How to balance an attitude of "effortless non-striving" with proper posture? In Karma-Chagme's book, "A Spacious Path to Freedom", he emphasizes the importance of correct posture in directing the vital energies to the central channel.  In particular, he mentions (1) the tongue pressed against the pallet, (2) the teeth lightly touching, & (3) gaze directed 4 finger lengths beyond the tip of the nose.

I find that when I try to incorporate these three elements of posture into my practice I quickly store up tension in my jaw and throughout my face in general.  Additionally, keeping the gaze correctly placed is a full-time task that tends to excite the vital energies rather than relax the body.

How can I balance keeping a correct posture while maintaining a relaxed attitude of effortless non-striving?

It would be possible for me to give a reply in the Theravada perspective hoping it might add value.

  (1) the tongue pressed against the pallet,

  (2) the teeth lightly touching,

    with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate

Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta & Maha Saccaka Sutta

Maha Saccaka Sutta further mentions:

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down the mind with mind.’

    So, Aggi,vessana, I with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down the
    mind with mind.

    While I, Aggi,vessana, was subduing, restraining and beating down my mind, with teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, sweat poured from my armpits.

    Just like as a strong man, Aggi,vessana holding a weaker man by the head or by the shoulders, were to restrain, subdue, attack him, even so, when I, Aggi,vessana, with my teeth clenched, and my tongue pressed against my palate, sweat poured from my armpits.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose I practise the breathingless meditation.’
    So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths
    through my mouth and nose.

    While I did so, there was a loud sound of winds coming out from my ear-holes, just like a loud sound
    of winds from a smith’s bellows.

    Even so, Aggi,vessana, when I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths, there was a loud sound of
    winds coming out from my ear-holes.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
    body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
    So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

    While I did so, violent winds cut through my head, just as if a strong man were splitting my head open
    with a sharp sword.

    Even so, Aggi,vessana, when I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths, there was a loud sound of
    winds coming out from my ear-holes.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
    body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
    So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.
    While I did so, there were violent pains in my head, just as if a strong man were tightening a
    tough leather strap around my head as a headband.

    Even so, Aggi,vessana, when I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths, there were violent pains in my
    head.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
    body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’ So I stopped
    my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

    While I did so, violent winds carved up my belly,
    just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to
    carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife.

    Even so, Aggi,vessana, when I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths, violent winds carved up my
    belly.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
    body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

    I thought thus, Aggi,vessana,

    ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’

    So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

    While I did so, there was a violent burning in my body, just as if two men were to seize a weaker man
    by both arms, might set him on fire and roast him over a pit of burning coal.

    Even so, Aggi,vessana, when I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and
    ears, there was a violent burning in my body.

    But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
    body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

    But such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

This is method is used to subdue, restrain, attack the (bad) mind with the (good) mind or beat down the mind with mind. In a Theravada perspective this should be used as a last resort to get rid of distracting or unwholesome thoughts.

In a personal perspective I have found when Piti, a blissful feeling which might lead to bodily vibration, gets excessive it might help to resort to the above for a short duration. The rolled tongue seam to make a short circuit which might seem to defuse the vibrations. Even so you should just be mindful or arising and passing even in this state to effortlessly move to Passaddhi. (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta and (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta implies such transition of transcending Piti should be effortless or not forced.

  (3) gaze directed 4 finger lengths beyond the tip of the nose

The rationale is to:

Prevent you from getting sleepy
Develop a basic level of concentration

Perhaps as you become a more accomplished meditator you can drop this.

    Now, the eyes. Should we leave them open or should we close them? Many people believe that they must close their eyes that they cannot meditate with open eyes. If you are serious about what you are doing and have a sufficiently strong mind it is not difficult to practice with the eyes left open. Begin with the eyes open. Open them with the determination to gaze toward the tip of the nose. This is not at all impossible. It just takes a little effort to do so. Gaze at the tip of the nose so that the eyes will not get involved in other things. When we close our eyes we tend to be sleepy, so be careful about closing the eyes. Also, when the eyes are closed they become warm and dry. Mediating with the eyes open will help us to stay awake and will keep the eyes cool and comfortable. Further, this will help the mind to be concentrated; it will aid the development of samadhi. As samadhi (concentration) develops about half way, the eyes will close naturally by themselves. The eyelids will relax and drop shut on their own. There is nothing to worry about. The complete technique is to begin with the eyes open. Gaze at the nose tip until samadhi develops, then the eyes will close on their own. That takes care of the eyes. (46)

    Practicing with the eyes open and gazing at the tip of the nose is automatically a noticeable level of concentration. If we establish all of the mind upon gazing at the tip of the nose, we will not see anything else. If we can do this, it will be a certain type of samadhi. We will profit from having this much concentration right from the start. Merely look at the nose without seeing anything else. If all of the mind, all of its interest, is set on looking at the nose, then nothing else will be seen. This samadhi is not insignificant. Therefore you ought to try to start with open eyes. (47)

    Please observe that this is something anyone can do. We are intent upon gazing at the nose, at feeling the nose, and at the same time we feel the body breathing. Both can be done. It may seem that both are being done at exactly the same moment, but they are not. There is not anything unnatural or supernatural about it. Because of the mind’s great speed it is possible for the eyes to be gazing at the tip of the nose while being aware of breathing in and breathing out. You can see this for yourself. (48)

Source: Anapanasati: Mindfulness of Breathing: Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu or similar passage is found in Anapanasati: Mindfulness of Breathing by the same author

  I find that when I try to incorporate these three elements of posture into my practice I quickly store up tension in my jaw and throughout my face in general. Additionally, keeping the gaze correctly placed is a full-time task that tends to excite the vital energies rather than relax the body.

Above pratice perhaps can lead to stress and tension in the body, though vital energy will arise and mindfulness is established: "But although tireless energy was aroused in me, and undistracted mindfulness was established, my
body was overstrained and ill at ease because I was exhausted by the painful striving". You should be relaxed body and mind to get positive results in Buddhist meditation.

  How can I balance keeping a correct posture while maintaining a relaxed attitude of effortless non-striving?

You have to relax both body and mind. Tensions manifest as a tightness around the head or heart. Be mindful of the arising and passing of sensations in these areas. Your posture should be comfortable, relaxed and balanced, i.e., straight body. Also whatever posture you are in should be effortless, i.e., you should not be trying too hard to be in the posture. More on this see my other posts: How does one do mindfulness of breathing with relaxation?, Having trouble meditating long sessions (Physical pain), Losing awareness, what to do, when you can't meditate?, How does one calm one's bodily fabrications?

Also you the book you mentioned is the only guide practicing without a teacher may be dangerous in case you miss interpret and instruction or do not know how to handle complications. So you can try joining a formal course or finding a teacher. Some helpful site: http://dhamma.org, http://internationalmeditationcentre.org, World Buddist Directory


why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic I have heard that when a meditators do a very deep meditation and experiences supernatural phonomenon that experience can't be expressed with words and logic. What does that mean. I remember Albert Einstin said: if a person can't explain something he hasn't understood it, doesn't this thing also apply to the spirtual experience. If the yogi or person who has experience rebirth and multiverse can't explain it properly, and is saying just based on his vision acquired though deep meditation like seeing past lives, future, past, travelling to other infinite universe. Than although they are all actually happening and real wouldn't their be void or incompletness in his/her knowledge of such things? How can we consider them as perfect truth?

And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it? And why can't people expalain scientifically all the supernatural experiece they gain from deep meditation. Are other multiverse made of possible past and possible future? What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path? Although i know little bit i want to understand more form here. I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron i.e conciousness is not a continious phenomenon from a buddhist monk(i forgot his name and video), like a subatomic partical which dissaperas and appera in another place, what does this mean?

(See this answer and this answer for explanation some of the terminology of the non english terms below)

The vocabulary and language is conditioned by common experiences of people. When suddenly a new experience comes about there will be no words or terms (nama pannatti) to describe it or language or medium to explain it (nirutti). You cannot create a vocabulary to communicate this experience to someone who has not experienced it, i.e., it is hard to express its meaning (abhilapa). Hence meditative experiences cannot be put into words, or make know (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).

Some of the meditative states part of the mind's operations stop. Hence logic breaks down. In the 1st Jhana Thinking and Pondering (vitakka & vicara) stops. When you attain Nirvana so does Perception (sañña). At this stage all metal operations stop. This again is another reason it cannot be described. Since at these levels, conventional logic also breaks down you cannot use this to deduce of infer anything about it.

Also logic and reasoning is concepts (pannatti) or metal models of what we think is out there. This does not represent reality. Since concept and reality do not mix you cannot use concepts to describe accurately what reality is. Since only a few has experienced reality as it is there no vocabulary or language that describes the concepts.

Generally our current model of the universe is based on:

concept of time: (kala pannatti)
spatial dimensions concept: (disa pannatti), sapce: (akasa pannatti)
and generally a lot of theorising, maths and logic which are concepts

These are not ultimate realities themselves, hence cannot not related to meditative experiences, which deal with ultimate realities. They generally do not mix well like oil and water. This does not mean concepts do not exist, but they are not ultimate realities which are free from delusion. Conceptual realities are always with delusion or tainted by ignorance of the 3 characteristics. So a concept which is seam solid is not necessarily with no reality in it, but it does not reality well, which in turn leads to attachment or aversion which being about misery. Dealing with realities which are ultimate, misery does not arise as there is no disparity between reality and what is known or experienced hence will not develop false expectations, when you reach the level you can experience the relevant ultimate realities.

In Buddhism atomic units are explained as Kalapas which can be experienced through meditation. The experience realities might differ from what modern science says.


How can the theory of emptiness be true and yet the self still transmigrates and takes rebirth? The Theory of "Emptiness" is the concept that all phenomenon are empty of inherent existence. Something has the illusion of existence when the right causes and conditions arise. Example: there is no inherently existing chicken soup. You only get chicken soup when you put together a dead chicken, hot water. Veggies etc. in this theory, you illusory sense of self comes from the right causes and conditions, parents, a body, a brain etc. following this logic, upon death, the self should simply cease to exist because that which made you a self has dissolved and since you do not inherently exist you should just vanish, and yet the Buddha is clear we take rebirth. This is illogical and makes no sense. Perhaps this is why the Buddha never taught a theory of emptiness. This idea is nowhere in the entire Pali Canon.

Not all forms of Buddhism define emptiness in the way you describe; in Theravada Buddhism, for example, emptiness mainly means "empty of self":

  “katamā cāvuso, suññatā cetovimutti”?

  “idhāvuso, bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā iti paṭisañcikkhati — ‘suññamidaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā’ti. ayaṃ vuccatāvuso, suññatā cetovimutti”.

  "And what, friend, is liberation of mind through emptiness?"

  "Here, friend, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or gone to the root of a tree or gone to an empty dwelling reflects thus: 'empty is this of self or what belongs to self.' This one calls, friend, liberation of mind through emptiness."

  -- MN 43

Being empty of self is different from not existing; it simply means that, from the point of view of experience, that which comes into existence does so from non-existence, and subsequently returns to non-existence; it has no existence outside of the single moment:

  “aniccā vata saṅkhārā, uppādavayadhammino.
  uppajjitvā nirujjhanti, tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho”ti.

  "Impermanent indeed are formations, of a nature to arise and fall.
  Having arisen, they cease, their tranquillizing is happiness."

  -- DN 16

  “yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.

  "Whatever is of a nature to arise, all of that is of a nature to cease."

  -- DN 3

  yasmā ca kho, ānanda, suññaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā tasmā suñño lokoti vuccati.

  Because it is, Ananda, empty by way of self or what belongs to self, therefore 'the world is empty' is said.

  --SN 35.68

There is only one example in Theravada Buddhism that I know of that is cited as support for the idea of emptiness being related to non-existence - in the Patisambhidamagga:

  katamaṃ vipariṇāmasuññaṃ? jātaṃ rūpaṃ sabhāvena suññaṃ.

  What is emptiness due to change? Born form is empty by way of intrinsic existence.

  -- Paṭis. XX.5

The commentary to this passage refutes the idea that this refers to non-existence, however:

  'Void of individual essense': here sabhāva is sayaṃ bhāvo; arising of itself is the meaning. Or sabhāva is sako bhāvo; own arising. Because of existence in dependence on conditions there is in it no essence by itself or essence of its own, thus it is "void of individual essence".

  ...

  But if someone should say: "Own essence is individual essence; it is void of that individual essence. ... Because of the non-existence of any idea whatever it is the non-existence of materiality that is expressed by the words 'born materiality is void of individual essence.'" It should be argued thus: that being so, the words 'born materiality' would be contradicted; for what is devoid of arising is not called 'born'. ... And the word 'void' for what is non-existent contradicts the Blessed One's use of it above for the 'world' and also the words of the books of logic and linguistics; and it contradicts many logical arguments.

  -- Path of Discrimination, p. 362 (Ñāṇamoli, trans)

So, while to say that "the Buddha never taught a theory of emptiness. This idea is nowhere in the entire Pali Canon." is clearly false (and should really be removed from your question), there are ways of understanding emptiness that don't contradict existence.

Further, the Buddha taught non-self; he didn't precisely teach "rebirth" - he never actually used a word, that I know of, that implies such an idea. He taught dependent origination; that mental formations lead to further becoming. It is pretty clear from reading the earlier texts (e.g. those cited above) that experiences arise and cease, being replaced by new experiences. This occurs even at the moment of physical death, hence "rebirth", or more accurately "birth".

In summary, emptiness can be understood to refer to absence of self (i.e. something eternal or immutable) and rebirth isn't really a Buddhist concept. Birth comes about because of mind states in one existence leading to future mind states in another existence - the separation between existences is merely conventional.


Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions? CONTEXT: In everyday conversations, we often blame other things or persons for causing our positive or negative emotions. For example, people say things like, "That dog disturbs me by always barking", "My daughter angers me by disobeying me", "My computer makes me anxious because it hangs in the middle of my work", or "My son made me very happy by scoring good marks".

Quite often, people feel that they are not in control of their own emotions. They think and/or say things like, "How can I help being anxious/angry/sad while my boss/husband/neighbour/dog/computer stops behaving as he/she/it does?"

It is considered normal in daily life to put the onus of change on the external factor/person, and think along the lines of: "I will become happy after I get more money/better job/trendier smartphone" or "I will start talking calmly after my daughter-in-law stops back-answering me." In other words, if Condition A is fulfilled by someone or something else, I will become happy", or "If Condition B is fulfilled by the world around me, I will gain control over my anger/sadness/anxiety etc."

QUESTIONS: What does the Buddha and modern gurus say about:

1) Taking agency/responsibility for our state of mind and our behaviour? Where does agency/responsibility for our positive/negative emotions lie?

2) Taking the responsibility ourselves, or putting the responsibility on other things/persons/situations where we ourselves have no control?

3) On the correctness of saying to another person, "Unless you exercise right-speech or right-action, I am unable to exercise right-speech, right-intention and right-mindfulness?

There is a famous parable by a founder of Tibetan Buddhism guru Padmasabhava comparing Right Concentration / Attention with Lion's Gaze. Modern Tibetan Buddhism teacher ven. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche explains:

Padmasambhava said that when a stick is thrown to a dog, the dog will chase the stick. A dog’s gaze follows the object, the stick. The lion gazes steadily at the source, the thrower. We need to look at our mind, the source of the emotion. An emotion like anger is the stick. The source hurling that emotion is our mind. It is the mind that projects. The source of our experience is our own mind.
Dzogchen [Buddhism] turns our gaze inward toward the source of experience, which is mind. Pristine mind is our lion's gaze.

According to my last teacher, the whole point of the above is to help us get out of "victim consciousness" and attain what he calls "master consciousness". Victim consciousness is when we blame our problems on other people or on the circumstances. Master consciousness is when we take ownership of everything that happens in our lives.
The flip side of the above is, if you are the one exercising the speech, you can't say "according to Buddha your mind is the source of your emotions, so I will say whatever I want, but the onus is on you to not get upset". Indeed, if that was the case, Buddha would only teach the non-attachment and not teach the Right Speech. But Buddha taught both. In all circumstances, the onus, according to Buddha's teaching, is always on us.


Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time? I am born Hindu and have been following Buddhism for more than a year. The change has been a life changing experience but now I find myself at the junction of two religions. I sometimes face contradictory situations where its ok in one religion but violates the other. Traveling in two boats at the same time is certainly not possible but its also difficult to choose one over the other. So my question is:
1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?
2) How to maintain a balance between the two?
3) Or would I have to choose one over the other?
4) Or is it possible to choose Buddhism as subset of Hinduism, just like Jains do i.e. the mainly follow their own religion first & then they following Hinduism. So even in contradictory situations, they choose Jain rule over Hindu rule.

In Buddhism the main teachings you have to have faith in is the 8 Fold Path divided into 3 trainings, which is to develop higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom.

No religion is incompatible with developing higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom, therefore you can start practicing considering you self a Hindu. As you find parts of Buddhism logical and verified at the experiential level then you can lowly accepting parts of Buddhism at your own pace.


Brahma Viharas Without Visualizing I have a fairly straightforward question. When I visualize without aim, or even sometimes with aim, disturbing or aggressive images sometimes arise in consciousness. Can I practice meditations on the brahma viharas without visualizing?

To practice Brahma Viharas you should have at least one living being.

So it is not possible to practice without an object.


Where is the most concrete exposition on the Buddhist ethics in the source material? In the Bible a complex saga of the human experience is elaborated in a multitude of ways, and these nuances make the text hard to crack in a linear reading. However, there exists a very illuminating chapter (Sermon on the Mount) that provides a very well articulated elaboration on what could be considered the core Christian ethics. It ultimately grounds the metaphysical landscape or at least informs many passages (both before and after it) to be more easily interpretted.

