Should I judge the efficacy of Samadhi based on the ethical qualities of the meditator?

As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.

All factors of the N8P have the same purpose, they just operate on the different levels of coarseness. Their purpose is to first reduce and then completely eliminate creation of causes for the arising of dukkha. Generally speaking, some factors operate at the level of external circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in regular life. Other factors operate at the level of inner circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in your mind. The boundary between the two is not entirely black and white, and some factors are kinda both external and internal, but you get the idea. It is the same principle of "discord is dukkha, concord is sukha" applied at all levels. Samma samadhi is the most refined level of this progression from coarse to subtle. What we do on this level is shepherd our own mind to see where we habitually create/maintain discord, and try to stop that and create/maintain concord instead.

There are a lot of criteria that can be used to know whether one method is right or not;

The chief criterion, I think, is whether it's going in the right direction. And the right direction is less discord. It's very simple, really.

how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?

Since we are saying, it is the same principle applied to everything from coarse to subtle, it becomes super obvious, that if the meditator keeps creating discord at the coarser levels, let alone in their external life, it probably means they do not understand the key principle behind the Four Noble Truths. If they do not understand the principle, how can their meditation be right?

ethical qualities of the meditator ... little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom

It is important to understand that our "worldly" ethical qualities are not 100% identical with Buddhist skillful qualities. They match 95% of the way, but not 100%. The Buddhist skillful qualities serve single purpose, progressive reducing of discord until complete and perfect "Nirvana". The worldly ethical qualities serve the purpose of reducing the discord between the members of society pursuing their individual worldly objectives. The principle is the same but the end goals are slightly different. This is why you can't simply assume that if someone is not perfectly ethical by the worldly standards, they are a bad Buddhist. They maybe optimizing their behavior for the pursuit of Enlightenment and Nirvana vs. being a good citizen. That said, because both objectives involve management of causes of discord, you can't really pursue one without taking care of the other, at least 95% of the way.

So, regarding empathy, someone may show little empathy to a Wall Street banker crying over his lost fortune, or a lady crying over the wrinkles around her eyes, because these are not the objectives leading to Nirvana.

As for prudence and wisdom, in Mahayana it is assumed that the practice of creating no discord at some point necessarily leads to an understanding that all conceptual constructs are simplifications. When someone understands this point (called "Emptiness") very deeply, it very certainly manifests in their worldly behavior, making them less prone to taking one-sided positions, and more inclined to be prudent, nuanced, multifaceted, and analytical, which are the characteristics of wisdom. So in this sense, it is absolutely expected that someone with a decent level of Buddhist realization should show some amount of worldly wisdom as well. Mahayana even has an official term for this. It's called "coemergent wisdom" (sahaja-jnana).

The two takeaways from all this are: 1) not creating causes of discord, and 2) seeing through conceptual simplifications -- are the two qualities that operate along the entire N8P from ethics to meditation.

In summary, you are right to assume correlation between one's meditation and ethics, and as long as you understand the principle underlying both, and all the caveats I described above, you can use someone's skill in one to infer their skill in the other, which is a good rule of thumb for evaluating potential teachers and spiritual friends.


If ever you get a chance, @I don’t know,  please try to read the following sutta. It is rather lengthy, so let me give you the bit that is relevant to your question.
DN 2 - Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The three knowledges, as described in DN 2, are:

Recollection of past lives (pubbenivāsānusati-ñāṇa): "He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, (recollecting,) 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details."

Knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings (cutūpapāta-ñāṇa): "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

Knowledge of the ending of mental effluents (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa): "He discerns, as it has actually come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are (mental) effluents... This is the origination of effluents... This is the cessation of effluents... This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. …”

The first two of these knowledges, even though they comprised part of the Buddha's Awakening, are mundane, in that people may develop them without necessarily attaining any of the transcendent paths and fruitions. Thus they belong under the category of mahaggata dhamma, as they are based on the attainment of jhāna either in this or in a previous life. The third knowledge, however — because it describes the arising of the transcendent paths and fruitions — comes under the category of lokuttara dhamma, and is the only one of the eight knowledges to do so.

DN 2 describes the remaining five knowledges as:

Insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa): "He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.'"

Mind-made body (manomayiddhi): "From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties, just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath."

Supranormal powers (iddhividhī): "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahmā worlds."

Clairaudience (dibba-sota): "He hears — by means of the divine ear-property, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far."

Mind-reading (cetopariya-ñāṇa): "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion (etc.)."


Brahma in the rupa-loka have physical appearances. Brahma Sahampati resides in this in a rupa-loka.

In arupa-loka you have no physical form and only one sense faculty which is the mind hence you might not know who else is around you in which case you may not need a name. But also it might be possible for you know though psychic abilities in which can you can still identify others around you in which case you might need to use names. A name is just a label on a person (or animal) to identify or distinguish it from others. This is just my conjecture.

Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter but there is no reference to names. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story


kalāpa in the sense you are thinking is used in the commentaries. The word is generally used in the suttas to mean "bundle", as in yavakalāpa - bundle of grass, or dhanukalāpa - sheaf of arrows. I can't pinpoint the first usage of the word to mean "smallest particle  of matter", but the Visuddhimagga uses it in this way:

  “But since neither of these is a fact, you should therefore give up conjecturing
  the difference to be in the supporting primary elements. Just as the natures of visible
  objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the
  primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other
  cause of their difference exists.”

  -- Vism XIV.45 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The Pali here is ekakalāpe - "in a single group". The meaning is that each instance of matter is made up of a single group of characteristics.

The abhidhammattha-sangaha also uses the term:

  Ekuppādā ekanirodhā ekanissayā sahavuttino ekavīsati rūpakalāpā
  nāma.

  There are twenty-one material groups inasmuch as they arise together, cease together, have a common basis, and occur together.

  (Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation is:

  Material phenomena do not occur  singly,  but  in  combinations or
  groups known as rūpakalāpas, of which twenty-one are enumerated. Just
  as all the cetasikas possess four characteristics (see II, §1), so too do
  the material phenomena  in a group. All  the material phenomena in  a
  group arise together and cease  together.  They  have  a common base, namely, the conascent great essentials, which are the proximate cause
  for the derivative phenomena as well as for each other. And they all occur
  together from their arising to their cessation.

  (From A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pp. 252-3)

Nyanatiloka gives the following explanation of rūpa-kalāpa in his Manual of Buddhist Terms:

  'corporeal group', material unit, designates a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most primitive group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure eightfold unit' or 'octad' (suddhatthakakalāpa), to wit: the 4 elements (the solid, fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojā).

  In Vis.M., and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalāpa, 'the octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'.

  The simplest form of living matter is the '9-fold vitality unit' or 'life-ennead' (jīvita-navaka-kalāpa), formed by adding 'vitality' to the octad.

  Seven decades, or units of ten (dasaka-kalāpa), are formed by adding to the 9-fold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: heart (physical seat of mind), sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. -

  See Vis.M. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS), p. 164, 250; Atthasālini Tr., II, 413f.

Finally, Mahasi Sayadaw talks about rūpa-kalāpa in the context of rebirth as a human in his discourse on Paticca-Samuppada:

  With the arising of rebirth consciousness there occur simultaneously three kammajā-rūpakalāpas or thirty rūpas. These are rūpas that have their origin in kamma, viz., ten kāyarūpas, ten bhava-rūpas and ten vatthu rūpas. The nine rūpas, to wit, the solid, fluid, heat, motion, colour, smell, taste, nutriment and life together with the kāyapasāda (body-essence) rūpa form the ten kāyarūpas; bhava-rūpa and the solid, etc form the group of ten Bhavūpas. Bhavārūpa means two germinal rūpas, one for manhood and the other for womanhood.

  ...

