Allow myself to rock or sway while meditating?

Let me try to approach this from 2 different angles.

I'm a physiotherapist and first I would like to approach this from an anatomical and physiological standpoint.

It sounds to me like you might be lacking some core strength and that resulting in you swaying in your meditation. It could also be that you have some tight muscles around your pelvis and back which is creating muscular imbalances. The balances can cause pulling and tightening in different directions when standing, sitting or lying in certain postures. Muscular imbalances are quite common and not dangerous although if they are allowed to persist over long durations of time they can lead to more serious problems such as limited range of motion, body pain, mal-alignment which again can lead to other diagnoses. Let's not get into this here.

If it's relevant now or becomes relevant you are welcome to contact me on my mail: harshani85@gmail.com and I will take a look at you either via Skype or you can sent me a video. I will give further instructions about that if you need it.

For now I will give you some strengthening exercises for your lower back and core muscles + some stretching exercises for your hip flexors  (m. iliopsoas) since they are often a problem because of too much sitting down. If they are or become tight they can limit range of motion in the spine and external rotation in the hip by creating an increased internal rotation in your upper legs which again will lead to mal-alighment in your spine which will affect your standing, sitting and lying posture.

As you might have heard before the core is our force-generating center. It is very important to have a strong core in almost all activities that one do in ones everyday. A strong core means that one is physically centered. The standing, sitting and lying postures will improve greatly as will many other activities in ones daily life.

The core consists of the following muscles; m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques, lumbal portion of m. erector spinae. Some people count also mm. gluteus, m. quadratus lumborum and m. iliopsas. I will not give exercises for these muscles but only the most important muscles which is m. erector spinae, m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus and mm. internal/external obliques.

I would like to give you these exercises. They can be a bit difficult to understand when only viewing a photo so I have found this video for you that goes through some of the exercises. I want you to try them all out and find the ones that work best for you. Try to pick 3-4 exercises.

I want you to do 1-3 sets with 10-15 repetitions in each exercise. 1-3 sets meaning that if you have a good day you can do 3 sets and if you are tired or not in the mood you can do 1-2 sets. That way you can regulate it yourself.
You should train these exercises 3-4 times a week. Keep 1 day between sessions for rest.

That was the strengthening exercises now to the stretching exercise for the hip flexor muscles, m. iliopsoas. See this photo. If you cannot do that I want you to do like this instead. You should do 3 sets of 60 seconds on both legs. You can do longer and more sets if you like but this is minimum. This exercise you can do everyday.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my mail or write here and I will try to help out.

Now I would like to approach this from a theravada buddhist perspective with basis in vipassana meditation practice.

In vipassana practice we want things to come forth so we can study them. We do not want to interfere with them since that can create attachment or aversion towards the phenomena. By trying to help the swaying or stop the swaying you are really masking/camouflaging the impermanent, unsatisfactory, oppressive and insubstantial nature of the 1st aggregate, the form aggregate.

I believe it's best to just let the swaying be. Observe it. Note it. Observe that you have really no control over the body. The body is oppressive and ungovernable. It is not subject to ones will and by realizing that you can see both impermance, dukkha and not-self.

So in short. Don't interfere with the phenomena. Just observe them diligently and you will come to realize the 3 signs of existence.

As Mahasi Sayadaw has said; "the yogi (the meditator) will come to realize that there is just an object arising and mind arising to that object and no third besides. Third besides is here meaning a self".

Unfortunately I cannot remember where he says that so I cannot quote it.


What does wrong freedom or wrong release mean?

All other releases or freedom which are not that of Nibbana (e.g. still subject to birth, aging, sickness end death), are called miccha, wrong. There are countless of them. With every action, in all ways of desire beings seeks for release. micchā-magga, the wrong way of practice leads to miccha-vimutti, wrong release (no release). The nature of wrong freedom, which is gained on and on, after certain stilling, is that it does not last, is dependend and subject to decay.

To count them all would be endless, but maybe such words like "pseudo-liberalism" or "householder-equanimity" in wordily spheres or the many kinds of Nihilism incl. based on Jhana may help. The possible most structured list of miccha-vimutti by the Sublime Buddha can be found in the Brahma Net. And here a sample of an atheist: "I live free of the guilt of sin and the fear of Hell."

  "N'atthi santi param sukham"
  "The is no peace like (the peace) of happiness beyond" (e.g. Nibbana)"

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not thought for any trade, stakes or exchange for wordily gains]


Did Buddhists ever actively participate in a major violent conflict?

Suggested reading: Buddhist Warfare - Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergenmeyer. A view of the contents:

Making Merit through warfare according to the Arya-Bodhisaattva-upayavisaya-nirdesa-sutra
Sacralized Warfare: The Fifth Dalai Lama and the discourse on religious violence.
Soldier-zen in wartime Japan
Buddhists in China during the Korean War
Onward Buddhist Soldiers: Preaching to the Sri Lankan Army
Militarizing Buddhism: Violence in Southern Thailand


In one sense the Buddha advised against using deductive reasoning to gain certainty about what brings an end to suffering. From the kalama sutta :

  "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Note that logical deduction requires axioms to deduce conclusions from. Logical reasoning doesn't tell us if the axioms are true and therefore it doesn't tell us if the conclusions are true.


How to deal with insults?
There's a canonical answer here -- Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2)

In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours.

I think that's great and maybe needs no explanation.
To try to explain it anyway, though, I think that means you deal with them by not partaking with them, not sharing them, maybe by seeing them as owned by (intended by, the kamma of) the person who produces them.
Possibly that's not the same as denying them, though:

Because it can be good to learn from criticism?
Because the Zen story Is That So? shows the master acting on reality and doing what's necessary even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the accusation?

I want to ask how to deal with memories of past insulting behavior by others towards me?
Memories of trauma can be difficult, in an extreme they lead to cases like PTSD

In the typical case, the individual with PTSD persistently avoids trauma-related thoughts and emotions, and discussion of the traumatic event, and may even have amnesia of the event.[citation needed] However, the event is commonly relived by the individual through intrusive, recurrent recollections, [etc.]

I guess stressful experiences are memorable, perhaps for evolutionary/survival (i.e. biological) reasons.
One therapy is to maintain mindfulness of the present -- e.g. breathing, meditating, whatever your object of concentration is, or whatever your other senses can be conscious of -- to learn that "in reality" the past is past and you are not being insulted any more.
Aside from that there are a few aspects of Buddhist doctrine that are useful in most circumstances:

Four noble truths -- suffering is a result of craving for something to be other than as it is

Anatta, non-self -- instead of "me and mine" you have the view that "there was that person, with some experience, some feelings", but all transient

Dependent arising -- you said, "my own behavior was also responsible for me getting insulted", but now the circumstances are different, you're not behaving like that any more

Morality -- maybe try to not behave like a person who people would want to insult

Good-will etc. -- see the first 6 or so verses of the Dhammapada ...

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

... and maybe doctrine about the brahmaviharas for further details.


Four Nutriments in the context of Satipatthana?