I am interested in learning if there are any similar passages that could be pointed out in the Buddhist texts.

My entirety of exposure to Buddhist source text currently is the Zen sutra on the lotus flower, and this question is open to any sect.

The Buddha taught for 45 years therefore his teachings are infinitely larger than those of Jesus. Therefore, there are so many (reported) discourses on ethics. Below are merely a few examples:

Magga-vibhanga Sutta: Noble Eightfold Path (for monks)
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: Ten Wholesome Actions (for laypeople)
Veḷudvāreyya Sutta: The Golden Rule (for laypeople)
Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline (in detail)
Vanijja Sutta: Right Livelihood (for laypeople)
Samajivina Sutta: Marriage (for laypeople)
Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha's Words on Loving-Kindness

The above said, a fitting equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount, in terms of both content & style, is the Maha-mangala Sutta, which similarly is about "Blessings".

In addition, as the Sermon on the Mount was spoken 500 years after the Buddha, most of the topics in it would be found in the Buddha's teachings, such as:

Integrity & Dhamma having the taste of salt
Anger
Lust and sense control
Retaliation & Love Your Enemies
Spiritual treasure
Don't Judge Others
Crossing the floods with unshakable faith.

As for divorce, the Buddha taught life-long marriage is the ideal (Samajivina Sutta) yet it appears did not prohibit divorce when a wife is immoral.


Jhanic concentration and feeling Could anyone share your experience and knowledge? People who have attained strong concentration have the ability to read other people's mind. My question is, what is the 'knowing'? Do they read other people based on what they feel? For example, one person concentrates his mind on a person, when his mind is calm, other people's mind will be felt and reflected in his feeling. Is this correct? How do they know, based on what?

Any reply would be great, thanks.

It is inappropriate to ask such questions, because they unequivocally end in an argument which is basically the same as trying to convince someone in the 14th century of how an aeroplane works. It simply isn't possible to explain without the experience.
Imagine trying to describe the colour blue to someone who has not seen it.


Meditation technique proposed by the Buddha What type of meditation is proposed by the Buddha for attaining self realization? Is it Vipassanna medition? Is Mindfulness meditation the same as Vipassanna? Which scripture mentions these techniques?

If we take the Pali Canon as been the closest we have to the word of the Buddha then there isn't a wealth of specific meditation advice in there when compared to other types of advice such as ethical.

However there are two sutras that do give specific advice these being

Anapanasati Sutra (Mindfulness of breathing)
Satipatthana Sutra (The Way of Mindfulness)

Both these sutras encapsulate samatha and vipassana practices. For example the Anapansati Sutra begins with body contemplation but end up in the forth tetrad contemplating the very stuff of existence

Contemplating impermanence
Contemplating fading of lust
Contemplating cessation
Contemplating relinquishment

The Satipatthana sutra also start with calming practices but ultimately the practioner is asked to comtemplate the four noble truths

  Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands: 'This is suffering,'
  according to reality; he understands: 'This is the origin of
  suffering,' according to reality; he understands: 'This is the
  cessation of suffering,' according to reality; and he understands:
  'This is the road leading to the cessation of suffering,' according to
  realty.

You can't get much more vipassana than that!

If I can also take the opportunity to recommend the book Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization by Analayo. This is a tremendous book for anyone interested in really drilling into the Satipaṭṭhāna sutra and getting to grips with meditation as the Buddha taught it. It's heavy on the footnotes and is more of a heady read other Dharma books but I've read it once and it's certainly on my list to go through again.


Is there any point in learning meditation from an unenlightened person? If a meditation teacher is not enlightened, is there any point in learning from him/her? According to Satipatthana Sutta, the awakening should usually take some time between 7 days and 7 years. If somebody who devoted his life to teaching meditation still hasn't got enlightened, there must be something wrong with his method, then? Or am I missing something?

The question is general, but to give some context: I have been to a meditation retreat using S.N. Goenka's method, and what I learnt seems to have some merits. But if I assumed a Buddhist point of view that the awakening is the ultimate goal, there is no reason to follow his advice, since Goenka has stated that he is not enlightened. Is there any point in using his techniques?

Is there any point in learning meditation from an unenlightened person?

If there are arahants living, it would make more sense to learn from them. But that being the case, it's quite hard to identify them, and they vow not to openly declare such accomplishment.

In these circumstances, consider the negative answer: after deciding there is no point in learning from an unenlightened person we still have to face the fact that we are left as unenlightened being subject to suffering.

The same question applies to the suttas: are they the actual words of the Buddha? If we allow the "maybe not" answer, does this mean it render the texts useless?

In the end, the burden is on the learner, to be autonomous, critical, and to learn to evaluate his/her own steps, directions and options, even if he is, often times, not in the best position to perform these evaluations. And as @Crab suggested, learning is "incremental", and we naturally can learn from people who know "a little more". For example, we don't need to demand isaac newton to teach us physics, nor it makes much sense to only regard nobel laureates able to teach their fields. A school teacher might do "just fine". Of course, there are limits to "just fine", as an unenlightened teacher is subject to mistakes -- and that's were the tension lies.

The fact is that, in our generation, that's our circumstance and that's what we have at our disposal. And we have to work with it.


Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives? Although the vast majority of people will not remember past lives, are there reliable accounts of people who have? Specifically are there accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives and whose experience can be (even partially) verified in some independent way? Or do people with past life memories generally come from other religions and traditions such as Hinduism?

I appreciate that reliable is a very ambiguous term. If possible could people perhaps note the quality of the evidence when answering. Is it anecdotal, statistical significant etc...?

Dr. Ian Stevenson did research on rebirth, and most of his subjects were children. As I remember he said during the first 5-6 years of a child's life some of them would remember how they died. Most of them who remembered their previous life have had some sudden tragic death. Hence, these incidents seem to be deeply carved in their minds, but this memory would slowly fade away as they grew old.

Most of these incidents were reported from families having Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds because their parents believed in rebirth and believed their child was saying the truth. In some cases, when the researchers traced the child's past routes based on their stories, they had actually found that the person had existed.  Also in some cases it turned out that the parents have been lying to gain some popularity from local media. :)

But I think this research is not so popular among other scientists, claiming it has no clear evidence that backs his theories. Upon his death I think his student continues this work.

Here's link to their work.
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page
(Edited the previous reference according to Ven. Yuttadhammo's comment)


Which place is good for vipassana meditation? Please recommend good place for Vipassana meditation for in 2017.

Including

Availability of visa
it does not matter short 7-14 days or long (in months) Vipassana meditation course
If it is remote place better
It is not book fly and go vacation so manual work or queuing is ok
If it is a place that we need to ordain to be a monk before starting Vipassana meditation, I prefer.

Following have a wide outreach:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

So there might be a place near to where you live.

Also you can try: World Buddhist Directory


Might immediate retaliation or reaction inhibit future bad kamma? If someone hits you and you even the score, purely to HELP them avoid future bad kamma           (like if your intention is purely that... you want to neutralize their bad kamma... not an excuse, no anger at all, general concern):

Would it neutralize the bad kamma for the other individual?
Despite necessary force to subdue the assailant and keep things even steven... would it still be good kamma based on intention?

For the first question the answer is NO. In AN 5.57 we can see that Buddha has used this phrase,

  I am my own kamma, I am a heir to my kamma, I am born [in this life]
  from my kamma, I am the kinsman of my kamma, I am protected by my
  kamma. Whatever kamma·s I shall do, kalyāṇa·s or pāpaka·s, I shall
  become their heir.

So you can't neutralize someone else's bad deeds by your actions. He will eventually reap the results of his actions when all the conditions fall into place. I think it's easy to understand this if we consider kamma as a natural law like gravity.

There are four types of kammas with respect to the time of taking effect in abhidhamma.

  Immediately effective kamma (Dhitta dhamma vedaniya) - in the present lifetime
  Subsequently effective kamma (Aparapariya vedaniya) - in the immediately following lifetime
  Indefinitely effective kamma (Upapajja vedaniya) - in lifetimes two or more in the future
  Defunct (Ahosi) - kamma whose effects have ripened already

If I consider your example of hitting back when someone hits you, we can categorize this as a immediately effective kamma for the person you're hitting back. But we can't still say the power of his initial kamma has weakened. In another life, in several other lives or even in this life he may reap the results of this. If the conditions didn't fall the kamma may never function as well.

For the second question the answer is also NO. You may not have have anger at the point you hit him, but your intention is filled with delusion. You are purposefully hurting someone with a wrong view in your mind.


Emotion in Compassion Meditation I have a very simple question. Sometimes, I visualize in compassion meditation without feeling anything for the whole session. Sometimes, I feel a lot of affect and start even crying.

Should one focus on/have the emotional sensations in compassion meditation for it to be efficient, or is visualizing -- even without emotion -- enough?

In "Awareness Itself", we read the advice given by Ajaan Fuang, as recorded by his student Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  § A young nurse practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang several days
  running, and finally asked him one day, "Why wasn't today's session as
  good as yesterday's?"