  This embryonic rūpa has the size of a little drop of butter-oil scum on a fine woollen thread. It is so small that it is invisible to the naked eye. It does not exist by itself. We should assume that it arises from the fusion of the semen (sukka) and blood (sanita) of the parents. If we reject this view, it will be hard to explain the child's resemblance to his parents in physical appearance. It is also said in the suttas that the physical body is the product of the four primary elements and the parent's semen. Moreover, the piṭaka specifies three conditions necessary for conception, viz., the parent's intercourse, the menstrual discharge of the mother and the presence of something qualified to become an embryo. Thus it is clear that according to the scriptures, the embryonic kalāla has its origin in the fusion of parent's semen and blood.

  ...

  According to Western biologists, it is the fusion of the mother's ovum and the father's spermatozoa that gradually develops and becomes a child. The original embryo is so small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. The findings of these scientists fairly agree with what the Buddhist books say about conception. Without the help of microscope or other instruments but purely by means of his intellect the Buddha knew how life begins with three kalāpas or thirty rūpas as kalāpa on the basis of parents' semen and blood. This was the Buddha's teaching 2500 years ago and it was only during the last 300 years that Western scientists discovered the facts about conception after long investigation with microscopes. Their discoveries bear testimony to the Buddha's infinite intelligence. However, they are as yet unable to reveal the genesis of thirty rūpas probably because the extremely subtle kammajarūpas defy microscopic investigation.

UPDATE (to reflect your new questions):

Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)?

The theory of the kalāpa has no direct connection with the theory of suññatā; it simply describes the composition of individual groups of matter. Indirectly, though, since suññatā is very much connected with anattā (being devoid or "empty" of self), the fact that rūpa is made up of individual states that arise and cease without remainder is indeed an important part of the realization of this truth. E.g.:

  Having thus discerned by knowledge of contemplation of reflection that
  “All formations are void” (see S III 167), he again discerns voidness in the double logical relation thus: “This is void of self or of what belongs to self” (M II 263; Paṭis II 36).

  When he has thus seen that there is neither a self nor any other [thing or
  being] occupying the position of a self's property, he again discerns voidness in the quadruple logical relation as set forth in this passage: “I am not anywhere anyone’s owning, nor is there anywhere my owning in anyone (nāhaṃ kvacani kassaci kiñcanat’ asmiṃ na ca mama kvacani kismiñci kiñcanat’ atthi)” (M II 263).

  -- Vism XXI.53 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

kalāpa, or more properly rūpa-kalāpa, are physical, so no they are only a source for certain other phenomena. "source" is a problematic term anyway, since the causal nature of reality is far more complex than simply A => B.


What is the general Buddhist consensus on catharsis?

In my opinion, catharsis is a hindrance (non-meditaion) therefore not really related to Buddhism. Catharsis is a product of a deficiency in morality & self-control (as explained in AN 10.61). In other words, catharsis is a secular matter rather than a Buddhist matter.

What is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct.
AN 10.61

This said, in MN 20, it is taught as one of five methods that sometimes a person must let a hindrance arise to overcome it. Often emotions are so strong, they must be endured and allowed to arise & run their course.

If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might consider: ‘Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?’ and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: ‘Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?’ and he would stand; then he might consider: ‘Why am I standing? What if I sit?’ and he would sit; then he might consider: ‘Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?’ and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture (thought) one that was subtler. So too…when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.


You can't really say No to "Do Buddhist Believe in Fortune Tellers?" Because The Buddha himself had the ability to tell someone's fortune and future.He didn't do it for money of course.But he could tell what would happen to people. There were times where he knew that they had to listen to the Dhamma soon because their death was imminent.He could tell their fortune or misfortune.

In fact the past Buddha Kassapa was able to predict that the then Boddhisatta would one day become a Buddha.I know this all sounds like magic.But it all boils down to Karma. All Buddhas posses omniscient knowledge.They have the ability to discern someone's karma and the karmic tendency that will lead to the likelihood of one's karmic fruit ripening.

The Buddha also had a disciple who was once a fortune teller called Venerable Vangisa.Now, You don't have to be a Buddha to be able to predict the future.It can come as a Siddhi in some yogic practices.But this is clouded by delusion because one doesn't see dependent origination in it.Not to mention the Ego is still very much in charge.

When people try to read or tell your fortune it may be skillfull to just politely decline.If you don't want to do that then just remember that no one can make or take your fortune except you.It all depends on you.When people read your future their reading what your own actions are producing, their not causing the future to happen to you.Your fortune depends on your own actions.


Did Huineng claim he didn't know Buddhism? If yes, what does it mean?

Zen masters often said that they didn't know anything of Buddhism. For example, in Suzuki's essay, "The Doctrine of Enlightenment," the Fifth Patriarch is quoted as saying: "Four hundred ninety-nine of my disciples understand well what Buddhism is, except one Huineng. He is not a man to be measured by an ordinary standard. Hence the robe of the faith was handed down to him." (Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series) What this means is simply that Hui-neng's wisdom didn't come from studying the sutras but from within himself. On the other hand, he well understood all of the sutras intuitively because of his wisdom. This is not to say one shouldn't study the sutras, but that understanding comes from within, and one shouldn't rely on anything without.

If the particular quote is accurate, Hui-neng was engaging in a particularly Zen method of teaching, and his answer shouldn't be taken literally. He may have meant that if you really understand Buddhism, if you have attained the state in which there are no things such as a self, enlightenment or Buddhism, then you don't understand Buddhism.


I'm not sure if this is insight

Insight has many levels. This is very good for starters. As you progress you should be able to see this even to more finer granularity as kalapa.

  If anything it helps me to appreciate the amazing miracle of life that we can just either blindly go through or notice what is actually happening and how miraculous it is.

Any experience should be taken neutrally. You should try to be equanimous. This excitement may prevent you seeing the finer things.

What you are experiencing is transition from gross (olārika) to subtle (sukhuma). More on totality of awareness see this answer.


Buddha said women can be Enlightened.
In an unprecedented move for the times, Buddha allowed women to ordain as Buddhist wanderers.
Buddha added numerous rules to Vinaya to protect women practitioners from the abuse of men practitioners.
Buddha said that part of the path to Enlightenment is abandoning gender biases (AN 7.48)
Buddha was a big opponent of the traditional practice of having widows join their deceased husbands on the funeral pyre.
Buddha gave many teachings specifically for lay women.
Both the 500 years prediction and the idea that only man can be a buddha seem to be later additions as they are present in some versions of texts and absent from others.


Brain is a concept. You cannot experience 'brain'. So by definition, there can be no mindfulness of the brain. You can be mindful of the idea of a brain. Even if you split someone's head open and take out the brain, it's still just seeing, feeling, smelling... So an attempt to create such a system would fail. In other words, it would be a system that fortifies ignorance instead of weakening it.


gratitude towards & repaying the debt to one's parents

Combining these 2::
There are lot of if-else cases here, might not be able to cover them up.

Understand from below scenario.

I am a well grown up person, a householder. Living independently, standing on my own foot. Either I regularly pay visit to oldies or live with them. I take care of them although they are stingy, fool, unvirtuous etc. in terms of dhamma or might be physically as well. I respect them, wash them, provide them food, clothing, medicines, etc.

I also try to change their views, try to establish them in dhamma by myself trying to walk on Noble path of householder under dhamma.

Another Scenario::
Parents are enjoying their oldage in their own way, they have enough financial & physical support other than me. Either they don't want to see me or yes we have still good relation.
In this case, I am also living independently, living my householder life under dhamma. Here,  I maintain compassion in mind towards them & gives metta so as they would also take homage to buddha & his dhamma.

As a homeless or as a monk::
I am living my peaceful life and never turns back from my parents, if they are against me & want to kill me for I joined Buddhism, who cares? Death is certain? If they are not against me, it's good. Whatever the case is, I maintain compassion for the body I received from them. This compassion here acts as mental-vibrant-food for them and also as blessings for them. I am ready to accept them in Sangha, if they are ready to follow stated percepts.

