Maha Brahma is a realm, and not “A GOD”. Any living being (including each of us) has been in all realms in this beginningless sansara. We have been at the highest (except the five pure abodes in rupa loka which can be accessed only by Anagamis or Non-Returners). One time the Buddha pointed to a bunch of ants on the ground and told bhikkhus that each of those ants had lived in a brahma loka. The sansara is that long; there is no discernible beginning. These 31 Planes of Existence  is described in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. It lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma.

In the realm of Great Brahmas (Maha brahma) Buddha mentions about one Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe. It is in Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta (DN 11). Kevaddha Sutta informs one of what even a “God” does not know. Maha Brahmas, like Baka, think they’ve gone beyond anything the Buddha knows, so the Buddha has to go up to their Brahma heavens and subdue their pride, to show
them that they still have more to let go of, that there is something the Buddha himself has gone beyond but they haven’t.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma, and in one part of it names the 6 deva realms and 15 out of 16 rupi Brahma  realms. The sutta is meant to convey the way to “see” the true nature of existence with wisdom, not with the physical eye. Only a Buddha can discover the true nature, but a human can comprehend it, once explained.

In the brahma realms, all brahmas are born fully formed without the help of a mother’s womb. Theirs is an “opapatika” birth. For example when a human dies, his body becomes inert like a log, and at the very instant a fully-formed brahma is formed in the appropriate brahma world. This brahma will have sense faculties appropriate for a brahma: only eyes, ears, and a mind. These are the indriya for the new existence. These indriya can become ayatana (a factory that produces sankharas of another birth)  at times depending on the activities of that brahma.

Male/female distinction is there only in the kama loka. In the brahma realms (higher 20 realms), there is no such distinction. Brahmas do not have dense physical bodies or sexual organs. One is born in either the 16 rupa loka realms or the 4 arupa loka realms (brahma realms) because one has given up all desires for bodily pleasures, including sex, because one has seen the value of niramisa sukha (and jhanic pleasures) that can be achieved by giving up bodily pleasures.

All brahma realms are “unisex“. Brahmas do not have dense bodies to experience touch, taste of foods, or smells. They have very fine bodies. A brahma “body” has only the most minute of matter that is much much smaller than an atom in modern science. This is why it is thought (erroneously) that there is no matter in arupa lokas. There is matter, but it is insignificantly small. The Buddha said that vinnana cannot exist without a pancakkhandha, and the pancakkhandha in the arupa loka has a rupa component, even though negligibly small.

Brahmas in rupa loka are removed from “coarse sense pleasures”; they do not have a desire for tastes, smells, or body touches. Seeing and hearing is enough for them. Brahmas in arupa loka do not even have a desire for sights and sounds. Mind pleasures are enough for them, and the presence of matter is minimal in the arupa loka. So, sense pleasures are absent in brahma loka.

Brahmas and devas can “see” humans engaging in activities (if they want to), but they do not have any liking (upadana) for such “coarse pleasures”. Their mental state is much higher, just like a human who has developed abhinna powers.  They could actually be repulsed by human bodies. Just like we do not “miss out” on the activities of worms, they are not interested in human activities. It all depends on the mindset associated with the particular bhava.

The brahmas (and also devas) can “see” without the aid of light and “hear” without the having air to transmit sound waves; their “physical bodies” do not have “eyes” and “ears” like ours. Thus they can “see” and “hear” over great distances. And they can be anywhere they wish within a short time. The closest analogy of how their “vision” works is how we “see” dreams; we don’t need eyes to see dreams. Likewise the brahmas just perceive.

See:  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


The reasons are many:

Males are superior. Males left their homes, lived in forests, attained enlightenment, started the religion, wandered & spread the religion, often at great danger to their lives. The women did not do this but came along later, demanding to join the men. If the women were equal, they would have started their own religion but they did not do this because women do not have the spiritual, moral &/or social authority to start their own religion that is respected by the world at large. The women joined the male Sangha and the men had to make many sacrifices in order for the women to be protected and live safely, so the Sangha would not fall into disrepute if women were harmed. In summary, the male monastic community is based on men that left the family life and women are always 'guests' or 'visitors' to this community.
The Buddha (AN 6.52) taught the ideal of women is to dominate & want to be mothers. If women are given the freedom they want in the Sangha, they would want to act like mothers, lecture the monks, particularly the young monks, fault-find and the other behaviours women have the natural tendency to do because of their natural instincts to be mothers, nest-builders & housewives. This is contrary to the Dhamma, since the Dhamma is not the household life but a life of independence. Even today, we can witness new Buddhist nuns complaining & making demands like Western feminists rather than devoting their time to meditation practise (example, here).
In summary, men do not need to push their superiority. Instead, they must uphold the monastic community so it does not degenerate from its essence. Even today, most nuns are teaching metta (love) & feminism (attachment) rather than emptiness (sunnata). The Vinaya states:

  As the story makes clear, gender is not an issue in determining a person’s ability to practice the Dhamma and attain release. But from
  the Buddha’s point of view it was an issue in his design of the Sangha
  as an institution....His concerns were pragmatic and strategic, aimed at the long-term survival of two
  things: the true Dhamma and the holy life.

  The analogy of the clan predominantly female shows that, in the Buddha’s eyes, the survival of the holy life through wars, invasions,
  and the fall of civilizations required a Community predominantly male.
  Experience in Sri Lanka, India, and Burma has borne this point out:
  Bhikkhunı Communities were wiped out when these countries were
  invaded, whereas bhikkhus—if they could not survive in place—were able
  to flee and regroup elsewhere...Thus the Buddha formulated the eight rules of respect to help prolong the survival
  of the holy life by favoring the gender more likely to survive

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf page 367


Are the Buddhist sutras 100% verified if applied in life?

In the real quote (here), the Buddha emphasized believing in that which:

"when adopted & carried out, does not lead to harm & to suffering"
and
"when adopted & carried out, leads to welfare & to happiness".

Therefore, you can trust the majority of the sutras because the majority (but not all) are about giving up harm & suffering and cultivating welfare & happiness.

The Buddha wanted his followers to investigate & realise the teachings for themselves.


What is the origin of the Five Enobling Virtues?

I found it here for free download:

The Five Precepts :
The Buddhist Golden Rule
By His Royal Highness the late Supreme
Patriarch Prince Vajirananavarorasa

I found it linked from this page: 'The 5 Precepts' at dharmaflower.net.

The quote you're looking for is on page 2:

  Contrasted with the negative virtues of precepts, there is also a set of five
  positive practices, which correspond to them, thus forming a complete practice
  of virtue. They are:

  Loving-kindness and compassion.
  Patience in the right means of livelihood.
  Contentment in married life.
  Truthfulness.
  Watchfulness.

The precepts are described further on pages 4 through 34. Starting on page 34 it begins to describe the corresponding virtues; for example it starts with,

  The Five Ennobling Virtues

  The qualities of a virtuous person are mentioned in the scriptures, referring to
  precepts (síla) and ennobling virtues (kalyana dhamma). One who has fully
  observed the precepts is not necessarily one who is equipped with virtue. For
  example, when such a person happens to see a drowning man while he is
  passing by in a boat, he is morally bound to stop the boat and to save that
  man.

  If he cannot be bothered to do so, in spite of his ability, and he leaves the man
  to drown. However, one can say that he has not broken any precepts, but he
  has certainly lost something higher than precepts and will surely be severely
  censured for his positive lack of virtue.

The rest of the article (through page 49) describes the virtues.

I've just started reading it, an interesting text and author. Wikipedia says ...

  He helped to institutionalize Thai Buddhism.

... and I think this was probably a primary function of this text based on how it reconciles Buddhism with the needs of a state. A striking example:

  From the point of view of both Buddhism and the state, killing is held to be a capital crime. In the case of Buddhism, a Bhikkhu (monk) who is guilty of such an offense is called a defeated one (parajika) and is to be expelled from the Order of Monks (Sangha).

  In the case of the state, unless the accused can prove himself to be deserving of leniency due to some reasonable excuse, the law of the country generally metes out some form of capital punishment or mitigates this to life imprisonment."


No owner of the Dhamma?
  If there are owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such?

There are no owners of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless, impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone. There are practitioners and teachers of the Dhamma.

Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered. A fully enlightened Buddha discovers the Dhamma and teaches it.