  He answered: "Meditating is like wearing clothes. Today you wear
  white, tomorrow red, yellow, blue, whatever. You have to keep
  changing. You can't wear the same set of clothes all the time. So
  whatever color you're wearing, just be aware of it. Don't get
  depressed or excited about it."

  § A few months later the same nurse was sitting in meditation when a
  sense of peace and clarity in her mind became so intense that she felt
  she would never have a bad mood infiltrate her mind again. But sure
  enough, bad moods eventually came back as before. When she mentioned
  this to Ajaan Fuang, he said, "Looking after the mind is like raising
  a child. There will have to be bad days along with the good. If you
  want only the good, you're in for trouble. So you have to play
  neutral: Don't fall in with the good or the bad."

  § "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."

  § A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."

  § "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."


Is Vajrayana the fastest and only way to enlightenment? Bön & Shaivism Why is Tibetan Buddhism the fastest way to enlightenment?

What is the difference of Kashmir Shaivism and Nyingma School? Why is Tibetan Buddhism faster and the only way?

Tibetan Buddhism developed from traditional Bön and Together with Kashmir Shaivism, and traditional Buddhism was imposed to the Bön tradition. Why was Buddhism better than Bön Religion? Why did Buddhism adopted the lucid dreaming of Bön Religion if it was better?

Am I missing something?

Buddhism at its core is non-dogmatic. It has a number of precepts and principles, but does not ask its practitioners to believe anything in particular. Because of that, when Buddhism expands into a new region, it tends to absorb elements of whatever beliefs already existed in that region, because those beliefs become a bridge between old understandings and new ones. Thus, when Buddhism moved into China it absorbed elements of Daoism; when it moved into Japan it absorbed elements of Shinto; when it moved into Tibet if absorbed elements of Bön; and now that it is moving into the West it is absorbing elements of both Christianity and secular philosophy.

This doesn't mean that Buddhism is better or worse than any of these. It merely means that Buddhism uses the language and understandings of the region it enters in order to express itself more clearly. Most Buddhists will refer to this trend as the creation of a new 'wheel' of Buddhism, with the understanding that one wheel is much like another in the end.

Tibetan Buddhism styles itself as Vajryana (literally, the 'lightning path') on the claim that one can achieve rapid (e.g., in this lifetime) enlightenment. This boils down to a difference in style. Theravada schools focus on a slow, steady process of release through deep meditation, like watching and waiting for a pool of water to become still. Mahayana schools add in a component of service as bodhisattva, but still retain the essentially passive meditation model. But Tibetan Buddhism uses the structures and symbolism of the Bön mythology to actively confront and dispel attachments.

Whether this actually works as advertised is an open question. I have no evidence that Vajrayana teachings produce more enlightened beings per capita than Mahayana or Theravada, and I suspect the difference is more a matter of taste and inclination than anything else. Certainly other schools of Buddhism worry that the active model of Vajryana entails a risk that practitioners will form new attachments through that active desire for immediate enlightenment, but Vajrayanans will counter that the risk is justified by the potentials of the practice. In the end we all have to rely on our one capacity to (as the saying goes) separate the wheat from the chaff.


The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747
"POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and
have no real existence.
POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic
realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of
really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent
of one’s own mind.
POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness-
only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope
of one’s experience."
"Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective."
That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind  Thank you.

Didn't you already ask this?

"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he
knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just
imaginations created by his mind"

Who's conceptual framework would that be done with?
What do you think minds are, things with an unchanging essence?
As I see it, key to understanding the 'mind-only' perspective is recognising all experiences have to be filtered through subjectivities, there is no truly objective, because no one experiences that, only consilience of experiences: like between different senses, & by comparing with others.
We each carry our own reality, but it's one where we constantly interact with the reality of others. A modern framing is 'peer to peer reality'.


Buddhist forums & communities What are the Buddhist communities & forums on the internet and in the real world? What are their history? How does BuddhismSE fit in with the others?

My impression is BSE is 5.4 years old and is unrelated to other Buddhist forums.
The first major Buddhist forum I was aware of was called E-Sangha, which was extremely sectarian, and banned lots of folks, including DD. Legend says it was cyber-attacked. Read here.
From the ashes of E-Sangha appeared to arise a number of Buddhist chatsites created by David N. Snyder Ph.D, such as:

dhammawheel.com (Theravada)
zenforuminternational.org (Zen; now defunk)
dharmawheel.net (Mahayana)

Most of the founding members of dhammawheel.com were active on E-Sangha, such as the current admin Retrofuturist and Venerable Dhammanando (and some now ex-DW moderators).
There is also a current chatsite at newbuddhist.com with moderators who were E-Sangha members (however, possibly not the site owner).
Another independent forum is buddhismwithoutboundaries.com, which I and another ex-E-Sangha-bannee posted a lot on.
There is the low traffic Goenka orientated vipassanaforum.net and more low traffic off & on forum called freesangha.com and low traffic secularbuddhism.org/community/
There is dharmaoverground.org, where members focus heavily on personal claims of attainments.
There is discourse.suttacentral.net, which appears to have a narrow doctrinal focus
There is bswa.org/forum/, connected to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.
That's probably it.
Oh... and there is Reddit, which looks like a sectarian free-for-all to me; where folks can set up their own site and cult.
I post/have posted on most of them, under various pseudonyms, unless I am banned or forget them.

Because I'm in the habit of reinterpreting scripture, and questioning traditional authorities, I often find that fundamentalists are upset by what I write. For instance some time ago a chap going by the name of 'Namdrol' on the E-Sangha bulletin board, in a discussion of the Theravāda three lifetimes model of the nidāna chain - for which there is no Pāli Canonical authority - declared: "to reject the three lifetimes model is harming the dharma". I mentioned back then that I thought this a fundamentalist view, but was told that the word "fundamentalist" was banned in that forum (along with any reference to the New Kadampa Tradition which was a bit of a give away). E-Sangha died not long afterwards, but not before I realised that online forums, and arguing with strangers on the internet generally, were a waste of my time and started focussing on writing this blog.
Jayarava - BSE member


What's the role/relevance of drugs when Arada taught Buddha? I quote Andrei from here:

  Apparently, Buddha's first teacher, Arada Kalama, taught Shukla Dhyana through visualizing oneself in the center of progressively empty context (village --> empty field --> empty sky --> nothingness), culminating in a state of thoughtless concentration with no content.

On a TV show1 I once heard a description of a guided trip on magic mushrooms, which reminded me of -- that description was:

  You're on a ship → then the ship's gone → the water's gone → you're gone.

What might have been the role/relevance of drugs, when Arada taught the Buddha? Is it possible that Arada (or his students) might have used some psychoactive drugs?

And is it right to find the description of Shukla Dhyana comparable with the documentary's description of "the ship gone,  etc."?

1 It was a TV documentary of Albert Hofmann, where they investigated to medicinal usage of psychedelics to help people suffering from severe depression.

Intoxicants in Buddhism are frowned on by every Buddhist school of thought.

However you didn't ask that, so we won't dive into those details.

After some time looking i could not find any evidence that Arada, or the Sankhya practices used any kind of drugs.

It was mostly types of meditation, the last three stages can be found in this article which attempts to spell out the entire process of the practice from beginning to end in a way anyone can access and understand.

  Meditation on I-am-ness: Most of the time we mistakenly think that
  "who I am" is my mind and personality. However, as we gradually come
  to witness the subtle elements, the senses, and the mind itself, we
  come to see that there is a still subtler aspect, which simply
  declares "I am!" When it stands alone in this way, it is independent
  of the other manifestations.

Followed by...

  Meditation with Buddhi standing alone: Still subtler is Buddhi, which
  is the individuated intelligence itself. It doesn't yet declare itself
  to be this or that identity, but is the very intelligence, which
  supports the ego (Ahamkara), the senses and instruments of actions
  (Indriyas), and the constructs of the inner objects and physical body
  (Tanmatras and Bhutas).

  One of the final resting places of the individuated person is to know
  oneself as Buddhi, this most fine vehicle of consciousness (Purusha).
  It is still constructed of Prakriti, leaving that final discrimination
  or uncovering yet to be done. To know oneself at this level of Buddhi
  is sometimes called the level of bliss or ananda, as all of the other
  levels and false identities have temporarily come to rest or been
  transcended.

and finally ...

  Purusha resting in itself: Finally Purusha, pure consciousness, rests
  in itself, alone, separate from all evolutes of Prakriti. The seeker
  on the path of Self-realization seeks even a minute or a moment of
  this highest glimpse of Realization, after which he or she continues
  to purify the remaining samskaras and karmas. (See Yoga Sutras 1.3 and
  3.56)

These descriptions, as noted in the article, are designed to give the reader a general feel of the process.

To use your metaphor

  You're on a ship → then the ship's gone → the water's gone → you're gone.

We can say the ship is what disappears during Meditation on I-am-ness
The water during the Meditation with Buddhi standing alone

The last part of the metaphor is slightly misleading to match up with the last stage, it is not you're gone, but the ego that disappears, sometimes refereed to as Ego Death by mystics and psychedelic users. The last stage of Sankhya Purusha resting in itself could be compared to Ego death, and is a kind of pure conciousness that does not contain an I or an Ego, or any kind of self identity. This is the goal of the practitioner.

This is also the hardest thing to ever put into words.
So in conclusion and summary : did the school and practitioners use psychedelics, likely no, they did not. These states can be reached in meditation. Are these states similar to some reported psychedelic experiences, yes.

However the key difference is that psychedelics are somewhat unpredictable. You could take the same substance and have two incredibly different experiences, and even experiences completely the opposite of Ego Death. Whereas the practices of the Sankhya are designed to always lead to the same place, with time and effort into the practices.

Further I think it is worth mentioning that Buddha moved on from this school, was not satisfied with the result as a goal. He even stated it lay on one extreme of the spectrum which the middle way lay between it and the other end of the spectrum.


Varieties of emptiness Does anyone have a good tip for literature about different varieties of rangtong (empty of self) and shentong (empty of other) perspectives on emptiness?

Judging from your answer to this, it sounds like you're more interested in different varieties of Madhyamaka and how they treat the subject of Relative Truth and Ultimate Truth. As for Relative Truth, some schools say that all phenomena exist as nominal designations, while others say that to assert any existence or non-existence of phenomena is a mistake - although we may go with the conventions of the majority for practical purposes. As for the Ultimate Truth, some schools says any assertions about it are empty but the Truth beyond assertions is not empty, while others say that this was an assertion as well - and the best thing is to avoid any assertions.

In my opinion, as long as you get what the argument is about there is not much sense in nitpicking the exact words. However, some traditional teachers - particularly in Gelug school - insist that these polemics facilitate analysis and therefore deeper understanding of emptiness.

There are many works comparing Madhyamaka flavors - it would be excessive to list them all here.

One work have I recently read that comes to mind is The Ri-me Philosophy of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: A Study of the Buddhist Lineages of Tibet


Is this progress in meditation? Sometimes during meditation (Vipassana), I've noticed how the mind tends to get back to breathing by itself, without effort. Can I consider this a progress in meditation? I know that it would be a hindrance to like this when it happens or to dislike when it doesn't happen.

The question is: does this say something about the mind? (I've been practicing daily for the last 9 months).

Returning to the object of noting sounds like Khanika Samadhi

  Pure Vipassana yogis can appreciate and understand the power of Khanika concentration. For when their noting gains momentum, they can see for themselves how the noting goes on by itself uninterruptedly without a break. The noting seems to run on its own steam without any need for the yogi to make any concerted or deliberate effort. Thus, it is not unusual for a yogi to be able to sit for an hour, and even several hours, absorbed in noting. During good noting, especially at the insight knowledge of equanimity (sankhara-upekkhañana), the mind just stays put on its objects and refuses to wander. Even if one wants to send the mind out, it refuses to go and it recoils back to whatever Vipassana object it is noting. There have been cases of yogis being able to sit for six or seven hours in a stretch, or even longer. From this, one can deduce that there must be strength in Khanika concentration; otherwise how would yogis be able to sit in rapt concentration for such lengths of time.

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/vip-jhana.html


Are there problems from mixing different sources of teachings? I discovered Buddhism by reading and practising the Theravada teachings. As I wanted to make some progress, I started looking for a teacher who could guide me and direct my practicing.

So I decided to go to a local Mahayana School near my home, and I've been going there for two years now. Until this time I've still been practicing both Theravada teachings and Mahayana. Also I discovered about the S.N. Goenka Vipassana movement and did some courses (retreats).

I would like to know if is there a problem from mixing different sources of teachings in my practice? I saw many famous teachers who searched different teachings, till finding their way to enlightenment.

Is it inappropriate mixing different sources of teachings, and could it disturb/confuse my practice? I would appreciate seeing different perspectives, and their own experiences from other practitioners.

Thanks :)

The Teaching is just one but there might be many interpretations. That's why the Buddha advised us to always verify a teacher's words, no matter how famous or well respected he is, against the Buddha's original Words in the Suttas and the Books of Discipline:

  1) “Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

  2) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind. ~ DN 16 ~


How did Sarakani become a stream enterer despite having an alcohol drinking habit? I read SN 55.24 (quoted below) and it says Sarakani became a stream enterer despite having an alcohol drinking habit, because he undertook the training before he died.

What does the sutta really mean? Does it mean he gave up alcohol and undertook the training, then became a stream enterer?

The sutta isn't very clear on whether Sarakani gave up alcohol. Did he give it up? Or not?

  Now at that time Sarakāni the Sakyan had passed away. The Buddha
  declared that he was a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the
  underworld, bound for awakening.

  At that, several Sakyans came together complaining, grumbling, and
  objecting, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! Who can’t become a
  stream-enterer these days? For the Buddha even declared Sarakāni to be
  a stream-enterer after he passed away. Sarakāni was too weak for the
  training; he used to drink alcohol.”

Does it meant that he gave up alcohol and undertook the training, and became a stream enterer?

That's not how I read the translation, i.e. I'm not sure that is what's implied.

Perhaps I should start by mentioning that, whereas SN 55.24 says ...

  Sarakāni was too weak for the training; he used to drink alcohol.”
  Saraṇāni sakko sikkhādubbalyamāpādi, majjapānaṃ apāyī”ti.

... there's SN 55.25 which says ...

  Sarakāni didn’t fulfill the training.”
  Saraṇāni sakko sikkhāya aparipūrakārī ahosī”ti.

Anyway, near the start of SN 55.24 it says,

  Mahānāma, when a lay follower has for a long time gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, how could they go to the underworld? And if anyone should rightly be said to have for a long time gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, it’s Sarakāni the Sakyan

So that's one thing and maybe enough.

It isn't the same story but see also the Weaver's Daughter ...

  At the conclusion of the discourse that maiden was established in the fruit of stream-entry

... and there a factor (and something that may have in common with this) was her having lived with the Buddha's message for a long time.

The next paragraphs talks about immersion and so on -- variations on a theme (all including immersion as a kind of minimum). The same person (Mahānāma the Sakyan) asked a related question in AN 3.73.

It ends with -- or perhaps, "But it ends with" (though it might be better to understand it without "but", because "without but" is a description of the end-state i.e. having completed stream-entry):

  If these great sal trees could understand what was well said and poorly said, I’d declare them to be stream-enterers. Why can’t this apply to Sarakāni?

I get the impression that stream-entry depends on understanding the Dhamma when it's spoken by the Buddha -- there are many examples of that (at the end of SN 56.11 for a start, but also often at the end of many suttas with the Bhagava and a lay-person).

So that's another thing (maybe the same thing), and also enough.

Finally it says,

  Mahānāma, Sarakāni the Sakyan undertook the training at the time of his death.
  Saraṇāni, mahānāma, sakko maraṇakāle sikkhaṃ samādiyī”ti.

The translation says "training" but the Pali says saraṇa -- maybe "refuge".

I think that's saying he became a stream enterer when he died, before he died, as he was dying -- however long that took, whether it was a moment before (Last thought before death?), or whether the "time of dying" (maraṇakāla) was days or weeks or longer, months.

I think we're meant to believe it's possible for a person -- for almost anyone (see also Aṅgulimāla, "The Buddha had often warned not to judge people from appearances and their external behavior").

And the suttas have many examples of people attaining a higher "stage" of enlightenment as they're dying.

My opinion, if you'll forgive it, is that I may be disinclined to recommend a life of drunkenness -- that might be crazy, and perhaps not in a good way. That said, it's possible (and fortunate) that stream entry may occur towards the end of life (though arguably not a safe bet and compassionate and everything to wait until then).

The sutta isn't very clear on whether Sarakani gave up alcohol. Did he give it up?

Perhaps you give up a lot as you're dying.

  People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.


Is severing negative communication with an "incompatible" person a big no-no in the Buddhist pracice? A close relative of mine who I shared the living space with has passed away recently from an unrelated injury. The relative was a good person but inherently "bossy", always getting their own way and intruding my personal life and space in ways I was not a strong enough person to continuously tolerate.

At a certain point I've "had enough" and decided that severing all communication was the best course of action for us both to avoid painful arguments, so I did that.

I did not feel contempt to that person and understood a lot of their antics were due to their very old age and difficult childhood, I was wishing them well, and was hoping they would make a first step and apologize eventually, which they never did.

As a longer term solution I was hoping to move out and live alone, confident that would help me regain my bearings, but there were setbacks in my apartment search, so I did not make it in time either.

Now that they're gone, I wonder how a person following the Buddhist precepts would have handled this. Showing compassion every once in a while is one thing, having your life and personal space invaded with petty commands, requests and criticism day after day, even when you're trying to meditate, seems like another.

The Pali suttas say (Snp 1.10; SN 10.12) there are four qualities for the household life (which are also to be applied to any significant relationship), namely:

Sacca (truthfulness; honesty; straightforwardness; openness; no secrets)
Dama (training in self-improvement); and Dhamma (principles)
Khanti (patience; forbearance; tolerance)
Caga (sacrifice; generosity)

Therefore, in a significant relationship, a person should truthfully communicate to the other person any concerns they have about their behaviour and both should train in self-improvement to abolish that unwholesome behaviour.

If the other person does not respond and the relationship is toxic or harmful (intolerable) then cutting ties is OK. For example, one sutta says a wife (SN 37.30) without ethics is expelled from the household.


Can Nibbana be experienced by believers in 'rebirth-reincarnation'? SN 22.59 states experiencing Nibbana requires the dispassion (viraga) that occurs from completely realising the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of every type of consciousness & the other four aggregates.

  Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?

  Impermanent, O Lord.

  Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?

  Unsatisfactory, O Lord.

  Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?

  Indeed, not that, O Lord.

  Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or
  near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom,
  according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is
  not my self.'

  O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
  is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is
  emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life,
  what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this
  becoming.'"

  This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this
  exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were
  freed of defilements, without attachment.

  Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

Many suttas describe Nibbana as the ending of the perception (sanna) & asava (defilement) of 'becoming' (MN 121) and the calming of all formations (MN 26; sabbasamathosankhara).

Therefore, can the thought of or belief in 'rebirth' in the mind result in Nibbana?

Is the belief in 'rebirth-reincarnation' not a type of 'becoming' & not a 'thought formation'?

"Therefore, can the thought of or belief in 'rebirth' in the mind
  result in Nibbana?"

No, it can't.

In the same way, the thought of or belief in "non existence of rebirth" in the mind, can't result in Nibanna.

  "Is the belief in 'rebirth-reincarnation' not a type of 'becoming' &
  not a 'thought formation'?"

It is a type of "becoming" and a "thought formation".

In the same way, a belief in "non existence of rebirth-reincarnation", is a type of "becoming" and a "thought formation".

When a thought or belief arises in a being due to ignorance, that being clings and craves on that thought or belief. This clinging and craving will not result in Nibanna.

When a thought arises in a being due to wisdom, that being does not cling nor crave on that thought. This absence of clinging and craving will result in Nibanna.

A belief is something that is accepted as the only truth. Thus, no belief can ever arise in a being who truly destroyed ignorance. That would be impossible. The one who destroyed ignorance, dwells in wisdom. He is the knower of the truth. How could the knower of the truth say "this is the only truth", when he knows "all truths are non truths"? That would be impossible. That's why the knower of the truth stays in the middle.


Are there buddhists who criticize Eckhart Tolle as it is not really a buddhist teach? If so, what is their critique? Eckhart Tolle is a spiritual teacher who is influenced by Christianity and Buddhism etc. Now he says that there are Buddhists who claim that his teachings are not really Buddhist. But in what way are his teachings not really Buddhist?

If you call something Buddhism it will be attributed to the Buddha and should be inline with the doctrinal system the Buddha taught. If something is not what the Buddha said then it is wrong to miss attributed something to the Buddha as this is what the Buddha taught. A summary of the majority of Buddha's teaching is encompassed in the Wings of Awakening, 3 Marks of Existence, 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination. So if what Eckhart Tolle writes does not have these aspects and if what is found in line with the doctrinal system then you cannot call it Buddhism.

Also some of the core teachings of Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible with each other, so any philosophy influenced by both is neither Christianity nor Buddhism.

See: -ism


Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is? I often hear and read about Buddha nature.

I wonder, is Buddha nature something common to all varieties of Buddhism? And where in the scriptures can I find out more about this? I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

It can be understood in different ways, dependent on tradition.

It certainly does not mean that there is a soul, an experiencing entity or an inner core. Remember that this is just a word, a convention.

When practicing insight meditation, one will realize that it cannot mean that there is an atman. It is only when such deep doctrines are treated intellectually, that there arises confusion. These profound doctrines cannot be grasped by the intellect. They can only be understood experientially.

  Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is?

One meaning is, that every being has the capacity to win Nibbana.

Nibbana is already there but its covered in thick layers of ignorance (avijja) and has been plastered over with concepts and conventions.

The unconditioned state is an existing reality, that can be experienced when the meditator has done away with ignorance, clinging and attachment and cultivated the paramitas to full maturity.


Losing faith in tibetan buddhism I have been practising tibetan buddhism for the past seven years and I am losing faith now and it hurts. I don't know what to do. Can someone advise?

As you can see from people's comments (non-answer) it's hard to answer this question -- not specific enough -- it's phrased as an own-problem without enough detail about its cause or symptoms or the range of acceptable solutions.

Your mentioning "faith" though reminds me of this topic -- What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity? -- because it seems to me that Buddhism doesn't have much to to do with "faith" as I understand that word -- maybe it's more to do with "knowledge" (whereas "faith" it sometimes denotes an opposite or absence of knowledge). So almost the opposite of some expressions of Christian doctrine, I think that Buddhism is based on "what you know for yourself to be true" (not only "faith"), which is an attribute of the Dhamma.

  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
  visible here and now, immediate,
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

One example is AN 3.66, but the rest of it too, I think that true of all the stages.

Christianity to me only makes sense to the extent that its values are embodied in someone -- if you meet someone who acts like a Christian -- maybe that was an essential part of that religion, starting with the Christ being a person.
Quite possibly some forms of Buddhism (relationship with a teacher, maybe learning from experience) might be like that too.

I'm guessing that "loss of faith" might have one of three causes:

Believing in or having faith in a doctrine -- something supernatural perhaps -- without that doctrine's really making sense to you
Ditto having faith in some practice
Ditto having faith in some person or society

There are any number of possible remedies, I imagine:

Improve your understanding of the doctrine, ask questions perhaps
Improve -- or return to -- your practice, starting with "right view" perhaps

I can't tell you much about Tibetan Buddhism -- which is the only other part of your question. I understand it might involve some personal relationship (with a teacher) therefore possibly vulnerable to the third type of "loss of faith" listed above.

There are dozens of topics on this site which might be related to 'faith' -- see here -- you could browse those titles, to see whether any of those are asking what you're asking and might have an answer.


What Buddha's techniques I can use to uproot deep craving for a woman's love? I am not geographically close to this woman, nor do I ever talk to her, she's just my teenage obsession that lingers on my mind. I am too much attached to my perceptions about how she is, and because I cannot be near to her geography nor can I talk to her because of a past issue, I feel emptiness inside me. I feel lonely and I crave presence. I satisfying this craving my visualisations and fantasies. How can I get rid of this from deep inside. I have gotten rid of this from conscious thinking, but deep inside it still exists. Currently I am practicing 32 Body part meditation, Vipassana and Anapana Meditation. Can you suggest any specific exercise that would help me with this particular issue?

First, know that you are not alone. Nearly every person experiences something like this to varying degrees and intensity at some points in time.

Second, realize that this has nothing to do with her. This is about your own internal emotions and desires and fantasies. You are experiencing self-cherishing. In all of these obsessions and fantasies it is not an external person who is the focus of your thoughts - although I am sure it absolutely feels like it - it is actually yourself that is the focus.

Third, to really get a good sense for this ask yourself whose wellbeing are you truly concerned with when these thoughts come up? Is it this far away person who is probably quite different from your internal idea of her? Are you concerned with her day-to-day well being? Or is it yourself?

Fourth, realize that this self-cherishing is unsatisfactory and is leading you to suffering. You already do recognize this to some extent and that is why you are asking this question. Rejoice that you have recognized it! Now deepen it. It is you that is suffering with this.

Fifth, let it be. These negative self-cherishing emotions arise based on countless karma and habits that you have been acquiring for a very very very long time. You can’t just make them or force them to go away. So let them be and don’t give them added energy. When they come up try and recognize them for what they are: self-cherishing thoughts that lead to suffering.

Sixth, practice other-cherishing. When you are not beset by these thoughts, try to establish the habit of truly caring for and working toward and wishing for the well-being of others. The only way to truly rid yourself of those self-cherishing thoughts is to create the habit of other-cherishing and gradually replace one habit with another. This will take time.

Seventh, be honest with yourself and the whole situation. You have established a very bad habit that is hurting and it will take time and effort to replace it. Be gentle with yourself and cherish others.


How would be the world if there is no suffering? Imagine a world (a planet with humans) without suffering that the people in there are always happy,nothing to worry about.What would be the characteristics of that world ?
At least,Can we define the characteristics of that perfect world ?

Edit: I got this question by listening to Dhamma on Eight Worldly Conditions (Ashta Loka Dharma). Either good or bad,every person have to experience profits,losses,praises,insulting ..etc.It is equal to a person in a heaven and also in a lower realm. If world have only 4 rules (only profits, praises ....),Would it be perfect ?