Whatever the case is, I am not running away from maintaining compassion. I am not running away from the duties. I am not doing it to get something in return but by understanding as to how difficult it is for a parent to give out a new body.

This doesn't mean that I support their wrong view of buddhism or of dhamma. In terms of dhamma & sila in life, I am still determined & strong.


Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism?

Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism considering that there are no soul to transmigrate?

Though there is no soul (unchanging, eternal core in a being) there is a dependently arisen continuity of a person. If your are wicked, you continue in lower realms which are dominated by suffering, through like other doctrines this is not internal. In other words there is a continuum in the form of a causality driven process, but there is not solid, unchanging entity or part as person.

There is a probabilistic element what will be your last mind as this decides the next birth. In balance of probability your last mind will be good only if have done a great lot of good deeds near your death and habitually being doing good deeds. Also you do not know whether you die young or old so you have to cultivate goodness whenever you can.

Also being born in the different realms are like gravity. Lower realms attract the most. Also there is a higher chance that a bad thought will pop up at the last moment. So majority of humans end up lower. If you were to have a chance of getting to a higher realm you have to be very good. Therefore, it is the good that has some bargain for an upgrade from where they are.

  Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

Good friends are the main cause of being able to practice the Dhamma.

  Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

You should be careful when you act. If you act unwisely the result will not be desirable? If you are wise and act accordingly you will be able to reap favorable results.

  crave for more endlessly, and he live in want

Unsatisfied desires is also a source of misery and stress. This produces additional karma which also result in stress.

  happy that his life of want and endless craving will end at death, and he will be no more.

Reality is not what someone believes. Generally believes are far from reality. Dhamma is reality. You need to know it at the experiential level.

A person with the roots (craving, aversion or ignorance for lower rebirths and unselfishness, hatefulness and undecidedness for higher rebirths) will always be reborn. A person who is not liberate will have the roots. Also see: The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera


If this interpretation of those words of those words is correct, then FYI I think that is a common folk belief in non-Buddhist cultures too; for example:

don't jinx it

Anyone can explain this expresion to me? and in what context can I use it?

A jinx is a little like a magical spell, specifically to make something go wrong. It's often used to refer to something good that is hoped will happen, but that might not happen if you talk about it in advance. "Don't jinx it by talking about it."

Or this:

"How beautiful are the noble children! How large are their eyes! And so young too! Indeed, indeed, I might have remembered that the children of kings are men from the beginning."

Now, Tabaqui knew as well as anyone else that there is nothing so unlucky as to compliment children to their faces. It pleased him to see (the parents) look uncomfortable.

Or I can think of many other examples.

One possible (non-supernatural) explanation might be that things are likely to get "better" or "worse" by themselves, no matter what anyone says -- and anyone expecting a "good" state to continue might be mistaken.
For example, I once read another (non-Buddhism) aphorism, "good health is a temporary state which foretells nothing good" -- and I read something similar last night, though I forget where: the young Buddha telling an old man that only a fool would see their body as healthy.
A corollary might be that it's better might be that it's better not to say such things (i.e. if it's customary not to say such things then maybe this is one of the reasons for the custom). For example there's this story (which is maybe Zen or more possibly Taoist), about how it's wrong to predict the future (and predictions are often wrong).
Anther practical reason might be found in the (again, non-Buddhist) phrase: "Hope for the best but plan for the worst." If you're not aware of the possibility that things might (or will) go 'bad' then you have no plan to handle it or you're slow to recognize the need for that plan and put it into action.
Saying such a thing (e.g. "he is winning") might show an attachment to that thing (attachment to "his state-of-winning").


What is the state of a Zen disciples mind prior to a Satori?

It's a state known as Great Doubt, "dai-gidan" (Japanese) or "dayituan" (Chinese):

  In Ch'an and Zen practice, this represents a highly intense doubt about everything one thinks to be true, including the efficacy of Zen practice itself. (Oxfordreference.com)

For more information, please see the following question: How does the 'Great Doubt' compare to doubt.


Anatta in Tibetan Buddhism (How can we reconcile it with the Tulku?)

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

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

(Added latter)

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


Its been said that deep meditationl leads a meditator to another world, what is this another world actually?

What is called world in Buddhism is the six senses. When you meditate you experience finer senses which you can't experience via ear, nose etc. When you meditate you experience finer wholesome mental states.
The logic here is for example you can see only colours from your eye. Even if you become a Deva or Brahama with your eye you only see colours.


Tolerating Sensations VS Diminishing them

Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
What ever Buddhism could do, does, should, even experiences... The Buddha told, and such is it recited:

"Eggman!"
"Yes," the householder replied.
The Monk said, "Eggman, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing.
...
"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.
[6] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying.
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Candrakirti - what was his most important contribution?

There are different interpretations of Candrakirti, even among Madhyamika-Prasangika scholars. That said, Prasangika scholars generally hold that Buddhapālita (470 AD - 550 AD) gave the first Prasangika presentation in the form of a commentary to Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, but is not the founder of the Prasangika school. Bhāviveka (500 AD - 578 AD) then refuted Buddhapālita and is  to be regarded as the founder of the Madhyamika-Svatantrika school. It is thought that they did not debate face to face because Buddhapālita belonged to a lower class. Candrakirti (600 AD - 650 AD) then established the Madhyamika-Prasangika school by way of refuting Bhāviveka so-called Svatantrika positions. Candrakirti is held to be the founder of the Prasangika school (over Buddhapālita) because he established it through properly refuting another. It is sometimes thought that Candrakirti was Buddhapālita's reincarnation. It is also sometimes thought that he debated Bhāviveka face to face (although their commonly established date of their birth and death would not allow it)

As I said, there are different readings of Candrakirti, even among Madhyamika-Prasangika scholars. These differences are significant, and are in relation to:

The notion of other-emptiness & self-emptiness;
The nature of emptiness (whether it is an affirming or a non-affirming negation)
The way emptiness is realized (implicitly or explicitly)
The meaning of 'prasanga' and that of 'svatantra', and so forth.

I suggest that, first of all, you study the context and the possible meanings of the so-called Svatantrika / Prasangika distinction. Sara McClintock & Georges Dreyfus's The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make? is interesting.

The two main Prasangika positions are:

Gorampa's
Tsongkhapa's.

Gorampa is known for criticizing Tsongkhapa's positions: he goes as far as to say that Tsongkhapa is in fact a proponent of Svatantrika tenets. Thus, studying Tsongkhapa in order to know what Gorampa refutes would be most relevant.

In relation to studying Tsongkhapa, I advise you to read Tsongkhapa along with his main disciples: Gyaltsab Je and Khedrup Je. Khedrup Je is usually easier than Gyaltsab Je. Tsongkhapa's commentary to Candrakirti was translated by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, I will thus not expound on that. Also, from a Geluk perspective, we do not usually study Tsongkhapa's (or any Prasangika commentery to Candrakirti). We study Svatantrika commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara (i.e. Haribhadra, and so forth). Our gateway to the Prasangika system is other. It is Tsongkhapa's commentary to Nagarjuna (the Ocean of Reasoning), it is the Special Insight chapter of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, along with Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom, Gyaltsab Je's commentary to Shantideva (Shantideva also presented as a Prasangika himself). Having studied them, having understood them thoroughly, you could go a step further and read Candrakirti's root text (Madhyamakavatara) for yourself, and also read Gorampa's positions and his followers.

In relation to studying Gorompa, you may read
Ju Mipham, whose presentations accord with Gorampa's. Ju Mipham's commentary to  Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara is most relevant.


How is the Cognitive Process described according to Buddhism? How does it relate to modern Cognitive Psychology?

