency, and may easily be provoked even to murder. Hard statistics clearly confirm the close connection between the use of alcohol and violent crime, not to speak of traffic accidents, occupational hazards, and disharmony within the home. Alcoholism is indeed a most costly burden on the whole society.
-- A Discipline of Sobriety (by
Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Where do addictions enter the equation? Drugs other then alcohol?
These do not seem to be covered by the explanation (assuming the claim is true, which I do not know of).
What about intoxicating love? Where do we draw the line between lust and intoxication?
What about intoxication and ignorance? Is there even a difference?
Thank you

The 5th precept is not about addictions. It is referring to taking substances that lead to heedlessness, whether you get addicted to it or not.

Love/sexual misbehavior is covered under the 3rd precept. Again, it's not about addiction.

The intoxication discussed under the 5th precept is chemically muddling your senses. Especially the mind. Ignorance plays a role in wanting to do that. Once you are intoxicated, it leads to more ignorant acts.


Concentration with no object? The Buddha often makes this requests on his monks, "incline your mind towards Nibbana"
Does this mean concentration with no object?
As far as I can ascertain, concentration with no object does not seem to be possible.
I have a particular interest in the Mahayana perspective but answers from other traditions are welcome.
Thanks

It means to incline your mind towards dispassion, dispassion towards the sense objects, dispassion towards craving for existence and dispassion towards craving for non-existence.
Inclining your mind toward dispassion means to incline your mind towards disenchantment, no longer being enchanted with sense objects, craving for existence and craving for non-existence.
To incline your mind towards disenchantment, you must see reality as it is by observing any/all of the three marks of existence:

changing nature of reality
selfless nature of reality
unsatisfactory nature of reality

By observing these qualities of existence, the mind gradually loses its interest in grasping to such unreliable things for a source of lasting happiness, thus inclining towards disenchantment, thus inclining towards dispassion, thus inclining towards Nibbana.

Does this mean concentration with no object?

No - It means concentration of any object while noticing its changing nature, selfless nature and/or unsatisfactory nature.


Right action when being lied to If a family member has been dishonest with me, and upon discussing the issue denies the lie, what is the best action?

Everything that happens to us is caused by an action we have committed in the sansara. This was common to Buddha as well (Devdatta's actions etc.).
Therefore the answer to the question What is the best action? is,
Understand that this is a result of an action you have committed in the past (maybe in previous births). Further, try to spread metta (kindness, love) towards him though he is lying to you. In future, he will admit what he did today. Until that there's no much meaningful thing to do.


Will an electronic gadget designed on reward/punishment mechanism of brain help improve meditation? The most challenging part of meditation is to keep our wandering mind aware of persent moment and mindful of thoughts.

Our brain has some thing  called 'Default Mode Network' which is nothing but our ordinary mind full of worries and past and future etc. This mode is converted into something called as 'Executive Mode' in states of meditation and states of what people called flow.

Now, scientists for ages have trained animals to behave in certain way through reward/ punishment mechanism which gets our brain trained to do particular task or behave in particular way.

If I designed an electronic gadget, something similar to this. With an added mechanism that whenever your mind will wonder a small tingiling shock will be given to your skin and otherwise nothing will happen.

Using dry electrodes and signal processing techniques we can now detect when the mind wanders off.

My queation is,

Will this kind of technology be accepted by serious meditators or otherwise will it be helpful to people who are new to meditation.
Or will it prove to be nuisance.
Do you think we can train our brains to be mindful all the times through such reward/punishment exercise.

First only puthujjanas who are materialists care about the brain.

Second, the word mindful for sati or satipatthana  is really used by people lacking vocabulary.
Same situation for the word mind, but even worse, since is there no mind in pali, but a declination into 3 words. THere is ''citta'', there is ''mano'' and there are the 6 ''Vinnana'', ie the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha).
THe wandering of the mind is the ''papanca'' of the mano.

Third, the way to be concentrated on something is to be relaxed and have joy,  piti. Once you are concentrated, you have joy and once you have joy your citta is not dispersed to the point of not being disturbed by little pains, sounds,  or worries . In other words, you cannot be concentrated without having joy.