Four Nutriments and Dependent Origination
4 Nutriments is what is required to sustain life. Dependent Origination (DO) describes the same from the origination point of view.
DO does not mention Edible food which is one difference, Though it is needed to sustain the body.
Craving and clinging in DO relates to volitional thought as it is I or mine who subject of craving and clinging and these volitional thoughts.
Sense impression / contact is common to both. So is consciousness.
Though the 4 Nutriments do not cover feeling explicitly they are integral part of both:

"In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment sense-impression be considered. If the nutriment sense-impression is comprehended, the three kinds of feeling are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of feeling are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

Similarly craving which is not explicitly a part of the 4 Nutrimens but found in the explanation hence an integral part of both:

In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment volitional thought be considered. If the nutriment volitional thought is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of craving are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

SN 12.63 - Puttamansa Sutta
Samudaya Sutta presents this slightly differently to Puttamansa Sutta.
This perhaps can also be viewed as a condensation of DO.
Four Nutriments in the context of Satipathana
How this relates to Satipatthana is as follows:

a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing [ body | feelings | mind | dhammas ] in the [ body | feelings | mind | dhammas ], removing covetousness and displeasure in the world

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta
"Removing covetousness and displeasure in the world" means you have to be equanimous to the sensations either pleasant or unpleasant originating from: body, feelings, mind, dhammas. (This also is found in Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta and Titth’ayatana Sutta rendering of the Satipatthana which makes it more clearer.) In either cases (pleasant or unpleasant [or neutral]) they are due to contact. To make sure your attention is wise attention you should contemplate on impermanence also. Pahāna Sutta also mentions how you should deal with sensation, i.e., to be equanimous than reacting with craving aversion and ignorance. Wise attention, knowing the 3 Characteristic (being free from Vipallasa - see Vipallasa Sutta), displaces ignorance. Cover coming craving or ensuring than any experience (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral) does not lead to craving ensures liberation:

And if the three kinds of craving are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

Cessation of Name-Form by starving yourself. It is by understanding
how consciousness arises due to fabrication. Karma / fabrication are formed from activities. This again can be overcome by not generating unwholesome roots, i.e., be equanimous to sensation seeing their impermanence.
See:

The Four Nutriments of Life An Anthology of Buddhist Texts translated from the Pali, with an Introductory Essay by Nyanaponika Thera


Are Samatha and Vipassana mentioned in the Pali Canon as different styles/techniques of meditation?

Yes, but not as seperat for the taught purpose:

  "These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana)... A Share in Clear Knowing

(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to come out of this wheel)


Which materials exist on the construction and origin of kōans?

This book might be useful: The Koan. Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism. By Steven Heine e.a. With contributions from several specialists in the field


Sensual Desire and Guarding the Sense Doors

Sensual desire is like feeling thirst for something (Pali tanha, Sanskrit trishna).

If you feel cold and decide to put some clothes on, normally it has nothing to do with sensual desire. It's a normal act of regulating something.

If you develop thirst to possess some special clothes, that is developing sensual desire. When you see those clothes, your hands might start to tremble, your breathing might become heavy - because of that thirst.

It shows that sensual desire is developed by our own mental activity - with the attitude of unhealthy longing for something - and it generates vexations.

In that sense we can speak about guarding the sense doors:

observing what we perceive,
observing to stay natural, not developing unwholesome desires,
observing to dissolve unwholesome desires if they are already developed.

So that discipline relates not to hiding from original stimuli, but to how we react to them. For example, monks don't avoid seeing women, but they avoid looking at them with sexual passion. That's how they guard the sense doors: not allowing the thieves of vexations to steal our natural mind.


is it possible to send merit for a future action ?

Your giving are your merits, it's not possible to share ones merits in such way as thought. Even if giving the money direct to the lady to get a taxi to cross the street, the merits are yours. Taking (a gift) will be a debt, sometimes a debt torward Nibbana, torward those pulling in that direction, but mostly a debt binding to the world, and those after it.

But if the old lady, sees your deeds of sacrify, is able to rejoice with it, to take mentaly part on good deeds, then she has a share on you merits, and it's solvely up to her to take on the opportunity to take parts on your merits.

You good deeds will follow, as well as bad, there is no need to worry about that. Just a matter of crossing the right soil to ripe.

See more in regard of sharing merits and dedication:

[Q&A] Transfering merits - Can one transfer the merits from ordination?
How can merit be transferred?

Invitations like:

  "may the merit i do go to X"

Are your merits. If those who are dedicated are worthy of gifts, even very benefical gifts and wishes.

Anumodana, sharing of merits, is a way to fight ones stingyness and very seldom praticed by "modern Buddhist" since incapable to overcome stingyness. Only a person with firm confidence and those who have overcome maccariya (stinginess), e.g. noble ones, are really able to let others always take part on their good deeds. Many are thoses being slaves of envy of all kinds.

Places and people lacking in deeds of generosity and sharing merits, not used to mudita, for one after a better, should avoid such places, seek for association where such of doing and dedicating merits is practiced, jet hard to find in your grasped world, out of cause.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do
  myself) is frowned upon

It depends on the tradition and personal beliefs. If you follow Theravada Buddhism, you wouldn't have any issue with feeding yourself or your cat with meat products. In Theravada Buddhism, the word of the Buddha is valued higher than personal opinions. So you or your cat is less likely to get frowned upon, just for eating meat. :) Vegetarianism is usually treated as a personal food preference.


Is meditating while on the bike at the gym an effective method of meditation?

Short Answer: Yes.

Longer Answer:

The Satipatthana Sutra implies this.  Here's a snippet...

  Moreover, when a practitioner walks, he is aware, ‘I am walking.’ When
  he is standing, he is aware, ‘I am standing.’ When he is sitting, he
  is aware, ‘I am sitting.’ When he is lying down, he is aware, ‘I am
  lying down.’ In whatever position his body happens to be, he is aware
  of the position of his body.

  Moreover, when the practitioner is going forward or backward, he
  applies full awareness to his going forward or backward. When he looks
  in front or looks behind, bends down or stands up, he also applies
  full awareness to what he is doing. He applies full awareness to
  wearing the sanghati robe or carrying the alms bowl. When he eats or
  drinks, chews, or savors the food, he applies full awareness to all
  this. When passing excrement or urinating, he applies full awareness
  to this. When he walks, stands, lies down, sits, sleeps or wakes up,
  speaks or is silent, he shines his awareness on all this.

The gist of the above is that mindfulness should be applied throughout the day -- including time on the exercise bike.

However, I don't think this should replace formal meditation practice.  Setting aside time for meditation allows you to better control distractions, which in turn can allow you to go deeper. Meditating on the exercise bike should be done in addition to your regular meditative practice, and should be part of an attempt to maintain continuous mindfulness.


Is clinging the reason for losing interest towards certain things?

We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

No, this is due to the impermanence of things (anicca).

  Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

It's the other way around. Interest in working, studying or new year resolutions are different forms of clinging, or grasping for that matter.

To clarify, the point here is not to be indifferent, but rather to foster equanimity.


Strange experience after meditation- Is this normal?

In meditation when you stop creating new Sankara. The affect of this is old Sankara comes up and start passing away. This manifests as different sensation and experiences.

When Pirith is playing if you are very mindful the same can be happening.

This is a good thing as you are getting rid of your old condition and Karma.


What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them?

It is up to each situation. Some case running away is proper, but some case negotiating is proper, etc.

The theory is "The buddhist people will try to keep 1)own benefit, 2)other benefits, 3)public benefit, 4)this life benefit, 5)next life benefit, and 6)nibbāna benefit. They try to keep whole 6 benefits, no bias."

Methods, to keep benefits, are multiple up to consciousness management ability of each person.


References to descriptions of the formless realms in the suttas (or other Theravada texts)

...They enjoy it and like it and find it satisfying. If they’re set on that, committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of infinite space. The lifespan of the gods of infinite space is twenty thousand eons.

...If they’re set on that, committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of infinite consciousness. The lifespan of the gods of infinite consciousness is forty thousand eons.

...The lifespan of the gods of nothingness is sixty thousand eons. ~~ AN 3.116 ~~


If Dalai Lama is enlightened, why he keeps coming back?

This is a fundamental premise of Mayayana, that the goal is not to be extinguished and leave samsara like an Arhat, but to stick around until everyone is enlightened.

Here is the zen formulation of the Bodhisattva Vow (couldn't find the Tibetan version)

  Beings are numberless; I vow to save them. Delusions are
  inexhaustible; I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to
  enter them. Buddha's Way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.

As for where one is upon enlightenment, there are more lots of formulations, I don't have a good idea on how to summarize them.


So what is left? It is the true realization of Śūnyatā, or Ultimate Truth, a realm in which “reason is used to destroy itself”

Good question. That's a rather crude statement, albeit a nice first approximation.