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


My thinking mind as subject of my meditation stops my thinking

Mindfulness of mind is one of the four Satipathanna, that is, foundations of mindfulness. This is the basis of meditation that the Buddha taught. Generally speaking, as far as I know, meditation based on the four Satipathanna is referred to as Vipassana.

How to meditate - Ven. Yuttadhammo


Your health, wealth, reputation, career, family are all impermanent. Your life is also impermanent. Nothing lasts forever and everything changes over time. Nothing bad like disease and death can be avoided forever. Nothing good like your loved ones can be preserved forever. This is anicca.

This causes uncertainty for individuals when they think about their future. Uncertainty is one way to summarize the effect of impermanence. Uncertainty is maybe a more directly meaningful term to people than impermanence.

Anicca is also discussed in the context of the five aggregates being impermanent and in fact, all conditioned things being impermanent and changing.

The Buddha saw only a limited future based on cause and effect. Just as if you see the cloudy sky and forecast rain. The Buddha's prediction of the future is not because all events in the future are fixed and predetermined.

In Buddhism, the only thing that's permanent and fixed is Nibbana.


When you start of you need some level of concentration to have awareness. The reason for this is we are constantly getting input from all 6 sense doors and we react to them. So the starting point would be to focus on narrower area in terms of input and be persistent.

When it comes to awareness what you really have to be aware is the sensations caused when any input comes through sense doors, and to be equanimous towards it. This is mutually reinforcing. Once you have concentration and equanimity (you need strong morality as a base) your awareness improves. Also one of the main constituents or our frame is sensations so it is always there. All Karma gives result as means to create some sensation (e.g. you break your leg then this is pain. When you initially plant the seed of Karma also you will feel similar pain but at a much lower intensity than when you reap the results. Many of us are not sensitive enough to see this.)

You will naturally get stressed if you practice the wrong type of awareness. E.g. and acrobat will have a strong sense of awareness and some level of stress to maintain this awareness. More longer you do your gig more stressful you become. The right type of awareness does not give stress. This is being alway sensing the sensation in your body and to be equanimous towards it.

E.g. when you are walking, you use your faculties look at the process of you walking. Through your faculties you can sense pressure on your feet and certain change happening with regard to moving giving certain sensation. Also the impulse in you mind to more of what sensations this triggers.

The process that creates stress is when you react to sensations with clinging. If you are not equanimous, you will cling causing stress. Also if you miss sensations you will miss seeing this process where you react and cling to sensations.

Once you start this way a point will come you can sense sensation in your whole body and see how this reacts to different inputs from your sense doors. Though this would will see that your body is also changing. You see the sensation of liquid nature, solid nature, gaseous nature, temperature in your body. All made of tiny Kalapas arising and passing away.


Dukkha has many meanings.  It also means changing, impermanent, subject to destruction, then yes, ignorance is dukkha because it is impermanent.   To put it in perspective, wisdom or Panna is also Dukkha because it is subject to decay and ending.  Wisdom ends when name-form ends.  Ignorance (as well as wisdom) is Pratītyasamutpāna-dhamma (conditoned dhamma).  The things that beings are ignorance of is the four noble truths.  that's why beings are constantly searching for sensual pleasures  (or in finer cases, pleasures from rupa and arupa bliss).  We dont know that things we are searching for are reasons why we suffer.


Did the Buddha tell how to visit another part of universe via meditation?

The Buddha mentioned many supernatural powers called siddhi but he did not teach them. He mentions that samadhi is required to developing siddhi but since siddi do not help to end dukkha the Buddha doesn't explain exactly how to develop siddhi.


What is done with offerings after they've been on the altar awhile?

Once an offering is made to the Buddha, it becomes the property of the Buddha, the person who offers it no longer has the ownership. However, Buddha is no longer present to consume them, so the place must be cleaned before things become messy.
In Theravada, the common practice is according to the Dakkhinavibhanga sutta commentary. However, I wasn't able to find an English translation of it in internet. So I'm giving the translation as I can.
It mentions,

  if there's a monk who's an attendant of the Buddha, the offerings
  should be given to that monk. Other monks are also worthy of receiving them, [as the saying goes] son inherits what belongs to the father. Oil that's left must be used to light the lamps in the temple. Cloths that are left must be used as flags.

If there's no monk in the temple, a lay person who's an attendant can also take them. If there's no such person, there's no harm if anyone else uses them. Nonetheless, if  something's offered to the Buddha that can be used in the temple e.g. oil, taking them for personal use can be stealing. Otherwise there's no harm in eating food or even giving them to beggars or animals, you can get more merit :)

That being said, in Dhammadayada sutta, Buddha asks the monks to be the inheriters of his teaching and not the inheriters of his material.
Further, he says that the monks who don't eat his leftovers are more praiseworthy than the monks who eat them because it conduces to that monks' few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort.

  ...
  `Bhikkhus, I have partaken of my meal, is satiated and do not desire any more, there is some morsel food left over to be thrown away, If you desire, partake of it, if you do not partake it I will throw it to some place where there is no green, or I will put it in some water where there are no living things. '

  To one of those bhikkhus, it occurs thus: `The Blessed One has partaken of his meal, is satiated and does not desire any more of it. There is some morsel food left over to be thrown away. If we do not partake of it, he will throw it to some place where there is no green, or will put it in some water where there is no life. Yet it is told by the Blessed One this: Bhikkhus, be the heirs of my Teaching and not the heirs of my material. Morsel food is one of the material, What if I spend this day and night bearing up this hunger and discomfort? He not partaking that food spends that night and day bearing up that hunger and discomfort. '

  To the other bhikkhu it occurs thus: [repitition] What if I partake of that morsel food and put an end to my hunger and discomfort and spend the night and day?'

  So he partakes of that morsel food puts an end to his hunger and discomfort and spends the night and day. Bhikkhus, whoever the bhikkhu who partook of the morsel food, overcame the hunger and discomfort and spent the night and day, yet the earlier bhikkhu is more reverential and praiseworthy. What is the reason? Because it conduces to that bhikkhu's few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort
  MN 3

So I think this is applicable to lay people who are doing the altar maintenance as well.


In Depth Study of today's Dharma Teachers teachings

There are many people who are attached to Mahasi Sayadaw on Dhammawheel and Bhikkhu Pesala (http://aimwell.org/ or on DW) is for sure on person (since he translated much) who can help out in the sphere of his understanding.

You also can try to get in contact with Upasaka Florian. He runs a blog and pages on facebook and g+ concerning much about Mahasi Sayadaw and communities around it and he had studied much. He would for sure also know other places.

As for Ajahn Chah, Atma is sure, that it would really not make sense to

  Each pertinent scentence might be studied one by one, the translation of each scentence might be scrutinized, the scriptural origins would be analyzed and each scentence might be made better understood with real examples of what is meant.

You would, in the case of Ajahn Chah, need to meet an Ajahn Chah and most would and do not like it to be confronted by him, even get mad. And you even would need to start with sweeping and other services.

Atma would also say, if not even understand an interpreter, is better to do it among the original source and get then an understanding of what the particular teaches tells.

Having read some of his books a little Atma thinks that there are less who would understand many things, if not good leaned in the scripts or have certain experiences by one self. The teachings also carry much danger of developing certain views.

The problem of not understanding the path or not coming on to it, is most seldom the teaching or the explaining, but simply the not willingness to start seriously with the home work. Dana, Sila.

  Making Tables & Chairs

  It's good to make the mind pure and at peace, but it's hard. You have
  to start with the externals — your bodily actions and words — and work
  your way in. The path that leads to purity, to being a contemplative,
  is a path that can wash away greed, anger, and delusion. You have to
  exercise restraint and self-control, which is why it's hard — but so
  what if it's hard?

  It's like taking wood to make a table or make a chair. It's hard, but
  so what if it's hard? The wood has to go through that process. Before
  it can become a table or a chair, we have to go through the coarse and
  heavy stages.

  It's the same with us. We have to become skillful where we aren't yet
  skillful, admirable where we aren't yet admirable, competent where we
  aren't yet competent.

  Maggots

  When we give rise to right view in our hearts, we can be at ease
  wherever we are. It's because we still have wrong views, still hold
  onto ideas that are poisonous, that we're not at ease. Holding on in
  this way is like being a maggot. Where it lives is filthy; its food is
  filthy. Its food isn't fit to be food — but it seems fitting to the
  maggot. Try taking a stick and flicking it out of the excrement where
  it's feeding, and see what happens. It'll wiggle and wriggle, eager to
  get back to the pile of excrement where it was before. Only then does
  it feel right.

