A good website for Mahayana texts? The classical canon gets good coverage with suttacentral and accesstoinsight, but I was wondering if there was such a website for Mahayana writings. (Post-canon writings diverge and become extensive, meaning different translators, copyrights etc, but if something relatively comprehensive-ish is around, would be great!)

I use Fodian.net a lot.

There are two categories of Mahayana texts, the ones that made it to China and the ones that made it to Tibet.

Within a specific sect or tradition, some sects have fantastic online documents, such as SGI's Nichiren library.

I'm less familiar with the Tibetan ones, but I do know that some of the Mahayana texts also made it to Tibet.

Scholars like Jan Nattier sometimes has to do comparison of the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan to reconstruct a text.


Solving the oxymoron of nibbāna? How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit of nibbāna, when one has seen clearly that ultimately there is no separate nibbāna. What does one aspire towards now?

Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: «There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow»

  Where beauty is, then there is ugliness; where right is, also there is wrong.
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent; delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
  Since olden times it has been so. How could it be otherwise now?
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
  how do you deal with each thing changing?

  ................................................................................................~Ryokan

When the Heart Sutra says "There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow" it isn't saying that none of these things exist. What it means is that none of these things exist in terms of 'Svabhava' which means something like 'intrinsic existence' or 'self nature' or 'essence'. In terms of 'Svabhava' none of these things exist, but in terms of the experience of these things and in terms of their actual features and characteristics, they do exist.

And I think that the quote by Ryokan means that opposites are concepts which are relative and exist as abstract concepts which are imputed onto experience. It is absolutely true that the abstracted concept of Nibbana and the abstracted concept of conditioned existence relatively depend on each other as part of a dualistic pair, but that doesn't mean that the experiences and properties to which these concepts refer are themselves interdependent.


Help writing a Buddhist book? I'm working on a book about Enlightenment as cessation of Reification, and thinking of hiring a professional writer to help me put it down in good English. So far I have spoken with scribewriting.com, but I want to expand my search to include more options:

Does anyone have a clue where I can find a professional writer for hire that would be interested in exploring some Buddhist ideas?
How much should this cost? scribewriting.com folks charge $36k end-to-end, is this normal?
What are the best ways to raise funds for a Buddhist project? Does anyone know a  philanthropist that would consider sponsoring a Buddhist project like this?
Would Kickstarter be a good way to market a Buddhist book (before it was finished), or should I go to a traditional Buddhist publisher like Snow Lion or Wisdom Publications?
Anything else I need to know but forgot to ask?

If I launched a Kickstarter campaign, would any of you guys consider pre-ordering a book before it was written?

I will pre-order the book.


Was meditation not practiced for most of the history of Buddhism? In a recent Buddhist Geeks podcast the presenter Bodhipaksa stated that by the time the Buddhagosa wrote the commentary Visuddhimagga in the 5th Century CE, meditation had been largely abandoned. He goes on to state that there is good evidence that 500 years previously Buddhist monks had given up meditation and felt the best they could do was to pass down the Buddhist texts to further generations.

To what extent is this analysis of Buddhism true? Was meditation really not practiced for a large proportion of Buddhist history? If this is the case then when was meditation 'rediscovered' or at least reinvigorated?

It is quite safe to say that the Buddhist interest in meditation is much higher than a few hundred years ago. David Chapman argues that vipassana was basically reinvented around 1900. His post is certainly controversial, but he provides sources, so it is a good starting point for researching the subject.

It is rather certain that some of the vipassana techniques originated in the 19th century, e.g. the "New Burmese" method was created by The-lon Sayadaw:

  According to Strong Roots, cited below, “The-Lon Sayadaw… put this textual guidance [the Visuddhimagga] into practice without a personal teacher to guide [him] in mindfulness practice” (p. 110).

Origins of some techniques are less certain. For instance, Chapman argues that Ledi Sayadaw invented his own technique. However, an answer to a related question provides sources that say that he only learnt a technique that had been practiced in the caves of Sagaing Hills:

  Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills, which was honeycombed with meditation caves and dotted with forest monasteries

In any case, even if is the case, the meditation wasn't widespread at that time. In The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw, Erik Braun writes:

  This is not to say that no one meditated prior to the colonial period, but [...] such practice was limited, especially among the laity.


What are the views considered "false convictions", and why are they false? According to Brahmajāla Sutta, there are "62 False Convictions" (Views) regarding the Past & Future.

  False Convictions Regarding the Past

  Eternity of the Self and World,
  Partial Eternity and Partial Non-Eternity of the Self and World.
  Finitude and/or Infinitude of the World.
  Evasive Strategies Resorted to by "Eel-Wrigglers" [or Endless Equivocators].
  Chance Origination of the World.

  False Convictions Regarding the Future

  Conscious Post-Mortem Survival.
  Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival.
  Neither Conscious Nor Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival.
  Nihilistic Views Regarding Post-Mortem Survival.
  Nirvana Here and Now.

Why are they considered as false?

The following quotes are extracts from the Pali Deeganikaya  Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views.

  Speculations about the Past (Pubbantakappika)

  "There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. And what are these dhammas?

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, who hold settled views about the past, and who on eighteen grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

  Eternalism (Sassatavāda): Views 1–4
  Partial-Eternalism (Ekaccasassatavāda): Views 5–8
  Doctrines of the Finitude and Infinity of the World (Antānantavāda): Views 9–12
  Doctrines of Endless Equivocation (Amarāvikkhepavāda): Views 13–16

  "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

  "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

  "Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:

  A.
  •   2. Is there no world beyond?
  •   3. Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
  •   4. Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
  B.
  •   1. Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   2. Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   3. Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   4. Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
  C.
  •   1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
  D.
  •   1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
  •   2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
  •   3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
  •   4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?

  "This bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

  "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation when questioned about this or that point. Whatever recluses or brahmins there may be who resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

  Doctrines of Fortuitous Origination (Adhiccasamuppannavāda): Views 17–18

  Speculations about the Future (Aparantakappika)

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future, who hold settled views about the future, and who on forty-four grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

  Doctrines of Percipient Immortality (Saññīvāda): Views 19–34

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality[10] and who on sixteen grounds proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, percipient, and:

  A.
  •   1. material
  •   2. immaterial
  •   3. both material and immaterial
  •   4. neither material nor immaterial
  B.
  •   1. finite
  •   2. infinite
  •   3. both finite and infinite
  •   4. neither finite nor infinite
  C.
  •   1. of uniform perception
  •   2. of diversified perception
  •   3. of limited perception
  •   4. of boundless perception
  D.
  •   1. exclusively happy
  •   2. exclusively miserable
  •   3. both happy and miserable
  •   4. neither happy nor miserable.'

  "It is on these sixteen grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality, all of them do so on these sixteen grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
  "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understand... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

  Doctrines of Non-percipient Immortality (Asaññīvāda): Views 35–42
  Doctrines of Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Immortality (N'evasaññī-nāsaññīvāda): Views 43–50
  Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57
  Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda): Views 58–62

This teaching on the 62 (false) convictions is from the Brahmajala Sutta (in the Pali Digha Nikaya -- adapted herein from Walshe).

  At the end of this Sutta the Buddha declares that this teaching may be known by the following names:

  • The Net of Advantage (Attha = Artha)
  •   The Net of Dhamma
  •   The Supreme Net
  •   The Net of Views
  •   The Incomparable Victory in Battle

  In his glossary entry on the “sixty-two convictions” in the Vimalakirti Sutra, Thurman states:

    These ... consist of all views other than the "right view" of selflessness. All sixty-two fall into either one of the two categories known as the "two extremisms": "eternalism" (sashvatavada) and "nihilism" (ucchedavada).

  [However,] for Vimalakirti’s take on this subject, see his exchange with Manjushri below.

  Vimalakirti’s Take on the 62 Convictions (From p. 44 of Thurman’s translation):

  Mañjushri: Householder, where should emptiness be sought?

  Vimalakirti: Mañjushri, emptiness should be sought among the sixty-two
  convictions.

  Mañjushri: Where should the sixty-two convictions be sought?
  Vimalakirti: They should be sought in the liberation of the
  Tathagatas.    Mañjushri: Where should the liberation of the
  Tathagatas be sought?    Vimalakirti: It should be sought in the prime
  mental activity of all living beings.

  Mañjushri, you ask me why I am without servants, but all Maras and
  opponents are my servants. Why? The Maras advocate this life of birth
  and death, and the bodhisattva does not avoid life. The heterodox
  opponents advocate convictions, and the bodhisattva is not troubled by
  convictions. Therefore, all Maras and opponents are my servants.