Good question.
Suffering should be fully comprehended.
What exactly is the definition of suffering?
Is been poor suffering?
Will your suffering be eliminated if you become rich?
We all know about this kind of suffering.
What Buddha taught was more profound than that.
It is not easy to comprehend.
Buddha taught three kinds of suffering.
Dukkhadukkha
Viparinama Dukka
Samsara Dukkha
Only Buddha taught Samsara Dukkha.


Gods realm, how do you get out? Achieve Nibbana in this realm? It is stated that Buddha said that it is more difficult to achieve nibbana in this realm than in the human realm (due to absence of suffering).

Imagine, that one of these gods, has realized that in fact he is "stuck" there and want to achieve nibbana and get out, even more, he created a whole reality where he "lives" similar to the human realm.
This god did this because experiencing suffering, (even in this "simulation"), it will be easier to look for the exit out of samsara.

Imagine that this god realizes that he's created all that,
what should be the next steps for those kind of gods, (which actions or intentions), to follow Dharma and finally exit the samsara?

Should he assume a "human form" just to follow Dharma or should he do it "from" the same "gods realm" "perception" ?

Sorry if the question is too "fictious" or not understandable, let me know if you need more clarification.

thanks.

From the perspective of the old Pali scriptures, I am not aware of anywhere that states: "It is more difficult to achieve nibbana in the a godly realm than in the human realm".

For example, AN 4.123 describes Nirvana ("unbound") in the god realms.

I think the answer to this common view is based in the type of 'godly' realm.

A most common godly realm in the Pali scriptures are higher meditation states (jhana), as described in AN 4.123.

However, there are godly realms that equate to luxurious wealthy lifestyles of sensual pleasures (e.g. MN 37). It is possibly this godly realm called The Sensuous World (kama-loka) that makes it difficult to achieve Nibbana.

  Good sir Moggallana, the Vejayanta Palace has a hundred towers, and each tower has seven hundred upper chambers, and each tower has seven
  nymphs and each nymph has seven maids. Would you like to see the
  loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace, good sir Moggallana?


What religious texts would help me understand the fundamentals Buddhism better? I was raised in an area where the usual answer to the question of what Buddhism is was "I don't know, hippy stuff", and any religion outside Christianity was considered "the work of Satan".

That said, in my adult life I have been drawn to Buddhist philosophies and concepts as I understand them, but I'm not really sure where to start in my study of the religion. I've read a couple "Intro to Buddhism" type books that were very interesting and enlightening. However I'm pretty fuzzy on what historical texts I should be looking to read when it comes to the actual teachings of the Buddha as pertains to all Buddhism (not specifically Mahayana or Theravada etc.).

Basically I'm looking for some information on what writing(s) could be considered the "Bible" of Buddhism, but from what I understand there is no central text in that sense. I've found lists of sutras (and suttas? I'm not too clear on the difference), but they are extensive and not really catagorized or anything.

Hi Tuxmachina and welcome to this path!

There are two books that were very important when I was struggling with getting acquainted with Buddhism.

The first book I read was the Dhammapada, which is a relatively short collection of saying and teachings directed to popular audiences, and which summerize a lot of the most important ideas of the Dhamma, in a rather poetic way. It is a nice introduction to classical buddhist thought, although it is not recognized as part of the earliest text. It was probably composed (according to some scholars) after the Buddha's demise.

Here you will find a online translation of the Dhammapada:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html

The second book I could recommend is "In the Buddha's Words", written by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a Theravada monk and expert in the Pāli dialect. This book is a collection of the most important suttas (discourses, sermons and teachings) found in the Pāli Canon (the collection of suttas historically recognized by the Theravada tradition as authentic Buddha's words). The structure of the book is arranged considering some of the key aspects of the Buddha's life and teachings, and it is divided in chapters according to different doctrinal topics, and each chapter with a brief introduction written by Bhikkhu Bodhi himself. It is a long book, but I think it should not be read quickly, but gradually and with time and patience, and it is the best you can find (IMO) if you want to read directly from the source.

In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (The Teachings of the Buddha) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XF1LIO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_2dbxCb0MRD47T

Here are some useful websites filled with suttas, essays, forums and wonderful introductions to Theravada Buddhism and Early Buddhist Texts:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html
https://suttacentral.net
https://dhammawheel.com

And since we are in this digital era, I also recommend watching some YouTube channels if possible. Here you will find some of my favorites:

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/yuttadhammo

Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFAuQ5fmYYVv5_Dim0EQpVA

Buddhist Society of Western Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA

Doug's Secular Dharma:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPIyEJzvW7SsbiIrooixjNA

1983dukkha:
https://www.youtube.com/user/1983dukkha

Dhammanet:
https://www.youtube.com/user/dhammanet

These channel contain sutta clases, dhamma talks, explanations from a secular point of view, guided meditations, etc. I should warn you that some of these wonderful teachers may have different views and interpretations on some doctrinal topics, so keep an open mind and a curious spirit to discern the most appropiate interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Let experience, attention, analysis and wisdom be your best allies in this path.

And if you find yourself in doubts and confusion, don't hesitate about asking your question here. We all were (and are) still novices on this training and way of life.

Good luck in your path!


What is forgetting an experience? During my day to day life experience, i imagine myself with wisdom. That imagination make me take a turn to some other scene where i exist as an ultimate supreme seer and i feel touch of realisation i.e, i can even touch (or hug) that scene, things, people, everything there. I enjoy that alot.
But i forget what was the most satisfactory imagination and i keep remembering that.
I want to know :

What is forgetting an experience ! It is science or spirituality at the basic ?
is it like if i can control my imagination, i can get the understanding of the state of nirvana and Nirvana is already in me ?

Nirvana isn't an experience, or a state. Nirvana is just stopping. Can you see, directly, now, that everything stops? That everything is always stopping?

When you do see that directly, that is, when your mindstream turns for one moment towards the stopping that's always happening, and you get a glimpse of Nirvana, "you" won't be there. But there will be an aftershock in your body.

That aftershock may be pleasant, and feel like wisdom- it may even feel like being a "supreme seer". But it's an experience in your body, in time, and is not itself "being in Nirvana".

Nirvana is in you because your mindstream, your experience, is always stopping. It's always going over the edge of a waterfall.

All of that might not make much sense :)


Why will-power could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta? I found the below from the book

Mindfulness with Breathing: A Manual for Serious Beginners

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Breathing-Manual-Serious-Beginners/dp/0861711114

  The Thai word kuab-kum is used throughout these talks. It can be
  translated 'to regulate; to control or confine; to oversee,
  supervise, or superintend.' When one of these translations appear, all
  of the rest should be understood. In all cases, kuab-kum depends on
  sati and wisdom, never force or will-power.

Could someone explains why will-power could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?

I have no knowledge of Thai but what I think is said here is:

Anatta nature is such that you cannot effect any of the aggregates by will power alone in an absolute way ever lasting way. You can stay in one posture but this is to a limited time. So you have limited influence but not absolute at a grosser level. At the level of arising and passing you have no control, whatsoever. When phenomena arises you cannot make it not pass away. You cannot stop phenomena arising.

But having said this you can have limited influence over all the aggregates by what you do at the present moment though influencing the fabrication process (Karmic and Citta Niyama resultants). E.g. by calming the breath you can calm the bodily fabrications. Certain volitions give certain results later. These can be viewed as regulating, i.e. you regulate the present moment. Awareness of the arising and passing away of: the aggregates / mind matter process / within the 4 foundations of mindfulness, equanimous to sensations devoid of clinging and craving, creating positive fabrication (like Metta), etc. are forms of regulation.


contentment, complacency, sloth/torpor Are these conditions mutually exclusive? Is complacency a form of sloth/torpor?

Sloth/torpor is a hindrance, but to say that one must not be satisfied seems contrary to the spirit of contentment and non-doing.

My guess is that sloth is inertia rooted in avoiding challenge, but not sure.

Please define sloth/torpor, comparing it to contentment.

'Complacency' would be a lack of urgency, thus a deficiency in wisdom.

'Sloth & torpor' is a lack of energy (tiredness) or mental dullness ('sinking mind'), which can occur in concentration development & thus a deficiency in optimum concentration technique.

As for 'contentment' & 'complacency', yes, they could occur together when a practitioner is content with a liberating yet lower level of attainment, such as stream-entry or jhana.


Can a monk live with a male lay person? I've found a similar question;
Are theravada monks allowed to stay in lay people's house?
However it was asked by a woman and nobody answered otherwise.
What i wonder is if there are any restrictions on living in the same house as a male lay disciple and relying on the lay person for alms and requisites?
Thank you.

A Bhikkhu is restricted to max. three nights sleeping under the same roof with lay-people, better Non-Bhikkhus (which incl. novices and some Nikayas incl. animal as well).
"Under one roof" is also seen often differently, sometimes technical in regard of roof seen, sometimes as matter of touch each other ("privacy"), as the origin story suggest that it's a matter of danger of lose of respect toward monk(s) if seeing ordinary things while he sleeps...etc.
As for the practice (for those in training) it's actually not good for Bhikkhus (but also for others after Paths/fruits) to spend even short time in near association with "non-likewise" or "lower".
It's how ever great goodness if a mature Bhikkhu let a non-Bhikkhu dwell near for a while.
General is near association, living near, with householder and real novices not good and often encouraged to avoid by the Sublime Buddha, not to speak of improper association or dependency.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from this wheel.]


