Questions about reacting to bodily sensations I'm currently reading The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation and it says to observe sensations in the body without reacting.

What would be an example of a reaction that one might have? When I feel an emotion - perhaps I remember a conversation that I had that produced a strong emotion - I notice a sensation in my body associated with the emotion. Is the goal to focus on the sensation and wait for it to pass?

Also, I've tried starting a meditation session by focusing on my breathing.  I then try to observe sensations in my body -for example, my stomach gurgling, a tingling on my skin or the temperature on my skin. If I focus on this, no emotions are coming up because I'm focusing only on my breathing or sensations in my body. In the book it says to observe the sensations without reacting. There's nothing to react to though if I'm just focusing on the bodily sensations so I'm not sure what this piece of advice is referring to.

an example of a typical reaction would be bodily feelings of pain and reacting with aversion, anger, etc. Or feelings of bodily pleasure, and then the mind running off with thoughts of things from the past that the bodily pleasure reminded them of.
what you describe is exactly what should happen if you're doing breath meditation correctly, or kaya-gata-sati body immersed mindfulness correclty.  You're focused on the kinaesthetic experience of how the breath and bodily sensations feel in all the cells of the body, so the bandwidth of your attention is completely occupied with skillful thoughts of Dharma, and there's no room for unwanted thoughts and emotions to interrupt. This is training of samadhi, training the mind to think what you want to think and not think what you don't want to think, using the breath as a skillful way to occupy the mind.

Now where your question #1 is ultimately heading, building on #2, once you have stability and control of your mind, then you can observe sensations in the body without the 'reactions', typical deluded responses and filters we impose on top of the raw experience of mind and body, and instead use lucid discerning and wisdom to see reality moment by moment as it actually is, and by doing that, you free yourself from suffering.


Is it useful (and polite) to ask a potential meditation teacher about their attainments? In another question, it was discussed whether it's possible to recognize if someone is an arahat. I'm interested in something slightly less formidable, namely the "attainments" that may lead to enlightenment.

Specifically, if I want to choose a Buddhist meditation teacher, with an expectation that I will, under their guidance, attain some or all of the jhana absorptions, and also the various stages of insight, is it appropriate to ask them how much of them they themselves have achieved?

One reason I think this could be useful is that I am very well aware that there is a difference between knowing about those attainments -- and maybe even knowing great detail about how they are achieved -- versus actually having achieved them. I, myself, have read around the topic a lot, and could pass for a teacher to someone who knows nothing. But other than possibly access concentration, I am an unattained noob.

Is it worth asking others, so I can avoid a blind leading the blind situation? (Of course, there's the additional problem of knowing if someone who claims they have attained something is telling the truth. But at least by asking I could identify honest unattained noobs)

On the other hand, I recall a story of a very early teacher who in fact was highly effective and led many people to enlightenment without himself first being enlightened. (The story ends well in that finally he got there, but it may be a counter to the argument that to help someone to attainment X one must onesself have attainment X).

Worrying about whether something is polite or not is a hindrance. I am sure some practitioners would find it offensive but if they are offended that probably tells you all you need to know.
If you have yet to obtain the Jhanas then there are probably others who are still more advanced than you who have not yet obtained them either. The way I see it, anyone who is beyond you can be a good teacher and anyone who you are beyond can be a good student.
According to the Thana Sutta:

It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period...

You can't really know simply by asking.


Is enlightened cognition more than its parts? Is enlightened cognition, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts?

I'm asking cos:

(philosophical interpretations) they say that for Buddhists there is nothing more to a thing than its parts. But,
every part of anything (it seems) is conditioned and only of a practical value.

Mahayana-Nagarjuna philosophy states everything is conditioned & comprised of parts. Original Buddhism does not. The impression is your question arises because of illogical philosophy, which makes the philosophy sound contradictory to you. The original Buddha was fully enlightened thus explained reality without flawed description. Enlightenment leads to the permanent end of suffering. Since enlightenment 'uproots' the causes of suffering, there is no longer spiritual work to do. So the 'parts' either end (in redundancy) or, otherwise, are permanently established.


Unnecessarily Complicated Analysis of Anapanasati Alright, I'm having a lot of unnecessary trouble, and would like some advice regarding anapanasati. I've attempted to understand the technique as with the Anapanasati Sutta, with The Attention Revolution of Alan Wallace, with Turning the Mind into an Ally by Sakyong Mipham, and have taken many classes of meditation in different contexts. Still, I am having extreme trouble lol. Therefore, I'm going to attempt asking extremely detailed questions to clarify the meaning for myself, and hopefully others.

To my understand, from The Attention Revolution explicitly and in the Anapanasati Sutta in the form of the directive to "calm bodily fabrications", relaxation is necessary.

Question 1: Do they mean calming the body's physical tension, i.e. muscle tension or the mental sensation of tension in the body?

Now, in The Attention Revolution and Turning the Mind into an Ally, stability comes next. This occurs with the decrease of conceptualization. Yet in the Abhidhamma I recall seeing that until the first jhana thought is still present. What does this mean?

Question 2: What do we mean by calming thoughts? Calming all thoughts? Gross thoughts? Trying to calm thoughts even though they will not ultimately subside?

Then, from my understanding clarity is developed. Personally, in all these texts, I fail to grasp what is meant by clarity.

Question 3: Is clarity a kind of brightness of the object, or a greater focus? Is clarity a more detailed object? Is it a part of the object or the mind? How can it be recognized?

Final question: I seem to have tried to figure out all these things and meditate in a proper way. Yet, if I sit and try to meditate every day, and attempt to focus on the breathing, and I meditating in a proper way? I don't quite get what distinguishes proper and improper meditation, and whether I should meditate or not when possible. How long should it take to see either results or a shift in my meditation.

Thank you for any advice you could give me.

calm bodily fabrications

Calm the bodily fabrications is to calm the breath. This is not by controlling it but having the intention but not the action to calm the breath. In many cases you don't need even this. It will calm down on it's own.

More on this see: page 35, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed by Pa-Auk Sayadaw and Lecture 3 in Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

Preceding to trying to calm your your fabrication you should feel the whole body and breath otherwise this step will be premature. This is you should be able the feel the whole breath as well as you body. When breathing there are sensations that arise tied to breathing elsewhere in your body like expansion and contraction. You should be able to feel all this as well as any feeling even in remote areas of your body like your earlobes, toes, etc.

  Question 1: Do they mean calming the body's physical tension, i.e. muscle tension or the mental sensation of tension in the body?

Calm the bodily fabrications is not the same as claiming physical tension thought this also seeds to be done.

You have to let go of physical and mental tension. These tensions manifest as an unpleasant sensation. You should look closely at these sensations as mere sensations without any aversion towards it. For a beginners you should try to divide and dicest the pain to see its constituent parts. If you can see it's arising and passing nature then perhaps you can concentrate on this. Initially even when you look at it the pain linger for a while. Not to worry just let go of this bring it to your meditation object. At later stages once you have look at its arising and passing nature the pain will just disappear. Do not wish or crave for this in which case this might not happen.

In summary the way to release tension is to try to see the tension or pain clearly and closely and once you see it its arising and passing nature.

Maha Saccaka Sutta your body should not be stained. So if your are fatigues maybe try lying posture. Also if you muscles are tensed loosen them. Sometimes you facial muscles may become tense. Best way to loosen them is to smile. Also smiling reduces tension and brings about pleasant or neutral sensations.

  This occurs with the decrease of conceptualization.

Conceptualisation happens in verbal fabrication. Verbal fabrications is not explicitly mentioned in the Anapana Sutta but should be calmed before calming the mental fabrication. This can be achived by keeping your attention focused on a object you are bringing down creation of new verbal fabrications. In the Abhidhamma there is 5 fold Jhana classification. In the Sutta there a 4 fold classification. In the Suttas the 1st and 2nd Jhana in the Abhidhamma system is amalgamated into one. The 1st Jhana has initial application and the 2nd Jhana is sustained application in the Abhidhamma system and in the Sutta system both initial and sustained application is considered in the 1st Jhana. Initial and sustained application is what enables thinking and conceptualisation. Once these fall away (Abhidhamma 3rd Jhana and Sutta 2nd Jhana) there is no conceptualisation or the mind does not have the ability to think or conceptualise. The definition of verbal fabrication is found in Cūla Vedalla Sutta and Aṭṭhaka,nāgara Sutta mention how verbal fabrication is stilled after the 1st Jhana.

  Question 2: What do we mean by calming thoughts? Calming all thoughts? Gross thoughts? Trying to calm thoughts even though they will not ultimately subside?

This is to reduce verbal fabrication as discussed above. The main thing here is trying to reduce them. You have to have sustained effort to calm the fabrication by 1st anchoring the mind on an object then then continuously reviewing if it is with the object and re directing it to the object when it wanders away and perhaps even when it still is focused on the object followed by trying to see the object more clearly and closely. What you have to do is try and not develop aversion if you cannot sustain your attention and also not crave or get too attached to the object of being able to keep the mind with the object.