  It's the same with you monks and novices. You still have wrong views.
  Teachers come and advise you on how to have right view, but it doesn't
  feel right to you. You keep running back to your pile of excrement.
  Right view doesn't feel right because you're used to your old pile of
  excrement. As long as the maggot doesn't see the filth in where it's
  living, it can't escape. It's the same with us. As long as we don't
  see the drawbacks of those things, we can't escape from them. They
  make it difficult to practice.

  (108 Dhamma Similes)

Atma likes to add, that if you, a group, friends... would seek for an environment to do such, lessons, teaching, what ever, please feel free and invited to use the environment of this online monastery and don't hesitate to ask for help or what ever in this regard. Your are free to perform it if you like to put an effort into it.

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


If this is the case:

you can use a stool / chair or stadium seat
you can use orthopaedic cushions to added comfort
if sitting is a problem you can use another poster like lying down (don't use a cosy or luxurious bed as you will soon fall asleep. A hard surface may be best using a Yoga mat perhaps laying beaded seat cushion on top even if this causes you to fall asleep.)

Also when meditating try to keep your attention a bit longer in this region looking at the arising and passing away of sensation equanimously. Don't think of any healing or removing discomfort. Just keep your attention on the sensations. If this is Karmic, reducing your mental reaction for sensation resulting from karma means you will not be adding fuel to the karma prolonging it's results. If you react with any thing, like disappointment if any issue pops up, being happy when something does not pop up, etc. You are adding fuel to prolonging the ailment.


What does "break-up of the body after death" mean in the suttas?

"break-up of the body" refers to conventional death. It doesn't refer to instant death of experiences.


Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals?

In your example you stated that both Tom and Happy had cars that had bad engines.

Tom was unhappy and Happy was okay with it.

So right from the beginning we can see that their happiness did not depend on whether or not they had bad engines but their reaction to it.

Therefore one must apply the same conclusion to the outcome of getting a new car.It's not about who gets the new car first,it's their reaction to it.

Happiness depends on reactions to circumstances.Not circumstances themselves.

Is suffering a motivator?

Yes absolutely.When the Siddhatta saw suffering he decided to pursue the spiritual life.Sometimes living in deva like bliss masks the true nature of reality.That it is impermanent,not self,and suffering.

Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold?

Yes that is why the human realm is the best place to practice the dhamma.One has their fair share of happiness and suffering.It is balanced to some extent.

If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life?

That's like saying bleeding will motivate you to bandage yourself.But if you do bandage yourself,then the bleeding will stop,then how are you going to bandage yourself..??

Removing suffering is the goal.


Why is there something instead of nothing?

This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the Acintita Sutta:

Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.
It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. This means such type of questioning has no practical value.
From MN 63:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
do not see.’
“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”
“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
man, who are you and what are you abandoning?
“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
…until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die.


Are people younger than 20 forbidden to ordain?

According to The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Becoming a Novice
The first part[16] of the ordination[17] procedure for bhikkhus is known as the Going Forth into Homelessness (pabbajjaa). If it finishes with just that — without going on to the Questioning of the candidate and the Acceptance of him by all the gathered bhikkhus into the Bhikkhu Sa"ngha — the candidate is known as a saama.nera or novice. This is usually the case when the candidate is less than the twenty years of age necessary to become a bhikkhu. A very young boy is not allowed to become a novice either, but the minimum age will vary according to place.[18]

Footnote:

[18] "One under 15 years of age, unless he can scare crows (i.e., is mature) should not be given the pabbajaa for becoming a saama.nera (Vin.I,79). After receiving their parent's consent (Vin.I,83), they were to shave their head and beard, put on the ochre robe and, paying respects to the bhikkhu, receive the Three Refuges and the Ten Training Precepts." (HS ch.19)

See the Wikipedia article Śrāmaṇera for a description of Buddhist novices.


why can't we swap one desire for another and another?

MN 75 gives the analogy of a leper and shows that by swapping one desire for another, we would simply be making our craving and attachments progressively worse, which is a slippery slope to deepening our suffering.

The reason for this is that sensual pleasures are impermanent, and either their future absence will cause suffering, or their future side effects will cause suffering. They can't be sustained forever. And when you swap one desire for another, craving gets deepened and the "sensual fever" burns deeper. This will result in suffering becoming deeper.

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.


What could I say to someone when they ask me "why do you meditate?"

Some suggestions:

You might phrase it as an invitation ("you could find out yourself") instead of as an order ("you should find out yourself"); and then if they ask more, try to help with their next question.
You might have a normal reluctance to be preachy; but because in this case someone asked (or invited) you to tell them, maybe it's OK for you to get over your normal reluctance and, instead, go ahead and tell them
You could give a short (one-sentence) reply and then wait for their response: "I do it because (state your reason here)". If the reason makes sense to you then maybe it'll make sense to them too; or if not then they can choose to ask (or choose not to ask) more about it.
You could turn it into a dialog or discussion (instead of being preachy) by adding a question at the end; for example "I do it because (here's my reason). Am I right? :-)"
You could give an less-personal answer: instead of saying why you personally meditate, you could reply, "Actually there are some good answers to that: venerable Yuttadhammo posted a 'top five reasons why everyone should meditate' to Youtube" (alternatively whatever or whoever else inspired you)
You could explain your feelings (which might be like discussing your relationship) with the person: for example, "I don't know how to answer that; I wish I could, but ... I don't want to sound preachy."
You could also turn the question around, "Oh! Why do you ask: do you meditate?" Try to see why they're asking or what they know already (because knowing that might help you to answer them).


Je Tsongkhapa differentiates between (1) karma that is done (2) and karma that is accumulated. Between the two, there are four possibilities.

1. Done, but not accumulated. Tsongkhapa states:

  Killing that is karma which you have done but not accumulated is seen
  in the following cases: that done unknowingly, that done in a dream,
  that not done intentionally, that which another person forced you to
  do against your will, that done only once and then regretted, [and so forth]

2. Accumulated, but not done. Tsongkhapa writes:

  Killing that is karma that you have accumulated but have not done is
  seen in the following case: you investigate and analyze for a long
  time in order to kill a living being, but you do not kill it.

3. Done and accumulated. Tsongkhapa writes:

  Killing that is karma that you have done and accumulated is seen in
  all the killing not included in the previous two permutations.

4. Killing that is karma that you have neither done nor accumulated is whatever is not included in the above three. Tsongkhapa does not give example.

He further explains that karma that is not done and accumulated (the third) is karma whose result you will not definitely experience.

The Levels of Yogic Deeds (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra):

  Karma whose result you will definitely experience is that consciously
  done and accumulated. Karma whose result you are not certain to
  experience is that consciously done but not accumulated.

Further debates settles on the meaning and reason of such a statement: karma that is done and not accumulated, for instance, is not as heavy as that which is done and accumulated. The weight of karma is one of the five factors that determines the time and the likelihood of its ripening.


Is Mahasi Sayadaw's "counterfeit dhamma"?

The true teaching attributed to the Buddha is found in the Tripitaka. So it is best to sticking with this orthodoxy than innovate with other practices. This way your practice is closest that the Buddha taught. The Buddha being more accomplished than anybody else and also having the quality "Leader of persons to be tamed" would have preached the best mode of practice to follow.

It is always good to be orthodox as dhamma disappears when counterfeit Dhamma emerges:

  Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world. But when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears. - sn16.13

Also discussed in more detail in this answer.

Like there are Christian, Muslim and Hindu are Buddhist countries. There are Buddhist countries also how has a history, culture and tradition of trying to preserve the Dhamma. This will make people of a Buddhist cultural upbringing be protective of the doctrine (pariyatti), practice (patipatti) and the fruit (pativedha) for future generation. Culturally some may feel this as a duty when brought up in a Buddhist environment.

In addition, regardless of the label you add as X tradition or Y tradition or A religion or B religion the Dhamma is universal and works the same way as long as you practice the right way. There is only one right way (ekayana magga) which is what is given in the Maha Satipatthana / Satipatthana Suttas. The Buddha gives a guarantee that you will get results of the practice this the right way. The key here is you should practice it in the way prescribed in the Sutta to get the results. To get the result you have to reconcile you practice with the Sutta and do accordingly. Applying a label as this is the technique of X tradition or Y tradition or this teacher or that teacher does not decide the results. It is the correct practice which gives result. If you are not getting results you should recheck what you are doing to see if it confirms to the steps given in the prescribed method to which the guarantee by the Buddha is attached to. This is more analogous to going through the instruction manual properly before assembling something. If you do not follow the instruction what you assemble will not work. If you follow it then it will work. Also if you do not follow the instruction manual properly the warranty also maybe void. Having said this one is one's own master, hence anybody is free to follow what they wish.

The question had the following also which since seems to be edited away.

  Why are Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings controversial? Can you outline the arguments which people present, in favour of and against these teachings?

For this please refer to this answer and linked content.


Dealing with colleagues who hate me after mistake

You are not going to become any better if you are just looking for a way to escape from the consequences of your mistakes. You need to put forth an honest effort to become better. Here are some steps that will help you in doing that.

If you haven't already done it, send another mail to all those who received the original mail, correcting the previous mail and apologizing for it. Mention that you have realized your mistakes after getting guidance from Buddhism.
Go to the Buddha and take the Triple Refuge and the five precepts. When you take the 4th precept, make sure to promise to refrain from all 4 forms of wrong speech: lying, hateful/vulgar speech, divisive speech, idle speech.
Practice on-the-go-Metta meditation towards your friends and colleagues regardless of the way they look at you. Meaning, you have to chant in your mind "may you(other) be happy, may you be well, may you be successful, may you be free from suffering" as you interact with them.
Whenever the thoughts of regret come to the mind, simply discard them as impermanent, suffering and non-self. Later as the mind becomes more matured and capable, try to observe these thoughts to see the 3 characteristics.


Is appropriate to mentally talk to myself during meditation?

Everything I've heard suggests that this is OK, though it's not ideal. Ideal meditation would be stillness without interruption of thoughts; handling words in the mind requires thought.

I recall an Audio Dharma podcast where it was suggested that if you must do this, try to keep the words as brief as possible "In breath." "Out breath." That sort of thing. :-)


Is the 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do?

I have not heard of any teacher in any tradition that would say: "Yes, go ahead and shop around, get the best elements from every tradition and construct a teaching and practice that works for you" -- Never.

Every teacher seems to have confidence in their tradition. That said, some of the teachers I personally came in contact with, stayed fairly hands off and minimalistic when it comes to meditation instructions.

My Zen Master famously said "Don't go with the thoughts; don't go against the thoughts" - that's it. No other instructions! He did write a book that had a chapter on meditation, so anyone could read that if they wanted, but he never insisted on meditation to follow a strict order.

Dza Kilung Rinpoche gave rather verbose instructions, as is customary in Tibetan Buddhism but as a Dzogchen Nyingmapa his sentiment has always been that meditation only begins as something guided, because that's how beginner's mind operates, but then as you progress you get to pick your own course in the overall direction prescribed by the teacher or the level you are on.

In my own opinion, meditation is something impossible to pin down and put in a box no matter how hard you try. So even if someone would speak about some particular type of meditation as if many people had the same meditation experience - that would only be a theoretical construct, a figure of speech. In reality every person's meditation, and every meditation session, is different and unique.

It also depends on the situation, the person, the problem, the level, the question, and the current goal. For example in my case, my meditation for many years has been to avoid getting carried away by thoughts. That's what I did, sat and fought with my thoughts and tried to stay in the present. As that did not work too well, I tried meditation that focused on subtle feelings in the diaphragm and lower abdomen, with the goal of discovering and letting go of all tensions and blockages. That worked better and has been helpful. Then for a period of time I meditated on the overall well-being, trying to generate a bright and open, happy mind. That worked quite well. These days I meditate on "no conflict in the mind", in other words the focus of my meditation is sukha-approaching-suchness.

From my perspective, any rigid meditation method is a lie that depends on the student either being blind to the fact, or pretending to not see, that their mind is a not simple mechanical machine but an endlessly fluid spontaneous process with multiple feedback loops.

So in my own personal opinion, of course "it is more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits" and no, I would never recommend to "pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it" - regardless of how many traditional teachers would say so.

That said, it is important that your meditation is not an act of fooling yourself, not an act of indulging in what rubs your ego the right way, but an authentic discovery process. Meditation is the time and place to be absolutely honest with yourself, to see what you normally don't want to see, to feel what you normally don't want to feel, and to get clarity about all this.

For me this type of honesty with yourself is a lot more effective than "to force your way through it".


How can one navigate the experience of Tanha

The answer has already been chosen, but I really wanted to provide a personal experience that may help.

Back in my 20s, I was in a Buddhist temple and witnessed a woman getting stabbed and raped. I was able to help her get away, but the angst from that 5 minute event haunted me for years. I would wake up in sweats and even get into fights with abusive men simply because I was still so angry.

What I finally did was go into deep meditation and picture the event as a bubble that would float away. I then pictured myself without that bubble. I (mentally) let it go.

It goes back to what the Buddha first called the Forefold Truths, or the "4" in early language. First, you watch anger, emotions, (suffering) arise but instead of attaching to them, you understand that they are just something that's separate from you. You then use meditation to let them go and when you fully let go, you then have a chance at nirvana or total freedom. Keeping that practice of seeing, understanding and letting go is then the eightfold path.

In essence, being Buddhist is being at peace.


How is craving the practice that leads to the origin of feeling?

The Mahayana answer would be that Vedana does not refer to feeling arising from an actual contact with an actual external object. Instead, Vedana is a subjective experience of feeling attributed to a subjective experience of contact with a subjective idea of an object. Basically, Vedana is a thought: "that thing that was over there, now that I have it right here, gives me this feeling of comfort (or this feeling of discomfort, or this neutral feeling)".

So, while Vedana depends on a subjective experience of contact as its immediate cause, more fundamentaly it depends on that idea of a desirable external object.

According to Mahayana interpretation of Twelve Nidanas, the process of dependent origination is actually cyclical, not linear. It's explained in twelve steps for ease of presentation but in actuality it represents a spiral of a self-enforcing tendency. The elements that later become Craving and Vedana are present in rudimentary/latent form even at the Formations(Tendencies) stage (the second Nidana) and get stronger as things get more concrete.

So at the root of the process is ignorant tendency of the basic mind to get settled into certain experiences which are then considered comfortable, and their opposites are considered uncomfortable. As the mind develops it learns to seek those comfortable experiences and avoid uncomfortable ones. This tendency to seek and avoid develops into ability to delineate entities (objects and the subject) and attribute qualities to them based on one's attitude. The experience of those qualities at the time of subjective "contact" is Vedana.

So Vedana, both comfortable (but transient, and therefore eventually uncomfortable) and directly uncomfortable, depends on this tendency to seek comfortable experiences attributed to external entities. That's what Craving refers to in short. After all, craving is always craving for an external something because of its implied promise to bring an internal experience of the right nature.

That's why Buddha says Craving is a practice (or path) that leads to Vedana. Because we attribute qualities arising in our mind to external entities, then we crave and pursue those entities (or avoid them), then we experience something as result, then we identify that experience as coming from the entity. This is Vedana.

Attributing perceptual qualities that in fact come from our mind to entities we have delineated out of totality of our experience, and then forming attitude to those entities, of either craving or avoidance, is the activity that leads to the illusory experience of pain and happiness.


Do we know in what posture the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree?

I hunted down a reference to the lotus posture in the Satipatthana Sutta where it is stated in passing, as a matter of fact; so it is likely the lotus posture was one of those very obvious things to Indian yogis of the time that doesn't need much specific mention.

  Nisidati pallankam abhujitva ujum kayam panidhaya parimukham satim upatthapetva so satova assasati sato passasati = "Sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. Mindful he breathes in, and mindful he breathes out."

And, as I already mentioned in the comment above, according to Hindu scriptures and yoga manuals the advantage of the lotus position is that it is self supporting. In arupa-jhanas (also well known and practiced by Hindus) when one has lost all sense of the body and mind, a lotus posture will ensure one doesn't fall over.

This doesn't specifically mean the Buddha sat in this posture under the Bodhi tree, but if he's advising others to do so, it is likely this was how he sat always.


Do Chinese-language publications about Zen Buddhism usually use Simplified or Traditional Chinese?

This is not a black and white simple answer... however, to give you ideas, for the original sutras that have been translated into Chinese, the classical ones are the best, they were translated by great masters like Kumarajiva, Xuanzang... these masters they themselves had reached the high level of self-cultivation (Bodhisattvas, Arhats) and the translation was promoted and sponsored by the Chinese Emperors in Ancient China; great scholars would be gathered, discussed, debated, then concluded the translations. For example, Kumarajiva and Xuanzang were both fluent in Sanskrit and Chinese. However, these sutras are written in Classical Chinese 文言文, the complete collection Tripitaka in Traditional Chinese.

However, Simplified Chinese is used in Mainland China by 11bn people since 1950s/1960s, and the Putonghua with Pinyin is very easy to learn for Westerners. There are brilliant practitioners in Mainland China and many of the treasures are inherited in the Mainland simply they are there. But Taiwan has strong roots in Buddhism since it's never truncated by any turmoils or Cultural Revolutions they used the Traditional Chinese. If you intend to read by the Modern Chinese you could find 南懷瑾 老師 Teacher Nan Huai-Chin, he is in this time one of the few most learnt and bright teachers resided in Taiwan but he really learnt all his knowledge when he was still in China. (Passed away.) A website has almost all his works: 实修驿站 (shixiu.net) in Simplified. Another is the Tibetan Rinpoche 慈誠羅珠.

If you are trying to buy books with translated sutra from Classical Chinese 文言文 to Modern Chinese 白話文 you have to be very very careful. These modern translations maybe erroneous or partially grasped the original meanings; Chinese language is a very graphical and refined language the meanings are not on the faces of the words, literally speaking. This is in particular for the Zen Buddhism. There is a famous Buddhist metaphor, that is "the finger pointing to the moon", if one watches the finger, one will fail to see the moon.


In suttas Buddha says this to people feeling remorseful about their past: there is no use worrying about the past you can't change. Focus on acting with skill going forward.

One of the most underappreciated techniques in Buddhism is weaving useful narratives. This is when you tell yourself a story about yourself in a way that induces and sustains the good states of mind. The story can't be a lie though! -- so before you can do it, you have to actually repent/reconcile/resolve to not let it happen again.

So the first step is to actually finalize the internal decision: what shall you do differently from now on. Then you should let some time pass to give you a chance to act in the new way. And then you can say hey, I have not committed the same mistake for such and such time, I think I am good now. Simple, right?

Check out the story about Angulimala and a Pregnant Woman. It illustrates this principle brilliantly.


Is there a name for being totally dependent?

I think the closest real "thing" in Buddhism that touches on what you've described is thina-middha, or "sloth and torpor" (one of the Five Hindrances). It's characterized in part by a lack of energy (which can be mental in addition to physical). This isn't necessarily what you shared, but a lack of mental energy could make one feel as if driven by an external force, bound by choices made elsewhere. Only you could really say for sure if that particular hindrance was at play in how you felt.

There is also the Pāli word upanissayo which is sometimes translated as "destiny", but is closer in meaning to "basis" or "tendency". It's as close as you get to the notion of predestination in Pāli. (Again, not what you described, but a word that somewhat connects to the idea.)


Investing in poultry stocks and Buddhism

Honestly I would say that it's not even a grey area. For me, investing in stocks in the meat industry is not in keeping with right livelihood. To quote the Vanijja Sutta in full

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

By investing in a poultry company you are in effect a part owner of that business - therefore you are in the 'business of meat'

Of course when you say poultry stocks I'm assuming that this is a business for producing meat for consumption. If the business is raising chickens so that small children can love them and keep them as pets then fantastic - a wonderful ethical investment (slight tongue in cheek - I couldn't resist).


Is there a middle way between working towards personal liberation and liberation for all sentient beings?

There is no conflict, the dichotomy is false and is based on incorrect understanding. As Buddha said in Sedaka Sutta:

When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself.
And how do you watch after others when watching after yourself? Through cultivating, through developing, through pursuing. This is how you watch after others when watching after yourself.
"And how do you watch after yourself when watching after others? Through endurance, through harmlessness, through a mind of goodwill, & through sympathy. This is how you watch after yourself when watching after others.


Why do some English-language texts refer to the Buddha as "Lord"?

In ancient Pali and Sanskrit texts the most common title for the Buddha is Bhagavan, which means someone rich and/or important (like e.g. Bill Gates or the president etc). This is how the Buddha is often called in the third person (i.e. Bhagavan raised from his seat and said...)
The way the Buddha is usually addressed in the second person (i.e. when you say "yes, sir, I'll do as you say sir") - is "bhante". This is understood to be a Pali version of the Sanskrit "bhavantaḥ" which means "all of you" or "[plural] you" or "the big/important you".
Another common reference is Sugata, which means the lucky one or the successful one.
Finally sometimes he's called Jina which means the victor or the winner (in a battle).
Lord is a common English translation of the first title, Bhagavan, and sometimes of the second one, Bhante.


When the obstacles are abandoned does one experience dharma everywhere?

I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see
  and experience dharma in an all pervading way

Wrong! There's no seeing at the moment of cessation. All experiences cease. There is no arising.

Only the Buddhas attain omniscience with enlightenment. Others do not!

  Connection made with some sort of unified reality.

There's no such thing called a "unified reality". But just before cessation, you will come to the understanding that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfactory & uncontrollable.

Read the answer given by ven.Yuttadhammo to the following question:

How does stream entry occur?


When confusion persists, it's good to review basics.
An understanding of dependent origination requires an understanding of contact:

DN34:1.2.8: What one thing should be completely understood?
DN34:1.2.9: Contact, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped.

You may be interested in DN1, which describes all the tangles involved in thinking about 'self'.

DN1:3.58.0: 4.3. Not Possible
DN1:3.70.1: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.
DN1:3.71.0: 4.4. Dependent Origination
DN1:3.71.12: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, all of them experience this by repeated contact through the six fields of contact. Their feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be.

Ultimately, the tangles are not so important as the escape.

DN1:3.72.0: 5. The End of the Round
DN1:3.72.1: When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contacts’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, they understand what lies beyond all these things.
DN1:3.72.2: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.
DN1:3.72.3: Suppose a deft fisherman or his apprentice were to cast a fine-meshed net over a small pond. They’d think: ‘Any sizable creatures in this pond will be trapped in the net. Wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.’
DN1:3.72.4: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Don't get caught in the net.


What to do with gathered saliva while Meditating

Haha, spit it out and use it as an in-vivo object for the asubha bhavana practise (loathsomeness of the body).


If you are coming at this from a Zen perspective, I wouldn't use the word "silence" so much as "emptiness" or mu-shin.  And I wouldn't say that the word "embraced" quite gets at what you need to be doing.  Emptiness is embraced, but there is also an element of investigation.  One should become both "one with" mu-shin while looking deeply into it.

I think it's important to understand, however, that this sort of investigation is not a preliminary practice.  The mind has to be quieted and the concentration developed to a certain extent before one has an experience of that emptiness.  Once it is beheld, it should then be stabilized.  This can be done through various techniques - most famously the mu koan.  If you are beginning your meditation practice, you are better off just watching the breath.  This will help lay a foundation for later investigation.


What particular subject would you like to study? Just comment on this answer with a list of subjects you want to learn and I will put together a list for you and edit it in this comment.

Would you like to focus on a particular tradition within Theravada? (I'm assuming you're asking about Theravada because you are using Pali terms.)


The two traditions are different in that Mahayana uses a transformation process, that is, we try to "be" a bodhisattva which means incorporating their virtues and their mind. So we try to have a non-dualistic view. We don't get it in the beginning so we continue to refine our views. Question what do we do with hate and craving in Mahayana?

In the Theravada (which is similar to, but, is not hinayana) tradition it is a development process which means we deal with greed, hate and delusion until we eventually automatically come to posses a non-dualistic view.

Some people find transformation easier, rewarding and enjoyable, while others find development easier, rewarding and enjoyable.

Which do you prefer tea or coffee to quench your thirst?

nb similary with Vajrayana.


Why did first gerneration followers of Gautama Buddha chose oral method instead of written verbal method to preserve his teachings?

I don't know but maybe writing hadn't been invented there yet (or not introduced from elsewhere), or at least it wasn't common.
Wikipedia says,

First appearance of writing in the Indian Subcontinent
The first introduction of writing to the Indian Subcontinent apart from the Bronze Age Indus script, which is undeciphered and may not be an actual script, is mostly identified as the Edicts of Ashoka from c. 250 BCE.

The same is true of Hindu texts, i.e. the earliest records of writing dates from a couple of hundred years after the Buddha,

Sanskrit -- Origin_and_development
The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are religious texts of the Rigveda, from the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive, if they ever existed.

The article on Brahmi script says,

Brahmi (brāhmī) is the modern name given to one of the oldest writing systems used in South and Central Asia during the final centuries BCE and the early centuries CE. ... The origin of the script is still much debated, with most scholars concurring that Brahmi was derived from or at least influenced by one or more contemporary Semitic scripts, while others favoring the idea of an indigenous origin or connected to the much older and as-yet undeciphered Indus script.

So, who knows, perhaps that kind of writing was introduced via the Alexandrian empire.


Does truth of emptiness imply that nothing existent ever ends?

Like the first verse of Nagarjuna's Madhyamikakarika, Prasangika refute the four extremes of production. Nagarjuna says:

  Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a
  cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

What is produced is not truly produced (in the sense that it is not inherently produced), and what ceases does not truly cease (in the sense that it does not inherently cease). There is (conventional) production from another, but not inherent (or true) production from another... and there is no production from itself, be it truly/ultimately or conventionality.

You say:

  To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing
  phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from
  moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death
  different?

It's a great question. Death is different in that the mental continuum separates from the body. There is no such separation before death (except in rare cases of powa etc.) That is how death is different from the constant changes that occur in life. Even though no aggregate stays the same from one moment to the next, there is usually no such separation (of the mind stream from the body) before death.

In addition, since the aggregates belong to the same continuum, we can impute the same name on them although they have changed. It is what we do when we look a picture of us at age 10 and say "Look! It's me when I was ten."


the condition for sati is proper attention

  I say that mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by
  something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for mindfulness and
  situational awareness? You should say: ‘Proper attention.’

https://suttacentral.net/an10.62/en/sujato


The Buddha of Pali Canon held an evidently pragmatic position, never explicitly defining his view as idealistic or materialistic. He does speak of "this body" as "composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy". He also speaks of consciousness as "dependent on body" and therefore impermanent, something a non-returner has fully realized. At the same time, for what looks like soteriological purposes, Buddha takes a fully phenomenological stance, speaking about skandhas and dhammas as constituting all of the (phenomenal) world.

After Buddha's death, this phenomenological perspective was a subject of abuse (IMHO) by generations of Abhidharmists indulging their analytical instincts. Their unchecked tendency to reify dharmas (assigning them the status of substantially existing) has led to emergence of Prajna-Paramita movement, the main point of which was assertion of philosophical relativism as fundamental principle underlying cognition. From this perspective, primacy of mind or matter is a matter of choosing a point of reference and has nothing to do with ontological state of affairs, which by its very nature is ineffable and is not subject to assertions.

In general, it looks to me like most Buddhist schools deny substantial dualism and either assert primacy of mind (Yogacara) or philosophical relativism (most of the rest of Mahayana). Theravada is a special case, torn between pragmatism and idealism, because it historically sees itself as results-oriented and not metaphysics-oriented, and at the same time carries on the legacy of Abhidharmic phenomenology. Vajrayana, being ultra-pragmatic liberation methodology, does not concern itself with such mundane affairs as mind/matter interaction, but we can say its position remains an extension of general Mahayana nondualism.

On top of this sedimentary layer of orthodox doctrines, lies a huge ocean of skilfull means, folk beliefs, and anecdotes, most of them implying naive dualism of crude matter and some kind of soul/mind substance, a perspective sharply criticised by many prominent teachers. For one example of the latter, see Dogen's "Soku Shin Ze Butsu" (Mind Here and Now Is Buddha).


Here are some of the reasons that focusing on the breath is beneficial in meditation.
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm

  Using the breath: Why? Assuming you see the value in taking up a
  specific object for developing concentration, the breath has many
  things to recommend itself as the object of choice. 1 - it is
  portable. Every where you go you have it with you. No need to worry
  about forgetting your worry beads. 2 - it comes free with every body.
  No need to buy any special equipment. 3 - it is complete in and of
  itself. No need for any upgrades or add-ons. 4 - it is 100% natural -
  they don't come more organic than this. 5 - it is effortless. The body
  knows how to breathe without you needing to do anything, You just sit
  back and let it do all the work - while you just watch. 6 - it is a
  connection with a vital life force. 7- it is calming. There is a
  simple, natural rhythm the breath follows and following that leads one
  to peace.

All of these reasons but especially 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate that breathing should be natural and unforced, effortless and done in a relaxed way. So the emphasis is not on trying to make breathing to happen in a certain way, but allowing it to happen natural. If the nose is blocked from mucous then the mouth is the only option.

But on the same page are many variations of how breath can be integrated in meditation:
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm
examples are counting, following, listening to noise. Observing and turning away.
Walking meditation can also use breathing in it.


The term 'shamatha' means 'tranquility' or 'calm abiding' rather 'concentration' ('collectedness'; non-distraction). 'Shamatha' is a fruit of concentration rather than concentration itself.

It does not matter if you are also capable of simply paying attention to the object while thoughts emerge & can redirect attention to the object when thoughts have done so. The very fact that thoughts are emerging is a loss of concentration, however momentary.

Generally, the kinds of thoughts that help meditation are wise thoughts used to counter unwise thoughts and the very subtle thought (intention) of giving up (letting go) or non-attachment.

Some subtle thoughts can serve as objects of insight (vipassana) into impermanence but there is generally no need to deliberately cultivate such thoughts.


Its often best to avoid comparing Theravada to Mahayana.
For example, in Theravada there is no notion of 'bodhisattva enlightenment'. In Theravada, the word 'bodhisattva' is never used, apart from referring to Gotama prior to his Awakening. For example, in the Pali suttas, there is the stock phrase:

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me:...
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi

As for HH Dalai Lama, his former political role as leader of Tibet is somewhat alien to Theravada monasticism. Therefore, occasionally, Theravada people criticize the Dalai Lama; including for some of his political decisions & actions.
This said, if HH Dalai Lama has inwardly realised not-self (anatta) & eradicated identity belief (sakkaya ditthi) then he has reached one of the four levels of enlightenment according to Theravada. Personally, I believe he has enlightenment.


Is Enlightenment a momentum with a continuum or can have regressions?

Do you see an old woman or a young one? Or can you see both?

Once you've seen, can you forget how to see it?
Until we see the world as it is we don't see it, but once we've seen it we cannot 'unsee'. We may fall back on old habits and patterns (old ways of seeing the world), but enlightenment (honestly) is just seeing the world as it is. It's our natural state, something we're drawn away from by our egoic selves, but which pulls us back to itself whenever we stop fighting against it.
I know, sometimes people feel the need to walk all the way around the block to get back to their own front door; the craving for progress can delude us as easily as any other craving. C'est la vie.


Is become a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) enough?

The Pali word translated as "existence" is "bhava". "Bhava" is a mental asava (defilement) and not another life. There are 10 fetters to break through for Arahantship. The stream-enterer has broken three fetters. Each fetter is a type of becoming. Therefore, the sutta says "they do not take up an eighth becoming" because there are only a maximum of 7 more fetters to break..

In summary, it is pointless asking about stream-entry if you believe in reincarnation because this just perpetuates the "self-view" that must be broken for stream-entry. When there is the belief in reincarnation, it is the belief of "I will reincarnated or reborn seven more times". This is self-view.

The stream-enterer, in the suttas, has the realisation of: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". The realisation of the stream-enterer is not: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising".


Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I?

I think Zen Buddhists would agree. Tiāntāi had been hugely influential on Japanese Buddhism especially through it's Tendai iteration. Consider: Venerable Shinran was a Tendai seminarian, as were Venerables Nichiren & Eisai. Venerable Hōnen was also ordained as a Tendai priest. As we can see, many later schools/sects of Japanese Buddhism actually sprout from Tendai as their mother.

The above quote is from Mahāśamathavipaśyanā T1911.38.661c-662a.

A lot of this discourse is to-do with identification, suchness vs differentiation, real vs unreal, ultimate vs provisional, nirvāṇic vs worldly.

The book you are quoting from compares Venerable Zhìyǐ's round fusion with the Madhyamaka's teaching. it seems.

This seems relevant in light of that, from the Sinitic recension of Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:

  All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.  All dharmas’
  true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.  All
  dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken
  language’s ending.  There is no arising and no cessation, there is
  calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa. All is real, all is unreal, all is
  both real and unreal,  all is neither real nor unreal: this is called
  all Buddhas’ dharma.

(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)

Compare the above with the Venerable Vimalākṣa's commentary on that section, for his or her Mādhyamikaśāstra, one of the three theses of East Asian Madhyamaka (三論宗 Triśāstravāda, "the School of the Three Treatises"), which would have been well-familiar to Venerable Zhìyǐ:

  Reply: Those who are attached to dharmas classify dharmas into two
  kinds, some being worldly, some being of nirvana. They say that the
  nirvana dharmas are calm and extinct, but do not say that the worldly
  dharmas are calm and extinct. In this treatise it is taught that all
  dharmas are empty in nature and have the characteristic of calm
  extinction. Since those who are attached to dharmas do not understand
  this, nirvana is used as an example. Just as with your assertion that
  the characteristic of nirvana is emptiness, with no characteristics,
  calm extinction, and no vain thoughts, so it is with all worldly
  dharmas.

  Question: If the Buddhas do not teach self, non-self, and the
  cessation of all mental activities and the cutting-off of ways of
  verbal expression, how do they make people understand the real
  character of dharmas?

  Reply: All the Buddhas have unlimited powers of skilful means, and
  dharmas have no fixed characteristics. In order to save all living
  beings, they may teach that everything is real, or they may teach that
  everything is unreal, or that everything is both real and unreal or
  that everything is neither unreal nor not unreal. If you search for a
  real nature of dharmas, you will find that they all enter into the
  ultimate meaning and become equal, with identical characteristics,
  which is to say no characteristics, just like streams of different
  colour and different tastes entering into a great ocean of one colour
  and one taste, which is to say no taste. At the time when one has not
  yet penetrated into the true character of dharmas, each one can be
  contemplated separately as unreal, existing merely by the combinations
  of conditions. There are three levels of living beings; superior,
  average and inferior. The superior person sees that the characteristic
  of dharmas is that they are neither real nor unreal. The average
  person sees the characteristics of dharmas as either all real, or all
  unreal. The inferior man, since his powers of perception are limited,
  sees the characteristics of dharmas as a little real, and a little
  unreal, regarding nirvana, because it is an inactive dharma and does
  not perish as real, and regarding samsara, because it is an active
  dharma, empty and false, as unreal. Neither unreal nor not unreal is
  taught in order to negate ‘both real and unreal’.

(Āryavimalākṣasya Mādhyamikaśāstre Ātmaparīkṣāparivartaḥ T1564.24a15: 有人說神。應有二種。若五陰即是神。若離 五陰有神。[etc.], translation Brian Christopher Bocking)

Furthermore, returning to the source text of the commentary above, we later have this, a passage Ven Zhìyǐ would have been very familiar with:

  Between nirvāna and
  this world there is not even a slight disparity. Between this world
  and nirvāṇa there is also not even a slight disparity. From nirvāṇa’s
  true apex towards this world’s apex, like this, there are two apices,
  like this, there is not the smallest sliver of disparity between them.

(Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Nirvāṇaparīkṣā, T1564.35c27: 涅槃與世間 無有少分別 世間與涅槃 亦無少分別 涅槃之實際 及與世間際 如是二際者 無毫釐差別, section 25)


What are the core Mahayana and Vajrayana Sutras?

I think your question is much larger than can be answered with just three texts. Mahāyāna is not one thing, it is many Prajñāpāramitā, Madhyamaka, Pure Land, Yogacāra, Chan/Zen, Huayen etc. Similarly Vajrayāna is not one thing either.

For the Mahāyāna a comprehensive guide would have dozens of texts. At a minimum:

Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Mulamadhyamikākārikā śastra
Abhidharmakośabhāsya śāstra
Yogacārabhumi Sāstra
Sukhāvativyūha Sūtra (x2)
Sūtra of Huineng
Saddharmapuṇḍarikā Sūtra
Avataṃsaka Sūtra

For Vajrayāna the situation is different. Tantras cannot be read on their own. For Shingon the two main texts are

Mahāvairocana Sutra (aka Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra)
Vajraśekhara Sutra (aka Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha)

A good introduction can be found in Kūkai: Major Works by Yoshito Hakeda. Tibetan Tantra includes many more texts, such as:

Guhyasamāja Tantra
Hevajra Tantra
Kālacakra Tantra

But most teaching is done through commentaries. Many of these texts cannot be understood without a commentary. Some of them require specific initiations.


What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating?

My impression is medical cannabis does not have an intoxicating effect.

Regardless, the precept on intoxicants refers to heedlessness. If a person has a serious medical condition and must use ordinary intoxicating cannabis for relief then it is expected they would be morally mature enough for the cannabis to not lead to heedlessness.


According to tradition, Gautama Buddha was not the first Buddha. There were previous Samma Sambuddhas before him who taught the same teachings (called Dhamma). Also according to tradition, a new Samma Sambuddha does not appear until the teachings of the previous one has been completely lost and forgotten. According to The Buddhist Society page here:

  Once upon a time, many thousands of years ago, there was a Brahmin
  ascetic named Sumedha living in the Himalayan foothills. He was well
  advanced in his ascetic and meditation practices. It was the time of
  the previous Buddha Dipankara. When he heard that the Buddha was to
  visit the lowlands, he made his way down from his hermitage in order
  to meet the Buddha.

  He helped the people in making preparations for welcoming Buddha
  Dipankara. When he met the Buddha, the ascetic Sumedha was very
  impressed and thought, ’May I be able one day to attain Enlightenment
  like this Buddha, and help the people by teaching the Dhamma’. Buddha
  Dipankara read the mind of Ascetic Sumedha, and announced to those
  gathered there, ‘ This ascetic will one day become Enlightened as a
  Samma Sambuddha named Gotama Buddha’.

A brief history of Gautama Buddha's life can be found here.

The Buddha also described his noble search for enlightenment in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, including the shramanic (ascetic) teachers he studied under, before his enlightenment, but wasn't satisfied by their teachings. The first disciples were a group of five monks (according to this sutta):

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
  first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
  occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks
  who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to
  teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where
  are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye,
  purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

According to accesstoinsight.org's page on the Chronology of Theravada Buddhism:

  Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar is the year of the Buddha's
  Parinibbana (death and final release), which occurred in the Buddha's
  eightieth year (480 BCE according to the "historical" timeline; 544
  BCE by tradition).

On this year, the following happened:

  Parinibbana (Skt: Parinirvana; death and final release) of the Buddha,
  at Kusinara (now Kusinagar, India) (age 80).

  During the rains retreat following the Buddha's Parinibbana, the First
  Council (sangayana) convenes at Rajagaha, India, during which 500
  arahant bhikkhus, led by Ven. Mahakassapa, gather to recite the entire
  body of the Buddha's teachings. The recitation of the Vinaya by Ven.
  Upali becomes accepted as the Vinaya Pitaka; the recitation of the
  Dhamma by Ven. Ananda becomes established as the Sutta Pitaka.

We can consider this the beginning of modern Buddhism as we know it. Of course, years later, it would split into various schools and traditions.

My personal opinion is that Buddhism started the day the Buddha accepted the invitation by Brahma Sahampati to teach the world (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta).


There is no reason why "beings(sattānaṃ)" are born, there is causal for for it.  and causal for birth (jati) is Existence (bhava).  This is from dependent  origination or Transcendental Dependent Arising (pali - Pratītyasamutpāda).

Please make sure you understand the word "being" as per Buddha.  beings or sattānaṃ is a difficult term to understand.  ("being" is not the same as permanent soul).

recommendation for further study

Satta Sutta
Dependent origination


This is one of questions left unanswered by the Buddha.

Read here

All of the following are amongst incorrect views.

A Buddha (read Arahant or Enlightened being) does exist after death.
A Buddha does not exist after death.
A Buddha both exists and doesn't exist after death.
A Buddha neither exists nor doesn't exists after death.

In my opinion, the problem being whatever happens to the energy/consciousness/entropy/field of the Buddha must be such that it cannot be expressed in words and not even be able to be grasped as an idea or any kind of mental construct. So the Buddha left it unanswered.


Why the emptiness brings fear in to our mind?

It's hard to answer this kind of questions without seeing the questioner upclose. But from what I can see, here is what I can say:

The reason Emptiness brings fear, is because it removes simple direction: go this way, do this. Indeed, if the world had simple moral imperative, or simple value imperative ("so and so is the best") - it would be simply a matter of pursuing that. Instead, to accept Emptiness means to accept that responsibility for making decisions lies upon ourselves. There is nothing in the world that has absolute value. So we can't just figure out what it is and thereby win the game!

Sounds like you need to learn to trust yourself. Trust your own judgement of goodness and badness, of happiness and suffering.

If you are very confused, you can use Buddhist precepts and principles as the first approximation. But eventually you have to discover your own source of wisdom, your own Buddha nature.

Trungpa Rinpoche said, "the bad news is we are falling -- the good news is, there is no ground". This is what it means to take the leap into Emptiness, to take responsibility. There is no guarantee that what you do will get you to a good destination -- so you have to keep your eyes open and rely on your own fundamental sanity.

Or, as Buddha said:

  Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other.


The most colorful sutta is MN77 Mahāsakuludāyisutta.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are red, with red color, red hue, and red tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are white, with white color, white hue, and white tint.
(etc.)

AN10.29 is the second most colorful sutta.


Does it make sense to talk about origin of self?

In dependent origination, the stage self comes into picture is at 'attachment' and is full mature at 'birth'. As a modern Indian, you (the questioner) should know the word 'jati' ('birth') does not mean 'physical birth from the mother' but means 'self or social identity'.

  Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ,
  Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, Ror =
  Warriors etc. Wikipedia

The self certainly originates, as described in many suttas below:

  And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging,
  view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self
  clinging. This is called clinging.

  SN 12.2

  The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.

  MN 44

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.

  SN 22.81

  This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'

  "One assumes about the ear...

  "One assumes about the nose...

  "One assumes about the tongue...

  "One assumes about the body...

  "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self,
  this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about
  consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the
  intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving
  that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

  MN 148

  Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
  the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
  since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
  that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.

  SN 12.2


Vedana and Sañña arise only if three conditions were present in he first place: sense organ/faculty, sense-stimuli and consciousness specific to that organ/faculty. These three conditions are what is known as 'contact'.

Kamma can be understood as intentional deeds and as the continuation of habitual intentions underlying thoughts, words and bodily actions.

As far as we know with our current understanding of physics, biology and psychology, in order for something to have intentions, that something must have the capacity to sense, to interact, to respond, to interpret, to learn, to modify its behavior according stimuli from the surroundings and from its inner world. According to what I've said, "visual objects" (if understood as entities belonging the outside, "objective" world) only would create kamma if they present the capacities above described.

I'm not sure if this answer your questions, but at least it may provide some lines for future thoughts.

Kind regards!


Wise attention is the forerunner of the Noble 8 Fold Path so cultivate it.

  Dawn, bhikshus, is the forerunner, the harbinger of sun-rise.

  Even so, bhikshus, for a monk this is the forerunner, the harbinger of the arising of the noble eightfold
  path, that is, accomplishment in wise attention.

  Bhikshus, when a monk is accomplished in this wise attention, it is to be expected that he will
  cultivate the noble eightfold path, develop the noble eightfold path.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

You can develop wise attention by being equanimous to every sensation which is felt and noting its impermanence. For what unwise attention is see this answer.

Regarding sense restraint on each sense door results in sensations which are either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral

  i. On seeing a form with the eye,

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

  ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

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

  iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

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

  iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

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

  v. On feeling a touch with the body,

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

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

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

Each of these sensation should be treated as follows:

  If he feels a pleasant feeling,

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

  If he feels a painful feeling,

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

  If he feels a neutral feeling,

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

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

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

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

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

You should be careful that you do not react to the sensation with unwholesome thoughts which are craving, aversion or ignorance.

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta


Are Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism the same thing?

No they are not the same, Tibetan Buddhism is a broader concept that subsumes Tibetan Vajrayana. Also, there's non-Tibetan Vajrayana, some still practiced in e.g. Japan.

To some degree all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, and particularly Karma Kagyu, recognize three yanas (Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana) as subsequent stages on an individual's path to complete enlightenment. These days many teachers tend to have their student jump straight into tantra right after Ngondro (preliminary stage of Vajrayana training), but traditionally, the student is supposed to master the foundational theory, discipline, and meditation of Hinayana before proceeding to Mahayana, then master Mahayana's practice of subverting one's ego, and attain realization of nonconceptual emptiness, and only then proceed to tantric practices of working with Yidams (generation/completion), the Vajrayana proper.


What to do when a thought comes up while meditating

It is important to understand what is meant by 'right view' (samma ditti) which covers the origination of thoughts, the causal arising of thoughts, and the non-self nature of thoughts and the entire thinking apparatus.

This understanding will help one to be mindful of the arising and passing away of thoughts during meditation without identifying with them. The default view that a thought is mine, created by myself naturally causes one to pursue them. While the right view of the true nature of thoughts eventually leads one to be unbounded from thinking.


It all depends on how severe it is. Two things that are of concern are:

1) Is it visible i.e. on the face or other exposed part of the body such that it puts the faithful followers off?

2) Is it serious such that the itchyness interferes with the cultivation of the practice?

If answers to those two questions are no then there shouldn't be a problem.

I know of a monk who is allergic to wheat and lots who are lacto sensitive.


GAUTAM -Buddha(BUDDHADEV) and The capability of having several lives for an ordinary man or hallucination?

the path to Nirvana is very simple logic. Here's what I learned from my teacher:

You should divide everything you do (including every word and even every thought) in two groups: whether you're doing it to feed your ego or whether it's actually useful. You have to be very precise. Very precise, with every single word and every single thought you should know why you're doing this. If it's for defending the ego or indulging in pleasure, you should not do it like that, should not think like that or say that. If you're doing it because you think it's actually useful, then you should do it.

  Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty. MN 19

Then, when you live like this for several years, your mind will be pure and you will be able to see the path to Nirvana by yourself.

  To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas. The Dhammapada 14.183

My teacher said, this world is a magical place where everything is possible, as long as you're free in your mind - and now I know he was right.

So, divide your thoughts like that, and learn to be very very precise with that - and you will see for yourself. This is better than me telling you "Yes, All of that is real". Hope this helps.


Maintaining respect to their previous faith while explaining Buddhism to a person who is in another school of Buddhism or another religion?

It is most honorable to do whatever you can so that people who take what you give take it smoothly. However, what you can do in this area is limited.

To paraphrase Lama Tsongkhapa, if he who receives what you give is like a vessel turned upside down (not open to listen, to receive) nothing will enter; If he is like a leaking vessel (forgetful, not paying attention), whatever will enter will not remain; If he is like a dirty vessel (having a faulty motivation) the pure nectar you will pour in by way of teaching the Dharma will turn to mud.

However, there are things you can do to make sure people listen to you with an open mind. For instance, one is likely to be open if you are an example. If a beggar was to tell me the same thing my teacher tells me, it would not sink in in the same way because I would not  be as open as I am in relation to my teacher. This is because I have more respect to my teacher, I trust him and I trust his words, his guidance, his intentions. Therefore, that your reader trust you is important. If he does not trust you, his ears will be closed. And in order to be trusted, you have to be trustworthy, you have to be exemplar, for instance in showing respect for others and other traditions. Maybe you can include Links to websites of other traditions on your blog, as a sign of openness, and interest from your part.

Moreover, I noticed that in the West, many people prefer being told that "it is a method, it is a practice, it is a path among many others, and it works in this and that way" as opposed to "it is the truth". We like being right, we hate being wrong, we dislike being proven wrong. So, if you emphasize (1) the practical aspects and (2) contexts, that might help not dwelling to much on the 'right or wrong' type of approach.

Finally, I visited my teacher recently. I also, tend to be a bit corrosive with regard certain topics and debating with him showed me that it was due to my own pride, my own arrogance. It's always the "I know, others do not" tendency, or the "How could anyone even think in this or that way?" tendency that tends to take over. If you reduce your pride, you will naturally be smoother and more respectful.