Your fantasy of naggering the person filled with papanca and struggling to reduce the papanca has nothing to do with this joy.

  "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha... virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html

Since you care about papanca, here is the method to avoid it: first  you become a disciple, you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , you have confidence in the buddha and when you are around people you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , confidence in the buddha and you are ''nice guy'' which means you show''Khantiyā, avihiṃsāya, mettacittatāya, anudayatāya'' ie patience, harmlessness, friendliness and sympathy. https://suttacentral.net/sn47.19/en/bodhi

THen you go to a place alone. Then your mano has Pīti, then your body has passambhati, then has sukhaṃ vediyati, which is pleasant vedana, then the citta has sukhha, and once it has sukkha it has samādhi, which is centered or ''not dispersed''. Once you live like that, you are a person who ''lives diligently'' and ''knows phenomena when they manifest''.


Is there any extreme of physical pain that a fully enlightened person would find unpleasant on any level? In other words, by not conceptualizing sensations of physical pain, do fully enlightened people still experience unpleasantness and simply not label it as such, or is the experience fundamentally without anything that an unenlightened mind would label as unpleasant, so that the degree of pain becomes like pitch in music?

It's said that enlightened person feels single pain (only physical), while not enlightened feels two pains (physical with mental pain).

SN 36.6, Sallatha Sutta:

  The discerning person, learned, doesn't sense a (mental) feeling of
  pleasure or pain: This is the difference in skillfulness between the
  sage & the person run-of-the-mill.


Did Dignaga argue against real relations? Did Dignaga argue against real relations? I gather that his student, Dharmakirti, did.

I'm asking only because I'd disagree, but am skeptical about universals.

DharmaKirti and Dignaga are highly revered in Tibetan Buddhism and their work is used as foundational materials in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries to this day including the famous Sera Jey Monastery. However, they are also considered to have espoused or based their work on either the Yogachara tenet system, the Sautrantika tenet system or some combination thereof.

In brief, Yogachara/Chittamatra is a tenet system of the Madhyamaka and the Mahayana which believes in the selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena, but also believes in true existence which is refuted by the Prasangika-Madhyamaka. The Sautrantikas in general did not posit the selflessness of phenomena and are a tenet system strictly associated with the Fundamental Vehicle (like modern Theravada) as opposed to the Mahayana.

So if by "real relations" you mean "true existence", then I think both Dignaga and Dharmakirti posited real relations. If by "real relations" you mean "inherent existence", then I think both refuted real relations.

However, perhaps it is best if you elucidate what you mean by real relations and/or universals otherwise it is very easy in my experience to misunderstand one another. In my experience, when discussing tenet systems precision of language is key and knowing the jargon is very important even if difficult. I'm still struggling with it :)


Only thoughts were experienced during practice Now no sounds were experienced during meditation only thinking was there.what shall be done here?

If thoughts are experienced, find out who's the experiencer of your thoughts. Be a spectator or witness to your thoughts. Be relaxed, don't treat your thoughts just leave without dabbling with them. Be a mute witness.


Was the prohibition on eating dinner health advice? This fascinating article describes the Buddha as data driven ascetic.

  Buddha took a different approach: His rules were grounded in his own
  experience. Like a lot of us, he tried some crazy diets. But what
  worked for him was very simple. He gave little advice about what his
  monks should eat, but he was very particular about when they should
  eat it. His followers were basically free to eat anything they were
  given — even meat — but only between the hours of dawn and noon.

  Like any good data scientist, Buddha learned to ignore the outliers.
  Buddha didn’t give a mystical or supernatural explanation for this odd
  time restriction. But he was pretty sure it would improve their
  health. He had tested it on himself. “Because I avoid eating in the
  evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably,”
  he explained. “You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you
  will have good health.”

The article goes on to discuss the empirical results of calorie restriction diets with mice.

Now, what I'd like to know, is there any grounds to believe that the Buddha had health in mind when he suggested not eating dinner?

I've read that many vinaya rules were based on how the laity would see the Sangha- eat lots would make the sangha look like gluttons, so they only took two meals.