Breath meditation does have calming mental fabrication. This not claiming thoughts calming the perceptions and feelings, i.e., you do not perceive pleasant as agreeable and unpleasant as agreeable. In the Jhanic route this is in the 4th Jhana.

Also keep an eye on potential answers to this question: How does one calm one's bodily fabrications?

  Question 3: Is clarity a kind of brightness of the object, or a greater focus? Is clarity a more detailed object? Is it a part of the object or the mind? How can it be recognized?

Once you keep trying to stay with the object followed by looking closely and clearly in more detail as per its construction and nature, as time progresses you will start seeing the object more clearly and in detail.

If the object or meditation is mind made then the clarity would of this object. If it is related to arising and passing then the clarity would be of this nature.

Looking closely is synonymous with Jhana in some definitions. See: What exactly is Jhana?

  Final question: I seem to have tried to figure out all these things and meditate in a proper way. Yet, if I sit and try to meditate every day, and attempt to focus on the breathing, and I meditating in a proper way? I don't quite get what distinguishes proper and improper meditation, and whether I should meditate or not when possible. How long should it take to see either results or a shift in my meditation.

The worry you are having here might become a hindrance as you are not sure of your pratice. In Breath meditation in most cases you should just try look at things as they are and not control it. A few places you have to be active is to relax body and mind and also calm the fabrication.

What is proper meditation is if the meditation helps reduce your mental defilements. If your pratice feeds into it you are doing it wrong. See Pahāna Sutta which is a short description of letting go of the roots and Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 which concentrated on ignorance.

Also measuring the time to see results or longing for results lead further away from eradicating the mental defilements as this is a form of craving. The results will manifest itself when you have properly let gone (including searching for a result and measuring progress) and not creating any more conditioning / fabrication and past stock of conditioning / fabrication have been depleted.

Also see: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta


"Creativity Attacks" during meditation Sometimes, during my meditation sessions, I have "creativity attacks" i.e. creative thoughts. It can be a piece of poetry or something I would write down in my diary. How should one engage this kind of thoughts? Just observe without reacting or writing them down? If yes, what about the different kinds of Buddhist poetry like Songs of Milarepa, Japanese Haiku or Thera/Theri Gatha. The problem is, on one hand I can see that there are a lot of examples of creativity and poetry in Buddhism, but on the other I also can see my own mind being destructed by these kind of thoughts during meditation.

This is the way the mind is, uncontrollable. Acknowledge their presence and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If this fails, acknowledge the failure and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If you get frustrated, acknowledge the frustration, et cetera.

Being gentle and acknowledging whatever comes are important. And if the thought is something you want to write down for creativity's sake, that's not a bad thing. It's also not a good thing. It just is what it is. Just leave it until meditation is finished. If you forget what the thought was, then you simply forget. It is what it is.

If you practice this way, you will become less and less invested with the content of these thoughts, causing two things to happen:

Creativity attacks will bother you less.
They will also become less common.

This is how I meditate on my own creative thoughts.

Source: My own experience meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, and my teacher Yuttadhammo's advice.


Is Yogacara Buddhism still practiced today? Is Yogacara Buddhism practiced today or is it an entirely dead school of Buddhist thought. If it is no longer in existence did it have any influence in Buddhist schools that are around today? For instance do any schools or traditions have a notion of storehouse consciousness or have a strain of mind only or even idealist type philosophy in their teachings?

Yogacara as a distinct institutional school of Buddhism is almost totally extinct. There are two temples of the Hosso sect (which is the only remaining sect of Buddhism that calls itself Yogacara) of Buddhism in Japan ( Kōfuku-ji and Yakushi-ji) but that's really about it.

However, Yogacara as a distinct theoretical school has been preserved both in East Asia and also in Tibet. Within China, many Yogacara texts translated by Xuanzang are still read, and are incorporated into Chinese Zen.

Within Tibet, Yogacara has been preserved as part of the teachings on the different Tenet systems. Usually Yogacara is classified as being just below Madhyamaka in terms of the profundity of the view, so relatively few people accept all of its doctrines as the highest teaching, but it was very influential in a lot of meditational teachings in Mahamudra, some of the general terminology, and many in the Nyingma school combine Yogacara and Madhyamaka, using Madhyamaka as the perfect model for describing ultimate truth (i.e. emptiness) and using Yogacara as a model for describing conventional truth as all things appearing from the storehouse consciousness as a result of karma.

Also, in Tibet there is a tradition of Madhyamaka called Shentong which takes the teachings of Buddha nature as definitive, and a large amount of their vocabulary is derived from Yogacara. Some have criticised Shentong for bending certain Yogacara doctrines to make them fit, but it is a very popular interpretation within the Kagyu and Nyingma schools.

In brief, there aren't any Buddhist sects around nowadays that explicitly say "We are the Yogacara school" but the Yogacara teachings are still very much alive as a set of doctrines passed down.


What happens to my body when I breathe out? It is suggested, that one concentrates on the breath while meditating. It is also suggested that one breathes out and remains in this state for a moment, to feel the emptiness. What happens to my body while I remain in this breathless state?

Does it cause relaxation and if so, why?

I'd like to know something about the physiological effects of this aspect of meditation...

There are a few mental cultivation techniques which involve breathing. E.g. there is Paranayama which pre-dates Buddhism. Here you do try to regulate the breath.

In Anapana there is no regulation of the breath. Hence you do not breath out and try to rain in that state. (It is also suggested that one breathes out and remains in this state for a moment, to feel the emptiness.) During the natural cause of calming the breath (bodily fabrications) your breath becomes calm and stops. You should not force it through actively focusing on the breath (without your mind wavering to other subjects) helps towards this.

Breathing does have feeling associated feelings tied to the body.

expansion and contraction
oxygenating feeling / pertaining the corporal structure - when you are a reasonable level of tranquillity with all other bodily feelings subsiding, the bodily feeling in the in breath is slightly different from the feeling you have on the out breath. / 4 elements.
contact / touch - feelings and / or 4 elements

In addition your breath becomes shallow and stops after a while as you go deeper into meditation. This happens when you calm the bodily fabrications (relaxing the bodily function) as the breath is the body conditioner. Relaxation of your breath through focus on the breath and breath alone relaxes your body and vice versa. The way to calm the body is to look at all bodily sensation scanning from head to the toes and back again with no reaction to the sensations. This progressively changes the sensation until you get Piti followed by Passadhi followed by Samadhi (The Upanisā Sutta, The Das’uttara Sutta, etc.). This also calms you breath.

Physiological is that breath meditation:

calms your breath if you practice correctly
calms your body and releases tension if you practice correctly
makes your bodily feelings more pleasant and tranquil


Is the Buddha nature nothingness or the Dharmakaya? In a lot of Buddhist literature you will find passages suggesting that our Buddha nature is actually "nothingness" or "emptiness". I was wondering if this was true? I'm starting to doubt this claim because of the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is one of the three bodies of Buddha which is transcendent. While some say that the Dharmakaya "is" nothingness, others claim that it is neither part of space (emptiness and form) nor time. The idea is that everything, including nothingness (emptiness), originated out of the Dharmakaya. It's an impersonal force which holds everything together, originated everything, and maintains everything through a transcendent state.

My question: What is the proper understanding of the Dharmakaya and it's relationship with our Buddha nature? Is it the Buddha nature or not?

According to Yogacara, buddha nature is a seed in the mind basis of all. According to Madhyamika, buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. It is not the dharmakaya.

Dharmakaya is divided into two (sometimes three): 1. the wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and 2. the nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the mind of a buddha. We also call the nature truth body: 'emptiness [of the mind] without defilements' while buddha nature  is 'the emptiness [of a mind with] defilements'. Just like the emptiness of the table is not the same phenomena as the emptiness of the cup, the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha) is not the same as the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. Therefore, we can not say that buddha nature is the dharmakaya or that an arya buddha possesses buddha nature.

Moreover, in no traditional text have I seen the dharmakaya qualified as 'transcendent'.


Mindfullness and Imagination I have read some of the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh about mindfullness and anchoring oneself in the present by focussing on in-breath and out-breath.

I am curious what teaching there may be about imagination, because imagination seems to take oneself away from the "here and now".

How can mindfullness and imagination be reconciled? Is there any place for imagination? Thanks

To progress along the path, to realise what the Buddha did, we need a vehicle. If the vehicle uses imagination as a method, then imagination becomes the path. Imagination is not mindfulness, but is used to train mindfulness.


Effects of modern culture (Movies/Gaming) on karmic reactions Having read the following:
Are actions in computer games bad for karma?

Background: I have watched the latest Doom Eternal gameplay, its brilliant in terms of Graphics and dynamics. The actions and details are more "real" than ever before. I used to be a fan of the doom franchise and enjoyed the game like any other gamer. Having touched Buddhism, it is the first time I question the origin of these games and the effects it brings onto the players, from a karmic perspective. I never had such thoughts and questions before I learned about Buddhism and the Dharma.