Could a Sotapanna reject to give if asked and has? What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share?

In what cases, if he could reject, would he?

(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment that binds here in this wheel, but as a tiny door out)

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share?

I may have missed it, but i have yet to find something in buddhism that says we should give or agree on something that will be harmful to ourselves (as well as what is harmful to others, of course).

  In what cases, if he could reject, would he?

I'm not sure there are any hard rules. It seems that it depends on the situation. I hope someone who knows the sutras better than me could chime in on this.


Does final nirvana conventionally exist - especially in the lotus sutra? Does every tradition, especially ones descended from the lotus sutra and the Buddha's immeasurable life, claim that parinirvana is a conventional existent?

Assuming that it's not a dharma, I don't know.

In my experience, zen and tibetan buddhism do not claim that the self of an enlightened one can be completely non existent. In fact a zen master when asked this question might answer "Uncertain." or "yes" or "no". Ask for definite answers is a limiting factor in an unlimited universe.

The following article discusses your question in far more detail than I can:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

  Here is an excerpt that applies to your question: But there is no
  doubt that they affirmed the reality of the self or person, and that
  with scriptural authority they held that the self of an enlightened
  one cannot be described as non-existent after death, in “complete
  Nirvana” (Parinirvana), even though the five “aggregates” which are
  the basis of its identity have then passed away without any
  possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material
  form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.

  It seems, then, that they thought of some aspect or dimension of the
  self as transcending the aggregates and may have identified that
  aspect with Nirvana, which like most early Buddhists they regarded as
  an eternal reality. In its involvement with the aggregates through
  successive lives, the self could be seen as characterized by incessant
  change; but in its eternal aspect, it could be seen as having an
  identity that remains constant through all its lives until it fulfils
  itself in the impersonal happiness of Parinirvana. Although their
  account of the self seemed unorthodox and irrational to their Buddhist
  opponents, the Pudgalavādins evidently believed that only such an
  account could do justice to the Buddha’s moral teaching, to the
  accepted facts of karma, rebirth and liberation, and to our actual
  experience of selves and persons.


How to redeem a wasted youth? I wasted my youth. I am 35 years old. I had a toxic relationship with my parents, especially my mother. My career never started and am still looking for a fresh start and finding it humiliating at my age.

What does Buddhism says about wasting your youth? Is redemption possible?

Thanks.

So Buddhism says a lot of things.

One is that unhappiness is caused by "craving" i.e. by wanting things to be other than as they are (or by wanting impermanent things to continue)

Another is that unhappiness is caused by various types of "self-view", for example, "I will die" or "I cannot have what I want" etc.

One aspect of "self-view" is "comparison" -- comparing "yourself" to others -- for example, "I have or don't have a job", and, "I don't have as good a job as she has" etc.

The word "humiliation" sounds like it's associated with "pride" -- which, is one of the "fetters", one of the canonical problems. There is one way in which "conceit" or "comparison" can be used wisely or productively, which is to say, "That person (maybe a 'spiritual friend') has attained X (i.e. 'enlightenment') by doing Y (i.e. 'practising the way to enlightenment'). Perhaps I too, by doing Y, can attain X".

I guess the Buddhist path might be something like,

Be moral (ethical) to avoid hurting others
Understand (perhaps by learning Buddhist doctrine on that subject) what kinds of thinking cause unhappiness, then stop doing that

The word "redemption" might not be mainstream Buddhist -- I associate that word with "Christ the Redeemer" i.e. "Jesus dying to save (redeem, buy back, pay a sacrificial price for) Mankind from Sin".

Buddhism is a little more "You're saved by your own efforts" (with due respect, to the three jewels or refuges) -- i.e. it's up to you to learn, up to you to control or not control your mind, and each person is "heir to their own kamma" i.e. it's because of your own intentions/actions that you become happy or unhappy -- go to "heaven" or "the animal word" or become "enlightened".

The fact that you're able to ask this question suggests you're capable -- not too addicted or angry to care, not too confused to even ask, at least have lucid moments.

I don't know your circumstances, but from this distance I might suggest, don't worry too much about "career never started" if you can. Any work you do might be good work, what you volunteer to do as well. The important thing is to do the best you can in the circumstances -- "best" meaning "kind to yourself and others" -- and then be happy, because you're doing the best you can.

I still wonder if all suffering are really from oneself

Canonically it (i.e. mental or psychological suffering) arises from craving, attachment, self-image -- part of which is the idea that there is a "oneself" for it to come from.

you can also be made to feel shame by the community

People might try to shame you, I guess -- there's a sutta SN 7.2 which describes the Buddha's reply to someone trying to "insult" him.

I'm not sure that "shame" is a good way to teach people -- here's a non-Buddhist poem which was semi-famous when I was young:

  CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE
  --Dorothy Law Nolte

  If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
  If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
  If children live with ridicule, they learn to be shy.
  If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
  If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
  If children live with tolerance, they learn to be patient.
  If children live with praise, they learn to appreciate.
  If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
  If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
  If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
  If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and others.
  If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.

It's possible, I don't know, that some people in the community are trying to tell you something worthwhile -- or, maybe they're unkind and trying to shame you -- or maybe you react with shame, when it's not their intention to inflict it -- I don't know.

Perhaps you can't afford to pay too much attention to people who are only negative and not helpful.

I also don't know what they want, maybe they're selfishly trying to sell you something useless -- it's up to you to find wise advice I guess.

isn't there a point where the inner world is not so solipsisitc

Yes and no?

I've met people in whom "suffering", as a result of their "inner world", seemed to me absolutely pathological, and nearly life-long -- and maladaptive i.e. not a "good" response to the current social environment -- like post-traumatic stress.

The whole "self versus society" is complicated, especially when that's seen as "versus" rather than as "cooperating with".

Anyway I think that Buddhism intends to help you become free of negative emotions, like shame (also called "obscurations" in some schools of Buddhism). Perhaps you have to recognise the emotion, and understand how it arises, and remove or avoid or "uproot" the condition[s] in which it arises.

To be fair Buddhism also teaches that "a sense of shame" can be a good thing for a student to have, because it keeps them from doing the wrong things.

A good part of that and a (possibly 'the') basis of Buddhism is ethics -- it's taught that "skilful virtue" (which I think means "doing the right thing well") has a purpose and a result, which is "absence of remorse", from which arises "joy" and so on.

So "absence of remorse" -- having done the best you can, doing the best you can, intending to do the best you can in future -- and not being ashamed of that, not being ashamed because of that.

Note that "ethics" aren't, necessarily, "solipsistic" -- ethics help people coexist, help the person coexist with society. The so-called Threefold Training maybe begins with "Right Speech", which is usefully summarised here -- Right Speech -- which I'd recommend you read ... and then practice i.e. try to speak like that and to listen to "right speech" from other people.


Benefits of Vipassana Meditation I've decided to do I'm thinking if meditation would help me to concentrate my study(academic). Also would it help me to feel Buddha and Dhamma? Will my memory sharp? Currently I feel little bit depressed so would this be cured if I'll attend ten days of Vipassana meditation?

Whatever Buddha taught was aimed at attaining nirvana. Vipassana meditation is to achieve nirvana. If you go through this journey, you can pick up something you want on the way. If you do so, there will be the delay and even you may lose bearing. What you mention are just like the stations you have to pass on the journey by train. If you are waiting one by one you will get it but slowly and not all at the same time. If you target at nirvana, you will get these all in a short time definitely.


How to think deeply and penetrate into its core? I want to quote my experience as - "True Understanding brings effortless transformation". In my experience I have found that whenever I understand something deeply (ohhh! Moment) it transforms that part of my behavior and thinking completely. If I don't understand something I am in a constant state of confusion and suffering. So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

How to think deeply and penetrate its core? How to think critically? Or how to gain insight?

Regardless a good place to start is to attempt to know something by understanding its binary opposite. You think you know what something is? Every detail of what it is? U memorized it? Backwards and forwards? Now do the same for understanding what it is not. Every detail of what it is not. Or what is there in its absence. Or what is absent in its presence and absence. And what about a non-binary opposite?? Write it all down. Memorize it. until you can repeat it backwards.

Take this example:
You are a man and you want to be popular with women so you learn as much as you can. You worship them you pray fr them you protect them you do everything you can but still they dont notice you.

But you only started learning about women with learning about women. Did you learn about men too? Should you? Are they the same? What are the differences anyways? Genetics?
Ok so youre a man and you know eveyrthing about men.
Do you know about trans women? Trans men? Nonbinary afabs? Binary amab transsexuals?

Maybe youll never know about women. So do give up or do you continue to train in true understanding? Better to be a monk then?