Help me to understand the concept of Svalakshan & Savikalpaka jnana intuitively I've found this phrase-

  Buddhist logic school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, which flourished in medieval Kashmir. According to this school, the foundation of knowledge is a series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakshana). There are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring entities through ostensible cognitions utilizing linguistic or conceptual interpretation (savikalpaka jnāna).

But I'm unable to intuitively understand the meaning of Svalakshanam & savikalpaka jnana clearly. Can anyone help?

Shcherbatskoy wrote in "Buddhist Logic" (translating Dharmakirti's Logic Manual) something like this:

Senses can directly perceive only one 'moment', but there is a 'chain of moments' that enters our consciousness, thanks to the activity of mentation (which unites them in regard to that moment) on the basis of sensual perception.
Only a chain of moments can enter the consciousness on the basis of perception, because one moment cannot be apprehended by consciousness.

As I understand, it means we build our knowledge not on the basis of those momentary discrete appearances, but on the basis of something like their superpositions, somehow prolonged in time.
But that leads me to another question: are these momentary and discrete things actually real?
It seems possible that "momentary" and "discrete" are just our ideas.
Maybe there's nothing really "momentary and discrete" at all.
PS to explain more:
(1) More on Svalakshana, read Shcherbatskoy: The Buddhist Logic. It's a well known book, where he translates and comments Dharmakirti. I have only Russian edition, so I myself translated the quotation above to English, which might introduce some inaccuracies, as I'm not a native speaker.
Also I found an interesting article by Victoria Lysenko, who explored exactly those problems - sense perception (pratyaksha), conceptualizations, etc. In an article "Svalakshana" in Russian Encyclopedia "Philosophy of Buddhism" she says that Svalakshana is somehow a controversial term, understood differently in Sautrantika and Yogachara.
http://www.fshq.ru/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY_Svalakshana.html
I don't know is there this text anywhere in English, so here is the Google-translation with several my corrections:

Svalakshana
[The opposition] Svalakshana - samanya-lakshana (Sanskrit svalakshana: literally "characterizing / defining itself". Sämänya-lakshana: "defining through the common [with others]") - the terms of the epistemology of the Dignaga and Dharmakirti schools, denoting individual, concrete, singular, unique - "particularity", in contrast to the general characteristic - "universalia". Svalakshana is something that is perceived in itself, as a reality, independent of any other things, whereas samanya-lakshana is the result of comparison, comparison of the given perception with something else, or their perception in some capacity, in some role, in otherness. Between them there is an impassable abyss: the svalakshanas are changeable, or rather, instantaneous (see Kshanikavada), and the general characteristics, on the contrary, are stable. Since reality, from the POV of Buddhists, is a discrete flow of dynamical point events - dharmas, then svalakshanas are real, while Samanya-lakshanas are mentally constructed.
The opposition Svalakshana - Samanya-lakshana goes back to the abhidharmic opposition of the truly existing (dravyasat) and nominal (prajnaptisat) dharmas, where the former are endowed with their own nature (svabhava), and the latter are declared unreal. In abhidharma schools, svalakshana is the self-nature of the phenomenon, distinguishing it from other phenomena, or a specifying characteristic (eg, svalakshana of Earth - resistance, of Fire - burning, etc.). Ontologically, S. - S.-l. become these units of analysis in the philosophy of Dignaga-Dharmakirti.
Dharmakirti puts forward a number of criteria that distinguish svalakshana from samanya-lakshana: the ability to produce effects in the form of expedient actions (artha-kriya-shakti), dissimilarity [with nothing else] (asadrishta), nonspecificity by word, perceptibility regardless of any other factors (such as agreements on the use of words, etc.) (Pramana-Varttika III, 1-2).
According to Dharmakirti, actual existing svalakshanas are perceived in two ways: in their own form (svarupa) and in the form of something else (pararupa), i.e. in the form of generalization. Hence two tools of reliable knowledge (pramana): direct perception (nirvikalpaka-pratyaksha) - for svalakshanas, and logical cognition (anumana) - for samanya-lakshanas.
If there is almost no disagreement in the interpretation of Samanya-lakshana, since this term is unambiguously associated with mental construction (kalpana, vikalpa), which is in Buddhist Epistemological School of Dignaga-Dharmakirti belongs to the category of non-genuine, conditionally-true being (parikalpita; see Trisva-bhava), then there are different, often mutually exclusive opinions about the much more complex and ambiguous concept of svalakshana, sometimes even from the same author. For example, Shcherbatskoy, on the one hand, saw in this term an analogue of the Kantian noumena and "things in themselves"; on the other hand, he likened the svalakshanas to "sensory data", sense data, sensibilia (Stcherbatsky 1930, vol. 1, p. 68, 79, 87 ). The difficulty of interpreting Svalakshana is that in the teachings of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the position of the epistemological idealism of Yogachara is combined with realistic position of Sautrantika. Amar Singh, criticizing Shcherbatskoy's attempt to bring the concept of Svalakshanas closer to Yogachara idealism, notes that the real opposition of the Svalakshana as the ultimately particular object of perception to Samanya-laksana as an object of logical cognition is possible only within the realistic theory of knowledge of Sautrantika (Singh 1984). From the point of view of Sautrantikas, cognition does not deal with external objects, but only with their representations in consciousness - sensory data, which, however, are caused by objectively existing external stimuli. It is these stimuli that are called in Sautrantika Svalakshanas. From the position of Yogacharas, once cognition is independent of external objects, svalakshanas can only be sensory data. In the works of Dharmakirti, the term svalakshana is used, as a rule, in the context of the realism of Sautrantika. However, here arises the problem of the relationship between the Svalakshanas and their sensory reflections in cognition, images (abhasa, akara): are these images similar or different to their svalakshans?! Are svalakshanas noumenas or are they knowable?
Dharmakirti did not give direct, unambiguous and consistent answers to these questions. First, he adhered to the Sautrantikan concept of similarity (sarupya) between the cognitive image and his real prototype, i.e. external object (see Sakaravada - Nirakaravada), and secondly, he acknowledged that the svalakshanas are "grasped" (grahya) by pratyaksha (sensory perception, sensation), which implies that they can not be noumenal. But then in what sense can we speak about their inaccessibility to verbal expression? In Buddhist epistemology this is explained, first, due to the instantaneousness of the Svalakshanas (see Kshanikavada), because of which they can not be objects of empirical experience, which is a mixture of instantaneous sensations with their conceptualization - kalpana (only buddhas and other enlightened beings are able to recognize kshanas), and secondly, by Buddhist nominalism - the conviction that the meaning of words is only mentally designed universalia. Therefore, the verbal ineffability of Svalakshanas does not imply their transcendence in relation to perception. Against the noumenality of the Svalakshanas is also the fact that Dharmakirti speaks of Svalakshanas as atoms (paramanu - meaning Buddhist "phenomenal" atoms of colors, tastes, etc. qualities). Though, he does not develop this idea; so researchers argue about whether he understands by Svalakshanas individual atoms or their clusters (samchita) and, accordingly, whether the atoms generate one sensation (sensum, eg, a color spot) or a set of atomic sensations, which are then synthesized into color spots.
Analysis of new sources, inaccessible in the times of Scherbatskoy, especially Skt. and Tib. commentaries of the followers of Dharmakirti, allow to better understand the dilemma faced by the Buddhist philosopher. If he recognizes that the svalakshanas are single atoms, then this will contradict the Buddhist postulate of the non-perceivability of individual atoms (from the POV of Buddhists, atoms are perceived only in mass, like hair); but if he would assert that these are aggregations of atoms, he will face the objection that the accumulation of atoms, as representing "single in many", is actually a universal (samanya-lakshana), and, cognizing it, sensory perception turns to be conceptual (Pramana Varttika III. 194). In response to this objection, Dharmakirti denies the possibility for one object to be both single and multiple at the same time, citing the example of a multicolor on the wings of a butterfly, which is perceived as a single color (the reference to the well-known concept of the "motley" color "chitra" in the Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya schools, which is not a collection of different colors, but an independent color). According to the commentators, Dharmakirti interpreted the cluster (samchita) of atoms not as a whole (avaya-vin), different from the sum of its parts (avaya), but as an impulse acquired by each individual atom as a result of the impulses of other individual atoms entering the causal complex (hetu-samagri), which generates the sensible given. Since in Dharmakirti's teachings it is the Svalakshanas that are causally effective (artha-kriya-karitva) stimuli of perception, and therefore the only real entities, they should be identified not as a collective impulse of all atoms, but rather as a complex of interdependent impulses of individual atoms (Dunne 2004, p.103-109). This interpretation ultimately proves to be close to one of Shcherbatskoy's interpretations, who often compared svalakshana to energy point-moment. ("External object is not matter, but energy ... reality is instantaneous and consists of moment-points, which are centers of energy" - Shcherbatsky 1930, vol. I, p. 510).
However, the question remains open: what is the content of this sensory given - a mere reflection of the Svalakshanas, which by definition are non-spatial, - or it is an image, for example, of a color (a color spot) having a spatial extent? Dharmakirti does not give an answer, but it is obvious that the lack of spatiality of the Svalakshanas jeopardizes the principle of congruity (sarupya) of the cognitive image and its external referent, to which he was committed. Critical analysis of the concept of S. - s.-l. of Dignaga and Dharmakirti was performed by the Madhyamik-Prasangik Chandrakirti.
REFERENCES: Stcherbatsky Th. The Buddhist Logic. Vol. 1-2. Leningrad, 1930-1932; Singh A. The Heart of Buddhist Philosophy - Dinnâga and Dharmakïrti. D., 1984. P. 117-137; Dunne JD Foundations of Dharmakïrti's Philosophy. Bost., 2004. P. 91-113; Arnold D. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. NY, 2005.
V.G. Lysenko. Source - Encyclopedia Philosophy of Buddhism - Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy

That's an interesting text, and there are more interesting articles by Lysenko - on Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Vasubandhu, Vachaspati Mishra etc., e.g. "What is immediate perception? The Buddhist answer". Download PDF here: http://www.iias.asia/sites/default/files/IIAS_NL44_2021.pdf
or from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/8135589/What_is_immediate_perception_The_Buddhist_answer
(2) So if you asked what I think, I approach it from Madhyamaka (as I understand it). Or, in modern logic, from what they call "constructivism". How did ideas of "momentary" and "discrete" appear in our thinking?
They might look self-evident, from the point of view of our experience:

a book moved by my hand seems to be a discrete object;
and an idea of "zero-length moment" comes from imagining a frozen cut of the world...

But does "zero-length moment" have any reality except being our imagined concept?
No.
Then are we sure that separate moments exist at all - even of non-zero length?
What if the world and the time are not discrete at all, in any sense?
Then how can we speak of elementary constituents of our perception as discrete momentary things?
Did you ever perceive really discrete momentary perceptions? Even a flash of lightning is not a discrete perception, because it has a "tail" of subsiding blindness.
So isn't "discreteness of moments" just a mental construction which we use to cut the world in our imagination?
I.e., "discreteness" might belong only to our mental constructing, but not to primary sensory data or their sources.
Do these questions make sense?
Then, speaking about discrete things, are they really discrete, or that discreteness exists only in our modeling of the world?
Is the book in my hand really discrete thing, or that is just an illusion, developed in my mind?


Which are the best Thai amulets for love, job, and career? Which are the best Thai amulets that can help to get my love back, and also help in my life, jobs, and career?

Experts believe as recent as 500 years ago around south east Asia region), texts were generated about a story of King Kosala asking Buddha about anisong (good karma) for creating Buddha's image.  Some Thai Buddhist temples create amulets ever since.

If you still want to have one, just don't spend tons of money on it. Amulets are collectible just like baseball cards.  There are tons of forgery.  You may go to Thai buddhist temple near you and ask a monk for one.  Or if you live in the US, you can try writing Metta Forest Monastery in CA,and ask for one if they still have any.  wat metta

PS.  there is no way of measuring "mystical" power of an amulet, so pick one that appeals to you.  This sutta might help you further causes in love and career.  Buddha gave this lecture to the Direction Worshipers...

Sigalovada Sutta

As an employee

start work before boss
leave work after boss
taking only what is given
doing assigned work well
promoting boss' good reputation.

and if you are the boss

allocating work according to aptitude
providing wages
looking after the sick
sharing special treats (bonus)
giving reasonable time off work

As a friend (so you will be well loved)

generosity
kind words
acting for their welfare
impartiality
honesty

These will help us more than any amulets could.


Two interpretations of the three levels of suffering, Dukkha Sutta and Tibetan There's a wrinkle in the teachings about the three levels of suffering. The Pali Canon, in SN 38.14 -- Dukkha Sutta -- has it thus (leaving things uninterpreted for the moment):

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā)
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā)
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)

The Tibetan teachings typically have it in the following order (Gampopa, Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Chapter 5, has the reverse):

the suffering of suffering -- overt, obviously painful stuff.
the suffering of change -- suffering implicit in pleasure because of impermanence, so it will end
all-pervasive suffering -- suffering due to conditioned existence itself, and the aggregates which are of the nature of suffering

The Tibetan teaching is widely interpreted as I have indicated (though a lot of the descriptions of all-pervasive suffering shade into the definition of suffering of change, which they shouldn't IMHO).

A lot of commentators (such as Guenther on Gampopa) see SN 38.14 as the source of the the Tibetan teaching, and the first items of each do seem to line up nicely, as do the suffering of change in both. But after that there are problems, mainly, why did the order change.

Most pervasively, there is an interpretation (by contemporary teacher Bodhipaksa) of SN 38.14 where the two sufferings of change don't even totally line up, and maybe the whole correspondence is wrong and is more about the two-arrow teaching of SN 36.6 -- The Sallatha Sutta -- than levels of suffering, and referred to in this SE answer: that correct interpretation of SN 38.14 is roughly:

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā) -- the initial pain -- the "first arrow"
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā) -- the constructed pain we add by resisting/resenting/etc the initial pain -- the "second arrow"
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā) -- the suffering we get by seeking to cover the constructed pain with pleasure, which is impermanent.

The change in order, putting suffering of formations/conditioned existence in the middle, is the smoking gun, according to Bodhipaksa -- if the Tibetan interpretation of SN 38.14 were correct, then suffering of formations would absolutely have to come last.

So finally my question -- not which is "correct" but -- when did the Tibetan interpretation arise, if not an entirely new teaching, at least the change of order and interpretation of suffering of formations as universal, all-pervasive suffering rather than a personal, second-arrow kind of deal. Is is it in the Theravada anywhere?

The farthest back I can find it is Gampopa, whose Jewel Ornament of Liberation is (I believe) the first fully articulated, book-length Lam Rim text, after Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment which is the origin of the Lam Rim, but only has 68 verses and does not go to this level of detail. Seems that those are close enough to the beginning of Buddhadharma in Tibet that the next stop back, if there is one, is probably India or maybe a Nyingma teaching.

Addendum -- Toni Bernhard, Author of How to be Sick and other books, explicates the non-Tibetan, Bodhipaksa version of three sufferings.

Addendum -- There is another sutta with the same sequence as SN 38.14, namely SN 45.165 -- The Dukkhata Sutta. Well known contemporary scholar, translator and practitioner Maurice Walshe has this translation and interpretation of SN 45.165 that accords with the Tibetan reading, despite the sequence.

The words in SN 38.14 are not even attributed to Buddha, they are Sariputra's. I don't know why Theravada took them as the basis of their analysis.

Instead, the authoritative definition of dukkha is found in SN 56.11, the first and main sutra of Buddhism, The Sutra of Setting the Wheel of Dharma in Motion:

  Now this, wanderers, is the nobles' truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; unsatisfied thirst is dukkha. In short, the five heaps of fuel (upadana-skandha) are dukkha.

As I understand, in Tibetan classification "the suffering of suffering" is a generalization of the apparent dukkha such as the pains of "birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair". "The suffering of change" is a generalization of "association with the unloved / separation from the loved" aka "the unsatisfied thirst", and "the all-pervasive suffering" stands for the "In short, the five heaps of fuel are dukkha". The sequence preserves the ordering of the original Buddha's quote.


How to do walking meditation? I recently came across the concept of doing walking meditation, but I am not clearly aware of the technique or procedure to do walking meditation.

Can someone help me understand this?

Thank you.

This is to be mindful about walking. Walking creates sensations in the body like:

touch of your feet on the ground
the tension of the muscles
sensations due to change of posture
sensations due to fatigue.

Whatever sensation:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta


how to practice correctly This article which i have linked to at the bottom seems to contradict itself. It seems to be saying that the way vipassana is taught where you note what comes to your attention is incorrect.   Im finding it confusing as I am trying to get clear about my practice but different people seem to say different things. I am getting to a point with Buddhism where I dont know who to listen to anymore and wait before you say "listen to yourself" I have been trying that for years and not really progressing hence the reason I am looking for some more clarity and riding such articles.  My question is how do I figure out if I am practicing correctly?   Some people even say that there is no such thing as "incorrect" meditation

"if one continually tries but cannot establish mindfulness on breathing, then he can practise other kinds of meditation for the time being."

but then goes on to say

"Most of the meditation practices that have become popular today are not in line with the Dhamma. Those practices are to note in your mind, “pain, pain”, when you feel pain in some part of your body during meditation, and this they say is vedananupassana – contemplation on feeling. If your mind goes somewhere, they say to note “going, going”, and this they say is cittanupassana – the contemplation of mind. If you feel sleepy, they say to note “sleepy, sleepy”. And, if a desire or agitation presents itself in the mind, they say to note “desire, desire”, or “agitation, agitation”, and this they say is dhammanupassana – the contemplation of mind objects. Those are the incorrect practices today that people are being taught as meditation."

http://mahamevnawa.lk/ananda-sutta-leading-to-awakening/

Suzuki stresses in Zen Mind Beginner's Mind the importance of not having any gaining idea when practising zazen. Remember: the goal of Buddhism is not to attain enlightenment but to end suffering. Of course you cannot end suffering in any absolute sense but you must try. I think you might be worrying too hard about achieving something. Where is this enlightenment I seek?