Buddha's conclusion (From Wikipedia)

  "The Tathagata knows these sixty-two views. He also knows the dhamma
  which surpasses them. Knowing that dhamma, he does not view it in the
  wrong way. Since he does not view it in the wrong way, he realizes by
  himself the extinction of defilements (i.e., greed, anger, and
  ignorance of the Four Ariya Truths).

  Buddha finally concludes the exposition of these 'wrong' beliefs by
  stating that these (62) beliefs, if they are believed, will certainly
  cause agitations and cravings. It implies that the beliefs come to
  conclusion due to the inability to see the truth, as they are seized
  by craving (clinging), agitated by longing (feeling).

  The Buddha further explains that the beliefs are originated from
  Contact (Phassa) as the cause. The contact is a phenomenon when the
  perception recognised an object beyond our Self. Then, from this brief
  (like lightning in the sky, Nagasena analogued in Milinda Panha)
  event, rise up feelings.

  Buddha states that there are no possibilities of feeling without
  contact. Thus, according to the law of Twelve Related Chain of Cause
  and Effects (Pratitya-samutpada), the people who believe in one of
  many of these sixty-two beliefs, will end up in round cycle of
  sufferings; as they have not found the truth on the cease of
  sufferings.

  Due to their faith, they will experience feelings as a result of
  repeated contact through the six sense bases. In them feeling gives
  rise to craving; craving gives rise to clinging; clinging gives rise
  to current existence (upapatti bhava) and the kammic causal process
  (kamma bhava); the kammic causal process gives rise to rebirth; and
  rebirth gives rise to ageing, death, grief, lamentation, pain,
  distress and despair.

  The Buddha states that Monks who have realized and understood the
  origin of contact of the six senses, and escaped the round of
  sufferings, would see Dhamma (Truth) of Precepts (Śīla), Concentration
  (Samadhi) and Wisdom (Pańńa) which surpassed all the wrong beliefs.

  The Buddha then makes an analogy of a fisherman using a fine-meshed
  net to catch the fish in the pond. The fish represent the ascetics who
  cling to their beliefs. They will rise and sink in the pond, but in
  the end will unavoidably be caught in the net. Whereas the Buddha, who
  stand outside the net has found the truth and has transcended the
  cycle of suffering.

  The Brahmajala Sutta ends with this quotation:

    "When the Bhagava had delivered this discourse, the Venerable Ananda
    addressed him thus: "Marvellous indeed, Venerable Sir! Extraordinary
    indeed, Venerable Sir! What is the name of this exposition of the
    dhamma?"

    "Ananda!" said the Bhagava, "Bear in mind that this exposition of the
    dhamma is called Atthajala, the Net of Essence, as well as Dhammajala,
    the Net of the Dhamma, as well as Brahmajala, the Net of Perfect
    Wisdom, as well as Ditthijala, the Net of Views, as well as
    Anuttarasangama Vijaya, the Incomparable Victory in Battle."

  Thus said
  the Bhagava.


Karma, right effort, letting go, heroic sacrifices: what's the right thing to do? Isn't there a story where the Buddha accosts a monk who's bleeding from performing walking meditation for too long, and tells him practice must be like a Veena's string - not too tight, not too loose? i.e the middle way

Yet, I remember a story in the Dhammapada (Verse 1) about a monk who refused to take his eye medicine because he had vowed to not lie down for three months and remain practicing full time. Since the medicine wasn't effective unless taken lying down, he lost his eyes.

The text says he simultaneously lost his vision and gained his vision - i.e. he became an arahant by practicing so arduously. The Buddha peeks into his past lives, and says Karma dictates that he must lose his eyes in this lifetime for sins of the past.

It maybe so, but it was also his good karma to have access to medicine in this lifetime is it not?

Leaving everything to Karma has me confused - because if that is so, then why practice, even enlightenment if it is in our karma will be obtained without effort. Gautama the Buddha was certainly going to become a Buddha, his Buddhahood had been foretold, so why did he practice?

Second, what's with the open praise of macho effort right at the start of the Dhammapada? What happened to the middle way?

This is not an isolated instance, there are several stories about heroic efforts from monks. The most famous must be the version where Bodhidharma plucks out his eyelids. There's also another version where he loses his legs to atrophy by not moving for nine years.

I got to thinking about this after reading this question about monks and exercise. I am reminded of "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, where the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chah for several years talks about exercise and several other normal healthy things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough.

I'm interested in hearing opinions in general, or an answer that can reconcile the two if possible. Thanks.

"Isn't there a story where the Buddha accosts a monk who's bleeding from performing walking meditation for too long, and tells him practice must be like a Veena's string - not too tight, not too loose? i.e the middle way"

The string story is in AN 6.55.

"Yet, I remember a story in the Dhammapada (Verse 1) about a monk who refused to take his eye medicine because he had vowed to not lie down for three months and remain practicing full time. Since the medicine wasn't effective unless taken lying down, he lost his eyes.
The text says he simultaneously lost his vision and gained his vision - i.e. he became an arahant by practicing so arduously."

It seems this story is not described in Dhammapada, but in a commentary? I could not find a full text of it.

"The Buddha peeks into his past lives, and says Karma dictates that he must lose his eyes in this lifetime for sins of the past."

I've never found this kind of wording in any sutta: "karma dictates" or "because of karma, he must". Describing karma in this way is not only at odds with the actual karma doctrine taught by the Buddha, but he also criticized the idea that "karma dictates": it would be impossible to anyone to live the holy life, become an arahant, become a Buddha, if that was the case.

"Leaving everything to Karma has me confused - because if that is so, then why practice, even enlightenment if it is in our karma will be obtained without effort. Gautama the Buddha was certainly going to become a Buddha, his Buddhahood had been foretold, so why did he practice?"

The questioning above is similar to the way the Buddha often debunked this very idea.

  "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

  -- AN 3.99

A book I would suggest here is Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching (besides the suttas where karma law is taught).

"Second, what's with the open praise of macho effort right at the start of the Dhammapada? What happened to the middle way?"

It's less about macho, and more about determination.

Also "middle way" does not mean avoiding anything one may personally consider to be "extreme". When this denomination is used by the Buddha, he is either talking about avoiding specific sterile and false/incorrect extremes:

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

  -- SN 56.11

...or explaining how this is his strategy of teaching:

  "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: : From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications ...

  -- SN 12.15

"This is not an isolated instance, there are several stories about heroic efforts from monks. The most famous must be the version where Bodhidharma plucks out his eyelids. There's also another version where he loses his legs to atrophy by not moving for nine years."

Though Zen has the habit of increasing the dramatic effects a noch, still, it's how determination is conveyed. Underlying this intense determination is a sense of urgency, often produced by an experience of insight into the dhamma.

So, it's not about heroism -- not in the western sense. Nor about sacrifices. The kind of sacrifices praised by the Buddha are sacrifices of unwholesome acts of body speech and mind. Are sacrifices related to the household life, and so on.

It was pointed out that physical pain may significantly affect one's mind in a karmic way. But mostly as an explanation of the law of karma, not as a practice to be undertaken -- that is, to inflict pain in oneself. (I don't remember the sutta, unfortunately; it's a passage where the Buddha says someone who undergoes a lot of pain may find him/her self reappearing in a better realm because of that).

"I got to thinking about this after reading this question about monks and exercise. I am reminded of "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, where the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chah for several years talks about exercise and several other normal healthy things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough."

As far as their body negligence, from the point of view of Buddhism (and of the path to Nirvana) these monks are blameless or not depending on their intention. The bodily pain (or what one could see as a "sacrifice") produced by these health disorders alone is not necessarily praiseworthy or blameworthy -- though it could present itself as an obstacle which could have been avoided. Finally, their suffering depends on their skill and maturity.


What is the oldest text/sutra of the Mahayana tradition? I'm often interested in the history of Buddhist texts and, being a Theravadan, I'm not very familiar with the Mahayana texts. Please help to educate me in this manner.

The oldest existing manuscript clearly identified as Mahāyāna is a birch bark manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sutra or Discourse on Perfect Wisdom consisting of 8000 [Lines]. This manuscript was carbon dated to  47~147 CE. A version of this text was translated into Chinese in 179 CE by Lokakṣema and was amongst the first few Buddhist texts translated into Chinese.

However it's clear that some texts were being composed at quite an early period, perhaps as early as the 2nd Century BCE. One contender for the earliest Mahāyāna text is the Ugraparipṛccha, translated by Jan Nattier as A Few Good Men (2003). It shows a very early stage of Mahāyāna in which monks who dedicated themselves to meditation were known as bodhisatvas and lived alongside Mainstream monks.

Another serious contender is the Śālistamba Sūtra (translation published by N Ross Reat, 1993), which is clearly a little more developed than early Buddhist texts, but not yet a full-blown Mahāyāna text. It may well be considered a kind of "missing link" between the two phases of Buddhism. According to N. Ross Reat, the sutra could date as far back as 200 BCE.

Recently there were two very good articles on the very early Mahāyāna by David Drewes. See his academica.edu page "Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism" Parts I & II.


Does any canonical sutta say you can attain enlightenment *while* chanting? I've heard a couple of mentions (but seen no direct reference) that there is a (presumably canonical) formal list of certain activities that you can attain enlightenment during.  I'm guessing it's the "sudden" the kind of enlightenment which is being implied in this list (not "gradual").

This list includes formal sitting meditation, and chanting. Yes, you can apparently attain enlightenment right in the middle of a chant you are doing.

Can anyone point at a particular canonical Sutta that says this?  Also, I do not recall even one Canonical reference to any arahant claiming they attained their full enlightenment during chanting. And this includes the Theragata, and Therigata. Can anyone else remember a person in the Canon who said they were enlightened during chanting?

I posted an answer here, over at Sutta Central Forum:

... in the Aṅguttara Nikāya The Book of the Fives, Sutta 26, "Liberation", the "five bases of liberation" are listed.
Number three is "Reciting the Dhamma". The pali term for "Reciting" is "sajjhāyaṃ karoti", which can also be translated as "chanting", however the chanting referred to here must be deeply understood by the one chanting. That is to say, the type of chanting here is not as in incanting a mystical, magical spell in an arcane language, where you don't know what the words mean, where the power is inherent to the sound of the words.


What is the meaning of 'acala sukha'? What is the exact meaning of 'acala sukha'? Is it mentioned in the Pali-canon? If so, where ? In what context ?

The PTS dictionary says,

  Cala (adj.) [see calati] moving, quivering; unsteady, fickle, transient S iv.68 (dhammā calā c' eva vyayā ca aniccā, etc.); J ii.299; iii.381; v.345; Miln 93, 418; Sdhp 430, 494.
  -- acala steadfast, immovable S i.232; J i.71 (ṭṭhāna); Vv 514 (˚ṭṭhāna=Ep. of Nibbāna); acalaŋ sukhaŋ (=Nibbāna) Th 2, 350; cp. niccala motionless DhA iii.38

So cala means "unsteady", acala means "not unsteady", and acala sukha means "unwavering happiness" i.e. nibbana.

The phrase is in some of the suttas, e.g. the last line of Ud 8.10; and the end of the first verse of Thag 3.16.


To ordain in the west or in Asia? Dhamma greetings to you,
Considering the possible advantages and disadvantages of where one is being ordained, I wish to have your understanding on whether it'd be more conducive to ordain in Asia or in Europe ?
Thank you for reading me,
May you be well,
With metta.

When I think of Western ordination, I only think of the Ajahn Chah tradition because it is highly disciplined.
If you are European, it may be convenient to be a novice & take ordination in Europe, so you can undertake the transition in a familiar language & possibly a less challenging environment.
However, once you settle into the life of a bhikkhu (say after two or three years), I think living the Holy Life in Asia is more advantageous because you will live in what is historically a Buddhist society & culture; which is based in the relationship between monks & laypeople and the cultural norms of both benefaction & social morality.
The strongest impressions I had when I lived in Thailand was the traditional culture.
To the contrary, in my opinion, what has become "Western Buddhism", particularly in the USA, has little relationship to orthodox Buddhism.


Difficulty with Meditation Posture I am able to meditate when on a bus, or when I'm walking, or sometimes standing; however, no matter how hard I try I seem to avoid formal sitting. I can't help but have the feeling that formal sitting would be most effective, and that I'm avoiding something about a formal posture that is also responsible for growth. I think this is merely effort.

What can I do to engage in formal sitting, and avoid always only meditating when it is effortless? Should I: 1) diminish the time of sessions 2) change my meditation type 3) change the consistency of my meditations 4) apply something else?

In terms of consistency, I wonder if consistent yet short sessions are better than long and inconsistent ones?

Thank you.

As per my teacher, this happens when we train ourselves to hate meditation. We do that by turning meditation into torture and punishment.

Instead, meditation should be something natural and (yes) pleasant.

-- 1) diminish the time of sessions?

Yes. You can start from something as short as 30 seconds. Do not ramp up too fast, only ramp up when you really WANT to sit more.

-- 2) change my meditation type?

Yes. Do not weigh your emotional mind with any notion of the correct target state. Do not blame yourself for not conforming to some ideal style, posture, or state of mind. Allow your meditation to be a natural discovery process that it is. Like a child playing a game, completely natural and spontaneous.

-- 3) change the consistency of my meditations?

Yes. Better meditate regularly, twice a day, 30 seconds each time - than randomly for an hour.

-- 4) apply something else?

Yes. Make it pleasant for your emotional mind. Beautiful setting, nice scenery, little visual noise in your peripheral field, comfortable pants, etc.


Are Teachings developed "after the fact"? This might be a poor question, for which I apologize but I am trying to gain some insight on this idea I have had for a long time... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.

When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.

If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.

If you as about a long path, then the land marks different people describe about the path would be different. Thus there are many description of the same road but different land marks. E.g. The middle path is described within these two Suttas abide the different landmarks. Samma,ditthi Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta. Also by nature of the practitioner certain landmarks on the road would be of more significance than others. This will result in different descriptions. Also Buddha having the ability to discern what would register in the mind of the practitioner, gave most appropriate "directions and land marks".
Another this there are multiple variations and techniques which give certain spiritual or "out of the world" experiences which the practitioner may mistake to have achived the final goal or mistakenly believe is the path when in fact it does not take you to the final goal. (Somewhat related is Brahma,jala Sutta also as introduction on it which highlights how wrong view arise.) Since you have some uncommon experience you hold that the method and techniques you practised has got you or will get you to the final goal. This give arise to different descriptions and variation and debates about the technique.
Some times these variation can be from people who have gone to the final goal. Some people have had only some imperfections or uncommon imperfections and would have done a practice to remedy that. Having achived the final goal he would teach from his experience which would result in an uncommon description of the method, which might not always work for everyone.

If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

The Buddha as well as many disciples had to do countless lifetimes of experimentation before crossing. So the part descried with what worked out the countless techniques that have been tried and tested.
Even with imperfect techniques which that you to an intermediate station, you need some experience which you describe and when the students practice it and gain some experience they believe. So some experience which can be replicated by a practice is the for runner of teaching a successful meditation technique.


Are there any recollections of past lives in the more grievous realms? While "animal" past lives seem to get a fair amount of attention I can't seem to find any about people recalling being in the hell realm or that of hungry ghosts. Aside from Mahamogallana's recollection of being Mara Dusi in MN50 and being pulled into Avici, I just can't find any past life recollections of hell or ghosts. Only descriptions of each realm as opposed to remembered experience.

Is this just something we don't yet have in English translations, even from people's personal recollections (not just the Pali canon), or is it more of something that just barely exists?

In the story of the commentary to Dhammapada 15, the Buddha recalls somebody's past lives:

  Once, in a village not far away from the Veluvana monastery, there
  lived a very cruel and hard-hearted pork-butcher, by the name of
  Cunda. Cunda was a pork-butcher for over fifty-five years; all this
  time he had not done a single meritorious deed. Before he died, he was
  in such great pain and agony that he was grunting and squealing and
  kept on moving about on his hands and knees like a pig for seven whole
  days. In fact, even before he died, he was suffering as if he were in
  Niraya (hell). On the seventh day, the pork-butcher died and was reborn in
  Avici Niraya (worst hell). Thus, the evil-doer must always suffer for the evil
  deeds done by him; he suffers in this world as well as in the next.

  In this connection, the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

  Verse 15: Here he grieves, hereafter he grieves; the evil-doer grieves
  in both existences. He grieves and he suffers anguish when he sees the
  depravity of his own deeds.


Is optimism and positive attitude counterproductive? Many believe that it is important to avoid being negative and instead to see the good in bad situations. However, the Buddha said that good and bad are fabricated concepts that do not exist. An individual who has attained nirvana is neutral and does not experience emotions. Although a Bodhisattva is certainly not negative and pessimistic, they cannot be positive and optimistic either.
Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from making spiritual progress?

Good householder, optimism and positive attitude is counterproductive (in regard of long lasting happiness) if the objects are in the world, object of sense. Joy, optimism, positive attitude toward awakening, skillful deeds... called "pasada" and arising after Saddha, which arises after Dukkha, are very needed tools to gain piti and the rest of releasing path till highest liberation, the Ariya-path. In short, all optimism and positive attitude toward that of what is actually subject of decay isn't smart, nurishes causes for suffering.
Useful talk on things less known here: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada
May good householder have enough optimism and positive attitude to investigate here deeper and trust that it will be for his long term happiness.
Getting a human existance, meeting the Tripple Gems, go after it, such is indeed a bright life and it's actually cause, if meeting Dukkha together with the path for release, for highest happiness, Unbound. So one needs to rejoice actually with such a life, such a gain, meeting such possibilities, hard ever to meet.
Therefore mudita has to start with oneself (=anussati)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, worldbinding trades but toward release from it.]


Beginner: Should I switch to a less advanced samatha practice? I've been practicing solo now for about a month. The issue is that I don't have a true teacher per se, but a collection of resources which offer diverging guidance. Considering what I've done so far, my background, and my goals, I was hoping for some advice on which path to follow.

I began doing 10-minute sessions using the Headspace app (www.headspace.com). After graduating their 10-day program, I stumbled on a podcast put together by B. Alan Wallace (http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall-2014/). It is a retreat detailing a number of, from what I gather, more advanced practices, covering Wallace's translation of Padmasambava's work. I have worked through the lectures covering settling the body, speech, and mind in their natural state and mindfulness of breathing. I have been doing these practices for about 20 days to what I feel are good effects.

To supplement my practice, I then came across two other resources by Wallace: an academic article he wrote called The Buddhist Tradition of Samatha, which covers a method similar to that in the podcast, but diverging in some ways; I also found his translation of Dudjom Lingpa's work, Stilling the Mind . This offers a path catered more toward Western beginners.

Lastly, I came across another text from Wallace which is geared directly at beginners, called The Attention Revolution.

A little bit of detail on these different methods is in order. The podcast informs my practice for the most part. The main focus, after relaxing and breathing naturally, is to focus the mind on itself, while peripherally noting the duration of in and out breaths.

The beginner's practice in Stilling the Mind begins with "merging the mind with space" (focusing on the space between oneself and external objects), then focusing on a concrete, external object (like a pebble), and culminates with "awareness" (being introspectively mindful of any thoughts that arise). Wallace notes that over time, this practice can lead to the perception of thoughts which are normally too fleeting or subtle otherwise.

The beginner's practice in the Attention Revolution skips anything like "merging the mind with space" and using a pebble, and goes straight for the Burmese method of focusing on the tactice sensations of the abdomen while breathing.

So I'm not sure if I should back track to one of the beginner's practices at this point or not. And if I should back track, which one would be a better option? The podcast practice feels comfortable now, though I am often lost in excitation or laxity. My goal (as of now) is not to become a monk, but to deepen my focus through samatha practice and try to be a more compassionate person. Wallace's argument that strong attention is the foundation of other practices convinces me. So as a lay person, I imagine that having access to subtle thoughts as per the path in Stilling the Mind might be a useful side effect of samatha practice. Then again, the preliminary practices of merging the mind with space and staring at a stone seem a far cry from the podcast practice I've been doing. The Burmese method seems good too.

This is a very long post and I'm not sure if I've included the relevant details for getting the sort of response I want. Please let me know what other information you need. The basic question is this: Should I switch gears to another, less advanced samatha practice now, or stay on my current path? Alternatively, I could test out the other methods for a bit. But which one?

This sounds really caught up in all kinds of cravings for spiritual attainments. If this 'craving' is dropped, the path the Buddha taught, which is the abandonment of craving (rather than mental gymnastics & magical formulas) might be learned. Samatha & vipassana are natural fruits of the properly established or collected mind - aka samadhi. The Buddha taught:

  What is the faculty of concentration (samadhi)? There is the case
  where a noble disciple, making 'letting go' his meditation object,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
   SN 48.10

As for the practises mentioned in the original post, they are not 'advanced'. The more complicated & willful they sound, the less advanced they are. The most 'advanced' practises are the most simple. That is why the statement: "Do nothing" often frightens people. Simply 'let go'.


Is the sexual act contrary to achieving enlightenment? I remember reading in a sutta that the Buddha said not engaging in the sexual act is considered right action. Does anybody know the place where that is written? I don’t remember where I read it.

That was referenced in this answer.

The word used there is abrahmacariyā and associated with celibacy.

That word used that way (celibacy) in the 3rd of the eight precepts -- see the references at the start of this answer -- a different word is used in the 3rd of the five precepts.

I think it has a broader meaning than celibacy though, e.g. it's used in SN 54.2 -- so instead of or as well as "celibate" it's translated "the holy life" or "the spiritual life" -- I think it refers to a monk's life, including keeping the rules of the vinaya and the company of other monks.

Where it's used in SN 45.8, I note that the three types of wrong action which are listed there -- i.e. killing, stealing, and sexual intercourse -- correspond to parajika offenses which result in someone's automatically losing their status as a monk or nun.


What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity? There is the concept of faith (śraddhā) in Buddhism. There is also the concept of faith found in Christianity.  Both concepts have been translated into the English word faith but in what ways are the concepts different and also are there ways in with the concepts have similarities.

I'd find it particularly interesting if anyone knows the original roots of the word faith in Christianity (i.e. what was the original word in Greek or Hebrew) and how the translation compares to how śraddhā has been translated. Do the words have nuances that have been lost in the translation to the simple English word faith?

As someone who was born into Orthodox Christian faith, has been baptized, attended church occasionally, has read full Bible, both New and Old Testament (BTW the Orthodox version of which includes 11 more "books" than the Protestant, 4 more than the Catholic), who has high respect for the teaching of Christ, appreciation of Father, and deep connection with Holy Spirit, and also as one who's been practicing and studying Buddhism for decades now, and became independent of others in regards to Buddha's message -- I suppose I'm in a good position to answer this question.

The words representing "faith" (śraddhā & pistis) in both religions share most of their semantic fields: belief, trust, confidence, loyalty. Sraddha includes a couple more meanings like assent/approval/consent/reverence, and appetite/longing/wish/expectation -- which too are connotations of "faith" as it is understood in Christianity. So overall, we have two rather similar words.

Faith in Early Christianity

The "main" definition of faith in Christianity is found in Letter to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul and goes like this:

  As for faith, it is realization of the expected and confidence in the invisible.

In Orthodox Christianity this phrase is explained as follows: "Not only we who carry Christ's name consider the faith as the greatest, but everything done in the world, even by people strange to the Church, is done by faith, since the one who does not believe that [he] will rip the grown fruits, will not tolerate the labors". Another example given is the faith of the seafarers, who "entrust their lives to a small wood" and "give themselves to unknown hopes and have by themselves only faith, which for them is more reliable than any anchor".

From this we can see that "confidence in the invisible" is not as much blind faith in the existence of something we can't verify, but rather "realization of the expected" -- confidence in the outcome of our effort, based on our prior experience and our knowledge of how the world operates. This means that as Christians interacts with the world, they are supposed to get first-hand evidence/support of why the Son's Commandments make sense, see Holy Spirit at work, and recognize the law of Father behind all.

At the same time Orthodox Christians, like Zen Buddhists, recognize that our understanding can never exhaust the depth of things. There will always remain something which escapes analysis and which can not be expressed in concepts. Therefore, any realistic view of the world necessarily includes reverent recognition of this unknowable depth of things, that which constitutes their true, indefinable essence. This appreciation of the ultimate ineffability of the Law is a major component of faith.

Standing on these two legs -- appreciation of the order of things, and fascination with the depths -- we can have courage to do what's right, even though there is no 100% explicit guarantee it will work. This is faith.

Faith in later Christianity

Where this starts breaking up, is in its application to actual Christian practice, which virtually demands a Christian to take the following creed:

  I believe (pisteuo) in God,
  the Father almighty,
  Creator of heaven and earth,
  and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  born of the Virgin Mary,
  suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  was crucified, died and was buried;
  he descended into hell;
  on the third day he rose again from the dead;
  he ascended into heaven,
  and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
  from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the holy catholic Church,
  the communion of saints,
  the forgiveness of sins,
  the resurrection of the body,
  and life everlasting. Amen.

So as we can see, what started as very rational declaration of faith as expression of experience, understanding, gratitude, fascination, courage, and righteousness -- was later turned into an ultimatum.

Faith in Early Buddhism

Although many Buddhist define their faith as a growing conviction one gains as one is exposed to Dharma and progressively verifies it on one's own experience, this is not what I see in Pali Canon.

Instead, Buddha speaks of faith as the first phase of the path, during which the practitioner gets inspired by the message of Buddha, based solely on a verbal exposure (MN 125):

  A householder or a householder's son or one born in another family hears that dhamma. Having heard that dhamma he gains faith in the Tathagata. Endowed with this faith that he has acquired, he reflects [on his life and decides to joins the spiritual path]

At this point one is called faith-follower (SN 25.3):

  [1] One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill.

The following two phases will help us understand the limits of faith:

  [2] One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower.

  [3] One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer.

Such unwavering faith, that drives one until one sees for himself, is often mentioned in Pali Canon in context of the factors of the path, along with persistence etc. (MN 70):

  For a disciple who has faith in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I'... 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.'

Faith in later Buddhism

By the time of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa (4th or 5th century CE), faith is beginning to acquire a character of dogma:

  If it is asked, what is faith? Faith is full confidence in the efficacy of actions and their results (i.e. karma), in the (noble) truths, and in the Three Jewels; it is also an aspiration (for spiritual attainment) and clearminded appreciation (of the truth of Dharma).

This eventually becomes e.g. a following dogma:

  How is faith perfect?
  This is believing deeply that the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are Eternal,
  that all Buddhas of the ten directions make use of upaya,
  and that beings and icchantikas all possess the Buddha-dhatu.

  It is not believing that the Tathagata is subject to birth, old age, illness, and death,
  that he has undergone austerities,
  and that Devadatta really caused blood to flow from the Buddha's body,
  that the Tathagata ultimately enters Nirvana,
  and that authentic Dharma dies out.

Reminds something, huh? :)

Summary

In both Christianity and Buddhism we can see the process of gradual codification / dogmatization of symbols and principles, this is normal. Both religions have layers, and if you explore the populations of practicing representatives of both religions, you will always find a gamut of sophistication, from the most superficial to the most profound.

Putting aside the question of the cyclic process of regression and reinstitution of Sat-Dharma (True Teaching), we can see that originally the faith in Buddhism and the faith in Christianity were kinda opposite. Indeed, like I showed above, in Christianity faith used to be an expression of one's (however limited) insight into the Cosmic Law, first and foremost in its ethical aspect. While in Buddhism faith used to refer to a condition of inspiration and unwavering drive one has until one confirms the teaching first-hand. The object of Christian faith, although implicit, is here, while the object of Buddhist faith is over there.

This is because early Buddhism is based on a metaphor of Ground, Path, and Fruition -- while Christianity is in some sense based on a metaphor of Field (whether the battlefield of good and evil, or the field of one's life). The later Buddhism, esp. some strands of Mahayana have adopted this notion of Law (Tao, Bup etc.) and became somewhat less goal-oriented, which found reflection in their definition of faith.

To finish this up, let's consider a perpetual question: which one is better? In my sincere opinion, both the faith as appreciation of the implicit and ultimately inexpressible but evidently effective Law, and the faith as putting one's trust in not yet clear but inspiring the confidence Teaching are important. One starts with the second type and eventually attains the first type. Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in first-hand knowledge of the Law of God? May be. This is how I see it anyway ;)


What is the meaning of "O Laso"? Alan Wallace says this regularly, for example, at the beginning of this lecture: http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2012/13-loving-kindness-1/
Is it Tibetan? What is its direct translation?

From this transcript, it doesn't really have a meaning. Full quote:

Q: What does o laso mean?

That’s one of the great secret teachings I give out only to people who’ve achieved 8 weeks of retreat first. It’s very secret, have you received Tantric empowerment? O laso, you ready? Because once I have said it you won’t forget it, it’s one of those really, pointing out instructions - O Laso doesn’t mean anything at all. But it is Tibetan, so it is hard to find a phrase in a language that is definitely part of that language, because O Laso is definitely part of Tibetan, it’s not Hindi, or any other language that I know of, it’s definitely Tibetan, and it doesn’t mean anything at all. But it’s Tibetan and I don’t know quite how you translate it into English without losing its meaning, but it’s something like UM or how about this – WELL THEN , what does that exactly mean, “well then”? Well then, Ladies and Gentlemen. What exactly have I just said that imparted some information to you? (45:42) ‘Well then’ as opposed to ‘ill now’? O laso is kind of like that. It comes up a lot and it’s just become part of my speech pattern, and I haven’t seen any reason to break it, and also it sounds nice. O laso, o laso, and very often, because I have received many teachings from lamas, at the beginning they often say o laso, and that lets everybody know, hey, we’re about to begin, folks. O laso, so it’s a nice way to begin, it’s so smooth, almost like a mantra, o laso. And then when you finish, when you’ve finished something – o laso. Like that, okay? It’s a way to begin and a way to end.


If anatta is a reality, then how do you explain Volition or Will? I'm just trying to understand the concept of anatta better here. Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta), and even the so called conditional self is actually an illusion that arises out of my ignorance (correct me if I'm wrong).

But psychology tells me on the other hand, that there exists something called Volition or Will. From Wikipedia:

  Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.

So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self?

Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?

Anatta means that there is no permanent self, not that there is no self at all. That would be just silly and contradict observation. Imagine the self as a car. Every day one part of the car is replaced with another. One day the right headlight, the other day the windscreen, the third day the rear left wheel. And so on. At some point, all the pieces of the car have changed, but can you say exactly when the first car changed into the second? You can't, but at the same time you can't claim that the car you end with is the same as the car you began with. Similarly, just think about yourself when you were five years old. Was it you, was it another version of you, or was it another person, with different tastes, making different choices?

The key point is that self and will are conditioned phenomena subject to change, to birth, to death. So the decision-maker and the will-maker are conditioned, constructed phenomena subject to change, birth, death. There is some uncanny science going on that shows that sometimes we make decisions before we are aware of having made them. Who is the will-maker now? The real illusion is not that there is a conditional self or not, but that we are in power.


Buddhism and miracles Do all Buddhists believe that miracles happen in the real world? Are the miracles described in scripture such as the Buddha being able to walk after birth literal or symbolic?

Yes, most Buddhists do believe that the Bodhisatta walked 7 steps immediately after being born and also believe in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures literally. Within this group some believe the details of miracles in scriptures  word for word and others may say certain descriptions might be embellished.

Then there are others who like to call themselves Buddhists, but reject all supernatural aspects of Buddhism and try to map it all to the ordinary, either symbolically or giving different meanings to the words. When that task proves too difficult, they usually say it's not the teaching of the Buddha.


Is technology making us less mindful? In terms of availability of technology, the modern world is very different from the world in which Buddhism arose, and the Buddhist suttas were written As a result, these days, people do things differently from the past, for example:

performing multiple tasks at once
using medication to try to improve attention
working with headphones on, listening to music or radio
constantly using smartphones and tablets

Are there any consequences of all of this for Buddhist practice? For example, does technology impact meditation and insight? Are we becoming more distracted and therefore adding more suffering to our lives?

When it comes to developing concentration modern technology is definitely a distraction as devices tend to seek your attention. This leads to being scatter brained. This is the reason many meditation centres don't allow you to have them.

Also modern life style has a lot of responsibilities, and leaves little time for spiritual practice.

The society as a whole is becoming materialistic and sensualised. This means that you are always in in the process of getting attached to different products and services as well as the more morally loose life style. This hinders development of insight as it is kāma-taṇhā, or "sense-craving".

Mode education and scientific thought has made people to be more inquisitive and skeptical towards traditional or unfamiliar teaching. This is a double edged sword as this can lead to Vichikicha also.

In a modern world our quality of life has increased due to these technologies. Hence the onus is on the user to use them for ones benefit. E.g. if there is a kitchen knife and you use it to cook you are getting utility. You can use it for a very negative cause like killing or committing suicide. It is the user who is to blame and not the knife.


Would a true Buddhist engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy? The No true Scotsman fallacy is a rhetorical trick to avert criticism of a generalization by appealing to the impurity of counterexamples i.e., "no true Scotsman would do such a thing!"

My question is whether or not a true Buddhist would ever appeal to such a juvenile rhetorical trick?

I'm thinking that no true Buddhist would ever do this as I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation. What's the community think?

I see The True Scotsman Fallacy as a joking illustration of reification. There is obviously no such thing as THE TRUE Scotsman. It's an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Every Scotsman is different and not all of them even live in Scotland! How can we possibly say that some of them are "true" and some are "fake"?

Similarly, "TRUE Buddhist" is an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Believing that True Buddhists actually exist or that someone is a true Buddhist while someone else is not, are two examples of reification.

So to ask "would a true Buddhist engage in The True Scotsman Fallacy" is akin to asking whether a reification would engage in reification. And of course it happens all the time! Someone considering himself a "true Buddhist" (I don't want to name any users here but I can think of a few) is by definition rather prone to engaging into a "no true Buddhist would do or say X, Y, Z" line of argument. Not to say that, even more generally, someone considering himself a sentient being is probably rather likely to have an unconscious predilection for engaging into all types of reifying views that lead to quarrels and arguments.

In fact the entire Buddhist path (according to Mahayana interpretation) can be seen as growing up from naive reification and into the "wisdom" (wisdom or prajna being a short word for "a skillful modus operandi based on special insight into the nature of phenomena with awareness of the rewards of, the dangers of, and the escape from - reification"). In this sense of course, a "true Buddhist" (from streamenterer and above, or from 1st Bhumi and above in Mahayana) would NOT engage into naive reifying definitions like "the true Buddhist" or "the true Scotsman" etc.

Which is why "a true Buddhist" would never ever consider him or her self "a true Buddhist". If this sounds like a paradox, welcome to true Buddhism ;)


Does being in a commited married life make it impossible to attain Nirvana? If not, how can one progress towards Nirvana? Married life is a form of attachment. If one is in a commited relationship he/she is bound to have a multitude of attachments like a wife, children, personal belongings, wealth etc. But Buddha has once said :

  Costumes Do Not Mar Virtue:

  "Even though adorned, if living in peace
  calm, tamed, established in the holy life,
  for beings all laying force aside:
  one pure, one peaceful, a bhikkhu is he."

  Verse 142, DHAMMAPADA.

Need some verification as to how someone can be in a commited relationship and at the same time achieve nibbana.

how someone can be in a commited relationship and at the same time achieve nibbana

I had a dream recently in which my wife went out for the evening without me: I was jealous, craving her and self-centred (wanting her to pay attention to me instead), clinging (wanting to not to lose her, wanting to not lose or to repeat the happy experience/relationship I had earlier with her), and averse to the situation (not wanting to be left alone), and angry (with her for making the decision to go out without me).

Because I was jealous and so on I was unhappy. Even when she came home she still seemed unhappy and avoided me.

Then I thought (after I woke up), maybe it's because I was unhappy like that she wanted to go out without me. Who wants to spend time with some unhappy man? Can you even ever satisfy someone who is craving and clinging?

Our relationship would be better if I were happier in myself, more "unconditionally" happy ... or more possessed of equanimity and metta and less of ego and so on. Then when she came home I could say, "Oh, nice to see you, how are you?" and so on and be a better friend.

a commited relationship is bound to have a multitude of attachments

Perhaps it's helpful to distinguish between "attachment" and "responsibility".

For example maybe you have a responsibility to try to help your children, feed and educate them.

When I was first born my father wanted me to grow up to be a good cricket player: that was his ambition, he put a cricket bat in my cradle, etc. I tried cricket a few times (he played) but not very often. It's probably best that he wasn't too "attached" to the idea of me becoming a cricket player.

In this answer yuttadhammo wrote,

  In brief, duty and responsibility should be what dictate our worldly affairs, not concern or care.

advice for marriage partners

In the book I mentioned in this answer the author tries to summarize the Buddha's advice for laypeople. Chapter 6 of that book is about "establishing a marital partnership" and includes the following advice:

For him:

Show respect to her
Refrain from words that might hurt her
Practice faithfulness
Give up dominance
Respect her fondness for beauty

For her:

Work in an organized way
Handle family relationships
Be faithful
Take steps to protect the family wealth
Show skill and energy
Play an active role as his companion and guide

Te book mentions that a lot of Buddhist literature is written by and for monks, and that the role of lay people in society isn't the same as monks'.

Chapter 5 of that book suggests that your partner should be someone who might help your own spiritual progress and life.


Difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana? In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana?

Are there official Sanskrit terms for "abiding nirvana" and "non-abiding nirvana"? What are they?

When a Buddha has achieved non-abiding nirvana, "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted". What does this mean?

This question is based on this answer:

  A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing
  emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved
  abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception
  of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the
  imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is
  like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there.
  So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are
  not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are
  reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our
  case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).

  A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the
  wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings).
  Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he
  entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates
  wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast
  (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He
  wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to
  be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from
  samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is
  the attainment of a buddha.

  A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having
  generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness
  conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta
  are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all
  objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an
  unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither
  in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities
  are uninterrupted.

Non-abiding Nirvana is a standard Mahayana doctrine, described as non-abiding in contrast with (Hinayana's) Nirvana which is considered abiding.

(As always, I have to remind everyone that Theravada is NOT equivalent to Hinayana. Hinayana refers to a primitive level of understanding of Dharma. There are Mahayana practitioners still on Hinayana levels; There are Theravada practitioners on Mahayana level.)

In Hinayana thinking, beginner thinking, we imagine Nirvana as some state we achieve or some place we enter ONCE AND FOREVER. In Hinayana-level thinking, first you get rid of coarse turbulence in your life, then you quit society and spend most of your time in meditation, then you basically give up worries about all kinds of things, then you go through Jhanas, so in the end you achieve this 100% peaceful 100% quiet 100% perfect mind - with no conflict, no dukkha whatsoever, and you enter and dwell in that state. This is abiding nirvana.

This is because, in Hinayana thinking, you can't, for example, be in society, have job, family etc. - and be in Nirvana. Can't happen, because regular life creates too many disturbances, too many conflicts and issues. On this level of understanding, you despise disturbances, conflicts, and issues - because they disturb your peace, they break your attempts at stabilizing your mind and attaining some semblance of Nirvana. You keep craving a perfect peace, perfect suchness - which is how you imagine Nirvana to be. This perfect peace is Abiding Nirvana.

In contrast to that, on Mahayana level, we achieve the real Nirvana that the Buddha taught (in Pali Canon, too) - the unconditional, non-abiding Nirvana. Non-abiding Nirvana means that we do not abide, do not dwell, in any single position or state of mind. We no longer get disturbed by the circumstances because we have mastered the dynamic equilibrium of non-craving and non-attachment. We do not feel that life interferes with our practice or interferes with our peace, because on this level, life IS peace, life IS nirvana - if you are not attached to a particular shape or  position.

On the traditional gradual path, the non-abiding Nirvana is attained as the last step of the gradually perfecting the mind of peace. It is attained through transcending the very duality of sukkha/dukkha, the very duality of suchness/wrongness.

It's like, first we get rid of coarse disturbances and conflicts, then smaller and subtler ones, this is described as the progression of jhanas - and on each level the very things that we thought were important for practice are now considered obstacles that should be let go. So on some level you learn to use positive thinking aka self-suggestions (vitakka/vicara), you learn to change your perspective - and once you get good at that, you outgrow it and on that level using self-suggestion seems very artificial - and yet you have to master it first. Then on the next level, you apply pyschosomatic methods - like breathing, working with energies. Then you master that and transcend it too; now it seems artificial and contrived to the new you. Then you practice being emotionally sober, get good at that, outgrow it. Then you practice pure mindfulness, which is basically pure suchness. And theeeeeeeeeeeeen your practice gets so thin, so perfectly refined, that your mindfulness and your suchness is present all the time, regardless of what you're doing, regardless of you paying attention or not. At the same time, your insight into Emptiness reaches maturity and you penetrate the notion of right vs. wrong deeply, you really get the principle of relativity, you understand the limit of suchness. This is when the magic moment occurs....

Once you clearly see the limit of suchness AND your mindfulness is ever-present, your practice gets so thin as to basically disappear. From this moment on, everything is your practice, and everything is Nirvana, regardless of how things change in the world.

By this time, there is no separation between Nirvana and Samsara, no limits to suchness, all conceptual dualities are transcended. So whatever life throws at your is fine, whatever happens, happens. You have no position, no shape, nothing to regret - you can't be pinned down. You are neither coming nor going, you're invisible and neither regular humans nor gods can recognize you because you don't look any different.

Nothing can be said about anything at this point, because all descriptions require a base for assertion, but there is no such base anymore. Everything is... just is. IS.

But life goes on. And this is non-abiding Nirvana.


Buddhist meditation for intrusive thoughts and anxiety I struggle with anxiety and intrusive thoughts and I've found that meditation helps a lot to calm my restless mind. I am familiar with key concepts of Buddhism. I read a tiny bit about it directly and from Schopenhauer.
I've been thinking about it for a while and I want to incorporate it into my daily lifestyle. Do you have any tips with starting to implement this on daily basis and maybe something more towards anxiety problems?
Thanks in advance

I find these videos by Ven. Yuttadhammo on anxiety very useful:

Monk Radio: Calming Down, Panic Attack
Monk Radio: Meditation for Anxious People
Q&A: Anxiety and Depression
Monk Radio: Relaxing in Life

If you like to learn more about this type of meditation (Vipassana) practice you can find his introduction video series to the method here.
May you be well and happy.


Is the sound an object or an experience? For experience to occur you need to have an object(sound or speaking man?), a sense faculty(ear) and a sense consciousness(hearing). If a sound is an object, what is then an experience?

According to MN 18:

  Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises.

Definitions

Ear = the sensitive part of the ear that is able to detect sound
Sound = vibration
Ear-consciousness = the Thought Moment that is aware of sound

This is the sensing process by which a vibration is registered by the mind. Later thinking processes may combine multiple vibrations into a syllable and multiple syllables into a word. Later thinking processes may recognize the word and start associating a meaning with the word.

So when you "hear a person speaking", it is actually a large number of sensing processes followed by a much larger number of thinking processes.

The sensing process is "impersonal"; a mechanical process that would be the same for you and for me. The thinking process is "personal"; your thinking sequence and my thinking sequence will be different based on our individual past experiences (for example, if the word is in a language that you know but I do not know, then obviously your associations will be very different from my associations).


Can software development benefit from mindfulness? Can software development benefit from mindfulness?
As I'm software developer and as I want to register for Vipassana meditation so far I couldn't because of time but still thinking if I could go for it.
Today I found that meditation and eventually mindfulness can be beneficial for my profession or others. Even I was thinking that my focus will improved and I could study hard and well.
Though it's titled software I think it's beneficial for other fields too.
So let me share if software development benefit from mindfulness?

SD Times explains that in Converging software development and mindfulness (emphasis is mine):

  Software development requires concentration and focus, an understanding of designing, coding, languages, and programming and how they all work together. It can also require comprehension of technology, science, engineering, and math. Clearly, a lot of brainpower goes into being a software developer.

  In order to keep that brainpower in a positive flow, it’s important to train mental clarity, the science and techniques behind the mind to avoid stress; this can all be done through mindfulness.

  Mindfulness promotes your emotional intelligence (EI) – strengthening mental resiliency, building a clearer mind, and embracing a happier inner self – all helping to create a brighter outlook.  Enhancing all of these emotional traits and raising your self-happiness translates to better confidence, improved communication skills, and greater interpersonal relationships.

  However practicing mindfulness is not the goal itself, but rather a means to reach your goals.
  Numerous studies have shown that changing one’s inner landscape (values, emotions, thoughts) through brain fitness can free the mind of anxiety, pressure, and negativity. Remove this mental clutter and replace it with greater EI and you’re left with enhanced creativity, greater aptitude for thinking, and a better ability to stay within the present and task at hand. For a software developer, having a clear, balanced and focused mind can be a tremendous asset while striving to produce high-quality software and aiming to balance work with life.

  Hopefully you see how mindfulness, if it becomes part of your life routine, can help you become a more efficient software developer. But where do you begin? [etc.]

So my personal opinion is that I'd say it not even beneficial for only software development but also all of professions and when people seeking how to deal in their business or which field they want to choose(with aware of precepts) for example a question A Good Career for a Buddhist?
So with only awareness of precepts one can choose any job and Mindfulness can be more beneficial to achieve one's goal.


What does merit (puṇya/puñña) actually mean? There is a lot of talk in Buddhism about merit. I think the word merit sounds a bit like a good grade in school or some star the teacher puts in the book.

Is merit something that follows my thoughts and actions as a
consequence?
Or is merit more like an acquired disposition to act and think in certain ways?
Or perhaps it's both  an acquired disposition and a    consequence?
Are we born with a certain "amount" of merit due to karma?
How does a person know that s/he is accumulating merit?

There is here a 119 pages transcript of a teaching given by Khenrinpoche Geshe Chonyi, in which he answers that exact same question. Search for 'what is merit' and you will find the answer, page 26. Although Khenrinpoche's answer is not extremely precise (it that it might not stand debate) there are greatly illuminating points:

In one way, merit and virtue are the same.  In general,  virtue is 'virtuous karma', for it is a cause of the fruitional effect of happiness [in the aspect of pleasant feelings, and so forth].

Additionally, a collection of merits is:

The virtuous imprint that is left in the  mind
A non-associated composition factor (like karmic imprints, so it stands to say they are the same in general)
A cause of the Form Body [whereas the collection of wisdom results in the Truth Body]

He also adds:

  I  would  think that, the  meaning  of the word accumulate  in the
  phrase  accumulate the collection of merit would  mean that, doing
  something  repeatedly such that, a real impression, mark, imprint is
  left on the  mind .  This is  the meaning  of  to accumulate .

Being virtuous karmic imprints, it is produced by every virtuous intention (like for instance the virtuous intention to give, which is generosity) as well as any virtuous bodily or verbal action. Being virtuous karmic imprints, it must also have the same 4 types of result, one of them being the resultant tendency concordant to the cause. It means you will have a seemingly natural tendency, and liking for, say, practicing generosity and so forth.


Buddha's opinion on late night talk shows I am wondering what Buddha would have said about late night talk shows that are now busy making fun of Donald Trump. Do they break the precept on gossiping and frivolous talk since they are making fun of people. Its also true that they make people laugh and remove their sorrows for a while. Would this count as good Karma  -- to make people laugh?

No. The answer to this question can be found in Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor (SN 42.2).  The Blessed One said:

  "Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
  'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
  answer you. 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. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
  & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
  breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
  of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
  the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
  delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
  that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
  with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

Ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html


Is emptiness conventionally non-empty? Is emptiness conventionally / provisionally non-empty?  Please include reference to whose perspective you are replying from.

By empty I mean non-substantial, how dharmas are constantly arising and perishing, and nothing is the same from moment to moment, but in flux.
By conventionally I mean in the sense that enlightened beings can use "I" to refer to themselves, even though they ultimately lack any self identity at all or sense of "me and mine".
BY non-empty I mean permanent.

I know that there are debates about the identity of the conventional truth and emptiness, and Nagarjuna said that emptiness is empty.
I read Gelek Rimpoche - Geluk lama - say that he'd "love to say emptiness is impermanent, but emptiness is meant to be permanent", because it is uncompounded and uncreated. And a translation of The Great Prajna Paramita Sutra, saying it is neither permanent nor impermanent.
Personally, I would guess that it is identical to impermanent dharmas (there's discussion about that in early ch'an, seemingly explained by Zongmi), not permanent, and yet does not arise or cease, is not impermanent.
Then it's both empty and non-empty: changing in accordance with conditions, but not dependent on any individual conditioned thing. Arguably, I am rich independent of any one of my financial investments, even-though it changes with all of them. Not a great analogy, but I can't think of anything else that could be "permanent".

I'm still learning but I'll add some references which might help you to contemplate on this.
Is emptiness conventionally non-empty?
In MN121, The Buddha explains the different levels of emptiness based on 'the perception that are not present and  which are present'.
But when through such emptiness approach one attains awareness-release i.e. here cessation of craving phenomena and aggregates then it is now better to describe it as cessation (unbinding) to avoid confusion. -- (from my viewpoint)

And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned? Emptiness immersion; signless immersion; undirected immersion. …” [SN43.4]

Also in MN1, It is mentioned that how a trainee or Arahat understands Nibbana but Tathgata doesn't even grasp to Nibbana after he understood it.
BEGINNER:

He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

TATHAGATA:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

Also see this answer on How to interpret cessation which explains there are two types of cessation -- with feul remaining and no feul remaining. (mentioned in Iti.044)


Is it only a matter of time before expected feelings of "remorse or shame or guilt" surface during meditation? Approaching yr68, I have committed my share of unwholesome conduct over the years, the typical errors of middle-class youth and adulthood in this USofA. I've been practicing sitting meditation for close to two years, and am most comfortable with Theravada vipassana  concepts and practices, though I have not taken lay Buddhist vows. I generally sit "with the breath" for one hour most every day, some days see two sessions. I have not yet realized "access concentration". I am perplexed that I never have feelings of remorse or shame or guilt over past deeds arise during sitting, and only rarely have I experienced strong feelings of gratitude or happiness. Might I assume that it is only a matter of time before "the stuff hits the fan" and I find myself overwhelmed with "remorse or shame or guilt" during sitting meditation?

I'd suggest that no-one can predict what comes next for someone in meditation. Perhaps there is 'stuff' that has yet to arise into consciousness, but if there is, there's no point trying to 'predict' what it is. That would just be unhelpful speculation.

I'd say, if you stick with sensing what is in your physical experience in a kindly way, if there's something there, it'll make itself known. In the meantime, just enjoy the practice :-)


How would Buddhists respond to someone harming the temple? If a Buddhist noticed someone trying to severely harm their temple, for example trying to start a fire, how would one expect them to respond?

I could imagine a range of responses from completely ignoring it and continuing about their meditation to compassionately talking with the person to getting themselves and bystanders to safety and planning to rebuild later to carrying the person out of the temple. I know spitting on the statue of Buddha is an example used in teachings but I am wondering about scenarios of lasting harm on the facilities that would make them unusable.

Are there any instructive historical examples where something like this happened?

This is highly subjective, but practically speaking, If you go to a Buddhist country and try to engage in vandalism, the chances are that the people nearby will beat the living daylights out of you until a monk interferes and calms them down. After that you will be arrested by the police.

It would be a big mistake to think that the average lay Buddhist is meek or timid.


How to survive Buddhism ? Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha I'm observing around me, family and in society. I want to know while Dr. B.R Ambedkar gave the way to peace to Dalit(Backward people) . I could see still my family into ritual other than Buddhism. And also so many people who are just called Buddhism but still following Hinduism rituals. In society, t.v. channels supporting and their relational perspective. I seen in serials they celebrating festivals but never seen celebrating Vesak Day and they calling themselves secular. When Buddhism is an ancient religion and was speeded all around the world very well. I read many present Hinduism temple and mosque was Viharas. And people also wouldn't change their mind. They following myths. I'm really feel very bad about it and for Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. When it's sole way to the peace.

I see one aspect of your question is practice of rites and rituals much like other religions. This is also important for Buddhism to be socially and culturally integrated, but this does not give you liberation.

Secular Buddhists strip Buddhism of some of the aspects which cannot be conventionally seen (e,g, other realms, life after death) and perhaps some of the aspects not in line with western culture (e.g. respect to the Triple Gem). Accepting and dismissing things beyond your comprehension is a mistake, so would be accepting things which you cannot empirically verify. Until you know something at an experiential level it is best to set them aside.

There were many Buddhist sites in India which perhaps became sites for other religions.


Why did Yamaka have wrong view in SN 22.85? In Yamaka Sutta, this was wrong view:

  As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes & does not exist after death.

In Yamaka Sutta, this was right view:

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?

  Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is
  unsatisfactory (dukkha). That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and
  gone to its end.

Most Buddhists believe an arahant has ended the cycle of reincarnations. If so, what made the view of Yamaka wrong view?

Also, what makes the right view here right view?

The first view is wrong because ven. Yamaka thought that there is a self that ends at Nibbana. In other words, he thought that the five aggregates is a self.

The seconds view is right because it doesn't  take the five aggregates as a self.

Also the second view is talking about an Arahath. Not an ordinary being. So this has nothing to do with Annihilationism.


Being at peace with mental phenomena In an answer to Non-attachment as object of meditation, there was an interesting idea that the essence of many advanced practices is

to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it.
... You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion)

If so, then what should you do when a delusion, e.g. an attachment, comes to your phenomenal field and starts to develop?
Should you be at peace with it and let the attachment develop?
It seems to be a question worth some exploration, because we could use various approaches, each might have some merit:

Just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. Eventually it could help to realize, through direct experience, how the mental processes work. Perhaps that realization could lead to liberation from such delusions.
Or we might wish to dissolve somehow that development of the delusion which came to our phenomenal field. Perhaps that might help to reform our mental habits directly.
Maybe it could be reasonable to combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Then when should we use this or that approach?

From personal experience:

If we don't counteract we might become a hopeless victim of the developing delusion, creating an object-subject tension. But counteraction should not create opposition or more tension, but a middle way in solving the slight or major disturbance. How it is done varies from mind to mind.

I never understood the 'letting go' part - repeated as a mantra everywhere - one can let everything through, but if one does not chase the thieves of delusion, anger, wrath, ignorance away that arise during life and rarely ever during meditation, he or she will eventually succumb to them.

That is why  often meditation was advised as a remedy to counter the pollutants in life, by conscious mental effort to tame the incessant monkey of the jumping mind. Difference  between rigour and mindless drill is often confused.

It was - I think - always a question of discipline supported by inner truth.  In worst cases we may start recognizing the pollutants as regular in our mental continuum, thus not even recognizing them as something opposed to development and realization.

I would argue that:

Ad. 1: If we simply observe the arising delusion we might be swept in, with poisons developing, if we counteract we create opposite tension, making psychological space for it to fill it later; Perhaps the method is to find higher grounds in mental state (as if climbing a mountain), and then neutralizing the poisons with light effort by analysis of causes and conditions and supporting the analysis with scriptural thought and "good speech, good thought, good action"; If the thoughts are polluted, the speech is polluted, is the speech is polluted so is action, it works the other way around: good action improves thought and speech by synchronizing them.

Ad. 2 Dissolving mental habits is difficult if they are long-lasting, clusters of these are difficult to immediadately cut through (although it happens sometimes) one has to find not the opposition and be stranded in duality but something akin to trancendent Third, that neutralizes both; Between love an hatred, for example, one finds a paternal and a maternal mind towards beings that feel both releasing oneself from the duality.


If we tell lies to save lives, will that be a sin? This page, Lay Buddhist Vows, says,

  Do not distort fact

  This one is usually translated as: don't lie. Again: it wider than that. Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

As per above phrase about 3rd precept of Pancha Sila, as a Buddhist if we tell lies it's definitely a sin. But in this modern world sometimes we have to lie: we will lie to our wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father; in this world you cannot find a person who has not lied.

So my question is, if tell so many lies to save lives, will it be a sin?

I think this question is a duplicate of:

Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?
Should a person never lie?

"Duplicate" means that the answers to those questions should answer your question.

You wrote,

  we have to lie, we will lie to wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father

... but I'm not sure that's true. If you read the definitions of Right Speech on Access to Insight, it includes,

  He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal ...

If you feel the need to lie about something (e.g. your behaviour) then perhaps you should change your behaviour instead of lying about it. Therefore "not lying" becomes a "training rule".

The subject is difficult to talk about, though, because you didn't describe examples of the various lies, which you say we have to lie about to almost everyone.

Lastly, about the phrase you quoted.

The first bit of it, i.e...

  don't lie

... is presumably clear enough.

So if you have a question about the quoted phrase, then maybe the question is about the next bit:

  Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable.
  This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

The second sentence isn't clear to me: it seems to me that a "distortion of fact" maybe is a lie by definition. See also e.g. Sankha's answer here for a more precise Theravada definition of lying.

Because I clearly don't understand the second sentence, I also don't understand the first:

The first might be talking about telling the truth in an acceptable way, e.g. about whether the truth is spoken gently and at the right time (which is acceptable) or harshly and at the wrong time (which is less easily accepted)
But it might also be talking about the opposite situations, "sugar-coating" a lie to make it seem acceptable, e.g. "I'll just tell my boss this little white lie: everyone else lies like this and I have to lie too."


What does "Namaste" mean in Buddhism context and why is it even associated with Buddhism? A commenter on the NewBuddhist blog claimed that one should not say Namaste in a Tibetan Buddhist event (in this context).

I remember one time saying "Namaste" while at a Tibetan Buddhist event, and someone quickly pulled me aside and said, "Oh, no-- do not say 'Namaste!' Say, 'Tashi Delek!'"
I'm not entirely sure why I brought that up... perhaps because I'm still confused as to why it was wrong to say Namaste.
-- SillyPutty

I'd like to make a disclaimer that I am not from a Buddhist country so I'm confused. I never even read from anywhere that The Buddha even says this, or is the phrase really Buddhist -- you can imagine my confusion.
Is this a modern phrase? What is its connection to Buddhism?

Namaste is a greeting in the Hindu custom and does not have a context in Buddhism.

Namaste (/ˈnɑːməsteɪ/, Hindi: [nəməsteː] (About this sound listen))), sometimes spoken as Namaskar, Namaskaram is a respectful form of greeting in Hindu custom, found on the Indian subcontinent mainly in India and Nepal and among the Indian diaspora. It is used both for salutation and valediction. Namaste is usually spoken with a slight bow and hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointing upwards, thumbs close to the chest. This gesture is called Añjali Mudrā or Pranamasana.
In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you".The greeting may also be spoken without the gesture or the gesture performed wordlessly, carrying the same meaning