Looking for sutta reference on entering into Jhana Following are the stages Ajahn Brahm mentions in his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, to enter in to Jhana.

Present moment awareness
Silent present moment awareness
Silent present moment awareness on the breath
Fully sustained awareness on the breath
Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath
Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita
Jhana

I am looking for sutta reference for the same.
Additional question- do progression through all these stages compulsary to experiencing the Jhana? Specifically Pitisukha and Nimmitta. Can one dodge the stages and enter the meditative absorption of Jhana?

The step before getting Nimitta can be dodged depending on the practitioner's abilities. Actually, it is not hard for the high abilities practitioner to do step by step or dodge.
Notice: I use the associated Suttas. And most of what I refer to is in the same sutta. I don't connect Sutta by my idea. I do it on the context. And there are many people from the difference schools tell me the same "bright light" from hard working on the concentration meditation, such as PaAuk-Burma, Thai Kasina Practitioner, Thai Catudhātuvavatthana practitoner. They all get bright light after meditation.
DN 22 MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta but actually it is KāyagatāsatiSutta because MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta is insight meditation and KāyagatāsatiSutta is concentration meditation. However, the translation in DN 22 MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta  is better for Ānāpānassati:
Present moment awareness, Silent present moment awareness

Bhikkhus, how does the bhikkhu keep his mind steadfastly on the body?
Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following the practice of my Teaching, having
gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree or to an empty, solitary
place, sits down cross-legged, keeping his body erect, and sets up
mindfulness, orienting it.

Silent present moment awareness on the breath

Then with entire mindfulness he breathes in and with entire
mindfulness he breathes out.
Breathing in a long inhalation, he is conscious of breathing in a long
inhalation, or breathing out a long exhalation, he is conscious of
breathing out a long exhalation.
Breathing in a short inhalation, he is conscious of breathing in a
short inhalation, or breathing out a short exhalation, he is conscious
of breathing out a short exhalation.
He trains himself to be clearly conscious of the whole stretch of the
in-coming breath at its beginning, its middle, and at its end. He
trains himself to be clearly conscious of the whole stretch of the
out-going breath at its beginning, its middle, and at its end.

Fully sustained awareness on the breath

[By being fully conscious of the inhalation] he trains himself to calm down the strong inhalation as he breathes in. [By being fully conscious of the exhalation] he trains himself to calm down the strong exhalation as he breathes out.

Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath
DN 10 SubhaSutta (I recommend this sutta to be the reference of Jhana because it is long enough and step by step. Notice, some part of this sutta is same as  KāyagatāsatiSutta which I refer to Ānāpānassati above):

‘And what, Ānanda, is this so noble body of doctrine regarding self-concentration (Samādhi) in praise of which the Venerable Gotama was wont to speak; to which he used to incite the folk, in which he established them, and made them firm?’
Restraint of the Sense Faculties
“And how, young Brahman, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, young Brahman, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye.
...

DN 10 SubhaSutta for Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita.

“Having abandoned covetousness for the world, he dwells with a mind free from covetousness; he purifies his mind from covetousness. Having abandoned ill will and hatred, he dwells with a benevolent mind, sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings; he purifies his mind from ill will and hatred. Having abandoned dullness and drowsiness, he dwells perceiving light, mindful and clearly comprehending; he purifies his mind from dullness and drowsiness. Having abandoned restlessness and worry, he dwells at ease within himself, with a peaceful mind; he purifies his mind from restlessness and worry. Having abandoned doubt, he dwells as one who has passed beyond doubt, unperplexed about wholesome states; he purifies his mind from doubt.

Remember someone may say this light is sunlight and try to refer sutta or commentary. Don't trust him because this is normal for the concentration meditation practitioner who practice hard enough only. They sit 12+ hours everyday for many months or years to get this light which can shine in their mind trough the dark night. It is shining breathe or meditation's object, not sunlight. Today, many of them have not been laying on a bed for 20 years. I know at lease 1 person.
Why this light is important?
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):

Quite secluded from sense pleasures (escape from object), secluded from unwholesome states (escape from object's unwholesome recognition), he enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought and filled with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion. He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body which is not suffused by this rapture and happiness.

There are only 3 objects: sense pleasures (5 strings and associate), non sense pleasures, and illusion.
Sense pleasures person can't know non sense pleasure object and it's illusion until he can attain it.
What is non sense pleasure object and it's illusion?
Non sense pleasure object: Rūpa-jhāna/Bhava, Arūpa-jhāna/Bhava, Nibbāna and 8 Super-mundane paths.
it's illusion: It's concept and name, such  Rūpa-jhāna person and "Rūpa-jhāna person" word which refer to the real  Rūpa-jhāna (we can know  Rūpa-jhāna person and word but we can't refer it to the real Rūpa-jhāna).
So, the only left way to get "Quite secluded from sense pleasures (escape from object)" is developing sense pleasures illusion to be non sense pleasures illusion of RūpaJhāna (bright light) by meditate mind's quality. Better minds is lighter light. The lighter light can overwhelm below in DN 10 SubhaSutta (again) (the practitioner practice below  in moral discipline but it turn into professional/master by the light, patibhāga-nimitta because this light overwhelm "the sign or the details"):

‘And what, Ānanda, is this so noble body of doctrine regarding self-concentration (Samādhi) in praise of which the Venerable Gotama was wont to speak; to which he used to incite the folk, in which he established them, and made them firm?’
“And how, young Brahman, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, young Brahman, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye.

Another, important of this light
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):

“Further, young Brahman, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and grief, the bhikkhu enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna, which is neither pleasant nor painful and contains mindfulness fully purified by equanimity. He sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright (pari-odāta) mind.

This mind is bright because it's own power. The mind is not shining because mind has no color. However, this mind power create bright object and bright location base, hadaya-vatthu. It also turn the practitioner body bright as well, good health (depending on how strong of unwholesome karma in the past).
This bright light is for 8 Vijjā
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):
Again, this is not a bright color mind. Mind has no color. This is a mind which has bright object and bright location base.

“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright (pari-odāta), unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supernormal power. He exercises the various modes of supernormal power: having been one, he becomes many and having been many, he becomes one; he appears and vanishes; he goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space; he dives in and out of the earth as if it were water; he walks on water without sinking as if it were earth; sitting cross-legged he travels through space like a winged bird; with his hand he touches and strokes the sun and the moon, so mighty and powerful; he exercises mastery over the body as far as the Brahma-world.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. With the divine ear-element, which is purified and surpasses the human, he hears both kinds of sound, the divine and the human, those which are distant and those which are near.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of encompassing the minds (of others). He understands the minds of other beings and persons, having encompassed them with his own mind. He understands a mind with lust as a mind with lust and a mind without lust as a mind without lust; he understands a mind with hatred as a mind with hatred and a mind without hatred as a mind without hatred; he understands a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion; he understands a contracted mind as a contracted mind and a distracted mind as a distracted mind; he understands an exalted mind as an exalted mind and an unexalted mind as an unexalted mind; he understands a surpassable mind as a surpassable mind and an unsurpassable mind as an unsurpassable mind; he understands a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind; he understands a liberated mind as a liberated mind and an unliberated mind as an unliberated mind.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of recollecting past lives. He recollects his numerous past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births; many aeons of world contraction, many aeons of world expansion, many aeons of world contraction and expansion, (recollecting): ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away from that state I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his numerous past lives in their modes and their details.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate—and he understands how beings fare according to their kamma, thus: ‘These beings—who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views, and undertook actions governed by wrong views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have reappeared in the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings—who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, held right views, and undertook actions governed by right views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have reappeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.’ Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate—and he understands how beings fare in accordance with their kamma.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the destruction of the cankers. He understands as it really is: ‘This is suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the origin of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘These are the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the origin of the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of the cankers.’
...


Should a person never lie? If someone would hide from the Nazis and then the Nazis came and asked me if I'm hiding a Jew - should I say "yes" or "no"?