As for your second question, the relation between the Buddhist teaching and cognitive psychology is a topic researched by Robert Wright and presented in this course: https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism


Make merit is the core of the buddhist practice and is done by being resolute and practice deeds (through mind, speach and body) of generosity, renunciation and goodwill. This will gradually lead to the decrease of the defilements (greed, ill-will and delusion) and to the maturation of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Sharing of merit is one of the Ten ways of Making Merit because is a expression of goodwill and generosity and is done by inviting others to rejoice in the merits that you have done (which by itself is also a source of merit) or be intended that they do so. In other words, the more you practice merits, the closer you are to Nibbana. If you hold the intetion that others also make merit by rejoicing with your merits, this means that you are resolved in goodwill and generosity (which is right view/right resolve), thus, this is again a souce of merit.

  May all beings  —  without limit, without end  —  have a share in the
  merit just now made,  and in whatever other merit I have made.

  Those who are dear & kind to me  —    beginning with my mother & father
  —     whom I have seen or never seen;     and others, neutral or hostile;

  If they know of my dedication of merit,   may they themselves rejoice,
    And if they do not know,    may the devas inform them.

  By reason of their rejoicing  in my gift of merit,    may all beings
  always live happily,  free from animosity.

  May they attain the Serene State,     and their radiant hopes be
  fulfilled.

  Dedication of Merit


Most people have some story about who they are. They call this their identity, their role in life.

Think of this identity as a table with many legs. Each leg is one facet of their identity - for example, it maybe husband to the best wife, teacher to a loving children, son to wonderful parents, patriot of the greatest country, football fan of the greatest team, lover of the best food and so on.

We even call this the well rounded person, and we want to be very proud about the many interests.

Good. Now what happens when one of them is no longer true?

Since life is impermanent, any one of these legs can collapse.

When one loses one's parents to old age, one is no longer a son.
When one retires from one's job, one is no longer a teacher
When countries cease to exist, one is no longer a patriot or even a
citizen of the old country
When one's wife leaves, one is no longer a husband

and so on.

We can all admit, we have seen this happen, time and again.

Most people will watch one leg collapse and quickly prop up the table with a new interest. This is why some people take up dancing or something to fill their time when they get divorced. Or reminisce old stories about the good old times after they retire. This is their identity surviving always in new forms.

Meanwhile there is constant agony over the uncertainty about when one leg or the other is going to collapse, and they will rush to support it, and make sure it doesn't collapse.

When we aren't doing so well at work, we try to give the boss no excuse to be angry with us, is it not? We may never want to turn up late, or miss a day at work and so on. There is some fear here, and that is us trying to prop up that weak leg.

Now imagine we had no legs. Nothing to hold up. Then there'd be no fear, no pride, no ego, no sorrow. We can be whatever we want.

The nature of the mind is to produce thoughts, sometimes they can be pleasurable, and at other times they are painful.

When we identify with our thoughts, because they strengthen or weaken our identity - such as - "I am a very good teacher, or I am a sincere teacher, or I am a no good teacher" - whatever the story, positive or negative, this gives stickiness to the thoughts that relate to the story.

Then we can't let go of them. Even when they are hurting us, we hold on, obsessed with them, too attached to them, the thoughts are stuck to us.

Everything in this world is impermanent, yes?

Therefore the wisdom is not to derive our identity from such impermanent objects.

We aren't a teacher or a husband or a son or whatever - we are empty. We really are, don't take my word for it, or even the word of the Buddha, or the Buddhists, ask yourself. Were you born a teacher? Were you born a husband?

No, these things came into our lives at some point, and will leave our lives at some point. When we stop identifying with them, we are free, and our thoughts on them no longer matter.


The popular chant of metta is originated from the Theravada Tripitaka. This can be found in Kuddaka Nikaya->Patisambhidamagga->Yuganaddawagga Mettakatha

Read from page 130


For home decorating purposes, the statues hand gestures, condition or placement probably has some importance.

For buddhist practice, the above really has no importance at all.

(If you could elaborate on what you want to accomplish, it could be easier to answer your question).


Atheism falls under ucchedavāda which was vehemently rejected by the Buddha. It is one of two extremes that Buddha avoided by revealing the middle way; Pratītyasamutpāda.

  "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:.."
  -Kaccayanagotta Sutta


From the Madhupindika Sutta (MN18):

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

  "Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

  "Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.


Firstly, there are the five aggregates and the five clinging aggregates. From SN 22.48 and from this question:

  “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
  there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
  form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
  feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
  called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
  formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
  aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
  These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.

  “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
  Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
  or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
  form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
  … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
  that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
  there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
  the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
  of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
  is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
  aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
  aggregates subject to clinging.”

Secondly, from this answer, you can see that the Buddha still had intentions and could plan his afternoon. So, living arahants still have sankhara of the volition kind. Living arahants also have sankhara of the kind where you have physical, verbal and mental activities (from this answer).

In SN 12.38, we read that intention and planning alone are insufficient for the continuation of suffering. There must also be latent tendencies (anusaya). This was discussed in this answer.

So, living arahants still have  sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).

More precisely, living arahants have the aggregate of sankhara but not the clinging-aggregate of sankhara, because they have stopped clinging. See SN 22.48.

Thirdly, according to Iti 44 (quoted below), once liberated, the living arahant's ignorance, suffering and burning of the aggregates with the fires of aversion, hatred and delusion have ended. The fires have been quenched, but the embers are still glowing. These embers are the five aggregates (not clinging-aggregates). They will continue till the arahant's physical death. This is explained in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary.

  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining.

  And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining."

  Commentary (Thanissaro):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa)
  and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire.
  In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still
  glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers
  have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the
  arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates,
  but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion.
  When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of
  aggregates here or anywhere else.

Now, let's apply all of the above to the stock phrase that you had quoted.

  "Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
  comes the cessation of fabrications.

A foetus has ignorance. With that as the cause, the fabrications (physical, verbal and mental) arise. The rest of the clinging aggregates will also arise and dependent origination will become fully operational.

After he grows up, he becomes a living arahant. When ignorance has been overcome with no remainder, the five clinging aggregates will cease. But the five aggregates (of the non-clinging kind) remain till his physical death, as we saw in Iti 44.

  From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of
  consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation
  of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation
  of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media
  comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes
  the cessation of feeling.

Once again, this simply says that after liberation from suffering, the five clinging aggregates have ceased, because their cause has ceased. But not the five aggregates. The five aggregates, which are like glowing embers after the fire has ceased, will keep functioning till physical death.

Name-and-form is simply the mind-body link, which is anyway part of the five aggregates. The nidanas of fabrications (sankhara), consciousness (vinnana), name-and-form (namarupa), six sense media (salayatana) and feeling (vedana) are all located within the five aggregates. Hence, the distinguishing of aggregates from clinging aggregates in SN 22.48, is fully applicable to these nidanas. Also, the notion from Iti 44 that the five aggregates remain operating in an untainted way till physical death for a living arahant is also applicable to these nidanas.

  From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering."

When ignorance has ceased, the clinging aggregates cease. With this, craving, clinging, becoming and the rest of suffering, all cease for a living arahant.

The only thing that remains are the aggregates, untainted, till the living arahant's physical death.

If the five aggregates are different parts of a guitar, then dependent origination simply explains how the different parts of the guitar work together to create music (see Lute Sutta). Music here refers to the self (atta), which is what becoming (bhava) and birth (jati) is about.

For a living arahant, the music has stopped, but the guitar remains. One day, even that will be destroyed. The five clinging aggregates is like a guitar vibrating with music, while the five aggregates not subject to clinging is like a silent peaceful guitar.

Although I said music, it's more like noise. When the noise stops, you have peace. That's the living arahant's mentally cognized peace of nibbana.


Can a buddhist enjoy life - what are the limitations and restrictions

Welcome to Buddhism.SE!