My question:

What would be Theravada's take on this issue? If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects?
From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible? (preventing enlightenment)

If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects?

I guess there may be two problems with it:

It may be unlikely to create positive karmic effects -- I think that positive karma is associated with wealth and ease and so on -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) for an example of some of the Buddha's advice for lay-people (I remember it as the sutta of the "six directions").
It may be (which I think is what RuthLydia's answer was saying) an activity that not associated with progress towards the ending of karma.

I guess that playing video games is associated with sensual craving -- craving ongoing sensual stimulation.

Instead perhaps you're supposed to find peace in the "unconditioned" ("unconditioned" meaning "doesn't have a cause") -- or possibly something to do with, beginning with, conditioned by, virtues (perhaps "good deeds" or "skilful" actions).

Also it might be worth mentioning the "Brahma-viharas" which are said to be, "the answer to all situations arising from social contact". Assuming that video games are a type of social contact, perhaps they're unskilful to whatever extent that they don't involve the Brahma-viharas (i.e. developing "good will" towards people, and so on).

As for movies, there's a sutta addressed to an actor (SN 42.2) which warns against acting, for which it reasons:

  Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival.

In other words, what's presented on the stage in a festival will tend to increase the Three poisons (i.e. desire, aversion, and ignorance).

From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible?

I think you tend not to blame other people for your own lack of progress (e.g. "It's not my fault, it's his fault that I'm chained to samsara!").

When there is an opponent to enlightenment, an enemy, that's often portrayed as being Mara.


Can we own a bird pet which will in a cage? My cousin asked me to get one for her but I said : "Sorry, It's not allowed in Buddhism and we should care for them not in a cage even if cage were made of gold and must set them free and liberate them".
So may I know if it's allowed or not?
Instead of bad karma I felt myself pity and sorrowful for them. I felt so bad for animals if they're in trouble or something like this.
And isn't it same as slavery?
We making it as pet for our entertainment and not for caring for them.
So please guide me.

So may I know if it's allowed or not?

It's a Buddhist practice, in some countries, to buy caged birds (or sometimes other animals, like fish), in order to liberate them (i.e. to set them free, let them go).

I guess the purpose is to acquire merit, and that an idea behind it is that birds want their freedom.

An "unintended consequence" (of buying birds) is that people trap birds in order to sell them.

For this reason you might (or might not) want to refrain from buying birds, according to the same logic as being vegetarian (i.e. not buying meat in order to not encourage other people to kill animals): as you probably know, different schools of Buddhism hold different views on this subject.

IMO birds are a special category of the topic of, more generally, pet animals. Perhaps some people would keep fish (thinking that fish don't object to being kept); or "domesticated" animals like dogs, cats, cows, chickens, horses...

Buying dogs, incidentally, provides a financial incentive to breeders of dogs (i.e. it causes people to breed dogs). Some people suggest that you shouldn't buy a dog from a breeder, but instead "rescue" a dog from a shelter. When you rescue a dog, by the way, that's to keep the dog rather than to free it -- it appears that a pet dog would prefer to stay with its owner than to have to face the world alone.

Apparently there's an "unintended consequence" of getting dogs from a shelter: I read recently that some shelters are rich (from the donations they receive) and so buy puppies from breeders in order to have more to rescue! A way to avoid that, if it matters, might be to rescue an older dog (not a puppy).

It may be relevant to mention that animals in captivity sometimes live longer than in the wild -- they may be "safer", better fed, better cared for.

And isn't it same as slavery?

I don't know what goes on in the mind of a bird: I suppose they're not aware of slavery as a state-of-self, but are aware of a cage as a barrier-to-liberty.

"Slavery" (as a type of human relationship) would exist in the mind of the "owner".

From a human point of view, a good thing about not being a slave is that you can choose your master or boss (i.e. choose who you work for). If you don't like your current boss, you're at liberty to look for another.

Dogs seem to me more able and willing to communicate than birds. Pet dogs often have an opportunity to escape, and choose not to. The "leash" is often seen as being, and used, only for the dog's safety -- to protect the dog's safety rather than to protect the owner's ownership of the dog. I'm not sure that I see a pet dog as a slave: more of a friend, partner, or family member. OTOH some dogs are kept chained or caged: and it's easier to see them as "slaves".

I guess some people see a pet (dog or bird) as being like a friend or a kind of friend, or like a young child, rather than only like a slave.

Having (and looking after) a bird is a responsibility, which some people would prefer to avoid or to not seek -- if it's true that possessions are a burden, that (being burdensome) may be even more true of live animals -- but maybe that (whether it's seen as a burden or a blessing) depends on the attitude of the person.


The Buddha is said to have rediscovered the ancient path. Why was it lost to begin with? My understanding is that the Buddha is said to have "rediscovered an ancient path" which, presumably, formed the core of his teachings.
Source: Gil Fronsdal’s Introduction to the Dhammapada.
My question is: Why was it lost to begin with?
And why is it that the teachings of the Buddha are so voluminous and contain so much redundancy?
UPDATE: I am absolutely convinced that the Buddha's 8-fold path leading to the end of suffering does so by training the mind to respond to the pain of unskillful moves caused by unskillful predictions by (1) restraining the hindrances and (2) investigating with the intent of processing the feedback for insights to improve the predictive model of the sensory-motor brain so that more skillful predictions leading to more skillful moves will be made.
Why does this lead to the end of suffering? Because although pain is inevitable, suffering is a choice. Specifically, suffering is the choice to cling to wrong views because doing so leads to the descent into the hell of uncertainty. As the world descends into chaos, those who cling to views will descend into chaos along with it because they are refusing to "see things as they actually are."
In other words, clinging to "wrong views", views which do not correspond to the evidence of sensory experience, is unskillful.
Accordingly, please offer only answers that do not violate the scientific method of inquiry. For example, claiming that a human being lived for 80,000 years without offering evidence to support this extraordinary claim is not desired.

OP: My question is: Why was it lost to begin with?

The reason for this is elaborated in SN 20.7.
SN 20.7 shows HOW the teachings will be forgotten - when monks (and I guess also lay Buddhists) do not want to listen to the teachings of the Buddha or pay attention or apply their minds to it. Instead, they will listen to the teachings of unenlightened teachers or poets which are phrased in fancy ways.
Even today, we can find a number of new age gurus in the last 50 years, who have a lot of followers, writing bestselling books or giving speeches using fancy jargon or technobabble such as "quantum healing" or "inner engineering", and appearing on TV shows or YouTube.
Also, it's not unusual that people start forgetting or misunderstanding the original teachings after a long time. For e.g. in this answer, you can see that the Buddha originally said that he is not 100% omniscient in MN 90 and MN 71, and only said that he had the three knowledges, as well as he had the capacity to know and understand all things, but did not actually know and understand all things. Then Milindapanha, written many centuries later, exaggerated the Buddha's omniscience and made the same kind of excuses that the Buddha himself criticized in MN 76.

OP: And why is it that the teachings of the Buddha are so voluminous and contain so much redundancy?

The Buddha taught for something like 45 years from his enlightenment to passing away. That's why it's so voluminous.
Why does it have so much redundancy?
Firstly, he taught for around 45 years, so it's no wonder that teachings get repeated.
Secondly, I believe that the monks edited and reorganized the Pali suttas over centuries to make them have mnemonic formulae and they also modified similar stanzas to become exactly identical - which is why you can find some standard formulae repeated in multiple suttas. This made it easier to memorize, recite and transmit. You have to remember that it was an oral tradition before it was written down. More details can be found in this answer.
P.S. This answer of mine has paragraphs copied from other answers of mine, and combined together with new sentences, and adds quotes of your question. So, even my own not-so-voluminous answers have redundancy / repetition. So, it's no wonder that the suttas can have redundancy.


Decoupling happiness from state of the world: Useful? Against human nature? I'm currently reading the book "Happiness - a guide to developing life's most important skill" by Matthieu Ricard (my first real contact with buddhism/buddhist philosophy). I found the argument he makes in the beginning of the book rather interesting - that we draw "happiness" from the physical state of the world, e.g. a dinner in a fine restaurant, spending quality time with friends, etc., but that this happiness also vanishes as soon as the life situation changes - the dinner is at some point over, the friends have to leave, ..., and our happiness level decreases. Instead, he proposes to pursue happiness from within, irrespective of our current situation (as well as by helping others).

While I find this thought intriguing, as he tells tales of concentration camp survivors or people being tortured that are nevertheless light-hearted and seemingly happy despite great calamities in their life, the more I think about it the more I doubt the practicality of this approach. As per Kant, the maxim of your actions must be generalizable into the basis of a new set of laws (sorry for the bad translation here) - but I feel like human lust for short-term pleasure has advanced mankind in incredible ways throughout human history. We want to go somewhere far, but we are lazy, so we invented cars and planes to take us there without any effort in a fraction of the time it would take us to walk. We want to eat delicious meals, so we advanced the art of cooking, we want to be in contact with our family and friends, so we invented the phone and other media, the list goes on and on.