This is attachment.

The ending of suffering (of you, me, the world etc.) doesn't depend on you attaining enlightenment but on the ending of suffering. We meditate to see and to understand. Right understanding leads to right speech and action. But really you don't need to understand. This is why traditional lay practise is based on the five precepts relating to speech and action. This is why you have apparently unintelligent people who are good at their jobs and apparently intelligent people who don't even have jobs.

But really you don't need to attain/obtain anything. Everything is temporal and comes into existence and goes out of existence in time. A thing has a beginning and an end. Depending then on any thing can only make you unhappy because by its nature it won't last.

A dog is made up of atoms. The word dog is made up of the three letters d-o-g, one sound from the larynx (vowel) and two sounds from restricting the sound via the mouth (consonants) at the beginning and the end. The word dog has entered the French language as "dogue" (mastiff). A physical dog will die. The idea of a dog will last longer but will still eventually die. Bears and dogs share a common ancestor. Once there were no dogs.

Everything changes. You cannot depend on the temporal.

And yet you have to.

You have to eat food and breathe air to provide that collection of attached particles you call "you" with energy so it can continue to hold together.

You need some attachments. To live is to suffer.

What can you do then?

Well, fewer constraints is better than more constraints. Freer is better than not free at all.

How do you find freedom?

Through choices.

How do you get choices?

Through being a source of something that others want/need. If you reduce their suffering they will be drawn to you. The more you are in demand, the more you will have choices. In such a scenario you are free to engage (bind/tie) or not to engage. They are happier because you have decreased their suffering. You are happier because you are freer.

Anyway, it all ends in tears so I wouldn't worry too much. Give the world what it is happier for having and take care of yourself. Don't worry about attaining enlightenment. Don't worry about correct meditation, just keep going and focus on ending suffering.


Six types of temperaments and techniques for them According to this Buddhist glossary (quoted below), there are six types of people i.e. people with six types of nature or temperaments. Apparently, it comes from the Visuddhimagga.
There is some information on the Buddhist personality types wikipedia page, but it doesn't have sufficient source citations. According to it, there are different recommended techniques for the different temperaments. Also, it claims this info is available in Visuddhimagga, Abhidhamma and Niddesa of KN.
My questions:

Where can I find the references mentioned? (in Niddesa, Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga)
What are the recommended techniques for the different temperaments?
Is this (#2) found in the scriptural sources? Please provide references.

From this Buddhist glossary:

carita [carita] nature, temperament. Carita denotes the intrinsic
nature of a human being. The six types of temperament are:

greedy temperament [rāga-carita],
hateful temperament [doṣa-carita],
dull temperament [moha-carita],
devout temperament [śraddhā-carita],
intellectual temperament [buddhi-carita],
discursive temperament [vitarka-carita].

The six temperaments are combined with one another. The speculative temperament (dṛṣṭi carita) is added to them.
AS. I. 309. CMA. IX. 330-331. VM. III. 82-88.

Where can I find the references mentioned? (in Niddesa, Abhidhamma,
Visuddhimagga)

Visuddhimagga > Chapter 3 KammatthanaggahanaNiddesa (Describing the way to recite and learn the meditation from the teacher) > cariyāvaṇṇanā (Describing the mental behavior [for stopping PariyutthanaKilesa] for the teacher to analysis his student behavior), and it's sub-commentary.

What are the recommended techniques for the different temperaments?

In VisuddhiMagga recommend high quality teacher. There are many qualifications to be a teacher in Theravada.

Is this (#2) found in the scriptural sources? Please provide
references.

It is techniques for the meditation not theory or rule, no standard, so in Visuddhimagga...

yasmā pana idaṃ cariyāvibhāvanavidhānaṃ sabbākārena neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgataṃ, kevalaṃ ācariyamatānusārena vuttaṃ, tasmā na sārato paccetabbaṃ. rāgacaritassa hi vuttāni iriyāpathādīni dosacaritādayopi appamādavihārino kātuṃ sakkonti. saṃsaṭṭhacaritassa ca puggalassa ekasseva bhinnalakkhaṇā iriyāpathādayo na upapajjanti. yaṃ panetaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu cariyāvibhāvanavidhānaṃ vuttaṃ, tadeva sārato paccetabbaṃ. vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘cetopariyañāṇassa lābhī ācariyo cariyaṃ ñatvā kammaṭṭhānaṃ kathessati, itarena antevāsiko pucchitabbo’’ti. tasmā cetopariyañāṇena vā taṃ vā puggalaṃ pucchitvā jānitabbaṃ. ayaṃ puggalo rāgacarito, ayaṃ dosādīsu aññataracaritoti.
However, the six types of temperaments analysis   neither come from Tipitaka nor Commentary. All are from many teachers' idea, so it's not standard. Actually, the proper gesture, etc., for greedful person might be proper for  hateful person who having strong mindfulness, too. And the various  guesture, etc., can't be in  a person who having complex temperament (most people has one personal gesture, etc.) Actually, the six types of temperaments analysis   from Commentary is standard whether "the teacher, who can know of other minds-Cetopariyanana, can know student's temperaments and teach the (proper) meditation. If not, the teacher can talk the student to get personal information." So, the temperaments can be known by these 2 ways.


3 marks of existence Is this person describing the 3 marks of existence in the right way.

What the Buddha showed was that the actual reality of “this world” is described by the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta: No matter how hard we try, we cannot maintain things to our satisfaction in the long term (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).

The three characteristics are characteristics of phenomena and are not related to mental reactions to things. "Dukkha" here does not mean "getting distraught". "Dukkha" meaning "getting distraught" pertains to the subject of the Four Noble Truths but not to the subject of the Three Characteristics.

For example, a motor car is impermanent. Because a motor car is impermanent, the motor car cannot bring lasting happiness. Therefore it is "dukkha" ("unable to bring happiness"). The impermanence of the motor car also makes it "not-self" because it cannot be permanently owned, possessed or controlled. To view a motor car in this way does not mean the viewer "gets distraught". For the Enlightened, it is the opposite. Their minds attain peace when understanding a motor car cannot bring lasting true happiness.


How to practice Metta without a Benefactor? I find it very difficult to practice metta because i can't find anyone who has been a benefactor.I don't know a lot of people.Most people i know i find it very difficult to send metta to as a benefactor as their either very dear to me or downright hostile.Can i just imagine a benefactor i never had .Or use a dead person, as my auntie was very kind to me but she's deceased now.

How can i practice metta without a benefactor? How can i find a benefactor to practice metta to?

You don't need a benefactor to practice that type of metta; you just need someone who is dear to you;  it just shouldn't be someone you could potentially desire sexually, or whom you are partial towards, like your children.

The stages, according to the Visuddhimagga are as follows:

cultivate metta towards yourself (useless, but a good example)
cultivate metta towards someone you hold dear
cultivate metta towards a neutral party
cultivate metta towards someone you dislike (optional, only for those who have such a person)

Having someone dear to you seems important, as there is no advice given for what to do if such a person does not exist. Ostensibly, you could skip that step and try to immediately cultivate metta towards a neutral party, but the dear one is useful for returning to when difficulty arises with the other objects.

Alternatively, you could try cultivating metta in order of proximity; may I be happy, may all beings in this room be happy, this building, this city, this country, this world, the universe. Also, by direction; may all beings to the East be happy, etc. Or finally, by class: may all women be happy, men, animals, angels, etc.

Mahasi Sayadaw has a detailed exposition of the four brahmaviharas that is both practical and informative:

http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Brahmavihara%20Dhamma.htm

As he says,

  "Mettā can also be developed towards any other person deserving of affection and respect, if not towards your teacher, grand-parents, mother, father and so on."


What is the relationship between dana and tax? Is dana (or has it ever been) considered taxable in some countries?

Do you mind an unreferenced answer?

I think the answer is "generally, no"; but that you're asking after any examples, however rare, where the answer has been yes.

Also I guess that gifts of wealth are usually made to an institution e.g. a monastery (as opposed to less-easily-taxable gifts of food and other requisites, given to a monk).

Historically where a country had Muslim conquerors (e.g. India, Afghanistan) there was sometimes a poll tax (a head-tax) on non-Muslims.
There were a few short periods, a thousand years ago or so, where Chinese emperors were troubled by the tax-exempt (and war-exempt) status of Buddhists, and tried to regulate or tax or suppress it
In the Soviet Union under Stalin (e.g. in 1928), they decided that Buddhism (even though atheist) was anti-revolutionary, and taxed monasteries
In Thailand a few years ago there was a proposal to tax monasteries (however I think that was not implemented)
In 1985-1987 Kyoto tried to add a tax to the price of admission tickets which the Buddhist temples sold to tourists


Sutta advice on obstacles and insults, similar to Epictetus' (Stoic) advice? Lately, I have been reading (again!), more and more, the workings of the roman stoic philosopher Epictetus: and I think Buddhism and Epictetan Stoicism share a bunch of similarities; and I would now like to ask:

Are there any sutta references in how to deal with negative events?

If I may give you some examples of that Stoic advice:

  "If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."
  "Bear and forbear"
  "What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this".
  "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid"

I have missed this kind of advice in Buddhism: is there similar advice in Buddhism?

OP: "If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of
  my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."

Please see the Akkosa Sutta. It's similar. If you don't react to insults, it goes back to the originator.

Also from the Kalama Sutta:

  "Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid
  of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps
  pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an
  awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will."

Be free from hostility and ill will, and be imbued with good will.

  OP: "Bear and forbear"

Please see the Nakulapita Sutta:

  "When this was said, the Blessed One said to me, 'So it is,
  householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, & encumbered. For
  who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true
  health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train
  yourself: "Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be
  unafflicted." That is how you should train yourself.'

Let your mind be unafflicted.

  OP: "What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this".

Please see the Maha-Saccaka Sutta:

  "And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

When you face hardship, if you are developed in body and mind, you would not suffer from it.


How can Nirvana (Nibbana) be permanent? If everything is impermanent and this is used as a reason why Buddhists do not believe in a creator and eternal God, how can Nirvana be permanent?

Did the Buddha ever explain this point?

There is a famous set of verses of the Buddha that go as follows:

  “All conditioned things are impermanent” – when
  one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from
  suffering. This is the path to purification.
  “All conditioned things are unsatisfactory” –
  when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away
  from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  “All things are not-self” – when one sees this
  with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.
  This is the path to purification.

  -- Dhp. 277-9 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Do you see the difference?

Nowhere did the Buddha say that everything is impermanent, because it is not true. All things that arise must cease (SN 56.11), and that is the key to answering this question, because nibbaana is unarisen:

  And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans.)

The logical conclusion of not being born is not dying, and so:

  being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- Ibid


Should any monastic be considered a noble one? Should every monastic unconditionally be considered a noble one, and treated as such, to abstain from bad kamma at the very least? or are lay people, and other monastics, free to use personal judgement based on the personal qualities, or lack thereof, of a given monastic?

If the latter, then am I free to verbally express my concern/blame, without producing excessively bad kamma? For example due to not agreeing with the way the Dhamma is presented, or timing thereof, or not agreeing with the arrogant attitude of the monk, or pointing out flaws in the behavior/methods/views of that monk?

Taken that a good friend would give you advices to abstain from things which could harm you or of bad results, what advices would you give, being in such a possition, knowing that cause and effect isn't a democratical thing, or a "liberal"? Would you send him in an easy fatal lost "war" to win his favor, give into possible defilements?

While it is a very seldom gift of being well-wished adviced, even if disliking, think on you as a child and your parents, it's not something you are obligated to and so worthy to think clear why wishing to do, honest.

Just a sample, not to present something, but to have a possibility to think maybe more from outside, as life actually runs different as thought, as just one to give: Assimilating of Bhante Samahita's death, decay of beloved

For on ordinaty person it's really hard to keep preoccupations, feeling... seperated, not to speek of understanding of what possible just known from far.

So it's really not an easy issue if serious wishing to build up Nissay with those headed toward liberation, not even if after good, firm, intellectual understanding.

May all take care and often remember their parents hardship to even letting have grown till here.

For all that reason, since the old, people are adviced to focus their dedications toward the Sangha and others then the most think, the Buddha gave also to householders advices of how to react on "troublesome" monks, since thinks aren't for sure! And the Buddha knew his Pappenheimer:

  ...Anāthapiṇḍika the householder heard that, “They say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī.”

  Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, they say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī. How am I to behave with regard to these monks?”...The Discussion of the Eighteen Grounds

Old lay people in tradition countries, wouldn't advice or support one, nearly generally, especially if having been monks, but of course they had no google and suttacentral-monks, which might be useful or will most eternal cut of the stream of those rest heading already outward. So again, right critic leads to heaven (even if just by ones thought) and wrong likewise to hell. So the proverbs of binding a knot into your tongue aren't out of reason, one can be sure, and for good deeds one does not need to become a "killer", not even one who stuggles outwardly long. In both directions, and the rest stays open for real compassion and seldom left paramis one could have.

And to add an importand issue, kamma, and that's what the most here is about, doesn't care whether you then tell wrong just your friend, spread it cicretly or anonymuosely... a larg bypass downstairs as well, by especially "smart".

There should be no issue better to simply direct the case direct, and if no "success", onecan deside to left another off for one self, not even just at least.

(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds, but for freedom from it.)


Justifying the Four Noble Truths without rebirth In the article entitled A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth, Doug Smith, of the Secular Buddhist Association, wrote:

  It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically
  informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its
  associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them.

It appears that many Secular Buddhists do not accept rebirth, while almost all other Buddhists do.

In the essay entitled Dhamma Without Rebirth?, well-known Tripitaka translator and scholar Ven. Bodhi conveyed the mainstream view of the Buddhist world:

  If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go
  directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the
  Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his
  teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us
  that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his
  time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has
  tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice,
  affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the
  motivation with which it is followed through to completion.

If someone considers himself a Buddhist, we can assume that he accepts the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. I guess this should apply to Secular Buddhists as well.

If there is no such thing as rebirth (or continuation of the stream of consciousness or mind after death, in a new life), then there is no need to end suffering by ending craving (third noble truth), through following the Noble Eightfold Path (fourth noble truth). Instead, it's much easier to commit suicide, or simply wait for natural death. After all, if there is no rebirth, then at death, all suffering would end anyway, right?

So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end suffering?

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.

3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

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

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?

6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)

Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

  "Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
  benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html

Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

  SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

  Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).

That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.


Buddhists view on NDE experiences I have recently given some interest to NDE stories.
After reading a hundred of them, it seems pretty credible that people are telling at least some level of truth in their experience. One thing that seems to come back is that they meet their deceased loved ones, they feel a great feeling of peace/love and a huge increase in their consciousness / mental abilities.
Its a bit of "lalaland" and
I have several issues with that :
Most of them seem to imply that death instantly "upgrade" you to a level of well being/ spiritual knowledge / awareness.
They also say that the most important thing in life appears to be their relationship, how they treated others (christian term of "love"). That everything is surrounded in love and blabla it's all fine in the end if your life is hellish since when you die everything is fine. Life on earth as a human would be some kind of a choice, an experience to "expend" your consciousness.
I would tend to disagree with all of these things. I don't see any point to life and the suffering that goes with except getting over it by increasing your understanding and knowledge of the self, in order to get over those problems. I would never chose freely to incarnate to experience pain and suffering. To me life is a problem you have to solve. Sometimes the problem are pretty down to earth, like with medical conditions. People used to die because of tooth decay. Now they don't. How is that improving you as a being?
I tend to have more faith in the buddhists views that beings are stuck in the cycle of existences, and for most of them they experience unpleasant things/realm due to poor mental setups. To me existence is absurd, in the sense that all the pain is something we have to get over and be done with it.
How would experienced buddhists view all these NDE stories? What credit would you give to them and how would you reconcile them with the idea of the cycle of existences?

If we take an Abhidhamma stand point, once the "consciousness" (last thought before experiencing death) is released from this body it doesn't come back this body rather it takes root in a new body. Dependant Origination states it that way.
Therefore all these near death experiences, in my view, aren't exactly near death experiences rather experiences similar to a person waking from a coma. This is my understanding therefore it could be wrong.


Is the mind different from the other 'six senses'? In Buddhism as I have been taught it, the mind is included as part of the six senses. So in contrast with the 'normal' five senses we have those five plus mind giving us six. However mind still feels different in some way to the other senses. Is there anywhere in the Buddhist texts where it is acknowledged that mind is in some way special or separate from the other senses. Or is that just an illusion and closer reflection would reveal that actually it is no more different to the others than hearing or vision.

According to Theravada Buddhism anyway, mind is different; it acts as both the receiver of the other five senses, as well as being a sense in and of itself. Meaning the mind can receive objects from any of the physical senses, but it can also receive mental objects. The reception of mental objects is different from receiving physical objects:

  The six types of cognitive processes are conveniently divided into
  two groups—the five-door process (pañcadvāravīthi), which includes the
  five processes occurring at  each of the physical sense  doors; and the
  mind-door process (manodvāravīthi), which comprises all processes that
  occur solely at the mind door. Since the bhavanga is also the channel
  from which the five-door processes  emerge,  the  latter  are sometimes
  called mixed door processes (missaka-dvāravīthi) as they involve both
  the mind door and a physical sense door. The processes that occur solely
  at the mind door are then called bare mind-door processes (suddha-mano-
  dvāravīthi) since they emerge from the bhavanga alone without the instrumentality of a  physical sense door.  As will be seen, the first five
  processes all follow a uniform pattern despite the difference in the sense
  faculty, while the sixth comprises a variety of processes which are alike
  only in that they occur independently of the external sense doors.

  -- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi

Since, in regards to the sixth sense, the mind is both the object and the receiver, it my often appear as though the mind is outside of the senses; in a sense it is, since it covers all senses, and acts as receiver for each. The standard understanding is that just as there are six senses, there are also six types of consciousness.

There are other ways of looking at reality that may shed light on the subject in a different way, e.g. the five aggregates, the elements, the faculties, etc.


Due to coming together of what does the dream arise? Buddha explains how world came to be by saying eye and forms come together to create eye consciousness. Coming together of eye, forms and eye-consciousness created contact. Contact lead to feelings which lead to birth , death and suffering.
Same applies to ear , nose , tongue , mind.
But when we sleep the eyes are shut yet we see the dream. How is that possible ? In that dream I am able to see, hear , touch  and feel.
Due to which contact in this real world am I able to live the dreams ?

My question is : due to coming together of which internal and external senses does the dream arise ?

A dream consciousness is a mental consciousness arising in dependence upon a mental sense power. While an eye-consciousness apprehends shape and color (which is form), a dream consciousness apprehends a phenomena source. A dream consciousness and its objects simultaneously arise from a seed left in one's mental continuum.
In his commentary to Lorig, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

The blue in the dream is form included in the category of 'phenomena
source'. We have the form source, related to the eye consciousness,
etc. The phenomena source is the source for mental consciousness only.
The blue in the dream is included in that category.
The only source taken in the sleeping state is the phenomena source
and therefore more subtle. Between dream and deep sleep, in the dream
you still have many different manifestations of the phenomena source,
whereas in deep sleep you don't have these manifestation.

Not all mental consciousnesses have a phenomena source as their object of observation. For instance, the divine ear is a clairvoyance that is a mental consciousness apprehending sound, which is form.
Furthermore, in his commentary to Purbuchok’s 'Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers', Geshe Tenzin Tenphel says:

The first, [a mental non-conceptual wrong consciousness] is, for
example, a dream consciousness that clearly sees as blue the blue of a
dream. This subject is a mental consciousness, a non-conceptual
consciousness, and a wrong consciousness.
• it is a wrong consciousness because of being a consciousness that
apprehends its object, a form which is a phenomenon source, as blue,
whereas it does not exist as blue.

In other words, dream-blue is not actual blue. It is not form but phenomena source. Thus, 'seeing blue' in a dream is the function of a mental consciousness and one is not actually seeing.


Theravada perspective on transgender people What would be the Theravada approach to people who have a transgender experience? As far as I understand it, the mind does not have a gender. So should a Buddhist, out of compassion alone, indulge a transgender person in their request to be regarded as a gender opposite that which they are born; or is this not compassion at all, to indulge one in things which you understand to not be based in reality? Where is the line drawn where one crosses over from being compassionate to being dishonest to oneself and what you have experienced to be true? I know this may be a sensitive subject to some, and I'm not trying to marginalize anyone else's experience of reality; only trying to gain some perspective on how to relate to the world. Thank you

Stay with loving kindness (Metta) and act out of goodwill.

Have compassion (karuna) knowing that all people suffer and offer help when you have strength.

Avoid perceptions of gender and personalities as that would lead to conditioned responses or worst still stereotyped reactions. So with mindfulness intact act with goodwill.


Does the "Zen Master" from Cyberpunk 2077 accurately represent Buddhism? In the game Cyberpunk 2077, you can encounter a character labelled only as "Zen Master", who offers your player character the opportunity to engage in meditations with him. However, the content of the meditations he offers doesn't seem to be based off of actual Buddhism from my understanding of it, though I am not a Buddhist or an expert on Buddhist philosophy or practice. Rather, it seems much more like Western New Age philosophy.
Here's a video someone made compiling the player's interactions with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In8etjG6LMQ
Does this character present an accurate representation of Buddhist philosophy and/or practice (especially Zen Buddhism, given his name), or is the portrayal as bad as I think it might be? If it is bad, is it to the point of being offensive?

Buddhism does not have meditations on the Spirit of Water, Spirit of Air and Spirit of Fire.
Real Buddhist monks do not accept money for teachings.
The teachings of Cyberpunk 2077's Zen Master appear to be New Age.


Logic of Emptiness still unconvincing. Please help explain I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing...
Usually, it goes like this:

The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc.
See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing.

Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short.
First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?
Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be truly existent, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then.
I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.
Thanks!

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :)
You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right now it is real, it exists, regardless of the observer, you say.
The problem is not that it does not exist. The problem is that in the ontological reality there are no distinct objects. Whatever actually exists is delineated into "objects" by the perceiving mind.
This delineation (identification of objects in time and space, and by their characteristics) depends on the scale and perspective of observation.
You think, first the objects exist, and then we identify them. But it is the opposite, first we pick our perspective and criteria (either deliberately or, more often, because we were conditioned to see things in a certain way) and then we delineate and designate objects. So what is it that exists before delineation? Whatever it is, it's not "objects". Let's call it Emptiness ;)
Because the range of your perspectives is very limited, it seems to you that the way objects are usually designated/delineated in our society is the only way that makes sense, and therefore it seems to you that this way to designate them is identical with their ontological nature.
Take a chair, for example. When we say "chair" is empty we don't mean that nothing at all exists out there. We mean that the delineation and designation of objects by e.g. humans, ants, and some hypothetical aliens is potentially different. An ant perceives chair as part of the landscape. An alien living a different temporal scale may perceive chair as a final phase in life of a tree.
And yet, a chair is a chair, you'd say, even if some other species ignorantly misperceive it. We know that this in fact is a chair, you say - and this is where you're wrong, according to Mahayana Buddhism. This is just a habit of anthropocentric thinking, that's all.
Of course most of the objects we deal with in our social reality were specifically designed for convenient usage in some pragmatic contexts. This tricks our mind into confusing their symbolical meaning in our reality (their pragmatic function) with their essence. But if you go outside human world, ambiguity of delineation/designation will be easier to spot. Take the clouds for example, or the mountains, or the water streams, or the natural species - especially if you observe them over long time. Do they have rigid well-defined identities? No, they are notoriously hard to delineate.
It's not just delineation though, it goes even deeper than defining spatial/temporal boundaries of our objects. The thing is, in the act of identification we focus on certain properties of phenomena and ignore other aspects or properties. If we were to focus on other properties we would not just draw different boundaries, our phenomena would be delineated by other measurements than their positions or sizes in time and space. Again, think about the boundaries of species, in what space are they located?
Everything exists in some way, sure, but nothing exists as conveniently separate, clearly identifyable, qualitatively static, and with its true workings perfectly matching our idea of its external appearance - as naive people and children tend to imagine.
Nothing is as solid as it appears.
This is what's meant by Emptiness, and the more your perspective expands the deeper it gets. It's not about existence vs non-existence, it's about conceptualization, identification, recognition, delineation, designation, reification - and getting mentally and emotionally attached to spatial/temporal/conceptual abstractions.


buddhism in real life In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta the Buddha said "desire is source of all suffering". So we cannot avoid suffering in life. It is a part of life.

However, he also said there was a path to the cessation of this suffering, which was following the eightfold path. The main point of this seemed to be ending that desire. Or clinging to that desire.

But does this teaching work for real life? It is true that desire leads to suffering but desire ALSO leads to pleasure. As long as we are experiencing that pleasure in the moment without expecting more, is there anything wrong with desire?

Like the Buddha, many monks live very detached lives of routine. They don't have jobs or families so essentially they dont form bonds with other people. Essentially they try to minimize desire in life and posssibly only have desire for the distant goal of nirvana. If another monk becomes sick or dies, there may be little suffering but it is accepted. If we want the human race to survive, everybody cannot live like the monks. They have to form lasting bonds which I admit is a form of clinging. At the very least don't mothers have to nurture their children at least for a while?

Here is an example of a real world situation. How would it be approached using Buddhist methods?

A child comes home from school and the mother sees he has bruises. He says a bully has beaten him up. The mother notifies the school and they notify the parents of the bully. But it turns out the bully is acting the way he does since he comes from a dysfunctional family and his parents have no wish to correct his behavior.

It's not desire that leads to pleasure, it is ("good") action that does.

Desire in and of itself is blind, it just wants, craves. Desire does not always translate into good action.

Instead, 1) There could be passive frustrating hopeless desire. 2) There could be blind desire that makes you act in self-destructing ways.

So desire for pleasure could very well lead to suffering. Either (1) suffering of frustrating hopeless desire, or (2) suffering of a bad side-effects of careless action.

What leads to pleasure is "good" action. Good action is action that not only creates short-term pleasure, but creates indirect/latent causes for more pleasure and peace and harmony in the long-run! Good action is strategic!

What's wrong with desire for pleasure? Desire for pleasure is not strategic. Desire for pleasure tends to be either short-sighted or careless in terms of side-effects.

Now, you could ask, how can there be action without desire? Very simple! It is action informed by education, or right understanding, or shame, or honor, or fear etc. Not all action comes from desire.

Finally, you should understand that in Buddhism pleasure is seen as inherently short-term and prone to side-effects, so per Buddhism the better goal is "peace" or "harmony". Therefore in Buddhism we say that right action, the one that comes from right understanding, leads to peace and harmony.


Are there examples of humor and irreverence in Buddhist scriptures? Irreverent humour is reasonably well-tolerated in some sections of modern society. For instance, jokes about the pope and about pastors' wives are fairly widespread among even church-going Christians. There are also plenty of God and Devil jokes.

What, if any, role does humour play in Buddhism? Are jokes about The Buddha, or Buddhist gurus and their disciples taboo or in bad taste? If so, what is the basis for this? Is humour discouraged for reasons such as, say, retarding progress towards Nirvana? Are such jokes considered against Vinaya?

As ChrisW said, there are numerous examples of humor and irreverence in Zen lore.

However, unlike most of the jokes about e.g. Christianity which are often said without a wholesome purpose, or sometimes with the objective of pointing out an inconsistency in Christian declared values vs. practice, in Buddhism all activities, including jokes, are 100% subordinated to the primary goal.

Before you can understand the role of jokes in Zen Buddhism, you should understand the crucial role of attachments as obstacles to enlightenment. (I think you are very close to this already, since you have a natural antipathy to superstitions, unexamined beliefs, and rigid/stubborn adherence to subjective points of view & philosophical abstractions.)

While I can't give justice to this topic in one short answer, the idea is that attachments both bias the mind off an ideal objective basis AND lead onto dangerous and often harmful pursuits AND constitute the necessary condition of suffering due to a mismatch between "how is" and "how should be" (the target of attachment).

The traditional Buddhist device against an attachment is known as an antidote. Often antidote takes form of an object opposite to the target of attachment. For example, when attachment is to sexual pleasures, the antidote is contemplation of decomposing corpses. When attachment is to negative attitude towards society, the antidote is generation of loving-kindness, etc. Which leads us to the role of humor as an antidote to attachment to ... the very Buddha Dharma itself.

So for example, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable, he might offer a following piece of wisdom:

  A monk once asked Ummon, "What is the Buddha?"
  "A dried shit-stick!"  -- was the answer.

and

  Last night, this mountain monk [Dogen] unintentionally stepped on a dried turd and it jumped up and covered heaven and earth. This mountain monk unintentionally stepped on it again, and it introduced itself, saying, "My name is Shakyamuni."

and

  Bodhi and Nirvana are poles for tying up donkeys.

and

  If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

Do you understand? Buddha-dharma is medicine for suffering caused by ignorance and attachment, including both intellectual ignorance and attachment, and emotional ignorance and attachment. There are very many different forms of delusion and attachment. Buddha said there are 84000 kinds! A particular form of medicine works better for a particular form of disease. Buddhist humor is one of such medicines.


How do i Focusing on the breath and letting thought go Now this may sound silly but I'm new to mediating and I hear that when you have a thought you just let it go. But if I'm focusing on the breath do I go off it, accept that I'm thinking then go back to the breath or just stay on the breath and if I get distracted go right back to it and not even focus on my thoughts?

You should stay with the breath as much as you can. Therefore, if a thought arises & it will just float away, then let the thought float away; like it is a passing visitor.

You only have to 'let go' of something after you have 'picked it up'. Therefore, if you have not picked up (attached to) the thought, you do not need to let it go. Instead, just stay with the breathing & let the thought float by & away.

This method develops both samatha (calmness) & vipassana (insight).


How can I remove my desire for a relationship/girlfriend? For at least half of my life I've had an extremely strong desire to be in a relationship/have a girlfriend and though I've tried, I've been unsuccessful and this has brought me tremendous suffering to the point where I almost committed suicide 2 years ago. I see couples in a similar age group as me every single day and this further increases my suffering. I first encountered Buddhism 2 years ago and through its teachings I've detached myself from the past and have removed my strong desire for material wealth and this indeed has removed a lot of suffering from my life, however, I just can't seem to let go of immense desire to have a girlfriend even after realizing that external circumstances never bring lasting happiness and fulfillment.

How can I let go of this destructive desire?

What helped me tremendously distance myself is this:
Contemplate the various advantages and disadvantages of having a girlfriend--particularly the one that you think you would get--not the dream-woman-that-you-have-to-be-on-a-certain-level-you-are-not-at-to-get.

For example, here is a personal list of benefits of celibacy:

Jing retention for transmutation into spiritual energy (chi, shen)
Time saved for spiritual and personal goals.
Money saved for spiritual and personal goals and fun.
Mental energy saved from all the headache and back and forth.
Social energy that can go into practical things like helping people or myself rather than feeding a woman's ego.
Less stress for managing a relationship... peace
Less stress about her cheating on me every day... peace

And disadvantages:

Lack of endorphins and excitement
Tactile loneliness
Social ignorance
Sexual ignorance
Intellectual ignorance about X

At this point you should have an overall idea if there is more advantage or disadvantage.

The last step is to FIND activities which address the disadvantages.

exercise
joining a sangha and doing social activities together
learning more more about female evolutionary psychology via videos/books (see Red Queen, Sperm Wars)
getting actual results of Buddha dharma

Lastly, I would say that it is best to pursue your path and not look for anything external because that external (i.e. girlfriend) when it comes to you "naturally" will be extremely well-matched for you (a great companion on your spiritual journey). Maybe it's because you started teaching or you were really successful and someone who values it took notice, etc.... let her find you.

Pursuing an un-ideal relationship would take you off the market and you might miss that girl of your dreams BECAUSE you were looking for her consciously and/or are with someone! Strange, isn't it? The best thing may be to be celibate until hotly pursued by someone well-matched. If it doesn't happen and you put all your 100% effort into the benefits list... then not much is lost!
But had you done the opposite... you will regret the sexual life for maybe eons or however long you think until you are a human and above with Buddhadharma.


Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Lutheran doctrine of Justification? I read on the internet Martin Luther said:

No sin can separate us from Him (Christ), even if we were to kill or commit
adultery thousands of times each day.
the Law shows us our inability to contribute anything to
justification.

Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Lutheranism (Christian Protestantism), namely, a Buddhist doctrine of salvation by faith alone?
Would this qualify as true dharma?

Yes and no.
No: The term “sin” does not have any special connotation in Buddhism, as it has in major theistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In all these religions, the general belief is that sins are individual actions which are contrary to the will of God or to the will of the Supreme Being. The karmic principle is based on action and consequence.
In Buddhist thinking the whole universe, men as well as gods, are subject to a reign of law. Every action, good or bad, has an inevitable and automatic effect in a long chain of causes, an effect which is independent of the will of any deity. Even though this may leave no room for the concept of 'sin' in the sense of an act of defiance against the authority of a personal god, Buddhists speak of 'sin' when referring to transgressions against the universal moral code. In addition, Buddhism has no concept of "original sin" like Christianity.
Yes: If you consider all of the above:

deities are subject to the same karmic principles as all other living beings
there is no comparable concept of sin, just action and consequence

then the principle of Pratītyasamutpāda comes very close. Commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, it is a key doctrine of Buddhist philosophy, which states that all dharmas arise in dependence upon other dharmas, i.e. that everything is interconnected and nothing can truly be separate.


MN 72 - Why is a freed mind not "not reborn"? Three translations of Bhikkhu Sujato say:

  But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where
  are they reborn?

  Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī ti?

  ‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

  “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

  Well then, are they not reborn?

  Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?

  ‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

  “Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

  MN 72

  Seeing this, a learned noble disciple becomes disillusioned with form,
  feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.

  Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati,
  vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati,
  viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati.

  Being disillusioned they become dispassionate. Being dispassionate
  they’re freed. When freed, they know ‘it is freed’.

  Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ
  hoti.

  They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been
  completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to
  any state of existence.’

  ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ
  itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.

  SN 22.59

  The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die.
  They are not shaken, and do not yearn.

  Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na
  kuppati, na piheti.

  For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being
  reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die?
  Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they
  yearn?

  Tañhissa, bhikkhu, natthi yena jāyetha, ajāyamāno kiṃ jīyissati,
  ajīyamāno kiṃ mīyissati, amīyamāno kiṃ kuppissati, akuppamāno kissa
  pihessati?

  MN 140

Why does MN 72 say  "not reborn" does not apply to the freed mind (vimuttacitto) but SN 22.59 and MN 140 say "rebirth is ended" and the arahant is "not reborn"?

Well then, are they not reborn?
Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?
‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

I would suggest it has to do with the way this question is formulated. It's not about rebirth having ended but about pointing to a person because of the use of the word 'they'.
Talking about a 'they', 'him', 'her' doesn't apply anymore. So, the question is wrongly put.
That's my take on it.


Where can I find sources for historical data on Buddhist populations in various regions around the world? I need some sources regarding the changes in the size of Buddhist populations since the death of Gautama Buddha, e.g. the number of Buddhists in what is modern day India from 410 BC until now, or just global historical data of Buddhist populations around the world since the religion started spreading. Exact sources would be great. This is part of a research paper I am doing, and partly out of pure curiousity as well. Thanks.

There's the Maps of Ancient Buddhist Asia and History of Buddhism mentions some population figures for certain eras, but I don't know of any detailed census data particular to Buddhism prior to the last couple of centuries.

For recent data, there's the PEW Religious Affiliation Report

Hope this helps in some small way.


Buddhism and economics In the present context of the world, the chain of economics and happiness as I see it is, money is necessary to fulfill one's basic necessities (even if not luxuries), to earn money we need jobs, to make jobs we need to manufacture things, to sell things that have been manufactured, they have to be marketed and people have to be eventually 'desire' to buy these items and feel that they are happy to keep the chain alive.

But because of this chain, for example the automobile industry, we have more cars on road, more pollution, more environmental and health issues and so on.

So I was thinking if there is a better economic model which we can learn and devise from the teachings of the Buddha. Is there some other method we can adopt to reinvent this chain and relation between economics, happiness and consumerism? I do understand that real 'happiness' as taught by the Buddha and the happiness that one obtains by practising meditation is the way ahead to limit our desires and achieve a balance in the world. On these lines, I read something on 'Sufficiency Economics' briefly and felt it was a good topic.

I wish to ask if anyone can provide references to any other topics or books that relate economics, consumerism and Buddhism that offer a practical solution to a really happy world.

This is not directly related to economics but Buddha's Ten Royal Qualities (Dasa Raja Dharma) is an excellent guidance to handle a country and thereby the economy as well.

Check this link to get an idea: THE CURRENT RELEVANCE OF
DASA RAJA DHARMA

Here's a very brief extract/summary from that article:

  The promise of dasa raja dharma (ten principles
  of Buddhist governance) has been a
  trademark emotional appeal that our rulers
  have used to win elections.

  Dana -- Liberality, generosity, charity.
  Sila -- a moral character.
  Pariccaga -- sacrificing everything for the good of the people.
  Ajjava -- honesty and integrity.
  Maddava -- kindness and gentleness.
  Tapa -- austerity of habits.
  Akkodha -- freedom from envy, ill-will, enmity.
  Khanti -- patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding.
  Avihimsa -- non-violence, which means not only that he should harm nobody, but that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
  Avirodha (non-opposition; nonconfrontation) as they are related though not the same.


Mindfulness while Studying or Listening to Dhamma Talks It's significantly harder to be mindful when the language part of our brain is active.

So how does one read theory about Buddhist meditation while actually being mindful of what is being read? How does one listen to Dhamma talks with moment by moment mindfulness?

This is multitasking two birds with one stone, but should we study and practice at the same time? Also, should noting (as in the Mahasi tradition) be dropped in these situations, because noting a word with another word seems like it could be more trouble than it is worth.

I haven't heard of very many meditation techniques or methods that cover this area (mindfulness while reading, talking, listening & writing) and I am hoping someone else might know. METTA

Uilium. I hope you are well my friend. I think if you were to view things from an experiencial point of view- so acknowledgement of all experience through sensory input ( the 5 aggregates)seeing, smelling, tasting, touching...etc. Also the body can multi-task but the brain can not, for example you can only think one thought at a time, you can't think of both a banana and an elephant simultaneously, unless you combine them, then it's still only one thought being processed.

So back to your question specifically, when i read, i listen very attentively to my voice, but if i'm reading in my head, then i might focus on the touch or feeling of the book or pages. Wherever the mind goes, just focus on that during your studies.

I hope i have helped in some way, my friend.
Metta.


Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy? Simple question: Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy?

[Note that this isn't given for Sex, stacks, trade, exchange but for escape from this wheel]

And what is right action?
  Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?

  Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity.
  Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—

  Magga-Vibhanga Sutta


What does,'I establish mindfulness in front of me' mean? This phrase 'I establish mindfulness in front of me' appears many times in Suttas (https://suttacentral.net/an3.63/en/bodhi) . What does 'in front of me' mean here. I can understand if it would have said within me as in mindful of body or breath. But its not clear to me, what 'infront of me mean'

Ven. Bodhi's translation of AN 3.63:

I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then
sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I
establish mindfulness in front of me.

Ven. Sujato's translation of AN 3.63:

I gather up some grass or leaves into a pile, and sit down
cross-legged, with my body straight, and establish mindfulness right
there.

Piya Tan's translation of AN 3.63:

There I gather some grass or leaves together into one place and sit
down there cross-legged, keeping mindfulness before me.

Original Pali:

So yadeva tattha honti tiṇāni vā paṇṇāni vā tāni ekajjhaṃ saṅgharitvā
nisīdāmi pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ
upaṭṭhapetvā.

Meaning of parimukha from PTS Pali-English dictionary:

Parimukha，（adj．） [pari+mukha] facing，in front； only as nt．adv．°ṁ in
front，before，in phrase parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapeti “set up his memory
in front” （i．e．of the object of thought），to set one’s mindfulness
alert Vin．I，24； D．II，291； M．I，56，421； S．I，170； A．III，92； It．80；
Ps．I，176 （expld）； Pug．68； DA．I，210．

I would say this means "establish mindfulness at the foreground of my mind" or "establish mindfulness as my main focus or main activity".


How common is stream entry? Lots of questions on stream entry here.

I have practiced Mahayana Buddhism without a huge success - for sure. But still, I was of the opinion that such attainment as stream entry was rare in the extreme.

Perhaps 1/1000 monks, and much less even in the devout laity.

How common is it? I have a somewhat devout Theravadin friend, is he a saint :o !

hmmm  here is a free book. it has about 40+ sutta of a stream enterer (none-contradict each other whatsoever.  We buddhists want to know if we have achieved this level of dharma.
Buddha allowed us to proclaim ourselves so and here is the tool.

http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf

I remember a sutta from pali cannon where this rich merchant invited buddha to receive meal at his mansion in a week.  later a king or prince desperately wanted buddha to come eat at his place on the same day (i dont recall why).  Buddha said he couldnt change the reservation without consent from this merchant because he invited him first.  So buddha sent ven Moggallana to this merchant to see what he would think about moving the reservation to a week later.  the marchant would agree if ven Moggallana  could confirm 4 (or maybe 5) things  1) would he still be alive ?  answer was yes.  2) would buddha still be alive? yes. 3) would he still have his wealth? yes.  4) would he still have the unshakable confidence in buddha?  ven Moggallana did not answer the last question citing that this was something the merchant had the ability to answer that himself.   finally he agreed to move the reservation to a week later.   Point is, a confidence in buddha, dharma, sangha is one characteristic of a stream enterer.  And Buddha was explicit that only him and yourself can make such a claim.

How common is it?  Buddha said in one sutta, plenty. not 10, 100, 1000+ as long as 8 fold path is practiced, world is not going to be absent of an arayan (those who is a stream enterer or higher. perfectly good word ruined by Nazi).  also compare to another sutta, he compared dust on his finger tips to the entire earth as reference to numbers of Arayans compare to all other beings (seen and unseen) so the ratio would be large!

read the book and ask yourself.  only you can proclaim yourself ..


What are the suttas in which the Buddha provides instruction on how to meditate? What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

To straighten view before meditation: Samma,ditthi Sutta

Anapana

Anapanasati Sutta

Satipatthana

Satipatthana Sutta and Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta
Kayagatasati Sutta
Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

Elements / properties

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Titth’ayatana Sutta
Maha Hatthi,padapama Sutta
Bahu Dhātuka Sutta

Reflective / perception based

Giri-m-ananda Sutta
Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta
Amba,latthika Rahul’ovada Sutta

Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekka

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta


Buddha's advice regarding meditation practice It seems clear to me that the Buddha's only intention throughout his life (after becoming a Buddha) was to help as many people as possible to reach Nibbana. But I think he gives different meditation instructions to different people with regard to the path to reach Nibbana.

I would like to know what kind of meditation practice did the Buddha advise the monks to do, in contrast to lay people. Did he always teach them to practise Samatha first, and then Vipassana? Did he ever teach anyone to practice the 'dry insight' path, without ever doing Samatha meditation? As a general rule, were there any differences in the meditation practice that he advised between monks and lay people?