Anyone who says that is misrepresenting Buddhism completely. The primary goal in Buddhism is the attainment of true happiness. The problem, of course, is that, according to Buddhism, no thing in the universe can bring such happiness. This is what is meant by the concept of uncertainty; not that we should always think  of it, but that it is a characteristic inherent in all arisen phenomena.

The good news is that by understanding this reality, we can find true and lasting happiness because we will no longer seek out happiness in that which cannot provide it. We will no longer face disappointment when that which we think of as stable turns out to be unstable; when that which we think of as satisfying turns out to be unsatisfying; and when that which we think of as controllable turns out to be out of our control.

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.

  All formations are impermanent. When one sees this with wisdom,
  thereupon becoming disenchanted with what is unsatisfying, this is the path of purification.

  -- Dhp. 277


Is forgiveness a fruit of evil wicked kamma?

Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala?

The king's initial fright appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's evil deeds.

The king's forgiveness appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's being tamed.

The king's believing what the Buddha said was -- I'd guess -- perhaps a consequence of the Buddha's earned reputation for speaking truthfully, as well as, his seeing for himself with his own eyes.

Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?

Are you kidding?

Angulimala's "intention" is perhaps as described by the Buddha:

  Angulimala [is and intends to be]  with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine character

... and ...

  [one who] poses no danger to you

I also tried to find what Angulimala's root intention or original intention was -- why was he like that now?

According to Angulimala -- A Murderer's Road to Sainthood (which you're quoting in the question), here is what that said about and quoted by Angulimala at the moment of his "conversion":

    (The Blessed One:)

    "Angulimala, I have stopped for ever,
    Foreswearing violence to every living being;
    But you have no restraint towards things that breathe;
    So that is why I have stopped and you have not."

  When Angulimala heard these words, a second and greater change of heart came over him. He felt as if the current of his suppressed nobler and purer urges had broken through the dam of hardened cruelty that had been built up through habituation in all those last years of his life. Angulimala felt now deeply moved by the appearance and the words of the Buddha.

  Angulimala's response and what followed is again tersely told in the Sutta:

    (Angulimala:)

    "Oh, at long last a sage revered by me,
    This monk, has now appeared in the great forest;
    Indeed, I will for sure renounce all evil,
    Hearing your stanzas showing the Dhamma."

His intention appears to be motivated by reverence for the sage and renouncing evil.

What you ask may be partially true though -- an advertised benefit of the (ethical) precepts is that they provide safety (and so freedom-from-fear, I presume) to all beings -- to that extent (i.e. it's because of those consequences) an intention to keep the precepts may include that intention to affect the minds of others or to share the benefit (goodwill and so on).

It's probably not supposed to be deceitful or impermanent though, e.g. in the way that "seduction" which you referenced is often portrayed to be.

And I think the effects of kamma aren't simple and singular, they interact:

I suppose there are many ways to describe his motive and intention -- e.g. "he does it because he knows what good and evil are"; or "because he sees the Buddha's good example"; or "for his own peace of mind"; etc.
Similarly the effects of kamma are numerous -- affecting himself, the king, and others.
And each person's actions are affected by multiple causes -- the king's forgiveness being affected by not only Angulimala but also by the Buddha, and the king's own ability.


tl;dr keep pushing yourself, but gently as Paul Sasik says. Also, keep an open mind because this stuff can be very counterintuitive.
Long answer
It sounds like you're practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, where one notes phenomena as they arise. In this case I can answer from my own experience in the tradition.
A few pointers:

Negative thoughts are just thoughts, so you have the opportunity to note "thinking".
Ditto for a clouded mind; you have there an opportunity to note "clouded mind".
Ditto again for guilt; if guilt is predominant then note "guilt".

The essence of this strategy is not to get enticed by what we perceive. Thoughts aren't intrinsically negative or positive; we mistakenly understand them to be as such. The same goes for feelings like guilt, and the realization that the mind is clouded. When we see them as they are, it's easier to remain in the here and now.
As for the wandering mind, I can say a few more things:

Try to abandon the desire for practice to go well—paradoxically this can hold you back.
Don't curse yourself. Cursing yourself is a form of identifying with your experiences.
Experiment a lot. Vary the quality of your practice—Does one note intensely, or note softly? What can be noted that was not noted before? What are the limits of what can reasonably be covered by noting? Do the limits change from one day to the next? Come up with ideas like these, and test them out during walking and sitting practice. At the same time, keep it simple. You don't want to get too obsessed with conceptual dead ends.

It can take a long time for practice to improve. But I can confidently say that my mind wanders much less than it did one year ago. In my 3 years of practice (one 6-day retreat, about 15 minutes per day on most days) I have found there are long stretches—perhaps days, weeks, even months—where no progress is made, followed by flashes of what seem to be insight, followed by the realization that they are just unusual experiences, and so on.
Lastly, as for maintaining mindfulness throughout the day: I find this one quite difficult. It improves with practice just like the wandering as I explained above. Personally my daily mindfulness is quite weak but at the same time much better than, for example one year ago. Another side of this is that the monastic lifestyle or a meditation course will give you the opportunity to develop these skills more quickly.
Be well.


It is important to consider the monk or nun does not eat after noon (12pm) therefore what you offer them must sustain or nourish them for the rest of the day.

Also, it depends on whether you visit them or they visit your home.

I offer a full meal of the food I personally prepare for myself, which is brown rice, lots of vegetables & protein (fish, boiled egg, tofu or combination). Plus some fruit.

If my home is visited (in passing), I spoon the food straight from my storage containers into their bowl (which, for me, is the cooking pots). The important thing is to not make a fuss about the offering because a monk or nun must be easy to look after.

I spoon the rice into the bowl, until I am asked to stop. Then the curry, until asked to stop. Then offer some fruits, which I place on the top of bowel or offer on a tray, so the person can take it (without hand contact).

If the ordained is of the opposite sex, you should avoid hand to hand contact but place things in & on the top of the bowl, on a tray or on a table.

You can also ask if they need any body soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, washing detergent, insect repellent, sunscreen, band-aids or other small personal items for personal hygiene & health.

You can offer tea or juice but generally they have water. Small long-life juice may be good they can keep for the afternoon (although some monks & nuns say fruit juice not allowed after 12pm).


Questions about reacting to bodily sensations

an example of a typical reaction would be bodily feelings of pain and reacting with aversion, anger, etc. Or feelings of bodily pleasure, and then the mind running off with thoughts of things from the past that the bodily pleasure reminded them of.
what you describe is exactly what should happen if you're doing breath meditation correctly, or kaya-gata-sati body immersed mindfulness correclty.  You're focused on the kinaesthetic experience of how the breath and bodily sensations feel in all the cells of the body, so the bandwidth of your attention is completely occupied with skillful thoughts of Dharma, and there's no room for unwanted thoughts and emotions to interrupt. This is training of samadhi, training the mind to think what you want to think and not think what you don't want to think, using the breath as a skillful way to occupy the mind.

Now where your question #1 is ultimately heading, building on #2, once you have stability and control of your mind, then you can observe sensations in the body without the 'reactions', typical deluded responses and filters we impose on top of the raw experience of mind and body, and instead use lucid discerning and wisdom to see reality moment by moment as it actually is, and by doing that, you free yourself from suffering.


What is the meaning of "gross or subtle" physical food as nutriments?

Food is manifold, Mr/mrs. Shai106.

There is food which sustains the physical body and there is food which sustains the mind. Food for the eye - consciousness, food for the ear - consciousness, nose - consciousness, thong - consciousness, body - consciousness, intellect - consciousness. These six kinds of food can be considered as subtle food.

If one for example compares the nutrition of certain gross food (normal burger) so ones joy will not last long. If one put the burger an sublime image on it, let be say "Shai106-honey burger" one would have both, the gross and the fine food and this will last long. If there is just the food of "Shai106" it does not last long. So when mind get good inter-nurished between sense and intellect, its a long lasting nourishment not so like it is if there is just one sense impressed.