Also, Nikaya Buddhism's central problem to be solved was desire & aversion, so it was the fixation on hunger that was the problem, not that dinner was making one fat, unhealthy or short-lived.

My recollection is the rule about not eating after noon was to stop monks going on alms round at inappropriate times of the day, including at night, where they could frighten lay people. You can research the 'Vinaya' for this.

There certainly is a sutta where the Buddha states he enjoys good health by eating once a day but my recollection is that is not the rationale, which is why many monks today eat twice per day.

  When these staple foods go beyond their time limit (i.e., after noon) a bhikkhu will incur an offence if he consumes them. The original
  story shows the complications that can arise from leaving the
  monastery at the wrong time:

  The 'group-of-seventeen' bhikkhus — another set of frequent misdoers — went out one afternoon to enjoy themselves at a festival outside the
  city. When lay people saw them they gave them a meal and food to take
  back to the monastery. The Buddha therefore laid down this rule:

  "Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 37; BMC p.362)

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#begging


Any reconstructions of earliest mentioned classification of canon? Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma:
  dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses,
  spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events,
  question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. MN22

It's probably a hazy endeavour, but has anyone attempted to reconstruct such a classification from either the suttas or agamas?

Is this a dodgy quote (despite coming from the exalted MN 22) because birth stories appear to be later additions?

This said, I did try to compile 'birth stories' and only found around a dozen in the Buddhavaca suttas, such as AN 3.15; MN 50; MN 81; MN 123; MN 143; etc; which seem to be in the style of later works, such as the Jataka Tales, Buddhavamsa & Apadana.

The lokuttara dhamma in SN 22.79 says all memories of the past are mere aggregates & not-self.


How does the first noble truth associate dukkha with each of the five skandhas? I'm looking at this definition of dukkha:

  Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha;
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha;
  association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
  separation from the loved is dukkha;
  not getting what is wanted is dukkha.

  In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

Taking this definition of the five skandhas,

The first of the above (birth aging and death) might I suppose relate to "form":

  "form" or "matter"[e] (Skt., Pāli रूप rūpa; Tib. gzugs): external and internal matter. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs

The second of the above might relate to sensation:

  "sensation" or "feeling" (Skt., Pāli वेदना vedanā; Tib. tshor-ba): sensing an object as either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral

Do the next three parts of the definition of dukkha relate to the next three skandhas? If so can you please explain how they're related (i.e. how each of the other three skandha are dukkha)? Are "association", "separation" and "not getting what is wanted" each associated with three different skandhas? Or is that all skandhas are equally able to be a type of "clinging" or attachment?

They are related to all aggregates.

Birth is the arising of aggregates. Death is the disappearing of that which arose. Ageing is the changing in between.
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are all Dukkhas caused by clinging to the five aggregates.
Association with unbeloved is the association with painful experiences(five aggregates).
Separation from the loved is the separation from pleasurable/neutral experiences(five aggregates).
Not getting what is wanted means not being able to control the five aggregates at will: Not being able to retain pleasurable/neutral experiences. Not being able to keep away painful experiences.


The meaning of silabbata-paramasa and freedom from this fetter? Since often very curious ideas and means of excuses appear around the arguing with the means of "that's a fetter", my person thought it would be good if someone would have the skills and goodness toward fellows and behind followers to explain the meaning and whether a  perception of it is used for the training or not so that it would not misinterpret the Sublime Buddha (meaning own ideas are nice but not really 'asked' for)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange and other ways of silabbata-paramasa but for release]

From AN 3.78:

“Take the case of someone who cultivates precepts and observances, a
lifestyle, and a spiritual path, taking this as the essence. If
unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline, that’s not
fruitful. However, if unskillful qualities decline while skillful
qualities grow, that is fruitful.”

From MN 24:

“Is the spiritual life lived under the Buddha for the sake of
purification of ethics?”
“Certainly not.”  ....
“In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the
sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the
sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the
sake of purification through overcoming doubt. Purification through
overcoming doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and
vision of the variety of paths. Purification of knowledge and vision
of the variety of paths is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and
vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for
the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is
lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not
grasping.”

From DN 16:

If it wishes, after my passing the Saṅgha may abolish the lesser and
minor training rules.

The purpose of the purification of ethics is only for the purification of the mind.
But being too attached to minor rules and rituals to the point that breaking them causes remorse and mental anguish, is unskillful and pollutes the mind.
It is enough to practise purification of ethics with the understanding that it is for the purification of the mind, and not be too attached to following minor rules and rituals to the letter.


Are there any translations available from the Gandharan Buddhist Texts? When will they be available? Please find reference for the texts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhāran_Buddhist_texts

Like these ones?

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Gandhari
https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/richard-salomon/877720
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/138/1386654811.pdf

Amazon lists 3 pages of books. I didn't check all three pages though.
But it should be enough to get you started.

Have fun. :)


Why can't I be happy in the pursuit of Nirvana? If you are happy, you will have to face sorrow right? So I am being told to just observe everything with equanimity or Anapana. TBH which is very boring So I observed that instead of thinking of everything leads to sorrow in this world, why not enjoy this moment. (Is is necessary to keep observing when you are happy.)

After all we want Nirvana because we are looking for a being in a state of something eternal, Which is equanimity.

According to me Equanimity is not happiness for sure.

In this Video Philosopher and writer Jim Holt says  we can't live like dead humans as per Buddhism and think like a western.

I have experienced intoxication occasionally and I was in to Anapana for nearly a week and I have kept myself safe from any kind of intoxication for a year, everything was going smooth breathing while walking, lying, sitting, talking not always but I was satisfied with my pace of being aware.

But this weekend I had nothing to do and suddenly a teeny tiny thought arises which says to get drunk and at the same time one of my friend said the same thing and we get drunk.

I was still trying to figure out what is happening in mind, Why I am feeling different now.

I know I should not be drinking is there anyway I can punish myself. I was actually scared of getting attacked by mind when alone. It attacked.

Should i keep in doing Anapana as i believes that it cuts your Karmic chain for the moment.

I answer, since you tagged Tibetan Buddhism. However, personal practice is a serious matter and I believe you should ask a qualified teacher.

  After all we want Nirvana because we are looking for a being in a state of something eternal, Which is equanimity.

No, in Mahayana, we want to achieve enlightenment in order to be able to  benefit all sentient beings uninterruptedly, without  limitations of ours (death being one of them).

Instead of focusing on equanimity, rather train in being patient, content, and have few desires. First, there is less risks of being confused about what patience, contentment and few desires are. Second, it is more at reach for a beginner. Third, aversion to pain causes much unhappiness while patience opposes this. We suffer a great deal just because we have the notion that we would be better off without this or that, or having this or that. Discontent and desires also create much unhappiness.

Tibetan do not usually emphasize Anapana. The concentration factor is in general just a means for the mind to become stable and flexible, and then abide in virtue. Right now, it's difficult to study for a long period of time, or to meditate for a long period of time. Body and mind get sore and exhausted, there is pain and boredom. We cultivate the three factors of concentration, mindfulness and introspection by doing Anapana (or usually focusing on the mental image of the body of the buddha) simply to become able to abide in virtue for as long as we want. It is like opening your eyes to then get to see this and that. Unfortunately, there are people who engage in Anapana meditation and the like just to feel better, temporarily sheltered from their issues, away from their usual obsessive and discursive thoughts, etc. These are not wholesome motivations. Great teachers usually say: if you want to relax, take a nap. It's way easier than meditating.

Meditation should not replace the bottle. It should not be a means to bury your head in the sand or an anesthetic that makes your life more bearable.

There is no better way to damage the karma you have accumulated than:

Purifying by way of the four opponent powers
Restraining from non-virtue by upholding discipline (turning away from the 10 non-vritues, taking refuge and lay vows, etc.)
Abiding by wholesome habits such as not oversleeping, taking refuge six times a day, setting motivation before engaging in activities, dedicating after, offering food before you eat, offering drink (even water) before you drink
completing activities
Studying the teachings of the Buddha, because this will help you see things the way they are
Cultivating altruistic intention, opposing self-cherishing. This makes the mind vaster, open, and inclined in virtue.