Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life.


Dwelling Upon Seeming Levels of Emptiness?

Impermanence is unsatisfactory. Chasing impermanence leads to suffering. What then should be known as known?
To this point, the Venerable Sariputta teaches:

DN34:1.3.23: What two things should be produced?
DN34:1.3.24: Two knowledges:
DN34:1.3.25: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
DN34:1.3.27: What two things should be directly known?
DN34:1.3.28: Two elements:
DN34:1.3.29: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

The conditioned and unconditioned elements are known by their characteristics:

AN3.47:0.3: 47. Characteristics of the Conditioned
AN3.47:1.1: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:1.2: What three?
AN3.47:1.3: Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:1.4: These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN3.47:2.0: Characteristics of the Unconditioned
AN3.47:2.1: “Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:2.2: What three?
AN3.47:2.3: No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:2.4: These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

These characteristics guide the knowing.
Knowing is informed by perception. Perceiving the form of a cup, one perceives simultaneously the emptiness within. They are one and the same. By relinquishing form, emptiness necessarily grows as described in MN121:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.


Is masturbation a sin when we do it to avoid intercourses with other people?

First off, Buddhism and karmic faiths generally don't really have a concept of 'sin'. 'Sin' is a Western conception — a feature of Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) faiths — that points at behavior that is punishable by some divinity. In karmic faiths, behaviors contain the seeds of their own consequences. Behavior that leads one astray isn't 'sinful'; it is misguided, unskilled, steeped in ignorance, etc...
Masturbation isn't sinful for a Buddhist. The question for a Buddhist is whether the act leads one further into ignorance or towards realization.
Buddhist monastics set aside sexuality less because of its outward consequences — social evaluations, pregnancy, possible diseases, etc — than because of its inward consequences. Sexual activity produces strong emotions, and can lead to attachments, desires, cravings, etc. Sexuality does not easily lend itself to the cultivation of peace and detachment that lies at the core of Buddhist practice (though Tantric practitioners might disagree), and since monastics are intent on creating the best possible environment for realization, sexuality gets in their way.
This isn't as true for lay practitioners, who aren't as dedicated to the practice (at this point in their spiritual development), and who live within the conventional world of love, marriage, children, and such. Lay practitioners are advised (more or less) to keep sexuality from becoming the kind of obsessive behavior that causes harm to oneself or others. Affairs, 'playing around', abuse or degradation, etc, are not 'sins', but they can cause harm to others and foster unhealthy attitudes in oneself, and so one must 'take care.' In that same vein, there is nothing specifically wrong with masturbation, except that it too can foster unhealthy attitudes, and can have an impact on your relationships with others. If you are constantly thinking about masturbation and the pleasure it brings you, for instance, you will find it very difficult to maintain a calm, peaceful mindset, and who knows what effects that constant craving for pleasure might have on your worldview? One can be fixated on masturbation just as easily as one can be fixated on having sex with others; neither fixation is likely to work out for the best. Meditating through a bout of sexual energy might give you a lot of insight into whatever karmic forces are at play in your life...
P.s. Just so it's said, masturbation does not prevent sexual assaults. Masturbation certainly does not prevent anyone from being assaulted by others — I mean, how would that work? — and while masturbation might ease the momentary frustrations of some person who is likely to commit sexual assault, it is not a cure or solution. Sexual assault is not about sexuality; it's about power and dominance (in the same way we sometimes see dogs mount each other to establish leadership), and relieving the momentary sexual urge does nothing to relieve the deeper tanhā for subduing others. That is a hazardous misconception; please don't spread it.


Jobs indirectly related to the meat business

The reason the Buddha suggested we abstain from certain things is not because of the morality of the actions themselves, but because of the effect these actions have on our minds.

The fact that you are even asking this question illustrates there is some sort of mental suffering/inner conflict that has arrisen. This is the suffering we are attempting to avoid by abstaining from specific actions. This is what the Buddha warned us of.

You are always free to do whatever you wish! I would just suggest you not do something that brings you suffering.


As explained in many suttas, for example in MN121, in the gradual training approach the signless concentration is the next step after "neither perception nor nonperception" and the last step before The Final Liberating Realization.
If you search this site for the words signlessness, signless, nimitta, animitta, and semiotics - you will find many of my detailed answers on these topics.
For a detailed analysis of Pali sources, see this nice article: "Signless" Meditations in Pali Buddhism.
This topic is of the utmost importance because it connects the Early Buddhism and Mahayana into one teaching.


Sutta on which Buddha states the gravity of merits

I believe you're looking for Velāma Sutta (AN 9:20). Here's  Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's translation: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_20.html


As my teacher explained, the reason we are needy and clingy is because we have not discovered how to be our own source of "energy". We are like babies depending on mothers' tits for nutrition, in this case emotional/psychosomatic nutrition.

In order to become independent, we must learn to obtain energy by ourselves. The entire Buddhist path can be seen as a method for gaining complete independence from external circumstances as far as energy. Once we learn to be completely independent, we are free (call that Enlightenment, Nirvana or anything you want).

In order to understand energy we must understand the principle of this/that conditionality and 2nd/3rd Noble Truths. In brief summary: when "is" and "should" match, we feel gratified, we gain energy. When "is" and "should" mismatch, we feel miserable, we lose energy. When we clearly see this principle at work in our own lives we can extract all kinds of tricks from it.

Famous Buddhist trick is to let go of "should" (aka attachment) in order to liberate oneself from the mismatch and thereby cease suffering. A more advanced trick is to transcend any and all "is" and thereby make oneself immune to any future suffering.

But there is other side to this equation, and it involves taking advantage of matching "is" and "should" in a positive way. If you frame your goals and values, and your achievements in such way that "is" and "should" match, you can extract energy from the same mechanism that normally generates suffering. Buddha described it gloriously in many suttas on Jhanas.

In fact, generation of energy is one of the most important practices in Buddhism, but not all practitioners realize that. And how do we generate energy? We generate it by setting up clear criteria for success, achieving them, and congratulating ourselves on the achievement.

Traditionally in Buddhism this is practiced as Sila. We vow to uphold the precepts, then we uphold them, then we examine ourselves, congratulate ourselves, and extract energy from the achievement, energy we can then reinvest back into practice. But it does not have to stop with Sila. Every and all action can be a source of energy. Starting with simple daily tasks. We can set our own standards of perfection for tidiness and cleanness in our household. Then we can slowdown and put some determination into implementing our standards. Then we can observe ourselves having achieved it, congratulate and extract energy. Makes sense?

This works even at the level of day to day actions. If we set our own standards for dressing comfortably and looking the way we want, and then stay true to our own standards every time we dress, the daily ritual of dressing becomes a source of energy.

In general, being consistently perfect by your own standards minute after minute, hour after hour every day - is an incredible source of energy. It is a nuclear station we always carry with us.

Achieving this level of satisfaction requires developing a perfect connection with ourselves. We must be in deep touch with our inner core, with our true nature, so we can always stay true to ourselves, never rushing, never compromising with our truth.

When we are like this, we don't depend on any external source of energy, we don't even depend on favorable circumstances anymore, and not even on success. We get a kick from the very process of knowing that we always stay true to ourselves and always do our (optimum) best, given the multifactor/multidimmensional limitations of the circumstances.

This in itself is a path to Enlightenment, if you follow it through to the very end. But it can also serve more mundane purpose, like making you free from dependency on a girlfriend. Dharma is a very powerful tool when one puts it to actual use.

Good luck with your problem and let us know if you have further questions.


Mahasi Sayadaw gives some insight, if not an actual answer in his discourse on the Hemavata Sutta:

The Buddha was constantly into the jhāna, and for that He is adorable. While, after the end of a part of a sermon the audience exclaimed in one voice, "Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! (Well done!) the Buddha went into jhāna even during that brief interval. And then He resumed the sermon. Such constancy is really marvelous."
There are occasions  for the audience to say "Sādhu" during my preaching but they are rather few. But in Myanmar it is usual for the audience to say "Sādhu" at the end of a Pāḷi gāthā (verse) of which the preaching monk gives a literal translation. When the monk ends in a long drawn-out voice with the (Myanmar) phrase "phyitkya le dawt tha dee" the audience says without any hesitation, Sādhu. They don't care to notice whether the verse so recited and translated relates to a subject which calls for an exultant hailing or not. They just note ending words "tha dee" and drone out "Sādhu."
For instance, in the Vessantrā jātaka, king Vessantrā gave away his two children, a son and a daughter of tender ages of four or five, to Jujaka Brāhmin. The Pāḷi verse in that connection describes the Brāhmin's cruel treatment of the children who wept desolately; how the Brāhmin beat them cruelly and dragged them away. When the preaching monk recited that verse and translated it into Myanmar and ended his version with the usual "tha dee" the audience droned out the usual  "Sādhu". Well, that is the part of the story which calls for sympathy and sadness from the listeners, not exultation, and so the  "Sādhu" went awry. But in Myanmar the audience don't care to discriminate.
In Sri Lanka, however, the audience intones "Sādhu" three times only for the part of the sermon which related to attainment of Arahatship or Nibbāna, for that is an occasion of exultation when a congratulatory note of joy, such as "Sādhu", is called for.
During the time of the Buddha the practice of saying "Sādhu" must be of the Sri Lanka pattern. When the audience said "Sādhu" three times, the Buddha paused, and during that brief interval He went into jhāna, and soon after the saying of   "Sādhu" by the audience, He resumed His sermon, He never remained idle, How adorable!
The preaching monks of today may not be entering into the jhāna; that brief interval is probably the time of resting his voice or it is the time for him to think of the words he will utter when he resumes his sermon.

It was certainly common in the Buddha's time to respond to an appreciated statement with the word "sādhu"; this occurs throughout the tipitaka and commentaries. E.g.:

“aparopi ce, cunda, sabrahmacārī saṅghe dhammaṃ bhāseyya. tatra ce tumhākaṃ evamassa — ‘ayaṃ kho āyasmā atthañceva sammā gaṇhāti byañjanāni ca sammā ropetī’ti. tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditabbaṃ anumoditabbaṃ; tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditvā anumoditvā so evamassa vacanīyo — ‘lābhā no āvuso, suladdhaṃ no āvuso, ye mayaṃ āyasmantaṃ tādisaṃ sabrahmacāriṃ passāma evaṃ atthupetaṃ byañjanupetan’ti.
‘But, Cunda, if you think he has got the right meaning and expressed it correctly,... you should say: ʺGood!ʺ and should applaud and congratulate him, saying: “We are lucky, we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!”
-- DN 29 (Walshe, trans)

As for the tradition to repeat it three times, I can't find an example in the tipitaka; twice seems common - dual repetition in pali is certainly a common construction (e.g. punappuna.m - again and again):

“sādhu, sādhu, puṇṇa! sakkhissasi kho tvaṃ, puṇṇa, iminā damūpasamena samannāgato sunāparantasmiṃ janapade viharituṃ. yassadāni tvaṃ, puṇṇa, kālaṃ maññasī”ti.
“Good, good, Puṇṇa! Possessing such self-control and peacefulness, you will be able to dwell in the Sunāparanta country. Now, Puṇṇa, it is time to do as you think fit.”

There is mention in the commentaries (e.g. DN-A) of the phrase "tikkhattuṃ sādhukāramadāsi" ("giving a sādhu-making three times") but I am not clear if this really means saying sādhu three times. In modern times, this is certainly how the Pali phrase is used and understood, but we also see (Jat-A 540):

“sādhu sādhu, bhikkhū”ti tikkhattuṃ sādhukāraṃ datvā...
having given sādhu-making three times, [saying] "sādhu, sādhu, bhikkhu!"...

Anyway, it's clearly a part of the tradition since ancient times in one form or another.

As to why it is considered beneficial, rejoicing in the the goodness of others is one of the ten means of acquiring goodness.


What is the Buddhist definition of "Atta"?

From the viewpoint of Buddhist practise, as explained in SN 22.81, 'atta' ('self') refers to an ignorance created 'thought formation' (sankhara) that ignorantly assumes self-identity & ownership in relation to any of the five aggregates.

This ignorant assumption of self-identity & ownership is central in the generation of suffering, as explained in SN 22.1 and as explained in Dependent Origination (SN 12.2).

Therefore, in Buddhism, the primary importance of 'atta' is it is a central cause of suffering that is ever-present in the mind of the unenlightened person ('uninstructed worldling').

  Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ... assumes form as self (attato). That assumption, bhikkhus, is a formation (saṅkhāro). That
  formation — what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born (jatiko)
  and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that
  formation (of 'self') is born. SN 22.81

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form (the body) to be the self or the self as possessing
  form or form as in the self or the self as in form. He is seized
  with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with
  these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.

  There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed &
  disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is
  well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be
  the self or the self as possessing form or form as in the self or
  the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form'
  or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress or despair over its change & alteration.

  SN 22.1

  And what, bhikkhus, is attachment? There are these four kinds of attachment: attachment of sensual pleasures, attachment of views,
  attachment of rules and vows, attachment of words of
  'self' (attavādupādānaṃ). This is called attachment.

  And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings (sattānaṃ) into the various orders of beings (sattanikāye)...

  SN 12.2

Note: 'Satta' is a synonym for 'atta', in 'satta' is also a view about 'self'. Refer to SN 5.10 & SN 23.2.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever ... Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine (mama), this I am (asmi) not, this is not my self (atta).’ SN
  22.59

  It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is
  empty of a self (attena) or of anything pertaining to a self
  (attaniyena): Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty Suñña
  Sutta


Meditation on Awareness : objects and phenomena vs Awareness

Awareness is a big word, and lots of people idealize it, but in Buddhism awareness is considered something actually pretty simple.

When you look at an object (or a mental object), what really happens is, the features (signs) are recognized and checked against the storage of past experiences, and based on the matching associations an object is then identified. This process is cyclic, meaning, the features are constantly re-evaluated against the memories, and the results of the lookup are fed-back into the same process, finding secondary and tertiary associations and so on. This cyclic process is what creates the experience of "awareness".

When you turn attention to your own mind, nothing really changes, except instead of the external input (or a mental object input) you now have a re-representation of your own mind (your mind-model) as input. This proceeds in the same cyclic manner and creates the experience of "self-awareness".

On each iteration of the cycle, all we have is the content of mind, which is a result of looking up the input coming from sensory organ, plus the last content of mind from the previous iteration, against the storage of past experiences. So on every step of the cycle, the content of mind is literally mind-made, it is comprised of whatever past experiences that happened to associate with the input. And if you think about it, this content is not "seen" by any "awareness" or "witness" (like the Brahmins used to think). Instead, this content of mind is matched against memory, but as soon as the matching associations are found, they slowly supersede whatever content we had on the previous iteration, and become the new state.

So even though we are fooled into thinking that objects of mind are "seen" by "awareness", in reality this seeming "awareness" is just the next set of matching associations coming up from the memory. There is no "I" or "awareness" there, just a train of associations following one another, morphing from one to another.

If you look very closely, there are no full complete "objects" in the mind at any point in time. It's more like, whichever part or aspect of the object you focus on, that's what your mind pulls out of memory by association. If you try to assemble an entire object, the mind actually pulls out several "key" associations and cycles through them, creating an illusion of whole.

Each sensory modality runs its own associative loop, so each sensory modality gets its own "awareness" - which means they can work in parallel with each other. So if the object exists across multiple sensory modalities (like, it has visual AND smell components) - then the visual and smell associations can be active at the same time, without the mind having to cycle through them one at a time, which makes it easier for the mind to fake an integrated experience of a complete object.

It's like that videogame that renders the world as you come closer. The road and the trees are created right under your feet, creating the illusion of a complete world. Same with awareness, the features of objects we look at are instantiated by associations, as we turn our attention to them, creating the illusion of a complete object.

So, to answer your question, the objects are indeed "made of" awareness, and not only that -- there are no complete "objects" ever, only fragments (features) - and they are nothing but pure awareness, pure associations. At the end of the day, both the objects and the awareness are "empty" - there are just signs upon signs and associations upon associations - substituted right-in-time on-demand to create an illusion of "objects", "thinking", "awareness" and "self".


Authenticity of rules for monks and nuns

People (e.g. those having left home, having left stinginess) who have mastered the fist step, who have gained the strainless eye of Dhamma, have neither doubts nor do they ponder much about it.

So why, if really like to know, don't simply follow them and why, if not follow them ponder about that much, being not you issue yet?

If seeking for doubters and waste a live by pondering around, there is a community working hard on being wiser as the elders for more than 2500 year. Simply join, there are plenty on topics on it. It's like science or watching news, everyday some new personal opinions.

If more tend to uproot doubt, to know for youself, avoiding association with doubt, foremost outwardly and also inwardly. Associate with admirable friends.

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


Do anyone have descriptions "Theory of relativity" and are there any relationship with Buddhist teaching?