That's why they do not sell cars any more but images. Not gross food but identification, so that it last long. This is but a simple practical explaining.

When we talk about moderation in food, all kinds of food are meant with it. Simply to maintain the life and not for the pleasure of it.

A straight explaining in regard of food, how to use food to abound food, can be found in the Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh

You may also, of course more in detail, read The Four Nutriments of Life - An Anthology of Buddhist Texts

Also a good talk, for your daily and practical use (since not only the food but also how to gain it is most relevant), in regard of food and livelihood, from the gross to the fine art of livelihood is: Right livelihood - The Noble Eightfold Path

In MN36 the talk is also on the matter of mental and bodily development and catches also the point.

If it should be more lit. Abhidhamma, this work might be of interest: Kalāpas – Groups of matter

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Sometimes, the Buddha puts in check any blind faith his listeners might have about himself or the dhamma itself. A notorious sutta here is the  Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta, where he explains that the reasons for Pilotika to believe the enlightenment of the Buddha are insufficient to have him to state it to surely. In this case, he uses the simile of the elephant's footprint:

  “Brahmin, suppose an elephant woodsman were to enter an elephant wood and were to see in the elephant wood a big elephant’s footprint, long in extent and broad across. A wise elephant woodsman would not yet come to the conclusion: ‘Indeed, this is a big bull elephant.’ Why is that? In an elephant wood there are small she-elephants that leave a big footprint, and this might be one of their footprints. [...]

On other occasion, the Buddha approaches people who are not his followers and starts his speech telling them to be careful about the reasons one believes in something. Such is the famous Kesaputtiya sutta also known as the Kālāma Sutta:

  The Kesaputtiya Sutta is a classic discourse on Buddhist epistemology, that is, theory of knowledge, or an investigation into what constitutes valid knowledge and what does not. [...] A remarkable feature of the Kesaputtiya Sutta is the comprehensive manner in which it covers the range
  of human knowledge and experience, that is, the cognitive, the conative, the affective and the spiritual. The cognitive aspect of the Sutta is covered by the Buddha’s reassuring that the Kālāmas have the right to doubt what is doubtworthy and exhorting them on the 10 doubtworthy points.

  -- Piya Tan

Another sutta that deals with the acceptance of views and how this acceptance affects one's life is the Apaṇṇaka sutta, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu has translated as "a safe bet".

  One of these means [the Buddha resorted to] was the pragmatic argument, which differs from empirical arguments as follows. An empirical argument presents facts that logically imply that A must be true or false. A pragmatic argument focuses not on the facts related to A, but on the behavior that can be expected from a person who believes or rejects A.

  The Buddha's main pragmatic argument is that if one accepted his teachings, one would be likely to pay careful attention to one's actions, so as to do no harm. This in and of itself is a worthy activity regardless of whether the rest of the path was true.

  When applying this argument to the issue of rebirth and karmic results, the Buddha sometimes coupled it with a second pragmatic argument that resembles Pascal's wager: If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife. These two pragmatic arguments form the central message of this sutta.

  -- Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Finally, the Brahmajāla Sutta is an important discourse that exposes what the Buddha calls wrong views. It is a great source to understand indirectly what the Buddha approves to be knowledge -- by understanding how he exposes faulty inquiries of many different kinds.

So, I hope suttas like these clarify that Buddhism does not demand one's blind faith on any matter. Not only it doesn't demand blind faith, but assertions about the Dhamma that have not being actually made known by those who proclaim it are subject to criticism (if the simile of the elephant's footprint is at all relevant).

Of course, all buddhists aiming at the goals of Buddhism have to have some faith in things beyond their current reach. That the goal (end of suffering) is reachable, and that the path presented truly moves one toward that goal  are two obvious instances.

But this faith is the very same faith one has on math class, or say, rock climbing class: faith that the teacher knows his trade, that it's possible for you to learn it, and that by the end of the course, you will know it. There's then a gradual "substitution" of that faith by knowledge; as you learn, the more confident in the path and teacher you become. This is daily activity, we all do it, and in Buddhism is not different.

Now, consider the situation were the student really, really needs the class and ponders over the options carefully. Then, the "unwavering faith in the Buddha" is just this: without fully trusting the teacher, one comes to believe one won't learn the class as well as one expects, or worst, one may think they are not safe under the care of the teacher. So right there the motivation ends and one abandons that class. That is why this strong confidence is required for those truly dedicated to realize the attainments declared by the Buddha, otherwise they will doubt the very possibility of it and abandon the training.

Strong as it may be, however, the faith is provisional. It's mere confidence. And if the suttas above are at all important, they point to the very same attitude that mature scientists show: that we should never assert things we don't know as true if we have not come to know them as true -- we can always say "according to the suttas", but that's different than saying "this is true".

On the other hand, no one interested in finding truth should discard nonsense because it's perceived as nonsense. For one example, for centuries the idea that the earth moves around the sun, and that the earth is actually spinning was nonsense (to our senses, it still is: I don't feel I'm spinning at all, and I can clearly see the sun moving around).

No one should also believe in science for so many reasons. One of them, is that science is supposed to be known, not believed in (that was the whole point of the scientific revolution centuries ago) -- this is quite aligned with Buddhism.

But the point is that rebirth has never been under sufficient scientific scrutiny, enough to yield any conclusive information. The same can be said about the brain. That doesn't make the brain "non-scientific".

So, throw away what is false, yes. But one better be cautious so one is not mistaken about it -- since we usually are not cautious and we usually are mistaken.

Last but not least, there are other interpretations of the quotes you provided, and many people believe rebirth in the suttas to be either a mis-interpretation or that it's presence in the texts are due to other reasons. Secular Buddhism, for example, is one branch that takes the so-called supernatural elements with grain of salt.

But many monks are actually agnostic about rebirth or put this subject aside. Ajahn Brahmali from the forest tradition thinks that this is appropriate middle way on this matter.


Within the Vinaya, a transgression (one that causes guilt or not) is overcome by declaring it to at least one monk.. The length of time it takes to overcome the transgression was set at the length of time the transgression was kept secret (keep some wrongdoing secret for a year, it is easy to imagine you won't just be able to consciously brush it off in one day!).

The quote on fools and wise people does this idea justice for me:

  "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
  pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
  fools.

  These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
  another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
  people." AN 2.21

(also, has always worked for me on a personal level - admitting wrongdoing and guilt, preferably in a non-secretive, open setting to others is usually the best way of admitting this to your self, and therefore starting the process of changing yourself for the better)


If someone was an Once-returner in last life how can he know that ?

"So my question is , If Someone was an once-returner in last life , how can he know it in this life ?"

When one has attained to stream entry and the higher stages such as Once-returner etc. both ones morality and spiritual faculties (indriyas) are well developed and firmly established.
When they are mature and well developed we call them the Five Powers. They work in unison each balancing and strengthening each other further.

This creates a powerful momentum and that momentum might mean that a Once-returner does not have the possible to "stop" on his/her path. That being would be so inclined towards Nibbana that anything else is not possible.

A Once-returner has done away with 3 of the lower 5 fetters and have weakened fetter no. 4 and 5. Especially the removal of fetter no. 2 (doubt in the Buddha) is important. A Once-returner will have full confidence in the Buddha and his teaching as he/she has already destroyed fetters and entered into the noble path.

  "And if he does nothing in this life to attain nirvana, will he automatically be arahath and no rebirths?"

I'm not sure its possible to do nothing once one has entered into the stream.

Either way the Once-returner still needs to practice in order to remove the 5 higher fetters thereby attaining to Arahantship.

A Once-returner will be reborn one more time into the Sense-sphere Realm which contains; the Hell realm, Pretas, Animal Kingdom, Asuras, Human Realm and Deva Realm (heavenly realm).