I am aware that the Buddha prescribed basic morality for all, and that some people would reach Nibbana at the same time as hearing him speak about some aspect of Dhamma without doing any kind of formal meditation practice. But I am only interested in the kind of meditation practices that he taught.

Please add references where the Buddha advises on meditation practice.

Consider the story of the blind weaver's daughter, Verse 174 of the Dhammapada,

  Verse 174: Blind are the people of this world: only a few in this
  world see clearly (with Insight). Just as only a few birds escape from
  the net, so also, only a few get to the world of the devas, (and
  Nibbana).

The girl contemplates death and dying for three years having only heard a single sermon of the Buddha and having learned no samatha technique.

  The main points the Buddha stressed on that day may be expressed as
  follows:

  "My life is impermanent; for me, death only is permanent. I must certainly die; my life ends in death. Life is not permanent; death is
  permanent." (source)

She is ready for stream entry by merely practicing this dry insight. The rest of the story is quite instructive too, but doesn't pertain to dry insight.

As regards the difference between meditation practices of monks and lay people, there are a few traditions today that seem to institute such differences for various reasons - too painful, too difficult, too complicated, however there is no practical barrier to practice per se. Painful ascetic practice of the Dhutanga monks were rarely attempted by lay people for obvious reasons. In the time of the Buddha it wasn't unusual for lay people to take temporary vows of monasticism on retreats lasting even a few years. This was more popular (see caves of lay people where they retreated a few months a year in India) in contemporary religions like Jainism which even included very painful penances.

Meditation is synonymous with Buddhism today, but even in Buddhist countries like Burma meditation almost died out, with most monks eschewing meditation in favor of sutta practice. It was laypeople who sometimes preserved the tradition of meditation.

For example, Sayagyi U Ba Khin (1899-1971) and his disciple S.N. Goenka (1924-2013) are famous lay meditators of Burma who revived and spread a branch of the Vipassana system world wide.

Anapanasati Sutta: Mindfulness of Breathing is the canonical meditation taught by the Buddha. However, the Buddha taught over forty kinds of meditation.


How do I practice Buddhism to attain peace of mind and know the inner self? I am distracted by the surroundings and at times lose my presence. I think deep down on the perspectives like meaning of life, purpose of life, focus on the one who really are, but get distracted many times.

Read the Satipattana Sutta and the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta and do Satipattana meditation. Examine the things you consider to be the self and see if they are worth taking as a self. As for the inner self, examine if there's anything inside you that is worth considering as a self.


Thinking vs Talking in mind Sometimes, I caught me on talking in mind. Sometimes my tongue moves according to it. Sometimes I talk to myself. This feels very fast and hard to control.
There also intuition like thinking. For a example, to move a hand we don't have to say to move. Also I can read a book without moving the tongue. (mind talking) This feels very calm. I like to be in this state. When I want start a work, I need to make my mind silent.
What is going on here?

Talking mind is from accumulation of emotion-creating past actions & tendencies.
Silent intuitive mind is a right concentration when performing what is necessary to perform.
Possibly MN 19 can help in understanding the different layers of the mind.
As MN 117 refers to wrong thought (resolve) vs right thought (resolve).
Every human life is born with unwholesome and wholesome tendencies. This is what is going on here. Thus the Buddha distinguished mental phenomena (dhammas) as wholesome and unwholesome. Refer to MN 9 and "the elements" in MN 115.


Why can't the Dalai Lama be a vegetarian? In this answer to 'Are all Buddhists vegetarian?' the poster says

  [the Dalai Lama] has a medical condition that disallows
  him to be a strict vegetarian.

I've heard this before and never questioned it. But thinking about it - what kind of medical condition would preclude the Dalai Lama from being a vegetarian. Suddenly I feel very skeptical that there is any such condition. Is that unfair?

According to this article, Is the Dalai Lama a vegetarian? on a web site named "Reasonable Vegan",

When the Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 he took residence in India, the birthplace of the Buddha and a region with a rich tradition of vegetarianism. Here he adopted a vegetarian diet which he has described as being rich in milk and cream[2]. After 20 months of vegetarianism he succumbed to a Hepatitis B infection [3] and was encouraged by his doctors to resume consumption of meat to aid his recovery.

The web site's opinion is that meat-eating isn't necessary (which contradicts his doctors' advice):

It’s quite possible that doctors advised this change in diet, but it is unnecessary advice since usually acute hepatitis B infection in adults is overcome by the patients own immune system. If the Dalai Lama’s infection was severe (which from his description it sounds like it was, jaundice causing yellowing of the skin is seen in patients suffering severe hepatitis B) he may have required antiviral treatment. Some studies have been published assessing the potential effects of nutritional supplements or adjustments on Hepatitis B patients none of which suggest consuming meat as either a remedy or therapy[5]. Eating healthily is advised for all patients especially those with liver inflammation so perhaps the advice to change his diet was appropriate ‘lay off the cream’ but returning to regular consumption of meat is unlikely to have had any effect on his recovery.
Since recovering from his illness the Dalai Lama has remained convinced that he is unable to be vegetarian, let alone vegan. It is hard to understand how he can maintain this belief when brief research into hepatitis B or the nutritional adequacy of a well balanced vegetarian or vegan diet reveals etc.

Also FYI, here's a different article which may give some background information or insight into the prescriptions of Tibetan doctors: Medical advice from the Dalai Lama's doctor.


Does Yogacara deny atoms exist or does it just say that atoms are just appearances? Vasubandhu seems to make arguments in this article against the concept of atoms to prove all is appearance in consciousness. But doesn't this go against modern science,even if his arguments are logical? I mean modern science says that atoms exist.

This idea is well known in Mahayana literature, one could say it's a standard idea. What the argument is about, though, is not whether atoms exist at all, but whether they exist as something substantial. Similarly, we are not questioning the existance of rainbows, rainbows do happen - they just don't exist as something solid one could touch.
You won't argue that atoms are not solid nor made from smaller pieces of matter. Even the planetary model is a vast simplification. And of course, the elementary particles that atoms are made from - are not substantial either.
The point of the argument presented by Vasubandhu and others is that as you go down to the microscopic level, you won't find any matter, nor anything substantial at all, nor will it be static and stable, as everything under closer examination is a dynamic system made up of something else, of some interactions.


Causes of Reincarnation If Buddha didn't believe in soul why did he believe in Re-incarnation, after life etc which could be because of soul ? What causes one to be born again, is that the desire, if it's the desire, Buddh's belief is the same as told by Krishna(who is supposed to be the previous incarnation of Buddha) who said "what you think at think about at the time of dying, you will be born likewise" Is the desire main cause of "Re incarnation" ?

The Pali scriptures (e.g. SN 12.2) define the word 'jati' ('birth') to mean the mental generation of the view, idea or thought concept of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self'. Please also refer to SN 5.10.

For example, in India today, the word 'jati' means 'social-self identity' or 'caste' rather than child birth from a woman's womb. To quote Wikipedia:

  Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. Among the
  Muslims, the equivalent category is Qom or Biradri.

  A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military
  scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may
  co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to
  district.

This contemporary Indian meaning of the word 'jati' is also found in ancient Pali scriptures, such as MN 98 (which describes the various social designations or 'jati' of people based on their kamma) and MN 86 (which refers to the life of a monk as a 'noble birth').

Therefore, what is called 'rebirth' in the Pali scriptures is the re-arising of this 'self-view' or 'self-social identity' within the mind (rather than reincarnation from life-to-life).

This 'rebirth' is caused ignorance & craving. Due to kamma (action), the mind develops more craving &, due to ignorance, the mind clings to that craving as 'self' or 'me'. This is 'rebirth'.

The famous Buddhist monk Ajahn Sumedho said:

  Or, we speculate about re-birth: what is it that carries on from one life to the next if there's no soul? If everything's anatta, how can
  'I' have been something in a previous life and have some essence that
  is born again?

  But if you watch the way things operate independently of yourself, you begin to understand that rebirth is nothing more than desire
  seeking some object to absorb into, which will allow it to arise
  again. This is the habit of the heedless mind. When you get hungry,
  because of the way you've been conditioned, you go out and get
  something to eat. Now that's an actual rebirth: seeking something,
  being absorbed into that very thing itself. Rebirth is going on
  throughout the day and night, because when you get tired of being
  reborn you annihilate yourself in sleep. There's nothing more to it
  than that. It's what you can see. It's not a theory, but a way of
  examining and observing kammic actions.

  Kamma & Rebirth

As for Krishna, his appearance in the Bhagavada Gita (composed around 200 BC) occurred after the Buddha therefore Krishna could not be a previous reincarnation of the Buddha. Such ideas are obvious Hindu rather than Buddhist because, in the Pali Buddhist scriptures, the only gods mentioned are Indra (Vishnu), Brahma & Prajapati.