My question is: Is it really desirable to completely erase this natural laziness and "hedonic treadmill" that makes humans pursue money and fame? Of course there are also bad sides to technology or extreme egoism, but I'm not convinced this calls for a complete erasure of this "primal urge".

The book is of course written from a (presumably) Tibetan perspective, my insight into the different schools of thought is very limited, apologies if this is not the right place.

This is a very well known sentiment in Buddhist circles. The canonical metaphor for this is "leather shoes" -- you can't cover all earth in leather but you can cover your feet.

There are certainly two paths, and you're right that the path of least resistance in following our greed for ease and comfort has brought us to all these great inventions. The question is, are we psychologically more satisfied than we were in old times? The quality of life has improved without doubt, but do we feel better? (and do we feel better specifically due to that, or could there be something else going on hand in hand)

It would be a truism to say that lovers are happy in hovel and that the rich also cry. These days people in affected ethnic neighborhoods probably enjoy higher basic living standards than the elite in medieval times. Do they feel happier?

In Buddhism, happiness/suffering depends on a match between "is" and "should", or your perception of the situation on one hand and your expectations on the other. If the two mismatch, one will feel unhappy no matter how good the situation is, objectively. In other words, Buddhism defines happiness as a mental/emotional state conditional on one's values ("attachments").

So the Buddhist way of making "the leather shoes" for the mind, is to learn to transcend any fixed idea of the world, as well as any fixed set of expectations, and learn to dive into the spontaneity of life as is, with infinite openness and no sense of conflict. This is subjectively experienced as acceptance (aka love) of oneself and the world, or the perfect ease and spontaneity. This stateless state of having no ego, no fixed position, and therefore no suffering, is what we call Nirvana, and the Christians call unity with God.

Is it desirable to have entire population of Earth to get into this state of spontaneous freedom and what would happen to society and the very civilization? Until I experienced it first-hand I used to think that civilization would die out from the lack of activity. Now I have all reasons to believe that once the mind lets go of its conceptual boundaries, it gets to see that the nature of reality is not as fixed as we used to believe. So, in my opinion, when we are all free, instead of dying out the civilization will enter a phase of increased playfulness and creativity. Instead of being victims in our collective nightmares, we will be dreaming our own dreams, collectively and individually. I want to be around when that happens.


What is Buddhism's view on curse? I have read various mythological and histories about curse where it has destroyed kingdoms and kings. Does curse have that power? If so, how it can be explained in relation to karma? What is Buddhism's view on curse?

The Buddha quite clearly implies that an "act of hate" (i.e, a curse) can destroy forests. It is of course a matter of opinion whether the Buddha "really" believed this, or was simply using it as a didactic device - but that is what the text says. See the Upali Sutta (MN 56).


What is the "Unconditioned" that the Buddha is talking about? And vinjana in Buddhsm In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self. Consciousness has 2 modes: it can be pure consciousness, and it is described as "being aware of being aware" or the "I that I am knows that I am"; while the other mode of consciousness is consciousness entangled in objects, like feelings and thoughts.

Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"? Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as impermanent and not self?

They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware. I have this problem, my friend had the same, so we wanted to ask you if you could help us out.

OP: In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self.

In Buddhism, it is considered all conditioned and unconditioned is not-self/non-self. "

    sabbe dhammā anattā

Therefore, there nothing that can be identified as a self. Not even Nirvana.

  OP: Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

No. In Buddhism consciousness is just to knows what is felt.

    Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?

    One knows, „It is pleasant.‟

    One knows. „It is painful.‟

    One knows, „It is neutral.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See below for a full quote of the section on consciousness.

What is unconditioned in Nirvana.

    "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

    — Ud 8.3

Source: Nibbana

  OP: They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware.

In Buddhism, consciousness is part of the 6 sense bases. It knows what you have come in contact with.

    On account of a contact that is felt ... conditioned by that contact ...

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See the full section quoted below.

    (iv) The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and in what connection is this
    said?

    Dependent on eye and forms,
    eye-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

    Dependent on ear and sounds,
    ear-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

    ...

    The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and it is said in this connection.

Cha Chakka Sutta

    The consciousness element

    Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?

    One knows, „It is pleasant.‟

    One knows. „It is painful.‟

    One knows, „It is neutral.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.

    When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, „I feel a pleasant feeling.‟
    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.

    When one feels a painful feeling one understands, „I feel a painful feeling.‟

    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.

    When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, „I feel a neutral feeling.‟

    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta


I have some metta problem I have personal problems with the metta practice. I would say may I/you be happy and I would go in this wish fulfilment mode. Imagining myself and others happy would create a jinni in the bottle attitude. It would become this deluded practice.

How can I wish people to be happy when I know this wish wont come true?
How can I wish people to be happy whithout going into this prayer mode?

Can I use words like "I hope you be happy"? Or maybe I find joy"

Is metta hoping? Or attitude of maybes?

In order to understand metta, one first has to understand "ill-will" (vyāpāda), origination of ill-will, and cessation of ill-will.

In order to understand origination and cessation of ill-will, one needs to understand Dependent Co-Arising.

Our image of the world and our image of ourselves are mirror reflections of each other. The two sides are reflections of each other because each side co-evolves by contrasting its identity with the other side.

Because of this, "ill-will" (=negativity) towards an aspect of the world we see as wrong and frustrating is always connected with attachment to some sort of idea of "good" we identify with. In simple words, "in this regard, they are bad and I'm good" or "they are wrong and I'm right". Similarly, "ill-will" towards oneself always comes with some sort of comparison: "in this regard, they are good and I'm bad" or craving: "they achieved this and I did not".

In practice, almost every person usually has a mix of many such points, some of which are
 (self)[+]<===>[-](world) and some are (self)[-]<===>[+](world). As our attention switches between these different points during the day, our sense of self and the world may flip many times between positive and negative. One moment you think you're messed up and the world is fine, and the other moment you feel the world is messed up and you're fine. Or, if you are very attentive, you can even notice two opposite points in your mind at the same time, making the lives of others pitiful and enviable at the same time, and making your self be an unrecognized genius and a complete loser at the same time. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but you get the idea. If you judge others, you judge yourself. If you judge yourself - you judge others. These judgements are relative to each other, therefore are always connected.

To boil all this down to a simple rule, if you hate the world you hate yourself. If you hate yourself you hate the world. The good news is, because the two sides are connected, healing one will always heal the other. So, if you learn to accept yourself, you'll learn to accept the world. If you learn to love the world, you will learn to love yourself.

And this, my friend, is the whole idea of Metta!

As my teacher explained, cultivation of Metta starts by cultivating acceptance of oneself with all your imperfections. Once you learn to not judge yourself, once you learn to "love" (accept) yourself unconditionally and to be your true self in front of the others without fear of judgement, just as you are -- then you will notice an immediate relief in your relationships with the world and with other people. Then, the next step, learning to "love" (accept) others without judgement will come easily and naturally. But you can also approach it from the other side: if you learn to accept others without judgement, you will eventually learn to accept yourself and be free.

Freedom is only possible when we are free from fear, including the fear of judgement, constraining our spontaneous expression of our inner goodness.

By now you should get a pretty clear idea that Metta is not "Wishing others to be happy". Metta (or Maitri in Sanskrit) is unconditional acceptance of someone just as they are, without judgement or hostility.

When you have metta towards someone imperfect (including yourself, or even towards the entire society), you don't pretend that they are perfect. Instead, you accept them with all their problems and wounds, like you would accept your own children. When you have metta towards someone difficult, you don't see them as inherently "bad" - but you do appreciate that some of their past karma, or karma of their family or social group, might have created causes for aggression and hostility, or lack of education, or bad taste for simple pleasures, or a confused system of values and ideals - so you do see everything as is, with all the causes and results of the causes and how these results limit the future possibilities, but you no longer impute an inherent qualitative characteristic to it.

(This idea of not judging, and not reifying your judgements as if they were inherent characteristics of other people, eventually builds up to realization of Emptiness, the insight into how our mind constructs its experience.)

The end goal of Metta is a state when you fully accept yourself and the world, so you feel "like a fish in the water". Meaning, when you are without judgement, you can be friendly and spontaneous without being on the defense. It's almost like the boundary between yourself and the world disappears. In a way you feel like a child, completely comfortable in your own realm.

With Metta, you don't need to try hard to look perfect, educated, strong, consistent etc. - because you accept yourself as you are and you're not afraid of judgement of others (because that judgement used to be your own projection to begin with). Similarly, your experience of the world is no longer negative - because the attachments that held your attention fixed on the judgements that colored the world in the negative colors - are gone too. You are perfect and the world is perfect, with all their imperfections, just as they are. This is Metta as it is understood in my tradition (the Maitreya tradition).


Are there different types of craving? According to Buddhist tradition are there different types of craving? It occurs to me that the following could all be described using the English word craving

Being thirsty (for water)
Really wanting a new car
Wistfully missing a loved one when they are temporarily absent from
your life

However they do feel like they are very different things. So are there categorisations of craving within Buddhist philosophy and if so how would my examples fit into those categories.

I'm interested in answers from any tradition but I suspect that there might be some kind of list of craving within something like the Abidharma

EDIT

These are great answers so far but I wonder does anyone have anything to add on a more experiential basis perhaps referencing meditation practice.

Indeed, there are four levels of craving.

Craving for one's life - Highest level
Craving for one's organs
Craving for loved ones
Craving for external objects - Lowest level

Chathurarya Sathya (Four Noble truths) by Rerukane Chandawimala Thero

Craving for life arises as perceiving the five aggregates as self and this is the highest level of craving. As an example, during a natural disaster someone would first try to save his own life at any cost, then the lives of his loved ones and finally when everyone is safe, he would try to save his possessions.
From the given example, satisfying thirst may fall under first type, wanting a car falls under fourth and missing a loved one falls under the third level.
Note- The author of the book hasn't referred to any text in Pali canon whether this is  a categorization of Buddha or if it appears in Abhidhamma.


Are dreams good or bad? I normally do not dream and if i dream those are very long and mixed when it comes to content (Both calming and provoking). So what is the Buddhist point of view on dreams.

Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera:

  According to Buddhist psychology dreams are ideational processes which occur as activities of the mind.

And:

  Dreams are mind-created phenomena and they are activities of the mind. All human beings dream, although some people cannot remember. Buddhism teaches that some dreams have psychological significance.

Finally:

  The significance and the cause of dreams were the subject of discussion in the famous book 'Milinda Panha' or 'The Questions of King Milinda', in which Ven. Nagasena has stated that there are six causes of dreams, three of them being organic, wind, bile and phlegm. The fourth is due to the intervention of supernatural forces, fifth, revival of past experience and sixth, the influence of future events. It is categorically stated that dreams occur only in light slumber which is said to be like the sleep of the monkey. Of the six causes given Ven. Nagasena has stated positively that the last, namely prophetic dreams are the only important ones and the others are relatively insignificant.

The full text on Ven. Thera's explanation of dreams and their significance is available at http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/321.htm.


What is the duality of body and external name-and-form? What is the duality of body and external name-and-form?

What is the difference between the two? What is the relationship between the two?

From the Balapandita Sutta (SN 12.19) (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

  “Mendicants, for a fool hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving,
  this body has been produced.

  “Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ
  kāyo samudāgato.

  So there is the duality of this body and external name and form.
  Contact depends on this duality. When contacted through one or other
  of the six sense fields, the fool experiences pleasure and pain.

  Iti ayañceva kāyo bahiddhā ca nāmarūpaṃ, itthetaṃ dvayaṃ, dvayaṃ
  paṭicca phasso saḷevāyatanāni, yehi phuṭṭho bālo sukhadukkhaṃ
  paṭisaṃvedayati etesaṃ vā aññatarena.

The same excerpt translated here by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  “Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving, this body has thereby originated. So there is this body and
  external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is
  contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or
  through a certain one among them—the fool experiences pleasure and
  pain.

Also, as reference, from SN 12.2 (trans. Bodhi):

  “And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition,
  contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and
  the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
  Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.

Also, please note that the term "kāya" has been used in the sense of physical body for example in SN 22.56 (although I know that it can be used to mean group or collection, when combined with other things):

  eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousness.
  cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, sotaviññāṇaṃ,ghānaviññāṇaṃ, jivhāviññāṇaṃ,
  kāyaviññāṇaṃ, manoviññāṇaṃ.

This is just an elaboration of D.O. Everything is clear and makes sense.

Delineation of feeling depends on the notion of contact.

Delineation of contact depends on separating totality into "internal" and "external".

Six sense doors are the subjective boundary across which the contact is made.

On this side of the boundary are upadana-skandhas - stuff we appropriate as I/mine.

On the other side of the boundary are the namarupas, the mind-made delineated entities that we designate as "external".

In each pair of DO, it's always a notion and its counterpart serving as foundation.


Is insight meditation counter-productive (sometimes)? This question was prompted by Mindfulness while Studying or Listening to Dhamma Talks

On page 31 of Good Questions, Good Answers it says,

Explain what insight meditation is
During insight meditation a person just tries to be aware of whatever happens to them without thinking about it or reacting to it.
What is the purpose of that
Usually we react to our experience by liking or disliking it or by letting it trigger thoughts, daydreams or memories. All these reactions distort or obscure our experience so that we fail to understand it properly. By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do.

Is "without thinking about or reacting to" experience, deliberately counter-productive?
Is it counter-productive, in scenarios when you should be trying to:

Learn something new (learning something is presumably trying to allow yourself to be affected, to "produce" a change in the knowledge you have)?
Create something new (e.g. if you're making or writing something for your work/livelihood)?

Wouldn't it be better to be absorbed in or by the experience, to absorb the experience, in these scenarios?
I fear it's counter-productive:

Because it's intended to be (counter-productive)
Because it's an addition (of some kind of awareness to the mind-state) and therefore a distraction
Because having reaction (i.e. effect on your own knowledge) is the purpose or goal when learning
Because having reaction (e.g. thoughts like "this is good or not good") are the tool when creating

The statement:

  "By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do"

When there is awareness, there is mindfulness and clear comprehension of the situation, which is, the thinking, speaking and acting, which continues the way it is because it is conditioned; but because there is this clear comprehension, there is this "pause", "space" to breathe before we commit to the thinking, speaking and acting, allowing the mind to depart from the conditioning.

It is just like a mother watching over the child, doing her thing and only making the child more aware of what she is doing, so she contemplates before doing anything. The mother (awareness, sati-sampajanna) is one thing, the child (mind, vinnana) is another, eventually.

In the beginning of the practice, awarenes is patchy; and the thing that interrupts thoughts in the mind is not the awareness itself but the thought to re-establish awareness again and the act of re-establishing this awareness. So in the beginning these interruptions are distracting but soon they are reduced depending on one's progress.

One can learn, create and be absorbed with the awareness attending, and that learning, creating and absorbing is much more intense and wholesome.


How is the new intelligence equation practically (freedom) related to Buddhism? This 10 minute TED video by Alex Wissner talks about a new theory of intelligence, which defines intelligence as

  intelligence is a force ... that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action

How is this related to goal of Buddhism? By this definition is Buddhist practice very intelligent?

"something that takes control of the present to enable greater control of future possibilities". This is Mindfulness. By being Mindful of the present moment.One has greater control of the action that follows.

How is this related to goal of Buddhism?

The goal of Buddhism is Nibbanna.You realise it through practicing the Eight Noble Path in which Right Mindfulness is a component.Have you heard of the karma that ends all karma. Basically by following the Eight Noble Path we are creating the right conditions,the right karma,to stop suffering.By being mindful we can takes control of the present to enable greater control of future possibilities (Happiness,Nibbanna) Being mindful stops you from acting subconsciously (in ignorance) or out of deeply ingrained habits and tendencies that keep you in samsara.

By this definition is Buddhist practice very intelligent?

Yes.


Tathā synonymous with Tathātā? From wiki:
"Tathā means "thus" in Sanskrit and Pali, and Buddhist thought takes this to refer to what is called "reality as-it-is" (yathābhūta). This reality is also referred to as "thusness" or "suchness" (tathātā)"

So, are the two words synonymous?
For example, could one say "tathātāgata" and would it mean the same as "tathāgata"?

And, taking -gata to mean "being", is it like the following?
tathāgata = thus being / real being
tathātāgata = thusness being / reality being

Also, if some kind soul could upload a pronunciation in sanskrit of the two words online, e.g to vocaroo, I'd be impermenantly grateful.

tathāgata is two words: tathā (thus) + gata (gone; go to; arrived at)

tathatā is two words: tatha (thus) + tā (state of)

Pali is pronounced here at 23:19 http://www.suanmokkh.org/retreat_talks/148


Is it possible to abandon desire by means of desire Regarding previous Question Desire without attachment.
If desire without the attachment still lead to suffering then how abandon desire without desire?
As shown by Unnabha the Brahman
it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

It's kinda simple. First we abandon desires. Only then we abandon the desire to give up desires. As per the traditional metaphor, you should not leave "the raft" until you are safely "on the other shore".

Sure, the desire to abandon desires also causes suffering. But that's the price we pay. It is like with the surgeon inflicting more pain short-term to end the pain long-term.

My point is, it is only a paradox in theory, once we get to real kitchen-level practice, to action -- there is no paradox.


Why are all the Buddhas born in Indian subcontinent only? From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names).

Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma.

We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.

What's the reason?

Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.


breathing techniques in buddhism My name is Prakash Karki. I am from Nepal. . I have just read 1 book on buddhisam and that is biography and philosophy of buddha. I became very serious about this spiritual stuff. I have been researching about spirituality for 2 years now. I want to know about the journey. how to be more serious about it and what should I do at first step as a beginner ?

Where to begin and how to start...
For the sake of being concise, you already are on the path because you're kicking brother. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? Your actions, intentions and responses reflect the dynamic of the environment around you (family, work, etc) and so on and so forth.
That's the beginning to the whole 'spiritual stuff'.
Some breathing techniques that I have found useful (not only buddhist):

Tummo (buddhist)
Freediving
Yoga (breathing into the pressure to release the tension)

Cultivate in Harmony


Is suicide similar to Nibbana? I read a comment on this forum, which said:

  why do you even need to work hard attain Nibbana? Why not just commit suicide when things get tough?

This comment gives me the impression the writer believes there are some similarities between suicide & Nibbana.

My questions:

What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibbana?
Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?

What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibba>

Because they do not understand what Nibbana means.

  Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?>

In Nibbana there is no re birth.


What are the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism? Hinduism is similar to Buddhism, but both are different.

Many people think that Buddhism is derived from Hinduism, so it is similar to Hinduism.

What are the differences between Hinduism & Buddhism?

From what I found Hinduism was the religion, Siddhartha was raised in. Hinduism has a vast arrays of Gods, Like Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, an so on. Buddhism to my understanding Has no God in it. The difference starts there. Hindus have many gods and Buddhism has none, although it can become difficult when comparing Bodhisattva's an Buddha's an the dwellers of the celestial world depending on your Buddhist tradition.

Buddha concentrated more on not worrying about the divine beings. But to worry about fixing your self.Basically in the aspect of Karma you decide for yourself what happens to you. There is no judge to your life but yourself. You rebirth higher or lower depending on your Karma ( depending on the Buddhist tradition ). You are the master of your self, an so focusing on yourself you alone can help yourself. You do not worry about appeasing deities. Or the origin in which you came from, an what lies beyond today. To be in the present an to judge according to your own understanding seems to be the Buddhist method.

So a religion that focuses on the worship of their deities, the practices of the deities, the rewards an punishments from the deities. All this becomes distractful an can cause great deal of suffering when you are trying very hard to appease a certain deity. An in Hinduism there are vastly many of them. There are many gurus that teach very different an strange customs. Some traditions still perform animal sacrifice ( Kali )

Buddha ultimately walked away from the Brahmin teachers, an the way of Hinduism, as he did not see the path leading to happiness. He saw that people became ascetics an starved them selves and pierce there bodies in harsh ways to prove the devotion to their gods. Buddha once tried these methods to find enlightenment, but almost starved to death an realized, if he had died nothing would have been gained from doing these things. So he focused on how to find true happiness, an that was through insightful meditations an begin teachings the Dharma.

The main difference is the Deities, the customs an practices of both can become mingled as they have a similar basis on some things. But really the focus is what makes them different. To focus on a god or to focus on your self as a "god". Hopefully this helpful in some way.


Reference wanted for "To see your past karma, look at your present body (and environment)...." This is a reference request, not a doctrine question. I recall seeing a quote from a Buddhist text or teacher roughly to this effect...

To see your past karma, look at your present body (and
environment).
To see your future lives, look at your present mind.

The closest I can find now from a teacher or text is a quote from Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen...

  Thus our present life and circumstances are the products of our past
  thoughts and actions, and in the same way our deeds in this life will
  fashion our future mode of existence.” (p. 408)

... which is close -- "life and circumstances" vs "body and environment" and "deeds" vs "mind"-- but not quite. If anybody can supply a pointer to the body/environment/mind version, I'd be grateful.

Found it... mostly --
Tweet by H.H. The Dalai Lama, May 6, 2010...

  If you wonder what you were doing in the past, look at your body; to know what will happen to you in the future, look at your mind.

3149 retweets -- so that's probably where I saw it. As for adding environment to body, that's probably my interpolation, since the material circumstances of one's present life are clearly karmic, according to Buddhadharma.

It's probably impossible to trace this to a single origin, however, as it seems to be all over the place in various versions, including from sources other than Buddhists.


What are the Pali translations for mindfulness? I know that the Pali word for mindfulness is sati as in the Satipatthana Sutta but I've also heard that there is more than one word for mindfulness that is used throughout the Pali Canon.

Can anyone give a list of the different words used and perhaps point out the differences in emphasis or exact meaning? For instance, do all the words mean exactly the same or do particular ones emphasise a different quality of mindfulness?

Actually, the only good translation I can think of for the English "mindfulness" is Sampajañña. sam = full, pa = full, jañña = knowledge (or awareness).

Another potential candidate is yoniso (to the source) manasikara (minding).

What is pretty clear is that sati does not translate to mindfulness. sati comes from the root /sar, which means to remember or recollect. It doesn't mean to be mindful; translations like "mindfulness of the Buddha" show this to be a silly choice. "remembrance" is probably a better one.

As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes:

  Even the word sati, rendered mindfulness, isn’t unproblematic. The word derives from a verb, sarati, meaning “to remember,” and occasionally in Pali sati is still explained in a way that connects it with the idea of memory. But when it is used in relation to meditation practice, we have no word in English that precisely captures what it refers to. An early translator cleverly drew upon the word mindfulness, which is not even in my dictionary. This has served its role admirably, but it does not preserve the connection with memory, sometimes needed to make sense of a passage.

  http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html

And there is a good article on Theravadin that I think agrees with the above both on sati and sampajañña:

  By now you will wonder how the term sati became so established as “mindfulness”. Well, mindfulness will be a result of ones practice of noting, especially during the noting…during the seeing. However, the best term translated as mindfulness is in fact a separate pali word called “sam-pajanna“, lit. ‘to know together with’

  http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/


How do you tell the difference between review of a path and the next path? In the same way the buddha referred to those who wander through Jhana as foolish cows, can individuals wander and get lost within the cycles of insight?

  When the meditator has thus become skilled in achieving the fruition attainment, he should resolutely set his mind upon the task of attaining to the higher paths and fruitions. What should now be done by one who has set himself that task? Just as before, he should carry out the practice of noticing (anything occurring) at the six sense doors.

Can next path start without being skilled in fruition attainment?

For example, if I am able to advert to A&P but not able to advert to fruition, is that proof I am still reviewing the last path, or can it be that I moved on too soon?

Sorry if this is convoluted, I am looking for an actual answer as opposed to a non answer.

Some useful teachings by Ajaan Fuang on this topic below.

Ajaan Fuang teaches not to plan how the meditation would go, or deliberately look out for signs to determine what stage you're at, or to be obsessed about what the next steps should be. Instead, he teaches to go on practising by oneself to find out how things will turn out.

From my understanding, one should not just reach one stage and then rush over to the next. One should instead master one stage, then go on to master the next.

In my opinion, it is also useful to have such a teacher to guide the student when he finds that the student has reached an impasse or is going on the wrong path. Otherwise, if the teacher finds that the student is progressing on the right path, he should allow the student to discover the next steps on his own.

Quote:

  § When Ajaan Fuang taught meditation, he didn't like to map things out
  in advance. As soon as he had explained the beginning steps, he'd have
  the student start sitting right in his presence, and then take the
  steps back home to work on there. If anything came up in the course of
  the practice, he'd explain how to deal with it and then go on to the
  next step.

  Once a layman who had known more than his share of meditation teachers
  came to discuss the Dhamma with Ajaan Fuang, asking him many questions
  of an advanced nature as a way of testing his level of attainment.
  Ajaan Fuang asked him in return, "Have you had these experiences in
  your own meditation yet?"

  "No, not yet."

  "Then in that case I'd rather not discuss them, because if we discuss
  them when they're not yet a reality for you, they'll just be theories,
  and not the real Dhamma."

  § One meditator noticed that his practice under Ajaan Fuang was making
  quick progress, and so he asked what the next step would be. "I'm not
  going to tell you," Ajaan Fuang said. "Otherwise you'll become the
  sort of amazing marvel who knows everything before he meets with it,
  and masters everything before he's tried his hand. Just keep
  practicing and you'll find out on your own."

  § "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."


"Gatha" (Verse) on mindfulness/contemplation of Death : Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw Practice : Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw

Is there any "Gatha" (Verse) can be used to contemplate on "Death"?
The purpose is to use as an aid to generate necessary energy to continue practice [mostly as the first thing in the morning]

Because you mention the Mahasi Sayadaw in your question, most relevant is the Mahasi Sayadaw's discussion of the Purabheda Sutta:

http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Purabheda%20Sutta.htm

(Sorry, the formatting is off in this version)

There are some Pali phrases in that book that might be of interest, e.g.:

  Vītataṇho purābhedā, pubbamanta manissito.
  Vemajjhe nupasaṅkheyo, tassa natthi purekkhataṃ.

  The one who has removed craving before death, independent of past and future;
  who is not stuck in the present; for such a one there is no further becoming.

Also in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, it is customary to reflect on death before starting the practice:

  The fourth protection for your psychological benefit is to reflect on the phenomenon of
  ever-approaching death. Buddhist teachings stress that life is uncertain, but death is
  certain; life is precarious but death is sure. Life has death as its goal. There is birth,
  disease, suffering, old age, and eventually, death. These are all aspects of the process of
  existence.

  -- Mahasi Sayadaw, Practical Insight Meditation

The Pali for this is from the Dhammapada Commentary:

  addhuvaṃ me jīvitaṃ, dhuvaṃ me maraṇaṃ

  My life is unsure; my death is sure.

  avassaṃ mayā maritabbameva,

  Indeed, in the future I must die.

  maraṇapariyosānaṃ me jīvitaṃ,

  My life has death as its final end.

  jīvitameva aniyataṃ, maraṇaṃ niyatanti

  Life indeed is uncertain, death is certain.

  -- Dhp-A 174 (pesakāradhītāvatthu)

These are often chanted before starting a meditation course in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition.

Besides this, there are many verses about death in the tipitaka; the most common is that spoken by Sakka when the Buddha passed away:

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

  Impermanent indeed are all formations; of a nature to arise and pass.
  Having arisen, they cease; their fading away is happiness.

  -- DN 16

Another similar one we use often is Dhp 41:

  aciraṃ vatayaṃ kāyo, pathaviṃ adhisessati.
  chuddho apetaviññāṇo, niratthaṃva kaliṅgaraṃ.

  In no long time indeed will this body lie on the earth;
  Discarded, consciousness having departed, as useless as a charred log.


Will I be reindividualised after death? I guess I have no craving left for the existence except for food and water.

Will I be reindividualised after death?

Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?

Will I be reindividualised after death?
Perhaps the answer depends on whether you are "individualized" now?
In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote (emphasis mine),

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana.
In any case, as useful as rebirth may be in reminding us of what's really at stake in our dhamma practice, far more useful is an understanding of the present moment, something that really has little to do with past or future lives.

I don't know which Buddhist school you're asking about, but I think that according to the Four stages of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism, you should expect to abandon "identity view" or "self-view" at the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) ... and "conceit", "material-rebirth desire", and "immaterial-rebirth desire" (and ignorance and restlessness) only at the last stage.
I asked about some of these concepts/topics here:

Is rebirth a delusional belief?
What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?
The Bhikkhuni Sutta (which may be intended for not-yet-enlightened people) says,

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,]

'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'

Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food.

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Note too that there are different kinds of "desire": for example, unvirtuous craving, and a more virtuous desire for liberation -- see, for example, How to develop Chanda?


What is fruition in Buddhism? I see it everywhere in my book on jhana. but don't truly understand it's meaning or even find a definition.

Fruition is more related to the 4 stages of sainthood. This is realising of the fruit (Pala) of practice. What his means is you realized the path.


Is stream entry an unmistakeable experience? I've heard stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness. I've also read other accounts that make me think that there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. Is that true? If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt. Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else?

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes two kinds of milestones: "experiences" and "realizations".

Experiences are all kinds of extraordinary moments one has along the way. Like the experience of non-duality: "I am what they call God, the true goal of all religions and the real meaning of love". Experiences come and go. They leave memories, but they don't stay with you in all their might. And that's probably a good thing. I don't know how I would live walking around thinking I'm God ;))

Realizations are (sudden or gradual) breakthroughs that change one's perspective in fundamental ways. Needless to say, they stay with you, although not necessarily in an explicit form, because you tend to get used to them and stop noticing. An interesting feature of realizations, they sometimes can be retrograde (like retrograde amnesia). It slowly creeps on you or dawns on you, that you have known something or have been behaving differently for a while now. It is almost like realization spreads backward in time.

By this classification, stream entry is a realization, not an experience. Because of its nature, in most cases I suspect it is a retrograde realization.

The true stream entry is unmistakable, yes -- but I don't see why someone could not just take some arbitrary experience, or even some intermediate realization, like the realization of emptiness of so-called "objects", and imagine that to be stream-entry.

What makes it unmistakable is the fact that in order to attain it, you have to run out of other options. You have to exhaust all theories, all hypotheses, all alternative routes to enlightenment. That's why you don't hesitate, because you clearly see that there is no way it could be something else.

What's funny is this nagging feeling I have, that you reading my description of it, reduces your chances of attaining it. Enlightenment is freedom from clinging (among other things), so clinging to this notion of stream-entry must be very counterproductive. This is why I'm a little leery of Theravada's sometimes excessive emphasis on bullet-point lists and precise definitions of the stages, as well as of Zen's obsession with the notion of satori. The more your mind grasps these, the further you are from the goal.


Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agama in English translation? Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agamas in English translation?

Dirgha Agama

Thanks to the reference contributed by ChrisW, I was able to find the following fragments:

DA 11, DA 12, and DA 30 translated by bhikkhu Analayo
DA 21 translated by Fan Dong Jing

The entire DA is available in print from BDK America (thanks for the link, Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena):

http://www.bdkamerica.org/catalog/indian-sources

Madhyama Agama

Online I was able to find the following sutras, translated by Charles D. Patton:

MA 1
MA 2
MA 10
MA 11
MA 17
MA 42
MA 45
MA 51
MA 186

There is also this BDK America version, containing the first 71 sutras:

MA 1-71

Samyukta Agama

According to the sutra commentaries in the Yogacara-bhumi Shastra, the Samyukta Agama was the earliest agama collection.

Turns out there are two version of Samyukta Agama, the long one (~1350 sutras), known by the scholars as T.99 or "ZA" and the short one (364 sutras), known as T.100 or "BZA". Most of the BZA is available in English translation by Marcus Bingenheimer either online or in one PDF. Most of the BZA sutras have almost identical counterparts in ZA.

Out of ~1350 sutras in the long Samyukta Agama, ~260 are available online so far, most translated to English by bhikkhu Analayo and some by an unknown translator at lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka as well as by Choong Mun-keat:

SA1-32
SA33-58
SA59-87
SA103-110
SA111-138
SA139-187
SA188-229
SA 232
SA 236
SA 249
SA256-272
SA 273
T.100.6 / SA 275
(SĀ 276) “Attitudes Towards Nuns – A Case Study of the Nandakovāda in the Light of its Parallels”, (with an appendix by Giuliana Martini), Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2010, vol. 17 pp. 332–400.  download
SA 287
SA 293
SA 296
SA 297
SA 299
SA 300
SA 301: Kātyāyana Gotra
SA 335
(SĀ 344 and SA 389) ” Right View and the Scheme of the Four Truths in Early Budhism, The Saṃyukta-āgama Parallel to the Sammādiṭṭhi-sutta and the Simile of the Four Skills of a Physician”, Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2011, vol. 7 pp. 11–44.  download
SA 371: The Nutriments
SA 374. The Nutriments
SA 379: Turning the Dharma Wheel
SA 383. Having Known
SA 451. The Realms
SA 474: Gradual Subsiding
(SĀ 505) “Śakra and the Destruction of Craving – A Case Study in the Role of Śakra in Early Buddhism”, Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2011, vol. 12 pp. 157-176.  download
SA 606. Bases of Mindfulness
SA 610. Correct Mindfulness
SA 615. Bhikṣuṇī Residence
(SĀ 619) “Protecting Oneself and Others Through Mindfulness – The Acrobat Simile in the Saṃyukta-āgama”, Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2012, vol. 2 pp. 1–23.   download
SA 620. The Monkey
SA 621. The Young Bhikṣus
SA 623. The World Beauty
SA 746. Ānāpānasmṛti
SA 801: Five Dharmas
SA 802. Knowledge
SA 803. Knowledge
SA 804. Cutting Off Thoughts
SA 805. Ariṣṭa
SA 806. Kapphiṇa
SA 807. Two Months
SA 808. Kapilavastu
(SĀ 1042) “The Saṃyukta-āgama Parallel to the Sāleyyaka-sutta”, Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2006, vol. 13 pp. 1–22.  download
T.100 equivalents of SA 1062-1225
(SĀ 1249) “Exemplary Qualities of a Monastic – The Saṃyukta-āgama Counterpart to the Mahāgopālaka-sutta and the Need of Balancing Inner Development with Concern for Others”, Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2010, vol. 1 pp. 1–22.  download

Ekottarika Agama

Unless otherwise noted, translated by Dr. Thich Huyen-Vi and Bhikkhu Pasadika in collaboration with Sara Boin-Webb, for the Buddhist Studies Review.

EA 12.1 translated by Thích Nhất Hạnh, Annabel Laity
EA 17.1 — Mindfulness of Breathing
EA 18.4 — Brahmin
EA 18.5 — Elephant
EA 18.8 — Broad-minded
EA 18.9 — Authentic
EA 18.10 — Praise
EA 19.2 - EA 19.11
EA 20.1 - EA 20.13
EA 21.1 - EA 21.10


Is there an Dzogchen monastery in Canada with a accomplished lineage? I am looking to learn and get initiation into Dzogchen eventually leading into Tögal and trekchö. Coming from a Indian yogic tradition the rainbow body of perfection is the pinnacle of yogic achievement. I would consider it an honour to get initiated under a master in an accomplished lineage for this purpose alone.

Also any good books that discuss the rainbow body and the dzogchen practices such as chord, trechko and togal will be immensely useful. Please give me suggestions.

Respectfully,
B

I'm not completely sure if this monastery is a Dzogchen monastery, but you can try the Thrangu Monastery in British Columbia, Canada.
This monastery belongs to the Kagyu lineage.
You can find a list of teachers here.
This wikipedia page on Thrangu Rinpoche states that he trained Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.


How to combine Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism? I was baptized into Orthodox Christianity in childhood. During recent years, I've been living in Thailand, attending worship in temples, offering alms to monks, and participating in other ceremonies on occasional basis. I was never thought it might compromise Christianity in any way.

Recently I met a highly religious person from my country who told me this would be unacceptable. I tried to figure out some arguments, but they failed to provide me with any, repeating that it's simply a wrong thing (well, that's probably why it is called Orthodox).

As I live in another country, I think it's a good thing to become a part of local society, and attending Buddhist ceremonies and rituals seems to be a good thing to me.

I found many articles about this topic for Catholic Christianity, but could not actually find anything about Orthodox.

What is the optimal strategy for me to keep attending Buddhist ceremonies and not be blamed by those who say I must keep worshipping only my religion from back home?

Okay, for the purpose of providing an answer, I've gone to this site:

http://www.antiochian.org/whatorthodoxbelieve

which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to present the views of the Eastern Orthodox church, from their POV.

The only thing I can see as being a problem, would be the phrase, taken a bit out of context from Timothy:

  "From such withdraw yourself' (1 Timothy 6:5).

said to refer to cults. The actual passage (KJV) is:

  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Obviously, it is up to the person doing the interpreting as to whether or not Buddhism is "destitute of the truth", and whether that would then be enough to require you to "withdraw thyself".

Either way, your question is actually about strategy, so, given the assumption that you don't really care what the church has to say as long as you aren't subject to their censure, I imagine it would be enough to just not speak about it to them. I don't assume you'd be found out otherwise.

It's really the best, I think; speech that is unpleasant, e.g. telling a devout Christian that you are participating in what they view as a cult, should only be delivered with care. (See the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, for a discussion of unpleasant speech).

So, td;lr: unless you think you can convince your fellow Christians that you are not really committing sin by participating in Buddhism, best would be to just avoid mentioning it. Or, you know, leave Christianity and become Buddhist ;)


The Middle Way in practical life Are there any sutras or parables where Buddha applies the middle way, not to the self or to abstract metaphysical principles, but to concrete conflicts in practical life?

There is a large body of texts of discourses of the Buddha touching on lay life issues. Below, I paste a (probably not exhaustive) list of suttas compiled by a user from dhammalwheel forum. There's also an upcoming book from Bhikkhu Bodhi presenting a collection of suttas of discourses of the Buddha dealing with lay life themes: The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon.

DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta — To Sigala/The Layperson's Code of Discipline
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn31
MN 14: Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta — The Lesser Mass of Stress
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.014.than.html
MN 41: Saleyyaka Sutta — The Brahmans of Sala
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41
MN 52: Atthakanagara Sutta — To the Man from Atthakanagara
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn52
MN 53: Sekha-patipada Sutta — The Practice for One in Training
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html
MN 54: Potaliya Sutta — To Potaliya
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn54
MN 56. Upāli, the Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn56
MN 57: Kukkuravatika Sutta — The Dog-duty Ascetic
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn57
MN 58: Abhaya Sutta — To Prince Abhaya (On Right Speech)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
MN 59: Bahuvedaniya Sutta — Many Things to be Experienced/The Many Kinds of Feeling
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html
MN 60: Apannaka Sutta — A Safe Bet
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60
MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta — To Dhanañjani
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.097.than.html
MN 99:  To the Brahmin Subha
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/099-subha-e1.html
MN 143: Anathapindikovada Sutta — Instructions to Anathapindika
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html
SN 3.19: Aputtaka Sutta — Heirless (1)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.019.than.html
SN 3.20: Aputtaka Sutta — Heirless (2)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.020.than.html
SN 22.1: Nakulapita Sutta — To Nakulapita
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.1
SN 22.3: Haliddakani Sutta — To Haliddakani
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.3
SN 22.80: Pindolya Sutta — Almsgoers
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.80
SN 41.3: Isidatta Sutta — About Isidatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.003.than.html
SN 41.4: Mahaka Sutta — About Mahaka
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.004.than.html
SN 41.6: Kamabhu Sutta — With Kamabhu (On the Cessation of Perception & Feeling)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html
SN 41.7: Godatta Sutta — To Godatta (On Awareness-release)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.007.than.html
SN 41.10: Gilana Sutta — Sick (Citta the Householder's Last Hours)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.010.than.html
SN 47.29: Sirivaddha
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.29
SN 47.30: Manadinna
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.30
SN 55.30: Licchavi Sutta — To the Licchavi
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.030.than.html

Discourse to a Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/sa107

AN 3.65: Kalama Sutta — To the Kalamas/The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.65
AN 3.66: Salha Sutta — To Salha
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.66
AN 3.70: Muluposatha Sutta — The Roots of the Uposatha
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.70
AN 3.92: Urgent
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.92
AN 4.32: Sangaha Sutta — The Bonds of Fellowship
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.32
AN 4.55: Samajivina Sutta — Living in Tune
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.55
AN 4.60: The Layperson’s Proper Practice
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.60
AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.62
AN 4.258: Kula Sutta — On Families
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.258
AN 5.38: Saddha Sutta — Conviction
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.38
AN 5.41: Adiya Sutta — Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.41
AN 5.43: Wished for
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.43
AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta — Subjects for Contemplation
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.57
AN 5.175: Candala Sutta — The Outcaste
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.175
AN 5.176: Piti Sutta — Rapture
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.176
AN 5.177: Vanijja Sutta — Business (Wrong Livelihood)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.177
AN 5.179: Gihi Sutta — The Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.179
AN 5.180: Gavesin Sutta — About Gavesin
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.180
AN 6.16: Nakula’s Parents
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.16
AN 8.25: Mahanama Sutta — Being a Lay Buddhist
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.25
AN 8.26: Jivaka Sutta — To Jivaka (On Being a Lay Follower)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.26
AN 8.43: Visakhuposatha Sutta — The Discourse to Visakha on the Uposatha with the Eight Practices
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.43
AN 8.54: Vyagghapajja (Dighajanu) Sutta — Conditions of Welfare/ To Dighajanu
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.54
AN 10.92: Vera Sutta — Animosity
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.92
AN 10.93: Ditthi Sutta — Views
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.93
AN 10.94: Vajjiya Sutta — About Vajjiya
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.94
AN 11.11: Mahanama Sutta — To Mahanama (1)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an11.11
AN 11.12: Mahanama Sutta — To Mahanama (2)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an11.12
Dhammapada — The Path of Dhamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html
Ud 8.8: Visakha Sutta — To Visakha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.08.than.html
Ud 2.5: Upasaka Sutta — The Lay Follower
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.05.than.html
Ud 2.6: Gabbhini Sutta — The Pregnant Woman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.06.than.html
Ud 2.7: Ekaputta Sutta — The Only Son
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.07.than.html
Ud 2.9: Visakha Sutta — To Visakha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.09.than.html
Ud 5.6: Sona Sutta — About Sona
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.06.than.html
Sn 1.2: Dhaniya Sutta — Dhaniya the Cattleman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.02.than.html
Sn 2.1: Ratana Sutta — Treasures
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html
Sn 2.4: Maha-mangala Sutta — Protection
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.nara.html
Sn 2.14: Dhammika Sutta — Dhammika
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.14.irel.html


Real Monk vs Fake Monk Just as the Buddha referred to those who achieved the goal as "My Son", I am wondering if the Buddha made any similar distinctions between monks who lived by the precepts and practiced according to the teachings, and those who were there for reasons of their own, not in line with the teachings of the Buddha?

Did he give any teachings on how to deal with monastics who abuse their position for unwholesome motivations i.e. monks amassing wealth, gaining political influence, acting as antagonists for violence.

Just as high-profile leaders in other religions have given their respective faith a tarnished reputation with shady dealings in the past, is there anything to be done to protect the dignity of the Buddhas teaching from those with less than wholesome intentions?

What you can do to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching is to practice the noble eightfold path to the best of your ability while the true Dhamma can still be heard in the world. There is nothing else to be done. The teaching will inevitably become corrupt and disappear from the world. There is nothing that you or anybody else in the world can do to prevent that. It's only a matter of time.

When you witness others acting in ways that dishonor the Buddha's teaching, your mind will likely respond with aversion. Identify this aversion and let go of it. If you cling to this aversion and let it be a basis for further action you're only working against yourself, even if you think that you're trying to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching. Mindfully recognize the impermanence of the teaching itself and use that to cultivate samvega (urgency).

Cultivate compassion towards those who, intentionally or otherwise, dishonor the Buddha's teaching. Recognize how helpless these beings are. Recognize that under different circumstances you also have the capacity to act in similar ways due to delusion. Recognize that you're just as helpless as these beings because you aren't yet free from delusion. Then work towards realizing the Dhamma in this very lifetime because you can't help anybody else without helping yourself first. Otherwise it'll be the blind leading the blind.