As the 3 lower fetters has been destroyed a Once-returner can only be reborn in either the Human or Heavenly Realm.


As far as I'm aware, experiments of Dr.Ian Stevenson are referred to by Buddhists to convince materialists & the followers of monotheistic religions that there's a Samsara. There's no intention of getting them to believe in a soul. The approach isn't perfect as you have pointed out. But it could be effective for monotheists and those who refuse to accept anything other than what scientists say. Putting Anatta into the mix can make it too confusing for newbies. So as long as the emphasis is put on Samsaric existences, it should be ok.
A question related to memory and persistance is answered here.


Is their any Age limit to become a Buddha?

There is no such age or age limit. For example,  Kassapa Buddha, the sixth of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity, and the third of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa practiced austerities for only seven days. Kassapa Budda attained Parinibbhana at the age of forty thousand years. At that time children would get married at the age of 500 according to legend.


What is the most “genuinely Buddhist” kind of mindfulness?

If you look at this article which describes The Noble Eightfold Path,

Chapter VI: Right Mindfulness (Samma Sati) talks about "bare attention"
Chapter VII: Right Concentration (Samma Samadhi) talks about "centering the mind on an object"

So I think they're both Buddhist, but one is called "mindfulness" and the other "concentration".


Isn't Buddhist insight practice more scientific than the so-called scientific method?

I like this question (I've cleaned it up a bit for clarity).

Basically, what it's asking is whether Buddhist practice should be considered more or less scientific than the scientific method. I've tried to make this argument before - most recently in a talk at the University of South Florida. The concepts are still a bit vague, but I think the argument is sound.

The problem is in defining what constitutes valid scientific inquiry, and what is meant by knowledge.

In material science, the frame of reference is an interpersonal environment where the requirement for evidence is third-person verifiability. A theory is only considered scientific if there is some means of impersonal falsifiability (i.e. can it be disproved by a third person through experimental means). Observations should be made by an impartial third party (preferably a double blind where the observer and the administer are two different people) reproducible by others undertaking the same experiments as the original observer.

In insight meditation, the frame of reference is internal and so any observations must be made by the individual themselves. Thus, their observations are seen as unreliable by the modern scientific community. Within the context of an interpersonal frame of reference, this makes sense.

An argument in defence is that the frame of reference in Buddhism is not interpersonal - i.e. it doesn't matter whether I "really" made observation X; what is important is that I perceived it as being observation X. Using this premise as a basis for investigation, I think it is still possible to separate objective observations from subjective ones, though it is of course more difficult.

The difficulty I've found is in explaining Buddhist insight practice as objectively objective; how can one prove that the act of reminding oneself "seeing" actually allows oneself to be completely objective? I think there is some logic behind the fact that reminding oneself of the inherent nature of the observation creates objectivity, but it is still an uncertain hypothesis.

I think the answer lies in the expected outcome; we would expect experimentation A to be objective if it brought about consistent, reproducible (again, only by the individual) results in all situations. Subjective experimentation would lead to inconsistent results. Objective experimentation would also be expected to lead to clear definition of the nature of the objects of observation (i.e. object X appears to invariably display property A).

Such principles could then be verified between experimenters; interviewing individual meditators could potentially lead to patterns of observations of the sort mentioned above.

The point of all this is that there is at least a quasi-scientific aspect to personal meditation; it need not be discarded as purely subjective, especially since it is acknowledged that the mind does seem to follow orderly principles.

Where this all gets interesting is at the level of enlightenment, where a meditator actually claims to be certain of their observations, due to overwhelming personal evidence of its truth. Obviously such certainty is useless in an interpersonal frame of reference, but for the meditator themselves, such statements can perhaps be examined and differentiated between. For example, a meditator may come to a certainty through faith, in which case it will be of a specific quality that must be different from that arrived at through overwhelming evidence. The former would be subject to alteration in the face of further observation (or even over time), whereas the latter would only be confirmed through further observation.

From the frame of reference of the individual, then, it wouldn't matter what anyone else said about the subjectivity or invalidity of their claim; since their every observation reaffirmed the certainty of their conclusion, they would feel their claim to be scientifically arrived at, and it would be impossible to shake them of that conviction without resorting to tactics like brainwashing.

Further, once a meditator attains nibbana, even brainwashing would be unable to shake their conviction, since their very being would be changed by the realization; not clinging to body and mind, they would be impervious to all attempts at subversion.

The point here is that they would regard their certainty as scientifically gained; i.e. through what they felt to be objective observation. The obvious criticism is that anyone can claim such objectivity, even in the case of those under the influence of subjective partiality. Again, this is only important in the case of an interpersonal frame of reference. Within one's own mind, it is completely up to the individual to critique their own observations, since it is indeed only they who can possibly determine whether an observation is objective or not.

We therefore place the onus on the individual to critique themselves, and assume that there is indeed a means by which one can distinguish a subjective state from an objective one. Defining criteria by which one could undertake such discernment would assumedly look a lot like the Buddha's own methodology of separating experience out into constituents parts and subjecting each aspect to rigorous inspection to determine natures of each aspect and relationships between aspects.

In the end, then, the idea would be that the meditator would be able to cultivate an increasingly objective outlook on their own experience, eventually culminating in a paradigm shift from subjective partiality to objective observation, at which point they would intuitively understand the nature of observable phenomena.

The purpose of this would be a heightened level of "knowledge" (i.e. certainty) about a given claim, e.g. "no experience is worth clinging to". The idea here is that such knowledge would be weaker without such cultivation.

The question, then, is whether such knowledge is superior to material scientific knowledge. Obviously, it is inferior in the sense that it cannot be directly shared with others, but given the premise that anyone can undertake the same practices, with the claim that they will achieve the same level of knowledge, even this is a poor argument. Equally obvious is the superiority in the sense of the level of individual certainty which, according to an arahant themselves, would be absolutely and eternally unshakable.

The only really valid criticism is as to whether such certainty can be in any way distinguished from simple brainwashing. The defence against this criticism, I think, lies in the ability of an individual to distinguish between states of knowledge; in fact, there is the sense that brainwashing is not knowledge in any real sense of the word, since the certainty would go against one's own experience.

Which is another key point (sorry for my meandering thoughts) - that there are two levels of observation - the conceptual and the ultimate. Whereas the nature of and relationship between concepts can be changed, those of the building blocks of experiential reality are immutable.

For example, an experimenter may administer an experience to trick the subject into finding a correlation between stimulus A and result X where there wouldn't naturally be one (e.g. A Clockwork Orange). What the experimenter cannot do is affect the perceptions of the individual itself. So, while it is possible to brainwash someone into believing that violence is a cause of nausea, it is not possible to alter their observations of the experience of the violence and the nausea, because the building blocks that make up the experience cannot be changed, nor can their relationships. This seems like a reasonable premise, one which allows an individual to potentially discriminate between brainwashing and true knowledge.

Obviously, since there is no potential for peer review, such discrimination is extremely unlikely to occur in the average individual, hence the esteem given to the Buddha; still, this doesn't invalidate the claim that it is technically possible, given the right tools and determination. The important point is that it is not only possible, but absolutely preferable given the inherent strength of such knowledge, even over peer-reviewed material scientific knowledge.

Or something like that :)


Can the change due to impermanence be considered intelligent?

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

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


Do all words belong to conventional truth (Sammuti Sacca)?

All words are like sign posts. The meaning of it is an idea that is in the mind of the person who is speaking it. And the communication will take place if the person who hears it has assigned the same meaning to the word in his/her mind.

Therefore the shared meaning has to be previously agreed upon or communication will not be very effective. As a result it is extremely difficult to communicate an idea (ex: enlightenment/dhamma) when the receiver has no data points to relate to. They become merely words.