Asking "what is the theory of relativity?" isn't on-topic on this site (which is about Buddhism and not, say, Physics). Someone could try to draw analogies between Relativity and Buddhism; and they may have some characteristics in common (e.g. they're both dharmas, both anatta); but IMO there's little or no relationship (except that someone can try to learn both and then try to relate them).

One possible relationship is the idea that a frame of reference isn't privileged -- i.e. things exist in relationship to other things (which reminds me of "Indra's net", and of "this/that conditionality").

When we study the theory of relativity seems to get root from Buddhism with the descriptions of time flow in six realms.

There is a phenomenon called relativistic time dilation: if I were one of those twins, it would seem to me that I age at whatever the normal rate is but my twin ages at a different rate.

I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt that) is the same kind of "different time flows" that you might read about in Buddhism.

There's an idiom in English "time flies when you're having fun" (see e.g. this article). Possibly the "time flow" described in Buddhism is more like that, i.e. it's a description of subjective time flow.


This is an interesting point. My (Asian) teacher explained to me that integrity as a concept has a different meaning in Eastern culture.

We in the west often assume that integrity = honesty. But really if you think about it, integrity is the opposite of corruption. Integrity is being true to the right values. In the Eastern society permeated by Mahayana Buddhism social harmony is such primary value. So integrity in this sense means, being committed to maximizing the social harmony and well-being. Even at the expense of technical scientific honesty.

In the examples from the sutta, Buddha praises a man who deemphasizes other's faults, emphasizes other's virtues, emphasizes own faults, and deemphasizes own virtues. This is part of integrity in the above sense.

In Mahayana, upaya or expedient means is something that can be technically not true but practically of value, and so is preferred to naked truth that is often not palatable or even harmful.

My personal opinion is that The Wheel has rolled too far down this path, and I would like to correct that by being a little more upfront about things, but I still have to recognize that things are not always as black and white as our passion for brutal honesty would like us to believe sometimes.

Your example with job references is obviously not a scenario the historical Buddha had in mind. I'm not in a position to give universal guidance on a topic like this, but when I have to serve as someone's reference, I try to give a balanced response. Meaning, instead of unloading my subjective opinion of the person ("the truth") as if it was final, I try to be cautious with my conclusions, especially the negative ones, and give the person benefit of doubt. Which is sort of what the Buddha said.


Can consciousness exist externally without physical body?

In The Immaterial World this is possible. There might be times you fee so in meditation. Maybe when you enter Infinite Conciousness Absorption but even without this there maybe instances you may fee so.

  What is this state ?

You been born in an Immaterial World.

  How can this be explained in Buddhism?

You have generally have Nama & Rupa. In Immaterial World you just have Nama but not Rupa.

  Sometimes I feel that my consciousness is separate from my body.

This is not possible as I would believe you to be human hence having Nama and Rupa, in which case conciousness cannot exit without a physical body. This is the case in any other plane of existance other than The Immaterial Worlds.


Would the Buddha Shelter us from being offended?

Being offended is the very opposite of Buddhist practice. In the Assalāyana Sutta, the story is told about the seer Asita Devala, who was of dark skin, where the more the seer Asita Devala was insulted & reviled by others, the more radiant & beautiful his complexion became.

Being offended requires attachment of ego. No ego or no attachment = no being offended. The goal of Buddhism is to end "I making", "my making" & egoism.

Therefore, Buddhism does not offer us shelter from being offended but, instead, offers shelter to those who try to offend us.

For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, the Buddha exhorted a monk who was attacked by insults & rocks to: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it!".

  Then, Assalāyana, the seven brahman seers put a curse on the seer Asita Devala, saying: ‘Become a vile cinder.’ But, Assalāyana, the
  more the seven brahman seers cursed the seer Asita Devala, the more
  lovely became the seer Asita Devala, the more good to look upon and
  the more charming. Then, Assalāyana, it occurred to the seven brahman
  seers: ‘Vain is austerity for us, fruitless the Brahma-faring.
  Formerly when we put a curse on anyone, saying: Become a vile cinder,
  he became as a cinder; but the more we put a curse on this one the
  more lovely he becomes, the more good to look upon, the more
  charming.’

Also, MN 2:

  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.

And MN 21:

  Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’

  This is how you must train yourselves, monks.

  Monks, as low-down thieves might carve one limb from limb with a double-handled saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he,
  for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching. Herein, monks, you
  should train yourselves thus:

  ‘Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’

  This is how you must train yourselves, monks.

  If you, monks, were to attend repeatedly to this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw, would you, monks, see any way of speech, subtle or
  gross, that you could not endure?”

  “No, Lord.”

  “Wherefore, monks, consider repeatedly this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw; for a long time it will be for your welfare and
  happiness.”

  Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said.


Other answers say that kamma is already covered by, or implicit in, the first and/or second noble truths.

I think it's related to the fourth noble truth -- i.e. you say that kamma is important to attaining nirvana (and I think that "the path towards attaining nirvana" is what the fourth noble truth is about).

Or, perhaps, you can see "bad karma" and "good karma" in the second and third noble truths respectively.

I find the logical structure of the four noble truths satisfying or persuasive.

The first three have the structure of a syllogism:

premise: dukkha exists, and is this and that
premise: dukkha is associated with craving
theorem: dukkha ceases when craving ceases

So that's the doctrine "in a nutshell".

The fourth is, then, an introduction to the rest of Buddhism:

to begin to implement that in practice, see the noble eightfold way

I think that (as well as karma) there are other important aspects of dharma -- e.g. anatta, dependent origination, the sangha, the qualities conducive to Enlightenment, and so on.

So I don't see why you see the need to "privilege" karma (as more important than other doctrines) -- but it's helpful that there is a doctrine with only 4 (memorable) truths, rather than (less memorable) 20. The "4 truths" served as (and still serve as) an introduction to the dharma.

Or perhaps you're saying that the doctrine of karma should be privileged because it's the single most important doctrine to remember. If so, maybe you're not wrong; but there are also some other dharmas that people have been inclined to say are the most important -- for example, "right view"; or maybe "harmlessness", "generosity", "skilful virtue", "admirable friendship", "attention"; and so on.


How observance of the 5 Precepts is done?

You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind.
After while it becomes second nature to you.


Personal practice of vipassana meditation

You care too much of states and 'what is this, what is that'.
It's not necessary to know all this. There is too much wanting.

Whenever a question arises you should just say to yourself: wanting to know, wanting to know, wanting to know. Or just: wanting, wanting, wanting.
Get rid of all that desire.


I believe that you are looking for the term Pavarana.
Here is a description from The Bhikkhus' Rules: A guide for Laypeople:

Normally a bhikkhu will not ask for things. Instead, he will wait for
something to be offered. This is exemplified in the alms round where
the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although
he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving
on. One way that lay people enable a bhikkhu to ask them for help is
by making an invitation or pavarana.
The Buddha allowed a bhikkhu to accept pavarana or 'invitation.'
Such an invitation is made when lay people decide to commit themselves
to supplying medicines if a particular bhikkhu should ever become ill,
or it can be a broader offer of help. (Although a sick monk is allowed
to ask anyone for medicine, asking somebody who has already invited
him with a pavarana invitation is obviously preferable.) Therefore
if lay people meet a bhikkhu who seems worthy of help and support,
they may make such an invitation. Quite a number of the rules deal
with what and how much may be asked for when a donor makes this formal
invitation.
An invitation can therefore be quite specific about what is being
offered and how long that invitation will last. (Obviously, if
circumstances change or the request is unreasonable, the donor has no
obligations — and a conscientious bhikkhu is always sensitive about
this.)
A clear invitation will also help prevent misunderstandings. For
instance, the bhikkhu will know exactly what has been offered and so
will not ask for more than that; and the lay person will not be
overwhelmed by extravagant requests.
The original circumstances of the forty-seventh Confession Offence
were as follows:
A lay supporter possessed much 'medicinal ghee' so he invited the
monks to make use of it during the following four months. Much of the
medicine was still left, so he extended his invitation for another
four months and then extended it for life. The Buddha allowed this.
However, that same lay donor had once criticized the 'group-of-six'
monks because of their previous improper conduct so they decided to
take their revenge by asking him for an impossibly large amount of
medicine (ghee) and then criticized him when he could not immediately
produce what he had promised. This rule was set down:
"A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four- month
invitation [pavarana] to ask for requisites. If he should accept
(make use of) it for longer than that — unless the invitation is
renewed or is permanent — it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac.
47; BMC p.393) When the invitation is more vague — for example, a lay
person may just say, "If you need anything, Bhante, let me know" — the
bhikkhu should not exceed the spirit of the invitation. In fact some
communities consider that an invitation in which the lay person does
not mention any time limit is valid only for four months and that
taking up the invitation beyond that time is an offence.
A bhikkhu is always allowed to ask for requisites from his relatives
without having formal invitation first. (Whether they actually supply
anything is, of course, up to them.) 'Relatives' are considered to be
those with whom the bhikkhu has common ancestors back through seven
generations, on both the mother's and father's side. Here 'in-laws'
are not counted as relatives.
"Thus all descendants of one's great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-grandfather are counted as one's relatives... [although] a
bhikkhu at present would be well-advised to regard as his relatives
only those blood-relations with whom ties of kinship are actually
felt." (BMC p.183)


Is it fine to learn Vipassana meditation online?

Doing an intensive course at a dedicated meditation centre is incomparably better than online learning, but doing an online course or something similar is actually better in my opinion as a first step.

Often when people come to our centre having never practiced or having practiced a different tradition, they spend quite a bit of time becoming accustomed to the practice and accepting it. They waste a lot of time doubting and fumbling, and given they often have a limited number of vacation days it often makes finishing a foundation course difficult.

Much of the doubt and fumbling is mitigated by online teachings - most people coming to our centre have little doubt and lots of practice based on static teachings they have found on the internet. Moreover, those meditators who have completed our online course (which just means they practiced at least an hour a day and we talked once a week, giving them new exercises weekly) veritably and invariably sail through the intensive course since they are very well prepared for it.

So, yes, online meditation is perfectly valid, but I think it serves better as a preparation, rather than a replacement, for intensive practice which is best done with a teacher at a centre.

You can check out https:/meditation.sirimangalo.org/ for our online course system. There are some testimonials you can read I think, but I can say myself the online courses have made a big difference in our community.


How to become a samma sambuddha (Theravada)

According to the Buddhist literature, there are 10 perfections (in pali, Paramis) for one to develop to become a samma sambuddha. Everyone who wishes to attain Buddha-hood has to practice these perfections to a specific length of time. Our Gautama Buddha, for instance, had to willingly fulfill the ten perfections in his many existences for an innumerable period of time before being born as "Siddhartha Gautama".
The ten perfections are as follows:

Perfection of generosity giving
Perfection of Morality
Perfection of Renunciation
Perfection of Wisdom
Perfection of Effort
Perfection of Tolerance
Perfection of Truthfulness
Perfection of Strong Determination
Perfection of Loving-kindness
Perfection of Indifference towards all beings or Equanimity

Everyone seeking for Buddha-hood has to fulfill willingly all or most of these perfections, each in three different ways, in his every life for a very long period of time until he has already fully possessed all these ten qualities finally leading to Buddha-hood in his rebirth.
However, the time taken to develop these Paramis can vary from Bodhisattvas to Bodhisattvas. There are three types of Bodhisattvas, namely, Intellectual Bodhisattvas Devotional Bodhisattvas and Energetic Bodhisattvas. Intellectual Bodhisattvas take the least amount of time and Energetic Bodhisattvas the most. Our Gautama Buddha was an Intellectual Bodhisattva.


Being "Present" with the help of body sensations then how to proceed?

This essay on A Guided Meditation by Thanissaro Bhikku can help you.

I include a quote here:

  If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

  When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...


I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness. According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed.

The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication).

I suppose there are several different types of language barrier:

Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate")
Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf")
Understands one natural language but not another (e.g. understands english but not chinese)
Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha)
Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms)
Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.)
Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.)

Language is a "system of communication". It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands". There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".

On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'. Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon. Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication.


Was it ever stated that monks can’t show their psychic powers to lay people?

Perhaps you have confused with this rule from the Bhikkhu Patimokkha:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

This rule is more about attainments (e.g. jhana, stream entry etc.) rather than about psychic powers.


Vajrasatva Practice as training in ultimate Bodhicitta?

When you say "Vajrasatva purification practice" do you mean an appropriate visualization plus the hundred-syllable mantra followed by a dissolution?
If so then the answer is: no, this is not training in the Ultimate Bodhicitta, this is a preliminary practice.
If by "Vajrasatva purification practice" you don't mean the above mentioned sadhana but instead you mean the cultivation of the view that "In the absolute sense there is nothing to be purified, no one purifying, and no act of purification" - then that's training in Ultimate Bodhicitta.
There's nothing to be purified etc, - means you no longer regard yourself as a problem. Things don't require fixing because nothing is broken. In the ultimate sense everything is exactly as it should have been. All judgments like "dirty" and "pure" are mind-made categories, defined relatively to one another. That's the view of Emptiness.
When you cultivate the view of Emptiness, you get used to the idea that to let go and to open up is okay. You stop being driven by your hopes and fears and come out as authentic being. Instead of pretending to be perfect, you figure things out as you go, and that creates a sense of kindness and openness. Now you can actually relate with people.
This is why they say, first cultivate the Ultimate Bodhicitta and  only then the Relative Bodhicitta. Because the view of Emptiness is what gives that authenticity and relaxed attitude, that sense of not forcing your preexisting agenda on people that makes it possible to meet the real them. Only then saving others from samsara, the point of Relative Bodhicitta, is possible.


It depends which Buddhism we are talking about:

Both Theravada and Mahayana, including Zen, would consider romantic love a disease of the mind, a kind of pathological obsession. Theravada would offer the more universal emotion of metta instead -- the loving-kindness, although in Theravada it is usually applied as an antidote against hatred, for the benefit of one who experiences it. Most schools of Mahayana would sincerely rejoice in the selfless aspect of love. In Mahayana one is supposed to sacrifice one's interests for the benefit of others. Dropping one's ego is Mahayana's path to Enlightenment.

In Vajrayana schools though, emotions, including romantic love, are considered a form of energy that can be put to use, or at least accepted as part of the given. Vajrayana perspective would more likely align with your "pain is part of life" and "might as well enjoy the flower" conjectures. With one caveat though: Vajrayana would still appreciate the inherent fakeness of love, the mechanical nature of which comes from a match of partners' stereotypes and preconceptions. So even if a Vajrayana practitioner could play with the fire both in context of its ego-melting properties as well as for pleasure, they would not take it one-sidedly as an untrained run-of-the-mill person would do.

EDIT: what I meant by "Vajrayana practitioner ... would not take it one-sidedly" -- I meant that Vajrayana view includes both sacred and illusory aspects of love. In Vajrayana we are trained to see things from all the sides at the same time. Love is both sacred and a giant trick, as far as Vajrayana is concerned.

The predominant Buddhist sentiment here is that being disappointed/disenchanted (="sober") is a helluva lot healthier state than the state of intoxication by an object of mind. While Vajrayana is 100% aligned with this most fundamental of Buddhist principles, we do allow ourselves to get drunk, both metaphorically with love, and occasionally even literally - while staying fully accountable for the consequences - a trait of the universal adult.


Buddha's self-declaration without identity view and without conceit

SN 1.25

  [Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in
  final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be
  prone to vain conceits?

  [The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All
  delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such
  thoughts.  That monk still might use such words as "I," Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common
  worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.


Yuttadhammo, one of the moderators on this site has done a lot of youtube videos that people find very useful and you might too. All freely available.


Were there earlier western monks before Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya (Charles Henry Allan Bennett)

Gordon Douglas (monk),

Gordon Douglas has traditionally been seen as the first European to become ordained as a Bhikkhu in Southeast Asia although Laurence Carroll (U Dhammaloka) and others are now understood to have been earlier.1 He was ordained in Siam in 1899 or 1900 and assumed the name Bhikkhu Asoka or Ashoka.2

An online summary is Theravāda Spirituality in the West.

U Dhammaloka,

U Dhammaloka (Burmese: ဦးဓမ္မလောက; c. 1856 – c. 1914) was an Irish-born hobo (migrant worker)1 turned Buddhist monk, atheist critic of Christian missionaries, and temperance campaigner who took an active role in the Asian Buddhist revival around the turn of the twentieth century.
Dhammaloka was ordained in Burma prior to 1900, making him one of the earliest attested western Buddhist monks. He was a celebrity preacher, vigorous polemicist and prolific editor in Burma and Singapore between 1900 and his conviction for sedition and appeal in 1910–1911. Drawing on western atheist writings, he publicly challenged the role of Christian missionaries and by implication the British empire.

Found in the abstract of Rewriting the History of Early Western Buddhist Monastics.


The process of reintegration back into society after a retreat

I attended a meditation course taught by Venerable Yuttadhammo which was, in total, a 21 day course. Due to inability to take 21 days off from work all at once, I had to split the course into two parts, 7 days & 14 days, giving me two periods of going from the busyness of daily life to the quiet of a monastery and back to busy daily life again in a 6 month period.

I also wondered about how it would feel, after the course, to resume daily activities and to deal with people. I tried to provide a buffer period of quiet time for myself (for when I returned home) by making arrangements ahead of time to take off an extra day from work, stock up on frozen and non perishable groceries to avoid having to go to the store right away, running errands ahead of time when possible. It was helpful just to not have too much piled up needing to be done when I returned home.

I was surprised actually at how challenging it was to adjust to the quiet at the monastery. Being away from internet, music, and most noise in general proved quite challenging to me and it took me a few days to adjust. For future retreats, I plan to build in a buffer period of being offline and quiet for a bit before I go to the retreat too. After a few days though, the quiet felt normal and continued to feel normal until it was time to go home.

I didn't find myself with any strong aversion to people after the course. People seemed loud perhaps, laughing too much, crude sometimes, but nothing that I hadn't noticed or felt even before the retreat. On my way home I had a one hour layover at the Port Authority in New York City. Going from a quiet monastery to the New York Port Authority bus station is about as different as you can get. But it was fine. I was standing, smiling, noting things, while everyone else was running around, yelling, getting stressed out because the bus was late. I was so happy to have had the opportunity to practice mediation and feel so calm in the midst of such busyness.

My best suggestion would be to try to build in buffer zones both before the retreat and after where you are not especially busy, social, (or spending lots of time online or listening to music before) to ease the transition both to the retreat and back to society afterwards. Best wishes for your retreat! :)


I don't know of any canonical source explicitly and precisely dealing with this question. To start, here's what Bhikkhu Bodhi writes on the Pali Canon1:

  "Within the Pāli Canon, the texts known as the Nikāyas have the special value of being a single cohesive collection of the Buddha’s teachings in his own words. These teachings cover a wide range of topics; they deal not only with renunciation and liberation, but also with the proper relations between husbands and wives, the management of the household, and the way countries should be governed. They explain the path of spiritual development—from generosity and ethics, through mind training and the realization of wisdom, all the way up to the attainment of liberation."

What we know from these discourses and from the general structure of the buddhist communities is that:

laity (people holding jobs, wealth and family) is an important part of the buddhist community since the Buddha's time: they support monks with food, cloth, medicine, etc. (There's much more to be said here, though)
The Buddha taught to lay people how to have a proper lay life (instead of restricting himself to ask them to renounce family and wealth and become monks/nuns). That is, one conductive to good destination or Nirvana. One study2 found 208 suttas addressed to laity in the pali canon.

Now, what we can infer from the discourses is that Buddhism does not present a teleology, an ideal like "every being should be in Nirvana" as if everything else was essentially wrong (e.g. have a family, have kids, indulge in all kinds of worldly activities, etc).

What it does is recognize aspects of our reality, present an explanation for our essential anxiety, and offer a way to resolve it or diminish it, if one is so inclined to accept it and is willing to do something about it -- under various degrees of interest (from abandoning unwholesome actions of body/speech/mind, through meditation, or finally to deciding to abandon wealth and possessions to become a monk/nun). I'd say this is the character of every sutta.

Since any wholesome action is conductive to Nirvana, any wholesome action is a step forward, regardless if one is a monk or a husband. Thus Buddhism is regarded as a "path": it's a process. Furthermore, it classifies many stages of attainment, according to what kind of attachment has been eliminated.

Hence, some teachings are presented culminating in Nirvana. Other teachings are presented culminating in "a better destination after death" (e.g. some heavens where there's less suffering). If one is unwilling to abandon all attachments, Buddha dhamma still teaches how to ease suffering (and perhaps appear in a better place -- and maybe there, attain Nirvana). In any case, all buddha-dhamma teachings, ultimately, converge to Nirvana.

1 Bodhi, In the Buddha's words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon

2 Kumaratne, Manohari Savithri, Buddha's teachings applicable to the laity: Case studies from the Pali Nikayas


There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may be mutually exclusive to each other.

However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.

It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.

I'm not sure, but I guess Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness is similar to insight meditation (vipassana). You can find guidance on the basics of insight meditation in the booklet entitled "How To Meditate" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of dependent origination. Also read "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the Satipatthana Sutta.

But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by the five hindrances. To solve this, one technique is in the Vitakka-Santhana Sutta which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.

To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (metta) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.

For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.

Also, samatha meditation (see the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.

If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of virtue (sila) outside of meditation - see this answer for details.

So, although different approaches appear to be mutually exclusive, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the Noble Eightfold Path, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.

I'm not sure what did you consider as being mutually exclusive concerning emptiness. Philosophically, emptiness is defined differently in the Theravada and Mahayana traditions. You can find out about it in this question. Emptiness in the Theravada tradition is about the five aggregates and in fact all phenomena, being empty or devoid of a self. This is relevant for insight meditation, in the contemplation of mental objects (dhammas) i.e. for the fourth foundation of mindfulness.


Is zazen practised for its own sake, or as a means to end suffering? Experts seem to say different things

Actually, the answer is very simple: meditation is practiced to achieve tathata (suchness), which is a state of realization of the Third Noble Truth. Because tathata involves cessation of aversion to any "this" and of longing for any "that", its attainment requires a mindset without a goal. It would be more precise to say that no-goal is a method of meditation, but that would risk leaving some subtle shadow of goal in practitioner's mind, hence the official statement that meditation has no goal. Because Buddhism aims at liberation from (among other things) deep-lying stereotypes/assumptions and implicit conceptual boundaries it necessarily involves tricks like this. Another corollary of the above, is that it's never enough to reason about these things intellectually, one needs to take them on as actual frame of reference for them to have an experiential effect.

This point is well illustrated by Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count) -- the below amateurish translation is mine but here is another one.

  Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and
  said:

  -- As much as I, friend Shariputra, try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, try and see things with thousandfold-superhuman
  vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in
  tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I
  can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of
  mind".

  -- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I try and see things with
  thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.

  And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in
  awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused
  mind unscattered" -- this is your pathologic restlessness.

  And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped
  maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your
  remorse.

  You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three dharmas abandon; To these
  three dharmas not attending, the deathless aspect assemble with mind.

Here "the deathless aspect" (amrita-dhatu) refers to Nirvana, in this context also described as vajradhatu, "the indestructible space that accommodates everything, samsara and nirvana. Nothing can challenge this space. In spite of its clarity, or discriminating wisdom, it is still indestructible." (Chogyam Trungpa)

"see ourselves as we really are", "engage directly with reality" and "grasp enlightenment" -- all refer to the same thing. This is when "compassion" happens naturally. In order for this to happen, one has to "remove wrong perceptions", "remove all entertainment and distractions" -- which includes removing the notion of goal or attainment, hence "no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain" without any trace of "eventually".


How cognition can be explained in Buddha's Abidhamma?

According to the Abhidhamma, a single cognitive experience consists of 17 continuous thought moments. Here is a useful Abhidhamma manual which explains those 17 thought moments. Look for the "Mind in its passive and active forms" section.


No. Unskillful bodily action, which encompasses sexual misconduct as it pertains to the five precepts of the laity, was defined by the Buddha thusly:

He engages in sexual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
– AN 10:165

The main point, it seems, as with most things pertaining to the ethics of lay people, is to refrain from causing harm. Would you cause suffering to yourself or to another living being by engaging in a certain sexual act? If so, then that is unskillful. This view is supported by AN 8:39, in which the Buddha explains that the reasoning behind the precepts is that by behaving within those guidelines, one gives "freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings."
Now, what is considered misconduct for monks and nuns is a different matter. Should you be curious about that, I'd encourage you to read the Pāṭimokkha. In that case, just as a tangential point, the unskillfulness doesn't seem to be about disrespect to the Buddha, but just about the fact that engaging in the act of masturbation obstructs one from shedding one's clinging to bodily pleasure.
With Metta.


Well DN and Mn are long copies of suttas from AN and SN. The problem with AN and SN is their size.

Since people today say that the suttanipata [=Snp] chapter 4 and 5 are the oldest texts, and that They are read in a few hours tops, you can start here:

http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN391.pdf

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html

So the order would be about starting with short texts and collections, then the big collections, then go back to DN for a summary: sutta nipata chapter 4, 5, then 1, 2, 3, then MN, people like the dhammapada too so why not,  Then SN and AN in no order, Then DN,  then all the little added stuff in KN. Of course, there is the vinaya and the abidhamma too....

Here is a picture of all the catalog

The famous Bikkhu Sujato has written a few guides about all those Nikayas

A Reader’s Introduction to the Pali Nikāyas
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-reader-s-introduction-to-the-pali-nikayas/11507

more guides here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/reading-guides

Instead of reading, There are also records of MN, AN, Snp, KN, SN, DN
https://bodhimonastery.org/online-dharma-lectures

https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi/videos

http://www.suttavinaya.com/list-of-topics/

https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/videos

It will take a while to read or hear all that, especially if you do not spend the whole day doing that, so it is even better to begin with the short texts.


Was is the difference between "uparujjhati" & "nirujjhati"?

They are not synonyms, they have different meanings derived from the same root and different prefixes.

Nirodha means stop, suppress, not allow to go on.
Uparodham means enclose, blockade.

So aparisesa nirujjhanti means "completely stopped".

But asesam uparujjhati means "fully enclosed".

So in DN11 the guy was asking about place where the physical processes are completely stopped (aparisesā nirujjhanti).

But Buddha said, that's not what we are talking about. It's about "place" where the physical elements have no footing, place inside which all concepts like beautiful, ugly etc., all namarupas, all conceptual discriminations are fully enclosed or fully en-scoped (asesaṃ uparujjhatī).

It is the universal space of information, the universal space of mind, is where they are all enclosed of course. When all discrimination is stopped and this "space" is seen in its original undivided way, is when the unborn/deathless is attained. It is this space is what we in Mahayana call Shunyata.


Would a skin condition stop someone becoming a monk?

Previous lifestyle & herpes should not prevent a person from becoming a monk. If your friend wants to become a monk, he should talk to a monk at the temple.


The source is Miln III,7,8 [84].

The other day, I happened to read a discussion of this passage in "Development in the Early Buddhist Concept of Kamma/Karma" by James Paul McDermott (page 113-114).

Based on what I have read, I do not believe that there is any specific quote in the Suttas / Vinaya that specifically supports this passage. The Suttas (AN 6.63) equate kamma with volition / intention and as McDermott explains, this was developed in the Abhidhamma (particularly the Kathāvatthu), further developed in Milindapañha and even further developed in the Abhidharmakośa. Of course, the commentaries developed the concept of kamma to a new level again (this was beyond the scope of McDermott's book).

One has to be careful with interpreting this parable of getting burned by the hot iron. The point is that a unskillful act done with wrong view will generate more weighty kamma... somebody who knows that the unskillful act is wrong will have less volition / intention when performing the unskillful act as compared to another person who sees absolutely nothing wrong with the unskillful act (i.e. accompanied by wrong view).

@Jayarava, I have admired some of your writings / posts. Thanks for prompting me to look deeper at this passage (I love to learn). Here is the passage in Pāḷi:

  Rājā āha ‘‘bhante nāgasena, yo jānanto pāpakammaṃ karoti, yo ajānanto pāpakammaṃ karoti, kassa bahutaraṃ apuñña’’nti? Thero āha ‘‘yo kho, mahārāja, ajānanto pāpakammaṃ karoti, tassa bahutaraṃ apuñña’’nti. ‘‘Tena hi, bhante nāgasena, yo amhākaṃ rājaputto vā rājamahāmatto vā ajānanto pāpakammaṃ karoti, taṃ mayaṃ diguṇaṃ daṇḍemā’’ti? ‘‘Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, mahārāja, tattaṃ ayoguḷaṃ ādittaṃ sampajjalitaṃ sajotibhūtaṃ eko jānanto gaṇheyya, eko ajānanto gaṇheyya, katamo [kassa (ka.)] balavataraṃ ḍayheyyā’’ti. ‘‘Yo kho, bhante, ajānanto gaṇheyya, so [tassa (pī. ka.)] balavataraṃ ḍayheyyā’’ti. ‘‘Evameva kho, mahārāja, yo ajānanto pāpakammaṃ karoti, tassa bahutaraṃ apuñña’’nti.

I believe that the key word is "ajānanto". In the translation above, it is rendered as "unknowingly". T.W. Rhys Davids translates this as "inadvertently". Bhikkhu Pesala translates this as "unconsciously". PED uses translations such as "unaware" and "unsuspecting".

I do not think "ajānanto" is equivalent to "ignorance" (delusion / moha). "Ajānanto" seems to be closer to "unwise attention", not seeing things as they truly are. For this reason, I think wrong view is a better handling, even though "micchādiṭṭhi" is not used in the text. @Jayarava, your knowledge of Pāḷi is far superior to mine, so I would be very willing to be corrected.

Oops, I just read your answer below, so let me add more...

I am an Abhidhamma teacher and this certainly colours my world view :-) Let me put an Abhidhamma spin on this to see if it helps. The Milindapañha was written after the Abhidhamma, so it is possible that in this passage, Nāgasena is attempting to clarify a doubt from the Abhidhamma.

Kamma comes from intention. The ethical quality of the kamma created comes from the roots (attachment / aversion / delusion for unwholesome, non-attachment / non-aversion / understanding for wholesome).

I do not believe that this passage from the Milindapañha is talking about the ethical quality of the kamma created.

I do believe that this passage from the Milindapañha is talking about the weightiness / intensity of the kamma created... and this is a different issue. The weightiness / intensity of the kamma created is a question of strength of volition.

In the case of unwholesome kamma-creating mental states, the strength of volition can depend on pleasant / neutral feeling (pleasant feeling contributes to stronger volition), prompted / spontaneous (spontaneous contributes to stronger volition) and associated / disassociated with wrong view (associated with wrong view contributes to stronger volition). I believe that this passage from the Milindapañha is talking about the third factor; "associated / disassociated with wrong view".


The noble truths and eight fold path aren't holy than a learner. when a learner becomes a teacher?

The 'Noble' in the "Noble eight-fold path" is that you become a Noble one (Arya) by following it.


Can anyone explain non-self or Anatta of Buddhism in simple terms with example?

1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?

'Self' is a subjective ever-changing 'idea' or 'thought' created by the ignorant mind. For example, the 'self' the mind believed it was at 4 years old is different to the 'self' the mind believes it is at 35 years old. If the mind stops thinking, it can see the body & mind do not have any real self. For example, if an axe is used to cut off a finger, is there any 'self' in that detached finger? Is there any 'self' in an ear lobe or eye-ball or liver or kidney? Is there any 'self' in a feeling of pain, perception of 'green' or sight of object or hearing of a sound? 'Self' is only an idea, such as when a mind believes: "John is a nice person"  but another mind believes: "John is a bad person".

  2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible
  without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have
  been only limited to current life.

The Buddha did not see any previous lives. This is a mistranslation & misinterpretation of the original teachings (even though at a later time in Buddhism, scriptures such as Jataka Tales were created that depicted literal past lives). The Buddha recollected 'past abodes' or 'past adherences' ('pubbe nivasa'), which means viewing when in the past when the mind ignorantly attached to either one or all of the five aggregates as "self". This is clearly explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta. Please carefully read the entire Khajjaniya Sutta, very carefully, particularly the 2nd paragraph.

  3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?

The first explanation is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Here, the Buddha started by explaining if each of the five aggregates can be subject to sickness/disease & cannot ultimately be controlled, how can they be a 'self'? Then the Buddha explained how can any of the five aggregates, each being impermanent & unable to bring lasting happiness, be a permanent lasting self or belong to a permanent lasting self?

  4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because
  I said it.)

Meditation. Stop thinking and allow the mind to become exclusively observant. Although the sense of self will initially remain, as the mind becomes more pure & naturally 'concentrated', the sense of self, which is merely subtle thoughts, will dissolve. Then the mind (rather than "you") will realise it & everything else is not a self.

However, be warned: this runs against the nature of instinct. Nature creates the instinct in self in people. Only relatively few minds clearly realise not-self. For most Buddhists, non-self is just blind-faith or a logical deduction (philosophical theory), such as for the famous philosopher Nāgārjuna.

If needing to read more, this is the best explanation: Anatta & Rebirth by Buddhadasa.


I think "death" is often described/translation as "dissolution of the aggregates".

So I suppose it's the skandhas which "die" or come to an end, are impermanent.

This reference includes,

  And, bhikkhus, what is death? The falling away from existence, the passing away from existence, the dissolution, the disappearance, the end of life, the passing away due to completion of the life-span, the breaking up of the Aggregates, the discarding of the body, the destruction of the life-faculty of various beings in various categories, — this, bhikkhus, is called death.


What do you say to share your deeds after you have donated something?

No. Sadhu means something like 'well said'.

I think you're referring to sharing of merits:

Patti Dāna

Idaṃ me ñātinaṃ hotu

(May this be for my relatives.)

Sukhitā hontu ñātayo

(May my relatives be happy!)

If you want to hear the chant in action (and chant along):

http://chantpali.org/closing.html#patti_dana

Another option:
“Idaṃ me  puññaṃ nibbānassa paccayo hotu.”
(May these merits of mine be conducive to my attainment of Nibbana)

Addition:
I think it's also noteworthy that there is not one correct way to share merits. You can use your own words, in your own language, in English, Pali. Whatever feels comfortable to you. I think that an important part of sharing merits is to really connect to the meaning of the words you're saying. Otherwise it's just 'blabla'.


It helps to identify you socially as a monk (as does the uniform clothing), so that people know when they see you, "that person can be identified as a monk".

At the same time it helps to alter, remove or hide your personal identity, e.g. as a person with an individual appearance such as hair color and hair style.

I suppose another practical benefit is that it's also clean and cool (an opposite extreme, for some non-Buddhist sramanas, was to not touch or cut their hair at all, so that it became long and matted).

So far as I know the practice pre-dates Buddhism: MN 26 says,

  So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.


Need help understanding the meaning of this

Refer to: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:

  1. Learning how to meditate on impure objects;

  2. Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure;

  3. Guarding the sense doors;

  4. Moderation in eating;

  5. Noble friendship;

  6. Suitable conversation.

  — Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta


How does the Buddha address powerful spiritual experiences in monks?

Not really sure what type of answer you are looking for (sutra references about supernormal powers??), but I'll just paraphrase what I heard recently from a Theravada monk that seemed like extremely good advice which reportedly came from Ajahn Chah...

The advice was to simply be mindful and beware growing attached to any weird experiences you have while meditating. With the deep concentrations found in meditation you can have all kinds of seemingly supernatural experiences. So what. They are no more real or inherently existing (nor less!) than any thing experienced in waking life. If you have weird or seemingly supernatural experiences in waking life... again, so what. They are no more real (nor less!) than what you might experience in a dream. All things lack inherent existence and are not worthy of grasping. Grasp at them and you will incur suffering for yourself and others. So don't do it! :)

Now, the one thing you said that I think might deserve extra attention is your remark about "advanced forms of empathy." If by "empathy" you mean compassion (the wish for others to be free from suffering), then this is an unalloyed virtue that should be cultivated to perfection. To do so, I'd suggest Shantideva's Guide and loving kindness or bodhicitta meditation.

Hope this helps!


Yes it is possible and Lord Buddha had to show some supernatural powers in certain incidents. But Lord Buddha's perspective was a bit different from what you might expect....

One day Lord Buddha and some monks were on path to reach a certain village / city. On the way the group had to cross a river, there was a boat and people had to pat the boat owner to cross the river (Like a ferry). Suddenly a person who looked like a sage crossed the river levitating above the river. It was done by him to show off as the Lord Buddha's group was there.
Lord Buddha asked "how much does it cost to cost the river".
The amount was told to Lord Buddha, Then Lord Buddha said "That is how much that person's Power is worth"
(Because the power he had only helped him cross the river and that costed a certain amount,no matter how many river he cross that has no value other that the money he save when using the power. In the Grand scale of things he is just as helpless as any other being because his power does not free him from "Samsara")

Lord Buddha asked us to focus on the path and not on fancy powers. Because you do not necessarily need to be a Buddhist to do all of that. Because even Before Lord Buddha's birth people was able to do so much more (Like inter-realm travel).

One day a sage from another teaching wanted to know the answer to the same question that you are asking, So he came to Lord Buddha's Monastery and became a monk. All he ever did was practicing hard to reach the same level as the monks. He was sent by the elder sages of his earlier practice to learn Lord Buddha's teaching so they can show powers and attract people to their teaching (Foreigners to india and even some indians to this day ask questions like why are there so many similarities among Buddhism and other religions without knowing the kind of foul play Buddhism had to deal with).
He tried his best and he couldn't reach the level he wanted and he started asking questions from "Arahats" who visited Lord Buddha to acknowledge their completion of the path. But at the time all the Arahats visited was not with any powers (There are two different practices to reach the end and depending on what path you choose you either get or miss the powers,but there is no lack of the path between the two versions).
In the end he was fed up and directly went to Lord Buddha and told the truth. Lord Buddha kindly advised him and he became an "Arahat". But never returned to the older practice.

There is also another side to Powers....

One day a monk who had reached "Universal hearing (Dibba sotha)" came to Lord Buddha and asked Lord Buddha's guidance to gain (Dibba chakku) "Universal seeing/eye".
Lord Buddha looked at the monk's Karma and said you have not done enough good Karma to reach that level

So there is a clear mention that not only powers vary in the path also the powers can only be reached by ones who have done enough Karma to make it available.


What is the true meaning of Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara

Sankara is conditioning which puts together or makes or forms something.

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.
Vaci Sankhara - this is what sustains the formations of verbal throughs. Before speech thoughts need to form, without them one cannot speak.
Citta Sankhara - this is what causes a mind to arise. Feeling and perceptions are what causes a mind to arise.

How this is relevant in meditation is given here.


Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there

Absolutely. Sn 4.15 Attadanda Sutta:

  "When embraced, the rod of violence breeds danger & fear:
  Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay.
  Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles,
  competing with one another — as I saw this, fear came into me.
  The world was entirely without substance.
  All the directions were knocked out of line.
  Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to.
  Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent.
  And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart.
  Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions.
  But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink.

In Pali this reads like a poem, 8 syllables per line. Sometimes the authorship is attributed to the Buddha himself. Apparently at one time the poem was a standard part of the ritual for new person joining the early Sangha.

The line you're interested in says something like "I saw people crowding like the fish in shallow puddle, getting in each other's way, this really had scared me."


There are four terminological divisions of nirvana, and none of them is mara.

Non-duality does not mean “that opposing terms depend upon each other”. Rather, we posit three types of dualistic appearances :

appearance of conventionalities
appearance of true existence
appearance of the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness as two different substances

A consciousness that is free from the three is said to be “free from dualistic appearances”. By extension, the person who is the object-possessor knowing “in a non-dualistic manner” is also said to be free from dualistic appearances.

Here is an example: Conventional truths do not appear in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness. True existence does not appear to the superior's exalted wisdom directly realizing emptiness. There is no appearance of the object and the consciousness as being to different substantial entities to that consciousness. Because the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is free from the three types of dualistic appearances, we say that he who directly realizes emptiness does so “in a non-dualistic manner”. He is free from dualistic appearances (as long as he abides in meditative equipoise on emptiness).

You are right to oppose mara to skillful means. Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization, says: “The first application in skillful means is called application in skilful means which is victorious over the four mara-demons”.

However, there are four maras:

The mara of the contaminated appropriated aggregates,
The mara of the afflictions,
The mara of the lord of death, and
The mara of the sons of gods. Only this last one is actually referring to a being—obstructing external forces creating obstacles to gaining the freedom of the first three maras. They are gods of the desire realm only—not of the form realm and formless realm. The god Garab Wangchub is posited as an example in the commentary.

Non-abiding nirvana is freedom from the four (and is the final true cessation), therefore it is not mara.


Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language

I recommend this book: Ajahn Brahm: The Jhanas; where a description of each form jhana & each formless sphere should be summarised, somewhere. Ajahn Brahm's description of vitakka & vicara as the "Jhana Wobble" is very helpful for discerning the difference between true jhana and the fake jhana often declared on Buddhist chatsites by shameless egotists.

In the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives infinite consciousness as the salient/ primary experience of the meditation. Also, the physical body continues to exist, even though the physical body is not experienced. Therefore, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the other aggregates, such as perception, feeling & physicality (plus the subtle intention to remain in that meditation experience), continue to exist & dependently support consciousness.

Related to this, MN 43 describes the 9th stage called "cessation of perception & feeling". Here, consciousness ceases to operate because there is no perception, no feeling or any other sense object to support the maintenance of consciousness. However, note, the life force of the physical body continues to remain alive.

In the suttas, each jhana & sphere is described with the salient/primary experiences of that jhana & sphere; even though other phenomena may be experienced or may be functioning. MN 111 is a sutta offering a more detailed description of each jhana & sphere.

Reply to comments:

Each consecutive jhana & sphere represents a refining of the mind and the objects in the mind.

The feelings of rapture, happiness & equanimity of the four jhanas are based on bodily feelings arising in the physical body that has been profoundly relaxed & purified (even though the body itself, including the subtle breathing, is not experienced in jhana). This is probably why the four jhanas are called "rupa (form, material) jhana".