More precisely I would say, the aim is to clearly see the Value, the Limitations, and the Danger of having subjective experience entirely subsumed within a framework made of models and concepts (taken at their face values as being the reality itself, aka "reified"), to see how this mistake is universal, inevitable, and intrinsic part of sentient life, to see the mechanisms behind arising of said conceptually conditioned experience, and finally to master the practical means of manipulating said mechanisms towards liberation from the confines of said framework to the reality of authentic suchness.


Can Buddhists be good workplace leaders?

From a more practical position, here are some reflections. I am sure others have their won approaches.

First of all, place importance on one's own practice. Kindness can be applied in situations that call for firmness or other actions perceived as unpleasant. Being kind to the person or people one is leading is always possible (even though we all fail at times), and important to distinguish from approval. We can accept the person without approving of their actions.

Another suggestion is to avoid speaking and acting out of anger (or any type of aggression). This is where the practice becomes so important, because the more, the deeper, we practise, the more we are able to accommodate.

To quote the Dalai Lama

  Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.

As they say, ´Being a pacifist does not mean being a passive-ist´ - there is nothing stopping correction of behavior (coming late, abusing others, and the rest of the long list), but the opportunity is always there to do it with kindness towards the person. Even if you have to fire somebody for not doing their job properly, you can have compassion for them and try to be helpful.

Should you be presented with anger from the person or people you lead, trying to see their view also helps, especially in discovering the underlying cause of the anger (the attachments, and so on).

On the practice part, specifically on handling ill-will (anger and other), here is a note from the Pali Canon (Access To Insight):

  Six things are helpful in conquering ill-will:

  Learning how to meditate on loving-kindness;
  Devoting oneself to the
  meditation of loving-kindness;
  Considering that one is the owner and
  heir of one's actions (kamma);
  Frequent reflection on it (in the
  following way): Thus one should consider: "Being angry with another
  person, what can you do to him? Can you destroy his virtue and his
  other good qualities? Have you not come to your present state by your
  own actions, and will also go hence according to your own actions?
  Anger towards another is just as if someone wishing to hit another
  person takes hold of glowing coals, or a heated iron-rod, or of
  excrement. And, in the same way, if the other person is angry with
  you, what can he do to you? Can he destroy your virtue and your other
  good qualities? He too has come to his present state by his own
  actions and will go hence according to his own actions. Like an
  unaccepted gift or like a handful of dirt thrown against the wind, his
  anger will fall back on his own head."
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

  — Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta

  These things, too, are helpful in conquering ill-will:

  Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
  Faith, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
  Rapture and equanimity, of the factors
  of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

As a summary, I would like to reiterate that we can always have kindness for the person, for the situation, and for our own reactions (they are based on conditions, after all) - allowing for increasing acceptance with more practice.


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

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


Within Tibetan Buddhism, are the Lamas always the same "soul"?

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self", it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of the same "self".

Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and experiences of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.

Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.

The case with your specific question, any person, and even multiple people, regardless of status or title or role, could be designated as Tulkus of Dalai Lama, but to truly qualify as such, the person would need to seriously work on their identity as an embodiment of Dalai Lama's heritage.


What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha?

samatha is a term frequently used. No problem defining that.

Passadha is not easily defined by web search. It appears and Portuguese and greek.

here is a link referring to passadha referring to the eye center.
http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/msg/125kd.txt

Perhaps there are other terms for passadha that are more widely used.


Why is Buddhism a venture of a limited few?

The Buddha once asked himself much the same. And in his question, we catch a glimpse of why there are a limited few. Indeed, the Buddha first thought that there were none:

SN6.1:1.4: “This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it.
It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination.
It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
And if I were to teach this principle, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”

Fortunately for us, Brahmā Sahampati swooped to the rescue, proclaiming:

SN6.1:5.5: “Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!
There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching.
There will be those who understand the teaching!”

So the Buddha looked and saw that there were indeed a few with little dust in their eyes.
It's not so much the intensity of suffering that inspires one on the path. It is the sheer inevitability of suffering in even the smallest relishing. Everybody else is looking exhaustively for exceptions to the understanding that:

MN1:172-194.26: ...relishing is the root of suffering,

There are no exceptions.


What is the way to motivate myself for Vipasana meditation Practice daily?

An individual desirous of mediation very often asks “What shall we do? How do we do it?” In such instances, what have we got to explain to them? How can we motivate him? The proper answer to such questions, that is in keeping with the Dahamma, is that we should practise four activities: Listening to Dhamma, participation in Dhamma discussion, Samatha and Vipassana. Only the individual who practises these four activities together develops his/her  mind and develops the motivation to continue further.

Therefore one should direct one’s mind to all these four aspects. Listening to Dhamma and participating in Dhamma discussions help us gain a good knowledge of Dhamma. From Samatha and Vipassana we develop concentration. In short we need the knowledge of Dhamma and also simultaneously practice meditation.

Some of us want to start meditating after studying the Dhamma. Some others think of studying the Dhamma after completing meditation. This is incorrect. We should select both. They should be done at the correct time.

Also you have to be clear about your intentions, mature about admitting when you have some unskillful intentions in the mind, and honest about the results that come when you act on unskillful intentions. Only by observing that, again and again, can you finally overcome them. When you really see that there’s a connection between unskillful intentions and needless suffering, you become genuinely motivated to find the escape from that suffering. This is the only way you can do it.

When it comes to specially Samatha & Vipassana Meditation, it is not an easy thing to get into as this Mind has been defiled for a Long Time. The word meditation (bhavana) is used so often that we believe it is something very easy to do. In our normal life when we study a subject, all we have to do is to listen, write and then memorize it. But, meditation is not an easy subject, as such. Meditation has to be viewed in the right context. Our minds are obsessed with facts and thoughts. Indeed, it is very difficult for us to turn away from habitual ways of thought and conduct. The practice of mindfulness is a difficult task. Mind is the core of our existence and for a long time it has been defiled. So we should firstly understand that the mind is defiled by delusion and obsessed with all kinds of useless things.

We have constructed our world either by seeing a visible object with the eye, hearing a sound with the ear, smelling an odor with the nose, tasting a flavor with the tongue, touching a tangible object with the body, or cognizing a mind-object with the mind.

Virtue (sila) is the stepping stone. It is the foundation for mental development. For this purpose, the sense organs must be controlled. This is very important. If after reflecting on an object, unwholesome thoughts associated with desire, hatred and delusion arise in our minds, we should be fully aware of this. Then, we should consider the disadvantages of the unwholesome thoughts in this way: ‘These thoughts of mind are unwholesome and bring painful consequences to me and others’.
With determination, those unwholesome thoughts should then be removed. By the removal of unwholesome thoughts, the mind stands firm and becomes calm. t is essential for us to discipline ourselves and make a strong foundation before we undertake the difficult task of training our mind through meditation.


The term is padhana - effort, exertion, striving, as in The Four Right Exertions.

Another term is vayama, The Right Effort step of the Eightfold Path.

Another word is chanda - will or intent.

  There is the case where a bhikkhu generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for ... [specific practices]

"Generates desire" is an important phrase here.

According to my root Guru, the key to effort is joy. If effort gets you what you're looking for, it makes you happy, then you're motivated to practice more. So the key is not as much to force oneself, but rather, to find the right narrative or frame of reference in which you feel motivated.

So in Buddhism willpower is not as much just sheer force, as it is ability to control one's attention and concentration, to not let external influences change one's frame of reference from position in which the motivation exists naturally.


Impermanence: How do we know when a thing ends or if it's just changing?

Great question.

From Mahayana perspective "things" do not "end", nor do they "change" - because separate self-identical things are imputations of the mind. In reality things do not have firm spatial and temporal boundaries. Things do not by themselves have identities that stay unchanged throughout their lifecycle, allowing us to designate it as "still the same thing, just changed a little". These identities are chosen by us. So to speak of any "thing", "ending", "changing but still staying itself" - is a simplification. Ontological reality has nothing like that, it is totally up to observers to define "things" in space and time.

How do we "see things as they are" then? We see them with our "wisdom eye" (wink wink).

We remind to ourselves that what we see is not all there's to it, until we are used to seeing it all. For a trivial example, when someone dies, we say: it only looks like this person ended, but that is not true - there are children, books, students, flowers, social influence - whatever imprints they left on the world - it lives on.

When we practice this enough we get in the habit of seeing "energies", "influences", "connections", "processes" behind things. We no longer see separate things, we see the matrix - and that's called "seeing things as they are".

From Mahayana perspective, this is the real nature of Impermanence: everything is continuously in flux, but the mind grasps after "entities" that it itself designates, and then gets upset when these imputed entities morph beyond recognition, like the cloud figures.


Is the abhidhammic view on mind an externalist or internalist one?

The question may be answered directly. Whenever you come across two theories that are contradictory but complementary such as internalism and externalism Buddhism denies the truth of both. This is a general rule and may be safely applied in all circumstances. This is why the phrase 'Middle Way' is said to have infinite applications.

It is an avoidance of all positive theories in favour of a neutral one. Hence the Buddha's insistence that we avoid all extreme views.

To explain or understand a neutral position is a major challenge but just knowing what Buddhism says about these things is not difficult. Wherever there are two extreme views both are rejected. This is necessary for a doctrine of Unity since all distinctions and divisions must be reduced.

Internalism and externalism are partial or selective theories and as Kant and Nagarjuna note all such theories are undecidable since neither extreme answer can withstand analysis.


Mindfulness with medications and difficult situations

Antihistamines have side effects that can include drowsiness or restlessness.
Drowsiness is tough to conquer. Venerable Moggallāna struggled with that a lot even though it was not from antihistamines. Perhaps the longest sutta on drowsiness is AN7.61, which has a list of many things to try:

AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.

Discuss your medication with a doctor. Treatments very tremendously between individuals. For example, my allergies were gone after I became a vegetarian. And meditation itself helped:

MN62:5.3: “Rāhula, develop mindfulness of breathing. When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial.”

In general, whatever you experience, the Buddha's advice to Rahula may help detaching:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”


With my interpretation of 'rebirth', can I become a Buddhist and become accepted within a Buddhist community?

You don't have to believe in rebirth. Rebirth concept in Buddhism is not as simple as simple as reincarnation anyway.

It's actually better if you don't hold any blind beliefs in Buddhism since it is a find-out-for-yourself kind of religion, i.e. when you reach the proper stage you will have the insights.

It all starts from working on the trainings for morality, concentration and insight.


How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

Kamma is intention. The intention dictates the mental and physical consequences.

  This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting".

Correct. They hunted for food; to feed their children; following the cycle of life; how nature created them.

  If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

The above appears to be your personal point of view rather than a Buddhist point of view. If the above idea was Buddhist, there would be specific quotes from scriptures to support this idea; where the Buddha instructed people to not kill for food. Obviously, in the Buddha's time, people would have asked him the same questions about how to gather food. Obviously, the later monks decided such questions did not warrant inclusion in the scriptures. We know the Buddha never taught vegetarianism because he allowed monks to eat meat from almsfood. The Buddha appeared concerned about killing with wanton violence (rather than about how people feed themselves).


What does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to in SN 47.8?

In the same sutta, buddha said:

  tathā hi so, bhikkhave, bālo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu sakassa
  cittassa nimittaṃ na uggaṇhātiฯ.

Then said about satipaṭṭhāna:

  evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco paṇḍito byatto kusalo bhikkhu
  kāye (=base, object) kāyā-nupassī (=sati-cetasika) viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃฯ

So:

cittassa nimittaṃ (base[=object] of consciousness) = satiya paṭṭhānaṃ (base [=object]  of sati).

The other name is kammaṭṭhāna (base[=object] of cetanā).

P.S. Sati must arise with consciousness.

I'm sorry for my first mistake answer.


Does Pa Auk Has A Plan To Translate Tipitaka Pali To English?

I am not sure if there is any Tipitaka translation project at the Pa Auk monastery when the Ven. Sayadaws book Nibbānagāminipaṭipadā remains still to be translated into English.


How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed

if you take it literally, Buddhism does not teach "reincarnation" because to actually reincarnate, there has to be something permanent like a soul to transmigrate from one life to another.  Consciousness is not permanent.  It raises and falls all the time.    Now, to understand "reforming" in Buddhism, you need to understand "Satanam/being".  it is  another term as difficult as nirvana because it does not have sign or dimension or anything/.. Buddha said "because ignorance as barrier, desires as bindings, satanam continues to moves in samsara".  In my own words, there is a thing outside of time and dimension that latches on consciousness and takes it as self, me, mine..  as long as ignorant and desires persist, satanam will latch on another consciousness when this one connected to your brain ceases to work.   As long as that feeling we all have that we call "I, me, my" exist, when this body is broken, the "I, me, my" will instantly latch into other body and call that body (5skandhas) as ours.  Do not take satanam or "being" to be the same as permanent soul.   here is link to look up being or satanam


Buddhist Equivalent to Prayopavesa (resolving to die through fasting)

Beware that even describing the advantages of dying is an offence.

I quote from this commentary on the Vinaya.

Page 74:

  Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an
  assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): “My
  good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than
  life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways
  75
  praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in
  affiliation.

The following fragment (quoted below) might be relevant to the case you're asking about e.g. when the person is terminally ill.
Don't take my word for it though!
Also this commentary is to do with whether the dying monk incurs a monastic penalty (not with whether it's a karmically optimal course of action).

Page 85:

  The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukkata to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.

  The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here. Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death; and
  from SN 35.87, where the Buddha says that one who puts down this body
  without taking up another body dies blamelessly. However, in arriving at its
  verdict in this case, the Commentary has to add the factors of motivation and
  perception to the equation, factors that are absent from the rule on which the
  judgment is based. It also leaves unanswered the question of how harsh the
  86
  disease has to be, and how near the anticipated attainments, to qualify for this
  exemption.

  This same holds true for case (a), which entails even more dubious reasoning.
  The Commentary’s judgment here has no clear precedent in the Canon; there is
  no clear line for deciding exactly how bad the illness and how fed up the
  attendants have to be for this case to apply; and why should the feelings of other
  people determine when it is or is not allowable to refuse food?

  It is worth noting that the origin story to the original rule here gave the
  Buddha the opportunity, had he wanted it, to formulate a general rule against
  attempted suicides, but he chose not to. He later formulated this subsidiary rule
  only when a bhikkhu attempted a suicide in a way that endangered the life and
  safety of another person. Thus a more appropriate way of applying the Great
  Standards to this subsidiary rule would be to extend it only to cases of that sort:
  where a bhikkhu’s attempts at suicide would bring danger to another person’s
  life and limb.

  As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.

I guess my personal/unreliable hypothesis on the subject is that it's like medicine: i.e. a patient may take medicine because they are ill, not in order to cause illness.

Similarly a patient might stop eating when (or because) they are dying, not in order to cause death.


Did Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness?

I would say yes, these powers include the overcoming of shyness. You are no longer meeting other people but just yourself in other guises. Also, your mind is not weaving fantasies about what people are thinking about you. Also, you have nothing to hide, no sense of superiority or inferiority and if you are sufficiently skilled no sense of personal involvement in the situation.

Maybe a little shyness is a good thing but a Buddhist has excellent defenses against being crippled by it. A good Buddhist knows he or she is an idiot and is not surprised when others think so. I'll let you know later whether this is also true for arhats and buddhas.


There's a footnote in What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Sri Rahula:

  Dipa here does not mean lamp, but it definitely means 'island'. The Digha-nikaya
  Commentary (DA Colombo ed. p. 380), commenting on the word dipa here says:
  Mahasamuddagatam dipam viya attanam dipam patit/ham katvd viharatha. 'Dwell making
  yourselves an island, a support (resting place) even as an island in the great ocean.'
  Samsdra, the continuity of existence, is usually compared to an ocean, samsarasdgara, and what is required in the ocean for safety is an island, a solid land, and not
  a lamp.


Did The Buddha promise to send a Paracelete, or Holy Spirit?

I think the short answer might be "no" -- more-or-less as argued in this review of the book:

Oh no! I found some errors in scholarship here. Tom Harpur's "Pagan Christ" is based on the idea that Christianity borrowed beliefs from paganism. Many scholars have argued in favor of this during the Victorian era and even into the early 1900's.
Many thousands of books by scholars later, the idea has been soundly refuted. [etc.]
Buddha "promises to send the Paraclete" (p 32). Buddhism began as a religion without a god, let alone a paraclete.

To post a longer answer I'll try to reference Buddhist scripture and find some parallel in it.
I think of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (translated here and elsewhere) as narrating what the Buddha said "when he prepares to depart".
The closest approximation I remember to "sending the Paraclete" is this passage:

(The Buddha’s Last Words)
Then the Buddha addressed Venerable Ānanda:
“Now, Ānanda, some of you might think: ‘The teacher’s dispensation has passed. Now we have no Teacher.’ But you should not see it like this. The teaching and training that I have taught and pointed out for you shall be your Teacher after my passing.

So it's "the teaching and the training" -- the dhamma-vinaya, the law and the discipline -- that's to be the teacher. And not new dhamma-vinaya -- to be revealed in the future -- but rather the dhamma-vinaya which the Buddha had already taught.
Apparently the word paraclete means "helper" or "consoler" -- I guess you could argue that (and especially in context) that's analogous to what the Buddha was saying there -- that the dhamma-vinaya would be teacher, and helper, and consoler.
Furthermore I think that according to the Christian doctrine it's the Holy Spirit that allows Man to understand the teaching (of Christ and of the Church). There might be some Buddhist equivalent to that -- e.g. that there is a doctrine and a belief, which can and should be understood, and that doing so is a bit super-mundane. I think that if you read more of DN 16 you'll see the Buddha is saying that he has already taught, and in fact that the monks listening to him had already understood (and not saying he was going to send more in future).

There other other schools of Buddhism, e.g. with another version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which I won't try to analyse here.
And some of them might appear to be making promises of future aid, see e.g. Maitreya.
If Tom Harper's footnote isn't helpful then perhaps it's impossible to know what reference his claim is based on, if anything.
There is for example a book from 1896 titled The Gospel of Buddha. Its account includes,

And Ānanda, suppressing his tears, said to the Blessed One: "Who shall teach us when thou art gone?"
And the Blessed One replied: "I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim."
Ānanda said: "How shall we know him?"
The Blessed One said: "He will be known as Metteyya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'"

So possibly the author got his statement from a source like that.
I think we're lucky, now a century or so later, that people have continued to translate the primary texts, so to some extent we can have translations that are more accurate or more literal and not just paraphrased to such an extent as before.
There are also modern teachers who give lectures or "dhamma talks" or who write books for a modern audience, but people can read the original scriptures too in translation (there was  also a time when people's couldn't read the Christian Bible in their vernacular).
I think that that some of the early effort to bring Buddhism to the West was made by a group of people or learned society -- Theosophists -- who tried to find and teach what all religions had in common; which I guess might be nice, but some of the people closely involved with that effort decided that was at the expense of altering or misrepresenting specific religions, and so split from the group in order to promote the study of Buddhism itself.


The answer below draws from early buddhism material: from the four nikayas/agamas and ven. Analayo's studies on the subject (Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation, CEEBM from now on).

"I'm wondering what these terms, mettā and karuṇā (loving-kindness and compassion), mean."

First, on matters of translations, while mettā is frequently translated as "loving-kindness", alternatives include "benevolence" and "amicableness"1. According to CEEBM, etymologically, it's root is mitra, "friend", thus conveying the idea of being friendly (and it favors "benevolence" over "loving kindness").

This contrasts with karuṇā/compassion which is a desire for others [in suffering] to be free from suffering. More on that below.

"Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from? Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing?"

It seems there's no sutta that really defines compassion. The essence of it is the "concern for others to be relieved from suffering and affliction" (CEEBM). A simile that illustrates it (in the context of a teaching on how to subdue hatred) can be found in AN 5.162:

  Just as when there is a sick man — in pain, seriously ill — traveling along a road, far from the next village & far from the last, unable to get the food he needs, unable to get the medicine he needs, unable to get a suitable assistant, unable to get anyone to take him to human habitation. Now suppose another person were to see him coming along the road. He would do what he could out of compassion, pity, & sympathy for the man, thinking, ‘O that this man should get the food he needs, the medicine he needs, a suitable assistant, someone to take him to human habitation. Why is that? So that he won’t fall into ruin right here.’

In terms of practice, while contemplating other people's suffering would be contemplation of dukkha, contemplating the wish for others to be free from dukkha would be contemplation of compassion and both "should be undertaken with a positive or even joyful mind [and] steer clear of sadness" instead of "commiserate to the extent of suffering along with the other" (CEEBM) -- as the Visuddhimagga formulations of "near enemy" indicate.

Furthermore, it's said in the suttas that it is "impossible, it cannot be that cruelty remains pervading the mind of one who has practiced, cultivated, and made much of the concentration of the mind by compassion" (AN 6.13). That is, cultivating the desire for others to be free from suffering eliminates the desire for others to suffer.

Ven. Analayo, in CEEBM, further clarifies that:

Moral conduct is an expression of compassion

For example, abstaining from killing beings.
Right speech is an expression of compassion

For example, evaluating if something to be said is benefical.
Both learning dhamma (seeking freedom from dukkha) and teaching dhamma can be expressions of compassion

  If one does not think of harming oneself, does not think of harming others, does not think of harming both; and instead ... one thinks
  of benefiting others, benefiting many people out of compassion for the affliction in the world, seeking what is meaningful and of benefit for devas and humans, seeking their ease and happiness; then in this way .. one is bright, intelligent, and with vast wisdom

  -- AN 4.186 (Analayo trans.)

Also see AN 3.60 where the Buddha counter-argument a Brahmin who says that one who goes forth on the dhamma only benefits oneself.

Finally, ven. Analayo concludes that, in early buddhism, teaching dhamma is the compassionated action par excellence.
Accordingly, going into seclusion can be an expression of compassion

  [ven. Mahakassapa]: "Considering two benefits, venerable sir. For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have compassion for later generations, thinking, ‘May those of later generations follow my example!’ For when they hear, ‘The enlightened disciples of the Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling … were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy,’ then they will practice accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Considering these two benefits, venerable sir, I have long been a forest dweller ... and have spoken in praise of arousing energy."

  -- SN 16.5

...and seclusion, being a necessity to build a strong foundation and practice, is then a requirement for correct teaching: "if one is not tamed oneself and wishes to tame someone else who is untamed, that is impossible" (MN 8). Also "One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others." (Dhp 158)
Early buddhist discourse on compassion practice does not focus on a specific person (as elaborated on Visuddhimagga); instead, it's a practice of "boundless radiation in all directions" (MN 7).

On mettā, ven. Analayo comments on a passage of the Mettā sutta (Sn 1.8) that uses a simile of the love of a mother for her only child to illustrate the practice of mettā: "Her love of her son is not the main theme here -- the main point is protection. The providing and receiving o protection is in fact a recurrent aspect in the conception of mettā in the early discourses. [...] In contrast to the bounded love of mother for her child, which easily comes with an admixture of attachment, mettā should be boundless and free from attachment." (CEEBM).

In MN 104 we also find mettā associated with cordiality:

  "Here a bhikkhu maintains bodily acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity."

Thus, mettā has a broad role in the daily activity establishing the modes of interactions with everyone around toward wholesome actions of body, speech and mind mind with a sense of appreciation for them (MN 31 illustrates it beautifully).

Furthermore, mettā is the very antidote for subduing (and is the opposite of) ill will, anger and aggression (MN I 424). It's also related to physical/mental beauty (and lack of it, associated to ugliness). Finally, it seems to have a proeminent role compared to other seemingly compassionate practices ("If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will, that would be more fruitful than...",AN 9.20).

So, briefly, I understand mettā to be the desire for others to be well and attitude that promotes wellness, in contrast with compassion: the desire for others to be free from dukkha -- and attitudes that extinguish existing dukkha.

"How is mettā (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity? These Dhamma Lists warn that 'indifference' is the 'near enemy' of 'equanimity'; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with mettā?"

In CEEBM, ven. Analayo writes: "Equanimity or equipoise, upek(k)ha, from the etymological perspective suggests a mental attitude of 'looking upon', not an indifferent 'looking away'. The term thus conveys an awareness of whatever is happening combined with mental balance and the absence of favoring or opposing" and also "equanimity is [...] a mental equipoise that rounds off a systematic opening of the heart which has been brought about through cultivation of the other three divine abodes".

As an illustration of the function of equanimity, consider teaching dhamma with the attitude of compassion to an uninterested audience. In such situations, equanimity (or lack of it) comes into play. The same could be said about the role of equanimity when we treat others with mettā and find ourselves being treated with aggression (and, conversely, when we find ourselves being praised). In this way, equanimity helps with subduing aversion and lust. Moreover, it helps putting compassion "on track", which can steer out to unwholesome mental states (by being affected by the suffering of others, or by being inflated with sense of superiority for others, etc).

The suttas have the Buddha reacting equanimous in many of these situations (see MN 137, MN 65, MN 128 and SN 7.2).

"How is mettā compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't mettā imply that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite?"

Other related questions I found here:

Conceptual reality, mettā, ignorance
Do mettā practices and anatta contradict each other?

As I understand, mettā is not the idea that "other beings should be happy" (opposing dukkha), not does it reify a conceptual construction of a (everlasting) person. From mettā alone, I don't think we can infer anything, doctrinally or otherwise, about someone else (or any "object" of mettā), it's about us. It is the inclination and attitude that promotes wellness (freedom from suffering) for all beings. Like cleaning up a bathroom after using it to have it ready for the next person that need it.

The way I see it, "whishing for others to be well" is just a practice, a way to create the mental habit of such inclination and attitude -- culminating with one actually becoming a friendly, kind, "easy to be with", person.

1 from http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/


What is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness?

In his commentary to Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation, His Holiness the Dalaï-Lama lists 5 types of causes:

  All those phenomena that  are produced at some times but not others
  depend on causes and conditions, and they are of various types. Causes
  are of different types, such as (1) substantial cause, (2) direct
  cause, (3) indirect cause, (4) cause of equal state, (5) concomitant
  cause, and so forth.

He gives a definition of substantial cause:

  [A substantial cause is] A cause that primarily produces its result as its
  substantial continuity; e.g., production of a sprout from a seed.

In 'Kindness, clarity and insight', HHDL says:

  It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its
  substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment
  of consciousness, a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot
  be posited.

In addition, in 'Consciousness at the Crossroards', HHDL gives an interesting line of reasoning establishing that matter (form) is not the substantial cause of awareness:

  Specifically, the awareness must have a substantial cause. Now if the
  substantial cause of awareness is matter, then why is it that some
  things have no consciousness, and other things, such as animals, have
  consciousness?

In Pali and Sanskrit, 'substantial cause' is Upādāna. Regardless of contexts where it refers to specifics, literally it translates fuel. The Tibetan for substantial cause is nyer len.

In 'Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets, by Daniel Cozort and Craig Preston, Jamyang Shayba says:

  Because of being a mind, it is established that [another mind]
  precedes it.

And Losang Gönchok comments:

  The subject, a knower [i.e., a mind] just after conception, is
  preceded by a mind that is its substantial cause because of being a
  knower. The subject, the final mind of death of a common being, is
  able to generate the mind that is its impelled object because of being
  a knower having desire, such as a prior main consciousness.

With respect to the ancillary topic (rebirth) it says:

  Because of movement [to activities immediately after birth] and memory
  [of former lives] also, [the existence of former lives is
  established]. Moreover, since a calf who has just been born seeks the
  milk of the teat and since with respect to animals, etc., the mind
  moves to activities of eating grass and engaging in desire without
  being taught, one can understand that this is done due to the
  conditioning of previous lifetimes. Also, memories of former lifetimes
  exist, and matter cannot act as a substantial cause to produce
  consciousness.


In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause?

No effects can arise without multiple causes. The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes.
Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must cause by other various origins definitely. The doctor, practitioner, should find the other else instead.
That's why aggregates is called "sankhata (being caused by causes)".


I'm confused about the seemingly irrational prioritization or vagueness (?) relating to the "3rd precept" compared to 5th precept of the 5 precepts

In the Buddha's time, for the most part, children were married off to a suitable partner by their parents when the children came of age (DN 31; AN 4.55). Until the girl was married, she did not engage in sex and was "protected" by her family, per the wording in the 3rd precept (AN 10.176). The young wife went to live in the family or clan of the husband (SN 37.3). They had children and spent their lives attending to family and clan duties. The 3rd precept was spoken in this cultural social context. It was not spoken to reflect the sexual hedonism of birth controlled sterilized 21st century society. In summary, once upon a time, women got pregnant easily when they had sex, therefore they were looked upon as wives & mothers rather than as sex objects and probably sex was engaged in relatively infrequently & cautiously (to control and avoid pregnancy). Obviously, in the Buddha's time, only relatively few people (such as the upper classes) engaged in an all day sex marathons. Therefore, there is no problem with the precepts. The problem is not discerning and understanding how freaky and abnormal 21st century dystopian sexual norms are.


I don't think there is a definite answer to this question. Bear in mind that Buddha did not give any commandments in form of 'do' and 'do not'. He rather gave guidelines and various methods that are suited for various types of people.
The fact that one style goes against your preferences, does not mean that someone else cannot benefit from that. To practise Buddhism one should try not to judge others and focus on his own development.

It should be clearly said, however, that generosity is the first Paramita (liberating action or perfection). Through practising the 6 Paramitas, one can break the cycle of samsara and offering goods to the Dharma teacher is though to be a great act of generosity and it creates lots of merit in practitioner's mind. Bearing that in mind, I can think of the following reasons why there is a lot of wealth around some teachers:

a teacher has a very generous and rich sponsor who made promises to always provide for his teacher
a city where the teacher lives is not the safest one and the Sangha (community of practitioners) donated money so that the teacher stays in a safe environment. They also want the teacher to be healthy and have a long life, so they will always cook the best food for him and will call for the best (usually most expensive) doctors.
expensive cars means that they are reliable and won't break a lot so that the teachers can travel safely to spread the teachings. Same for expensive computers and phones.
it is also an act of generosity to give others opportunity to pay money towards the Buddhist teachings. It is better if people pay hundreds of dollars for the teachings rather than in a casino.

The problem arises when the teacher abuses generosity of his students but we are not the ones to judge them. If they use Dharma to get rich, be sure there will be some karmic consequences.

Personally, I am not attracted to teachers who charge a lot for teachings. I trusted a teacher who is low-profile so I can relax and donate as much money as I want and can afford. Other people, however, prefer developing with their teacher in a palace and if it works for them, we can only be happy that the Dharma spreads.


What is Enlightenment, according to Robert Wright?

I took this course and my feeling is that Robert Wright is more into about asking questions rather than giving answers. At most he would give you potential answers, but it's up to you to decide for yourself what is "the answer".


The Vinaya actually goes into all of this under the rule against stealing. The question involves the factors involved in stealing:

the object has an owner,
you perceive that the object has an owner,
you intend to steal it,
you make effort to steal it,
you succeed in stealing it.

All have to be fulfilled in order for it to be stealing. So if you think something has been discarded, it is not stealing, even if it turns out that it has an owner. If you find out later that the item you took actually has an owner, any act you perform in relation to the item from that point on could potentially be an act of theft.
The point of the rule is to respect ownership; it has nothing to do with unowned items, or acts performed that do not breach that respect (e.g. taking something under the assumption that it has no owner).
The case where there is doubt about whether an object has an owner is more difficult, and it comes down to the third factor - intention. If you take an object that you think might have an owner with the intention to return it if you ever find out it has an owner, then it would not be considered stealing. Obviously, this becomes more unreasonable the more likely it is that the object has an owner. Really, the only way you could rationalize taking such an object is in the case where there is no compelling reason to think that the object has an owner still concerned with the object.
If it seems likely that the object has an owner who hasn't abandoned it, then it should be left alone - or the owner should be sought out. If it seems likely that the owner has long abandoned the object, then it may be taken as a possession if there is need.
The BMC I has some discussion about this sort of question as it relates to monks:

Because items that have been given away or discarded do not fulfil the factor of object here, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who takes a discarded object—such as rags from a pile of refuse—or unclaimed items from a wilderness. The Commentary, in some of its examples, includes items given up for lost under “abandoned,” but this interpretation has to be heavily qualified. If the owner retains a sense of ownership for the lost item, it would fall under the term claimed, and thus would still count as not given. Only if the owner abandons all sense of ownership would it genuinely count as abandoned.
...
None of the texts discuss the possible case in which one might be in doubt as to whether the object in question is not given, perhaps because the compilers felt that the factor of intention, discussed next, would not apply in such cases. Thus it would not be an offense under this rule. However, the wise policy when one is in doubt about an item’s ownership would be not to take the item for one’s own, or at most to take it on loan, as explained below.


What is the appropriate course of action for disagreeing with an authority figure?

I think it depends on the nature of the opinion and the nature of the disagreement. Sometimes figures in authority positions have to make a judgement call about an issue where the formal rules of the situation don't clearly address the situation at hand. I think that in such a case the person in authority should have their decision respected, provided that the decision is based on the relevant principles to the case at hand and is a reasonable interpretation of the facts and rules.

If their decision is just plain not reasonably based on the facts or the relevant principles then it is clearly wrong and the best thing to do is to decide whether or not it is a big enough deal to want to appeal, and if it is, then one should take the matter up with the next highest competent authority, be it their boss or the HR department.

In the case of a monk the correct response would be to bring it to bring it up with whoever is higher in the hierarchy with respect to the disputed matter. For example, if you have a dispute with the Monk in charge of the lost and found or something in a monastery, the correct response would be to go to the person in charge of the building, or to the Abbot if the matter was important enough.

If it is a very serious matter then one should probably go to the Abbot directly and if that fails, then try to find a senior Monk to get the matter brought to the attention of the local Sangha council if their actions are breaking the Vinaya. And of course it goes without saying that if they are committing serious crimes or putting people in danger, one should contact the authorities as well.

But as I said, authority figures have to make judgement calls when the rules of a situation are unclear and as long as their decision is a reasonable one it is better to simply accept their decision. It doesn't make much sense to fight with an authority figure if it's just a case of "They decided A but I think that B is better."


Buddhist teachings on nation building & politics

The clearest example of this that I can think of is in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) where the Buddha was asked (obliquely) by the brahman Vassakara on behalf of King Ajatasattu whether he had a chance at killing off an enemy nation. The Buddha replied with the seven "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare":

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"
"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
listen to them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
offerings as given and made to them formerly?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
they do not deprive them of their offerings."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
Besides being one of the few examples of the Buddha offering advice on how to run a nation (he was the one who taught the Vajjis these conditions), it also shows how the Buddha never did take sides in political struggle; rather than chastising Ajatasattu, he just taught the dhamma as he always did.


Why is this happening? The mind could be becoming clear & attuned to what is healthy & peaceful. Inner wisdom could be functioning.

Below is a quote from The Removal of Distracting Thoughts sutta:

  Like a well-dressed young man or woman who feels horrified, humiliated and disgusted because of the carcass of a snake, dog or
  human that is hung round his or her neck...the monk in whom
  unskillful thoughts continue to arise...ponders on the disadvantages
  of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly, these thoughts of mine are
  unskillful, blameworthy and productive of misery. Then the evil,
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).

The Fire Sermon describes the liberation that results from clearly seeing the 'fire', burning or oppressiveness of lust, hatred & delusion. In the text, the word translated as "estrangement" is 'nibbindaṃ', which also means 'disgust' or 'revulsion'.

The quote below explains the word 'nibbindaṃ':

  The more common translation of nibbidā is “disillusionment, disenchantment” but the more serious spiritual practitioners generally
  prefer “revulsion,” even “disgust.”

  http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.1-Nibbida-piya.pdf

In some commentaries, 'nibbindaṃ-disgust' (nibbidanupassana-nana) precedes or creates the 'desire for liberation' (muncitukamyata-nana) rather than liberation itself (as found in the scriptures).

Note: 'Disgust' is not the same as 'hatred/aversion'. 'Disgust' leads to freedom, since it leads to the rejecting, dropping & subsiding of the negative emotion.


Bhante is the preferred mode of address if you are addressing the bhikkhu respectfully; note that it is masculine, so for bhikkhunis, Ayye is correct (mostly they use ayya, but I don't think that is technically correct). In English, Venerable x and Reverend x would also be suitable expressions of respect.

If you are addressing them as an equal or as an outsider to the religion, Venerable x and Reverend x would still be proper, I think, but even Brother x would be okay. In Pali, words like bho and ayasma were also used, meaning something like "good sir" or "friend" by those who didn't hold the bhikkhus in any special esteem.

In writing, using the nominative endings (e.g. o for -a stem names) is not technically correct when addressing the bhikkhu in the second person, e.g.:

  Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo,

should really be:

  Dear Venerable Yuttadhamma,

In Thailand this distinction has been pretty much lost, whereas in Burma and Sri Lanka they prefer the a endings for all references.

In Pali, when referring to someone in the third person, you would use the nominative endings, but in the case of corresponding in English, the dictionary stem form is certainly acceptable, as it is with 'buddha', nibbana', etc. Just as we don't say:

  The Buddho was staying in Savatthi.

we really shouldn't be saying:

  Venerable Yuttadhammo was staying in Florida.

As for regional honorifics, e.g. Ajaan (Ajarn, Ajahn) in Thai, Ashin in Burmese, Hamuduruvo in Sinhala, Lakhun in Khmer, etc., I would suggest they only be used by members of the specific ethnic community; I wouldn't think them appropriate for non-members to use to refer to members (e.g. Westerners calling Thai monks Ajaan) unless speaking in the language from which the word comes. In practical usage, however, Ajaan for example has become so widely used by Thai people (even for monks who clearly aren't their or anyone's teacher) that they often insist that non-Thais use it to refer to Thai monks, which of course would be the wise choice when among such people.


A pigeon settled on my balcony. What should I do?

You cannot predict the future of the bird or take responsibility for it. Also, the bird may nest on your balcony temporary (for breeding) rather than permanently. If the bird does not harm you, then you should let it nest.

If the hostess (landlord) disapproves of the bird, they should remove it. It is not your responsibility to make modifications to the property of the landlord or hinder the landlord in the maintenance of their property. Instead, if you think the bird will damage the property, it is your duty (as a tenant) to report this to the landlord.

In summary, the bird is not your responsibility (karma) and the external structural problems of the apartment is not your responsibility (karma).

The problem is the bird's karma & you should not interfere with the bird's karma.


In my understanding of the instructions I received, for the first Jhana, you should switch your focus on the bliss and "say" to yourself: "wow, this is awesome, this is sublime, this is so peaceful, I don't need anything else, this is so much better than any worldly achievement, finally, I can rest in this state, so good! I did it!" etc. The idea is to create a self-sustaining emotional loop, when your own awe & praise of this state feeds back and creates more joy and bliss - and then maintain it for as long as you can, "to thoroughly penetrate and wash your mind". It is important to NOT  let oneself feel that this deliberate generation is silly and contrived - because it is essential!

Then at some point the very act of making an effort to feed it starts feeling  too coarse and counterproductive - and then you stop feeding it, but the feeling of overall "rightness" remains -- and that's how you drop into the second Jhana. According to my instructions, this must not be rushed though, it's best to hang in the first Jhana for as long as you can, and only go into second Jhana when it happens naturally by itself.

Don't worry about breath etc. - the body is a survival machine that works great on autopilot. You don't need to tell the body how to beat the heart or to breathe etc. - it will take care of all that while you focus on meditation.

EDIT

What's unique about Buddha's approach to meditation is how it makes use of the Third Noble Truth to achieve concentration via suchness and suchness via happiness. You let go of coarse and then progressively finer cravings for "something else", until you reach coarse suchness which is euphoria, then fine suchness which is equanimity, and then pure suchness which is spontaneity. On each level of "letting go", you focus on the experience of relief and happiness associated with letting go. First Jhana is when this "experience of relief" takes a coarse form of comparing it with the drama of worldly life ("oh this is so good" etc) to create emotional loop of joy as I said above. Then, you let go of that comparison and keep joy, then you let go of joy.

P.S. I generally disagree with Ajahn Brahm's interpretation of Jhanas (and reification of them in general), but even he recognizes the importance of cultivating bliss:

  Understanding this, one needs to put more value on developing delight when one is watching the breath, and cultivating that delight into a strong sense of beauty. [...] Whatever skillful means one employs, by paying careful attention to the beauty alongside the breath, the beauty will blossom.

  Do not be afraid of delight in meditation. Too many meditators dismiss happiness thinking it unimportant or, even worse, thinking that they don’t deserve such delight. Happiness in meditation is important!


What is the difference between nanas and jhanas?

They are different things. Jhana refers to a particular kind of concentrated state of mind, and the word nana simply means knowledge, but in a meditative context, it refers to one of the 16 stages of knowledge which are described in part III of the Visuddhimagga.


Sutta Reference of Buddhism Not being a Philosophy

The raft is in MN 22.

  I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung
  to.


Is meditating when tired a waste of time?

Sariputta discusses this in DN33.

Here is the problem:

  Eight grounds for laziness. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. But while doing it my body will get tired. I’d better have a lie down.’ They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for laziness.

Here is the solution:

  Eight grounds for arousing energy. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. While working it’s not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’ They rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for arousing energy.

DN33 is a long sutta. It is two hours long. I listen to it as much as I can. And when I am tired of walking, tired of listening, I hear the above verses. They come late in DN33, just when I need them.

Perhaps they may work for you as well.


Someone practising metta meditation can make one's mind concentrated easily but metta meditation does not in itself result in deep absorption as the object of concentration is changing and vittaka vicara is needed think "so and so be happy", etc.

Breath meditation, on the other hand, helps develop concentration and studies ones mind from overthinking.

Breath meditation with a bit of metta meditation will help deepen the concentration.


What is the historical origin of Vajrapani?

Longchen Rabjam's Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems (tr. Richard Barron) says:

  Traditionally, Manjushri is renowned for having compiled the tantras of enlightened form, Avalokiteshvara the tantras of enlightened speech, and Vajrapani the tantras of enlightened mind, qualities, and activity.

A footnote fills this out:

  In the sutra teachings, ''the lords of the three families" -- Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, and Vajrapani -- are among the eight great bodhisattvas in the retinue of every nirmanakaya buddha such as Shakyamuni. In the ... context ... of the Vajrayana teachings, they are emanations who are not separate from the expounder of the tantras, whether Buddha Shakyamuni or the primordial buddha (usually referred to as Samantabhadra or Vajradhara, who expounded tantras considered to predate the historical Buddha). In the tantras, these emanations are part of the naturally manifest retinue that appears in the sambhogakaya realm of Akanishtha. In the sutras, these bodhisattvas are peaceful manifestations; in the Vajrayana, the emanations may appear in either peaceful or wrathful forms.

So, no negative connotations I'd say! I know Vajrapani appeared in Sanskrit first because he's mentioned in Ch. 10 of 'Way of the Bodhisattvas,' by the 8th century Indian buddhist monk Shantideva. Wiki mentions the earlier sutra that may have been Shantideva's reference (see link in comment).


Is it ethical to kill plant life while gardening?

The Buddha reportedly ate a meal of pork at least once in his life. So one pig had to lose its life. The Buddha ate rice pudding so some cow had to eat the grass to produce milk and some weeds must have lost their life to have grown the rice.

It seems that no matter what we do in life some harm is done. Maybe do less harm would be more sensible. The Buddha advocated the middle way between hedonism and asceticism. The Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. So what are we to do?

Do no harm against life for selfish ends. Do no harm against our neighbor to gain advantage. Dedicate your work to all beings.

In your case you could donate some of the crop to food pantries servicing the homeless or needy.

In another sense there is only consciousness. When we weed the garden in meditation we make room for a new consciousness. When we plant seeds in the garden or consciousness, we are planting the divine seed of awakening.

Being paralyzed by fear of doing harm is not the middle way as I see it.

Perhaps the saying should be Clear your intentions of doing harm. Have an intention of giving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

  Right intention[edit] Right intention (samyak-saṃkalpa / sammā
  sankappa) can also be known as "right thought", "right resolve",
  "right conception", "right aspiration" or "the exertion of our own
  will to change". In this factor, the practitioner should constantly
  aspire to rid themselves of whatever qualities they know to be wrong
  and immoral. Correct understanding of right view will help the
  practitioner to discern the differences between right intention and
  wrong intention. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained
  thus:[19][19][21][31][32]

  And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom
  from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.

  It means the renunciation of the worldly things and an accordant
  greater commitment to the spiritual path; good will; and a commitment
  to non-violence, or harmlessness, towards other living beings.


Is there a scientific book summarizing the orthodox buddhism, the most ancient form of it?

Science is really the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is:

Observations

Hypotheses

Predictions

Experiments

Analysis

As a Zen Buddhist, specifically Vietnamese Engaged Buddhism here is what I see.

Most all of the studies (book, dharma talks, dharma sharing, sutra) have the elements listed above. A typical dharma talk (whether oral or written into a book) discusses observations. These observations lead to "insight" or a hypothesis/predictions about the true nature of reality/the mind/etc. Every dharma talk I have ever heard in zen has always asked us to take these insights and test them. Apply them in your life and see the outcome for yourself. I am not just told theories but asked to practice them. This is the Experiments phase. Then I am always asked to examine the practice to see the fruits of my effort. This is Analysis.

So basically I find that Zen Buddhism follows the scientific method quite perfectly. Thus I would say any Zen text could be considered a scientific text by the standards of the scientific method.

Now of course you are asking for a single book that "none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better". As a Zen Buddhist, this is pretty all-encompassing of Zen Buddhism: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. I read this book with non-buddhist weekly, as well as read this book with monastics. The approach in this book follows the methods I described above and is written in a way that is very approachable regardless of your skill level in the practice.

Here is the Table of Contents of the Book so you can see what is all covered.

Part One The Four Noble Truths

Chapter One Entering the Heart of the Buddha

Chapter Two The First Dharma Talk

Chapter Three The Four Noble Truths

Chapter Four Understanding the Buddha's Teachings

Chapter FiveIs Everything Suffering?

Chapter Six Stopping, Calming, Resting, Healing

Chapter Seven Touching Our Suffering

Chapter Eight Realizing Well-Being

Part Two The Noble Eightfold Path

Chapter Nine Right View

Chapter Ten Right Thinking

Chapter Eleven Right Mindfulness

Chapter Twelve Right Speech

Chapter Thirteen Right Action

Chapter Fourteen Right Diligence

Chapter Fifteen Right Concentration

Chapter Sixteen Right Livelihood

Part Three Other Basic Buddhist Teachings

Chapter Seventeen The Two Truths

Chapter Eighteen The Three Dharma Seals

Chapter Nineteen The Three Doors of Liberation

Chapter Twenty The Three Bodies of Buddha

Chapter Twenty-One The Three Jewels

Chapter Twenty-Two The Four Immeasurable Minds

Chapter Twenty-Three The Five Aggregates

Chapter Twenty-Four The Five Powers

Chapter Twenty-Five The Six Paramitas

Chapter Twenty-Six The Seven Factors ofAwakening

Chapter Twenty-Seven The Twelve Links of Interdependent Co-Arising

Chapter Twenty-Eight Touching the Buddha Within