So yes, the words don't have the properties of what they refer to. For example Alan Watts once said that "You can't get wet from the word 'water.'".


Here's the chant with translation:

  Itipiso Bhagava (He is indeed the Exalted One)
  Araham (far from
  defilements)
  Samma Sambuddho (perfectly enlightened by Himself)
  Vijjacaranasampanno (fully possessed of wisdom and excellent conduct)
  Sugato Lokavidu (knower of the worlds)
  Anutaro Purisadhammasarathi
  Sattha (unexcelled Trainer of tamable men)
  Devamanussanam (teacher of
  deities and men)
  Buddho (the Awakened One)
  Bhagavati (the Lord skilled
  in teaching Dhamma)

  Svakkato Bhagavata Dhammo (well expounded is the Exalted One’s Dhamma)
  Sanditthiko (to be seen here and now)
  Akaliko (not delayed in time)
  Ehipassiko ( (inviting one to) come and see)
  Opanayiko (leading
  inwards)
  Paccatam Veditabbo Vinnuhiti (to be seen by each wise man for
  himself)

  Supatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced well)
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato
  Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple
  who have practiced straightly)
  Nayapatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho
  (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have
  practiced rightly)
  Samicipatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which
  is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced
  properly)
  Yadittam (that is to say)  Cattari Purisayugani (the four
  pairs of men- those who are in the four pairs of Noble Path and
  Fruition)
  Attha Purisapuggala (the eight types of individual persons-
  those who are with the mind of a Stream Winner up to Fruition of
  Arahantship)
  Esa Bhagavato Savakasangho (that is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciples)
  Ahuneyyo (worthy of gifts)
  Pahuneyyo (worthy
  of hospitality)
  Dakkkhineyyo (worthy of offerings)
  Anjalikaraniyo (who
  should be respected)
  Anuttaram Punakkhetam Lokassati (incomparable
  field of merit to the world)

(source http://methika.com/pali-chanting/itipiso-chant/)


If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain breaks-up and cease to function?

To understand this you need a complete paradigm shift in the way you are thinking. Stop looking at the world in terms of entities. Drop everything that you think is real involving entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences arising and dying. In this world you have six types of experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling(tactile) and thinking. You have firsthand knowledge that arising of these experiences is real because they can be sensed. Once you make this paradigm shift, you will understand that the brain is not an experience. The brain cannot be sensed. It is nothing more than a concept fabricated in a thought. No direct knowledge can be gained by building theories based on fabrications. So the question of what happens to the mind when the brain is dead does not arise as it doesn't exist in the first place.

Karma is not a thing that is transmitted anywhere. Karma is simply the volitional action involved in each experience. That volitional action dies with the experience. But it can give a result immediately or in the future. You need to do Satipatthana meditation to see this happening. Ex: if a pleasurable experience arises and you get attached to it, suffering follows when it dies. This is the immediate Vipaka(result) of the Karma you just committed. In the future also if you cannot get this experience, suffering will arise. This attachment also creates a habit of doing things to get similar experiences. This gives rise to new experiences involving fresh Karma.

It is impossible to understand the complete dynamics of Karma unless you become a Buddha yourself, but when you start looking at the world through meditation, you will see that this continuous arising of experiences goes on and on until you cut off what is fueling them to arise. I.e. craving. Even though we do not have complete comprehension, this understanding of Karma is enough to work towards ending of suffering.

In this framework, the medical definition of death becomes just another concept involving entities. You will see that as long as there is craving, the arising of new experiences will never stop. Once the thought pattern makes this paradigm shift, questions like how the mind is transferred to a new body after death etc. do not arise as there is no constant thing called the 'mind' and there is no constant thing called the 'body'. The reality is made up continuous arising of experiences. These experiences have a physical aspect and a mental aspect. They arise due to causes. Read the Paticcasamuppada to get an intellectual understanding and do Satipatthana meditation for direct knowledge.


What are the 10 Samadhis of the Avatamsaka Sutra?

My take on these kinds of lists in Mahāyāna sūtras, especially late ones like the Avatamsaka, is that they are literary devices. The Avatamsaka is a particularly literary text. It's mainly a work of imagination, a kind of elaborate, surrealist Buddhist novel.

The link appears to be to a summary rather than a translation. There's a ( illegal) copy of Leary's translation from the Chinese online here. (Chapter 27, page 811-862). A quick skim suggests that it may not give you the kind of information you are interested in.


No, the Blessed One renounced his will to live-on on his own volition since the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples... just like the paragraph says. It's not like Mara could've done anything about it, had the lord said no.

Enlightened beings feel hunger, taste, smell and other bodily sensations caused by contact as long as they have functional sense doors. But they do not get sexual feelings as it requires lust to play it's part.


Counting breaths on phalanges (with thumb) - up to 12*12=144.
"Tonglen": breathing in all the suffering of the world, breathing out happiness.
Gladdening one's mind through "noble" posture and facial expression.
Zen-style. Just sitting, no matter what happens. "Don't go with the thoughts, don't go against the thoughts".
Energy. Identify blobs of emotional energy on and around body and dismiss.
Minimizing the amplitude. Watch the diaphragm when breath reverses direction and keep reducing the tension/effort.
Bowing meditation (aka half-prostration).
Bamboo meditation. Stand up with eyes closed and slowly rock back and forth while focusing on the centers of the feet.
Dahnmu (energy dance). Stand up with eyes closed and move freely as your body wants expressing yourself.


The sutta below lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled (basically the five precepts)
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.

From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

  Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
  of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
  is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
  discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
  method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
  animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
  states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
  stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening!'

  "Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?

  "When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
  condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
  fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
  pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
  produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
  animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
  of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
  animosity is thus stilled.

  "When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...

  "When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
  that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
  animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
  lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
  refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
  nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
  experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
  from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
  that fear & animosity is thus stilled.

  "These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.


Is it necessary to be socialize to understand dhamma?

So, Is it necessary to be socialize ?

Life would be difficult, even impossible, living completely alone. There is a reason that the sangha is considered one of the three jewels in buddhism.

  If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ?

Yes. Your understanding is on point. Withdrawing into reflection is helpful for developing a buddhist practice from time to time.

  If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts)

Perhaps you are right, one could possibly avoid developing aversion in solitude. However, to a larger extent, it seems to have a tendency to foster a feeling of alienation. Too much time alone may make us less accustomed to relate to others, even though we may have good intentions.

In the noble eightfold path, right effort isn't just about preventing aversion to take a hold of us. It is also about developing skills that we may not have right now. Prosocial virtues, such as the brahmaviharas is most likely impossible to cultivate in complete solitude.

From Magga-vibhanga Sutta:

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html

  Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

It is likely within your control, and i believe it is a form of control that is beneficial, and not the clinging/grasping type of control.


Is Meditation a cure or just fighting of symptoms?

That depends on the type of meditation you do. To most people, meditation is all about focusing the mind on one thing and enjoying the bliss that comes with it. This type of meditation is called Samatha(tranquility) meditation. There are many forms of Samatha meditation. Ex: breath meditation, loving kindness meditation, repeatedly chanting a word etc.

Samatha meditation is taught in Buddhism too, but the meditation type that is unique to Buddhism is Vipassana(insight) meditation. Samatha meditation is mostly about fighting off the symptoms and looking for a temporary relief. Vipassana meditation is about curing the sickness that causes the symptoms. Here's a handbook on how to practice Vipassana.


Where does it say Siddhartha Gautama mastered all types of meditation?

In the Maha-Saccaka Sutta it describes his learning some meditation types/techniques, from teachers, before he sat and was enlightened:

  Alara Kalama ... the dimension of nothingness.

~~~

  Uddaka Ramaputta ... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

~~~

  Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost.
  None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives
  in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to
  their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this.
  Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling
  painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the
  utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of
  austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any
  distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones.