Can karma operate at the level of groups i.e. collectively? In the book the Land of No Buddha the author interviews a Tibetan lama in which he talks about collective karma - to quote

  All groups have karma that is more than just the collection of the
  karma of the individuals of the group. For example a group can decide
  collectively to start a war.

(pp 76 of above book)

This is the first and only time I have heard of collective karma. Is this a concept purely within Tibetan Buddhism? Is it wider than that or is it perhaps just this lama's understanding and it not really a concept in Buddhism generally? If it is a genuine concept then can someone give some more details and perhaps how it fits in with karma at an individual level?

Yes, of course, there can be group karma.

To begin with, individual karma is only a useful approximation. Because of anatta, what we conventionally call individual is merely an assembly point of contributing factors. It is these factors that are referred to as karma. They don't belong to anyone, really.

As per the Hierarchy Theory, useful notions of groups can be arbitrarily designated at any level of observation. Individual being, family, social group, country etc. -- all of these are abstractions. Some of the karmic patterns make better sense when looked from far away, in which case it may be helpful to attribute them to a group.


Does rebirth or reincarnation occur in Buddhism? How is the concept of rebirth or reincarnation handled in Buddhism? Does it occur? Will everyone be reborn? Are people always reborn as people?

Simple answers for last three questions as far as I know,

Does it occur ? Yes it is

Will everyone ? Yes until someone attain Nibbana

always as people ? No, it can be any(animals/human etc)

But the first question is too broad to answer.

You can find more details in this article about recantation.

Simple explanation for recantation as according to that article,

  Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for
  instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. In this case
  John possesses an immortal soul which transforms to the form of a cat
  after his death. This cycle is repeated over and over again. Or if he
  is lucky, he will be reborn as a human being.


Buddhism about the Big Bang and Science in general What did Buddha have to say about the creation of the Universe, if any? I asked a monk after a discourse, and he said that there is a reference to continuous Big Bangs, not simultaneous, but one after another. There have been many such Big Bangs before? I don't understand though. Is this true?

This is a slightly broader question than my previous one but is related. Does Buddha have anything to say about scientific advancements? Is there any need for Science in Buddhism? Is Buddhism too broad and philosophic for Science to explain logically or is this an excuse for not being able to explain certain phenomena scientifically?

One thing which is important to remember is that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model that fits in with physical observations and helps with predictions. The model is beneficial in that it's both useful and intuitive. However, there might be many more models, possibly more complex, or simpler, which would do the same job. Saying we know that a Big Bang occurred is thus a shorthand for saying "for our intents and purposes, it's good enough to assume that a Big Bang occurred." However, although it's good enough for cosmological study, it's obviously not good enough for individual predictions, i.e. which code of conduct will lead to the highest form of welfare. For this purpose, empirical science has found its way into the field of psychology, which is, unfortunately, notoriously lacking.

The Buddha's Dhamma includes such a code of conduct, and certain cosmological references, but always in terms of the individual, e.g. what gives birth to our experience of the world, what sorts of possibilities are there to experience, what sort of conduct leads to each, etc.

Though the Buddha recalled past lives from, to quote, "many eons of cosmic expansion and contraction," he didn't present (in the suttas) any clear-cut genesis story. There is one sutta where he talks of how worlds of experience are generated, but never in terms of the origination of "what's out there." Nor did he take a stance on whether things have an inherent existence or not.

You'll find many interpretations of the Buddha's statements about the world. For instance, when he describes an "intergalactic void with a darkness beyond any other," it correlates with black holes. When he speaks of other realms of existence, it correlates with other galaxies, or (considering recent cosmological theories) universes. When he talks of beings who are invisible to the ordinary human eye, it correlates with the theory of dark matter. But it's crucial to note that these are all worthless speculations, which might or might not have anything to do with his intentions. They have nothing to do with the tasks he left us with.

It's useful to note how, even though infinitesimally few people have been on the moon, us lay men and women always want to hear more about the size of the universe. When we think of the solar system, we're awed; the milky way, woah; the observable universe, and now the multiverse theory, we just can't get enough. If and when multiverse becomes a standard belief, we're going to watch out for bigger revelations. All of this to feed out insatiable intellect. Regardless of whether the size and origination of the universe is of any importance to us, we can clearly see why the Buddha, even if he knew about it, would not even spare a taste if it didn't directly support his path of practice, which is said to be the path to end the craving for existence and thus the end of all of our stress and suffering.

Hence, Science and Buddhism are not in competition. We study science for certain purposes. We practice Buddhism for others, such as to set clear boundaries for ourselves so our minds don't get carried away with ideas and sensations. In doing so, he implied we'll be able to find out the truth about many things. But that in itself wasn't the basis for his message - one which he said we urgently needed to hear.


Was the Buddha a pessimist? I learn from sources the Buddha and his teachings is often associated with pessimism. Is there any historical accuracies which can confirm this as a fact.

The Buddha was a realist who preached about reality as it is. Optimising is a mindset where one thinks that conditions are better than what they actually are. Pessimism is the opposite, where one thinks things are worse off than what they actually are. Realism is the middle ground where one accepts things for what they actually are, without undue focus on only the negative or positive aspects of reality. The Buddha Dhamma teachers to reality as it is a teachers a path to see reality as it is.


Re-orientation in my practice from Advaita to Buddhism I have been studying Advaita Vedanta for some time now. I never really understood that Everything was conciousness and that consciousness is not a by product of my brain nor inside my mind and could not get it, I had doubts all the time. When I found out about the Buddhist principle of consciousness arising dependently I directly said yes this is how it is. Now to my question as a new Buddhist practitioner, I have been hearing Rupert spira saying " Time and space are ilusions existing only from the point of view of the observer observing changes in other words it is a kind of metaphysical idealism where the "I" is ultimately true and everything else including time,space,objects (even time and space of physics is considered mind made and not really existing in the universe) which to me also was hard to believe. I asked my self how can the world depend on me? (even though I may not witness something happening outside my house it does not mean that it didnt happen) (while writing this I saw Nagarjunas theory which seems to be idealism like Advaita??? (he says that time and space of physics does not have independent existence of our mind and that everything is mind???)  Do you agree that the time and space of physics is an ilusion ? If not could you elaborate what the logic behind the Buddhist position of time and space is (both in regards to mental time and the time oh physics, I will change my view to the view of Buddhism which I found really helpful and logical with "Conciousness arising dependently".

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

Amazing! I have a similar background.

I too was once upon a time leaning towards Advaita. I initially thought this idea of a Cosmic Consciousness where everyone has the same "I" is interesting. This Cosmic Consciousness is the Self (Atman) in Advaita, which is identical with Brahman, the unchanging substratum of the universe, the Transcendental Ultimate Reality. The Atman is an eternal indestructible core of one's being.

However, when I read the Buddha's explanation of consciousness being dependent on the six sense media, I realized that this is the only explanation that matched my experience. There was never a time when consciousness was cognizant of anything, except through the six sense media (eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aroma, tongue and taste, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas).

The Buddha made it very clear that consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. Just as a flowing river appearing as one stream, but in reality is constantly changing in content, similarly, consciousness too may appear like one constant permanent thing, when it isn't.

It is very clear that Buddhism and Advaita are completely far apart.

There's no Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. In all phenomena, there's no such thing as a self, as in something like an eternal core of being - in Buddhism. And therefore, no Eternal God. There is no Transcendental Ultimate Reality, which is a substratum for the cosmos in Buddhism. Everything is impermanent except Nirvana. Nirvana is not any kind of reality or self. Nirvana is simply the highest bliss and peace that is cognized with complete liberation from suffering.

There's more - the Bhagavad Gita 2.17 says that the eternal soul pervades the body while Buddhism says that all phenomena is not self, and the self is simply an impermanent mental idea that arises from the inter-operation of the five aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness). How they inter-operate is described by Dependent Origination.

This will be clear to you, if you dig deep into (what I consider to be) the Buddha's original teachings in the Sutta Pitaka, of the Pali Canon, which belongs to Theravada. Mahayana preserves these same teachings in the Sanskrit Agamas.

Mahayana, at first glance, appears to look more like Advaita than Theravada. But as I dug deeper into Mahayana, I found that it overdoses on metaphors and poetic language, making it appear to look like Advaita, but in reality it's not. For e.g. Mahayana has the Eternal Buddha that sounds like Eternal Brahman. But actually, this refers to the Buddha's Dharmakaya (body of teachings) that originates from his statement that when you see his teachings, you see him, and vice versa (i.e. pay attention to his teachings and not his form or personality, to know what's special about him). In my opinion, Mahayana is a victim of its own poetic genius, resulting in its historical disappearance from the land of its birth.

Now back to your question ...

Advaita seems similar to objective idealism, while Mahayana seems similar to subjective idealism, if we were to compare them to ideas in western philosophy. Both ideas are subset of idealism.

Is Mahayana really subjective idealism?

Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs.

What does that mean? And how is it related to the mind?

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.

When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.

Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.

These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence given to it by the mind.

What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.

What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.

This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.

So, in my opinion, Mahayana and Theravada are very much the same in spirit although different in form, while Advaita appears similar in form to Mahayana but is completely different in spirit.


Is this considered wrong? (Related to art) I have a question. I like to draw, and recently think of selling my art (commisssion). But I mainly draw fanart (fanart of celebrities, movie characters, etc).
My question is, in Buddhism, is selling our drawing of real life people (celebrities, famous people) considered wrong? As in 'using' their popularity for us to gain profit?

A case can be made for someone involved with art as maybe being to some extent & on that account 'intoxicated' with living & pleasant forms. As being heedless in regards to developing his good qualities & at that time not focusing on the theme of renunciation, on the unattractive, on the danger & loathsomeness of existent phenomena; and making others heedless & infatuated with living.
A producer of sensual pleasure basically. Trading in sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasures corrupt people.
However it's not like one is selling drugs or weapons. The harm to oneself and others can be relatively trifling for this or that person. I think it's closer to baking cakes.
Household life is problematic in general and one's household trade is best be closest to trading simple crafted goods or attending to good people. The Anagami householders in the texts, as far as i can tell, were either being lay attendents to The Buddha & The Sangha or making clay pots and trading those for essential requisites, not using money.
Their lifestyle too isn't ideal because it falls short of going forth into homelessness. The Anagamis i have in mind did not go forth because of sick parents.


When a man life becomes complete Everyone was on a run for their life doing something they don't like. Also there may be no sense of satisfaction in their life. So I am thinking, what makes a man's life complete?

Does the worldly things still matter for a man to make his life complete? Does only meditating makes a man complete? If there is no use in our life then what's reason for our existence. Why we came here into this world? Why are we in this cycle of birth and death?

What is the meaning of life?

The question "why?" with regards to existence comes from theistic thinking. Even some scientists cannot free themselves from this kind of thinking. It is a result of believing that there's some ultimate entity/force in the universe that decides a purpose for us.

Buddhism doesn't subscribe to ideas like that. Buddhism teaches about causes and effect. It never talks about an inherent purpose or something written in the stars with regards to existence. Because there is none. But that doesn't mean that there are no goals worth aiming for. In an ultimate sense, end of suffering is the goal that is worth striving for.

If your head is on fire, trying to put off the fire is the smarter thing to do. Not to ask "why me?".


Meditation, compassion: How to handle people who dominate you in the office? I have been doing meditation for long time and have felt a change in me. I have started developing strong compassion, and due to this I am speaking very politely to everyone and always agreeing with the views of others. In fact, I am helping others in their work. However, now people have started taking me for granted.

As I speak kindly with my subordinates, they are taking advantage of me by commanding me to do their work and are trying to dominate. They have started speaking in rude ways to me as they have started feeling that I am not harmful for them and cannot do anything. I am now becoming a victim of their politics.

How to overcome this problem? I cannot leave my post as this is the only way of earning my bread and butter.

Being on the path of Buddhism, how to maintain relations with your colleagues?

Every worker has a duty to become proficient in & do their work. A proper leader must nurture this. Also, rude speech is improper in the workplace; just as rude speech is improper in Buddhism.

In reality, the values in original Pali Buddhism perfectly fit a secular world. For example, if the Pali scriptures are read, it will not be found the Buddha speaking very politely to everyone and, particularly, always agreeing with other's views. Often the Buddha was firm (but always fair) to others in his speech & the Buddha always conformed with what is ethically & dhammically correct thus often correcting or even admonishing the wrong views of others.

Just like the Dhamma-Vinaya (Doctrine-&-Disciple) has clear rules, a workplace has set rules & delegation of duties. These should be adhered to, without prejudice, which results in a lack of confusion.

If you are a leader, you have the opportunity to nurture a clear, ethical & unconfused workplace. It is when workplace leaders become corrupt, prejudiced or too wavering when confusion arises & difficulties begin, particularly for ethical workers. Most people take any chance to dominate. A fair & ethical leader is rare.

In short, less focus on personalities (including your own) and more focus on rules & responsibilities.

  Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with sternness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  sternness.

  Kesi Sutta

Some references:

Right Speech From His Own Lips

A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life

Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline

  Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.  What four kinds?  The four kinds are:

  Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised,
  according to the truth, at the proper time.

  Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be
  blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.

  Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.

  Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according
  to the truth, at the proper time.

  Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.  Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most
  fair and right, the most refined, to you?

  "Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to
  the truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of
  person who is the most beautiful and refined to me.  What is the
  reason for this?  Because this is fair and right with upekkha
  (equanimity)."

  Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the
  proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the
  truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful
  and refined of these four kinds of people.  What is the reason for
  this?  It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in
  those circumstances.

~~~

  Avoiding the biases: when an administrator is carrying out his functions, he should not allow the four biases, or deviations from
  righteousness, to interfere:

  Chandagati: biased conduct on account of like

  Dosagati: biased conduct on account of dislike

  Mohagati: biased conduct on account of delusion or foolishness

  Bhayagati: biased conduct on account of
  timidity and fear


Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student I'm seeking a meditation/dharma teacher to help strengthen my practice, once I find one and establish some relationship what is the proper way to request becoming their student. I'm interested in The etiquette for lay or monastic. Also where I am there is not a strong community of practice what suggestions if any does anyone have about online teachers/instruction? (Hazards/cautions) if the relationship has to be long distance what steps can I take to make it more beneficial?

Once you find the right teacher, your search for one is over, and there is no need of thinking about how you should approach him or her, as this will happen like that of a reflex action. The big question is how to find this right teacher.
This is because a person needs to be fully established in this path in coming to one of the path factors above that of a stream entrant but this person can present a completely different image to others.

Therefore, it is very difficult to know another person. It is difficult to know whether a person is in the correct path or not, or whether you can place your trust or not, whether you will get into trouble by sharing your experiences with that person or not. It is a great relief if we knew how to understand a person whether that person is a person of integrity or a person of no integrity. It is far greater relief if we have such a person in our life to share our experiences with.

But if you take the trouble to learn the Dhamma contained in the original scriptures to some extent, whether it is from books or online, you will be in a better position to know how to identify ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’. In Sappurisa sutta of Anguttara nikaya the Lord Buddha explains how to identify ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’.  Here, the Buddha explains ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’ can be identified by their qualities.

This, however, is where the tricky part is: You can't be a fair judge of another person's integrity until you've developed some of your own. This is probably the most uncomfortable truth of all, for it requires that you accept responsibility for your judgments. If you want to test other people's potential for good guidance, you must pass a few tests yourself. Again, it's like listening to a pianist. The better you are as a pianist, the better your ability to judge the other person's playing.


What could go wrong if one misconstrue Buddhism with nihilism? I see that Buddhism is absolutely not nihilism, but I wonder what could go wrong if one misconstrue one with another. This is especially true with people with psychological issues, because they have to experience an amount of suffering more than normal when they are young. For example, for persons with borderline personality disorder, they constantly has these feelings:

Extremely fear of being abandoned
Unstable self-image

In this example case, since Buddhism teaches that acknowledging everything is impermanent you won't be afraid of being abandoned. The unstable self-image also matches with the idea of anatman, therefore the idea of impermanence will have a strong impact to them. But in fact, this is just clinging on the idea of impermanence.

Many people with psychological disorders knows that they are the trouble, so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them. To justify this behavior, they may use nihilism. But when it become a habit, it's really hard for professional therapists to help them, because they now have a reason to continue the behavior.

I know you may not have much understanding on such cases, but I'm not asking about it either. I just want to know that if someone is misconstruing Buddhism with nihilism, then what suttas/teachings they contradict with.

Note that my understanding on philosophy is not very concrete. It's possible that I should replace "nihilism" with "impermanencism".

Related:
• Is Buddhism Nihilistic?
• How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?
• Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?

• Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?
• When would a Buddhist want to attach?
• Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?

I've no formal experience with borderline personality disorder, this answer isn't intended to be relevant to that.

I've seen posts on this site where people say, "If you don't believe in rebirth then you believe that death ends everything (and ends suffering). But if you really believed that death ends then why wouldn't you just kill yourself? Therefore you must believe in rebirth." I think that (i.e. the belief that death ends suffering) is one of what Buddhism identifies as "a wrong view" and might be translated as nihilism (or "annihilationism"). There's even a sutta in which some monks do kill themselves and the Buddha clarifies that that wasn't right.

Conversely I think that the (non-Buddhist) Bhagavad Gita too seems like a wrong view to me (at least as far as I understand it). I think there's a scene where someone is faced with 'enemies' before a battle, and he doesn't want to kill them because they're his kin, and the God says to him something like, "But they're going to die anyway, everyone does, they're mortal[s]. Now you should go and fight (and kill) them because that's your social duty, the job you were born to do (by being born into the warrior or ruling class, I guess), and therefore your holy duty." The Buddhist doctrines of emptiness and anatta notwithstanding, I think that "There is no father, no mother, no teachers" and so on is explicitly declared to be another wrong view.

There's a hint of that in the Zen story which is titled, Nothing Exists.

That's about it, I'm not sure what else would count as nihilism. Possibly despair, a feeling of helpless -- or a feeling of heedlessness -- a view like, "It's all impermanent, nothing makes any difference, no point in even trying anything."

I read the link you posted, e.g. ...

  Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment by friends and family

... but, sorry, I'm not sure how to advise about that or even what it has to do with nihilism exactly. I think I see it's related to psychological "attachment theory". The Buddhist doctrine I've learned doesn't seem to me to be very much about such relationships, except things like this and doctrine about the brahmaviharas. And the "refuges", the three jewels, suggest maybe people shouldn't put their faith in friends and family and so on.

On the other hand something like DN 31 says there is such a thing as proper behaviour for a layperson, and there is a difference between a good friend and a bad friend, that there are duties between between family members (and so perhaps to that extent, "good" and "bad" family members), maybe that's worth knowing too.

...  so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them.

I suppose it's because a therapist isn't too attached, and because they're motivated to "first, behave ethically (and/or 'professionally')", and is "disinterested" i.e. needs no help from the patient, but not "uninterested" so there is two-way communication, I think those are reasons why a  a patient needn't fear that they may hurt and therefore must protect their therapist (though shying away might be a habit that's hard to break, and sharing personal information might be a skill like any other which if it hasn't been learned already might be difficult to practice).

Instead of being entangled (in a relationship), protecting a partner or protecting oneself from a partner, perhaps with a therapist it's clearer (to the patient) that it's the patient who will "inherit their own kamma":

  I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir...

I think that that doctrine -- that reflection or observation -- is used, to say that it matters what you do and what you intend: because that actually makes a difference (to you, to your future self, and/or to whoever may exist in the future).

I think that Buddhism also uses this doctrine to teach some equanimity towards others (e.g. that "they are heir to their own kamma") -- the brahmaviharas -- i.e. you're supposed to feel kindness and compassion (maybe being harmless and helpful, not hurtful), and admiration (for someone's virtues, instead of being jealous or pitying), but also equanimity (disentangling).

The bit about heedlessness is what I'm talking about. Can you elaborate?

I think that the "there's nothing I can do that makes a difference" view is a wrong view, perhaps canonically associated with a view that "what happens is predetermined or predestined" -- possibly a clockwork universe theory -- i.e. that past kamma determines everything about "now", and will also continue to determine everything about the future, and so there's no sense in trying and no personal responsibility for anything.

I think the Buddhist view is that, in contrast, a) kamma is intentional action; b) past kamma does affect the present but isn't the only thing that affects the present (e.g. a hurricane isn't a result of kamma, though how you react to a hurricane might well be); c) what you do now (and what you intend now, i.e. new kamma) does make a difference -- whether you intend good, intend evil, or even intend to "end" kamma.

Also if the "clockwork universe" theory is about physics, Buddhism is about the mind, for example:

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Being "heedful" in't easy. Canonically it was the Buddhas final advice, the last words of the Buddha:

  vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā

The opposite of "heedfulness" might be likened to a "drunkenness".

I say "not easy", maybe it's like that famous bit of advice to Christians, "be perfect".

Anyway I think that being "heedful" may be related to being "mindful", some ability to concentrate, or if not  "concentrated" then to not get carried away -- to remain in the present.

Incidentally the classifications in the DSM are quite approximate:

It says e.g. "this not that" where really people are a bit of both
Also "this" might be a characteristic of relatively healthy people too, what makes it unhealthy is a matter of degree (doing it "excessively"), where the definition of "excessive" is difficult to assess if you're, like, not professionally trained, and to some extent it's a matter of personal choice.

Anyway, apart from "BPD" there's another diagnosis, "PTSD", which for all I know (i.e. little) might be similar in one way -- i.e. it's where someone has (had) a traumatic experience and keeps "re-living" it. One of the psycho-therapeutic therapies for that is what they call "mindfulness" (that's probably not exactly what the Buddhist canon defines as "mindfulness", but still), especially trying to be mindful of or to remember the present (instead of re-living the past).

It's "maladaptive" behaviour e.g. it's fearing a threat where there isn't (or shouldn't be) one in the present.

Perhaps that's some form of "attachment" but an attachment to a past undesirable event.

An actually that might be another side to "impermanence" i.e. sometimes it's difficult to get that some past threat, a threatening situation, is over and finished, that the present situation is different, is changing.

I imagine there are lot of ways in which Buddhist doctrinal views could be applied to psychotherapy, or vice versa, maybe I see some parallels (but I haven't experienced that, not been trained).


Do you need to be taught the nembutsu? Are some personalities better suited to it? Do you need to be taught the nembutsu? Are some personalities better suited to it?

  Nianfo (Chinese: 念佛; pinyin: niànfó 念仏 (ねんぶつ? nenbutsu) Hangul: 염불;
  RR: yeombul Vietnamese: niệm Phật) is a term commonly seen in Pure
  Land Buddhism. In the context of Pure Land practice, it generally
  refers to the repetition of the name of Amitābha. It is a translation
  of Sanskrit buddhānusmṛti (or, "recollection of the Buddha"1).

It appears in all the Chinese influenced Buddhist "schools" I have encountered, in various forms, even if just exhorted against.

Not sure if it's originally Indian.

Nembutsu - repeating a name of a Buddha - is a practice which might help us to

let go of worries,
abandon self-centeredness,
develop exalted qualities,
and develop concentration.

If you understand and do this practice sincerely, it might bring you benefits even if nobody particularly taught you.

The first effect, helping to drop worries, comes from the fact that people usually live in a lot of insecurity. Practising nembutsu, they don't need to rely on their weak skills anymore, they rely on Buddha. So they find a ground to feel well and secure.

The second effect, abandoning self-centeredness, results from the same change of perspective. Rather than relying to ourselves, worrying about ourselves etc., we might wish to become selfless. Nembutsu practice can constantly remind us about that, so we change our mental habits from being self-centered to a selfless view.

The third effect, developing exalted qualities, comes from concentration on qualities of Buddha, such as the wisdom of clear seeing, calmness, compassion etc. Concentration on such qualities helps them to grow in our mind and around us.

The fourth effect, developing concentration, actually reinforces our mastery of the mind, feelings of strength and security. I didn't practice nembutsu very much, just a couple of months, but I noticed that through that practice my personality became more direct and self-confident. That was an effect of chanting "námó dìzàng wáng púsà" or reciting "Kshitigarbha" (I tried both approaches) 1000 times a day. When you are walking down the street or riding a bus, regardless of other people looking at you etc., you naturally develop perseverance, confidence, and drop imaginary barriers between yourself and others.

Thus this practice can work well, and might help you to come closer to awakening.

Different people have different situations and affinities, so it's hardly possible to say in advance, how well the practice will work for you. To see the effects of practices, we should try them and directly observe our experience.

Chinese Chan (Zen) teachers might say that they use mantras and nembutsu in a different way, not like in Pure Land school. Not for reliance on Buddhas but just for developing concentration. As Buddhas are projections of the mind, why not work with the mind directly? So in Zen it's rather a supplementary practice than the main one.

Nembutsu practitioners might be criticized, because in place of attachment to self they might develop attachment to nembutsu, or to their fantasies about Buddhas, to images of Buddhas, to pleasant feelings of deep concentration etc.

Therefore, it might be recommended to keep wide awareness of your experience as a whole, rather than just immersing in chanting and forgetting everything around. The purpose of Buddhist practice is not to escape from this world but to transform our experience remaining in the midst of life.

If we overdo developing concentration-tranquility, and neglect awareness, that might develop dullness, "lazy mind", not conductive to good practice. And the opposite, developing awareness without tranquility might lead to exhaustion, because as our concentration grows, vexation also might become stronger.

So if you explore the practice of nembutsu, it's best if you keep the balance of tranquility and inquisitiveness, and keep wide awareness in order to avoid developing attachments. To let go of attachments, it's advisable to practise active helping others, Six paramitas.


Is Sampajañña and Dhamma vicaya related? Does Sampajañña and Dhamma vicaya have an overlap. What is the relationship between the two? What is the differences? Is Sampajañña a result of dhamma vicaya? Do you need Sampajañña for dhamma vicaya?

In the stock passage defining Sama-Sati, right mindfulness, sampajanna is mentioned:

  And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.

  Katamā cāvuso sammāsati: idhāvuso bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati
  ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Vedanāsu
  vedanānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā
  domanassaṃ. Citte cittānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya
  loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Ayaṃ vuccatāvuso
  sammāsati.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html)

Thus a person who possesses right mindfulness also has Sampajanna. Dhamma Vicaya however, is not so closely related to mindfulness. Dhamma Vicaya is a result of mindfulness, not a part of it. Mindfulness is the first of the seven factors of enlightenment and Dhamma Vicaya is the second, and in the Anapanasati Sutta they are presented in sequence:

  "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
  itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
  with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is
  steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without
  lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He
  develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its
  development.

  "[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to
  a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains
  mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension
  of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a
  factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it
  goes to the culmination of its development.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html)


Husband has sexual activity with other woman with the consent of wife There is a true story where a couple just got married. Soon after marriage, the wife is diagnosed with certain illness by the doctor. To make it short, because of the illness, the wife is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. The wife, however, tells the husband if needed he can have sexual intercourse with other woman to meet his biological need.

In this particular case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with other woman, does he break the 3rd precept? Any source provided to back up the answer would be great.

It does not break the third precept if the husband has the wife's willful(not forced) consent. It's somewhat similar to kings having more than one queen.

Having said that, there is no such thing as a "biological need" regarding sexual pleasures. Water is a biological need, air is a biological need, food is a biological need as you cannot survive without them. You do not need sex to live.


What else do people who have realized Nirvāṇa do besides teach? There are numerous references in Buddhist literature to men and women living ordinary, normal family lives who successfully practised what the Buddha taught, and realized Nirvāṇa.

--What the Buddha Taught.

What else do people who have realized Nirvāṇa do besides become teachers? Can you cite examples?

They do what is right.

If they have family to support, they support the family. If they need money to survive, they work. If they are hungry, they eat. If they need a car, they drive a car. etc.


Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior" In what Pali sutta[s] does the Buddha says something approximately like,

  Everyone needs someone better than them, who they can revere and who can guide them: who will be their teacher. But there is no-one better than the Buddha: and so I take the Dhamma as my guide/superior/teacher.

From the Garava Sutta (SN 6.2):

  I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly
  Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara
  River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was
  alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness:
  "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference. Now on what
  brahman or contemplative can I dwell in dependence, honoring and
  respecting him?"

  Then the thought occurred to him: "It would be for the sake of
  perfecting an unperfected aggregate of virtue that I would dwell in
  dependence on another brahman or contemplative, honoring and
  respecting him. However, in this world with its devas, Maras, &
  Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its
  royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative
  more consummate in virtue than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence,
  honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  concentration that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in concentration than I, on
  whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  discernment that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in discernment than I, on
  whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  release that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in release than I, on whom I
  could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  knowledge and vision of release that I would dwell in dependence on
  another brahman or contemplative, honoring and respecting him.
  However, in this world with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this
  generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and
  common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more
  consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could
  dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "What if I were to dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I
  have fully awakened, honoring and respecting it?"

  Then, having known with his own awareness the line of thinking in the
  Blessed One's awareness — just as a strong man might extend his flexed
  arm or flex his extended arm — Brahma Sahampati disappeared from the
  Brahma-world and reappeared in front of the Blessed One. Arranging his
  upper robe over one shoulder, he saluted the Blessed One with his
  hands before his heart and said to him: "So it is, Blessed One! So it
  is, One-Well-Gone! Those who were Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened Ones
  in the past — they, too, dwelled in dependence on the very Dhamma
  itself, honoring and respecting it. Those who will be Arahants,
  Rightly Self-awakened Ones in the future — they, too, will dwell in
  dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it. And
  let the Blessed One, who is at present the Arahant, the Rightly
  Self-awakened One, dwell in dependence on the very Dhamma itself,
  honoring and respecting it."

  That is what Brahma Sahampati said. Having said that, he further said
  this:

  Past Buddhas,
  future Buddhas,
  & he who is the Buddha now,
  removing the sorrow of many —

  all have dwelt,
  will dwell, he dwells,
  revering the true Dhamma.
  This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.

  Therefore one who desires his own good,
  aspiring for greatness,
  should respect the true Dhamma,
  recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.


What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? In two schools of Buddhism, an important part of the practice is the repetition of special mantras which sound like simple expressions of honor or gratitude to those of us outside of the sects, but which have profound meaning to the practitioners. Is it possible to explain the deeper meaning of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo ("Homage to the Lotus Sutra") as Nichiren Buddhists understand it or Namu Amida Butsu ("Homage to Amida Buddha") as Jodo Shinshu Buddhists understand it or must these thing be understood only through experiencing them?

My answer is from the Shin perspective, I'll let someone else answer for Nichiren. Indeed you're right in saying that there are "two" meanings of Namu-Amida-Butsu - and that for the person of faith, it has a special meaning. However, in Shin, Namu-Amida-Butsu is not a mantra. It is understood within an entirely different framework from that of Esoteric mantras. For a person without the mind of faith (jp.: shinjin), "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is an effort of calling to Amida for salvation. As you probably already know, the Original Vow of Amida is that people who will sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to Amida and call upon his Name, they will be saved and will be reborn into the Pure Land. So for a person without shinjin (which means having no doubt whatsoever about Amida's Vow), "Namu-Amida-Butsu" might still be a practice like others in Buddhism, an effort of self-power. For such a person, calling Namu-Amida-Butsu is a willingness to rely on the Other-Power of Amida (on his practice of saving sentient beings). But from the perspective of a person of shinjin, a true person of faith, chanting or reciting "Namu-Amida-Butsu" thinking that this is what will get you to the Pure Land is still caught within the logic of calculating mind, calculating merit ("the more you say it, the more chance you will have to be reborn in the Pure Land"). This mind that "does religious deeds" is the very mind of self-attachment! For a person of shinjin - for Shinran - this logic has to be absolutely abandoned. "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is then understood entirely differently: not as something we do, not as our own practice, but as an embodiment of Amida's practice. Another way to put it, once one totally abandons the idea that it's possible to "save yourself" through enough effort, one totally relies on Other-Power and so there is nothing to practice anymore on our part. There's just an absolute passivity of "deep listening to the Dharma". One realizes that Amida already accomplished all practices so there's nothing to do on our part except to listen to this truth and to rely on it fully. This reliance is true faith, the diamondlike mind, and "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is just the verbal expression thereof. It's the "linguistic embodiment" of our already-having-been-saved by Amida. One is then only a witness of this salvation event, not someone who is practicing to achieve one's own salvation. To practice anything after the salvation-event is to not understand that event. Practising anything after having been saved by Amida would be like looking for a job after you've already won $10 million in the lottery, to give a mundane example.

I realize I didn't do a good job at explaining this here ... it's hard to do it in this format, but I hope that at least it became clear that the Pure Land Way of Master Shinran has nothing to do with Esoteric Buddhism or Mantrayana / the Way of Mantras. It's a wholly different paradigm.


Will earth become a planet without Humans? lets imagine that in all the human in earth become Arhant, so after their death they will not born again (i mean all of the humans).  after this will new humans born or Not, will earth become a planet without Humans  ?

Definitly, As per science when there is a start, there must be end.
Even our galaxy will expire.

you can take example of anything in this world, nothing is permanent.


Where can I find Nagita Thera Apadana I searched in the Apadāna part of Tripitaka..But couldn't find it...This includes a story of Nagitathera's previous life, and merits Nagitathera got for the god-deeds done in that life...

Following are some pointers:

Nagita Thera

An arahant. He belonged to a Sakiyan family in Kapilavatthu and entered the Order after hearing the preaching of the Madhupindika Sutta.
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha he was a Brahmin, named Narada, and uttered three stanzas in praise of the Buddha. He was once a king named Sumitta (Thag.vs.86; ThagA.i.183f). He is probably identical with Atthasandassaka of the Apadana (Ap.i.169).

Nagita Thera

For some time the personal attendant of the Buddha (D.i.151; DA.i.310; A.iii.31, 341; iv.341; J.iv.95, etc.). He was the maternal uncle of the novice Siha, who is said to have addressed him by the name of Kassapa, his gotta name. He was fat and, therefore, lazy; he got most of his work done by Siha.

Nagita Thera

A thera of Ceylon, author of the Saddasaratthajalini. Gv.p.74; Svd.vs.1249.

Nagita Sutta

Once, when the Buddha went to Icchanangala, the brahmin householders there came, in large numbers, to pay him their respects and made great uproar outside. When Nagita, the Buddhas personal attendant at the time, told him the cause of the clamour, the Buddha replied that he had nothing to do with homage; his concern was with renunciation. He went on to state five inevitable things: whosoever eats and drinks must answer the calls of nature; whosoever loves is destined to sorrow and despair; whosoever dwells on the asubha must feel disgust for the subha; whosoever sees impermanence in the six spheres of contact feels disgust for contact; whosoever sees the rise and fall in the five kinds of attachment, must feel disgust for attachment. A.iii.31ff.

Nagita Sutta

The circumstances are the same as those of No. 1. The Buddha tells Nagita that he is pleased with monks who do not live in the village, but who seek the forest and stave off gains and flattery, but to him the best is to walk on the highway unattached. A.iii.341ff.; cp. ibid., iv.341ff.

You can try to follow the references given above.
As for the story of Nagita Thera donating a Katina robe and the merits gained, I have heard this only appears in a later composition bellowing to the Kandyan period. Therefore this may not appear in the Tripitaka, Commentaries and Sub Commentaries. Therefore, this perticular story will not be there in the Apadāna.


Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation? Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation. Can you also go through the 7 purifications of insight by focusing on your steps and saying to yourself "stepping, stepping"?

Yes, of course.

  After reciting the Pātimokkha, it seems,
  on the Uposatha day of the full moon, one of the two elders who were brothers
  went to his own dwelling place surrounded by the Community of Bhikkhus.

  As
  he stood on the walk looking at the moonlight, he calculated his own vital
  formations and he said to the Community of Bhikkhus, “In what way have you
  seen bhikkhus attaining Nibbāna up till now?”

  Some answered, “Till now we
  have seen them attain Nibbāna sitting in their seats.” Others answered, “We
  have seen them sitting cross-legged in the air.”

  The elder said, “I shall now
  show you one attaining Nibbāna while walking.” He then drew a line on the
  walk, saying, “I shall go from this end of the walk to the other end and return;
  when I reach this line I shall attain Nibbāna.”

  So saying, he stepped on to the
  walk and went to the far end. On his return he attained Nibbāna in the same
  moment in which he stepped on the line.

  -- Vism. VIII.244 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Note, that the seven purifications are not all related to insight directly. They are simply called the seven purifications, not the seven purifications of insight.


Drowsiness / Sloth & Torpor Does drowsiness as a defilement only refer to a psychological state of mind? I know that emotions manifest also as physical phenomena, but how do I distinguish between physical exhaustion and psychological defilement?

If I am done with my job or school I'm feeling sometimes exhausted. How do I know if I have this defilement in me? Now of course if I ate a lot then it's clearly a defilement.

Just for convenience I was thinking that the next time I'm feeling  physically exhausted I am going to meditate even if just for 5-10 minutes to give myself the chance to have a sense of achievement and well.. maybe the sleepiness disappeared by then.

Any thoughts or sutta references? (I am aware that the Buddha advised to combat drowsiness and if everything fails one can take a nap)

Does drowsiness as a defilement only refer to a psychological state of mind? I know that emotions manifest also as physical phenomena, but how do I distinguish between physical exhaustion and psychological defilement?
Drowsiness depends both on the psychological state and physical state. There is nothing purely psychological or purely physical. Both psychological and physical changes can occur simultaneously depending upon the choices you make regarding your mind and/or body.
If I am done with my job or school I'm feeling sometimes exhausted. How do I know if I have this defilement in me? Now of course if I ate a lot then it's clearly a defilement.
Yes. It is a defilement. It is the lack of energy which is causing you to exhaust quickly.
Any thoughts or sutta references?
Yes. Buddha understood this problem and came up with a great solution.
Please go through what I discovered here.

Furthermore, a mendicant has wandered for alms, and they got to fill
up on as much food as they like, coarse or fine. They think: ‘I’ve
wandered for alms, and I got to fill up on as much food as I like,
coarse or fine. My body is heavy, unfit for work, like I’ve just eaten
a load of beans. I’d better have a lie down.’ They lie down, and don’t
rouse energy for achieving the unachieved, attaining the unattained,
and realizing the unrealized. This is the sixth ground for laziness.

Next he says

Furthermore, a mendicant has wandered for alms, and they got to fill
up on as much food as they like, coarse or fine. They think: ‘I’ve
wandered for alms, and I got to fill up on as much food as I like,
coarse or fine. My body is strong and fit for work. I’d better
preemptively rouse up energy …’ … This is the sixth ground for
arousing energy.

The point is to think positively. Think in what ways now is advantageous for rousing up energy to fulfill the urgent goal of focusing on Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha. The sutta I have quoted covers 8 grounds for arousing energy I am sure you will find the one suitable for you.


Does the Buddhist text Alankarabuddhi still exist? As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy today is the Vedanta school, which is based on the philosophical portions of the Vedas.  But in the time when Buddhism was at its peak popularity in India, the most popular school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which was based on the ritualistic portions of the Vedas.
Now one of the most famous Purva Mimasa philosophers was named Kumarila Bhatta, and in this excerpt from his work the Tantra Vartika, he argues that Hindus should not accept Buddhist texts as valid scripture, because Buddha was a violator of the Vedas:

Then again, we find that the Bauddha teachings were given by one who was a born Kshatriya; and as such, he transgressed the duties of his own class, in taking upon himself the work of taking and receiving presents (which are the monopoly of the Brahmanas); and hence how can we believe that true Dharma or Duty would be taught by one who has transgressed his own Dharma? It has been well said: "One who is found to be doing deeds opposed to a prosperous hereafter, should be shunned from a distance; because how can one who deceives himself offer any salutary advice to others?"
Such transgression of Dharma by Buddha is clearly mentioned in the Alankarabuddhi (a Bauddha work), where Buddha is represented as saying - "May all the pain proceeding from the sins due to the Iron Age, rest in me, and leave humanity at large absolutely free!"  And in connection with this his followers eulogise his virtues in the following strains: "For the sake of the well-being of humanity, He transgressed his own duties as a Kshatriya, and having taken up the duties of the Brahmana, he taught, even to the people outside the pale of Vedic religion, such truths relating to Dharma, as were not taught by Brahmanas who were unable to transgress the prohibition (of such teachings being imparted by outsiders); and thus prompted by his mercy to others, he even went to the length of transgressing his own Dharma!" And we actually find His followers behaving in a manner entirely at variance with the teachings of the Veda.

I found the quote in bold interesting, because it seems reminiscent of the Christian notion that "Jesus died for our sins".  So my question is, does the Buddhist text that Kumarila Bhatta is quoting from, the Alankarabuddhi, still exist?
By the way, when the Alankarabiddhi quote says "Iron Age", that's an English translation of the Sanskrit term "Kali Yuga", which refers to the Hindu notion that we are currently living in an age of evil.  Now I think only some sects of Buddhism share this Hindu belief, so that may help in finding this text.

This may be a "lost in translation" issue. The term "alankar" usually refers to an instrument or ornament. It also refers to a ritual of rhythmic clapping in Tala. Since the Sutras are traditionally recited in rhythm, this might just be a reference to this practice of reciting the teachings. A modern-day equivalent would be "rap", referring to both the rhythm and the actual text.


Eradication of identity view is a cause or effect of stream entry? I am asking this question due to this answer.

Is the removal of identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) required before stream entry can be attained? Or would identity view be removed only with the achievement of stream entry?

To me this question sounds like an example of reification. In my opinion, in real life the numerous factors of Understanding and Liberation develop gradually, supporting each other in lockstep.

The more someone sees through the numerous simplistic assumptions underlying our idea of "self" - the more one can be said to be free from the self-view. In practice the stream-entry is gradual, just like Enlightenment itself (I believe).

The entire maturity model is pretty much a reification - defining clear-cut categories where even the criteria for delineation are not well-defined. This is why in Mahayana we are advised against obsessing over categorization too much, because it can lead to dead-end arguments, but also supports the self-view. On which level am I? - this very question already presupposes existence of "I" that can occupy a level.

I think the whole model is a bit sarcastic on Buddha's part towards the junior students (and Buddha WAS known for his sarcasm) in the spirit of "oooooh, sounds like you still have many more lives to go, brother" etc.


What are the characteristics of karmaless action? Assuming one has to operate in the temporal sphere, but seeks to diminish the karmic implications of action, what are the characteristics of karmaless actions?

Is this distinct from right action?

What are the characteristics of karmaless action?

It leads to dispassion.

Meaning, it's an action that reduces both karmic as well as mental / emotional entanglement.

Normal pathological action leads to entanglement in issues and trouble. Typical example is a child of a dysfunctional family, who is forced to inherit the bad circumstances and negative inertia, and by reacting destructively keeps creating causes for future trouble. Normal success-oriented action leads to positive entanglement in worldly affairs. Such as, when you are realizing yourself as a successful professional in any field.

Supramundane action leads to dispassion, to disentanglement, to letting go, to unbinding. How? Through counteracting/taming the forces of desire, aversion, and confusion.

So every time you act (whether directly or indirectly) towards reduction of desire, reduction of aversion, increase of wisdom - that's the supramundane action.

You can act towards reduction of desire and aversion by directly suppressing them and letting go - and realize wisdom as you practice this ("samatha followed by vipassana" in the broad sense). Or you can pursue wisdom and realize reduction of desire and aversion, and eventual dispassion - as a product of wisdom ("vipassana followed by samatha" metaphorically speaking). This is a theoretical construct meant to made the point. In practice everyone has to do both, in a spiral fashion - emotional intelligence and wisdom developing in lockstep.

While "karmaless" action can be ensured in the most straightforward way by literally leaving the world and engaging in practice of meditation (an approach typical of Theravada), a more effective approach, IMHO, is the Mahayana practice of not letting your ego indulge in self-sustaining activities. In other words, you should only do what leads to objectively optimal result (within the limits of your practical ability to achieve the optimum in the midst of a real life situation) and never let your social image, your ego, your group/tribe ego, your fears, your pride, (including your spiritual pride!), your bias etc. to get a bite of nutrition. This way all of your action will go towards dispassion and wisdom, as it will not be motivated by an egoistic motive (aka "passion").

Now, for the wisdom leg, this wisdom is not the worldly wisdom either. It is the special wisdom of understanding the nature of phenomena and mind, the nature of reality so to speak. So any action toward pursuit of this wisdom counts as "karmaless" action (action that leads to the ending of karma).

One notable characteristic of special wisdom is abandonment of overgeneralization and stereotyping. This leads to action that itself is not based on overgeneralization, stereotyping, and passionate side-taking - and encourages others to avoid overgeneralization, stereotyping, and passionate side-taking. Enlightened/enlightening action is inherently peaceful and brings peace.


Are monastics allowed to wear lay disciple's clothing? Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa (x3)
In regards to the spreading of buddhist monasteries in the west within climates being rather different than that in Asia, I've seen pictures of monks wearing jackets, beanies and shoes considering how the weather may be quite cold/wet (in the UK for instance). Yet, isn't an offence in the vinaya for monastics to be wearing what could be considered a lay disciple's clothing ?

"But cold, lord, is the winter night. The 'Between-the-Eights'[1] is a
time of snowfall. Hard is the ground trampled by cattle hooves. Thin
is the spread of leaves. Sparse are the leaves in the trees. Thin are
your ochre robes. And cold blows the Verambha wind. Yet still the
Blessed One says, 'Yes, young man. I have slept in ease. Of those in
the world who sleep in ease, I am one.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.034.than.html
I'd gladly learn more regarding these rules from those wishing and willing to share,
May you be well.

There's some discussion of that here.

Some answers quote references, which point out that the Buddha allowed footwear in the wilderness and take that as permission to adapt to the terrain.

One says that some monks simply don't go outside at all.

One says that the strict interpretation of the Vinaya can't easily be adapted to a hostile climate.

One says that monks wear warm layers underneath and monks robes as the outer later.

I too have seen photos of a monk wearing snowshoes, and of monks wearing winter coats.
If for example you search for the word "footwear" in this

Modernization? The Great Standards
More than two and a half thousand years have passed since the Vinaya rules were originally set down by the Buddha, and many things have markedly changed since then. Should the rules be modernized and brought up to date? How can this be done?
Already during His lifetime, the Buddha made special allowances for different regions (or desa) outside the 'Middle Country' of North India — where He lived and taught. These dealt with both the workings of the Community — for example, a smaller quorum for ordination is allowed in distant parts where there are fewer monks — and practical measures, such as special dispensation for footwear and bathing. So there is a precedent for adapting to conditions, but this does not mean the abolishing of any rules.
The Lord Buddha also left us a set of principles that can still be used as a standard to judge new circumstances. These are known as 'The Great Standards.' Properly used they should protect against a wholesale dilution of the Rule.

The next section warns against blaming others, by the way.
And ...

There is always an exception in the Sekhiya Training Rules for "one who is ill" so that a bhikkhu may, for example, cover his head when the weather is unbearably cold or the sun dangerously hot. The same applies to footwear, which normally should not be worn in inhabited areas.

... with this footnote ...

The Buddha did make a special allowance about footwear for 'outlying border regions.' In some western countries going barefooted would not be socially acceptable and might even be against the local bye-laws. The Great Standards should be used to decide what is suitable.


Significance of touching forheads in Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu)? I have visited a local group of Karma Kagyu practitioners once, hearing a Dharma talk and participating in the mantra, rituals, and meditation.

At this occasion, the members of the Sangha greeted one another by touching foreheads with each other. I didn't ask why at the time, and haven't been able to find a description of that tradition online. Could someone shed some light on this custom?

My main teachers have a lineage coming from both Nyingma and Kagyü, so their explanations might differ slightly from 'pure' Karma Kagyü teachings, but I was told that touching foreheads is a gesture of very endearing closeness. Good old friends might touch their foreheads as a recognition of their proximity. Similarly, teachers feeling a strong bond with some students will touch their foreheads with them when the students thank them for a teaching received.

I was also told that it would be very impolite to 'demand' that a particular teacher touches their forehead with us, to somehow publicly recognize a closeness that doesn't truly exist.

Specially gentle, kind, and compassionate teachers will often never discriminate among students — they will always insist to touch their foreheads after a teaching is giving. HH the Dalai Lama also often does that to complete strangers (with some eyebrow-raising from his entourage!). The point here is that a Bodhisattva truly never discriminates among sentient beings — he or she will feel close to everybody!


Dhamma and Buddha Dhamma Are the words Dhamma and Buddha Dhamma synonyms? Or are there hidden differences between between both? Are these words used in different circumstances?

Well, technically dharma (Pali dhamma) means any tradition (a particular view of the world and a lifestyle passed down through generations) such as, for example, baker dharma, trader dharma, knight dharma etc. So buddha dharma is just one possible dharma out of many.


Sources for the Whole Tipitaka q:

  Can someone name the books in the shelf of Yuttadhammo in his videos
  or all the books in the Tipitaka and sources to get them in English?
  or at least what has been  translated to english?

Please visit:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
This is the index page to all the suttas contained on the site.

This site is focused on the 4 Nikayas, and has:

All the Nikayas in the original Pali: both the PTS version and the BJT version, and a version that combines both;

All the Pali Text Society translations: one version in the html format, one a PDF of the originals (likely what you see in the bookshelf).

All the translations of Bhikkhu Thanissaro.

All the freely released translations of Bhikkhu Bodhi.

A great collection of very early translations as well as quite a few from 'lesser-known' translators, including myself.

All the translations are linked to the Pali and to all the other translations available.

The PTS translations and the Pali are mostly (not entirely) unabridged.

The PTS translations and the Pali are mostly (not entirely) broken down to their phrasing for clarity of meaning.

PS: For a good deal in purchasing the hard-cover books (recommended) join the Pali Text Society. Members get a free book every year and a 20% discount on purchases.


Does mind ever stop? I have learned.....

When a receptor (eyes,ears,nose,tongue,body,mind) meet with the preferred input (light,sound,smell,taste,touch,thoughts) if the dedicated "Vinyana" is born to accept it the being will feel that particular sensation.

So my question is....

Eyes can't see when they are closed

Ears can't hear when we sleep

Nose can't sense when we sleep

Tongue can't sense when we sleep

Body can't feel when we sleep

But the mind does not seem to share the same condition with the rest of receptors.Because when we sleep some part of it function and when we are awake it is fully functioning.

So does mind ever stop?

Does mind start with the birth and keeps going till the last minute?

What does the Suttas say?

The mind occurs in both passive and active modes. The passive gives
  way to the active when a stimulus is received through one of the sense
  doors. The passive state of mind is called bhava"nga, cuti, or
  paa.tisandhi, according to the occasion.

  Bhava"nga. The bhava"nga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form
  of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by
  a stimulus through one of the sense doors. Read more...

The stream of Bhavanga citta is what you have in deep(dreamless) sleep. It is a result of your past birth Karma. The process doesn't stop until the being attains Parinibbana, except in the case of being born in the Asaññasatta realm.


If there is no self what or who is it that gets enlightened? From reading this answer I come to understand that anatta means the lack of a core that can be conceived as self. If there is no permanent self, then who or what gets enlightened?

The main point of the answer you cite is that anatta is a characteristic of ultimate reality. Your question misses this and conflates two different paradigms or levels of understanding.

In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you" and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, or thinking.

So, the answer to "who becomes enlightened?" is "a being becomes enlightened." As to how that can be reconciled with the teaching on non-self, there is really no conflict, since non-self describes a characteristic of ultimate reality, at which level concepts like "being" or "enlightened" have no place.


Vipassanā Without Samatha? I have heard it stated that vipassana can be practiced without samatha. Since samatha leads us to the early jhana factors of vitarka and vicara, how is it possible to do vipassana with wandering undirected and unsteady mind?

"The Buddhist commentarial tradition, as represented by the contemporary Theravada, interprets vitarka and vicara as the initial and sustainted application of attention to a meditational object, which culminates in the stilling of the mind." - wikipedia ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitarka-vicara

There are at least two suttas (AN 4.94 & AN 10.54) that refer to vipassana without samatha. However, personally, I don't believe them. Suttas such as the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59) & the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) say the seeing of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self results in dispassion (viraga). Therefore, if the mind has dispassion (viraga), obviously it must also have tranquility (samatha); because "viraga" means "without lust". Further, those suttas also say  dispassion (viraga) results in nirodha (cessation).


Depopulation of the World - Buddha's Explanation In The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha,  Sutta 3/56 titled Depopulation (on page 253; internet version here) and note 415 (on page 1645) provides the Buddha's explanation for the Depopulation of the World.

In this explanation reference is made to Yakkhas -- wild demonic spirits, sometimes depicted as  killing human beings....wild, nonhuman -- being released.  Besides the Yakkhas, which are only the physical manifestation,  Buddha explains the Primary Causes for this Depopulation.

  "Again , at present people are excited by illicit lust,
  overcome by unrighteous greed, afflicted by wrong Dhamma.
  When this happens, the yakkhas release wild spirits.

At a time when the world is engaged in combatting Yakkhas globally via lockdowns etc., are we falling short in addressing the Causes of this Depopulation as spelt out by the Buddha? If so, what should be our Strategic approach to this problem?

AN 3.56: Paloka Suttaɱ

Woodward translation:
The Rich Man
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/03_threes/an03.056.wood.pts.htm

A wealthy brahmin has heard the story told by the ancients of a time when this world was densely populated and villages and towns and cities grew up right next to each other. He asks Gotama why it is that this is no longer the case and is told that it is because at this time the people are obsessed with lusts, depravities and wrong views resulting in a number of calamaties that depopulate the earth.

A tough sutta for modern man to digest for several reasons. Nobody I think will argue that the people today are not as depraved as described, and that that results in wars, but that this depravity affects the weather and crops and causes the unleashing of demonic beings will be harder to see. And then there is the issue of feeding such a dense population ... and this was speaking of a time when the lifespan of man was in the tens of thousands of years.

How can this be seen?

This world is a work of the imagination, individual and collective. The individual has no way to know the nature of 'the real world', what he can know is simply the three experiences through the senses, what he 'sees' and 'hears' and 'tastes' and 'touches' has no more concrete reality to it than a dream, but because man desires to live collectively he agrees to believe the world is of a certain nature, possesses certain properties beyond solidity, liquidity, heat and light, motion, space and consciousness. Thus the apparent world is one which is arrived at by consensus*. That consensus changes over time.

That's how.

Today we have heard that because of wide-spread lockdowns limiting human activity, the surface of the globe has experienced a reduced vibration. The poles of the earth are moving. There is a huge increase in seismic activity in places where there has been none in centuries. There is global warming and the rise in sea-level. Fires rage uncontrolled destroying millions of acres of vegetation. The US has experienced flooding that has seriously compromised food supplies. There is even a plague of locusts! As for demonic beings, put aside pre-conceptions as to how these beings look and you may see them in the actions of human-form monsters. We have school shootings, mass shootings, terrorists, assassans, child-women-human trafficers... the list of monsterous activities by so-called human beings is endless.

*Actually examined closely it will be seen that outside the sangha there are hardly two people in the world that agree with each other about almost anything. What it is is a 'consensis reality' arrived at by the hoodwinking of weak, ignorant majorites by powerful ignorant minorities.


Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit with English translation Is there any book or internet resource which has Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit and word to word English translation? I am not exactly looking for commentaries(though I don't mind commentaries accompanying word to word translations).
The ones I found so far are only in English.

The prajnaparamita canon is quite ancient going back to 1-2 BCE. It's not clear if the original set of sutras were composed in Sanskrit or Gandhari first and subsequently translated to Sanskrit. (Source: Wikipedia)

However the heart (Hṛdaya) sutra, said to be part of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra canon, and most famous certainly, is in the view of modern historians and scholars almost certainly not part of the original Indian compositions. It was likely composed in Chinese and later rendered in Sanskrit.

Source: Jan Nattier. 1992. The Heart Sūtra : a Chinese apocryphal text? Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 15 (2), p.153-223.

This is a text that has caused a lot of confusion among students because it attempts to lay down the highest of realized truths using the inadequate vehicle of conventional language. Despite several attempts at translating it to be less obscure, it is a text that needs to be meditated upon, and not merely understood through the intellect reading it - (i.e. the language it is read in doesn't really matter as long as the translation is correct).

Here are some side by side Sanskrit-English translations:

Heart Sutra Chanted in Sanskrit
Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra in Sanskrit

... and one can find more of them using Google, but it is impossible to find the authentic original Sanskrit you're looking for (because there is none?).


Am I approaching samadhi properly? The problem: I've encountered some confusion about the differences between samadhi and vipassana, as would seem to be a frequent problem amongst beginners. This confusion was only worsened by my having a Zen master tell me that my practice was vipassana, and that I should just continuously count my breaths up to ten and then back down instead. I don't think she realized that I was striving for samadhi, and I don't think she really knew what she was talking about. I find Theravada to be the path for me, and have stopped visiting that zen center, but am still confused nonetheless.

So, in the absence of a formal teacher, I figured I could ask here to see if someone can provide me with some guidance.

My meditation practice: Concentrate on the sensation of the breath and nothing else, no numbers, thoughts, or words for as long as I can or unless I feel like they would help me.

Some thoughts I use, for example, are, "Let go of it", "Become one with the breath in the present moment", "I am looking for my thoughts; I should be looking for my breath", and other thoughts of a similar nature.

--

So basically, does this kind of practice generate samadhi, or vipassana? I'm not looking for insight while meditating. Just looking for the breath and focusing on it.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, concentrate on the sensation of the breath and nothing else.

This will develop samadhi & but also vipassana because the breath is impermanent.

While samadhi is developed, seeing clearly the impermanence (appearance, disappearance, appearance, disappearance) of each breath is vipassana.

Thus the primary goal is to develop samadhi but a side effect can be vipassana.


If there are no past and future lives, why should we practice Buddhism? If there are no past and future lives and everything ends at the moment of death. Why should we bother with anything at all?

Why would the Buddha teach for 45 years if all our problems are definitely solved at the moment of death?

There is no real difference between:

this current moment in life with future moments afterwards with Nirvana as the climax

and

this current life with a string of lives afterwards with Nirvana as the climax.

The practitioner of the Buddha's teaching, done without ego, needs no future incentive.

Therefore,

We "should" practice to become enlightened and help others achieve enlightenment in this very life.


Recognition of Ignorance on a Topic I have read many Q&As here on ignorance but I am concerned with the recognition of my own ignorance on particular topics. I feel like recognizing my ignorance helps me to reduce my identification with my limited understanding and the opinions and emotions this brings up. I feel like it keeps me from feeling any need to argue about things I recognize I am not well informed about, and rather communicate how my limited understanding connects to things I believe in. For lack of a better word it seems to help me with equanimity, this posture of recognizing that I just don't know.

Maybe ignorance is the wrong word, but I am wondering if Buddhism addresses this idea.

I heard a talk recently in which a Zen master said ignorance in Buddhism really meant a lack of awareness of the mind (i.e. letting it wander in stories and daydreams), rather than the normal meaning of ignorance.

I don't know if this is orthodox Buddhism (or orthodox Zen for that matter), but it makes more sense to me than interpreting 'ignorance' as factual ignorance.


How many times has someone taken birth into samsara? According to dependent origination I took birth (i.e I came into existence) due to ignorance.

My questions are :how many times it has happened that someone has taken birth into this samsara?

Since when birth of ignorance has been happening?

If there are no answers in the scriptures to the above questions then what is your personal opinion on the issues mentioned above?

According to the Assu Sutta:

  There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes
  transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings
  hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating &
  wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears
  you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time —
  crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being
  separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great
  oceans?"

  "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."

  "Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.

According to this article, the total amount of tears a person sheds on average in a lifetime is estimated to be 64 litres.

According to this USGS estimation and this article, there is an estimated 1.332 billion cubic kilometers of water in the Earth's oceans. That's 1.332 x 1021 litres.

If I divide that by 64, I get 2.08125 x 1019 lifetimes.

According to the short scale, that's 20 quintillion (20 x 1018).

Hence, according to the Buddha, every person has been reborn at least 20 quintillion times.

However, since the Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident", I guess that it should be far greater than 20 quintillion times. Maybe a googleplex amount of times.


How should one be mindful of death? Namo Budhaya.

In the Mindfulness of Death sutta Buddha says the following:

  When this was said, the Buddha said to those mendicants: “The
  mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live for a
  day and night … or to live for a day … or to live for half a day … or
  to live as long as it takes to eat a meal of alms-food … or to live as
  long as it takes to eat half a meal of alms-food … or to live as long
  as it takes to chew and swallow four or five mouthfuls … These are
  called mendicants who live negligently. They slackly develop
  mindfulness of death for the ending of defilements.

  But the mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live
  as long as it takes to chew and swallow a single mouthful … or to live
  as long as it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe
  in after breathing out … These are called mendicants who live
  diligently. They keenly develop mindfulness of death for the ending of
  defilements.

Buddha corrects wrong way to mindfulness of death.
But as far as I see , a person who wishes to live as long as it takes to chew and swallo a single mouthful , is same as a person who wishes to live as long as as it takes to chew and swallow ....The translator of the text failed to point out the difference between the mendicant's way of mindfulness of death and Buddha's way of mindfulness of death. I will thankful if someone could explain this sutta in its true essence.

My question is :How should one be mindful of death?

Oh, this is easy. This one I was taught many many times. Here is how it goes:

Regular untrained people live their life as if they will live forever. They 1) worry about small unimportant stuff, get offended, or scared, or enraged at things that are not really important. And 2) they waste days, months and years of life waiting for better life.

However, 1) Everyone dies, sooner or later. Even the Buddha had to die. First, our parents will die. Then our friends of same age will start dying. Then the day will come when our breathing will stop and we will die too. Every day we get a day closer to death. Every time we celebrate our birthday, that's one less year we have left to live. The time seems to go slowly, but if you look back you realize it did not take you that long to reach your current age. Similarly, one day you will look back and realize you have spent all of your time.

Also 2) Death comes without a warning. The other day my friend (a doctor) called me and said his patient died in a car accident. He had a big house, 3 children and a housewife. As he was coming home from work, a truck made a mistake shifting lanes, and pushed his car off the road. We have no idea how we'll die. We hope we'll die from old age, in our bed, surrounded by grandchildren - but there is no guarantee it will be that nice. People die from all kinds of causes: from accidents, to disease, to terrorism, to allergic reactions, to poisonous snakes or insects, to plane crashes, to sudden heart attacks, to cancer.

So 3) We should stop expecting we'll live much longer. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will live to see the next summer, or next Christmas, or our next birthday. In fact, we should get into habit thinking that any day could be our last day on Earth. When we go to work, we should expect that we may not come back. When we go to bed, we should expect that we may not wake up.

Therefore 4) We should not live a lukewarm life. We should live our life as if this was our last day. This pertains both to our Dharma practice, but also to our attitude to life in general. We should perform every act, every conversation as if this was our last battle on earth.

And 5) If we feel like we worry about something too much, we should compare this problem with death. If the problem is worse than death, then we are allowed to worry. But if the problem is not as bad as death, then we should sober up and stop worrying too much.

Mindfulness of death gives us a useful perspective in which truly important things matter and non-important things are seen correctly as unimportant. It also gives us strength to act with courage and not live lukewarm life. So no matter how you look at it, it is a very useful perspective to cultivate. And the way you cultivate it is by thinking about it, meditating on it, until you feel it, until it is with you at all times - judging all of your action and inaction. Then the death becomes your solemn friend: "You don't have that long left. Use it wisely"


How to talk to a friend about "lack of control" in what happens to her son? I know a friend, who doesn't practice buddhism, and who is always worried about her young son. She is always concerned about everything that could go wrong, or things which could happen out of her control that she can do nothing about.

I've always been one who doesn't worry about the things that are out of my control, but I don't think that simple piece of advice is enough for her to act on it. I'm sure it's something that is "easier said than done".

What advice can be found in buddhism for this situation?

I suppose it largely depends on how close you are to her, or how seriously she would take and act on any advice.

These types of neurotic/anxious behaviors aren't something that are going to disappear by themselves overnight, or by you citing some scriptural passage to her that makes her see the light (most likely, there are cases where people do become enlightened in the scriptures from hearing verse, but in practice this is the exception not the rule).

The most practical way would be for you to, depending on the type of friendship you have, introduce the idea of meditation to her. Spin it in such a way that she is able to see that it doesn't have to in any way be connected with a "religion" or sectarian ideology.

I don't know what your experience with meditation is, but if you have some then you have even more authority it explaining to her that meditating will allow her to see experientially that things are largely uncontrollable, and that all she is doing is creating her own misery in worrying about these uncontrollable things.

Perhaps even convince her to go to a retreat with you, if at all possible :)

Ultimately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If she isn't ready to hear this, all you'll be doing is blowing hot air into the room. The best way to show others the benefit of meditation is to live your life as an example of the benefits of it.


Is there a canonical reference for the story about the war between the Buddha's relatives? I've been looking for a reference for the story of the conflict between Kosalan king Vidubhara and the Sakyans, that the Buddha tried to stop. There are several versions of this on the web, but none of them give any references. Is it canonical? Whether it's canonical or not, where does it come from?

Yes, these are striking stories given with varying details even though the 'lesson' is usually the same. I found this summary by a monk named Cittasamvaro;

  'Within the Buddhist Scriptures, there is little evidence for collective karma, though the commentaries abound with karma stories. One such is the defeat of the Sakyan kingdom at the end of the Buddha’s life, and the subsequent destruction of the conquering army through natural disaster. Though the Buddha reportedly knew that the war would occur due to past karmas, he still tried to intervene peacefully. The conquering army also paid for its part in the bloodshed, by being swept away by a flood. (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā 1.46, Viṭaṭūbhavatthu). Despite the Commentarial stories, stories that are not part of the direct teachings of the Buddha, there is little in the Sutta/Vinaya to suggest that there is such a form of collective karma'.


Was Buddha born of a Virgin? I was reading a work that claims Buddha "was born of the Virgin Maya". What Buddhist works address the birth of Buddha? Do any support or conflict with a virgin birth for Buddha?

This refers to a dream that Queen Maya had after trying for many years to have a baby with her husband. The reality is, they wrote that he was born to a woman who had been married for twenty years,

This Blog will help to clear your idea. http://www.rightreason.org/2009/the-virgin-birth-of-buddha/


What is the difference between the progress of low and high intensive meditators? What is the difference between the progress of "low intensive" meditators as opposed to "high intensive" meditators?
  By low intensive I mean like a meditator who has never been to a ten day intensive retreat and spreads sitting time over a longer period of time. By progress I mean Vipassana insight progress, Jhana progress or any other kind of meditation progress in any tradition.

I guess the short answer is that in general the more intensive meditation practice you do the more familiar you will become with the jhanas and the more insight you will experience. Larry Rosenberg in Breath by Breath does say that retreats are needed to experience certain levels of insight. However he does emphasise practice in everyday life even more.

However I don’t think things are that simple....

Intense practice isn’t necessary for insight

Willougby Britton in the Dark Night project has been analysing negative effects of meditation i.e. the dark night. This is a state that it’s possible (likely, certain???) to get to with a certain amount of practice. She says the two populations of people who appear vulnerable to this are

Super intense meditators typically in their 20s to 30s who go to
Asia, ordain and then spend 12 hours plus a day meditating.
Middle ages practitioners who have been meditating for an hour a day for 10 to 20 years an maybe going on retreat once or twice a year.

The point being that both lower and higher intensity mediators do progress along the path but a different rates. The second population is doing enough and has a real and effective practice.  That said the second group is still pretty dedicated but not outrageously so.

Retreats aren’t necessary for insight

Dipa Ma, the Buddhist master taught a nursing mother enough mindfulness practice that she attainted the first stage of realisation without leaving the house. So long retreats aren’t an absolute necessity for insight.

Even formal meditation practice isn't necessary for insight

The founder of dharmaoverground, Daniel Ingram, said in this Buddhist Geeks podcast that people can and do have genuine insight from yoga practice, on long marches in the military or even breath control classes for actors. So formal meditation isn't even necessary for insight.

So ...

I've heard the relationship between insight and meditation described in terms of being struck by lightening. If you hang around on windy moors in thunderstorms (i.e. meditate intensively) you are more likely to be struck by lightening (insight) than if you sit in front of a TV set and never go out (i.e. never meditate). However people that do habitually sit in front of the TV do occasionally get struck by lightening. Similarly people on windy moors in thunderstorms may never get struck no matter how often they go out and jump up an down with a foil hat on.

There's no guarantees - meditation just increases your chances. To use another analogy - you can't force plants to grow. You can only dig the soil, water the earth and put the best conditions possible there.