What did Buddha mean by the words "tranquillising the bodily formation" in the Anapanasati Sutta?

"If "tranquillising the bodily formation" means "tranquillising the breath", then why didn't Buddha just said "tranquillising the breath"? – Damocle Damoclev"

"Tranquilizing the formation of body" or "stilling, calming, tranquilizing the construction of body", or "body-constructions", or most accurately "the identification with the intent to experience experience of the body", or "tranquilizing the breathing" or "stilling the body’s motion" or "releasing any inner neuroses manifesting as tensions and jerking in the body" and probably a hundred other ways of putting this are all saying the same thing but from different perspectives.

"Body" [ka ya = k-kha whatsoever], meaning in this case that which an individual considers to be 'his body', is an illusion formed from identification with the conjunction of name and form with consciousness thereof.

That which constitutes "Form" is different in different spheres of existence. In the human, it is formed at the point where earth (solidity), water (liquidity), fire (heat-and-light), and wind (motion) meet. In other realms the components (which are themselves views of a single phenomena from different perspectives - see: http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_06_chakkanipata.htm#p41
are merged into the less tangible forms "resistance," "adhesion," "heat" and "light," and "motion" (animation).

'Breath' here is simply the movement of, or vibration of that light. It is at the point where the breath is calmed, stilled completely, that it is possible to distinguish between consciousness tied down to consciousness of form and consciousness not so tied.

This is the split of the mangos from the mango tree.

At that point it is possible, if one is aware that this is the freedom one has been seeking, to drop identification with that consciousness that has form as its object: one is able to see it as "not me" "not mine" "not my self" "not of myself" "other". Not seen as the freedom one seeks, that is temporary freedom; seen it is Nibbana.

It is for this reason that the statement is made: "Of Bodies, I say Breath is one."

Seeing, as does the ordinary human being, this body as the issue, the source of pain, an instruction such as "stilling the body's motion" or "releasing any inner neuroses manifesting as tensions and jerking in the body" is a correct instruction for the human level. This would make no sense to a deva of one of the realms above that of manusa where 'body' is perceived as purely light.

The Buddha's Dhamma is spoken of as Timeless because it was so worded that it could be heard with both ears: that of man and that of the devas.

That's why.


How do I proceed to seriously study Buddhism?

For those (relatively) new to Buddhism here is what I'd (generally) advise in order:

Read Bikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as this will ground you in the Buddha's own words.
Read HHDL and Thubten Chodron's Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which will give you a respectful overview of the different traditions extant today and where they agree and where they disagree. Note this book is product of extensive consultation with experts in other traditions and their viewpoints are included. Among those other experts are some that you cite above such as Bikkhu Bodhi, Thich Nhat Hanh.
Find a local community of practitioners and sangha that follow one of the traditions outlined in #2 that fits your interests and predilections. In particular, research the community and the teachers to make sure they are valid. After you've made some investigation you can ask others here which communities do a good job representing the various extant traditions.
Really buckle down and try to understand whichever tradition you've picked in #3 and concentrate on that tradition. Don't go picking different ideas from different traditions until you've first really grokked your own tradition otherwise this will likely lead to a lot of confusion.

I am partial to the Mahayana as taught by the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that is authentically taught in the West by the FPMT community and the community at Sravasti Abbey in Washington State. However, there are very good Theravada traditions and teachers and some individuals will be better off with them. Not everyone is the same and you'll have to make your own decisions as what is best for you. Trust yourself to do so.

Hope this helps!


People believe that something is true, that it is not true, or that it maybe is and maybe isn't true.
There are major factions like this.
These are split as to which texts they assume to be true and worth studying.
To understand the various sections of thravada one has to look into how commentary & culture has been developing since the beginning and how it shaped the current traditions, teachers, translations & the translators.
There has been an tremendous change in how available the texts have become in the last 100 years, beginning with translations & more recently the internet, it is unprecedented.
The teachers who shaped what is now the monastic Sangha like Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ven. Ajahn Chah and many others are now either dead or soon dead.
Therefore the Sangha is rather slowly evolving new methods & understanding.
Many people are now interested in reading the Sutta more so than listening to a particular teacher or a commentator, people have access to the original texts and want to do their own analysis.
This is also rather unprecedented because historically only a few commentators have had access to texts and people had to get information 2nd hand from a teacher.
Ie nowadays the factions are divided as to:

Burmese Ven. Mahasi & Non-Mahasi
Thai as those who believe that maybe Buddha lives in Nibbana those who don't.
Thai who draw from Mahasi
In Sri Lanka, those who believe that Ven. Nanavira was Ariya and those who don't.
In Sri Lanka, those who draw from Mahasi and those who don't.

Some people analyze controversy by controversy and don't fit well into these broad classifications, ie those who accept some commentary but not all of it. I think this will be the norm in the future.
In regards to Mahasi, he follows commentary, seemingly all of it and then some. It is basically a mainline commentary based tradition and Mahasi Sayadaw produced a lot of commentary work himself.
Other than this it seems like the small monasteries require more conformity and a lot of the monastic division based on vinaya regulation as much as doctrinal differences.
As to Yuttadhammo, he mostly follows Mahasi as he was trained but i don't think he subscribes to everything.


I don't suppose that any of us are qualified to advise you on your marriage or the optimal duration of it.

In theory, I really don't think it's fair to say that Buddhist love is non-romantic.  The Nakulamata Sutta (AN 4:55) is a perfect counter-example; it is a promise the Buddha gave to a blissfully married couple to be united again in the next life.  The text is certainly much sappier, I would say, than any Hallmark movie or Valentine card.

I would say that even with a complete embrace of, and transformation within, the Buddhist dharma, one still has whatever karmic obligations in this life that one had before.  Nobody can say, well, I wouldn't have accumulated this credit-card debt if I were a Buddhist, so now that I am a Buddhist I won't pay the debt.  And likewise a convicted felon will still have to serve a prison sentence, even after taking refuge; a recovering alcoholic will still struggle with health problems in the short term; etc.  Being bound to a spouse with wedding vows is a very mild form of karma, all things considered.

I would think that if you really are a Buddhist, than upholding the reputation of the Enlightened One, the Teaching, and (more to the point) the Community should be a much higher priority than your own purity and practice.  Would it cause pain, if you simply announced to your wife, "I don't need a wife anymore.  I'm a Buddhist now"?  Would it (somehow) make her more likely to take refuge and discover the benefits of the Way for herself?

I would advise that Buddhism, like many other non-mainstream philosophical movements or self-help doctrines, tend to attract seekers and people struggling for answers.  Even in the Buddha's own time, recent converts were regarded with a healthy skepticism.  If you really are growing apart from your wife, the reason is much more likely to lie within yourself than simply following the dharma to the letter.  Perhaps you feel that your wife is holding you back and lacks the potential to help you live your best life; and phrasing it as an issue preventing progress in the Buddha path sounds holier and gives you permission to voice your true feelings?

Again, you still owe some amount of fealty to your spouse simply because you took a spouse; but if you no longer feel "attached" then it's okay to respectfully discuss that with her.  But I would talk to a therapist first.


A question about my karma and how it’s affecting me

Buddhism teaches the gift of Dhamma (moral & spiritual truth) is the best of gifts. Buddhism also praises when a person establishes their immoral parents in the Dhamma (AN 2.31-32). Buddhism teaches parents can have children who are morally superior to the parents (Iti 74). Buddhism teaches neither father nor mother can do oneself a greater good than one's own well-directed mind (Dhp 43).

While your parents have done many good things for you, their criticisms of you are unrelated to Dhamma; therefore their criticism is both unnecessary & immoral. If the Gotama (who become The Buddha) did everything his parents expected of him, there would have not been a "Buddha" or "Buddhism".

In Buddhism, our self-esteem is based in our following of the Buddhist path, such as our generosity, our loving-kindness & our good harmless deeds towards ourself & others.

In summary, you should be grateful towards the "good things" your parents have provided & done for you; but you are not to be grateful towards any bad things. Instead, you should have concern for the welfare of your parents when they do bad things and you should ensure you aspire you do not repeat any unwholesome deeds of your parents.

  Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they
  nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses
  his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in
  conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles &
  establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles
  & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father,
  settles & establishes them in wisdom: To this extent one pays &
  repays one's mother & father.

  AN 2.31-32

  Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.

  Dhammapada 43


According to "proper speech" in Buddhism's eight-fold path, is cursing allowed if it's necessary to get the point across?

One of the Five Precepts (pañca-sila) - the basic training rules that is observed by all practicing Buddhist lay men and women -  is to follow the precept of abstaining from wrong speech. Wrong speech involves a great many things apart from uttering falsehoods. It includes insulting speech, malicious speech, even gossip.  This in positive terms is the practice of Right Speech.  It is said that "If you can't control your mouth, there's no way you can hope to control your mind.” This is why right speech is so important in day-to-day practice.

Cursing if it's necessary to get the point across to someone can be termed as harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings). The important point is that you were mindful of this slip. I do not see it as a transgression. It is not a sin as that of a transgression against a god, as in other faiths. This is only a trifling unwholesome act done by one who strives to practice the Dhamma, as opposed to the same act by another. What I said above is in keeping with the scriptures.

  “Suppose that a man were to drop a lump of salt into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the lump of salt, and unfit to drink?”
  “Yes, lord ….”
  “Now suppose that a man were to drop a lump of salt into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the lump of salt, and unfit to drink?”
  “No, lord ….”
  “In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil act done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling act done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.”
  — AN 3:99


Nava Sutta

towards the end of the sutta, Buddha talked about daily progress of Dharma development.  My take on it, it is hard to track quantifiable progress daily.  You just know.  Though the sutta talks about effluents in general, it might be applicable to meditation as well.

  Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of
  his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know,
  'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still
  he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way,
  when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know,
  'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,'
  still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.


What are some ways to improve my practice?

It is hard to offer concrete suggestions or even precisely guess what's happening without more information about your practice and your background;  that said, it looks like your practice is sincere, and it is working. Often when the practice begins to bite, irritability and impatience may increase - it is a learning moment, and a teacher. Find the three characteristics of impermanence, non-self and suffering in each of those moments of irritability, dullness and anger.

Without getting into too many technical details, I'd say, think of it as the next level in a game, your opponents are tougher, and that is what makes it more interesting.

The most important thing is not to abandon practice at this point, but to continue, this is exactly when you need faith and perseverance.

I assume you practice insight meditation (also called Vipassana), if you do, it is not about indulging in the pleasant moments, or treating ourselves to some peace and calm - it is about understanding reality - which means one encounters the good and bad mind moments, and learns to remain equanimous.

Everything is impermanent - even the good and calm times in meditation will go away, and be replaced with difficult times - this is the moment of wisdom, that reveals the suffering in being attached to any feeling.

You might want to take a look at another question where I've offered more advanced help - Working with cycles in meditation . Stop reading it if it gets confusing.


Supernatural beings and the 31 planes of existence

First, it might help to probe the meaning of "supernatural" in the Buddhist context.  I think this blog post covers it pretty well. In particular:

The very notion of ‘Supernatural’ is one that, it seems to me, arises from Western philosophical assumptions. the basic idea is that there is ‘this world’, which is rational and subject to explanation according to the laws of physics, and the ‘other world’, which operates according to a quite different set of principles, and where the laws of physics no longer apply.
In Buddhism, however, the essential description of the world is not provided by the laws of physics, or other material phenomena. The most important ‘laws’ are the three characteristics – impermanence, suffering, not-self. And these describe any other state of being just as well as they describe ours. For theistic religions, ‘heaven’ is eternal – that is, not subject to conditions, and independent from Time. But for Buddhists, heaven is just as temporary as anything else.
The Sri Lankan philosopher David Kalupahana has developed this idea in detail. he argues that Buddhism is empirical through and through; that even those aspects of Buddhist belief that seem to invoke the ‘supernatural’ in fact merely involve a refining and extension of ordinary sensory capacities.

Starting from that perspective, I would say: yes, in every tradition of Buddhism I'm aware of it is agreed that Buddha knew the beings we refer to as "supernatural" in our culture - which, from a Buddhist perspective, are  just other varieties of sentient beings. Because Buddha is omniscient, he has the same comprehensive knowledge of these beings as of any other sentient being. As summarized here, that knowledge includes:

(3) The force of being omnisciently aware of the various spiritual aspirations (mos-pa) of all limited beings (sentient beings): the inferior ones for this life, the middling ones for liberation, the superior ones for enlightenment, and those that are concealed (unconscious or expressed unclearly). In this way, he can guide each being accordingly.
(4) The force of being omnisciently aware of the source of everyone’s cognitions, as well as the source of their enlightenment (khams, their Buddha family-traits, Buddha-natures). He knows where all their thoughts, ideas, and misunderstandings have come from and also those factors in each of them that will lead to their realization of their fullest potential. In this way, he can correct all others when they have gone astray and draw out their strongest points.
(5) The force of being omnisciently aware of the superior and less-than-superior levels of everyone’s powers (dbang-po). Thus, he always teaches others in accordance with their intelligence and abilities so that they never become discouraged.

Sorry, but I am not familiar with the "31 planes of existence" so hopefully someone else can speak to that specifically. But the bottom line to me is that if Buddha knows all beings, he knows their various abodes as well however they are categorized.


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

So it is not possible to practice without an object.


I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self?

Throughout history, many arahants from many traditions have attempted to describe the true nature of reality. You can see examples of this from diverging explanations of realizations between Buddhist traditions. Some traditions describe enlightenment from the perspective of “no self”. This perspective views the world as full of illusions, all empty, transient, and devoid of identity. This perspective can be said to be one of negation, where you realize there is no identity in what you once believed there to be. Others describe enlightenment through the perspective of “true self”. This perspective views the world as pervaded by an almost godlike entity, a being that can be seen as the source of all that arises. This perspective can be seen as one of addition, where you realize you are not only human, but also the totality of the universe, and become one with everything.
Whenever this conversation arises, I always am reminded of the Buddha’s parable about the blind men an the elephant. Each touching a different limb of the elephant, and endlessly arguing about who’s description is accurate. This situation is extremely similar. Neither the no self, nor true self perspectives are completely accurate. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The perspective of being an arahant is one that can only be experienced and is impossible to explain in its entirety. To the mind, it is logically paradoxical, and therefore can not be conveyed accurately. Experientially though, the paradoxes coexist easily and without effort.

It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

So, based off the above, hopefully you see why the Buddha avoided the questions. Describing the enlightened state is logically impossible. Anything that can be said about it can only be partially accurate. And people tend to get so caught up in the details, I think personally he was just trying to avoid blind men and the elephant situations in the hopes that people would make real progress as opposed to arguing about their belief systems.
I wouldn’t say the answer is irrelevant. The perspective you gain from becoming enlightened is what provides the understandings that ultimately ends suffering. It just can’t be accurately conveyed through language.

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.

Those who describe true self understandings will tell you that what you really are is not a human being or body, but that indescribable thing that creates all that arises. That very same indescribable thing is what the Buddha describes as “empty” and “devoid of self”. Both perspectives are close, but again, not fully accurate.
So yes, one could say that a self exists outside of experience. But, thinking in this way will not help you become enlightened. Honestly I view it as a hinderance. In my experience, the illusory self likes to “jump” from one object to the next. For example if you believe you are the body, and then experience proof of the beliefs inaccuracy, the process of self identification tends to begin somewhere else. “I’m not the body, so I must be the mind! I’m not the mind I must be my thoughts!” Etc. My advice is to not think in this way. If you believe it’s possible that what you are something that exists outside of your experience, you put yourself in a bad situation. You are giving the illusory self a place it can nestle in, that is based on belief alone and can not be verified. If you wish to be free you must focus on investigating what you presently believe yourself to be, and constantly disprove places the self will try to hide.
Of course I’m speaking in metaphors here. The illusory self is not a thing that exists, but a process of identification that needs to come to a stop by observing that there is nothing permanent that can be claimed to be yourself.

Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

Anatta can not be fully intellectually comprehended. Even those who are enlightened can not fully logically process the experience. They just experience life, as no one, someone, and the entire universe, at the same time. They accept the mind is of no help in the situation, and abandon any attempts to logically understand.
I would say it is not wise to investigate “what the enlightened experience is like”. One should work to become enlightened, and then once you get there yourself, you will fail too (as all others have before you) in explaining the experience to others. Even if you found an enlightened being that was willing to describe it for days on end to you, you would be no closer to the experiential understanding that is required to become free.
However, that being said, the Buddha’s no self teachings are filled with wisdom that should be used to guide you along your path. Enlightenment is inevitable if you can experience first hand how your current belief systems are incorrect. The first moment you truly break down the illusion of self and no one sees that the self doesn’t exist, from that moment on you will become free.


Karma, right effort, letting go, heroic sacrifices: what's the right thing to do?

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

The string story is in AN 6.55.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -- AN 3.99

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

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

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

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

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

  -- SN 56.11

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

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

  -- SN 12.15

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

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

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

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

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

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


If i am the result of an aggregate, how does one refer to oneself?

Short Answer: Use "I" like you always did, but be mindful of what it does (and doesn't) refer to.

Longer Answer:

It isn't that "I" doesn't exist; rather, it doesn't exist in the way we normally think it does.  "I" does not denote a stable, independent entity that is "us".

However, "I" does exist in another sense; it's Conventionally Real. For instance, imagine you are with friends and you say something.  Then someone asks "Who said that?". How will you respond?  Will you say...

The Skhandas did?
Talking is happening?
This biological unit has spoken?

I hope not! You can respond with "I did", because that is the correct response.  After all, the other people didn't say that; if they didn't say that, then who did?  Further, if you talk about other people normally, but talk oddly about yourself, then aren't you still clinging to yourself, by holding yourself out as something different than what's around you?  Clinging is clinging; it doesn't magically stop being clinging because you clung to something different.

The issue isn't using "I", but your beliefs about it. Although language can affect thought, changing your words won't necessarily address the problem.  It's the thoughts and feelings behind those words that matter.

Words are meant to be used publicly, and as such, conventional rules regarding them should be observed if they are to be used effectively.  However, be mindful of those words; gauge the impact of certain words on your mind. When you say "I" are you really just being conventionally real, or is there a trace of clinging to self when those words leave your lips?  What feelings arise from using "I" when you are criticized or praised or threatened?

If you talk funny, you won't gain enlightenment; you'll just lose the ability to coherently communicate.


Will I keep my memories and experience with each passing incarnation?

We do not even keep our memories from moment to moment and day to day. Memories are relative. They have no intrinsic self and are impermanent. Certain memories change over time, or are covered with a lens of delusion. Other memories are completely fictional.


There are an infinite number of beings in all the places of existance and also an infinite number of universes. The earth being one of the humanoid worlds.  [Kosala Sutta 1] In some of the higher planes the number of beings are finite. In lower planes this might not be the case. As life span decreases the merit required to be born in the human plane decreases hence the population increase. Sometimes conflicts and natural disasters do reduce the population.
Aggañña Sutta does mention about evolution from being in higher plane and how the deteriorate incidentally occupying the lower planes. (At the start of the cycle there only a higher plane)

Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to be exhausted. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.
After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to be exhausted, replaced by cassava or turnip-like plants. They also began to devour them night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied between each other, the concept of difference arose. The concepts of the beautiful and the ugly were born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant because of their appearance.

Sourced from: Aggañña Sutta
Also see:

Buddhism and evolution
Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school
Buddhist cosmology


According to the Buddha, how is one freed from suffering?

I'm a bit confused about how, according to the Buddha, one is freed
  from suffering.

Glad to hear you are interested in the end of suffering.  Buddha laid out the Four Noble Truths as his very first sermon/teaching and they form the foundation of all Buddhist schools and thinking.  Don't be fooled into thinking it is a pessimistic doctrine simply because it talks so much about suffering.

The basic idea is that everything in the world arises due to causes and supporting conditions.  This is like saying that everything that you feel, see, taste, sense, smell, touch, and experience, arises due to causes coming together in the proper conditions.  A cause is like a seed and the proper conditions are like fertile soil.. water.. sunshine.  When all the conditions are there and the cause is present, there will be a result very naturally.  This is the way things are.

Buddha taught, out of compassion for the plight of all sentient beings, that some actions (of body, speech, and mind) are wholesome and some are unwholesome.  Those which are wholesome and virtuous are the causes of happiness, those which are unwholesome are the causes of suffering.

By abandoning that which creates the causes of suffering, and by acting in ways which create the causes of virtue, one is gradually eliminating the possibility of suffering to manifest in ones experience and increasing the growth and abundance of happiness, prosperity, joy, wealth, comfort, ease, and so forth.

Now, if you want to know more about what actions are harmful and which are helpful, you can read sutras and learn the teachings and thanks to our karma this life we have a good connection with the Buddhas and we can learn a great deal to eliminate what are known as the Obstacles and Obscurations from our mind streams.

Mindful awareness is indeed the greatest remedy of all.  With consistent practice, virtuous actions naturally increase and defiled actions naturally decrease.  One is no longer ruled or overcome by thoughts, and does not need to identify with emotions or thoughts, and one gains freedom from the extremes of "existence" and "nonexistence" as those are also just thoughts.

Historically, the Buddha laid out what is known as the Noble Eightfold Path.  They are like 8 threads which weave together to form a complete solution to our how-does-one-live-a-good-life question.  It is still very much about using our knowledge and understanding to make wise choices, but I think you would benefit from checking out this fundamental presentation of the way to the end of suffering.

Contemporary teachers and Buddhas of our day teach a variety of approaches, and so I would encourage you to develop strong aspirations to meet qualified teachers and sages in order to help you along the way.  We are truly blessed to live in a world where the teachings are available and people are gaining interest in their value, and we are truly fortunate to have so many noble beings and enlightened masters living in our world today.

In short, practice being aware of your bodily sensations, your feelings, and the current instant of the world you are in where-ever you may be.  Practice leaning into the awareness that recognizes and cognizes without identifying with what is recognized or cognized, and with consistent practice you will certainly see great benefits in your life.

Dharma is vast and there are many teachings one can read about but it is most important to put them into practice and really reap their value.  To contemplate them and to put them into your daily life and actions.


how desire for cessation, never to be reborn, is different from desire for non-being?

Vibhava tanha (craving not-to-be) is a type of craving.

Cessation of being (bhava nirodha) is the cessation of craving (tanha nirodha).

The "desire for cessation" called 'chanda iddhipada' is not a type of craving (tanha).

Also, bhava nirodha is not "never to be reborn". "Bhava" is "egoism". "Bhava nirodha" is the cessation of egoism.

If mind believes believes in "ego" or "self", now can it ever stop being "reborn"?

"Jati" ("birth") itself means "egoism'. "Jati nirodha" happens when egoism stops.

The only way to reach Nibbana is stopping egoism.


Praying to a Buddhist deity for healing of someone

There are many misconceptions regarding mantrayana.

In essence, the ultimate nature of the deity is bliss and emptiness, just like the ultimate nature of our own minds.

When we invoke the deity via visualization and/or recitation or chanting of the mantra, we are invoking that aspect of our own consciousness, our Tara-ness or our Medicine-Buddha-ness.

The Buddha Shakyamuni did teach that treasuring someone while in positive states of mind or sending beneficent prayers and thoughts would benefit another being, certainly in the "realm beyond" (afterlife, afterlives) and in the present there can certainly be effects.

It is important to remember that Tara is Prajnaparamita, she is not a self-existent deity, the same for all the deities of the Buddhist pantheon.  Some are called deities to mean deva or god-like rebirth, but in the tradition you are referring to deity means something special: it means that long ago a being aspired to be of benefit to countless sentient beings and through the strength of such aspirations and the diligence and patience of practice one was able to reach a state that helped reflect the fundamental goodness of all beings who practice their mantra/visualization with joy and faith, or devotion.

So what happens when you are invoking green Tara or Medicine Buddha to help heal a friend?  Well, the attitude you have is the most important part.  You are using enlightened Buddha forms as a fulcrum for your own praxis, to adjust your mind and heart attitude to embrace their full healing potential.  This will certainly result in a positive effect, and the waves of which may reach your friend rapidly through causation and intensity, having an ameliorative effect.  At the very least, your mind will become more adjusted to these divine states of being (please see the four unlimited or immeasurable abodes) which is of immense benefit to yourself and to others.

In Buddhism, attitude is just about everything.  Karma is intention, so cultivating the intention to heal and relieve suffering (kindness, bodhichitta) is excellent.

There are many methods, but sometimes it is easiest and fastest for us to relate to our own primordial purity through the practice of such sophisticated "spiritual technologies" such as deity and mantra practice.  There are pure aspects of our consciousness, just remember that their ultimate nature is no different from the nature of mind itself.


What is the best way to develop a mind observation habit?

Well this is a suggestions question because your mileage may vary based on what you do and what's your environment. I'd suggest to use the most natural way available.

The main idea here is to have a reminder in place. For this maybe you can use the entrances at your home or workplace to be a reminder. Or an action like drinking coffee or water or using the toilet. Or you can mark a person you see around you everyday.

Side by side, cultivate a more natural inside reminder. Can't beat this one. This could be autosuggestion like telling yourself to be mindful and relax. Or it could be some action like scratching your head or ear. Or it could be any time you are walking. And you could use rubbing your knees when you're sitting.
But you see all this requires predisposed awareness. Try to be aware of your body movements. This will certainly help in future.

In formal meditation, cultivate awareness of your sitting and the environment by using the sounds or smell or feel of the place. This would help in cultivating general environmental awareness in other places also. In the sense, this is more habit-forming.

These are some tips. But beware of the fact that any external thing you use, should not become a crutch such that when you are away from it, you lose all reminders altogether or you cannot be mindful at all.


Is it a good or bad sign that meditation is sometimes a frightening and nervous activity?

Meditation is an activity of 'mental solitude', which will bring up fear & nervousness. Fear is an instinctual emotion that probably every practitioner that "crosses over" must pass through when the instinctual 'self' or 'ego' is diminished.

For people with a history or disposition of mental instability, they probably need to be careful here and should ideally meditate with a group.


What *is* intrinsically real? Is the "unconditioned", "absolute", or "ultimate" intrinsically real?

You can't walk under a rainbow - in this sense it is an illusion. And yet rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that actually occurs - in this sense it is not an illusion.

In Mahayana Buddhism we say that the rainbow is "empty". Meaning, if we disassemble it, there is nothing inside, no core, no secret ingredient. If we examine it closely, we will see the water droplets, the sunlight, the reflection, refraction, dispersion, and the observer looking at it from a certain angle - all these things combined lead to appearance of an arch in the sky - but in actuality there is no arch.

When you see a homeless person, and out of pity give him money for food - on one hand that's real metta-karuna operating in you. On the other hand, giving him money won't really change anything. Perhaps it actually makes it worse, by enabling him to buy alcohol. Perhaps if you took him home by force and taught Dharma - that would be actual help, but you don't do that. So maybe it's not metta, maybe it's ignorance operating in you. Or perhaps, who knows - may be the homeless person should feel pity for you, because he can wander unfettered and you have to go to work every day. In that sense, maybe it's not metta, maybe it's conceit operating in you. In that sense, our metta is not real. Who can judge whether our kindness is real kindness or fake kindness? It depends on the judge. And yet we try to be as kind as we can, and as wise as we can. So metta is like rainbow - depends on the object, the situation, and the position of the observer.

According to Mahayana (specifically the part called Madhyamaka - "the meaning of the middle way"), everything is like that: on one hand it's real - and on the other hand it's not; on one hand it exists - and on the other hand it's an illusion; it looks solid from afar - but falls apart under careful examination. Nothing is real - and yet everything is real.

They say even this ^^^ understanding above is not "real", because it is only a conceptual map - and map is never exactly the same as the territory.

In this sense nothing is intrinsically real. All our experiences are like "rainbows" in some sense. All our concepts are like "maps". Even Nirvana is just a word that gives a label but does not really explain anything. Entire Dharma is a map or a guidebook that only approximately explains what happens in real life.

In Mahayana we say that going beyond these rainbows and maps (="Realizing Emptiness"), is a big step towards Enlightenment.

Now, depending on a particular school we either say that the actual "ground reality" beyond the rainbows and maps (=ontological reality behind experiences and descriptions) is intrinsically real. OR we say that there is no such absolute ground and everything is completely relative. If you belong to Nyingma or Kagyu - then you say that the ground reality is real, just indescribable and not accessible to direct experience, but we actually are living it. And if you belong to Gelug, then you say that this ground is only an abstraction in our mind, leaving us with nothing to stand on. This is known as
the Rangtong-Shentong distinction.


Is there a Sanskrit (not Pali) version of the Five Precepts?

I believe that the link that follows would be your one of your best options for tracking down a Sanskrit version of the Five Precepts. It indicated that this is to be found in the liturgy. Get in touch with them and see if they can provide more information.

http://nalandatranslation.org/offerings/notes-on-the-daily-chants/commentaries/ritual-for-taking-the-five-precepts/


In case it matters, another translation says,

  "If you were to recite to the mendicant Girimānanda these ten perceptions, it’s possible that after hearing them his illness will die down on the spot."

I think everyone translates the Pali, "Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ", as "It is possible that".

Also, though this doesn't answer your question, Piya Tan has an introduction to this sutta if you want to read it -- Giri-m-ananda Sutta (A 10.60) -- which includes a page connecting ancient Indian medicine with early Buddhism (and explaining the ten perceptions in more detail).


Is the path of enlightenment consists 7 levels?

I want to point out the following:

TM and Buddhist path are not the same. TM aim at method for relaxation, stress reduction, and self-development while Buddhism aims at eliminating the Defilement and one's attachment to the 5 aggregates hence reduce the process of fabrication thus experiencing Nirvana.
The 7 factors of enlightenment are not linear. An interesting article which shows their interaction is in Bojjhangas– Another View. Also look at the table balancing the factors in the Wikipedia entry on Seven Factors of Enlightenment which gives when to emphasize each of the factors.


how do we know about parts of Buddha's life where he was clearly alone?

Some of it is in suttas, see for example Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree

The detail you mentioned come from the introduction to Jataka -- Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree?

Parts of the Jataka might be described here as "a charming story" -- see also Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?

See also Why did the Buddha touch the earth at his enlightenment? -- people understand that as instructive.


Why was Lord Buddha reluctant to ordain females as Bhikkuni initially?

there's an alternative point of view suggesting that if the Mahapajapati's story is indeed authentic, it postdates the first acceptance of a woman into the Sangha, who could be Bhadda Kundalakesa, and that reluctance of the Buddha concerns specific circumstances of that particular episode and not wholesale refusal of women entrance into the order

Bhadda Kundalakesa Therigatha (Thig 5.9)

  I traveled before in a single cloth,
  With shaven head, covered in
  dust,
  Thinking of faults in the faultless,
  While in the faulty
  seeing no faults.
  When done was the day's abiding,
  I went to Mount
  Vulture Peak
  And saw the stainless Buddha
  By the Order of Bhikkhus
  revered.
  Then before Him my hands in añjali
  Humbly, I bowed down
  on my knees.
  "Come, Bhadda," He said to me:
  And thus was I
  ordained.
  Debt-free, I traveled for fifty years
  In Anga, Magadha
  and Vajji,
  In Kasi and Kosala, too,
  Living on the alms of the
  land.
  That lay-supporter — wise man indeed —
  May many merits
  accrue to him!
  Who gave a robe to Bhadda for
  Free of all ties is
  she.

the issue is dealt with at length in the Ven Sujato's book "White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes" (free)

the history behind the issue appears very misty to me, where the truth probably won't ever be found out


What Buddha's techniques I can use to uproot deep craving for a woman's love?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Can one's karma be affected by the karma of another?

The short answer is “Yes”… Olivia Glad,… because the others provide the grounds, the right conditions for a kamma to bear fruit. How this comes to pass needs some explanation.

The laws of kamma are not just based on causes and effects, they depend on conditions. This is what prevents laws of kamma being deterministic. Understanding this would make it clear that one’s future is not determined by one’s past actions or kamma alone. Thus past kamma do not necessarily lead to kamma vipāka.

What first gets created is a kammā beeja, or a kammā seed. For that kamma beeja to bring about its result (kamma vipāka), suitable conditions must exist.

We can avoid many possible bad kamma vipāka by being mindful and not providing conditions for them to appear.  We can also make conditions for good kamma vipāka to bring about good results. If one goes into a bad neighborhood at night, that is providing conditions for any suitable bad kamma seeds waiting to bring about their bad vipāka.

Once a bad vipāka materializes, we can certainly manage it to minimize its effects, and in some cases even get rid of it by working to making conditions for a good kamma seed to overcome it. Kamma will not bring about any kamma vipāka, if and  when one attains the Sotapanna / Stream Entrant stage.  One can then erase all kamma vipāka that would lead to the four lower world realms.


Does Buddhism claim that our World is an illusion? In other words is it a Matrix? Any proof for this?

"My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?"
No, it's not the main topic of Buddhism.
From the Pali canon point of view, it's also not a claim of Buddhism that the world is an illusion.
In contrast, the main topics of Buddhism are the nature of suffering, the nature of pleasure, the ultimate freedom of suffering, and the ultimate pleasure (born from the freedom of suffering).
It's visible from the sutras that the Buddha refrained himself from making many ontological statements -- statements about "what is out there" and the nature of "what is out there". And some people seem to believe he refrained from making any ontological statements at all, which may induce the idea that he regarded the world as an illusion.
In general, however, his concerns with the world starts when a stimulus is "perceived" -- when sense data is contacted. The nature or reality of what lies behind what has been sensed is not dwelled on. Thus, generally speaking, the formulations of the World from the Buddha are in terms of the senses.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of the world. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
[...]
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. [...]
-- SN 12.44

When he doesn't ignore "the outside world", it's possible that he could be speaking in conventional terms instead of positing a view, as in "there's a house behind that mountain" (and not as in "that house exists and it's real", in the ontological sense). When he speaks of characteristics of "the house", his focus arguably lies in what is perceived by the senses and his interest is in how these perceptions affect us.
The closer he gets to an ontological view (i.e. when the nature of the "house" is of interest) could still not really be about trying to pinpoint the actual nature of the thing "out there" independent of observer, but about the perception of it, in particular, associated with three characteristics: being subject to change, it's unsatisfactoriness as ultimate protection of all suffering and, upon inspection, showing a lack of ultimate stable essence.
On the other hand, he is known to have "proclaimed the world with it's devas, Mara and Brahma" against those who proclaimed otherwise, which is an assertion about "objective reality". Also, he taught a moral law which distinguish between sentient beings and non sentient beings which seem to imply some ontological distinction. But I think the interest to investigate the non-subjective actual nature of things is generally lacking when such knowledge does not benefit the path to terminate suffering.
Finally, since Buddhism regards mind as a sense (in the same category as taste and sight), then even in a universe where all interactions are confined within ones own mind, Buddhism still applies.


Not only in Tibetan Buddhism, they also have gurus in Zen Buddhism but there they are addressed as masters (sifu, sensei, sabunim etc). What counts is not a name but the personal relationship of mentorship.

I suppose "mentor" would be a better term than "teacher". Other options I like include "preceptor" and "benefactor". As was explained to me by one of my spiritual guides, a Chinese practitioner of Vajrayana, the word "teacher" emphasizes transfer of information, while "guru" stresses the upbringing / personal transformation aspect.

In Tibetan schools, esp. in Vajrayana they go as far as to say that the faith in one's guru is single most important factor of Enlightenment, and make guru-yoga, practice of deliberate worship of one's guru, the foundation of all other practices.

The official term preferred by Tibetan texts is "kalyanamitra", spiritual friend. This is supposed to make it sound a little more democratic than the overly patriarchal "guru", although in practice the relationship is rarely as personal as a real friendship.

There is a nice Wikipedia article on Kalyāṇa-mittatā, which mentions an early occurrence of this special interpretation of spiritual friendship in Visuddhimagga.

Here is also a Pali Canon quote that defines spiritual counseling (DN 31):

  The mentor (atthakkhayi, "the shower of the goal") is known by four things to be a goodhearted friend (suhada mitta):

  he restrains you from wrongdoing,
  he guides you towards doing good,
  he lets you know what you did not know before,
  he points out the path to heaven.

So I suppose personal mentorship is not just a Mahayana thing if it can be traced back to Pali Canon.


Can Buddhism be called as Atheist, Agnostic or Theistic?

Yes, it can be called any of these three things; and it is called different things by different people, for the reasons you described.

Three further comments:

The terms (like "atheist") were originally invented and used by other cultures for other religions; for example, Socrates was (legally) accused of atheism and condemned (to death) for it -- so the distinction (between "atheism" and "non-atheism") mattered. I'm not sure how or why the distinction matters in Buddhism, unless it affects practice etc.
Buddhism as I understand it doesn't deny there are Gods (it doesn't say "there are no Gods") so it isn't atheist. But it also doesn't say "God can save you" in the way that Christianity does, or that "The purpose of life is to obey God" etc. The importance of Gods is de-emphasised, people are responsible for their own karma and their own salvation, so it isn't exactly like a Theistic religion either. The story of Siddhartha's going forth and so on is told (at least n the West) as a more-or-less human story.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's book In the Buddha's Words has chapter titles, "The Human Condition", "The Bringer of Light", "Approaching the Dhamma", "The Happiness Visible in This Present Life", which are this-worldly and human rather than other-worldly and Theistic.
Calling Agnosticism "ignorance" is a bit confusing when it's applied to Buddhism. "Agnosticism" means (etymologically) "without gnosis" or without knowledge (of God).

I might describe myself as "agnostic about God" if I have no personal knowledge, no personal experience, of God.

In the West people use "Agnostic" as a middle way between theist and atheist: "theist" means, "I believe in God"; "atheist" means, "I believe there is no God"; and "agnostic", "I neither believe nor disbelieve, I have no personal knowledge of it." (I probably wouldn't say that I'm "agnostic about Antarctica" -- I believe it exists although I haven't experienced it personally).

"Ignorance" is a term which features in Buddhism too: Avidyā (Pali: avijjā). Avijjā too means "without knowledge".

In Buddhism, though, it isn't used to mean "ignorance about whether God exists" (because, IMO, whether God exists isn't the important question). Instead it's used to refer to ignorance of dhamma, ignorance of right view, ignorance about topics like anatta (i.e. whether the self exists), anicca, and dukkha, and so on.


How do I develop a healthier relationship with images?

Just drop it all and move on. Never hesitate to let go of old stuff that has done its job. Don't be nostalgic, don't regret - that is petty thinking. You had it, you got it, you done it - drop it and walk into your next life.

It may seem like it's important and it was at some point, but you'll make plenty of new and more important stuff as you go forward. It's "you-the-emptiness" is what really matters, "you-the-fresh-look", "you-the-not-knowing". You have basic sanity - which means you don't have to carry anything along. Wherever you go you will create everything anew, from scratch, and meet everything you need to meet, there will be a plenty.

Have no fear. Drop and let go.


Does perspective to someone else break first precept?

It certainly doesn't break the Vinaya rule against killing (which says it doesn't count as "killing" unless somebody dies, plus other conditions).
I expect your uncle is right to say that he should avoid being rude; and even talking about politics at all could be considered questionable behaviour.
I haven't seen any hint, though, that the first precept isn't meant to be taken iterally; for example:

pāṇātipātā veramaṇī：'abstaining from the killing of living beings'，is the first of the 5 moral rules binding upon all Buddhists
(Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka Mahathera)

If the behaviour is wrong I don't think it's because it breaks the first precept -- instead I think it would be because it's not Right Speech, or something like that (e.g. not friendly).


Dry insight or bare insight (suddha-vipassana) is the 'direct' way (Pali: ekayano maggo) to insight (nibbana), without jhana meditation practice (i.e. without 'upacara samadhi' or 'appana samadhi').

This direct 'momentary concentration' is called in Pali parikamma samadhi. This is the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw; U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka and others. The practitioners are called 'bare insighters' or 'dry' insighters.

You can find more information in 'The Progress of Insight (Visuddhinana-katha)' by Mahasi Sayadaw (1994): 'This approach to the ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation is called ‘bare insight’ because insight into the three characteristics of existence is made use of exclusively here, dispensing with the prior development of full concentrative absorption (jhana).’


What Does It Feel Like to Be in Nirvana?

The fully liberated ones (called arahants) do not experience any kind of mental suffering. They may experience physical pain which they endure and not suffer mentally from.
They do not have latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), the five hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni), craving (tanha), clinging (upadana) and the fourteen unwholesome mental factors from the Abhidhamma. They do not have the 3 poisons (greed/ lust, aversion and delusion).
They may plan to do something (see this answer), but they never plan to become something or somebody. They don't brood about the past or, dream or worry about the future.
Where the unenlightened feel boredom due to inactivity or feel loneliness due to lack of company, the arahants feel completely at ease and peaceful, and even prefer this. Their mental state is peaceful, free of "noise" and mental agitation of any kind.
They eat or take care of their health only out of necessity for maintenance and not with desires for sensual pleasures or to become something or somebody.
Each of the technical terms mentioned like fetters, hindrances, effluents, defilements, craving, clinging, unwholesome mental factors, 3 poisons etc. are all very detailed and often expand into further lists and definitions - you can search for them on Buddhism.SE.
But if you want a super short summary - it's bliss and peace all the time.
Also please see Dhammapada chapter 7.


Please see this answer about a video talk by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

  The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to food craving as well.

The Donapaka Sutta may also be helpful for the case of gluttony:

  Once when the Buddha was living at Savatthi, King Pasenadi of Kosala
  ate a whole bucketful of food, and then approached the Buddha,
  engorged and panting, and sat down to one side. The Buddha, discerning
  that King Pasenadi was engorged and panting, took the occasion to
  utter this verse:

  When a person is constantly mindful,
  And knows when enough food has been taken,
  All their afflictions become more slender
  — They age more gradually, protecting their lives.

  Now at that time the brahman youth Sudassana was standing nearby, and
  King Pasenadi of Kosala addressed him: "Come now, my dear Sudassana,
  and having thoroughly mastered this verse in the presence of the
  Buddha, recite it whenever food is brought to me. And I will set up
  for you a permanent offering of a hundred kahaapanas every day." "So
  be it, your majesty," the brahman youth Sudassana replied to the king.

  Then King Pasenadi of Kosala gradually settled down to [eating] no
  more than a cup-full of rice. At a later time, when his body had
  become quite slim, King Pasenadi stroked his limbs with his hand and
  took the occasion to utter this utterance:

  Indeed the Buddha has shown me
  Compassion in two different ways:
  For my welfare right here and now,
  and also for in the future.


In AN 3.88 Buddha gives definitions of the three trainings. Basically, sila is training in discipline (often translated as virtue or morality), samadhi is training in controlling one's mind and mood, and prajna is training in understanding or insight.

In my understanding and as per AN 2.19, training in discipline is first and foremost training to optimize your actions by their result (instead of being simply reactive or impulsive). You do what's wholesome (leads to good results) and abandon what's unwholesome (leads to bad results). You repeatedly train yourself to think objectively in terms of action and its results, not in terms of your personal desires and aversions. For most people this is a radical change in attitude!

However, at this level you do only a minimum amount of self-reflection. Your sole focus is on external activity. But in order to optimize your activity you are forced to suppress some of your baddest impulses, habits and reactions. Which naturally leads to emergence of self-reflection, you becoming self-aware, and going to the next level - training to control your mental and emotional state.

So when Buddha says, "accomplished virtue" - I believe he means that as far as your intention to accomplish the good, you are perfect. Your behavior is fully determined by your good will. However, because of imperfections in your ability to control your mind and emotions, and imperfections in your wisdom/insight into how things work, you may still misstep occasionally.

Notice how Buddha insists in AN 3.85 that to be a Sotapanna you must also be moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. Not just virtue! This is because virtue, concentration and discernment interpenetrate. You can't have good behavior without some amount of mind-emotion-control and some amount of wisdom.

So in short, in my understanding the perfect morality is wholesome behavior and wholesome speech, based on wholesome intent, based on the right view - the first five and a half steps of the Eightfold Path.

Of course to say that one's behavior can ever be perfect is a (useful) simplification. As Buddha himself says in AN 3.85 you may still "fall into offenses and [later] rehabilitate yourself". But as far as your appreciation of the notion of kusala/akusala and your sincere attempts to act kusala, as far as your attitude - they are perfectly complete. You attitude has been completely reoriented towards the good result. That's what makes you a Sotapanna.


Anyone know about the use of the skull for magic in the Burmese traditions?

Peter

What ever magical practice that might be, it has nothing to do with the Buddha, Dhamma an the Sangha and is called "Animal Art" by the Buddha and a grave misconduct.

Wrong livelihood for contemplatives

So maybe the question is better placed outside of "Buddhism"

Skulls an bones are used as object of investigation and meditation, asuba-nimitta (object of unattractiveness), to gain high concentration if done right. Of coures such training in what is called Jhana, can lead to supranatural powers but such is not the aim just side effects of practicing.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other worldly gains.)


What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana?

This answer is pretty straight forward.

Practice and perfect the Noble Eightfold Path as laid out by the Buddha. When perfected, the Path Consciousness takes Nibbana as an object.

It performs four distinct functions, i.e.; "fully understanding Dukkha, abandoning the origin of Dukkha, realizing Nibbana and cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path".

  Is Nibbana guaranteed after perfecting the Noble Eightfold Path ?

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


There are four meditation postures: walking, standing, sitting and lying down. Walking is beneficial:

AN5.29:1.1: “Mendicants, there are five benefits of walking meditation.
AN5.29:1.3: You get fit for traveling, fit for striving in meditation, and healthy. What’s eaten, drunk, chewed, and tasted is properly digested. And immersion gained while walking lasts long.

And here are some challenges to overcome while walking:

AN4.11:1.1: “Mendicants, suppose a mendicant has a sensual, malicious, or cruel thought while walking.
AN4.11:1.2: They tolerate it and don’t give it up, get rid of it, eliminate it, and obliterate it.
AN4.11:1.3: Such a mendicant is said to be ‘not keen or prudent, always lazy, and lacking energy’ when walking.

Here are the details of walking:

MN91:9.34: These are the thirty-two marks of a great man possessed by Master Gotama.
MN91:10.1: When he’s walking he takes the first step with the right foot.
MN91:10.2: He doesn’t lift his foot too far or place it too near.
MN91:10.3: He doesn’t walk too slow or too fast.
MN91:10.4: He walks without knocking his knees or ankles together.
MN91:10.5: When he’s walking he keeps his thighs neither too straight nor too bent, neither too tight nor too loose.
MN91:10.6: When he walks, only the lower half of his body moves, and he walks effortlessly.
MN91:10.7: When he turns to look he does so with the whole body.
MN91:10.8: He doesn’t look directly up or down.
MN91:10.9: He doesn’t look all around while walking, but focuses a plough’s length in front. Beyond that he has unhindered knowledge and vision.


Favourite Mahayana inspirational texts/treaties

Hope this helps!

On the method side: Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life

The quintessential guide to the method aspect of the Mahayana path and one of the most beautiful works of literature ever conceived. I challenge anyone to read this book three times and not come away with an aspiration to become a Bodhisattva for the benefit of all.

On the wisdom side: Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way

The definitive explanation of the Buddha's Middle Way. This treatise explains how things exist and how they utterly do not exist. Ideally, the commentary by Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa and others should be read in order to understand what this treatise says and what it does not say. Probably one the most important yet misunderstood text in all of human history.

Analogies, metaphors, allegories, illustrating and illuminating the above including: Rope and Snake, Dreams of a Mother, Ambrosia+Water+Pus&Blood, Chandrakirti's Chariot, Ship of Theseus, many many others.

These have been extremely helpful to my mind and contemplating them has opened up my own understanding meager as it is.

Diamond Cutter Sutra

Especially this verse, "As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that." This succinct instruction by the Buddha summarizes how to view all phenomena.

The Sutra of Golden Light

The last few chapters are both self-referential in delightful way and give extremely beautiful examples of Buddha Shakyamuni's actions as a Bodhisattva in previous lives. IMO, reading this Sutra is a good way of starting a New Year.

This verse, "As long as space endures, as long as sentient beings remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world."

The quintessential sentiment of a Bodhisattva displaying profound Bodhicitta.


Is there a connection between Lord Buddha & Hinduism?

Prior to the Buddha (born 563 or 480 BCE), was the historical Vedic religion (1750 - 500 BCE), followed by the shramanic movement (500 - 200 BCE), and the beginnings of the Upanishadic movement within Hinduism (500 - 200 BCE). Buddhism is also considered to be part of the shramanic movement. Vedanta came later as part of Classical Hinduism (200 BCE - 1100 CE). You can find this information here.
Prince Gautama (therefore a kshatriya, not brahmin), after leaving home, followed the shramanic traditions which were based on asceticism. Jainism was one of the major shramanic traditions at the time. The Pali Canon (DN2) has descriptions of various shramanic teachings at the time (Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sanjaya Belatthiputta and Mahavira). These teachings may or may not be compatible with Hinduism at the time.
Gautama tried to follow the different teachings at the time (Hindu and shramanic teachings) and found that it did not lead to the goal that he sought. And you know the rest of the story of how he found enlightenment and started teaching.
The Buddha did not accept the authority of the Vedas, preached that a Supreme Creator God did not exist and also taught anatta, which implied that there is no permanent absolute self (atman). All these contradicted the teachings of Hinduism at his time. The teaching of anatta and the Buddhist version of karma also contradicted Jain teachings.
According to the Krsna Consciousness (ISKCON) movement on this page, the Buddha, the Avatar of Vishnu, gave false atheistic teachings to the hedonistic nihilistic atheists who were living a sinful lifestyle, so that they can practise virtues, while remaining atheists, because God was kind to them and knew that they would never accept God and the "true" teachings which has both virtues and devotion to God. He also preached against the sacrifice of animals which was an abuse of Vedic sacrificial rites. The Krsna devotees therefore respect the Buddha but reject his teachings.
The idea that the Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu comes from the Hindu text Bhagavata Purana, which was written around 500 - 1000 CE. It is possible that this was one way to bring Buddhist converts back to Hinduism, while reconciling the Buddha's position.
Did the Buddha say that he was an Avatar of Vishnu? No. According to the Buddhavamsa, he was the Bodhisattva Śvetaketu who resided in the Tushita heavans, before being born as the human Prince Gautama. Please see this answer.
The Hindu text Brahma Sutras, written around 200 BCE, has some criticism of Buddhism as found in this question.
Later on, Buddhist teachings was found to influence Hindu philosophy, to give rise to Advaita Vedanta. Even the Indian Mahayana schools of Madhyamaka and Yogacara predate the Advaita Vedanta school and Adi Shankara by centuries. Please see this answer for details. This meeting point of Advaita and Mahayana, now has the highest level of philosophical compatibility between the two religions. In fact, Advaita philosophers were accused of being Buddhists in disguise. However, anatta still keeps the two religions apart, philosophically.
The Hindu philosopher and scholar Adi Shankara who expanded Advaita, was also responsible in reviving Hinduism once again in India, and may have caused the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in India. However, Buddhism spread outside India.


The mind & all mental things are impermanent. When the body ends its life, the mind also is impermanent.

But during life, for a Fully Enlightened One, the virtues of the mind are permanent.

The Buddha said of himself:

  I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to
  the last stage: my years have turned eighty... Sariputta, even if you
  have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in
  the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

  MN 12


What are stories on awakening while practicing teaching the Dhamma?

One example comes from the Khemaka Sutta:

That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted
in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of
sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from
fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's.

Before he taught them, Ven. Khemaka was not an arahant. But after he taught them, both he and his audience became arahants.


"The Blessed One", is it bad translation?

A couple of dictionary translations:

  Bhagavā: venerable, fortunate, blessed, sublime. Generally designates the Buddha.

  Bhagavant (adj. n.) [cp. Vedic bhagavant, fr. bhaga] fortunate, illustrious, sublime, as Ep. and title "Lord." Thus applied to the Buddha (amhākaŋ Bh.) and his predecessors. Occurs with extreme frequency; of fanciful exegetic explns of the term & its meaning we mention e. g. those at Nd1 142=Nd2 466; Vism 210 sq.; DA i.33 sq. Usual trs. Blessed One, Exalted One.

Also, perhaps as an etymology:

  Bhaga [Vedic bhaga, bhaj, see bhagavant etc.] luck, lot, fortune, only in cpd. dub˚ (adj.) unhappy, unpleasant, uncomfortable It 90; DA i.96 (˚karaṇa). -- bhaga (in verse "bhagehi ca vibhattavā" in exegesis of word "Bhagava") at DA i.34 read bhava, as read at id. p. Vism 210.

Here are some definitions of "blessed" from an American dictionary (perhaps Protestant culture):

  Simple Definition of blessed
  : having a sacred nature : connected with God
  : very welcome, pleasant, or appreciated

  Full Definition of blessed

  a :  held in reverence :  venerated
  b :  honored in worship :  hallowed
  c :  beatific
  :  of or enjoying happiness; specifically :  enjoying the bliss of heaven —used as a title for a beatified person
  :  bringing pleasure, contentment, or good fortune

I think you might see that many of these definitions are suitable.

You're right that it's probably not blessed in a Catholic sense, i.e. sanctified via the agency of a priest.


How to calculate the number of years in a kalpa?

As far as I know, the words used in Buddhist Kalpa in a lot of cases,

for example: Existence, life reduced (when life human destiny decreased from 84,000 years to 10 years),increased lifetime (as opposed to lifetime reduction),

Sub-Kalpa (approximately 16 million years),

Mid-Kalpa (20 sub-life),

Big-Kalpa (4 centered life = 1.3 billion years),

and countless Kalpa ..etc


What can I practise to avoid expectations?

I don't think one can avoid having expectations in general because if we know the possibilty of an outcome we can be said to expect it to the extent to which it is known to be a possibility.

What one can prevent is having false expectations as these are due to general bewilderment and are a cause of suffering.

Understanding counters ignorance, removes delusion and is supported by learning.

Whether we favor one outcome over another and it causes grief is a related matter of attachment rooted in delusion.

Correct knowledge & understanding begets right expectations and dispassion.


Some people become temporary monks -- I think that's a common practice in some countries.
How to become a monk? says, about "temporary bhikkhus",

Naturally, temporary bhikkhus are allowed to keep their possessions, but these must be put aside or entrusted to someone else for the duration of their monastic experience.
He takes the robe for a few days, a few weeks or a few months to dedicate one or more periods of his life to train into monastic life. He is still engaged in various activities, which he does not feel ready to renounce. However, he knows enough to distance himself from them in order to dedicate some time to a life of detachment. If he ascertains that this experience is beneficial to him, he could eventually envisage extending it until the end of his life.

There's a status called Anagarika, which isn't a monk and allows the handling of money (I don't know whether that includes earning/possessing money, or whether it is only handling monetary donations e.g. for the benefit of the monastery).

In Theravada Buddhism, an Anagarika (Pali: anāgārika/ā; lit., "homeless one") is a person who has given up most or all of his worldly possessions and responsibilities to commit full-time to Buddhist practice.

There's also an intermediate status, Maechi.

There's also being a novice monk.

Ten Precepts
The Ten Precepts refer to the precepts or training rules for śrāmaṇeras (novice monks) and śrāmaṇerīs (novice nuns). They are the same in most schools of Buddhism.

The tenth precept is, "Refrain from accepting money."


Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion?

Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.
You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma.
There are parts e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool:

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship. For example, the Upaddha Sutta says,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
"And how does etc.
Note: As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.


Let's phrase this a different way.  If you just worked out for 15 minutes, would it be as effective as if you worked out for an hour?  The answer should be obvious.  The more time you dedicate to anything, the better you'll be at it and the more benefit you'll receive.  The mind is a muscle; same as your biceps.  If you only train it halfheartedly, you'll only get halfhearted results.

But it goes deeper than this.  Sitting is like baking a cake.  You can throw in all of the ingredients - the breath, the cushion, the concentration - but if you take the cake out of the oven before it's done baking, you don't pull out a cake, you pull out a hot mess.  The mind requires time to settle.  It has to remain secluded for an extended period of time before those ingredients can undergo the alchemy of practice and begin to phase change into true samadhi.

And it goes still deeper.  There are states that are only available when one sits for extended periods of time.  No matter how long you have been practicing, you probably will never reach access concentration until you've sat for at least an hour.  The day to day mind is just too scattered to reach it much sooner.  You will only begin to touch the outskirts of jhana after you've sat for an hour and a half.  Full jhana is only available to those who sit for hours a day and even then usually only on retreats of multiple days.

There are no shortcuts.  You get out what you put in.


This is restlessness, or the mind being scattered by many thoughts coming and going. Refer to the suttas on the hindrances, e.g.: (Nīvarara) Sangarava Sutta, Nīvarana,pahana Vagga. This is aggravated by Vipallasa (see Vipallasa Sutta). (These could lead to wrong conclusion and views hence keep the Samma,ditthi Sutta in mind.) Also see: Nīvaraṇa an essay by Piya Tan

Thoughts are generally not good to dwell on unless they are directed at maintaining properly executing our daily activities and also perhaps some planning the activities and future. This cannot be avoided if you are householder. Also keep your thoughts on on what can be considered compatible or at least not contrary to Right Thoughts (Samma Sankappa). Thinking lead to concept proliferation and verbal fabrications which is at best avoided when possible at least during a formal meditation sitting.

With regard to concept proliferation the following essay highlights how thinking leads to fabrication: Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought by Bhikkhu Nanananda. Also Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta covers the topic: perception and mental proliferation. Also Mindfulness in Early Buddhism, by Tse-fu Kuan contains though proliferation in the context of Vipassanā which might be an interesting read.

With regard to Verbal Fabrication the following Suttas deal with the subject: Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Kāma,bhū Sutta 2


Family feuds... is there a path that walks through the fire without burning oneself?

I wonder at the word forced. What is forcing you not to see your god-mother whom you love? You say you are forced out of deference to your mother, but since you put the word in quotes I think you realize that nothing is forcing you. This is your choice. I wonder about the motivation for such deference to your mother... Is it motivated out of a sense of obligation or duty? Is it motivated out of compassion for your mother? What of the compassion for your god-mother?

One practice that I've found beneficial is the practice of equanimity. That is looking at ones friends vs enemies or close acquaintances vs strangers and looking at where the distinctions we make are coming? What motivates these distinctions?

When we choose to act based off of distinctions of "friend vs enemy" or "close acquaintance vs stranger" often times our actions are non-virtuously motivated by personal considerations. All beings at root desire to be happy and to avoid suffering. We are all the same in this way. In this way, all are worthy of our compassion.

In the end, we can't control how other people will react to our actions. The only thing we can hope to control is our own actions and to try and ensure that our actions are virtuously motivated. The desire to make people happy with us is very different from the desire to make people happy, right?

I guess my best advice is to really look and see whether your acquiescence to your mother's desire for you to stop talking to your god-mother is actually making her happy? Is it actually making you happy? Is it actually making your god-mother happy? Or is it only serving to make your mother temporarily happy with you? Is that well-motivated?


Are expectations the root of unhappiness?

I think the "root" of unhappiness is (according to the second noble truth) meant to be various types of "craving" e.g. as described here.

Slightly more broadly, the three poisons are said to be at the "root" of the wheel of life.

Is being ambitious a bad thing?

I think the Buddhist concept called "Right Intention" could be described as a form of ambition ... and so can "Right Livelihood".

Also, there might be some important differences between Buddhist monks and Buddhist laity (see for example this answer): and part of the reason for that might be a difference in their view of ambition.

Can you be ambitious and not have expectations?

Buddhism is meant to be useful to different people who are at different stages of enlightenment: which is I think what is meant when it's described as, "good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end".

Also, I think we're supposed to remember that there is a Middle Way -- by which I mean that whenever someone asks the question "is it all or nothing?" then I think that a Buddhist answer is often, "it's neither" (or "it's both", or sometimes "that's the wrong question"). For example instead of "ambition: yes or no?" there are other questions to ask -- like "what should we be ambitious for?" and "what happens to us if ambition is thwarted?"

Alternatively, is it how we handle failure or disappointment when things don't go according to plan that is what creates unhappiness?

Yes, that too.

For me personally, the way I interpret it (which isn't how other people must interpret it) is that, if I have an expectation and if that expectation doesn't work out as planned, then my understanding of Buddhism suggests that I 'should' (and 'will') let go of (i.e. change) my expectation, instead of being attached to my previous and now-obviously-unskillful expectation.

FYI there's this piece of 'Zen' advice titled No Attachment to Dust which includes the line,

  Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe.