How to deal with suffering and losing faith?

I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism,
but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but
what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so
many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin
hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also
saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn
possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me
more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have
to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other
persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still
struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if
suffering is a tool to evolve?

Buddhism can be rather harsh in the way it describes suffering. Bottom line is that no one is free from suffering until one reaches enlightenment. Until then, we can try to make things easier for others and not least ourselves by following the noble eightfold path.
Regarding ourselves, buddhism reminds us that people are acting cruel due to their own pain. As such, cruelty is the evidence of suffering of the person committing cruel things.
The idea is that if we can develop compassion - even for the ones committing cruelties - we are in fact going easier on ourselves for preventing the development of even more aversion towards other peoples cruelty. Everyone benefits from this, but it takes a lot of effort.

Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't
help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or
psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just
another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11
virgins - depending on the belief.

Maybe enlightenment is possible in conjunction with the fact that we are chemical, biological and psychological beings? I'm not sure i see the opposition.

I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and
i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the
suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all.
Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense
of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be
around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.

This is true. Committing to helping others may be the least bad option for everyone.

Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically
because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

Just don't forget to take a break every now and then.


Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism

Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment.

In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts & rituals; & (iv) self-views. The view that 'war is duty' is attachment.

In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "jati". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (upadana) is the condition (paccaya) for becoming (bhava), which is the condition for birth (jati).

The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste & no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war & killing commanded by Krishna.

In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being.

The killing Krisha recommended & Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated & immediately not a monk.

This is the difference between Buddhism & Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill.

  Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.

  Nibbedhika Sutta


Is there anything like "positive suffering" for Buddhists?

Yes, there is, as mentioned in the Upanisa Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya:

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
(SN 12.23, Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote an article on this sutta here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html
As he puts it:

The Buddha's declaration that suffering is the supporting condition for faith points to the essential backdrop to the awakening of the religious consciousness. It reveals that spiritual awareness and the quest for enlightenment do not arise spontaneously in harmony with our natural modes of world-engagement, but require a turn "against the current" a break away from our instinctual urges for expansion and enjoyment and the embarkation in a different direction. This break is precipitated by the encounter with suffering. Suffering spurs the awakening of the religious consciousness in that it is the experience of suffering which first tears us out of our blind absorption in the immediacy of temporal being and sets us in search of a way to its transcendence. Whether in the form of pain, frustration, or distress, suffering reveals the basic insecurity of the human condition, shattering our naive optimism and unquestioned trust in the goodness of the given order of things. It throws before our awareness, in a way we cannot evade, the vast gulf stretching between our ingrained expectations and the possibilities for their fulfillment in a world never fully susceptible to domination by our wills. It makes us call into question our schemes of values built upon the bedrock of personal expedience. It leads to a revaluation of all values and a new scale of worth indifferent to the claims of self-concern. And it opens us to confidence in an unseen order of relations and inter-connections, an order in which the values that emerge, so often in forceful opposition to the old, will find their proper justification and reward.

I guess I'd put it more simply: suffering leads one to put one's faith in spiritual practice because one no longer sees pleasure in mundane existence. It leads one to gain faith in the Buddha's teaching specifically because it teaches that suffering is a fact of life, which one has come to verify.
So yeah, suffering is important.  There is another sutta (Padota Sutta) that talks about four types of thoroughbred horses as a simile for humans:

"Once more, monks, here we may have a goodly thoroughbred man who neither hears it said... nor yet with his own eyes beholds... nor is his own kinsman or blood-relation afflicted or dead, but he himself is stricken with painful bodily feelings, grievous, sharp, racking, distracting, discomforting, that drain the life away. Thereat he is stirred, he feels agitation. Being so stirred he strictly applied himself. Thus applied he both realizes in his own person the supreme truth, and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. Just as, monks, that goodly thoroughbred steed on being pierced to the very bone is stirred, feels agitation, even so using this figure do I speak of this goodly thoroughbred man. Of such a sort, monks, is the goodly thoroughbred man in this case.
(AN 4.113, Woodward, trans)

So there is definitely the idea that suffering spurs one towards enlightenment, at least in a preliminary way.


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

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

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


Of course it is.  You can't have prajna without samadhi.  Think of a shovel versus a backhoe.  With a little shovel you can clear away a little debris and dig little holes.
With a backhoe, you can move mountains.  So to with concentration and wisdom.  Your samatha practice is the tool that allows you to clear away your own obstacles and access insight and wisdom.  And just like in the shovel example with the little samadhi of the novice comes little prajna; with the big samadhi of the adept comes bigger prajna.


Ven Bodhi discusses this matter and quotes relevant suttas in his "In the Buddha's Words" chapter V "THE WAY TO A FORTUNATE REBIRTH".

The following list, which was posted on SuttaCentral, is a greatly expanded version of Ven Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words list:

  Since i've found Ven. Bodhi reference list, i've been expanding it and here's what it's grown up to thus far. Hopefully someone will find it useful and continue to expand it as one gets more familiar with the Nikayas corpus

The links to the actual texts can be found in this posted list (as a part of a much longer one).

Most (if not all) of the texts are available on Access to Insight as well.

I cannot vouch that the view on kamma presented in these suttas is accepted by all sects of Buddhism, but it at least should be so for Theravada.

  The Law of Kamma

  (1) Four Kinds of Kamma (AN 4.232)

  (2) Why Beings Fare as They Do
  after Death (MN 41)

  (3) Kamma and Its Fruits (MN 135)

  (4) Kamma sutta - old and new kamma (SN 35.145)

  (5) Sivaka sutta - other causes (SN 36.21)

  (6) Devaduta sutta - kamma is only personal (MN 130)

  (7) Mahakammavibhanga sutta - the workings of kamma are not simple (MN
  136)

  (8) Vipaka sutta - violation of 5 precepts leads to states of woe and
  what they are (AN 8.40)

  (9) Tamonata sutta - 4 types of people in the world (AN 4.85)

  (10) Saleyyaka sutta/Veranjaka sutta - conduct determines realm of
  future birth (MN 41/42)

  (11) Panatipati sutta (AN 4.214)

  (12) Acintita sutta - workings of kamma are incomprehensible and
  should not be pondered upon (AN 4.77)

  (13) Vanijja sutta - success and failure are results of quality of
  offerings to holy people (AN 4.79)

  (14) Dasadhamma sutta - kamma is individual (AN 10.48)

  (15) Apayika sutta - false accusers of celibates go to hell (KN :  It
  48)

  (16) Abhinhapaccavekkhintabbathana sutta (Upajjhatthana) - kamma is
  only personal, everyone is an owner of their actions (AN 5.57)

  (17) Acela sutta - on one who experiences the results of kamma (SN
  12.17)

  (18) Nibbedhika sutta - kamma is intention (AN 6.63)

  (19) Angulimala sutta - arahant’s bad kamma gets exhausted in the last
  life (MN 86)

  (20) Lonaphala/Lonakapalla sutta - developed holy way of life
  alleviates bad kamma; salt simile, jail simile, goat butcher simile
  (AN 3.99 or 3.100) see (25)

  (21) Janussonin sutta - who is born where based on morality (AN
  10.177)

  (22) Jhana suttas 1,2 - jhana relation to rebirth in heaven (AN
  4.123,4)

  (23) Metta suttas 1,2 - brahmaviharas relation to rebirth in heaven
  (AN 4.125,6)

  (24) Ariyamagga sutta - 4 types of dark and bright kamma and its
  results (SN 4.235)

  (25) Sankha sutta - bad kamma gets lost in immeasurable brahmaviharas
  (SN 42.8) see (20)

  (26) (Karajakaya) Brahmavihara sutta - bad kamma gets lost in
  immeasurable brahmaviharas (AN 10.208)

  (27) Yodhajiva sutta - warrior which kills is reborn in hell (SN 42.3)

  (28) Talaputa sutta - actors are reborn in hell for enhancing asavas
  in people’s consciousness (SN 42.2)

  (29) Sangama sutta 2 - the verse seems to suggest that one’s rewarded
  with exactly what one has done oneself (SN 3.15)

  (30) Samannaphala sutta - sequence of rebirths is linear (DN 2)

  (31) Cula-Punnama sutta - where persons of integrity and no integrity
  end up (MN 110)

  (32) Culakammavibhanga sutta (MN 135)

  (33) Parikuppa sutta - 5 deeds which lead to hell (AN 5.129)

  (34) Sukkhamala sutta - bodily, verbal & mental misconduct lead to
  hell (AN 3.38)

  (35) Ekamsena sutta - bodily, verbal & mental conduct consequences in
  this life and the next (AN 2.18)

  (36) Kukkuravatika sutta - bright, dark, bright & dark, neither dark
  nor bright types of kamma and its results (MN 57)

  (37) Annataro brahmana sutta, Janussoni sutta, Ekamsena sutta - the
  future is determined by conduct (AN 2.6-8)

Since then I also found these:

Pansu suttas - rebirth in human or deva realms is rare (AN
56.102-113)
Mahasihanada sutta - 5 destinations (MN 12)

Maybe some day someone will volunteer to extract from these suttas relevant excerpts and compose out of them a coherent readily available text.


What are the reasons for and against studying other religions?

In terms of general knowledge, it can be helpful to be familiar with the religions of the world on a basic level and there are many books which compare the world's religions in an easy format such as The Handy Religion Answer Book. Reading a book such as this gives an interesting glimpse into the vastness of the the world's religious traditions.

Studying all or many of the world's religious traditions on an in depth level however, would take large amounts of time and effort which could take away from Buddhist practice. As people familiar with Buddhism, we can probably easily appreciate that even within a single religion there can be vast difference in practice and beliefs and to study multiple religions in depth would be a major undertaking.

Intention is everything. An intention to add a bit of general knowledge about a subject or to confirm that your current religion and practice is right for you may be wholesome. An intention to compare your own religion and practice against others in a conceited way or to avoid a tough part of your own practice by busying yourself with endless study could be not-so-wholesome.

When preparing to leave the religious tradition I had been born into, I read a general book comparing religions and it was helpful for putting things into perspective. But, using the example of reading about meditation vs practicing meditation, one doesn't get a true sense of what a religion consists of by reading about it.


Human life is very rare and precious. Also when doing this the chances are that your last thought will not be good leading to rebirth in a lower relm. So in my opinion and general consensus in my tradition is that this should not be done. Also in doing this the following conditions of killing is met:

You know that yourself is a living being
You device a method to for self immolate
You follow through with the intention
As a result you die


I think the word measurement really is the wrong term, because the spiritual path lies beyond the world and gain is literally a worldly concern.

There are 8 wordly dhammas

gain and loss
acclaim and slander
status and loss of status
happiness and suffering

The Buddha gave this simile about progress in the practice:

  Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through. - SN 22.101

Also keep in mind that it's not important how "much growth" you have in the practice, because you cannot change your past which conditions this. Your only concern should be to practice now and keep your practice on the path. There is a good explanation by Ajahn Brahmali about how you know that your practice is going in the right direction: in summary, it's going in the right direction if good states (peacefulness, mindfulness, gentleness inside, virtue, morality, kindness, understanding of the dhamma, all these things come together) are increasing and bad qualities (restlessness and desires) are declining, within the span of one meditation session or more powerfully over months and years.


There are several questions on this site which are more-or-less about this topic.

One which I found helpful was, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

I also liked this little summary of Right View, which includes, "A thicket of wrong views".


How can we choose more congenial Kammattana?

You will need trial and error but generally based on the personality types.

The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.

Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.

Deluded: mindfulness of breath.

Faithful: the first six recollections.

Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.

Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Source: Kammaṭṭhāna

The forty subjects are also differentiated according to their appropriateness for different character types. Six main character types are recognized — the greedy, the hating, the deluded, the faithful, the intelligent and the speculative — this oversimplified typology being taken only as a pragmatic guideline which in practice admits various shades and combinations. The ten kind of foulness and mindfulness of the body, clearly intended to attenuate sensual desire, are suitable for those of greedy temperament. Eight subjects — the four divine abidings and four color kasinas — are appropriate for the hating temperament. Mindfulness of breathing is suitable for those of the deluded and the speculative temperament. The first six recollections are appropriate for the faithful temperament. Four subjects — mindfulness of death, the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of the repulsiveness in nutriment — are especially effective for those of intelligent temperament. The remaining six kasinas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of temperaments. But the kasinas should be limited in size for one of speculative temperament and large in size for one of deluded temperament.
Immediately after giving this breakdown Buddhaghosa adds a proviso to prevent misunderstanding. He states that this division by way of temperament is made on the basis of direct opposition and complete suitability, but actually there is no wholesome form of meditation that does not suppress the defilements and strengthen the virtuous mental factors. Thus an individual meditator may be advised to meditate on foulness to abandon lust, on loving-kindness to abandon hatred, on breathing to cut off discursive thought, and on impermanence to eliminate the conceit "I am" (A.iv,358).

Source: The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by Henepola Gunaratana
Anapanasati and 4 Satipatthana are generally safer type of meditations.


What are the ten courses of action (kamma)?

1. What are the ten courses of action & their significance?

They are unwholesome and wholesome behaviors that lead people to live unhappily or happily now & in the future.

Unwholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Killing & harming living beings.
2. Taking what is not given.
3. Sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Lying.
5. Slandering.
6. Harsh talk.
7. Useless Idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Covetous thinking.
9. Hateful thinking.
10. Seeing distortedly with wrong view.

Wholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Abandoning killing & harming living beings.
2. Abandoning taking what is not given.
3. Abandoning sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Abandoning lying.
5. Abandoning slandering.
6. Abandoning harsh talk.
7. Abandoning useless idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Abandoning covetous thinking.
9. Abandoning hateful thinking.
10. Seeing undistortedly with right view.
(You can find details about them in the references provided below.)

2. What are their references?

You can find them in many discourses throughout the Pāḷi Canon, specially in the 10th book of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara Nikāya).

Two examples are: AN 10.176, Cunda (Cunda-suttaṃ) & MN 41, Brahmans of Sala (Sāleyyaka-suttaṃ).


How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood?

OP: Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is - the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu) and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

Here is a good explanation:

The element which is mano-dhatu or mind-element is nama. Mano-dhatu comprises the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness) and the two types of sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which are kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Thus three kinds of citta are mano-dhatu.
Dhamma-dhatu comprises both nama and rupa. Dhamma-dhatu is the cetasikas, the subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) and nibbana.
Mano-vinnana-dhatu or mind-consciousness-element is nama. It comprises all cittas which are not the dvi-panca-vinnanas and not mano-dhatu. For example, santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) and the cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-mula-citta are mano-vinnana-dhatu.
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (seeing-consciousness-element, etc.), the mano-dhatu (mind-element) and the mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element) are: vinnana-dhatu (consciousness-element).
Dhamma-dhatu is not identical with dhammarammana (mind-objects). Cittas are included in dhammarammana, but not in dhamma-dhatu, since dhamma-dhatu is: cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. When cittas are classified as elements they are the seven classes of vinnana-dhatu, namely:
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (which are five classes), mano-dhatu (mind-element), mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element).
Concepts and conventional terms (pannatti) which are included in dhammarammana are not dhamma-dhatu, because they are not paramattha dhammas. Only paramattha dhammas are classified as elements.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom, Chapter 18 - Elements

OP: if possible the relevant suttas that mention these

This is found in:

Vibhanga
Dhatukatha


When meditating you might get imaginative experiences which might seem very real. Just do not give any importance to them. Just be aware that you are experiencing something. These experiences has sensations associated and if you get attached to them unsatisfactory experiences will follow. Whenever you get some experience just see if you like or dislike or neutral towards the experience and the sensations that follows.


What is a sentient being

In Classical Chinese Sutra, sentient being is 有情眾生, or simply 有情, a brief translation is one who has feelings, emotional beings. Trees, rocks, mountains... are not. But they can be dwelling places of Devas (Avatamsaka Sutra). I think in between there are marginal or transitory, like bacteria, slug, insect... like a rainbow though we say there are 7 colours, but in fact it's indivisible, between red and orange there is red-orange, re-red-orange, red-red-red-orange... so on and so forth, so the same as sentient beings and non-sentient beings, in respect to the multitude of lifeforms and substances.

  How do you teach enlightenment to a cat ?

You should teach a human before teaching a cat, you should teach a human who has confidence and respect of Buddha before teaching those not... if a cat is ready for enlightenment, it's the Bodhisattva's job, not unenlightened human being you or me. Also a cat the first task before anything else, is to acquire human form - to be reborn as human.

  Are the snow lions in a pure land enlightened ?

No snow lions in Pureland. Pureland is the emanation of Amitabha only those harmonious with his emanation are emanated by him, there are birds, trees, lotus, pavilions, clothes, foods, musics, dances, ponds... you may read the Pureland Three Sutras.

  How do slugs get to be enlightened ? Do they have to be reborn as human first ?

There are no slugs in Pureland, all crawling things are not found in Pureland, if the birds are there it's due to Amitabha emanated them, and they are beautiful birds singing beautiful songs of the Dharma: the Four Truth.

It's not easy to transmit the Buddhist teaching if one didn't get a more profound understanding of what Buddha tried to convey, that the appearance of our world is purely our own conceiving. Such as this world - earth, with the grits, thorns, thunderstorms and lightnings, putrid smells, walking on two feet from distance to distance - spacetime... are all our own conceiving.


What is the best introductory (but comprehensive) book on SECULAR Buddhism?

In my opinion, 'Secular Buddhism' can be problematic since often adherents to this new group (such as Stephen Batchelor, who believes purity of mind is not possible) often misrepresent the Buddhist teachings due to no aspiration to practise Buddhism at a high level. They are like Protestant Christians that seek to modify the Buddhist teachings to suit themselves.

While there is nothing wrong with not believing in post-mortem rebirth, there is an understanding of karma & 'rebirth' that does not involve believing in an afterlife. To write-off 'karmic inheritance' is not particularly wise since there is such thing as karmic inheritance (such as when a murderer ends up in prison for their actions).

I would recommend books by monks such as Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, etc, because these demonstrate both a proper understanding of Buddhism & the 'here-&-now' approach you are interested in.

It is important to understand the Buddha himself taught his teachings are about the 'here-&-now', what in Pali is called: "Sanditthiko, Akaliko, Ehipassiko, Opanayiko and Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi". Therefore, being 'secular' is not contrary to the true Buddhist teachings.

However, if you are interested in a 'watered-down' Buddhism that may help you with ordinary life then 'Secular Buddhism' might be suitable.

I personally would recommend the following books if you want to learn about true Buddhism while not interested in 'post-mortem' rebirth & other unverifiable belief systems:

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Buddhadassa_Bhikkhu_Buddha_Dhamma_for_University_Students.pdf

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn_Sumedho_Cittaviveka.htm

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf

more books by these authors are here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/

You are also welcome to read my posts or ask me questions on this chatsite since these are always 'secular'. There is a here-&-now interpretation for the majority of the vast teachings attributable to the Buddha, including those about 'rebirth'.


Hamstring issues when in a five-point-meditation posture

Maybe the desire to adhere to a particular meditation posture is the problem. If someone got it into their head that to meditate properly, one needed to hold a headstand position, then there's sure to be lots of discomfort to get in the way of the meditation.

The purpose of the posture is to reduce bad mental qualities that get in the way of meditation, things like back pain from slumping and not sitting up straight; things like lethargy that comes from lying down.

Yet you need some kind of relaxation to prevent giving the mind food for discursive thought. You can't really meditate while driving because there's too much to be responsible for, not enough room for the mind to calm down.

So how comfortable do you need to be before you can settle down? Is it a distracting thought or a legitimate injury you're doing to yourself? If your legs hurt when you sit down, then just stretch them out and go back to the breath. Yet if you find there's a constant, never-ending stream of uncomfortable things that you need to keep "fixing", then that points to a mental discursiveness that you need to stop following.

The Buddha gives ways of dealing with Distractive Thoughts. If all else fails, press your tongue to the roof of your mouth and batter through your mind's urge to "fix" parts of your posture.

(Re: closing the question, I think there are perfectly Buddhist ways to answer a question like this--these are distractive thoughts, although one needs to discern the difference between a mere thought and an potential injury which is yours to prevent. I've read stories of people injuring their knees because their teacher told them to keep sitting in tight postures, ignoring their pain.)


When was the Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism marked as separate religions?

Well, Buddhism separated itself out as a separate system of thought with the Buddha himself. Jainism must have been a distinct tradition by that time too because the Buddha interacted with the Jains and they are mentioned in the Suttas where they are called the Niganthas. Their leader at that time was Mahavira, who in the Suttas is called Nigantha Nataputta, but they may have existed for quite some time before that.

It seems that there may have been a lot of different ascetic groups that had a lot of the ideas of the Niganthas without actually being a part of the movement proper, as it seemed that Jain ideas of karma had diffused into the general religious climate of the ascetics. For example, it seems that when the Buddha was practicing self mortification for six years, he was acting under this sort of general theory of karma as the basis of his practice.

There were other movements and systems of thought as well that would eventually become part of Hinduism, but it is important to remember that at that time they were very much separate traditions that didn't see themselves as part of the same religion or spiritual heritage. They were very diverse and didn't join together as Hinduism until at the very earliest 200 A.D. These traditions are essentially became the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, but it is very unclear as to whether or not these groups accepted the Vedas at that particular time.

Some of them very likely didn't see themselves as Vedic systems of belief at that time and only subscribed to the Vedas when the schools of philosophy began to see themselves as part of a common heritage. Only the Mimamsa school was explicitly based on the Vedas for example, and some of them, like the Samkhya, Yoga, and Vedanta schools had received a great deal of influence from the various ascetic movements and possibly considered themselves to be part of the ascetic tradition rather than the Vedic tradition.

In addition to these distinctive traditions, you had the general folk religion of the people that was largely unorganized. People would venerate Nagas in caves and the various tree spirits by leaving offerings before them. These devotional customs had nothing to do with the Vedic rituals of the day, but would eventually be incorporated into the devotional practices of Hinduism.

I hope that gives a good overview.


How are good and bad Karmas determined in Buddhism?

Please see this answer on karma, rebirth and effects of karma on this life and future lives.

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

  "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

In Buddhism, intention is the basis for karma. There are some guidelines on removing unskillful thoughts and qualities. The story of the blind elder monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 further illustrates this.

  Dhammapada 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they
  have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts
  with an evil mind, 'dukkha' (suffering) follows him just as the wheel follows
  the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

  Dhammapada 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle
  poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no
  evil for one who has no evil intention.

It appears that the simplest way to identify unskillful thoughts and actions, is whether they are imbued with the three poisons or not. And for skillful thoughts and actions, it's the opposite.

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta, we find that unskillful thoughts imbued with desire/ greed, aversion/ hatred, or delusion have to be removed.

In the Vina Sutta:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

And the same applies to the other senses.

You can find a similar discussion in the Aparihani Sutta where it talks about removing "evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress".

In the Sacitta Sutta, also teaching us to remove unskillful thoughts:

  "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with
  thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless,
  uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or
  unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort,
  diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the
  abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

Detailed classification can be found in the Abhidhamma in the volume called Dhammasangani ("Enumeration of Phenomena"). We can find a classification list in the work The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

  Sa"nkhaaraa is a collective term for the other fifty cetasikas (mental factors). These
  fall into four groups:

  Universal mental factors (sabba citta saadhaaranaa)
  Particular mental factors (paki.n.nakaa)
  Unwholesome mental factors (akusalaa)
  Beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa)

You can read the details on this page for the full classification of the 50 cetasikas.

There are also other classifications there like the different types of cittas (momentary states of mind and consciousness) - vipaaka, kusala, akusala, kiriya. They have association with roots (hetu, mula - see below) and feelings (vedana) etc.

  There are six roots. Three are kammically unwholesome (akusala); the
  other three may be either kammically wholesome (kusala) or
  indeterminate (abyaa-kata), depending on the type of consciousness
  they arise in. The unwholesome roots are greed (lobha), hatred (dosa),
  and delusion (moha). The three roots which are wholesome in some
  cittas and indeterminate in others are greedlessness (alobha),
  hatelessness (adosa), and undeludedness (amoha). Though these last
  three roots are expressed negatively they have positive
  manifestations. Greedlessness manifests as generosity and
  renunciation, hatelessness as loving-kindness, and undeludedness as
  wisdom or understanding.

The above are only the Theravada texts. There will undoubtedly be additional discussion on this, in the Mahayana texts.

You can find useful info also in Ven. Thanissaro's Kamma: A Study Guide.

  OP: I think skillfull vs. unskillful has to do with what will lead you to liberation vs. what will serve to keep you in Samsara.  But my
  question is about what will serve to give you positive experience in
  Samsara vs. what will serve to give you negative experiences in
  Samsara.

Skillful thoughts and actions will give you a positive experience in Samsara and could also lead you to liberation. Unskillful thoughts and actions will give you a negative experience in Samsara.

But liberation requires much more than skillful thoughts and actions. It also requires one to abandon all the fetters.

For e.g. by practising one or more of the Brahmaviharas (loving kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity) which is skillful, one could obtain the pleasant experience of birth in the heavans. But this is not permanent.


Personal practice regarding stream entry

No one can tell if you are, or not a stream enter-er but yourself.  Buddha even gave tools if you wish to proclaim yourself one.   Buddha gave about 60 or so definitions for stream enterer.  From my observation of sutta, stream enterer can be achieved thru one of 5 majors groups;

views + conducts
views + advancement of mind (wisdom or meditation)
views + letting go of 3 fetters
views + advancement of mind + coducts
Views only

(IMO) Almost like one can clime corperate ladder to be come a CEO thu different depts such as from Engineering, Finance, accounting etc..  But one your are in high level, rout options get narrower (none returners are pretty much about views + letting go of fetters)

Some interesting facts about stream enter:

Unshakeable confidence in 3 gems (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) + keeping 5 precepts are the most spoken quality of stream enterer.
Aññā-Kondañña was the only stream-enterer who had only confidence in 2 out of 3 gems + views.  He became a stream enterer (anna means eyes, seeing, sights etc.  another name for stream enter-er) after Buddha finished his first sermon and there was no Sangha right at that time.  Sangha came right after that when Buddha ordained 5 ascetics.  (Aññā-Kondañña became an arahat a few days later at the end of second sermon.)
Those who let go of first 3 fetters are also called stream-enterers.  Interestingly, confidence in Buddha and Dhamma is indirectly put into number 2 instead of first and foremost quality when you use fetters to proclaim stream enterer.   A direct view would be, letting go of doubt in Buddha and Dhamma.
For men (women) in carpenter village, Buddha explained stream-enterer as those with confidence in 3 gems + generosity (without greed which defiles heart, letting of gifts, open handed, taking pleasure in giving etc..  No 5 precepts was mentioned to them.
Practicing in 8 folds path. Another interesting one.  When Buddha asked ven Sarriputta about which of those who sat in front of them were stream enterers, he said those who practice 8 folds path. Tho faith or confidence in 3 gems were not mentioned by ven Sariputta, but in another sutta, those who "sit near and listen" is a characteristic of those who have faith.  so stream enterers have confidence in 3 gems + walk the 8 folds paths.
Confidence in 3 gems + understanding of dependent origination (or 5 skandhas, or 6 sense gates) or understand the raise and fall.
confidence in 3 gems + understanding of 5 sensual pleasures (causal, inability to sustain, deliciousness of it, drawbacks, and nisarana-method to get away from it.)
Views only.  those who only believes that 5 skandhas or 6 sense gates are not permanents, thorn, boils, nest of diseases etc.,  have stepped out of ordinary person and into a noble one.  in mid-flight of entering a stream enter if you will.  Buddha guaranteed he would not die until realize stream entry.
There is correlation between 5 precepts and confidence in 3 gems.  As if someone whom you believe told you the well is poisoned, you automatically stop drinking for it without being told.
maybe more definition which I have missed.  Please let me know.

Bottom line, (IMO) i think stream enterer has spectrum which Buddha tried to explained it in different lights but as I study further of other stages of enlightment such as once or none-returner, seems like the only option is lettering of fetter to make an advancement.


What is the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' Jhanas?

Here is a quote on the terms "Hard and Soft Jhana" from the book "Mastering The Core Teachings Of The Buddha" by Daniel M. Ingram, p. 136-137:

  "Many traditions use the breath as the primary object initially and then shift to the qualities of the states themselves as the object of meditation when they arise and the concentration is strong. The quality of a jhana can either be “soft” or “hard” depending on how solidly one is in the state. In soft jhana, the qualities of that particular state are definitely recognizable in a way that is different from the ordinary experience of those qualities to the degree that we are confident we are in the altered state defined by those qualities.
  ￼￼￼￼￼￼

  Concentration vs. Insight

  In really hard jhana, it feels as if our mind has been fused to those
  qualities and the object with super glue, as if we were nothing but a solid block or field of those qualities or that object, as if they and the object were the whole world with nothing else remaining. Getting into really “hard” jhana states dramatically increases the beneficial effects of the practice, though it takes greater strength of concentration and usually requires more favorable practice conditions to do so. Taking the beneficial factors of the jhana solely as the object of concentration is helpful for this, as can be using an easily identified external object such as a candle flame or colored disk."


I don't think the Buddha knew his past lives long before he attained nirvana -- the descriptions I know of him accessing his past lives were during his final struggle.

To the best of my knowledge, past lives recollection is about concentration -- not necessarily samma samadhi as known in the sutras. The sutras imply that yogis could and have obtained such abilities and that it is not something the Buddha introduced.

The Buddha is said to have learned specific concentration practices (aka the arupa jhanas) from previous teachers before reaching nirvana, but it's not clear if he (or his teachers) knew any of the actual 4 jhana (as described in the sutras, with their factors and all). The interesting passage is the one he describes remembering reaching the 1st jhana state when he was a kid and that is when he "gets back on track" towards nirvana -- and that happened after training with his teachers. This suggests that his teachers did not teach or knew how to reach the 1st (and arguably any of the four) jhanas, and thus, opens up the possibility that samma samadhi could have been an original practice introduced or at least systematized by the Buddha.

Knowlege of previous lives is not unlocked with nirvana according to the sutras as such a person can still be bound to wrong view / ignorance (which nirvana is supposed to end). But it is presented as part of a path towards nirvana.


What is a Buddhist ceremony or service called, and what day of the week is it likely to be?

In early times, (and still today in some Buddhist countries), laypeople would intensity their practice on certain days according to the lunar calendar. The special weekly Buddhist holy day is called Uposatha and it is observed on the new moon, the full moon, and the quarter moons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha

Today, particularly in the West where we don't use a lunar calendar, you are more likely to find a weekly, bi monthly, or monthly meeting at a fixed time. At the Laotian temple I attend, everyone is invited twice a month to a Sunday morning service which runs from about 9:00 am through about 1:00 pm. The most significant parts of the service include taking refuge, reciting the precepts, and offering lunch to the monks. In our tradition (Theravada), the monks don't eat anything after noon. So the lunch offered is quite a big event and an opportunity for people to give dana.

But Buddhist meetings and services are not uniform and can be scheduled for purely practical reasons. A temple in my area has a Sunday morning service in Vietnamese and a Wednesday evening service in English. Another has a Sunday morning service in Korean and a Saturday Day of Mindfulness in English. Some groups meet for meditation and others meet for something that is more similar to worship.

Best suggestion would be to call or stop by the monastery to see if they have services or events open to the public. The one universal rule is that shoes should be removed before you enter a monastery or temple. Have fun and be well. :)


In Buddhism the merit created is greater if you give food to a monk when compared with giving to a prisoner for example, it doesn't mean you should not help the prisoner, it means that you create more merits by helping pure and enlighted beings to survive, there are many stories on the dhammapada about it.

Think as if you are helping the Sangha to survive, so they can benefit inumerous beings, the impact in the world is bigger and so the merit earned.


Why do Buddhists believe that the Buddha was enlightened, despite that he claimed it himself?

I said "bragging of one's achievements is bad tone" and you turned it into "talking about one's enlightenment is taboo" :) It is very easy to fall into extremes, isn't it?

"If somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not" -- here is a simple explanation. Among other things Enlightenment involves shedding the mistaken identification with the illusory "I". So once Enlightenment has been revealed, it seems rather silly to say "I am Enlightened" -- because this "I" is a fiction.

Plus, Enlightenment is self-existing, it does not depend on being attained or not. The metaphor for this is sun above the clouds. Once you remove the clouds, you can see the sun, but the sun is always there, before and after. This is another reason why saying "I have attained Enlightenment" is silly.

As Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche said:

  Buddhism says that confusion has to be dispelled and that there should
  be realization beyond confusion. It is based on the idea of
  transcending the highest ideals of the human mind completely, which is
  called enlightenment. Once you dissolve, once your particular
  expectations dissolve, that is liberation or enlightenment. Since
  enlightenment is based on dissolving the ego and its expectations, it
  has been said that you cannot watch your own burial, and you cannot
  congratulate yourself on becoming the first buddha of the age or the
  first buddha of New York.

Buddha claimed Enlightenment solely in order to help his students gain confidence in his teaching. He knew very well the extent to which the statement "I am Enlightened Buddha" can be true.

Then why don't modern teachers claim Enlightenment to help their students gain confidence? As I explained in Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? and Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana, most people achieve "sudden insight / gradual cultivation". With gradual cultivation, you can never claim 100% Enlightenment, because in this case Enlightenment is asymptotic. All we can definitely claim is the insight.


Will earth become a planet without Humans?

Definitly, As per science when there is a start, there must be end.
Even our galaxy will expire.

you can take example of anything in this world, nothing is permanent.


Question about Vijnana and the correct view of Nama and Rupa

The mind can only become aware of the mind in a subsequent moment. We get angry, and then know so. In moment 1, vinyana arises along with anger and delusion, aware only of the story. In moment 2, for a mindfulness practitioner, the vinyana arises with mindfulness and samadhi, abandoning the anger, unbonded to thought.
In the infinite consciousness jhana there is only vinyana in its  unbonded state (bare and separate awareness). In the next moment, it is aware of itself from the previous moment. In the next moment it is aware if itself again. It is infinite it the moment to moment unended reflection, not the sense of its size.  Hope that helps!  Oh and yes there are tiny spaces of nothing between angry and mindful of it, but those are very hard to see. Once you can, you are well into vipassana, seeing there is no continuity or prevailing consciouness (anatta).


Arduent grasping for samma ditthi will result in renewed sankharas. What you describe seems like you are in fact intensifying sankharas. Samma will arise spontaneously, provided that you have stilled the sankharas (samatha-bhavana).

You could try renunciating your eagerness by following the tetrads of the anapanasati sutta step by step. As a suggestion, try to sustain the first tetrad until you have established samatha.

This enables further investigation (vipassana bhavana), which will gradually facilitate deepened samma ditthi.

https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi


Past is a conceptual construct that only seems solid in the absence of careful examination. But if you look closely you will see that Past is assembled by the mind from multiple cues (as is Present by the way).

The experience of second-to-second flow of time is a byproduct of chitta-vrtti, the associative cycle, when each subsequent dharma (~thought) comes by association with the previous one. The sense of relatedness of the two dharmas is what creates the illusion of flow.

Disclaimer: this answer represents my own experience and understanding and is not meant to reflect an official position or to be consistent with views of any Buddhist school.


I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in
itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from
this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are
created by itself?

No. There is no ONE entity.

Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?

Consciousness is Anatta. It is not me , mine or myself. Neither is it somebody else's consciousness.


Then where did the concept of "rebirth" come from?

Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

  The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.

The word "rebirth" might be inappropriate since it implies something that borns again (and that's unlikely the meaning of what the Buddha meant). I understand this is what yutthadammo was saying. But, for better or worse, it is this english word that has been used to describe the process of "continuous becoming" in buddhism in english.

"With the break up of the body, after death, he/she reappears at ...", that's what we read. As ven. Bodhi said, The difficulty with this is the doctrine of anatta: if no part of our constitution is fixed, we can't talk about something that transmigrates or is reborn.

But at the same time, we can't say the being that died and the one that reappeared are completely unrelated. What has been said is that the "relation" (or, perhaps better, continuity) is the kamma.

  "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas a as their homing place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."
  -- MN 135


Websites with the Chinese canon translated into English?

The following might be of some value:

http://www.bdk.or.jp/english/english_tripitaka/publication_project.html and / or http://www.bdkamerica.org/blog/free-pdf-versions-many-volumes-bdk-english
http://84000.co/ - this is from Tibetan sources
http://lapislazulitexts.com/ (http://lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka)


Is the goal of mindfulness to develop ultimate dissociation?

In Iti 109 (quoted below), the Buddha indeed taught man to swim against his nature to become free from suffering. Renunciation (nekkhamma - subject to the middle way) is against the flow i.e. it's not natural to man. Craving is natural to man.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

The author (Richard) quoted by the OP portrays Buddhism in a negative way, probably in an attempt to peddle his own teachings (called "actual freedom"?) - at least I guess, from some contents on the website.
From this page (quoted below), we can see Richard's teachings, from which I gather that "actual freedom" is the freedom to enjoy life fully (i.e. indulge in sensual pleasures without limitation):

Taken to its extreme, as Hindu and Buddhist philosophy does, one
denies that this planet earth and the space that it hangs in – and the
universe itself – are actual. To them it is all an illusion, a dream.
For them, the ‘Dreamer’ – their god – is who ‘I’ really am and all
their effort is predicated upon realising that this is who one really
is. Westerners have foolishly allowed themselves to be taken in by the
apparent wisdom coming from the eastern mystical states of being
because of the paucity of experiential wisdom in their own culture. It
all started growing exponentially after the sixties generation trekked
to the Himalayas, and to other exotic places, to find the permanent
drug experience ...
One arrives in the actual by becoming involved, totally involved in
being here ... not by practicing detachment. Being here is to put your
money where your mouth is, as it were. All other actions are methods,
devices, techniques ... in other words: delaying tactics. In being
here one is completely immersed. Being here is total inclusion. One
demonstrates one’s appreciation of life by partaking fully in
existence ... by letting this moment live one. One dedicates oneself
to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself.
...
Meanwhile people thoughtlessly pursue the elusive chimera of Eastern
Enlightenment.

The Buddha realized that modern day hedonists like Richard, who delight in attachment, is excited by attachment and enjoys attachment, would not be able to understand the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) as we can see from SN 6.1 (quoted below):

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
for me, troublesome for me."

The Buddha felt it was too troublesome to teach the Dhamma to people like Richard, but he was persuaded otherwise. And we are fortunate and blessed because of that.
If people like Richard feel that practitioners of Buddhism are gloomy, "anti-life" (quoted verbatim) and do not have "genuine freedom, peace and happiness", the answer to this comes from Dhammapada 197 - 200 (quoted below):

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the hostile. Amidst hostile men we dwell free from hatred.

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the afflicted (by craving). Amidst afflicted men we dwell free from affliction.

Happy indeed we live, free from avarice amidst the avaricious. Amidst the avaricious men we dwell free from avarice.

Happy indeed we live, we who possess nothing. Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods.


Are there rules that prevent chaos in our world?

My scientific education tells me that:

The world is as it is and behaves as it does (and is observed by people).
People (scientists) observe that behaviour and then invent rules which describe (or define) the behaviour.

Note that:

Those rules are not necessarily "pre-determined" (instead they're invented by people to describe the behaviour-of-the-world which they observe)
The world doesn't obey the rules, instead the rules are chosen to describe the world.

A Buddhist word for those rules is Dharma or Dhamma.

The Buddha is praised for his Dhamma, i.e. the Buddha discovered and explained a useful set of "rules" which we use to understand the world.


Is it possible to make an oath to control one's actions?

It looks like your problem is that you want to practice but you don't want to practice.

This whole fiasco can be pondered. The whole thing is the three characteristics manifesting. Are you in control? Do your plans and focus keep ending? Are you suffering? What are you learning? Ask yourself what you are taking for granted.

You could learn a lot by just pondering what is driving your every action, your karma.

We are either distracted or mindful.

Check out the 5 hinderances that are in your way.

Don't make vows or oaths but instead undertake training to not do or to do X and if you fail ponder it but don't react like breaking the training rule must be punished or reacted to is some way. Don't get angry, get compassionate.

Check out how to overcome procrastination. LOTS of people have procrastination problems. There are a lot of free pdf's or ppt's online about procrastination.

Do not smoke marijuana everyday because it often zaps ones ambition.


What is the next meditation type after Mindfulness of Breathing meditation?

Meditation should be perceived as a tool to achieve some goal. We don't meditate to be good at meditation, rather, we use it because we want some results.

Buddhist practice is based on three pillars - Right View, Meditation and Action. We need to know some Buddha's teachings, we need to meditate and finally, we need to apply the results of the practice into our daily life. What is the point of meditating for hours if straight after the session we harm our friends by our inconsiderate behaviour?

It is always good to ask or remind ourselves why we meditate. If we want peace of mind, we keep checking whether we are able to remain calm in stressful situations. If we want to get rid of our ego - we check how we react when people offend or criticize us.

Personally, I never did a regular breathing practice on its own. I met Mahayana/Vajrayana masters and got attracted to the possibility of realising our Buddha Nature by applying certain methods. So I use those methods to realise my full potential in order to help other beings (Bodhisattva vow). In everyday life I keep checking (among others) whether I remain stable and joyful in difficult situations and whether I can feel compassion to all the beings no matter what they do.

Some may say that the next stage after Breathing meditation is insight meditation (Vipassana). However, before starting a new practice, you should very honestly check your motivation and goals - what exactly do you want to realise? Also make sure the new practice can indeed bring you closer to your goals. In general, keep checking whether your current meditation practice brings some positive changes into your everyday life and if you feel that there is something more you want to realise - try to find a new practice that will help you achieve that.


It sounds like you are experiencing runaway mindfulness.  At the very least, you're falling into discursive thought (as you say "reasoning" and attempts at "realizing certain facts").  Neither of those is really Buddhist in practice.  They're also not going to get you any closer to true realization.  I really think you need to slow things down.  A little samatha might go a long way in settling your mind and help keep it a bit more collected.  Once you've established some degree of calm, you might have more success with a mindfulness practice.

And like Suminda says, make sure you learn correct technique before you have at it again!


Looking at the text, it does not recommend reflecting on the ownership etc of kamma as a method of developing equanimity (upekkha). Here it is specifically for removing resentment (āghāta). As far as I can tell from searching the electronic Pāli Canon the idea of reflecting on kamma is never linked with upekkhā.
In reflecting on kamma one is taking the approach to hindrances (nīvaraṇa), which Kamalashila in his book Meditation: The Buddhist Way of Tranquility and Insight calls, "considering the consequences" (pg 54-5). The other four are: cultivate the opposite (mettā & karuṇā); cultivate a "sky-like mind" (upekkhā); suppression (don't think of the person or asatiamanasikāro); and lastly going for refuge (not included here). This list and Kamalashila's are not a perfect match, but seem to be similar in intent. They are methods for dealing with the hindrances in preparation for practising jhāna.
I'm not sure whether it is helpful to think in terms of a hierarchy of "effectiveness". One has a number of techniques one can use to help deal with the hindrances, and tries each of them until one works.
The reflection on kamma comes from a list of five things to continuously reflect on famously found at AN 5.57, titled Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta (The Discourse of Facts to be Continuously reflected On) in the Burmese Ed. of the Canon. In this text it gives the benefit (athavasa) of doing this practice of reflecting on the consequences:

atthi, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ kāyaduccaritaṃ vacīduccaritaṃ manoduccaritaṃ. tassa taṃ ṭhānaṃ abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhato sabbaso vā duccaritaṃ pahīyati tanu vā pana hoti. idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthavasaṃ paṭicca ‘kammassakomhi, kammadāyādo kammayoni kammabandhu kammapaṭisaraṇo, yaṃ kammaṃ karissāmi — kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā — tassa dāyādo bhavissāmī’ti abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā.
There is, Monks, bad conduct (duccarita) of body, speech and mind by beings. But when one continuously reflects on [this reflection on kamma], then such wickedness is completely abandoned or it is [at least] diminished.

Thus the point of this practice is not so much generating upekkha as it is the elimination of wicked conduct (duccarita). And resentment (āghāta) is clearly a form of mental wicked conduct, a mano-duccarita, in the language of the Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta. Reflecting on the consequences of such wickedness will help the person who aims to eliminate the hindrance in preparation for meditation. Clearly this has more general ethical applications as well, but it seems the main context is meditation and eliminating the hindrances.


How do Bodhisattva vow takers avoid stream entry?

I think that Mahayana literature teaches that becoming an Arhat is a temporary rest, for example:

  Mahayanins are urged to instead take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra, any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.

Or from The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation by Gampopa,

  III. HEARER FAMILY

  The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little compassion. It has been said:

    One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
    And yearns to achieve nirvana
    But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
    These three are the marks of the Hearer family

  IV. SOLITARY REALIZER FAMILY

  The Solitary Realizer family includes those who possess the above three attributes and in addition are arrogant, keep their masters’ identities secret, and prefer to stay in solitary places. It has been said:

    Fear at the thought of samsara, yearning for nirvana,
    Little compassion, arrogance,
    Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
    A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family

  So these two families, the Hearers and the Solitary Realizers, engage in their respective vehicles and even though they achieve the results of their practices, these results are not the final nirvana. How do they abide when they achieve their fruits? They maintain unafflicted states of meditative concentration, but those states are based on the psychic imprint of ignorance. Since their meditative concentrations are unafflicted, they believe that they have achieved nirvana and remain that way.

  If their states are not the final nirvana, then one might argue that the Buddha should not have taught these two paths. Is there a reason the Buddha should teach such paths? Yes. For example, suppose great merchants from this Jambudvipa are traveling the ocean searching for jewels. After many months at sea, in some desolate place, they become completely tired and exhausted and think, “There is no way to get the jewels now”. When they feel discouraged and prepare to turn back, the merchant captain manifests a huge island through his miracle power and lets all his followers rest there. After a few days, when they are fully rested and relaxed, the captain says, “We have not achieved our goal. Now we should go farther to get our jewels.”

  Similarly, sentient beings without courage are frightened when they hear about the Buddha’s wisdom. They believe attaining Buddhahood is a great hardship, and think, “I have no ability to do this.” There are other people who are not interested in entering the path, or who enter the path but turn back. To counter these problems, Buddha presented these two paths, and allows them to rest in these states.

  As said in the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra:

  Likewise, all the Hearers
  Think that they achieved nirvana,
  But they have not achieved the final nirvana
  Revealed by the Buddha
  They are only resting

  When these Hearers and Solitary Realizers are well rested in those states, Buddha understands this and encourages them to attain Buddhahood. How does Buddha encourage them? He awakens them through his body, speech, and wisdom mind.

Also this question has been asked on other sites, for example on reddit and on
Dharma Wheel.


What kind of influence did Cārvāka had on Buddha's philosophy

The Buddha claims that what he is about to teach is previously unheard of. Hence I double that there were any material influences on the core of Buddhism though he did draw from existing customs and techniques which were appropriate. E.g. Sila, some of the Samatha meditation techniques, etc.

The core being the teaching like the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, the 4 Nobel Truths, the Pratītyasamutpāda, Three marks of existence, Threefold Training, etc. which are original to Buddhism.

Buddha rejected 62 wrong view of his time. Ucchedavada proposed by Ajita Kesakambali, one of the earliest Cārvāka thinkers, was also rejected by Buddha among other. These views arise due to theorising and philosophising without going to the pinnacle of understanding or realisation of the ultimate truth. Hence there cannot be any perceivable influence from this doctrine.


According to my first teacher, attachments to concrete worldly things are not as bad as attachments to abstract principles - which generate massive conceit and world-scale aversion.

Compare attachment to tasty food with attachment to religion - which one creates more suffering?

In my understanding, the way attachment works is via appropriation of a dharma (an object of mind) which then creates the duality of "this" vs "that" (and its special cases, "I" vs. "you" and "us" vs. "them"). There are four major quadrants here:

Low contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Low contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.

An example of the first kind is attachment to certain flavor, like the taste of some food cooked in a particular way. Even if one can't find this specific cooking style, one can find fairly similar kinds - and the resulting aversion to other flavors will not be that strong. In this case suffering generated by this attachment is both weak and small-scale (only applies to one small area of experience).

An example of the second kind is attachment to one's own life. Here the contrast between living and dying is very high, but the scale of identification is rather small. So even if one's fight for survival manifested as external violence it would unlikely create a world-scale conflict - so the suffering will be strong but not vast.

The third type can be explained on the example of attachment to gender identity. In this case the scale of attachment is massive - one identifies oneself with "I like men" or "I like women", but the contrast between the two is not polarized enough -- not black and white enough -- to create a major issue, like a war between genders. There are certainly some very common tensions between genders (can we call this "very weak but vast suffering"?), but very few women would say that men are harmful and should not exist - and vice versa.

Finally the fourth type is attachment to an abstract and highly polarized view or principle that is very prone to emergence of group identity - such attachment to religion. In this case the contrast between "good" and "bad" is very high - the carriers of the other view are considered harmful and evil. And the scale of identification is very large - all carriers of the same view are considered "us" and all carriers of the other view are "them". This results in a very explosive combination of "good us" vs. "evil them" - hence strong and vast suffering.

And then of course there are all kinds of intermediate qualities between "strong" and "weak" and between "small" and "large".

In your example, the difference is in the real object of attachment. If the reason you attach to an old childhood friendship is because it exemplifies some abstract quality that your old friend possessed that you now idealize (and on this basis cultivate aversion to those lacking such quality) - than that could be a fairly dangerous attachment. On the other hand, if attachment to old childhood friend is solely on the basis of her beautiful voice - then it's not such a big deal.

Similarly, if attachment to wealth is on the basis of simple idea that wealth gives one access to comfort and material pleasures - then it may be a medium-contrast/medium-scale problem. But if attachment to wealth is part an abstract view that all wealthy people are smart and hard-working and poor people are lazy and immoral, - then it could be feeding a global-scale conflict.

To summarize, whenever you want to evaluate an attachment you should
 - identify the real object of attachment, the root of attachment (aka the preconception)
 - assess the degree of polarization between the object of attachment and its opposite
 - assess the scale of identification and the size of the potential conflict

As a rule of thumb, watch out for abstract and highly polarizing attachments - they tend to create the strongest and largest-scale suffering.


Watching a stream of thoughts from the mind?

I don’t really understand what you want to watch,.

Do you want to watch the mind or the mind objects (thoughts)?

There are a lot of ways to observe the mind.
Here some questions you can ask yourself for practice, but also in daily life:

How am I feeling right now overall, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral?
Are there any unwholesome states, like anger, greed, frustration, restlessness, uneasiness, irritation, boredom, impatience, clinging, distraction, and so on?
In case of wanting: Can I see if it’s a wholesome desire or an unwholesome one?

Point I’m trying to make is that the mind is so much more than thoughts.

Of course, watching thoughts can help in determining what state the mind is in. But watching them is not the same as getting to understand the mind. The mind is more than it's objects.

Another thing that might be useful to know is that what someone means when they say thought can differ.
Some mean stories in their head, others impulses that come up, and so on. I’m sure you can see that there is a significant difference here. So, it might be useful to always figure out what one means with the word ‘thought’.

Hope this helps a bit.


Seafood - End and The Alternative Karma Consequences

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Considering the above Sutta, It appears this person has done both dark and bright kamma. The only way he will be totally free from his bad Kamma is when he became an Arahant and after Parinibbana. He should at least attempt to be a Sotapanna, which will free him from rebirth in a woeful state.


Can the substantiality of phenomena ever be conclusively ruled out through Buddhist practice?

Enlightenment happen when knowledge is certain (such knowledge is usually called jñāna), so practice is supposed to provide result as 100% certain knowledge, in regard to what is also required to cease defilements and suffering. Knowledge about 'everything in the World' is not included in that. (Maybe Buddha knows all that, though.)

  Who's to say the Higgs Boson isn't the fundamental, truly existent
  building block of matter that can never be further reduced, even if
  quantum physics tells us it's in superposition when not interacting
  with an observer?

Higgs Boson is a concept. And, as with any concept, we can invent into concepts any idea whatsoever, with any property we can imagine. What is constructed (and thus empty) in Higgs Boson is it's conceptuality, the way how that knowledge is reached.


A Monk Reborn in a Lower Realm for Breaking a Leaf

It's in the commentary to verse 182 of the Dhammapada:

  On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga.


Is there any explanation on why only humans and animals do not remember previous life?

All the beings you mention as remembering past lives are spontaneously reborn (opapaatika), whereas humans and animals are either egg-born (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jalābuja), or moisture-born (saṃsedaja). Only spontaneously reborn beings are readily able to remember their past lives; most others have their past life memories repressed by the trauma and general coarseness of their rebirth.

I know this is all general Buddhist knowledge, but I can't find a reliable source from the original texts; if anyone knows of one, please feel free to put it in the comments.


Do you need both parents permission to become ordained?

This is a question of law. In some places, the laws will allow one parent, or even no parents, since it's a matter of religious preference. In other places, the laws are strict, and require both parents' permission.

This is also a question of the sangha's policies. Most will have an age limit because they observe a need to gain life experience. Some will permit children, and others will even seek after them, so that children will not be unduly influenced by outside ideas. So it depends a lot on who is asking, and who is doing the ordaining.

Ordination can be a big deal. Mostly, though, it's merely feeling a call to serve others, seek the best interests of the world and promote its well-being. Nobody needs an ordination for that, but it helps to have a legal piece of paper to avoid certain troubles.


How is the "self" able to recognize the interplay between the cognitive process and "desire"?

I found the introduction a strange way to encouraging people to go for Refuge, i.e., on the basis of a "human situation is similar to an iceberg"; since this is going to Refuge on the basis of ignorance or blind faith.

In my reading of the Pali scriptures, generally people go for refuge for reasons such as a clear awareness of their personal suffering or dissatisfaction or in their clear awareness of the virtues & liberation of the Buddha.

For those cognizant of their own suffering & dissatisfaction, the Buddha pointed to craving & attachment as the causes of that suffering and pointed to the Noble Eightfold Path as the method to develop mental tranquility & liberating insight.

In short, it is self-clinging that causes suffering. If you are suffering, you should be able to see it is the mind's own selfishness, self-obsession, possessiveness, etc, that is causing & manifesting the suffering.

~~~~

Further, the article is confusing because it gives the impression the 'self' creates desires and desires create perceptions.

In reality, ignorance & feelings condition perceptions, which in turn condition desires, which in turn condition attachment & the sense of "our self". That is why the Buddha called feelings & perception the 'citta sankhara' or 'mind conditioner' (MN 44).

The "self" does not create desires. It is desires that create the "self". It is feelings of pleasure & pain that create desires. The Buddha made this reality very clear in the Phagguna Sutta, in the Parileyyaka Sutta & in many other places.

Imagine a small new born baby. The baby has has no idea of 'self'. It has no concrete perceptions. A new born baby is an organism subject to the painful feelings of hunger & discomfort. From these painful feelings of hunger & discomfort come primal desires for relief. The parents of the child feed it food & give it comfort, from which the mind of the child experiences pleasant feelings. From these pleasant feelings it develops perceptions of "milk is good", "breast is good", "mother is good" and, eventually, as its brain/mind matures, perceptions of "my mother" & my father".

Therefore, the original source of perception is painful & pleasurable feelings rather than desire.

~~~~

Attempting to see through the "deception of the self" is a difficult way for a novice to approach the path. This is similar to attempting to climb a tree from the top.

"Self" is certainly a deception however the path begins by seeing the deception of desires (in that worldly pleasures cannot bring lasting & true happiness). If the mind cannot see the deception of worldly pleasures & desires, it will struggle to develop the clear concentration (samadhi) meditation which serves as the basis for the insight meditation (vipassana) that can see through the deception of the illusory 'self'.

In short, when the mind is clear, it can start to examine the arisings & nature of the 'self' thoughts. There is actually no special method. One must simply meditate in quietude & stillness.


Suggestions for Buddhist themed crafts and activities for children

Meditation for children is a good video series for kids. It's also available in DVD format.
There are some cartoons of the Jataka stories in youtube
There are about 550 Jataka stories available which you can read to kids. Here are some simple English translations.


The traditional view on this is negative. One explanation I heard, is that a particular teaching is like a raft made of simplifications and approximations - which has all kinds of holes and inconsistencies, is leaking enough already, and has no value on its own outside of getting you to the other side. Now, when you study multiple traditions, you're effectively building two slightly different rafts at the same time - in your head - which leads to a combinatorial explosion of contradictions. More leaking. You may never get to your destination. Am I making myself absolutely clear? :)

This is different from the Tri-yana approach practiced by modern Karma-Kagyu school (and pioneered by Rime's founder Jamgon Kongtrul the Great). In Tri-yana, you first practice self-discipline at "hinayana" level of simplistic but well-defined black-and-white concepts and rules, then graduate to "mahayana" level of going beyond dualities as you work with others, until you mature to the "vajrayana" level where you practice spontaneity, confidence and intuition. Each level is effectively almost a different school, but practiced in succession - not at the same time.

Now, in this particular case, the two traditions are Madhyamaka and Zen. Both come from Nagarjuna/Prajnaparamita movement, so both essentially speak about the same thing (Emptiness). The key difference is in the approach.

In Madyamaka you study and study and study the theory, until you know it all in and out, and then meditate, meditate, meditate for years - until one day hopefully it clicks and the theory connects with experience. Essentially, Madhyamaka is walking back and forth on the hither shore while talking about the other shore - until one day you get used to the idea of the other shore enough that you make the step. If you already live in the wilderness and kinda despise its vulgarity, while secretly wishing to get more civilized, this may be your path.

While Zen is jumping into the water and swimming blindly, desperately, having no idea what you're doing, with Master metaphorically beating you on the head with the stick of prajnaparamita repeatedly as you try to turn back to this shore, until your pain instinct pushes you in the only direction away from pain - and you find your Master waiting for you smiling and hugging on the other shore. Then in post-realization you catch up on the theory as a communication tool. If your world is in its decadence phase and getting hit on the head is your idea of fun then Zen may be it for you.

So the two traditions are pretty much at odds with each other. The better you are at Madyamaka, the more your Zen Master will beat you - but your frustration will not mature in gidan as you will seek comfort in the certainty of Madyamaka, while at the same time finding it absolutely useless for your Zen plunges into the uncontrived emptiness. I may be wrong, but this is what my logical mind tells me.

Or it may actually work better this way, provided you have equal faith in both teachings and equal connection with both the live teachers - and never directly cross-question one's teachings with the other but skilfully relate and synthesize them in your head. But in practice most likely you will either spill one's wisdom to the other and draw their anger at you, or end up dropping one and going with the other.

A more traditional way would be to study Madhyamaka for several years and then make a clean cut to Zen. Do as I say, not as I've done. Gosh, am I getting old?


I've got a simple answer for you: Sleep is not a jhāna. The Buddha never says, not in Pāli not in Chinese not in Sanskrit, that sleep is a jhāna. Sleep is also not nibbāna. Sleep is also not nirodha. You just forget your dreams when you wake up and it seems like you were up to "nothing," but your mind was quite active despite you not remembering it.


Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" e.g. a view that "nothing is real"?

The Lump of Foam Sutta  states:

  Form is like a lump of foam,
  Feeling like a water bubble;
  Perception is like a mirage,
  Volitions like a plantain trunk,
  And consciousness like an illusion,
  So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.

  “However one may ponder it.
  And carefully investigate it,
  It appears but hollow and void
  When one views it carefully.

Some people use this sutta to claim that nothing is real. However, the commentaries state that this refers to the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) being empty of a self. That's consistent with the Empty Sutta. The sutta also implies that the five aggregates are impermanent, conditioned and changing.

From Piya Tan's commentary on this sutta, for which he refers to other sources also:

  2.1.1 Just as a lump of froth is unsubstantial, so too form is
  unsubstantial due to its lack of any abiding entity, permanent
  substance or self-essence. The froth cannot be used to make such
  physical things as  a bowl or a saucer, but it merely breaks up.  Even
  so, form cannot be taken as permanent or lasting, or as “I” or as
  “mine.” It is merely a lump of froth, impermanent, unsatisfactory, not
  self and foul.

  2.1.4 But a lump of froth ever breaks up as soon as it has arisen, and even if it lasts for a while, on reaching the sea, it always breaks
  up. Even so, this body is continually breaking up and changing, but
  breaks up finally within a century, and after death, it disintegrates
  into tiny fragments.

Commentary on the other metaphors can be read from the link.

This means that the self is ultimately an illusion, and an emergent phenomena. The self as a standalone independent core of a being, is unreal. But other things like trees and chairs are not unreal, despite being conditioned, compounded and impermanent.

Nagarjuna taught in his Madhyamaka (Mahayana) philosophy that not just the self, rather, all things are empty of inherent essence. Some people claim this means nothing is real. However this and the concept of papanca in Theravada actually means that things don't exist the way we think they do, not that they don't exist or are unreal.

For e.g. we look at something and objectify it as cooked meat and classify it as delicious food. To a vegan, it may be repulsive. To a honey bee, it's just a lump of dirt because that's not its food.

This means that the cooked meat dish exists but not like how we imagine it to be. How we imagine it to be, is relative to our self. This is how we objectify and classify everything in the world according to our self bias - how is something related to me? It is this inherent essence that is unreal.

Another view from Mahayana Buddhism comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's essay The Fullness of Emptiness. According to this, all things like trees are not independent. They depend on other things. They are made up of things. They are connected to other things. They are constantly changing and not permanent. This is one way to say that it is empty of inherent essence. Not that it's unreal. That means there's no standalone independent object.


How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"?

It's kinda funny to see how we westerners stereotypically misunderstand Dharma as postulating some kind of globally applicable set of absolute unconditional prescriptions. Is this not taking it to the extreme? :) Buddha's teaching should not be taken out of context and unwittingly extrapolated.

Did Buddha say lay people should "not marry and do not have any children"? No, he said they should avoid sexual misconduct.

Did Buddha say all lay people should become monks? No, in fact he suggested that monks should not work and are instead to live in dependence on lay community (begging, accepting donations).

Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves.

Did Buddha teach radical ascetic rejection of everything? No, what he taught was letting go of obsessions, preconceptions, biases, overgeneralizations, irrational expectations; he taught not to assign too much importance to petty stuff that does not deserve it; he taught to be analytical; he taught to be practical and flexible and wise.

Buddha said, tanha (thirst, craving) is the source of dukkha (troubled mind, emotional suffering). This means, whenever you crave for things to be different than they are, right now, you suffer. This does not mean you should not participate in life, this means if we fully accept what we have, and work with it, instead of wishing it were otherwise, we will not generate emotional suffering.

Is this not the most rational doctrine ever?


The "conventional" self - in what way can it be accepted?

The usage of the word 'self' in a conventional sense is the same as the usage of the word 'chair'. There's nothing intrinsic in the material it is made of that makes a chair a chair. But the usage of concepts are useful in day to day life for the purpose of identifying functions.


Panpsychism and philosophical interpretations of buddhism

All is consciousness and all is not consciousness and neither of the preceding is true. This is the kind of logic that Zen sees the world in ways that at best are uncertain.

In one sense you are asking does a table have Buddha nature?

This has been answered in this post Does a dog have Buddha nature?
The Buddha-nature of a dog

I have only found one thing that helps me, when I find empathy and compassion for all beings. What their nature is does not seem to affect me. My own acts in consciousness do affect me directly.


How should a married person get ordained in Theravada Buddhism?

A married man need not ask his wife for permission. Even the permission from one's parents was once disregarded by Sariputta (in ordaining Revata).

According to the rules (Pāc. 80), though, a woman has to get permission from her husband. This seems to be a carry-over from patriarchal Indian society. I would suggest that in societies where woman are seen as equals to their husbands rather than property, this rule should be broken. I know this isn't the direction of your question, but just for the sake of completeness, the point of the rule was that angry husbands posed a threat to the sangha (I was almost beaten in modern day Sri Lanka by one such jealous husband for ordaining his wife).

Assuming you are confining your question to men wanting to become bhikkhus, there is no requirement for consent from one's wife. Examples of married men becoming monks (ostensibly without the permission of their wives) are Ratthapāla, Culakāla and Mahākāla, and Yasa.

Note that having children is not a barrier to ordination (for women either).

As for contact between spouses after ordaining, the answer is pretty obvious; the spouse should be treated as any other lay person, though special care should be taken not to fall back into attachment with them. The story of Maha and Cula Kala is instructive in this regard.


What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom in the Buddha's teaching?

In Mahayana, intelligence and wisdom are not used interchangeably. Wisdom has various meanings, depending on the context. The issue is that different Tibetan words are translated 'wisdom.' I assume these Tibetan words correspond to different Sanskrit words as well.

In the Abhidharma, it says:

  QUESTION: What is wisdom (shes rab)?

  RESPONSE: It strongly
  differentiates the qualities of things that are to be examined. It has
  the function of overcoming doubt. Just as it has been said above,
  wisdom is a knower that individually differentiates the faults and
  good qualities of things that are to be examined.

However, wisdom (yeshe) refers to the cognizer realizing emptiness. There are also three types of wisdoms:

  There are three types of wisdom: the wisdom arisen from hearing, the
  wisdom arisen from thinking, and the wisdom arisen from meditation.

The wisdom arisen from analytical meditation on emptiness is yeshe. It is the one we refer to when we speak of the higher training in wisdom. Or when we speak of cultivating the perfection of wisdom.

Intelligence refers to a mental factor that a student must have. It resembles shes rab.
In the Middle Length Lam Rim, Tsongkhapa says:

  Someone to whom good ways of explaining appear as faulty ones, due to
  not having the intelligence to distinguish them, is not a suitable
  vessel. Therefore one needs to have the intelligence that understands
  [what is to be abandoned, and what is to be adopted].


Is there a story or a mentioning about masturbation in the Buddhist teachings?

Sexuality is mentioned and that does include sex between man and woman, same sex partners and self pleasuring.

But there is a clear delineation between monks who have take their vows and lay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexuality

  To lay people Buddha advised that they should at least avoid sexual
  misconduct which meant following generally accepted norms of sexual
  morality and behavior. From Buddha's full-time disciples, the ordained
  monks and nuns, strict celibacy (called brahmacarya) has always been
  required.

But what is the issue with sexuality. Shakyamuni Buddha had been married and surrounded by women before he was married, per his father the king's devices to keep Shakyamuni interested in assuming the throne after the king died.
So Buddha spoke from experience. What is he trying to tell us?

  In the Buddha's first discourse he identifies craving (tanha) as the
  cause of suffering (dukkha). He then identifies three objects of
  craving: the craving for existence; the craving for non-existence and
  the craving for sense pleasures (kama). Kama is identified as one of
  five hindrances to the attainment of jhana according to the Buddha's
  teaching. Throughout the Sutta Pitaka Buddha often compares sexual
  pleasure to arrows or darts. So in the Kama Sutta from the Sutta
  Nipata Buddha explains that craving sexual pleasure is a cause of
  suffering. —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So really the issue is not sex or no sex, but what to do with craving. As lay people, a long term relationship is one way of expressing these cravings, but even so sex is not the answer to our deepest longing to awaken to Buddha consciousness.

Buddha goes on to explain in greater detail what is the problem.

  If one, longing for sexual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he's enraptured
  at heart. The mortal gets what he wants. But if for that person —
  longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish, he's shattered, as if shot
  with an arrow.
  —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So the aspirant is shot with the arrow of disappointment. But this disappointment can be a prod to try harder to see beyond the lie that sensual satisfaction will really give lasting fulfillment. It isn't a matter of whether the rules say to do or not do sex, but what will this act do for my practice.

There is another post on onions and garlic and how those are best avoided. So there may be things one can do to lessen the craving. What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic?

Buddha then goes on to say:

  So one, always mindful, should avoid sexual desires. Letting them go,
  he will cross over the flood like one who, having bailed out the boat,
  has reached the far shore.

  The 'flood' refers to the deluge of human suffering. The 'far shore'
  is nibbana, a state in which there is no sexual desire.

  The meaning of the Kama Sutta is that sexual desire, like any habitual
  sense pleasure, brings suffering.

So that is the crux of the matter "any habitual sense pleasure, brings suffering."

So that gets us back to the Four Noble truths. And now we are in the heart of Buddhism, finding a way out of suffering.


Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta?

The standard reference scheme in the West seems to be the Pali edition of the Pali Canon published by the Pali Text Society. One often finds it referenced in the standard English translations at the top of each page. Unfortunately, it is only useful to Pali specialists who have this edition of the Pali Canon.

Each part of the Pali Canon has its own reference scheme. Unlike the King James Bible, for example, each text has its own internal structure, ranging from simple to complex. Here are some examples: V:III.4.2[72] (III.2) (Horner, Book of the Discipline, p. 125); DN 21:[263]1.6 (ii 268) (Walshe, Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 323); AN VII:64(11)(7) (IV 96) (Bodhi, Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p.  1067); etc.

The Burmese Pali Tipitaka is also online at http://www.tipitaka.org. It uses a system of sutta and paragraph references that do not necessarily correlate with the English editions.

A critical edition of the Pali Canon in English is in preparation, based on all Pali editions. Hopefully this will simplify the matter (when it is completed).

The Pali Text Society has published English translations of nearly all of the Pali Canon. These are available in North America from Pariyatti (http://www.pariyatti.org).
The best and standard Pali-English dictionary is still the Pali-English Dictionary of Rhys Davids and Stede, published by the Pali Text Society.


What's the Buddhist perspective on permanently eradicating bedbugs? (Extinction)

Being in a position of not having to kill is better.  The idea of getting rid of species that cause more harm (or bad karma to themselves) is a product of pondering mind, and definitely not Buddha's teaching.

To answer your question, Buddha did not speak of any situations where killing another species was worth anything.

However, if you search "kill" in sutta, Buddha used "killing" in a context of anger.  Something like "those who killed anger live in peace" , and other contexts as well, but never in a context of taking lives or other species.  Your hypothetical doesn't lead to enlightenment or cessation.


Talia, there is no 'sin' in breaking a promise made with pure intentions of keeping it. (In fact, if someone promises with all his heart to kill me, I hope he breaks it!)
Even for monastics, like me, we occasionally have to break our promise or agreement to do something (such as accepting a invitation to a meal or to give a talk) when something else more important crops up. It would be unwise to think we have to keep all our promises, made based on circumstances at that time.
It's only wrong if we 'promise' with the intention of not keeping it. In this case, the so-called promise is actually a deliberate lie.
Can you actually be sure that you wouldn't do something in the future? I can't. I know my mind now, but I can't know how it will be in the future. So, how can we promise what we cannot be sure of?