When is it ok to lie?

In Good Question Good Answer, in the chapter about the five precepts,  Ven. S. Dhammika wrote,

QUESTION: If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?
ANSWER: If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases.


How many types of Buddhism exists in this world? many times, I stumbled to start to dig something towards teaching of Buddha and at some point want to make focus on Buddhism. During my journey of looking bird eye of view, I passed through Vipassana, Therevada, Zen, Dalai Lama, Tibet, Nepal and Mynmar. Last read bit about Buddhism in Sri Lanka? How Arthur Schopenhauer inspired himself with Budda? Who guided him or how he came to know about terms like enlightenment.?

The world religions tree gives a bird's eye view of the development of all world religions.

https://external-preview.redd.it/e5i27HPcaGrDPApm2lyfRyn3JQlLZV_Ko6mSzmIXa7Y.jpg?auto=webp&s=305e5527d3e7f831b338c26e205840836f26edaf


Did the Buddha ever weep in his days of Enlightenment? Did Buddha ever weep while in his days of Enlightenment? What does Buddha say about weeping? Did he ever weep, for instance, a death of a relative?

A Buddha would never ever weep while in his days of Enlightenment. It is because of the quality Akampita. It means unshaken; calm; resolute; that which does not tremble; not to be shaken.

The opposite of it is Kampita meaning shaken; agitated; quivering; caused to tremble. All these the Buddha was not. A Buddha is always impartial, treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just. Other words that describe this quality are unbiased, unprejudiced, neutral, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, disinterested, detached, dispassionate, objective, open-minded, equitable. For example the Buddha radiates metta equally towards his adversary Devadatta, Yasodhara his wife, and Patacara the demented woman, his royal father King Suddhodana and Sopaka the humble low-caste youth.

All feelings that arise are due to tanha, or some form of attachment. All such are due to mano sankhara. The feelings, (or the perceptions that give rise to feelings,reside inside oneself. It does not come from outside. We use external things to cause happiness or suffering by our own volition. There is no inherent suffering or happiness in anything external. A Buddha, or for that matter any Arahant, who has removed all asavas, will be free of such emotional responses.


Anatta in Tibetan Buddhism (How can we reconcile it with the Tulku?) Buddha taught us that Anatta, non self, is a key concept of the Dhamma, one of the 3 marks of existence. Basically we have a mind, not a soul, that differentiates from other minds by the kamma-vipaka it will experience, not by any inherent or intrinsic quality

In Tibetan Buddhism, there is this common search for the Tulku, reincarnated Lamas, such as HH Dalai Lama, but if we are all the same thing and there is no self, What is the meaning and the benefit or finding an reincarnation of someone?

This is a curiosity, not doubting the process or questioning the reasons, I'm sure there are good ones. I don't mean to be disrespectful.

Let's be clear on the meaning of the teaching of Anatta. All schools, both the Theravada school and Mahayana forms of Buddhism teach that there are two kinds of truth, conventional and ultimate. The teaching that there is no self is a teaching that applies on the ultimate level only, so on the conventional level there is a self.

In other words, even though on the ultimate level all you have is a collection of mental and physical phenomena rapidly arising and ceasing without any kind of core or permanent substrate, it still makes sense to point to point to such a particular collection and call it "Joe" for example, because there is causal continuity between these phenomena. One individuals life will affect their next life of course, with much of their qualities rolling over into the next one, so even we Theravadins have to admit that finding the rebirth of our teachers makes sense.

(Added latter)

The reason why it would make sense to find their rebirth (assuming that their rebirth would be human and that you could find them which is the only real objection in my opinion from a Theravada perspective) is that because their qualities developed in their previous life carry over, they would probably be more spiritually developed from the beginning than someone who was not the rebirth of an advanced practitioner.


Why are "Fear and Shame" listed among the beautiful cetasikas? I was wondering how the mental factors of Fear and Shame should be understood. Normally I would understand them both as being unwholesome but I guess in Abhidhamma-perspective they have a different meaning.

How should they be understood according to the Abhidhamma?

They are both listed as belonging to the group of Beautiful or Moral cetasikas.

It's a translation issue. The Pali terms are Hiri and Ottappa, and they are hard to translate into English because they have no one word equivalents.

Hiri refers to the feeling of not wanting to do a bad deed because you know the deed itself is bad, and Ottappa refers to the feeling of not wanting to do an evil deed because you know that the consequences of it are bad.

They definately do not mean what is normally meant by the English words fear and shame. Many suttas speak of fear as unwholesome, and shame in the sense of remorse is mentioned as unwholesome in other Buddhist writings.

For this reason the translator Ajahn Thanissaro prefers to translate these terms as conscience and concern.

The Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a very good article on these two terms called The Guardians of the World. Here's a very good excerpt:

  While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task
  of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their
  individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of
  shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and
  induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal
  honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is
  the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of
  moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful
  kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for
  liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the
  difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with
  excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is
  like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is
  smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in
  the place where it is red hot.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html


Can the change due to impermanence be considered intelligent? What is the nature of the change due to impermanence ,is it just a random change or intelligent change ?,are the actions resulting from it considered right action or that depends on the degree of identification that the impermanent person/thing is having towards another person/thing?.

The more I watch it I see that sometimes this change or flux is not just random and is intelligent.All the changes happening inside the body and mind do not require a doer but are intelligent.Can the nature or the behavior of the change be also recognized ?.

Buddhism isn't overly concerned with the source or cause of impermanence. The Buddhist problematic is that the mind fixates on permanence — on wanting things to be a certain way, always — and that fixation causes misery of various sorts when things do change (as they inevitably will).

I'm not certain what thought or insight is bubbling around behind this question (perhaps it hasn't made itself clear even to you, yet), but you should be aware that fixating on impermanence can be just as problematic as fixating on anything else. Who or what are you trying to ascribe intelligence to?


Buddhism and Integrative Complexity I noticed a coincidence between something I read in a book by Thich Nhat Hanh, and an article on research about a psychological phenomenon known to facilitate inner and outer peace. My question is: What Buddhist concepts are similar or have something in common with the "integration" and "differentiation" phenomenon mentioned below? My guess is emptiness and impermanence, I could be wrong about those and doubtless there are others.

Here's the coincidence.

Years ago I was reading Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh. I found it had my mind going in many interesting directions.

I saw some parts of the book, like those describing impermanence, encouraging the Differentiation of things. A book isn't a book. It's made of wood and glue, was put together by a machine somewhere and hauled to the book store by a guy in a truck. The book is made up of many non-book elements. Everything changes, so the book itself isn't even that book over the smallest amount of time depending one which features you choose to measure.

But there was also a call for Integration. Even as we distinguish between the book and the truck and the guy hauling the books in the truck to the bookstore, they are all part of the process leading to the experience of reading the book. The book might have one meaning to one reader, and a different meaning to a different reader. So many things depend on the context bringing them together. The same elements at a different time and place produce a different experience. The individual elements create the here and now into a unified whole, any part of which alters the thing when changed.

With my math background I was inclined to think of these things as Integration and Differentiation, just as helpful mnemonics, they are pretty different from the math concepts.

A few months back I was reading about Integrative Complexity.

"The measure of integrative complexity has two components: differentiation and integration. Differentiation refers to the perception[or weighing] of different dimensions[or qualities] when considering an issue. Integration refers to the recognition of cognitive connections among differentiated dimensions or perspectives.1"

It has some things in common with what Thich Nhat Hanh was talking about, in terms of understanding of all things as composed of not-that-thing elements. One can find similarities in different things, and differences in similar things. The interplay of those techniques are proving conducive to both inner and outer peace according to the researchers.

While I don't have any comments on the individual concepts of Differentiation and Integration, reading that wikipedia article about Integrative Complexity as a style of thinking - strikes me as being very similar to the "Buddha can see from all perspectives" idea I presented in my answer here.
Quoting the wikipedia:

Integrative Complexity is ...recognition and integration of multiple perspectives and possibilities and their interrelated contingencies.
For example, it could take the form of explaining why someone may view an event in a different way or in what ways a compromise could be made between conflicting values.

So by this definition Buddha is the champion of Integrative Complexity.
That said, these parts:

Integratively complex thinkers are also more prone to defer to others or put off making a decision when faced with difficult cost–benefit decisions.

and

Additionally, while integratively complex thinkers are more likely to reach a mutually advantageous compromise when dealing with reasonable opponents, unreasonable opponents are much more likely to be able to exploit them.

-- do not sound relevant at all. Perhaps whoever wrote this did not realize that one's ability to integrate diff. perspectives does not preclude one from having clear agenda. Buddha knows what is ultimately good (cessation of suffering!) and has no problem utilizing his Integrative Complexity skills to use people's own motives to their ultimate good.
So perhaps we could say that Buddha is the champion of Integrative Complexity AND ethics.


The cognitive process: the stage of investigating consciousness When practicing insight meditation and when observing mental formations arising  then sometimes shortly after another mental formation arises caused by the first mental formation.

An example could be a memory that arises then shortly after another memory arises that is closely related to the first one. The second memory is clearly caused by the first one since its similar in appearance and "acts" like a continuation of the first memory.

This picture is from Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The picture can be found in the chapter "Compendium of the cognitive process", at p. 155. It shows the different stages in the process of cognition.

I was wondering about at what stage in the cognitive process it happens that an object is compared/coupled to previous experiences?

My best guess is that it might be in the stage of "investigating consciousness".

Lanka

Many people try to read too much into the "17 thought moment sensing process". Please see page 164 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" which gives Ledi Sayadaw's explanation.

Basically, in the case of eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" captures a small patch of colour. This is followed by gazillions of mind-door processes that glue the entire field of vision together, grasp shapes, recognize shapes, grasp the name, recognize the name, etc. The comparing the object to past experiences comes much later after lots of thinking has been done. In other words, in the case of the eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" brings a small patch of colour into the mind. That's it. All the subsequent analysis is done by gazillions of mind-door processes.

If you want the "bigger picture", the best place to start is the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18), "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."

In this sutta, the "compared / coupled to past experiences" that you are asking about happens at the final stage.


Do I carry false identity? Buddha said he is Buddha.
Did Buddha carried a false sense of self like you and me?

When Buddha say me and myself, he uses the words without clinging to the five aggregate. Even the Buddha has to use conventional language when speaking. What matters is not the word you use but the underlying grasping to the idea of it.


Elder Beginner Practicing Theravada I am new to Buddhism (Theravada). I am 80 years old and am keen to learn and practice it during my remaining time. I wish to get in touch with a well read person whom I could write and ask for explanations of aspects I find difficult to understand . It will be a great help.

Is it possible?

There are many well read people in this forum itself who can help clarify aspects of Theravada that you find difficult to understand.

On a side note however, there is not much you need to learn or know about Theravada in order to practise it successfully during your remaining time, as long as you grasp the fundamental principle of Theravada and clearly understand what the path of Theravada Buddhism entails.

My personal suggestion is that you watch and read some of this monk's (Yuttadhammo) essential video series and his book. Here are the links:

The Buddhist TV – In this video series, he explains the core principles of Theravada buddhism and how to incorporate it into all aspects of your life
Introduction to Meditation: How To Meditate – In this video series, he explains what meditation is (the core practise of Theravada Buddhism) and instructions on how to practice it comprehensively
How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace – This book is a written version of the video series on meditation, and is more detailed and comprehensive than the corresponding video series.

From my personal experience, watching these video series and reading his book is sufficient to help you understand clearly the core of what the Buddha taught and how to practise it successfully, and thereby it will also set you on the path to the goal of Theravada Buddhism - destruction of the mental defilements and freedom from suffering. In the process, they will also clarify aspects that you find difficult to understand about what the Buddha taught.


Why are Buddhas always Indian, male and human? Dipankara, Siddhartha Gotama, Maithreya to name a few (of the 28 named in the Buddhavamsa) - it feels a bit like a Hollywood plot where it's always only an all American hero that fights off the alien invasion of planet Earth.

Given that the dharma is universal why isn't a Buddha a deva or a Pacific islander or a woman?

Why is it also always only one person and not like say a united nations of Buddhas?

The question has two parts. Why only one Buddha? This is only in the Theravāda. In other Buddhist schools two, five, or up to millions of Buddhas can be seen. Two in the White Lotus, Five in the five Buddha Maṇḍala (featuring Vairocana Tathāgata, Akṣobhya Tathāgata, Ratnasambhava Tathāgata, Amitābha Tathāgata, and Amoghasiddhi Tathāgata), and an infinite number in the Avatamsaka Sūtra. Most non-Theravādin schools accept the existence of multiple Buddhists.

The second part is why ethnically North Indian? Artists in different countries tend to depict the Buddha as having features similar to their own ethnic group, and besides have nationally distinctive styles, so one can usually tell say a Khmer Buddha from a Chinese, or a Tibetan. Many of the Buddhist artists (the image is by my colleague Dharmacārī Āloka) I know paint the Buddha as similar to themselves - since most of the artists I know are English or Kiwis, their paintings tend to look Anglo-Saxon. But there's nothing to stop, say someone of African descent portraying the Buddha as African.

And of course there is some cross over. So Khmer artists tend to portray solitary Buddhas but with Khmer features, whereas Tibetans portray many Buddhas with Tibetan features. For some artists it makes sense to portray Gautama Buddha as an Indian because it seems more historically authentic, though of course we do not know the ethnic identity of Buddha - it's possible the Śākyas originally came from Iran for example.


What are the differences between joy (piti), bliss (sukha) and peace (santi) and how do the qualities relate to Nibbana? This is a follow-on to this question

What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana?

Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or Nibbana (to attain Nibbana)? If Nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the path factors?

It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"?

In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it  is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss".

I don't understand how it could be possible for there to be an unconditioned happiness or bliss.

OP: What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the so-called "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana?

Piti and Suka are encountered along the path arising due to the practice of concentration.

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

OP: Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or nibbana? If nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the path factors?

These are milestones along the path. One does not seek them but you naturally pass them when practising, similar to when going on a road trip to a city you pass many mileposts.

OP: It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"?

When translating authors choose English words to map Pali terms into. Many of the English words are no perfect matches. So one must try to understand the actual meaning in the disclosure's context.

OP: In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss".

Feelings of pleasantness, unpleasantness and neutral feeling are not entirely satisfactory.

Also, also bliss or joy born from meditation also changes when one loses concentration hence they are not satisfactory.

Nibbana is happiness or bliss, not dependent sensations or any other form of support. Nibbana is beyond space and time (cosmology) and psychological phenomena.

  For the sake of discussion, we can imagine—since we have not attained nirvana—that the first paragraph [§4] addresses nirvana’s freedom from space and the second paragraph [§5] its freedom from
  time.

Nibbāna Paṭisaṁyutta Sutta 1 Introduction by Piya Tan


Can you reference an article which (dubiously) claims that the Pali Canon is an invention of Western Orientalists? A year or so ago an ex-New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) German Tibetan Buddhist living in a monastery in Italy referred me to an article online for $35 that (he claimed) proved that the Pali Canon was invented by Western Orientalists. Since I didn't have $35 to spend at the time I didn't order the article, and now I've lost track of it. Anybody know the article and its location that I am referring to or have any information about this somewhat dubious claim?

Just to clarify, I am asking whether you know the title, author, or location of the article. There is no doubt about the article's existence - I saw it (I just didnt buy it). I believe it was located on one of those academic websites where you have to pay for articles, if that helps. Secondarily, I am also interested in what the article's author's argument might be.

I have found an article that may be the article I asked for. It certainly seems to approximate to what I remember about the person who made the statement to me that "Western Orientalists invented the Pali Canon" and the academic article I found online (except that I article I saw was not free). It is "The Buddhist Canon and the Canon of Buddhist Studies" by Oliver Freiberger and is published by the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies at https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8951.


What are the "Qualities of the Buddha"? What is meant by the phrase the "qualities of the Buddha"? Are these qualities to which unenlightened people can aspire or do these qualities emerge only upon enlightenment?

Following are the 9 qualities of the Buddha one should get inspiration and try to develop:

Buddho – Awakened
Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
Sugato – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
Lokavidu – Wise in the knowledge of the many worlds.
Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
Bhagavathi – The Blessed one
Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."

(Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nine_virtues)


Is a Daruma doll a good motivation to meditate ? Is using a Daruma doll as a means to motivation to meditate a good idea ?   or is it counter productive ?

They're great but I feel that if you can do it with a Daruma Doll you can do it with any other object.

Anything bright, cosntantly changing or unusual that you're never going to get used to will prompt you to meditate, once you have made that association.

If you're more traditional, set phone wallpapers and/or alarms.


What would be the relationship between mindfulness, enlightenment and incubation? From Incubation (psychology) - Wikipedia:

Incubation is one of the four proposed stages of creativity, which are preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Incubation is defined as, when attending to a different task, humans forget about the previous unsuccessful attempts and can engage with the task anew, often leading to finding the solution. Incubation is related to intuition and insight in that it is the unconscious part of a process whereby an intuition may become validated as an insight. Incubation substantially increases the odds of solving a problem, and benefits from long incubation periods with low cognitive workloads.

I see that incubation is what essentially what Buddhism would call as "enlightenment":

The experience of leaving a problem for a period of time and then finding that the difficulty evaporates on returning to the problem, or, even more striking, that the solution "comes out of the blue" when thinking about something else, is widespread. Many guides to effective thinking and problem solving advise the reader to set problems aside for a time.

However, incubation seems to be directly contradict with mindfulness (be here now), as it can be essentially summed up as:

the process of thinking about a problem subconsciously while being involved in other activities

Is my understanding correct?

Their principle relation is they are merely words and concepts with obvious and less obvious "mental molding". Mindful of the process or not, setting aside or not, we can not fully explain in words even the simplest of sensations, like lifting your arm, or the taste of fruit. Words are extremely limiting if you truly want to describe your complete experience of reality. For example, if you see a "table", you will limit your perception and mentally push aside the potential of this object being a drum, a raft, or firewood.
As long as one thinks of enlightenment as the "solution", they will "push aside" the reality right in front of them. Attainment does not "promote" one vision of reality over all other ones. It is the concepts limiting our vision of reality that are shown to be void of distinction.
The same goes for "incubation". Most "problems" are mental constructs based on language and grammar. For example, in Indo-Germanic languages such as English, a verb must have an object. So we get strange constructions like "it's raining", or "problems have dimensions" and think of these constructs as real. What you describe as incubation is used in some Buddhist schools in some form or another, for example with Zen Koans. It is however not the same the experience as attainment. It's more like a "mental tripwire" that  a teacher will set up, that lets your mind stumble out of its preconceptions, for just a moment. The "lightning that strikes" at this moment is a glimpse of reality before it is conceptualized.

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple
where Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Soon it ran out of heating
fuel and  everybody was shivering in the cold.
Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put
them into the fireplace.
"What are you doing?" the monks asked. "You are burning our holy religious
artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!"
"Are these statues alive and do they have Buddha nature?" asked Master Dan Xia.
"Of course not," replied the monks. "They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature."
"Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating
fuel," said Master Dan Xia. "Can you pass me another piece of firewood
please? I need some warmth."
The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down
and burn incense sticks to them.
"Are you worshiping firewood?" asked the monks.
"No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honoring the Buddha." replied
Dan Xia.


Can anyone briefly explain what is Dhamma? Can anyone please explain what is Dhamma in few paragraphs if possible?

A similar question was asked by Rahula in Samyukta Nikaya but what I have is English translation of the conversation which leaves me with doubts. Also I want to establish meaning of Dhamma before asking few more questions based on it.

The term dhamma has multiple meanings in Buddhism. Dhamma is defined in the accesstoinsight.org glossary page as:

  dhamma [Skt. dharma]:(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2)
  mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles
  of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the
  right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop
  so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself. By
  extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also to denote any
  doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of the Buddha
  denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the
  quality at which those teachings are aimed.

If you want to know more about Dhamma, the doctrine and teachings of the Buddha, see this page.

If you want to know more about dhamma (mental quality or mental object), the fourth foundation of mindfulness, see this page, this page and the Satipatthana Sutta.


Impermanence, nonexistance of self, meaning of life I've been learning lately about Buddhism and I have several questions about it. I haven't actually read any of the sacred books, just some stuff on the internet and now I'm reading What Makes You Not a Buddhist as an intro to Buddhism, so I might have some misconceptions about it.

So let's get to the questions:

1) In What Makes You Not a Buddhist the author says that asking a Buddhist about the meaning of life is inappropriate because it implies that somewhere there's a final purpose of being. Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living? And if there is, what is it based upon. Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something? Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ? And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?

2) If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist, we're just made up of different parts and our conception of ourselves is just an illusion. But if Descartes was right when he said "I think, therefore I am.", then I don't see how that works with Buddhism - someone here must be wrong (I think). Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time? If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?

3) One of the four seals is: All compounded things are impermanent. In the book author says that all things are compounded so saying "All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true? Everything is made out of atoms and atoms are made out of subatomic particles and perhaps those are made out of sub subatomic particles and so on (I don't know), but in the end, there must be a basic building block that makes those things and that's bound to be constant. It's hard for me to understand how everything could be a compounded because that means that it's made out of smaller things put together. But if those things are also compounded, this process goes on infinitely. But there's no infinity in nature.

I'll really appreciate the answers.

EDIT: Thank you all for the great answers. They really helped me understand some things better.
Because I hate deciding on which answer is the best, I'll let the community do it - after some time I'll pick the one with most upvotes.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living?

No.Buddhists believe the purpose in living is to free one's self from suffering.

And if there is, what is it based upon?

The universal need for happiness.

Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something?

Now that you know the Buddhist goal is to be free from suffering this is where all the motivation goes to. Buddhism teaches the Eight Noble Path that when practiced,cultivated,developed and perfected will lead to happiness.

Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ?

Because choosing to do good is better than choosing to do bad.Also Buddhists believe in karma so the more bad things you do the more suffering follows.

And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?

Because Buddhists believe if you commit suicide you'll just get reborn but the problems stays the same, if not worse.Not only is it pointless but by committing suicide you are creating a lot of bad energy.More bad karma than you can handle even.As killing is a very heavy karma and that includes killing yourself.You may also acquire the habit or tendency to commit suicide in future lives and trap your self in a never ending circle of suffering.

This is why it is Better to understand things so you don't suffer.But even if you can't understand anything.It's still better to Not commit suicide.Because that's will save you enormous amount of suffering.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time?

Yes no Essence (like soul in Christianity).

If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?

It's one of the random parts connected together in a certain point of time you mentioned before. Though it's not random it follows a pattern of cause and effect.In other words it's conditioned.

"All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true?

I don't understand.What do you see in the world that makes you think everything is permanent.People are born and die.Food are bought and rots.Leaves turn green and falls.Flowers bloom and wither.2 years olds eventually become 80 years olds.You were thinking of jogging now your thinking of what's on tv.You were cold now your warm.You were standing now your sitting and now your standing up again.You had the intention to read about Buddhism now you have the intention to write a post.Even an atom is always moving.Always.Nothing stays fixed the way it is FOREVER.A tv might look a tv now but in 100 years it's probably molten liquid.

One of the reason people mistaken things for being permanent is because of not being able to see things from a wider time scale.


Mindfulness in Everyday Activity I have been practicing meditation, reading and listening to Buddhist teachings and I undertake the five precepts for about year now. This is the first time that I actually ask a question about my practice. I meditate every morning and then during my daily activities I try to be mindful watching the physical and mental phenomena.

I can be mindful quite well but as soon as I experience an unpleasant mental state such embarrassment or awkwardness fear and aversion come up and I feel kind of lost. It is like I forget what to do and I am not able to be mindful anymore. This happens even if I am well prepared to experience an unpleasant mental state. It happens when people are around and very fast too and even if I am not scared to experiencing them when they come up, it seems that I lose track and I forget everything. So what can I do in these situations?

Sorry for my English. I hope that this make sense.
Thanks for your time, may all beings be happy and free from suffering.

First, congratulations on your year of practice. Sometimes we overlook the most basic principles of our practice, as such I am referring to the first noble truth: there is suffering. Note that it is not stated, "I suffer". By being stated this way it can be understood that suffering is not, "yours" or "mine". As opposed to viewing these experiences as, "I am embarrassed" or "I am feeling awkward" reflect upon these moments as, "there is embarrassment" or "there is fear". Know they are not yours but emotions that result from a particular experience. Also, bear in mind that as you reflect upon this experience you are being mindful and in the moment (meditating). Being mindful does not in itself guarantee happiness. Mindfulness combined with skillfulness will move you toward your goal. These principles are found in the Eightfold Noble path. Try noting your experience. Saying to yourself for example, "fear" or "embarrassed" as you would during formal or seated meditation, allowing for the physical response to dissipate.

"To let go of suffering, we have to admit it into consciousness. But the admission in Buddhist meditation is not from a position of: "I am suffering" but rather, "There is the presence of suffering" because we are not trying to identify with the problem but simply acknowledge that there is one." - Ajahn Sumedho


Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong? According to this article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero:

  Majjhima Nikaya 55 ..... The Buddha denied this, adding “Jivaka, I
  say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten:
  when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three
  instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or
  suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for
  oneself).”

And another quote from the same source:

  Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 ..... This is one of the discourses which clearly
  shows that the Buddha and his monks ate meat. Also, we see that meat
  from an animal that is already dead when it is purchased is allowed to
  be used, but not if the animal is alive.

In summary from the above and various sources:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (already dead before you arrived at the market)

My thought is that although the last case is not wrong due to an individual not being the direct cause of the killing of the specific animal, the individual is still contributing to the general demand that drives the meat market i.e. encouraging the supply of meat by butchers. If there is no demand, then there would be no supply. Unlike a tiger killing its prey, a butcher only slaughters the animal if there would be purchasers who would buy its meat.

So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists?

EDIT: Preferably, according to the Theravada tradition.

Because buddhist morality is not about regulations and punishments for bad deeds. It's about the effect actions have on your well being, and others' well being. It's "medicinal morality", rather than "legalist morality". And what is bad for the mind's health is to act with malicious intentions.

This perspective on morality is completely different from our western morality which is still influenced by a christian view of exterior punishment for bad deeds. The punishment comes from you alone and is thus rooted in your intentions behind the deeds.

In this case, this is just one more instance of how suffering in the world is innevitable. It's not that being vegetarian is irrelevant. It is obviously a wholesome thing to do. But there are far more important things to worry about regarding what is good and what is bad for the mind, because when you buy meat you don't have the intention to kill animals. Just like when you walk the street you have no intention to kill bugs, even though that is completely innevitable in the long run.


Sequence in the noble eightfold path It's clear right view is the foremost factor as without the right view one would not go for practicing the noble eightfold path at all. But when the rest is considered, is there a real sequence? My physical actions are generally good and my speech is fine but needs to be improved as I'm vulnerable to idle chatter. But controlling speech the action is difficult to me. But when I realize that idle chatter(rather idle communication, not just idle chatter alone) leads to more dukkha I am abstaining from it. It's kind of right concentration. Am I following the noble eight foldpath correctly in that scenario?

Right view is the leader ('forerunner') of the path.
When you realize idle chatter leads to more dukkha, this is right view leading your speech.
When the mind maintains right speech in communication, this is right mindfulness.
In actually practising the path, right view & right mindfulness work together, as described below:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong speech as wrong speech and right speech
as right speech.
One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong speech & for entering right speech: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right speech.
Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty


Sutta Reference, perception, judgment I'm looking for two suttas:

(1) a sutta in which the Buddha says, I believe, that one is able to perceive the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, along with other pairs that one can perceive in the way opposite to what is natural.

(2) A sutta in which the Buddha says that you shouldn't judge others since only he or one like him knows the full extent of people's kamma. I believe it is from the long discourses.

(1) a sutta in which the Buddha says, I believe, that one is able to perceive the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, along with other pairs that one can perceive in the way opposite to what is natural.

I am not sure if there is Sutta which mentions this but the following does have something like what you mentioned above which is called the 5 perception (pañca saññā) which appear in Metta,sahagata Sutta (quotation below), Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Tikandaki Sutta, etc.

    (1) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ he dwells perceiving
    the repulsive therein.
    (2) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive,’ he dwells perceiving
    the unrepulsive therein.
    (3) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive and in the repulsive,’
    he dwells perceiving the repulsive therein.
    (4) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive and in the unrepulsive,’
    he dwells perceiving the unrepulsive therein.
    (5) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell rejecting both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, and dwell in
    equanimity, mindful and fully aware,’ he dwells therein equanimously, mindful and fully aware.

  (2) A sutta in which the Buddha says that you shouldn't judge others since only he or one like him knows the full extent of people's kamma. I believe it is from the long discourses.

Acinteyya Sutta mentions karmma is unfathomable thence thinking and trying to read too much into it is futile for a person who is not a Buddha. I think what is said is that you should not judge the working of Karma.

    The result of karma, bhikshus,
    is unthinkable [beyond thought], should not be thought about,
    thinking about which would bring one a share of madness or vexation.

Following are some Suttas which mentions judging other:

Cūḷa Puṇṇama Sutta - Judge a true or false person
Thāna Sutta - How to truly know a person’s character


Correct Version of Meditation I wonder if I have been practising wrongly all this time. I notice two patterns in my meditation:

(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused," etc.

(2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet." My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy.

Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?

I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience, but since both methods mentioned are easy for me, I am curious. I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness. I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?

Thank you.

(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing
  with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I
  should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused,"
  etc.

This is OK for initial developing of meditative awareness or when the mind is exceptionally busy.

This is a way to slow down the discursive mind by replacing uncontrolled thoughts with controlled thoughts, as taught as the 4th method in MN 20.

  (2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare
  thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet."
  My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy. Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?

Yes; this second instance is what one should aim for in meditation. The less thoughts the better.

  I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience

When possible, the Pali suttas teach to control thoughts & to judge & replace any unbeneficial discursive thoughts with beneficial thoughts, as taught in MN 19 & MN 20.

  I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness.

The 2nd method leads to calm & (if the non-verbal emotional hindrances can be calmed) to the joy of concentration.

  I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?

To believe nothing happens is the hindrance of doubt rather than the spiritual power of faith/trust.

A person wishing to fully practise the Buddhist path should have faith in the teachings.

Before the mind can naturally energize & develop buoyancy & joy, it must settle down, which can appear stagnant for a time.


Analysis and Compassion I understand that compassion meditation uses in great part feeling and the generation of affect. I wonder: Are there aspects of compassion only accessible through meditating on compassion analytically?

Thank you

Metta is to be friendly. If one is friendly to people without discrimination them you are developing compassion. This element does not need meditation but meditation can also be used to develop it.

What Metta meditation tries to do is to:

adjust one's perception, thoughts and views so one does not discriminate against a class of beings or particular beings - one may be classified living being as: me, friendly, indifferent, foes or any other classification and draw boundaries and identify certain attributes one favours or disfavors. Metta breaks the discrimination due to classification, attributes or groupings so one can be friendly to any being.
develop friendly thoughts


How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them? As a Buddhist, we are called upon to honor our mother and father. However, how should this be applied in a situation where parents were abusive, neglectful, and harmful? When engaging the parents is often revictimizing? What are the obligations to parents in this situation? Is it their karma to be not honored because of their actions?

My father was a selfish alcoholic who physically abused me on several occasions, my mother was loving but would often be off putting because of anxieties. I see the error in their ways and have better insight to why they are who they are by practicing mindfulness and right view. I see them both as victims, my father trapped by drugs and selfishness, my mother by worry and fear.

This helps me have strong love and compassion for both, because I can see their suffering and know its part of the human condition. I don't take it personal, remember attributes are not permanent, there are roots to why people act like they do and it can change.

Recognizing someone suffers, is human, can be a great honor.


Should a Buddhist advocate the learning of a martial art? I'm listening to a lecture series about child development and in the first lecture it advocates teaching children martial arts as an aid to enhancing their self-control. I would quite like my daughter to learn a martial art (if she wants to). However I feel a bit conflicted about it as surely the lessons themselves are learning how to assault people or at the very least engage in potentially violent behaviour.

Is it justifiable for a Buddhist to learn or advocate the learning of a martial art? I appreciate that there is a cultural connection between martial arts and Buddhism in some cultures? How are the ethics of it dealt with? Generally how can I take my daughter off to a Buddhist family retreat one week then whisk her off to learn how to attack people the next? That seems inherently conflicted? Is it?

Wholesome intent is important

The Buddha learned archery as a kshatriya, but he didn't lose his compassion - see this story of when his cousin shot down a bird.
Martial arts can connect one deeply with the body, but so can Yoga and Tai Chi.

Buddhism and violence have a long history, not always nice

Meditation was used to numb kamikaze pilots to commit suicide in WW2 Japan (source)
Buddhist kingdoms Burma and Thailand were often at war, with monks on either side sometimes disrobing to fight and even lead armies. (source)
Shaolin monks trained in martial arts to fight off bandits, but continued to train in those skills long after the threat of bandits was gone. This has destroyed their religion and holiness. (source)

Wholesome and wise company is important.

Not everyone is going to be perfectly enlightened about martial arts, and violent people or those on a power trip are generally attracted to violence. Choosing the right teacher and school is important.
Much less risk of this with Yoga, or with nature sports like mountaineering where solitude prompts the same body awakening.

Right recognition of your level of awakening is important

Jesus walked on water, and the Buddha breathed fire and water from his nostrils, but most of us can't do that.
Just because the Buddha remained untainted by training in martial arts is no guarantee that we will also remain so.
And, just because as a Bodhisattva he was ready to give up his life than raise a finger doesn't mean we can all be so.
We must rightly recognize our failings and abilities. Buddhism is not foolishness. Guilt tripping about our inability to be very non-violent is foolishness.

Creating fortunate circumstances for practicing the holy life is important

There's violence all around us, not just on the mat. Competitive sports where opponents yell at each other, or careers where colleagues fear each other are also violence.
Just as the Buddha didn't want his monks to eat more than was enough to hold the body together, or wear more clothes than was needed to cover the body, violence in all spheres of life must be restricted to the bare minimum.
For example, pursuing a selfishly competitive and stressful career in pursuit of vanity is violence and greed.
If there is no vegetarian food, then animals maybe killed, but only to the bare minimum. Gluttony of even the vegetarian sort is violence and greed.
Learning violent skills when one doesn't live in violent times is needless.

Buddhism and life are not different - when there is violence in human life, how can there not be some violence in the life of a Buddhist?
Not recommended, but Dharma can be realized even through extreme violence

King Ashoka had to feel and see the blood and gore of the Kalinga war first hand to change his views on violence - he was already a Buddhist or exposed to Buddhist views on violence, but the non-violent message didn't penetrate his being until he got a maximum dose of violence. (source)


Is Zen an extreme form of Mahayana? In this Partially Examined Life podcast one of the presenters stated that Zen is an extreme form of Mahayana. Is that true in any sense? Are there elements of Zen that could be classified as extreme? Or is the statement entirely wrong?

Extreme means "furthest from the center or a given point; outermost." Zen comes from Japan, which came from Chan in China which came from Mahayana in India. Thus Zen is far removed from the origin in India making it more extreme. I am a Zen practitioner in Florida of the United States. Here it is even more of an extreme since we are even further from the center point of origin.

"the extreme south of Florida"

Or look at it this way, your arm is an extremity of your body. Zen is an extremity of Mahayana buddhism. One could say the arm and the body are one. And one could also say the arm is an extremity of the body. Both view points are correct.

Zen in Japan has a lot of added texts and stories. Check out the book "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones". The "Gateless Gate" is in that book. The Shōbōgenzō written by Dogen is a Japanese Zen text. These are texts native to Japanese Zen that you will not find in the Chinese/Indian/Tibet texts. As far as practice, meditation on a Koan is a good example of a specific Japanese Zen practice that you will not see in Indian mahayana buddhism


Good source of mantras with their meanings Where can I find a reliable list of mantras with their respective translations?

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bookchant.pdf

https://www.amaravati.org/dhamma-books/chanting-book/

These are chantings. The translations are also present. Hope this helps :)


What are the personal consequences opposing, mobbing or even revile Noble Ones or right view? Ven. members of the Sangha coming across here,
Valued Upāsaka, Upāsikā,
Valued team here and for awakening searching readers,
Since it is modern and somehow not only presentable but even seen as a sign of "independence" or "cool" to be fearless about opposing and undermining of what still stands firm: it may be good for those who do not know but like to know, to answer properly about certain consequences for oneself.

What can be expected for oneself, if one is opposing, fighting or even reviling the Noble Ones, Right View or those following this line, here or/and here after?

If somebody does not know, would that result in harder consequences, or equal, or even lessen such a fault?

What are the personal consequences for others and for many, who approve, accept and even follow such?

To get some ideas, here are some examples of wrong view, and of consequences:

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. ― MN117
Then, having surveyed the silent community, he addressed them: "Could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?"
"No."
"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.'
"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"No."
"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.' ― MN110

(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)

The mark of a Noble One is sunatta (emptiness; voidness), as the Lord Buddha explained about the perfectly virtuous Sariputta in MN 151.

  The Blessed One said to venerable Sāriputta. `Sāriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you
  spend your time mostly?”

  “Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidance.”

  “It's good Sāriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of Great Beings. Sāriputta,

When a monk exhibits greed, ambition, anger, conceit, domineeringness & delusion; always harassing laypeople; it is good karma to expel that monk from a community.

For example, in AN 6.54, the lay Buddhists expelled the bad monk Dhammika from their district.

The personal consequences are wisdom & liberation when opposing, mobbing or even reviling an Ignoble One of wrong view.

The Lord Buddha explained in the Dhammapada:

  64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

  72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

  73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries and honor among householders.

  74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of
  the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.

  75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple
  of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim but develop
  detachment (viveka) instead.


Does Buddha go to Naraka (hell) to save those tormented beings? I heard one regarded by many a Buddhist teacher said, "Buddha will go to Naraka to save those suffering (tormented) beings, whilst those (monks, buddhists) will want to go to the Purelands. That (Buddha going to hell) is called Great Compassion."

Is this teaching correct, is it Buddha's teaching? I learnt that

One should bear one's own deeds and consequences (karma), neither a father could bear on behalf for the son, nor a daughter for the mother;
Buddha could not "give" enlightenment to anyone because enlightenment is reached by oneself;
If one who hasn't cultivated enough merits, one would be born in one of the Eight Obscured Places (八無暇) that Dharma couldn't be heard; one of the Eight Obscured Places is Naraka.

Is this saying contradictory to 3)? Why is he saying this?

As far as my study in sutta, Buddha did not go to hell to help beings in that world.  They are considered to be "unfortunate" beings; among animals, hungry ghosts, and gods in arupa world because they do not have the strength or what it takes to understand dharma.  However, in one instance, Buddha was so kind to a Naga (which considered to be a being in animal world) by telling him to observe 8 precepts on Upasatha days and he would become human faster.  In one sutta, Buddha compared beings in hell to be like a person drowning in a cesspool not even a strand of hair above it to grab pulling him out.

For question number 3) not always necessary.  In Migasala sutta, Buddha divided people into 10 groups, which one of them is;

  Here, ânanda, a certain person is overwhelmed with hate and from time to time greed arises to him. He has heard something fruitful, has learnt something, has straightened his view and he personally has gained some release. After death he does not go to loss gains some distinction.


In which language or languages were most of the sutras compiled? In general, which language or languages were the sutras compiled and was this the same language tha Shakyamuni spoke?

Shakyamuni Buddha spoke in a language known as Magadhi Prakrit. According to this article https://www.quora.com/What-language-did-Gautama-Buddha-speak-according-to-Indian-mythology-and-why-is-it-significant there are no written records in his language. Instead, they were later written down in Pali, Sinhalese, and Sanskrit.


If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions.  But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself.

But many Buddhists believe in rebirth.  If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

When most people think of "self" they think of some abstract core that is the subject of all experience and the agent of all actions. Buddha taught (and modern cognitive science tends to agree) that upon careful examination there is no such single core. Instead experiences result from interactions of multiple perceptory functions. Similarly, our actions are performed by a conglomerate of functions, without a single agent responsible for all choices.

When the notion of individual rebirth exists as an unexamined belief, it depends on this unexamined notion of "self" as its necessary foundation. Once practitioner is free from illusion of self (in practice, not just conceptually), the notion of individual birth/death/rebirth no longer applies. From this perspective, rebirth is a byproduct of attachment to a (substantial) self.

But because karma at large still continues to function, the infinitely forking/joining threads of causation that once were the subject of attachment continue to participate in activity and serve as causes for subsequent effects. In this sense, rebirth as principle goes on continuously whether we posit an individual or not.

To give this a more practical spin, instead of worrying about rebirth, we practitioners should focus on working towards deconstruction of self by reducing the strength of the illusion through practice of altruism and non-attachment, first and foremost at the microscopic level of thought-to-thought intention and reaction.


Not addressing a thought when meditating If I, for example, was meditating, and the thought came in my mind, say, obsessive-compulsively (meaning it keeps resurfacing due to the fact that the thought bothers me): "I'm a bad person", if I ignored it and returned to my breathing, would my not addressing the thought and thinking "No, I'm not, and here's why.." cause me to subconsciously believe I'm a bad person? It's holding me back from meditating because I feel uneasy about dropping the thought.

Obsessive-compulsive tendency means attachment to thoughts, giving them too much importance. Instead of addressing thoughts, we can observe our mind. It's like reflections and mirror. If you are captivated by reflections, or struggle against reflections, you manipulate with reflections - and they remain in power. Instead, you can shift your attention to space where reflections happen. Mirror is not touched by reflections.

So if you just observe the thoughts, not trailing them with more thoughts, not being captured by thoughts, then you can remain in stable mind, untouched by thoughts. Your mind will gradually realize their illusory nature. Thoughts have causes and effects, so they have no power by themselves. All their power is brought by causes and conditions.

Meditating, you can gradually develop awareness of thoughts and their causes, and develop non-attachment to them.

For example, you could realize that "I am a bad person" is just a stupid idea, an illusory construction that has nothing to do in your life.

PS. In case of "constant thinking", the thought repeats again and again. Why does it repeat? Because there is some intention beyond repeating thoughts. Then we can use several methods:

(1) Keep the observation and try to let go of thoughts. Eventually the mind may get bored with that thought and stop repeat it.

See also: Letting go (Ch'an Newsletter - No. 24, September 1982)

(2) Investigate the intention. "Why does this thought return, again and again? What for?" Investigating intentions, you could change your mental processes and get rid of obsessions.

For example, the thought "I'm a bad person" can come due to the intention to understand that marking people as "good" and "bad" is not an efficient way to deal with problems.


Immediate Remedies to Judgmental Thoughts I had previously asked a question about contempt. Since then, I noticed a few things, such as that it's not easy for me to 'cancel' out analytically my judgment of others. If I try to question my judgment and invalidate it, it often doesn't work, especially if I get angry. I know that my judgments are false, but they still arise.
Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment?
The most effective solution so far has been compassion meditation. But that is not always possible in the moment.
What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?
EDIT: I feel perhaps my question is similar to my previous one, but I'm asking for really in the moment remedies, and the diverse options Buddhism recommends.

I have this problem myself  but it is getting better. The first thing I do is to spot the first movement of the mind toward judgment and I send the person metta (May you be well, happy and free from suffering).  This then changes my attitude to a more accepting and more opened mind. One other thing which I find helpful is to remember their faults are mine, I have a potential to do what I disapprove and judge. This brings me back to earth and to a forgiving attitude.


The World and Five Aggregates of Clinging As I've heard, the "world" referred by Buddha (mentioned in the Loka Sutta and in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> LokaSamudaya Sutta) is the same as "Five Aggregates of Clinging" (Five-Updana-Skandas).

That's why the world in one's mind is different than the other's world.

It would be great if anyone can explain this further.

There is no such thing as "five aggregates of clinging". The aggregates are things clung to therefore the meaning is "five aggregates clung to".

As for the word "loka" ("world"), there are many suttas that do not refer to this as the "physical world". The Loka Sutta refers to the "world" in the mind that is produced by egoism, such as "my family", "my country", "my planet earth", "my favourite television", "my life", "my career", "my purpose", etc.

Or other times, the suttas refer to "the world" is a predominant mental state; such as "jhana" as "the world exclusively of pleasant feelings" (MN 79).

The "world in the mind" is different for different individuals because each individual views & conceives (creates; manufacturers) the world differently. For some, the world is a place of "pleasure" or a place of "sacredness" or "produced by god" or something with a "plan for humanity". For others, the world is an "illusion", "unsatisfactory", "meaningless" and "worthless".

For example, right now, there are powerful people ("the gods") planning the future of the world to benefit themselves & their future generations. Where as there are also other people who have given up on the world, merely waiting for what they regard as a stupid world & life to end & pass.

For each individual mind, the conception of "the world" is different. These conceptions are endless in number & variety.


How to reconcile non-attachment in a Type-A, North American culture where work is life? I've been meditating on-and-off for years.

However, the non-attachment preached by the Buddha conflicts with the environment around me. I'm in a large urban center in North America.

Achievement is valued; I feel like I'm contributing to the world in a small way.

I feel like it makes me better at my job to dream big and get attached to goals big and small, whether it's mentoring someone junior or committing years to a project that has an uncertain payoff.

This puts me at odds with my meditation practice, where "letting go" is emphasized.

The best resource I have found specifically addressing this question is Stephen Batchelor's book "After Buddhism". In it, Batchelor lays out one possible interpretation of the scriptures, in which the Buddha and his disciples are very much 'in the world'---businesspeople, merchants, town doctors, etc.---this was refreshing to read and made me feel more at ease.

Am I asking to eat my cake too? I value Buddhism and meditation, but I also value my Western individualist roots and feel egoistic achievement is necessary for progress in science and technology.

Thank you!

Firstly, I am very much against this pop-culture Buddhism where too much emphasis is given to letting go and not that much emphasis on Bhavana and development of wholesome qualities. Letting go of what, exactly? Definitely, check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talks on YouTube who shares a similar opinion. There are many things which we need to let go: anger, jealousy, rage, covetousness, stinginess, delusion etc. There are many things we need to develop or "acquire": Metta, Compassion, Euqanimity, Mindfulness, Patience, Humility, Wisdom etc. Knowing which qualities are wholesome and developing them and which are unwholesome and letting go of them is practical wisdom.

Why does achievement need to be egoistic? Why not process and vision driven? We can always frame "achievements" as something bringing long term happiness to ourselves and the people around us instead of something "I" have added to my shining Resume. If that is the case, then no need to hesitate in pouring our energies into it; unless you realise later that this is not really the case.

A very interesting Theravada list is the four Iddhipada (four bases of mental power) cultivated for success in spiritual practice but equally applies in lay achievements. They are Chanda (Desire or Aspiration), Viriya (Energy), Citta (Keeping the Goal in mind), Vimansa (Review or Investigation of results to adjust). So, the Buddha is not against being competent, efficient and energetic in achieving your goals. Quite the opposite, he encourages it.

Also, don't worry about ego too much. Even third path Anagamis have conceit. It is a very deep fetter. So, don't be too worried about it as long as you are aware of it. Even, Ananda the Buddha's attendant once mentioned that we use conceit to overcome conceit (for example to be regular in practice), and moderation in eating to overcome sense desire. Otherwise, you would be going to the extreme of self mortification, which is ignoble and of little benefit.

Hope, this helps.


If there is no self how can Nirvana be described as bliss? I've heard Nirvana described as a state of bliss, but if there is no self then how can it be described as bliss when nobody is there to experience it?

According to Buddhism, even when I am typing these words and seeing the screen, there is no one there. The 'person' isn't an existing thing, it is just a label we put on things to describe how things work, and the label of person refers to a large group of many different mental and physical processes.

If there is ultimately no self, does that mean that all experience is impossible? No. There are individual parts that preform functions and made experience possible. When I look at the computer screen, it isn't some sort of seperate "me" inside my head that is seeing the screen. Rather, the coming together of the object, my eye, and and my brain, work together and as a result, awareness of the screen arises.

It's the same way with Nibbana. There isn't anything there that you can really call a person, but there is Nibbana, and there is consciousness that is taking Nibbana as an object (called Lokuttara-Citta in the books of Abhidhamma). It is this consciousness that is blissful.


What basic knowledge and skills are required to become a Vipassana teacher? What would you say are the basic requirements to become a Vipassana teacher?
I don't necessarily refer to attainments. More to basic knowledge and skills.

What I can think of would be for instance:
 - knowledge of the 5 precepts;
 - knowledge of the 4 noble truths;
 - knowledge of the 8-fold path;
 - be able to listen.

(Just to name a few.)

I imagine this varies from tradition to tradition. In my tradition, the Thai version of Mahasi Sayadaw's teaching, anyone can pass on the teachings, so in a sense anyone can be a teacher. What this means is that there is no governing body going to reprimand you if you go out and teach others as you have been taught. This seems in line with the Buddha's way himself; the only requirements as far as being a teacher is concerned relate to fulfilling a role as a monastic teacher (i.e. regarding monastic discipline).

That being said, to become recognized as a teacher in my tradition, one generally has to undergo training both theoretically and practically - and of course, it goes without saying that one must have previously completed basic training in insight meditation (at least one month of intensive practice, preferably more).

Theoretically, one must have studied and/or been taught about the sixteen stages of insight knowledge as found in the commentaries and Visuddhimagga, along with the sort of "symptoms" to look for in someone going through each of the stages. A basic knowledge of Theravada Buddhism (usually through the Thai Dhamma exams) is also understood as a given.

Practically, one would be required to first listen in on another teacher's interviews with meditators (I spent a year doing this, every day for about five hours including ceremonies) and then eventually teach yourself under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

There is generally no certificate given, though there is a standard course in Thailand now for monks that lasts 40 days and gets one a certificate of sorts. Since there is very little practical experience in teaching involved, it doesn't seem quite complete as a teacher training, more of a basic requirement that one should then use to undertake further practical study of the art of teaching.


Can you skip the 7 purifications and gain straight insight into phenomenon? Is it possible to skip the 7 purifications and gain straight insight into phenomenon?

I'm starting to get the feeling that you haven't studied the seven purifications at all... numbers six and seven are equivalent to "straight insight into phenomena", so no, it is not by definition possible to skip them and still gain insight into phenomena. As per the sutta:

“So too, friend, purification of virtue is for the sake of reaching purification of mind; purification of mind is for the sake of reaching purification of view; purification of view is for the sake of reaching purification by overcoming doubt; purification by overcoming doubt [150] is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path; purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of the way; purification by knowledge and vision of the way is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision; purification by knowledge and vision is for the sake of reaching final Nibbāna without clinging. It is for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One.”
-- MN 24 (Bodhi, trans)


What causes addictions and what is the remedy? What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from addictions according to Buddha?

Addiction is simply a recurring craving for a sensory stimulus may it be drugs, alcohol, etc.
This can be eliminated through Vipassana to reduce craving.
There are many studies and resources on this: vipassana+addiction


Being assertive/manipulative I am facing this problem currently. I am very sensitive and fearsome. I don't like to hurt others and am scared to argue with anyone. I become very hurt if someone has a bad attitude towards me. This only ends up in my stress levels increasing and losing patience and self hatred.
Colleagues and friends say that I am not manipulative and very straightforward and that is what causes so many problems to me. I feel that I should not care whether others are good with me or are bad with me.
But I tend to become over reactive suddenly and this is creating a chain of problems. I am sure in Buddhism, there would be the way to solve my problem.

In Buddhism there is no solution for 'my problem', because there is no problem in the first place. The mind is creating problems out of ignorance, and causing useless suffering. The title says 'Being assertive/manipulative', but as you wrote the people you ask say you're straightforward. Where is the problem? I would suggest to drop this thinking and pondering upon 'I', 'me', 'mine' and focus on the real practice. By using mindfulness ('thinking', 'emotion' ...) and in daily life applying the practice of sila (morality).

Therefore you should know the 10 skillful/unskillful actions and practice them (the skillful ones) actively in daily live (i.e. try to speak in a honest way).


Shikantaza vs counting breath As we know, in soto-shu we don't count nor observe the breath during zazen.

I would like people who have a long experience with zazen meditation to explain if they consider that counting and observing the breath was helpful to progress in their meditation practice or not. Should a beginner start with counting breathing rather then go straight into shikantaza practice ?

My experience with "formal" zazen comes from meditating at a local Korean Zen meditation center, for about two years, twice a week, two hours each time. Plus some meditation at home.

In my experience, counting breaths is useful on those days when the mind is very distracted with mental chatter / inner gossip.

There seems to be a progression here: from counting by mentally saying the numbers, to counting on phalanges, to simply watching the breathing, to watching the mind, to just sitting.

For beginner, "just sitting" is an impossible feat. So rather than lying to oneself and pretending to "just sit" while instead indulging in thinking, one is advised to watch the mind ("don't go with thoughts, don't go against the thoughts"). If that still does not work, one should watch the inhales and exhales, in the hope to see the emotional disturbances that the thoughts come from, and let those go. If the mind is so disturbed that one can't even follow the breath, then counting breaths is used as last resort to tie up the discursive mind.


Strengthening dis-identification in normal life How we can strengthen dis-identification in normal life? How can we free our attention from self-reference?

We should try to see everything as "impermanent, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable"

When you see and contemplate that you can not control anything, not even your body, then you will understand that nothing is really yours.

I mentioned the body because the Buddha used to give this example, as you cannot control it, you cannot prevent it from getting old, sick or die... then what is really yours to control?

Another good technique, very common in Mahayana Buddhism, is to see "emptiness". When you see that everything comes from something else you will understand that everything lacks a self, a true identity, our bodies are just pieces of this planet, combined in a certain way based on the DNA of our parents... See dependent origination

In Theravada Buddhism, they would probably recommend you to focus on anatta (non self), as the Buddha used to say: "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self". There is no soul, a permanent soul would contradict impermanence, there is only a everchanging mindstream, so where is the identification? Hope it gives you something to think about!