In the arupa spheres, only mental feelings & mental phenomena are experienced. However, as said, each arupa jhana is a refinement of the salient object perceived/experienced. Thus, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives or classifies that experience as 'infinite consciousness'. But as the mind continues to refine, that PERCEPTION "INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS" ceases. Since there is no salient object left to PERCEIVE, the mind perceives "there is nothing". Then when this PERCEPTION "there is nothing" also ceases, the perceptual framework of the mind starts to breakdown before entirely ceasing. This breaking down of perception, where something akin to perception is occurring & non-occurring is the sphere of neither-perception nor non-perception.

What is important to understand here is perception & its dependent objects are refining, becoming more & more subtle, until there are no more objects to perceive. When there are no objects to perceive, perception & consciousness must cease (even though the physical body remains alive, as described in MN 43).

From Ajahn Brahm:

  THE MIND-BASE OF UN-LIMITED CONSCIOUSNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited space lies the perception of
  no-space, of space losing its meaning. When the mind attends to this
  feature within the First Immaterial Attainment, space disappears and
  is replaced by perception of absolute one-pointedness of
  consciousness. As indicated above by the common experience of
  one-pointedness of time, in the state that perceives one-pointedness
  of consciousness, consciousness simultaneously feels infinite and
  empty, immeasurable and undefined. One has entered the second
  Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of unlimited consciousness.
  This is the perception that fills the mind completely and persists
  without wavering for even longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NOTHINGNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited consciousness lies the perception
  of no-consciousness, of consciousness now losing it meaning as well.
  When the mind focuses on this feature within the Second Immaterial
  Attainment, all perception of consciousness disappears. Perceptions of
  material form and space have already disappeared, and so all that one
  is left with is the one-pointedness of nothingness. One has entered
  the Third Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of nothingness. This
  is the concept that fills the mind totally, persisting unchanging for
  yet longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION

  Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even
  nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the
  perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception
  of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about
  this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception
  (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state
  is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all
  the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost
  a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps
  within its gossamer fabric the famous "Jewel in the heart of the
  lotus," Nibbana.

Note: Ajahn Brahm's idea about Nibbana often appear questionable.


Stream-entry is very simple, there is nothing supernatural about it. Stream-entry is when the practitioner has fully understood the vision behind Buddha's teaching, has fully assembled the puzzle, and now has no doubts about what Buddha meant when he said certain things or why he said them. Having a clear vision of what Buddha was referring to includes clearly seeing the reality behind Three Marks of Existence and the actual mechanism behind the Four Noble Truths.

Because most of us are so dominated by our preconceptions about the world, and about Buddha-Dharma, stream-entry is difficult or virtually impossible to attain from mere theoretical study of sutras, or from one super-successful meditation session, when one gets a "glimpse of Nirvana". Instead, stream-entry requires an effort consistently applied over a long period of time, targeted at putting Sat-Dharma to practice in day-to-day life.

The reason it's called "stream"-entry, is not because one enters some magical stream, but because one finally sets foot on the unquestionably right road towards Nirvana, having really understood the whole thing.

As I understand, what he subsequently called stream-entry (attaining a clear understanding of Three Marks of Existence and Four Noble Truths -- and therefore cutting all doubts) was attained by Buddha at time of his Bodhi, but because he had already liberated his mind from most of the other asavas by then, he effectively achieved full Nirvana at once. But in case of Buddha's students (and ourselves), because we do have the advantage of teaching available to us, we can assemble the puzzle while still having residual mental/emotional obscurations. Hence the need to have a separate name for this stage, distinct from "bodhi".

As for how exactly stream-entry occurs. It occurs through exhausting samsara. In order to exhaust samsara you must exhaust ego. In order to exhaust ego you must explore all corners where Enlightenment might hide, until you know you couldn't have possibly missed it. Then it finds you :)


Is Buddhism now lost until the birth of Matreiya Buddha?

Pure Dharma can be defined as clear, unmistaken explanation of the path all the way to complete awakening, endowed with Buddha's blessings.

"Buddha's blessings" here mean that a teacher doesn't only say words and explain theories, he also does it with proper atmosphere.

For example, some lecturers might explain "correct words" but with disrespectful attitude or with restless mind, and so these "correct words" are not well perceived by listeners, so they will not practise them.

Unmistaken explanation means, in particular, that words correspond well to the situation - it's not like explaining a teaching poorly suitable for the present case.

Thus a good teacher should have clear understanding of what he teaches and how that relates to our situations;

he should have clear mind - with proper attitude and "atmosphere";

he should speak what he knows and refrain from speaking what he doesn't truly know.

Expounded with clear mind, explanations are clear.

With correct "blessings", they are accepted by people and inspire them to practise.

There are such teachers nowadays: they practice thoroughly, they awaken, and they teach clearly.

Thus pure Dharma exists now, it is not lost.


It depends on why you are meditating. However, since you are posting to a Buddhist group, look at it from the Buddhist perspective.

Meditation supports the Buddhist way of viewing the world, with non-attachment, that sees the impermanence and lack of essence of all things, especially one's "self".  As such, "Creative Attacks" are not relevant to this practice.

Further, if you are going through rough patches (or creative attacks), then the application of meditation is to look into this rough patch (or creative attacks), to see the characteristics mentioned above, but especially the illusory nature of the "you" who is suffering these rough patches (or creative attacks).

That is, instead of trying to combat feeling with feeling, work on seeing the illusory nature of the source. When confronted with suffering, look for the one who suffers, and when that is seen to be an illusion, the suffering becomes a non-issue.

Having said that, the posture to adopt to meditation should be one in which you can be alert (nothing that will lull you to sleep) while minimizing your discomfort.  Certain postures may make some bodily sensations more noticeable than others, so I'd recommend the one that reduces those.  Beyond that, you're free to pick a posture.


Awareness in the body : ticklish/tingling feeling

Relax your facial muscles & take an out-breath or let go of some out-breathes.

In your efforts to anchor awareness, it sounds like you are suppressing the (mental) tension stored in your physical body (which will arise into your awareness if meditating).

Balance your effort. At regular intervals, take your foot off the accelerator; ease off the throttle.


How to survive Buddhism ? Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha

I see one aspect of your question is practice of rites and rituals much like other religions. This is also important for Buddhism to be socially and culturally integrated, but this does not give you liberation.

Secular Buddhists strip Buddhism of some of the aspects which cannot be conventionally seen (e,g, other realms, life after death) and perhaps some of the aspects not in line with western culture (e.g. respect to the Triple Gem). Accepting and dismissing things beyond your comprehension is a mistake, so would be accepting things which you cannot empirically verify. Until you know something at an experiential level it is best to set them aside.

There were many Buddhist sites in India which perhaps became sites for other religions.


What is the difference between papanca and sankhara, and in particular citta-sankhara?

yes it is not easy. First people  say that there are 2 triplets of sankaras : (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, mano sankhara) and (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, cittasankhara). they claim that they are not the same. See http://www.suttavinaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf
 Citta sankharas are vendana and sanna and they do not produce karma.
They claim that because they say that for instance, kaya sankhara  is the breath, but obviously the arhats still breath, therefore kayasankhara  still exists for the arhats.
Since they read that the arhats do not create karma, they infer that the kaya sankharas cannot be karmic.

The famous bikkhu analayo lists all those sankharas here https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/encyclopedia-entries/sankhara.pdf

For papanca, people translate that as ''objectification'', like here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.030.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&ie=UTF-8&q=objectification&sa=Search

some say ''proliferation''. It means thinking this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

  "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling,
  or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.

  "He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing
  perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception.

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as
  possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications.

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
  "Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities),
  there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there
  occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not
  be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall
  be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall
  be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'


Why do ignorance and intention have something to do with rebirth?

Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

  OP: But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a
  kind of anthropocentric view? Why does uprooting ignorance and craving
  stop the rebirth process?

Back to my analogy, does the coconut or the rice care about the monkey and its intentions, desires and ignorance? Not at all. In no way is this a anthropocentric view.

Rather, as Andrei stated in his answer, it's an information-centric or representation-centric view. I also think of it as a conceptuality-centric view. The suffering and its release are based on the mental concepts or ideas of the monkey with regards to its identity, desires and relationship to its environment.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings?

The aspect that I celebrate: that despite all the difficulties, suffering, dirt, cynicism, pain etc. people still find strength to be positive, to love, to forgive, and to create beauty. Especially people who have seen difficulties are often the kindest and the most understanding of all. I think this is very beautiful.