Ignoring thoughts vs. understanding them

These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the latter method contains the 1st method you mentioned as the last resort. So do both in tandem as needed:

OP: One would be to try to ignore the thoughts, not give them energy, not identify with them, be present and in time they would go into the background. Basically they are just thoughts, they are not you.

You can try "ignoring" thoughts by focusing on a particular object hence developing some level of Jhana to reduce mental chatter through the Jhana factors like initial and sustained application:

When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:
“I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing [contemplating] [body | feeling | mind | dhamma] the in the [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],
removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”
Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.
When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,

THE 1 ST DHYANA:

should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;

THE 2 ND DHYANA:

should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi with zest;

THE 3RD DHYANA:

should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;
should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;

THE 4 TH DHYANA:

should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta
in the 2nd Jhana and beyond there is no mental chatter.

OP: Other approach would be to sit down, meditate and try to go deep inside to find the root of those thoughts (I suspect I have myself deep down :P). Try to see clearly the constant river of thoughts that is happening inside (things I notice is just a small surface of things).

Thought proliferation is due to the following process:

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.

With contact as condition, there is feeling.

What one feels, one perceives.

What one perceives, one thinks about.

What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
There 3 crucial points in this process:

feeling/sensation
one perceives then thinks and finally build views
mental chatter resulting in thought proliferation (papañca)

There are 3 things to be done at each juncture:
Feeling/sensation
Feeling/sensation result in perception (Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta above), craving (see Dependent Arising), 3 unwholesome roots (Pahāna Sutta). So one has to break the progression beyond feeling/sensation by:

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

...
If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
To prevent your mental reaction to sensation becoming unwholesome you can try:

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
“In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether

pleasant,

painful or

neither painful nor pleasant.

As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;

he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;

he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;

he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

When he dwells

contemplating impermanence in them,

contemplating dispassion in them,

contemplating ending in them,

contemplating letting go,

he does not cling to anything in the world.
Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta
One Perceives then Thinks and Finally Build Views
At this point, cravings and unwholesome would have arisen which also gives rise to perversions. For a worldly person perceptions, thoughts, views that arise are subjected to the 4 perversions (vipallasa), which are:

what is impermanent is taken to be permanent;
what is painful is taken to be pleasurable;
what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and
what is impure [unattractive or repulsive] is taken to be pure [attractive or beautiful]

One should try to break this train also when feelings arise. The method to deal with preception is also as in the previous part, hence I will not repeat it here.
If

perceptions,
thoughts, or
views

do arise one should straighten them by contemplating:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

See Vipallasa Sutta
Mental Chatter Resulting in Thought Proliferation
If one could not stop the progression of events at feeling/sensation, perception and thinking then this results in mental chatter which is through proliferation. This results in latent tendencies (Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta) and is the last point one can stop this train of events progressing further but by this time craving, unwholesome roots and perversion (vipallasa) of perception, thoughts and view would have already arisen.
Metal proliferation can be cut out thought Jhana as from the 2nd Jhana onwards there is no thinking and pondering (vitakka-vicāra).
According to Dantabhūmi Sutta one should abandon thoughts with regard to the Sathipattanas namely thoughts regarding or originating from the body, feeling, mind and dhammas:

(1) dwell observing the body in the body,
and do not think (any) thought regarding the body;
(2) dwell observing feelings in feelings,
and do not think (any) thought regarding feelings;
(3) dwell observing the mind in the mind,
and do not think (any) thought regarding the mind [thoughts];
(4) dwell observing dharmas in the dharmas,
and do not think (any) thought regarding dharmas [realities].
With the stilling of initial application and sustained application,
by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind,
he enters and dwells in the second dhyana, free from initial application and sustained application, accompanied by zest and joy, born of concentration.
And with the fading away of zest,
he dwells equanimous. Mindful and clearly comprehending, he experiences joy with the body.
He enters and dwells in the third dhyana,
of which the noble ones declare, ‘Happily he dwells in equanimity and mindfulness.’
With the abandoning of joy and abandoning of pain,
and with the earlier disappearance of pleasure and displeasure,
he attains and dwells in the fourth dhyana that is neither painful nor pleasant,
and with mindfulness fully purified by equanimity.

This way latent tendencies (anusaya) and further vipallasa and sankhā through the papañca-saññā-sankhā process will not arise. The method of practice is given above and also found in the Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta quoted above.
Also one can use another object of mentation like Ānâpāna,sati Sutta.
Essentially this is bringing one's focus to a given object and repeatedly refocusing on the object again to sustain one's focus on the particular object so one is not distracted by unwholesome trains of thoughts. Also, to get into Jhana in the moment of need requires greater length and effort in pratice through.


Did the Buddha ever define what he meant by "self"?

"Self" is this highly childish, simplified, vague, unexamined idea in your mind: "This is me". It's not a concrete thing, it's an overall thing, it's a blob: "I am such, overall". It's an overgeneralization and an oversimplification.

It exists exactly because it's unexamined, and because it exists it attracts all kinds of funny ideas. For example, you may assume that "I am a good person" or "a bad person" or "a horrible person", or smart, or stupid, or ugly and so on. Self is like a Christmas tree on which we keep hanging all these ideas - but if you look carefully, there is no tree. It's all made of the decorations, or ideas - hanging on each other!

That is the point!

We acquire an opinion about politics, or some kind of judgement about the world and we add it to the tree. Then we identify with it so completely that this opinion becomes our second nature. It is natural to us to think that (put some popular controversy here). So once there is self, once there is this Christmas tree of ideas we have internalized and identified with - about ourselves, the world, and everything in between - we begin to see things a certain way, a certain reality arises in our mind.

But this reality is not THE reality. This reality is a projection of the Christmas tree! It's a shadow or a reflection of our conglomerate of ideas.

So when Buddhism talks about no-self in practice it first and foremost means getting rid of this deep fundamental assumption that reality we see is actual reality, and our idea of self is actually a truthful representation of how things are.

To this goal we are instructed to examine our immediate experience (thoughts, emotions, interpretations, perceptions etc.) until we see how the Christmas tree is made.

Then of course we see that what we thought were our "choices" and "actions" were actually knee-jerk reactions and impulses coming from the Christmas tree. We realize that all speak of free-will is nonsense when we are in fact driven by our ideas like sheep, and freedom is only possible when we un-identify from all that and learn to be nothing (yeah, like Arya Stark).

When we are nothing, we are free, because there is nothing one can point to and say this is us. When this happens, the notions of death etc. are no longer applicable - because the object it was supposed to apply to only exists in the unenlightened mind, but we don't have to hold on to that.

This, generally, is the overall context in which these conversations about No-Self happen in (Mahayana) Buddhism. At least, this is how it is from my perspective, but mine is not final of course. For example in Theravada, the no-self talk is primarily ordered around Five Aggregates, which from Mahayana perspective is nothing but a didactic device to provide an alternative functional interpretation of Everything that would not involve a notion of single agent or single observer. So Theravada is slightly more concerned with the low-level phenomenology of observation and action while Mahayana is more concerned about the higher-level (social and psychological) manifestations of the same illusion of a single solid entity.

Anyway, what's important to understand for a beginner is that "self" is this unexamined blob, which seems like you until you start analyzing it. I am this, I am such, I like this, I hate this, This is right, This is wrong - all this stuff bundled together into one "This is who I am and this is why I do what I do" - is the self.


Does this statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu conflict with traditional mettā meditation?

I suggest this book you are studying might be too complex for a beginner, even though the section on metta is reasonable. The book 'Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners' might be more suitable.

As for metta meditation in relation to Anapanasati, Buddhadasa's point is obviously straightforward and correct, namely, to realise enlightenment the idea of "I" must be abandoned. The Buddha taught suffering can only be extinguished when the idea of "I" is abandoned therefore the Ven. Sayadaw idea "May I be free from misery" is obviously illogical, as the suttas show, as follows:

  ...it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and obsessions with conceit have long been well uprooted that even if
  there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise
  within him no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. SN
  21.2

Buddhadasa's idea may conflict with the majority of teachers who consider themselves to be Buddhists but Buddhadasa's idea obviously does not conflict with the Dhamma of the Buddha. The Pali suttas generally refer to what Buddhadasa said in his earlier paragraph, namely, "metta is radiated towards all living beings based on reason & insight", as follows:

  There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an
  awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below,
  & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world
  with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive,
  immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. MN 43

  And he lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of Love, and so the second, and so the third, and so the fourth. And
  thus the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere, does
  he continue to pervade with heart of Love, far-reaching, grown great,
  and beyond measure. Just, Vāseṭṭha, as a mighty trumpeter makes
  himself heard—and that without difficulty—in all the four directions;
  even so of all things that have shape or life, there is not one that
  he passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free,
  and deep-felt love. DN 13

  Wishing: In gladness and in safety,  May all beings be at ease. Whatever living beings there may be;     Whether they are weak or strong,
  omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,   The
  seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away,  Those born and
  to-be-born — May all beings be at ease! Let none deceive another,     Or
  despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will
    Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life     Her
  child, her only child, So with a boundless heart  Should one cherish
  all living beings; Radiating kindness over the entire world. Sn 1.8

Occasionally, there are teachings in the suttas about 'self-love' but unlikely to practitioners of samatha-vipassana. For example, in Ud 5.1, the Buddha makes a comment to himself about unenlightened worldlings who love themself more than others:

  Having gone around in all directions with the mind, There is surely no one found who is loved more than oneself.

  In the same way others each love themselves, Therefore one who cares for himself should not harm another.

  Ud 5.1

This teaching in Ud 5.1 is about the 'Golden Rule' or 'morality' rather than about Anapanasati.

In conclusion, the teaching of metta in the Anapanasati Sutta itself shows Buddhadasa is correct & all of the other teachers, regardless of how many of them exist, are wrong. The Anapanasati Sutta includes the following instruction, as found in MN 62:

  Develop the meditation of good will (metta). For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion will be
  abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the
  conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.

This shows metta is to be developed together with abandoning the conceit "I am".

Therefore, the statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu certainly conflicts with traditional (worldly) mettā meditation  but does not conflict with the mettā meditation the Buddha taught.


Thought is what decides Karma. Same action with different motivation or volition can be bad or good depending on the motivation or volition. That is volition is what becomes Karma.

If you follow though with your intentions then this can lead to rebirth linking Karma. If you don't it will be weaker Karma.

If you have the volition but not the means to follow through then it will be a weak Karma as discussed above.

Volition bears fruit based on the root and level of mental lethargy or whether you or someone else has to prompt or motivate you to do something. If you have the thoughts but not the desire to do it then the root are missing or very weak hence there is unlikely to be Karmic results. If there is lethargy but there is genuine desire, the roots weak but present hence will have diminished Karmic results. More than the thoughts, imagination of doing something, visualisation of doing something, what counts is motivation or volition or desire to do the thing, though such thoughts could lead to desire or motivation or volition to act. As discussed above all factors may not align to successfully follow through nevertheless karma is created but at different intensities of potential results.


What’s the difference between yathābhūta and yathābhūtaṃ?

Yathābhūta is not correct in pali-sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as  yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.

Yathābhūta is adjective/adverb which is not complete, not ready to use, because the properties of word (vibhatti;case-endings;declension):  preposition(sambandha), amount(vacana), and gender(liṅga), etc., must put at the end of every words, except ready-made-noun (nipāta), some standalone-prefix (upasagga-nipāta; I'm not sure for linguistic name), and compound-word (samāsa). So, it can not come alone, and you can not found only yathābhūta  alone in pāli. It should to be yathābhūtaṃ (si-vibhatti), yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ (Deleted vibhatti because of compound-word; Vibhatti still be, but it disappear by pali-processing), yathābhūtena (nā-vibhatti), etc.

See: http://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox/noundec.html

For the explanation of the term "yathābhūta":

Yathā ... tathā = How it is ... as it is.

Bhūta = arising/becomming = upatti-bhava-paṭiccasamuppāda = upatti-becoming = jāti(rebirth) + jarā&maraṇa (old-age&death). bhū-root[as arise-term]+ta-suffix[as verb].

Arising of what? Arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle. So:

in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Dukkhadhammasutta, buddha use yathābhūta
as arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates;
In Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Dukkhasutta, buddha describe arising and
vanishing of 5 aggregates as paṭiccasamuppāda;
In Khandhapabba of Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta,
buddha describe arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates as
udayabbaya-ñāṇa-niddeso;
Also, in Khandhapabba, buddha describe vipassanā in arising
and vanishing of 5 aggregates as "samudayavayadhammānupassī
vā" which commentary refer that dhamma-term as
Dukkhadhammasutta;
So, in Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo
udayabbayānupassanāñāṇa-niddesa & the path of purification
maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhiniddesa udayabbayañāṇakathā, Master
Sāriputta and Master Buddhaghosa describe udayabbaya as
paṭiccasamuppāda as well.

So, yathābhūta-ñāṇa is understanding of arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle.

Another, I also describe yathābhūta in this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26702/10100

Buddha have to cut the big sutta in DN/MN for the students who not smart enough to enlighten/understand/memorize at once. So, you can notice my reference are from DN&MN&SN&KN, and actually AN as well.

Pāli has a very strong structure. This is the reason why we can understand tipitaka's content by just fluent reciting&memorizing. But because of the complicate detail of Dhamma, so when we translate tipitaka to the other languages, such as english or especilly thai, we will lose many important words' properties. Then we can not understand/analysis/find the fact from some translation.

"Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo-the best dhamma was taught by buddha." is not just the psalms, but it is the fact by the linguistics and the truth.


As a Buddhist, your boundaries & conduct in relationship should be clearly communicated. Just be honest with her.


What is Zen, what are Zen beliefs, and why is it called Buddhism?

'Zen' is the Japanese name of the school of Buddhism that originated in China around the 5th century AC, called (in Chinese) Chan Buddhism, and whose founder is thought to be Master Bodhidharma, an Indian monk. Later, in the XIIIth century, Master Dogen introduced this species of Buddhism into Japan, where it is mostly practiced today, alongide with the USA and Europe.

It is a form of Buddhism because, among other things, it acknowledges the Way of the Buddha as a way to Awakening; because there is a traceable heritage that links today's Zen Masters with the historical Buddha; and because it emphasizes the practice of sitting meditation ('Zazen') as a way to achieve 'Satori', the Awakening.

There are various schools among the Zen tradition, but the more important today are the Soto and the Rinzai schools. Each of these schools emphasizes different aspects of the Buddhist heritage, and though their ceremonies and mindsettings somewhat diverge, they converge in the emphasis they make on Zazen as a practice that provides, when constantly and earnestly taken upon, an insight into the nature of the Self and the ultimate unsubstantiality of reality.


Meditation posture and language as a monk in Thailand

Answering from the Ajahn Tong (Mahasi-like) vipassana lineage I am somewhat familiar with:

Sitting posture is not a problem. Most people in Thailad, as far as I have seen, practice in the "burmese" posture, having legs flat on the floor (one in front of the other one), but some were sitting in the chair (without leaning) for health reasons.
You will be likely a lay practitioner (on 8 precepts) for some time, before you ordain, but the practice is the same anyway. The most important is that you practice and learn to deal with the situation you have, including back pain, skillfully. That might include some exercise, but also facing the pain in meditation. In fact many people think they have back pain because they have weak muscles (exactly as you say), but it is in fact meditation pain, which is very useful (which does not mean you like it) training for you; it goes away after some time. Your teacher will guide you through that territory while on retreat.
Out of the thousands temples in Thailand, only a minority does meditation, and only a few of them has English-speaking sections (I can recommend, from this lineage, the Chom Tong temple, http://www.northernvipassana.org/about.html; the other ones I know of are Wat Rampoeng and Wat Doi Suthep). You don't need extreme language skills to do Vipassana, just enough to understand the instruction; if you learn Thai in long-term, good, but I would not see it as something to start with. In some centers, there might be yogis speaking your language (French?) which could translate for you.

Before being too far in your plans about becoming a monk, you could do retreats (starting with the 2-3 week "basic course") without long travels to Asia for the start, and then see if the practice is suitable for you; I posted some of the centers from this tradition in Europe in this answer; in France, there is a group organizing retreats regularly which may also help you find a suitable place.


From my experience in the monastery located at Mawlamyine is that they are able to greet, accomodate with all that they might need and guide foreigners (that are quite numerous at times) with proper care. I have met a lot of very inspiring foreign/local lay followers and monks there.

The ordination process is fairly simple and straightforward (I would advice, if you were to go there, to ask for a "kuti" which is a hut, after ordination as you're more likely to have a suitable one that hasn't a leaky roof or that is being destroyed by termites), you usually have a short daily interview with a teacher for questions in regards to your practice (have you already been acquainted with the Pa-auk method of practicing ?). And if ever you wished I'm reasonably sure that you could also visit the one in Pyin oo lwin (and perhaps beyond ? There are a lot of different places foreigners can go to).

With regards to the comments to your initial post, I would nevertheless suggest reflecting on the decision as there might also be a lot of different opportunities to stay in monasteries in the United states and cannot foresee what may happen with the local conflicts there, I reckon uncertainty is an underlying reality wherever we are. But please do be careful ! (you can check restricted areas to avoid at all times). I still do know numerous foreign monks there who engage with great dedication to the path without meeting substantial obstacles related to these conflicts up until now.

Also, please do consider that May is a very hot season in Myanmar.

With mettā.


What is the difference between Amitābha's Sukhāvatī & the Lotus Vault?

Perhaps your title question is too board. And I'm too lazy to check all the Sanskrit names of the Sutras in corresponding to the Chinese.

So, you are asking to compare Sukhavati with the Lotus-treasure World? Let's give it few directions:

Sukhavati and Lotus-treasure are not in the same category. Category means when you can compare China with USA, but you can't compare China with America. Here USA and China are names for the countries, America is the continent. But you can compare America with Asia, both are continents.
Lotus-treasure World includes Sukhavati. Why? Because Lotus-treasure World is a generic name given to all existences and phenomena, all non-existences and non-phenomena, i.e., the all of all, the total of totality. In the Avatamsaka, it said the Lotus-treasure World is formed by innumerable world-seas and world-seeds. Sukhavati will be one of the world in one of the world-seeds.
Sukhavati is very far from Sahā-lokadhātu our world. One is it is mentioned in the Amitabha Sutra, said it is at certain and certain huge distance from our world of the western direction. The other is, in Avatamsaka the chapters describing the structure of the worlds, after it described the world-seed our world resides, it goes to describe the neighboring ones; when it depicted a world with known relationship to our world, say, both are at the 13th dimension, it stated clearly, also at the 13th dimension, such and such world is called so and so name... But it never mentioned the world Sukhavati. Therefore we can know Sukhavati is not a neighborhood world to ours.

From my reading, it seems Sukhavati is a "purified" world, that is, it is emanated from Buddha Amitabha's mind. But Lotus-treasure is the primordial, it is the manifestation of Vairocana.


Are monks allowed to have prescriptions? What did the Buddha say of medicine?

Providing the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist to lay people  is not allowed for monks according to DN2:

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

Monks can use medicine for their own use, according to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

  MEDICINES OR TONICS

  We have dealt above with food and fruit juice. There is now the
  category of 'tonic-medicines' (sattaahakaalika). These can be consumed
  at any time but cannot be stored longer than seven days (after they
  are offered).

  These tonic-medicines were originally regulated when Venerable
  Pilindavaccha's great feats of psychic power made him so famous that
  he received many offerings of the five 'tonics.' Even though he
  distributed these among other monks there was so much that the excess
  had to be stored away and their dwellings were overrun by rats.
  Visiting lay people criticized the monks for "storing up goods in
  abundance like a king." The Buddha therefore set down this rule:

  "Keeping any of the five tonics — ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or
  sugar/molasses — for more than seven days is [an offence of Confession
  with Forfeiture.] (Summarized Nis. Paac. 23; BMC p.242) ◊ There are
  various translations and interpretations about these 'tonic-
  medicines' — according to different Communities and different
  countries. Some places consider only liquids allowable while a few
  communities will drink only plain water in the afternoon. Some
  communities will not accept re-offered tonic-medicines (after the
  seven days period is over), some will under certain circumstances.
  Therefore lay devotees need to enquire about the practice of their
  local Community and follow that way.[94]

  Some contemporary observations:

  "The five medicines — ghee, navaniita.m, oil, honey, and suga — were
  allowed by the Buddha to be consumed by 'sick' monks at any time of
  the day or night. According to the Mahaavagga, these five were 'agreed
  upon as medicines and, although they served as nutriment for people,
  were not considered as substantial food.' The degree of infirmity
  required before a monk is allowed to consume these [tonic-]medicines
  is a controversial point... It seems that feeling rundown or feeling
  tired after physical exertion would be sufficient cause to be able to
  make use of the Five Medicines."(AB)

  "The main effectiveness of these medicines seems to be in their
  nutritional value. They do not have medicinal value as commonly
  understood today, for example, relieving pain or as an antiseptic.
  However, as nutriment they would help to maintain bodily strength and
  assist in recuperation while, since they are so rich, would not be a
  substitute for normal food." (HS ch.10)

  Also, if the tonic-medicine is mixed with a tiny amount of food then
  it would be acceptable according to this allowance:

  "...if sugar has a little flour mixed with it simply to make it firmer
  — as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar — it is
  still classed as a tonic as it is still regarded simply as 'sugar.'"
  (BMC p.238-9) If the flour is for more food-like reasons then it would
  be counted as food. See also Mixing Edibles above.

  LIFETIME MEDICINES

  The fourth category of edibles (see The Four Sorts of Edibles) is that
  of Lifetime Medicines (yaavajiivika). which includes what we generally
  think of as medicines.

  The basic principle set down by the Buddha about all medicines is in
  this reflection:

  "Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use
  them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and
  for the maximum freedom from disease." [OP p. 47; (Paali: M. I, 10; A.
  III, 387)] In the beginning, the basic (herbal) medicines allowed by
  the Buddha were those pickled in urine. Later, nearly all other types
  came to be considered allowable.[95] (See the separate allowance above
  for 'tonic-medicines.')

  Medicines that may be consumed without time limitation are called
  yaavajiivika. The Texts mention different sorts of herbal medicines
  such as: plant roots, e.g., ginger, turmeric, sweet flag, etc.;
  decoctions, such as of the neem or nux-vomica; tree-leaves, such as
  neem-leaves, tulsi or holy basil; fruits, such as long peppers,
  myrobalan, wormwood; resins, such as asafoetida; salts, such as
  sea-salt, rock salt, etc. Any other medicine or herbs similar to these
  that is not reckoned to be food is included under this 'lifetime'
  category.[96]

  ◊ Modern western medicines are usually included — using the Great
  Standards — under this category and therefore can be taken at any time
  of the day and kept as long as necessary.

In "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill", Lily de Silva quotes the Buddha as exhorting monks to care for and look after other monks:

  "He who attends on the sick attends on me," declared the Buddha,
  exhorting his disciples on the importance of ministering to the sick.
  This famous statement was made by the Blessed One when he discovered a
  monk lying in his soiled robes, desperately ill with an acute attack
  of dysentery. With the help of Ananda, the Buddha washed and cleaned
  the sick monk in warm water. On this occasion he reminded the monks
  that they have neither parents nor relatives to look after them, so
  they must look after one another. If the teacher is ill, it is the
  bounden duty of the pupil to look after him, and if the pupil is ill
  it is the teacher's duty to look after the sick pupil. If a teacher or
  a pupil is not available it is the responsibility of the community to
  look after the sick (Vin.i,301ff.).

  On another occasion the Buddha discovered a monk whose body was
  covered with sores, his robe sticking to the body with pus oozing from
  the sores. Unable to look after him, his fellow monks had abandoned
  him. On discovering this monk, the Buddha boiled water and washed the
  monk with his own hands, then cleaned and dried his robes. When the
  monk felt comforted the Buddha preached to him and he became an
  arahant, soon after which he passed away (DhpA.i,319). Thus the Buddha
  not only advocated the importance of looking after the sick, he also
  set a noble example by himself ministering to those who were so ill
  that they were even considered repulsive by others.


Did Buddha say "this is the Middle Way"?

In the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha gives his monks a discourse on the "The Exposition of Non-Conflict". In here he mentions the Middle Way:

  "Here, bhikkhus, the Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both these extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. It is a state without suffering...and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict.

  That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.

  -- MN 139: Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta, p. 1085 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Samyutta Nikaya, The Buddha also mentions the Middle Way. Here in the "The Book of the Six Sense Bases":

  "There are, headman, these two extremes which should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth into homelessness: the pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.

  Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision . . . leads to Nibbana?

  It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view . . . right concentration. This is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.

  -- Samyutta Nikaya: IV. The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Saḷāyatanavagga), p. 1350 - Bodhi, Trans.

In the Anguttara Nikaya, The Buddha mentions the Middle Way in relation to the practice of meditation:

  “Bhikkhus, there are these three ways of practice. What three? The coarse way of practice, the blistering way of practice, and the middle way of practice".

  “And what is the middle way of practice? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings . . . mind in mind . . . phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed longing and dejection in regard to the world. This is called the middle way of practice.
  “These, bhikkhus, are the three ways of practice.”

  -- Anguttara Nikaya: The Book of the Threes: Ways of Practice, p. 372-373 - Bodhi, Trans.


The Buddha talked about the "world Systems" and other humans in them. This is a fascinating topic for myself as someone interested in astronomy. Here are some links speaking about world systems and related topics.

The Dhamma is sort of like the laws of mathematics and physics that govern this universe, universal to all sentient beings, everywhere. This is why we spread our metta out into the universe. I usually go one step further and spread metta out to the multi-verse.

What Buddhists Believe
Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera: Other World Systems

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/300.htm

The Buddhist Concept of World
Bhikkhu T. Seelananda

http://bhavanasociety.org/resource/the_buddhist_concept_of_world/

The Buddha once explaining the world system said, ” Monks, as far as sun and moon revolve and illuminate all directions by their radiance, so far does the thousand-fold world system extend. And in that thousand-fold world system, there are thousand moons, a thousand suns, inhabited planets…. This thousand-fold world system is called culanikā-loka-dhātu or Minor World-System, which is the smallest unit in the universe (But all these change takes place, transformation takes place. When seeing this the instructed noble disciple is disenchanted, dispassion..)

I also find this sutta fascinating in which the Buddha appears to be speaking about a black hole..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.046.than.html
Andhakara Sutta: Darkness

"There is, monks, an inter-cosmic[1] void, an unrestrained darkness, a pitch-black darkness, where even the light of the sun & moon — so mighty, so powerful — doesn't reach."


Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?

With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, detachment

I suppose you internalise or become familiar with these concepts, so they (i.e. the concepts, not the descriptions of the concepts) appear (in your mind) as an antidote and/or a diagnosis when that's appropriate.

Analogously a couple of other concepts (from the suttas), perhaps fundamental, is to recognise, "this is (arising of) 'stress' (and/or craving, attachment), and this is 'cessation' (thereof)".

does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation?

I think Buddhism recommends very simple questions.

For example, MN 61 (taught to Rahula when he was young) -- "Is this good or bad?", or more specifically

  This [...] action [...] — would it lead to (is it leading to, did it lead to] self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be [is it, was it] an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?

This is a single, general-occasion or all-purpose question, suitable any time.

Another example of a question like that might be, Is That So? That's like asking, "Ok, so this is a "view", but am I sure it's true -- the only truth?"

There's Buddhist doctrine about "views" -- e.g. right view, wrong view, also cessation of views:

DN 34

  What four things should be given up? Four floods: sensuality, desire for rebirth, views, and ignorance.

(or more specifically "view-flood", possibly "flood of views")
AN 7.51

  Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues

There are suttas (e.g. here) which seem to warn against taking views at all, and/or that "views" are one of the many things that a noble one is liberated from (I haven't found a good reference for this though, this might be an inaccurate paraphrase or out of context).

It warns that there are certain types of question that are inappropriate -- see A thicket of wrong views

I found this topic informative too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- helping to define what "a view" is or isn't.

Buddhism also (in my opinion) associates papanca with conceit, by saying they are both a cause (or are both the cause) of arguments (especially doctrinal or sectarian arguments) -- I suppose it's saying the motive is egocentric i.e., "I am right!", or, "My view is better!", and so on.

Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

I was tempted to say, "That's not quite the answer: a better answer is ...", but I'd better not, isn't that so? :-)

"Trying to get to nirvana" is a dubious (i.e. possibly misleading) proposition -- on the one hand there is Right Effort, but on the other hand that might be the very definition of "craving".


If we tell lies to save lives, will that be a sin?

I think this question is a duplicate of:

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

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

You wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, about the phrase you quoted.

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

  don't lie

... is presumably clear enough.

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

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

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

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

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


You might want to consult Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

It explains how one deals with unwholesome thoughts in several ways and 'Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object' is one of those ways.


There is karma that is intention (an omnipresent mental factor) and karma that is intended actions.

Intended actions are defined by Je Tsongkhapa as:

  The actions of body and speech that are motivated by that intention.

Afflictions such as anger, jealousy, covetousness, and so forth are not the intention mental factor - but have their own entity as mental factors - therefore they are not karma. Anger manifests from a seed of anger and that seed is not a karmic seed, because it was "deposited" by a previous instance of anger (not by a previous karma - that is intention or intended action).

However, some qualify the afflictions as 'karmic path' or 'paths of actions' because they are likely to lead one to engage in negative actions (karma).


Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view?

I think this is because many foreigners buy them to decorate their bathrooms. That has made life difficult for even the genuine foreign Buddhists. But they probably wouldn't stop a monk from taking a statue abroad unless it has antique significance.


You asked a very intelligent question; but this is an intellectual quest that fallen into the category of the Ten Unexpounded Questions, I infer. It belongs to this group: Is the world eternal?. Discerning that question, it is asking Does the world have beginning/When does the world first appear; follow suit, Who was the first Buddha?

Since the Buddha withdrawn from giving answer to the Ten, usually that's the end of it. And then the classical way is to stress, Buddha's teaching is for ending suffering... for someone like wounded by an arrow at heart dying immediately... etc. etc. full-stop. Done.

But I think maybe you are interested to investigate a bit more...

The intellectual questions are confined by intellectual limitation. Intellectual limitation of procuring question or answer is limited in these four types:

This is (P)
This is not (-P)
This is also is not (P also -P)1
Neither this is nor is not (Neither P nor -P)2

Called Catuṣkoṭi, I prefer the name "Four-statements". Not a fifth statement can be procured by the intellect, except combining the four to make sub-sets.

A question asked from these Four-statements answered in the Four-statements, Buddha called it "game of the mind" (戲論). There are plenty of these examples in general teachings recorded in Agama Sutras; sophisticated examples in advance teachings recorded in such as Avatamsaka Sutra (the first Sutra spoken by the Buddha). For instant, if this same type of question asked by a Christian: Who created the world? Ans: God. Who created God? Ans (maybe:)): God's father. Who created God's father? Ans: God's grandfather... finally, one can only come up this answer to halt the question: God is Alpha and Omega (the beginning and end/no beginning and end). See? How horrible the mind can elicit gaming!

But, The Truth is beyond these Four-statements; beyond intellect, beyond the mind; can be pointed, yet not caged for display, like the finger pointing to the moon. That's the deepest teaching of the Buddha. Nagarjuna elaborated the teaching profoundly, for easy application, used one word: Emptiness (空).

OK. I'm diving a bit too much into the sea, giving too long an answer, a bit scary too, huh? Better is finding out by yourself :)

Now let's go headlong into your title question:

  Who was the first buddha?

The short answer is: 。 (silence)

Additional: The number of buddhas isn't increasing nor decreasing... etc., for this analogy is an extended fabrication constructed by the Four-statements.

Now let's deal with the next:

  how did he become buddha without the dharma or a guru?

I think the he you referred to Buddha Shakyamuni. First, the Dharma is constant and present, not created hence can't be destroyed; the word used to refer is suchness, or thusness. By the moment Prince Siddhartha realized full enlightenment, he embodied the Dharma, by embodied the Dharma he realized full enlightenment, called Buddha Shakyamuni.

Guru I think you meant teacher. Buddha's teachers are previous Buddhas, one of the most significant Gurus for our Buddha, would be Buddha Dipamkara. To be the Lord Buddha of the Three-thousand-world (三千大千世界)3, one has to receive the Mark (授記) from the previous Buddha. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, the Mark was endorsed by Buddha Dipamkara4. When a Buddha is perfectly enlightened, worth to be the teacher of all humans and devas, opens the deathless gate for all, he is called a Samyaksambuddha, one who attained the pinnacle of enlightenment, Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. My other post may provide more info.

There is another type of Buddha, he doesn't have a Guru [to endorse him the Mark], called Pratyekabuddha, or called self-awaken Buddha (獨覺佛). He realizes full enlightenment by discovering the Dharma by himself, contemplating the 12 Nidanas, during time there's no Buddha appearing. He doesn't teach nor forming Saṃgha to carry on any teaching.

Indeed your question is well formulated, involving understanding many Buddhist doctrines. My answer just serves as indications, it's for you to explore the richness of the Buddha Dharma, how Buddha sees cosmology, life, the world... etc. _/|\ _ (all-my-ten)

Footnotes:

1. From Chinese wording I think it made more sense to use also then and. Obviously putting and is violating logic.

2. It follows that the 4th statement should be treated same way.

3. Three-thousand-world has different definitions, I'm still not clear about the grouping of solar systems and galaxies how they referred to in Buddhist cosmology. My assertion is, either one galaxy one world, or one thousand galaxies one world. If it's the later, then 1,000 Milkyway-like star-clusters will be one Samyaksambuddha's teaching ground ~ huge classroom! Sources related to one 3TW presiding one Lord Buddha: Agama Sutras, Avatamsaka Sutra, Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, Abhidharma-kośa, etc.

4. Sources: in the Sutras collected in one of the 12 Sutra-sections of the Chinese Canon, the Agama Section (which is equivalent to Pali Canon's Nikaya Pitaka); Diamond Sutra, Dharmagupta Vinaya (survived only in the Chinese Canon), Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, etc.


Perception of light - a twist in the Bhaya Bherava sutta?

There is a famous quote in the ancient Hindu tradition, "what's day for the worldly is night for the sage" - meaning, the worldly and the spiritual people have the diametrically opposite sets of values, what's considered good by one is considered bad by the other:

  What everyone considers night is wakefulness for the renunciate, and that in which all are wakefull is seen as night by the wise sage (BG 2.69).

The quote in Bhaya Bherava Sutta is a sarcastic joke on Buddha's part:

  There are some brahmanas-shramanas, oh brahman, who see the day in night, and night in day. This, I tell you, is their delusion. As for me, I see the day in day, and night in night.

What Buddha says here is that his teaching, the True Dharma, actually reconciles the two value systems and demonstrates how ethical and skillful action, sensual restraint, concentration, emotional intelligence, and wisdom - are the path to positive outcome for both the worldly as well as spiritually motivated people.

The quote in Capala Sutta A 7.58 is simply a casual reference to the serious meditator's preference to spend the nights in restful vigil, while spending days in meditation (SN 51.20):

  "And how does a monk dwell by night as by day, and by day as by night? There is the case where a monk at night develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by day, and by day he develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion by means of the same modes & signs & themes that he uses by night. This is how a monk dwells by night as by day, and by day as by night.


I think that at least in one place the early Sutta say that there is one Brahma (primary god) in a world system but they also speak of a world system which is thousand or manyfold but i can't recall if it is said that these do not have a Brahma god in them, they don't as i understand Buddhisms and are rather spoken of as comprised of earths & suns like our immediate environment complete with it's human kings, godly retinues & mount Merus.
I think this entire world system with it's thousandfold systems can be thought of as a single system of conceivable points of reference or observers as in special relativity.
So Brahma is max power which is a constant position and Tathagatha is occasional superpower.
At any given point there is only one ruler of the world because it's all one one conditioned system which changes as it persists.
Texts do say that there is also only one Buddha in a world system simultaneously and that a world system contracts & expands in cycles.
Unfortunately the texts do not always differentiate between a world system as to greater or lesser (they do sometimes) and therefore it is a controversy.
Some people think there can be several Buddhas in what we normally refer to as a universe, others think it cannot happen. Ie some hold that it's 1 Buddha per solar system or galaxy simultaneously.
The idea of 'sharing a world simultaneously' when analyzed in terms of electromagnetic radiation gives a clue as to how this can and how this can not work.
Ie if 'one' is thought of as 'teleporting around the universe in terms of physics' then one is traveling faster than light but one is still in what is spoken of as 'a space' where one travels at a constantly infinite/instant speed.
One such as this can not travel "in time" as one is getting old as one's perception changes as one discerns a before & after.
On other hand this teleport power opens up for being seen in multiple places because one can having emitted radiation here, disappear & teleport, faster than that radiation, to a 'there' so that one can perceive that formerly emitted radiation, as visible light there and thus even seeing or feeling oneself let alone others seeing you as radiation from here and there hits simultaneously:)
I think this is the only way one can become many.
Therefore one can see that all locations are conceived locally and are immediately accessible to a Buddha; therefore another Buddha cannot exist even a trillion lightyears away nor in any other conceivable location for as long as the life-force of a Tathagatha is a factor in the world. That is because, as i explained, all locality is immediately accessible to a Buddha as it is conceived and that obv faster than light as quantum entanglement demonstrates.


Where and what to study - Buddhist compassion and business communication

You can find info on Buddhist Studies in the USA here and info on Buddhist Studies in the UK here.

However, it is likely that the kind of research topic that you're considering, would be more acceptable in Business faculties rather than Buddhist Studies faculties. You probably need to find a doctoral supervisor who would be interested.

Searching "Buddhist business workplace" on Google Scholar, I found this paper:

  Marques, J. (2010). Toward greater consciousness in the 21st century
  workplace: How Buddhist practices fit in. Journal of business ethics,
  92(2), 211-225.

Its abstract:

  The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of
  Buddhist practices in today’s workplaces. The findings were supported
  by interviews with Buddhist masters and Buddhist business
  practitioners, as well as literature review, through phenomenological
  analysis. As a means of presenting the main reasons why Buddhist
  practices should be considered in contemporary workplaces, a SWOT
  analysis is presented. In this analysis, a number of strengths for
  using Buddhist practices in workplaces are listed such as
  pro-scientific, greater personal responsibility, and healthy
  detachment, while potential weaknesses such as non-harming,
  equanimity, and no competition are also reviewed. Both the strengths
  and the weaknesses could be listed in reverse if applied to a
  different extent. Among the opportunities were issues such as
  re-educating the world of business, enhancing personal ownership and a
  healthier society, while the threats comprised issues such as creating
  different imbalances, disinterest, and stationary development.

Based on this, I think Prof. Joan Marques of Woodbury University's School of Business, might be a good choice for a doctoral supervisor. You can find a list of her other publications on her Google Scholar profile page.

You can search for more relevant papers on Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Knowledge, and the authors of those papers may make suitable research supervisors.


The prepatory steps (precepts, location, time, etc.) are just as important as the actual practice. Ven.Buddhadasa's detailed anapanasati's instruction might be useful..


It's a mental conflict many practitioners face every day. I humbly submit how I perceived the cause and effect behind it:

1) You learn (i.e. intellectually) that Buddhism teaches the self is an illusion. However, you haven't realized (in both senses of the word) this yet.

2) Your self (Western psychology would say your ego) doesn't like this idea. Nor does your id. They perceive it as death. (In Zen for example attaining Buddha-hood is called "Great Death"). "If the self is an illusion, I don't actually matter/exist"

3) Ego and id will manifest more vigorously and alluring as you practice more, fighting against their "impending doom". They will cling to anything that affirms your individuality or negates your knowledge of the illusionary nature of self. To a certain extent, you could even consider it an instinctive survival mechanism.


Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Am I right in thinking that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta?

I wouldn't say most important but, taking into account other discourses, it seems it was the first discourse expounded by the Buddha.

If so, is it sensible that, there, it is "SN 56.11" (i.e. not the first sutta)?

It depends on how you'd want to organize the discourses. Since SN is organized thematically, this is one of the reasons for it being in the last section (SN 56).

What other "important" suttas should I read "first"?

I struggle with this question since there is a plethora of "important" or "good" discourses. Personally, I enjoy so many discourses in the canon that I've lost count. Nevertheless, here are some which I consider important (The subsequent bolded filtering are those discourses which I consider to be the core. I'd recommend reading all of them nonetheless):

Dīgha Nikāya: 1, 2, 9, 15, 16, 29
Majjhima Nikāya: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 47, 55, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 70, 72, 74, 82, 86, 88, 95, 96, 107, 108, 109, 117, 118, 121, 125, 136, 139, 141, 149, 150
Saṃyutta Nikāya: 12.2, 12.15, 12.17, 12.33, 12.34, 22.2, 22.59, 22.81, 22.85, 35.28, 35.116, 36.6, 36.7, 36.8, 36.11, 38.14, 41.6, 45.8, 46.51, 46.55, 47.10, 47.19, 48.42, 51.15, 55.7, 56.11
Aṅguttara Nikāya: I'd recommend looking at Bhikkhu Bodhi's Thematic Guide and reading the discourses by whatever topic interests you. A discourse that usually stands out in this nikāya is AN 3.65. (I also like 3.61, 3.68 & 3.69)
Khuddaka Nikāya: I recommend reading fully the Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Sutta Nipāta, Theragāthā & Therīgāthā. They are small and easy to read. If I had to choose one, I'd say the Sutta Nipāta.

Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)?

These are the orders I've seen:

1. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
2. Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta
3. Ādittapariyāya Sutta [Source]

1. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
2. Hemavata Sutta
3. Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta [Source]

Can't recollect anything else regarding this topic.


In Yogacara Buddhism, is discontinuity an illusion, and does change arise?

Like Andrei says, this isn't something normally taken up by yogacara.  Nevertheless, if you wanted to pull this system into the discussion, it would seem that yogacara argues in favor of continuity at least in respect to the unenlightened mind.  One of the characteristics of the alaya vijnana is that it gives a false notion of consistency to the self and the thrice transformed objects of consciousness.  Specifically in regards to mind consciousness, the cetas are superimposed by the alaya in a consistent way.   I don't know of any instance where yogacara makes the argument that all consistency is vacated upon enlightenment, but it stands to reason that once the transformations are abandoned, each sense object and mental construct becomes fully discrete and not warped by residual mental seeds in the alaya.


The Buddha's teaching continues to bless us so I suppose the Buddha is still blessing those that discovered his teaching.

The Buddha isn't magic. The Buddha's teaching blesses the one who practices the teaching. The teaching (AKA The Dhamma) isn't magic as well, it's practical and it's sober although magic can happen. Check this out:

Here from the Mangala Sutta are the concise answers given by The Buddha to the question,"What is a blessing"?

Not being around fools
Being around the wise
Remembering the honorable
Having one‘s abode in a suitable place for safe practice
Having done meritorious actions
The pursuit of higher understanding
Being rich in knowledge
Being rich in skill
to be highly restrained ethically
Using only well-spoken words
Supporting one's parents
Caring for the family
Unconfused actions
Generosity
Right living
Caring for one‘s relatives
Refraining from unskillful things
To abhor unwholeseome things
To avoid unwholesome things
To avoid intoxicants
Diligence in righteousness
Reverence
Humility
Contentment
Gratitude
Hearing the Dhamma at the right time
Patience
Compliance
Seeing the monks
Discussing the Dhamma
Self-restraint
A holy life
Seeing The Four Noble Truths
Realizing Nibbana
A heart not trembling, unshaken
A heart not trembling, sorrowless
A heart not trembling, stainless
A heart not trembling, secure
(from Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Nipata 2.4)

The Buddha probably does bless even people that have never heard of the Buddha. The good karmic actions of Dhamma practice should have a ripple effect on many people. :) metta


The answer to this question may also depend on the individual and how advanced they are in Buddhist practice. If a person is solid in faith and regular in practice and can truly be that good example for friends that may help lead those friends to the Dhamma that is one thing. If the individual is newer to Buddhism and the keeping of precepts and right speech and needs lots of time to themselves to establish a regular meditation practice and learn about their new path then friends and social activities can be a distraction. In fairness, a person in the second scenario should explain to their friends why they can't be as available as they've been in the past, or why they are no longer willing to participate in certain activities. Good friends will understand and give you that time you need. Bad friends may not respect your commitment and may continually try to persuade you back to your old ways. It's not compassionate to yourself or even the bad friend to accommodate that. Leaving a bad friend with more time on their hands (because you are not around) may give them more time to think and may be the wake up call they need.

As far as socializing in real life and online, you have to set limits and priorities or the days and weeks and months will simply fly by aimlessly. As a practical suggestion, I find Airplane mode on the my phone very handy when I want to use my phone based meditation timer but not be distracted by texts and notifications. :)


Are there any websites that contain Buddhist dictionaries?

I recommend the Digital Pali Reader (a browser extension for Firefox and Pale Moon).


The best way to "memorize" suttas is to get the key idea or sanna of the given sutta. It is the “learning” of true dhamma and not “memorization” that will help in the retention of key phrases. For that one needs to get the key idea or sanna of a given concept. When one gets the sanna of a concept, one will never lose it.

So, the best way to memorize is to grasp the concepts of dhamma. Then it becomes easier to analyze a given concept as one progresses. The more one grasps about a concept and the meanings and how to use them in other situations, things start to come flowing through. This is unlike memorizing the wording, but another will think that you’ve memorized a given thing.

The basic difference between “real learning” and memorization is that in the first case you have acquired the ability to grasp concepts, whereas the latter makes you just blindly follow rules/instructions.

This is a concept that is hard to grasp for many these days, because we are so much used to “book learning”. There are many people who can repeat certain tasks mechanically without even bothering to think through. And then when the situation changes somewhat they do not know how to handle the “new situation”.


A person is a Dependently Arisen process. Actions [Karma] will influence the direction which the process takes [positive and negative conditioning], hence influence rebirth. There is no permanent core [soul] which is a store of Karma.

The Buddha is someone who found the truth of regarding existence and compassionately taught it so being can come out of their misery.


How can one point to one's consciousness?

From MN 28:

  If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

Trying to point to one's consciousness is like trying to point at the wind. One can't really "point" it out. One can only point to its manifestation. How to point at the wind? When seeing a tree and its branches are shaking or feeling a breeze brushing against one's face, etc. Similarly, how to point out one's eye consciousness? By the fact that one's able to cognize the form object like a book, a table, etc..


Are these translations of the Sutta Nipata correct?

The quotes may be real, but their translation is probably not.

Sanskrit (and Pali) root "ved-" stands for gnosis, knowledge, understanding. The name of Vedas comes from the same root, they are supposed to be collections of (religious) knowledge. Using this coincidence, it looks like instead of translating the words such as vedehi, vedagu etc. as e.g. having known, expert/erudite etc. - they left them untranslated and made it look as if they were referring to the Vedas.

For example in the first phrase they have quoted

  ...Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ...

probably means something like

  ...having known and having learned, thanks to encountering Dharma...

There is no way vidva and vedehi can refer to Vedas, because these are clearly verb forms, not nouns.

And so on.


I found several interesting Wiki pages:

This one gives a basic idea about the growth as a comparison between 1910 and 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

This is the List of religious population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

This one gives the population groth rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth_rate

By briefly analysing all of the above, I feel like Buddhism is decline according to the statistics.

Further found this article which gives a projections for the Next 200 Years :
http://www.wnrf.org/cms/print_next200.shtml

According to it from 1900 to 2025 Buddhist world wide % changed ( and will be change) from 7.8% to 5.7%.

Although it sound like depressing, please think as a Buddhists this is quite expected and all align with Buddhist teaching. Going forward, It is quite clear that world is not going be a better place than today. As people moving more towards to materialism, consumerism they tends to distract from the reality. So be mindful and practice the Dhamma.


When the patient feels sensation, he can practice Kayanupassana(mindfulness of the body) and Vedananupassana(mindfulness of feelings). When the thoughts of worry come to the mind the patient can practice Cittanupassana(mindfulness of mental activities) and Dhammanupassana(mindfulness of realities).

This technique will reduce the worry that leads to anxiety.


The path and the desire to reduce the suffering of others?

By walking the path yourself you will be of great benefit to others. You are giving the gift of harmlessness.
A living example of the Dhamma, which is the path of complete peace and freedom.

The Buddha was a liberated one, a pure being, a great one. He no longer had any attachments whatsoever.
Helping others when asked or when a situation arises (proper, beneficial) is what pure beings do.

Having eradicated all mental defilements. Freed from avidity, anger, no longer having any kind of delusion, ignorance about the true nature of things.

Pure beings will never harm others, in any circumstances. Any possibilities to do so can no longer manifest themselves since they can no longer arise. Therefore they would never resort to violence, aggressive behavior and such.

What would the Blessed one do? I can only speculate for I am not such a great one...
It is said that the Buddha had supramundane powers. He knew exactly what was proper, as in the right course of action, what and when it was beneficial.

If reasonable and wise words could be beneficial in that particular instance, he would speak such words.
If not, he'd probably radiate metta ''goodwill'' and be on his way.


I was reading about this because of the famous Milinda Questions. They are a set of questions asked by  Indo-Greek king Menander I (Pali Milinda) of Bactria from a 'Arhath' monk. Therefore it is possible that this Indo-Greek Kingdom probably had relations with both India and Mediterranean.


How to explain that relationship with someone worthy of respect is more than just a friendship?

This is not how it works. You don't beg for respect, you don't demand it. When you deserve respect, it happens naturally.


It's Jataka #388 (Tuṇḍila Jātaka):

  "Something strange to-day," etc. The Master told this tale while dwelling in Jetavana, concerning a brother who feared death. He was born in Sāvatthi of good family and was ordained in the Faith: but he feared death and when he heard even a little moving of a bough, or falling of a stick or voice of bird or
  beast or any such thing, he was frightened by the fear of death, and went away shaking like a hare wounded in the belly. The Brethren in the Hall of Truth began to discuss, saying, "Sirs, they say a certain Brother, fearing death, runs away shaking when he hears even a little sound: now to beings in this world death is certain, life uncertain, and should not this be wisely borne in mind?" The Master found that this was their subject and that the Brother allowed he was afraid of death: so he said, "Brethren, he is not afraid of death for the first time," and so he told an old tale.

  http://sacred-texts.com/bud/j3/j3089.htm

The word is 'maraṇabhīruka' and it means 'one who is afraid of death'; it's not a name, just a description.


Celibacy and Religious Traditions, edited by Carol Olson (https://books.google.ca/books?id=apq1G-o2OzoC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=masturbation+vinaya+pitaka&source=bl&ots=YtJc3M7TAs&sig=DShKDVt6HKWn1yGu2D-tjf9dlSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBkO3Sy8TQAhUkS2MKHXnYBlwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=masturbation&f=false) mentions Vinaya III.109 on page 222.

The reference appears to be to Sanghadisesa I, which appears on pages 192-98 of Horner, The Book of the Discipline, Vol. I (PTS ed.), where the venerable Seyyasaka was emaciated with yellowish skin and varicose veins. The ven. Udayin saw this and recommended that he eat, sleep, bathe and engage in the activity asked about "as much as you like," for reasons of health. This cured him, "and in a short time the venerable Seyyasaka was nice-looking with rounded features, of a bright complexion and a clear skin." Since the 5th cent. BCE was the golden age of Ayurveda, one wonders if there might be an Ayurvedic precedent for this? In any case, the Buddha rebukes Seyyasaka for this practice, saying that it is not appropriate for a monastic to engage in such a practice, which leads to passion, bondage, and grasping. The actual rule to which it gave rise is stated on page 195. As an infraction of the second order (disesa), it entails a formal meeting of the order. Also see the example referred to on page 359 (Vin. III 112).

The prohibition reminds me a bit of the Qur'anic prohibition against drinking alcohol, which simultaneously recognizes its health benefits yet prohibits it.


What should we say when someone asks 'What is your religion?'

Determine what you will say based on what you can learn from the other person with whom you are talking. Listen carefully to what they say and presume nothing about what they mean. Ask careful questions about what a religion is and see whether what you are part of is a religion by this meaning. You may discover that while Buddhism is a religion the Dharma is something greater and more heartening.

The opportunity for sharing of the Dharma includes as much a listening attitude as it does an attempt to explain what we understand and know. Often meeting people on level ground is as much of an assist to others to find their way as comparing views or values may support our own.

When someone asks a personal question, this is an invitation from them (for whatever reason) to get to know us better, to bring our mind to front and show them who we are. Unless they are already our spiritual guide or filial teacher then we owe them no compliance or explanation in any final sense. Our answer can be "I do not know." and this may become an embrace of humility from which we will persistently benefit.

These categories are not rooted and cemented for all time. What is a religion? Is Buddhism one? Is that what it has always been called? By whom? Perhaps the orthodox guy was bold and yet helpful, and his secret instruction to those he was asking was to cause us to wonder whether religion is valuable and how it helps us to come to a wakeful mind. Are 'isms' generally good at doing this?


Are actions in computer games bad for karma?

There are two parts to karma: 1) external forces/energies you set in motion with your action and 2) latent tendencies and inclinations in your psyche - that later become your action and reaction, that then sets external forces in motion.

If you step away and look at it from a distance, there is really no hard line between "external" and "internal"; karma is a network of subtle potentialities.

Some of the potentialities are pretty subtle, yeah - like the ones involved in playing videogames - but they are still real. Very few of them translate 1:1 to analogous actions in real life though.

For example, mass-shooting in games is not even remotely the same karma as real murder, but you still separate "yourself" from "others", and you still desire good for one's own character at the expense of everyone else's. Amassing golden coins in game is not real, but you still go after "fruits", get frustrated when things you like a taken away and so on and so forth. Guess what kind of latent potentialities, however subtle, all this creates/reinforces?

Actually, when it comes to karma, "subtle" does not mean "weak". Some of our deepest hung-ups come from our subtlest preconceptions.

So I'd say in general the games you play may not create a lot of new karma, but they certainly reinforce your inner tendencies and preconceptions that keep you chained in samsara.


An explanation (including the origin story) of this rule is given on pages 194 through 195 of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code II -- The Khandhaka Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

It says,

  Eczema covers a wide variety of skin diseases, differing from those included under
  “leprosy” in that they are not debilitating and do not ulcerate or ooze. Thus ringworm
  and athlete’s foot would come under this category. As under the preceding category,
  small, non-spreading infestations in an area covered when fully robed would be
  allowable.


What are conditioned as opposed to unconditioned phenomena?

All things are conditioned (matter, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness itself). Conditioned in that their arising, form and duration are influenced by other things. Only nibbana (nirvana) is unborn, unaging and unconditioned in the original Buddhist teaching. It is because such a state exists that escape is possible from all that is born, changing and conditioned (which is ultimately unsatisfactory and the cause of suffering anyway). See Udana text, sutta 3 for more.


"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is
  called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

  "And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
  'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.

  "And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is
  called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.

  "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate
  fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.

  "And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it
  is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html

My comments:

I think the description of 'perception' above is to highlight the perception of 'difference', 'contrast', etc. Thus, it could include shapes, length, sound frequencies, texture, sensations, etc.
The meaning of 'sankhara' above is question in itself. However, the key term is 'abhisaṅkharonti' ('fabricate'; a verb), which generally refers to 'attachment' in the suttas (eg. SN 12.51) and is also used in suttas about 'kamma' (eg. SN 12.25). Therefore, the description of 'sankhara' above appears to refer to 'mentally constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates as 'self' and 'pertaining or belonging to self'. It appears to mean 'mental constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates into something much more than they actually are. For example, SN 12.2 refers to 'producing' (abhinibbatti) views of 'beings' (sattānaṃ) in respect to the 'appearance or manifestation of the aggregates' (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo).
The description of 'consciousness' above & below, in terms of both 'tastes' (above) and 'feelings' (below) appears to highlight consciousness as a 'sensory impact'.

  'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
  'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
  cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
  cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'

  Discernment (wisdom) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
  disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

  'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In
  reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact.
  Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
  The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose & aromas
  there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is
  contact. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness
  at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the
  body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The
  meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the intellect & ideas
  there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three
  is contact. 'The six classes of contact should be known.'

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

  At Savatthi... There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of
  beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search
  of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined;
  contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and
  consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the
  maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of
  those in search of a place to be born.

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html


A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant.
The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.


Are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death?

The last mind in previous life is anantara-cause of the after-life-mind.

The previous life, mind&mind factors&forms, is pakatūpanissaya-cause of the after-life.

The previous kamma is nānakkhanikkakamma-cause of the after-life.

The previous life is ārammaṇa-cause of the after-life.

All above is clinging aggregate.

Read: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_8.htm


Did I exist ? Am I existing or Will I exist?

The questions are :
Did I exist ?
Am I existing?
Will I exist ?

Conventionally speaking, yes to all three questions. The self is a concept, an idea, a mental formation, belong to the 4th aggregate of mental formations.

Ultimately speaking, no to all three questions. Concepts are not part of ultimate reality. Experience is. When writing this post, looking at the computer screen, there is definitely a "seeing" going on, but ultimately, no "seer" can be found.

There are Four Ultimate Realities; Rupa, Citta, Cetasika and Nibbana.


Ledi Sayadaw Raised a Few Points in Contrary to the Commentaries. What are They?

One of the controversies and many others were concerned with attribution of the work of Abhidhamma and that some books contained errors

"4. Paramatthadipani-Tika, "The Elucidation of the Ultimate Meaning," by
Ledi Sayadaw. Ledi Sayadaw of Burma (1846-1923) was one of the greatest
scholar-monks and meditation masters of the Theravada tradition in recent
times. He was the author of over seventy manuals on different aspects of
Theravada Buddhism, including philosophy, ethics, meditation practice, and
Pali grammar. His tika created a sensation in the field of Abhidhamma
studies because he pointed out 325 places in the esteemed Vibhavini-tika
where he alleged that errors and misinterpretations had occurred, though
his criticisms also set off a reaction in defense of the older work."

Excerpts of some of the controversies


What is the role of thinking in Buddhism?

This is a question related to Lo-Rig, the study on valid cognition, 'epistemology'. An authoritative and simple text on the topic is Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, by Lati Rinpoche.

To answer in a practice-oriented fashion: when one is subject to anger (a conceptual consciousness that is also a wrong consciousness in that it engages its object erroneously), one comes to tell himself stories about the object. For instance, one comes to think “This person is detestable; how could have I been fooled and even like her? How could anyone love her? If they knew her for who she is, they would understand; she really wronged me...”. Finding all the more reasons, if not to be angry, at least to justify one's anger. As practitioners we engage in analytical meditation on impermanence & death, karma, refuge, precious human rebirth, and so forth, on a daily basis. It is called “Meditation on the Lam Rim”. We do it for two reasons:

So as to tell ourselves factually concordant “stories” in order to generate, for instance, patience and dwell in there, familiarizing with being patient, and so forth
So as to be able to pay attention to facts that we are so often blind to. For instance, after meditating a great deal on buddha-nature, it will be easier to find / see reasons not to despise any sentient beings.

Even when engaging in Calm Abiding, one needs to alternate between (1) analytical meditation and (2) placement, because one has to analyze the object he means to achieve Calm Abiding with in order to (1) familiarize with the object and (2) cultivate the clarity factor with regard to it.

Once our eyes are fully open, once we see reality, there is no need for these anymore. But in our (Geluk, Madhyamika-Prasangika) presentation, only a buddha is free from [the need for] conceptual consciousnesses, and is therefore called 'a valid person'. Also, since even direct perceivers in the continuum of a sentient being are not free from the appearance of true existence, abandoning conception [even the conception of true existence] is not sufficient. That is a unique Tenet of the Prasangika school, though.

To answer in a more technical fashion: a conceptual consciousnesses apprehends its object by way of a mental image (also called 'meaning-generality' or 'generally characterized phenomena'). All conceptual consciousnesses are mistaken [with regard to their appearing object, a mental image] in that they mistake the appearing object for the object of engagement. However, a conceptual  consciousness, even mistaken, can be valid. For instance, an inferential cognizer (which is a conceptual) is always valid because it necessarily arises in dependence upon a correct sign that has been realized [and which pervasion in relation to the predicate as well]. This accords with Purbuchok's presentation (in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers).

We often present the gradual process of generating valid consciousness as follows: Having doubts turning away from the factual [in relation to a slightly hidden phenomena, such as for instance subtle impermanence], one listens to the teachings – listening also comprehends reading – and comes to generate equal doubt. He keeps on listening to the teachings and comes to generate doubt tending towards the factual. He keeps on listening to the teachings, gives it a thought, and comes to generate a correct assumption. Most positions we hold as true without being able to establish by way of reasoning are such. Doubt and correct assumptions are not 'realizing consciousnesses'. Therefore, strictly speaking, someone having generated a correct assumption with regard to a slightly hidden phenomena has not 'realized' anything yet. From there, he engages in reflection and/or in meditation in an analytical fashion and, in dependence on a correct reason, comes to generate an inferential cognizer. That is why we engage so much in debates, familiarizing with reasoning itself, but also with reasons and their pervading such and such predicates (and therefore establishing thesis). An inferential cognizer i is the first realizing (and valid) consciousness in this scenario. It is valid because it engages its object correctly, but it is mistaken with regard to its appearing object, a mental image, because it is a conceptual consciousness. Although a buddha is free from inferential cognition, [valid] inferential cognizers realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, and so forth are to be cultivated on all the path of learning. It is taught that a slightly hidden phenomena – such as subtle impermanence, and so forth – can be realized directly after having familiarized realizing it inferentially. For instance, subtle impermanence or emptiness are directly realized for the first time in the context of a meditative equipoise (which is a union of calm abiding and special insight) on the path of seeing. Such a realization is preceded by several instances of inferential realization, that is conceptual cognition, also being unions of calm abiding and special insight. A wisdom directly realizing emptiness is not conceptual but is analytical because it is a union of calm abiding and special insight, and special insight has the function of analysis. Only a buddha is free from conceptual consciousnesses.

Wrong consciousnesses (ex.: doubt turning away from the fact, afflictions, etc.), non-realizing conscioussnesses (such as wrong consciousnesses, all types of doubts, inattentive awarenesses, etc.) mistaken consciousnesses (conceptual consciousnesses, including [valid] inferential cognizers) are objects of abandonment. However, they are not to be abandoned by any practitioner. The process of abandonment is gradual... and that which is to be cultivated by one is to be abandoned by another. For instance, inferential cognizers are not to be abandoned by those who still have afflictive obscurations.


Alan Watts appears to be a renaissance man that is not feeling constrained by any religion or philosophy. You can read general history and maybe get clues to who he was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
here is an excerpt

  "Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was a
  British-born philosopher, writer, and speaker, best known as an
  interpreter and populariser of Eastern philosophy for a Western
  audience. Born in Chislehurst, he moved to the United States in 1938
  and began Zen training in New York. Pursuing a career, he attended
  Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, where he received a master's
  degree in theology. Watts became an Episcopal priest then left the
  ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty
  of the American Academy of Asian Studies.

  Watts gained a large following in the San Francisco Bay Area while
  working as a volunteer programmer at KPFA, a Pacifica Radio station in
  Berkeley. Watts wrote more than 25 books and articles on subjects
  important to Eastern and Western religion, introducing the
  then-burgeoning youth culture to The Way of Zen (1957), one of the
  first bestselling books on Buddhism. In Psychotherapy East and West
  (1961), Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of
  psychotherapy and not a religion. He also explored human
  consciousness, in the essay "The New Alchemy" (1958), and in the book
  The Joyous Cosmology (1962)."

Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion.

So if this is what he thought, he may have not taken an eastern view of making peace with the eternal within as Buddhism proposes. He may have seen Buddhism as a means to a joyous life.

To me, what I think about Buddhism is inconsequential compared to how I practice Buddhism. Not knowing him personally I would not know if his irreverence was a way past dualities that disguised a heartfelt practice.

It reminds me of the story of the zen master who laughed at 4AM in the morning every morning and awoke the whole sangha. Students would ask him why he was laughing but he would just laugh more. Even approaching his death bed he would not vocalize a reason.

After the master died his students searched through all his papers searching for the reason of his laughter, but no clues. I guess the zen master had the last laugh!


Can software development benefit from mindfulness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Not just my own understanding, but a standard teaching is to approach things gradually, from coarse to subtle.

First, we have to stop creating major sources of trouble for ourselves. How do we do that? By following five precepts. Then, we stop creating medium-sized issues, by following the behavioral parts of the Eightfold Path. Then we stop creating subtler types of problems, by learning to control our emotions. Then, we get to subtle problems, by engaging in Samatha meditation to learn to stop compulsory thinking and inner dialog. Then, very subtle problems, by getting rid of egoistic perspectives. Then, ultrasubtle problems, by letting go of attachment to perfection and spirituality. Then extremely ultrasubtle problems, by practicing groundless suchness. These are just examples, you get the idea.

This is taught in many schools, and by many teachers. One thing at a time, by size, do the bigger stuff first. Stop creating large problems first.


Generosity in Buddhism - When does giving become unwholesome?

Unwholesome actions are those which are based on the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. When giving is wholesome it is an act of renunciation and it reduces the three poisons.

Giving becomes unwholesome if it is based on the three poisons. Perhaps you want to be famous for giving money so you are willing to give all your cash to charity; in this case you would effectively be buying fame and it is fueled by greed. This kind of giving is like a trade, you still want money but you've decided that fame is worth more; this type of giving is not renunciation.

You can come up with similar examples where the act of giving increases anger or the delusion of self-view, they would all be unwholesome giving.