What exacly is the so-called "formless" jhana?

Here is my understanding as of 2018.

When they say "form" (rupa) or "seed" (bija) in context of meditation, it's what we call an object of meditation these days. For example, your breath, an image of the Buddha, a particular repulsive image used as an antidote to lust - are all examples of meditation objects. An object of meditation is used as its focal point and directly correlates with the meditation's goal or objective.

Formless meditation, in contrast, is a type of meditation that involves no particular focal point, no object. As I understand, the formless jhanas refer to a step-by-step sequence of getting rid of any notion of object, however subtle.

But before we can talk about formless meditation we need to talk about the ancient model describing the process of perception. In that model, the way we perceive things is by identifying a mark (aka sign) that serves as the main determining characteristic of an object, and by matching that mark against our memory of previous impressions, making an associative interpretation that what we're looking at (hearing, thinking about) can be described with such-and-such concept. This initial hypothesis is then confirmed by finding other secondary marks (signs) that the identified object must possess and confirming they lead to the same association. This process repeats in cycles until one of the associations expands into a related concept or a memory, which leads down some train of thoughts with its desires, fears, and other problematic mindstates.

Since thinking was understood to be the root of all evil, and yoga was defined as "citta vrtti nirodha" (stopping the ever unfolding associative cycle), getting rid of all objects was the chief method for stopping the thoughts. This was the state of the art before Buddha.

Now that we understand what we're dealing with, we can understand the sequence of formless jhanas. First, you visualize infinite empty space with no objects. This is a good approximation of objectlessness, but if you think about it, you still have an object on your mind - the image of empty space. In fact, this image of empty space consists of some kind of mental "mark" or "sign" that the meditator assumes to be a good associative hook (e.g. a tactile sensation of moving and encountering no contact, or a spatial image of endlessly expanding in all directions etc.) plus the concept "empty space" that we are interpreting that sign into. So, upon close examination this type of meditation is not very objectless as it still involves what's these days is called semiosis or the act of interpreting a sign into a meaning.

So as a next step, you meditate on the empty mind with no objects. It's a mind that is potentially capable of perception, it could potentially have an object but it does not. At first you successfully imagine such a mind and in contrast with meditation on empty space, this does seem to involve no sign and no act of interpretation. It seems like a truly objectless state. But then, as you keep meditating on it, you realize that in fact your meditation still does involve a subtle kind of "sign" that is interpreted into a concept! The idea that serves as a sign in this case is a notion of time passing with no objects appearing in/to the mind! So while this meditation is closer to objectlessness, it still has a kind of very subtle object - the notion of time passing.

So you progress to meditation on Nothingness. You just sit there with no content whatsoever. Your mind is completely blank. There is no perception of space or time. It looks like, finally, you have succeeded. However, once you master that, you realize that this absence of content in fact disappears when you stop meditating, therefore your meditation still has a limit, still has a focal point. You still artificially restrict your attention to exclude whatever is going on, and that counts as form. It's a very-very subtle object, it's an object of no-object - but an object nevertheless. The thoughts are stopped while you're in meditation, but once you come out of this withdrawal, you're back to square one. So this state is non-sustainable.

So then, as the final step, you realize that complete withdrawal from all objects is not as effective as learning to stop the associative mechanism from cycling. So instead of trying to generate a state with no objects, you transcend that restriction and allow your attention to stay wide open to stimuli, without apprehending any single one of them. Things may happen as normal but you don't associate, don't conceptualize, don't get carried away by them. Your meditation is truly formless (objectless), because the mind is wide open without grasping at signs. Unfortunately, this state is still useless because you can't really function in it. Any human activity that requires association and interpretation is incompatible with this method of liberation.

This ends the progression and concludes the study of semiotic perception.

The reason Buddha de-emphasized this approach, which apparently was known before Buddha, is because it has no direct relevance in his own framework, that of the Four Noble Truths. In Buddha's system the principle problem of sentient existence is "wrongness" (dukkha) and the goal is "suchness". So in Buddha's sequence of jhanas, the progression is focused on working with sources of "wrongness" in one's mental continuum, his method is to abandon coarse and then progressively subtler sources of "wrongness" while generating coarse and then progressively subtler states of "suchness" (joy=>bliss=>peace=>etc).

The formless jhanas are a nice exercise in concentration and an easy example of progressively refined meditative sequence that many practitioners in Buddha's times must have been familiar with, but in and of themselves they do not lead to Liberation as Buddha defined it - permanent, unconditional cessation of dukkha.

This is why most traditional sources describe formless jhanas as optional. In the ancient metaphorical language, the subjective experience of meditator in a formless jhana is compared with that of a deity at a certain level of heavens, whose life has no suffering but is finite and inevitably ends with eventual return to Earth.

While Buddha's jhanas are a progressive unfolding of his Four Right Efforts:

  "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for:
  "[i] the sake of the non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[ii] ... the sake of the abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
  "[iii] ... the sake of the arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[iv] ... the maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen."

And are a progressively closer approximation of the cessation of suffering declared in the Third Noble Truth.

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

In Buddha's four jhanas (known by contrast with the others as the "rupa" or form-jhanas), you examine your mind, identify the immediate sources of dukkha (cravings, attachments, hangups, mental conflicts etc.), as well as the various factors hindering your progress (distractions, pessimism etc.) and let go of those, while at the same time finding ways to generate the positive qualities that help you keep going, such as Motivation, Energy, Attentiveness, etc. as well as the approximations of suchness such as Pride, Joy, and Peace.

The culmination of rupa jhanas is liberation in the suchness of spontaneous presence, which involves no feeling of "wrongness" whatsoever and is endlessly sustainable because it is not limited by any condition other than the absence of aversions and cravings for things to be otherwise.

So unlike arupa jhanas which solve the wrong problem in the wrong way, Buddha's jhanas succeed by focusing on the right issue (that of the "wrongness" or "rightness" of one's experience) and then progressively refining the practice until it culminates in a fully sustainable, truly unconditional liberation.


A "difficult person" can be anyone you know or don't know.

For example  a "difficult person" can be someone you do not know personally

example - Hitler,Mussolini

A "difficult person" can be someone you know personally

The girl who broke your heart for the first time
The childhood bully
Boss
The loud neighbor
That guy in your office

A "difficult person" can be someone entirely different

For example it is easy to do Meththa mediation to a deer or a rabbit because they are cute innocent animals.  But have you tried Doing mettha to a snake or a shark?

"One day a monk died  because of a sanke bite and rest of the monks asked Lord Buddha why he died.Lord Buddha said "Even though he did meththa he did not concentrated it to snakes and because of this reason his meththa was incomplete.That is why he was attacked."

You must consider why you have left some out of your meditation and join those animals or people.But this does not mean you should take every creature alone and meditate on them.

May triple gems bless you!

Learn Meththa Meditation completely - Click and learn


How to approach motivation for work during Vipassana?

You are already dead might be a useful talk (or read the written transcript here).

I knew of someone who was participating in a series of seminars on death and dying. And for one of the seminars the teacher took him aside beforehand and said: Okay, I want you to tell everybody when we go into the room that we are already dead, and act as if you are already dead. Now, of course not lying there like a corpse on the floor, but having the attitude of someone who has already died, and is able to come back for a brief visit. And he found it liberating. He could talk to people with a lot less concern about what they might think about him, or what he could get out of them, or their approval. And then the following week when he came back for the next course he was his old self again, alive. And one of the women in the course took him aside afterwards and said: You know, I like you better when you're dead.
So it's not morbid. It's actually liberating, it's freeing. To be able to look at all your worries and all the concerns of daily life from this perspective. You've got a true sense of what is important and what's not.


OP: To be man we have to compete, obtain resources and protect our families. Could it be all achieved reasonably and with compassion?
  Could a man following Dhamma be a real, good man?

What you describe here is basically known as a householder or the head of a household in old times, and maybe even today.

The Sigalovada Sutta has plenty of good advice:

  The wise endowed with virtue
  Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey
  And heaping it up like an ant hill.

  Once wealth is accumulated,
  Family and household life may follow.
  By dividing wealth into four parts,
  True friendships are bound;

  One part should be enjoyed;
  Two parts invested in business;
  And the fourth set aside
  Against future misfortunes."

  "In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a
  husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing
  authority, and by giving gifts.

  "And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways:
  by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and
  household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods,
  and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

From the Dighajanu Sutta:

  "And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.' If a lay person has a small income but maintains a grand
  livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This clansman devours his
  wealth like a fruit-tree eater.' If a lay person has a large income
  but maintains a miserable livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This
  clansman will die of starvation.' But when a lay person, knowing the
  income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune,
  neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my
  income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my income,'
  this is called maintaining one's livelihood in tune.

From the Anana Sutta:

  "And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a
  good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise,
  amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the
  sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he
  thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed
  through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my
  brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he
  experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.

  "And what is the bliss of [making use of] wealth? There is the case
  where the son of a good family, using the wealth earned through his
  efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and
  piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously
  gained, partakes of his wealth and makes merit. When he thinks, 'Using
  the wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the
  strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow,
  righteous wealth righteously gained, I partake of wealth and make
  merit,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the
  bliss of [making use of] wealth.

  "And what is the bliss of debtlessness? There is the case where the
  son of a good family owes no debt, great or small, to anyone at all.
  When he thinks, 'I owe no debt, great or small, to anyone at all,' he
  experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of
  debtlessness.

From the Adiya Sutta:

  'My wealth has been enjoyed,
  my dependents supported,
  protected from calamities by me.

  I have given supreme offerings
  & performed the five oblations.

  I have provided for the virtuous,
  the restrained,
  followers of the holy life.

  For whatever aim a wise householder
  would desire wealth,
  that aim I have attained.
  I have done what will not
  lead to future distress.'

  When this is recollected by a mortal,
  a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
  he is praised in this life and,
  after death, rejoices in heaven.

By practising the five precepts and other things, the householder can achieve stream entry. Please read the Gihi Sutta for more info on this.


How to increase the speed of learning about oneself?

A student goes to the dojo and asks how long it will take to become a master.

The master replies “There is no answer to that, my son. First you must learn patience.”

The student replies “Yeah, yeah, patience. How long is that going to take?”

What you need to understand is, the more you force it, the more likely it is that no wisdom, insight or freedom from suffering will occur. You must reach an understanding or realization that nothing needs to be learned, you just need to except things for what they are, then the "letting-go" of our want to control, this will free you from pain and suffering!!

Continue your meditation daily and the answers you seek will reveal themselves deeper and deeper the more the mind quietens.

Metta


That's a ridiculous statement.  How could you follow something sincerely that wasn't built on solid ground?  If the dharma wasn't certain, pursuing it would be a complete waste of time.  While it might not answer larger, existential questions like "why are we here", it is a fairly reliable point of departure.

Uncertainty is, however, a very important part of practice.  In fact, doubt and frustration are one of the most salient features of the path.  Buddhism doesn't seek to give answers.  Instead it asks us to reevaluate our assumptions.  It's very aim is to disrupt the order we've conjured around ourselves.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Buddhism tries to perfectly describe the nature of the world.  The very act of describing it inevitably reduces it to ideas and descriptions.  What Buddhism does attempt to do is give us an opportunity to see the nature of the world perfectly.


What is the Buddhist Way to Reform and Correct People?

I didn't down vote! I would say that the Buddha and the Buddha's system are not ways to reform people, they are ways for people to reform themselves.

What the Buddha did in cases like Angulimala was to perceive the particular approach which would be met with a comprehension that lead to their change or understanding of the goal. And this also usually under circumstances of compassion specific to the individual.

The idea of reforming people involves ambition, desire, wanting, etc. I think the distinction applies especially in cases such as prison reform. The lack of a specific target and certainty that one is providing an approach that will lead to attainment of the reform tells me that what is at work in a case like that is personal ambition rather than compassion.

When the Buddha speaks of the good man being of benefit to gods and men, he is speaking about the example they set. From the good example people reform themselves.

So, I suppose I would give as answer to this question: the best method for providing an opportunity for people to reform themselves is by being a good example.


Questions from 10 Days Mr. Goenka Vipassana Course?

Give not importance to any of these experiences. They are just conditioning. If you give importance of have prejudice towards any meditative experience, you might end up generating aversion and craving.

What these experiences could be:

you are more sensitive to these vibration
Piti or sukha has surfaced
vibrations are part of the Mahābhūta and you mind is becoming sensitive enough to experience it
other past Sankhara manifesting itself as vibrations (above included)

When you get such an experience try to see the arising and passing nature of it! This experience, as with any other experience, in essential you your practice of equanimity. Whatever your experience be equanimous - this is the exercise and what you should be doing.

  I saw a Dog, Snake and Centipede before sleeping, as soon as I closed my eyes.

People have odd dreams / day dreams. I am not sure what this means. Buddhism does not deach how to interpret dreams.

Like anything else, do not give any importance. Be equanimous.

Also there is a lot more of what the Buddha taught than what is taught in a 10 day course. The Tipitaka is very vast. This contains all which what Buddha taught.


The Sanskrit word karma means action. It was used in Brahmanism to refer to those physical and verbal acts that were considered to bring positive results to the individual performing the acts (or on behalf of whom the acts were performed by Brahmin priests).

The Buddha denounced this idea. In his teaching, that which was potent for the individual was the state of mind (cetana):

  cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi

  It is cetana, monks, that I call karma.

  -- AN 6.63

Either way, anyone who tells you that "Karma is what happens as a result of your actions or your choices", doesn't understand the meaning of the word. What they are referring to is vipāka (result); karma is that which brings vipāka.

Either way, your question still stands:

  who/what is the keeper of such actions and choices?

This is a common question, but it mostly stems from a lack of clear understanding that karma simply means action. It isn't a thing, it doesn't last from life to life or moment to moment, and it certainly doesn't come back to reward or punish the doer.

The law of karma is simply an observable pattern or regularity that exists between ethical acts and the results that follow them. I don't know of any explanation for why the universe works this way, but that it does is readily apparent.

We don't question, for example, whether torturing others is bad for the person doing the torturing (or at least we shouldn't). Obviously doing evil corrupts one's mind, destroys one's reputation, cultivates enmity, etc. (c.p. MN 129)

The real question, I guess, is why this doesn't end at the moment of death. Of course, given that death of the individual is a concept (as is the individual), there really isn't as much trouble explaining this as one might think. One's rebirth is conditioned by one's death and the events leading up to one's death; a murderer is likely to be reborn entangled with the murdered, because murdering others involves karmically potent mind states that change one's future mind states including those involved with one's death.

  Another way to ask the question is how is a record of my actions maintained and kept?

It isn't. Nothing that arises lasts more than a moment, and nothing that has ceased ever returns. Karma is simply a natural law, like the law of gravity or conservation of energy, that:

  “yādisaṃ vapate bījaṃ, tādisaṃ harate phalaṃ.
  kalyāṇakārī kalyāṇaṃ, pāpakārī ca pāpakaṃ.

  Whatever sort of seed one plants, that is the sort of fruit one will reap;
  A doer of good good, and a doer of evil evil.

  -- SN 11.10


Tatramajjhattatā • Equanimity • In the middle of all that

Upekkhā word is used in 10 contexts of suttanta with 10 meaning, which were analysed by sāriputta-aggasāvaka, then concluded to 4 sabhāva:

One refers to vedanā (upekkhā-feeling).
One refers to viriya (effort).
Two refer to paññā (understanding).
Six refer to tatramajjhattatā (equality/parity/counterbalance).

So, when sāriputta try to explain each upekkhā, he used the synonym words to explain them, like we saw in the dictionary, nowadays, such as in KN. Jūlaniddesa, Udayamāṇavakapañhāniddeso:

  [446]    Upekkhāsatisaṃsuddhanti   upekkhāti   yā   catutthajjhāne
  upekkhā   upekkhanā   ajjhupekkhanā   cittasamatho   cittappasādatā  majjhattatā   cittassa.

That is the original tatramajjhattatā in pāli cannon.

Why commentary concluded 10 meaning to 4 sabhāva?

Because of the main topic of each contexts, which each upekkhā word appearing. For the example in SN Mahāvagga, First Ānandasutta:

  [1393]   Yasmiṃ   samaye   ānanda   bhikkhu  tathā  samāhitaṃ  cittaṃ
  sādhukaṃ    ajjhupekkhitā    hoti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgo   tasmiṃ   samaye
  bhikkhuno   āraddho   hoti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ   tasmiṃ   samaye  bhikkhu
  Bhāveti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgo   tasmiṃ   samaye  bhikkhuno  bhāvanāpāripūriṃ
  gacchati.

You can see sama-word and ajjhupekkhā-word, which appeared in Udayamāṇavakapañhāniddeso like tataramajjhupekkhā, explaining upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ. So, commentary concluded them as the same type upekkhā, tattaramajjhupekkhā.


Annoyed when talking about generosity, stingy -- would one ever be able to grow in Dhamma?

Generosity can help develop non-attachment & emptiness of self but its not guaranteed. This is why generosity is included as "mundane dharma" and it generally taught to common worldlings (aka puthujjana).


There might be something along those lines in SN 4.23 Godhika Sutta.

Page 85 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained says,

  Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death


In the monastery I live, we are taught to bless the food by way of offering it, before each meal (or even before simply drinking a glass of water, tea, coffee or so).

The short Tibetan version goes:

Tönpa la mä sangye rinpoche
Kyobpa la mä dam chö rinpoche
Dren pa la mä gendün rinpoche
Kyab nä kön chok sum la chö par bül

Its English translation goes:

To the precious Buddha, the unsurpassable teacher,
To the precious Dharma, the unsurpassable protection,
To the precious Sangha, the unsurpassable guides—
To you, the three rare and supreme sources of refuge, I offer.

It is what we recite (just once, no need for thee recitations) when we have no time (or no heart to take the time). Usually, we recite this short version in the context of 'blessing, offering the food during puja' or when we eat outside of the monastery. An even shorter version for lazy people like me consists in saying "Om Ah Hum" three times.

We also have a longer (clearly Mahayana) version. It is the one we recite every day before the communal lunch:

Om Ah Hum (3x)

Compassionate Lord,
All-knowing Guide,
Field of merit and ocean of qualities,
Tathagata, to you I pay homage.

Through purity free of attachment,
Through virtue free of the lower realms,
Uniquely ultimate supreme,
Peaceful Dharma, to you I pay homage.

Showing the path which frees those seeking freedom,
Well established in the trainings,
Pure among fields possessing qualities:
To the Sangha, I also pay homage.

To the principal Buddha homage.
The Dharma, which protects homage.
To the Sangha assembly homage.
Homage to the three always.

The qualities of Buddha are inconceivable.
The qualities of the Dharma are inconceivable.
The Arya Sangha are inconceivable.
Through generating faith in the inconceivable,
The karmic ripening result will also be inconceivable:
May we be born in the pure realm.

To the precious Buddha, peerless guide,
To the precious Dharma, peerless refuge,
To the precious Sangha, peerless liberators:
We offer to the three jewels of refuge.

This food with a hundred of flavours,
Which  is mouth-watering and well made,
To the Conqueror and his children we offer with faith.
By this, may all migrators become wealthy,
And enjoy the food of concentration.

Seeing this food as medicine,
We eat it without attachment or hatred,
Not to have an enviable body, not out of pride,
Not to look strong, only to sustain the body.

Through the connection of making charity
To the sentient beings living in my body,
May they become human beings and I will reveal to them the
Dharma and lead them to enlightenment.
For this purpose I am going to enjoy this food.


Limitations of meditation/mindfulness without Vinaya

The basis of Vinaya is morality and taming the senses
Lack or morality (Sila / Vinaya) or hedonistic practices is based on unwholesome thoughts
Unwholesome thoughts result in unpleasantness (due to -ve fabrications and karmic formations) which is detrimental to meditation (Piti and Passadhi being an aid to meditation)
This also lead to verbal fabrication as most unwholesome thoughts lead to through proliferation which makes the mind harder to focus and also creating more fabrication.

Morality (Sila / Vinaya) is the basis of developing Samaddhi which helps developing Panna. So strong morality is needed.


Is there any authentic Chan Buddhist lineage operating in the West/Europe?

There's only two Ch'an lines active in the West that I know of, the first one founded by Hsuan Hua. Its headquarters are in California. It has branch temples, for the West mainly in the US, listed on this page.

The second is the Western Chan Fellowship, who actually list Xuyun in their lineage, and has branches in the US and Europe.


If I undergo suffering now, will my next birth be better?

I never really understood this view, but it seems to have been held by the Niganthas. See MN 101 for a detailed argument against this sort of reasoning (too long to quote here).

Basically, though, it is like saying that if I have taken poison, I should take more poison so I feel the poisoning more quickly and thus somehow work out the result of the original poison quicker. Isn't that a ridiculous idea?

If I have performed karma X in the past that has result A in the future, performing other karmas Y and Z that also have result A doesn't do anything (except perhaps coincidentally - e.g. cutting off my arm means I can't experience pain in my hand) to affect karma X.

Another fallacy here is the idea that experiencing suffering leads to future happiness (in a way that pleasure doesn't). Really, to be objective, your question would have to include pleasure, in which case it would be, "If I undergo pleasure and pain in this life, will my next rebirth be better?" to which the answer is of course no.

An important concept to always keep in mind, according to the Buddha's teaching, is that pleasure and pain don't lead to pleasure or pain, it is good and evil that lead to pleasure and pain.


Indeed, there are four levels of craving.

Craving for one's life - Highest level
Craving for one's organs
Craving for loved ones
Craving for external objects - Lowest level

Chathurarya Sathya (Four Noble truths) by Rerukane Chandawimala Thero

Craving for life arises as perceiving the five aggregates as self and this is the highest level of craving. As an example, during a natural disaster someone would first try to save his own life at any cost, then the lives of his loved ones and finally when everyone is safe, he would try to save his possessions.
From the given example, satisfying thirst may fall under first type, wanting a car falls under fourth and missing a loved one falls under the third level.
Note- The author of the book hasn't referred to any text in Pali canon whether this is  a categorization of Buddha or if it appears in Abhidhamma.


List of Buddhist podcast recommendations

Ajahn Brahm - Based out of Australia. There are a few others that upload on the BSWA channel. The talks are very easy to follow. Ajahn Brahm is one of the more entertaining monks, as he brings comedy and jokes into his talks. What I personally enjoy about this channel is that the videos are labeled very well, so you can search for topics that you want to learn. Say you're having a difficult day and aren't positive you can search the channel for "staying positive" and there will be several videos on the subject.

Resources:

Meditation Videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ajahn+brahm+guided+meditation
Talks: https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA/search?query=Dhamma+Talk
Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6M_EhnSSdTG_SXUp6IAWmQ


Help Me Choose which meditation i Should do Anapanasati or Brahmaviharas?

Brahmaviharas is a lower type of meditation than Anapanasati. In Brahmaviharas you use your intellect, to make up suggestions or narratives, that condition your point of view a certain way. In Anapanasati you don't use your intellect to generate anything, you just let go of hangups and let them dissolve. Anapanasati is more direct.

The Buddha said, we don't have to rush to finish the with-intellect meditation and jump to the direct. In fact, he said we should max out the first type until we had enough of it at which point it would seem too artificial. I think that's exactly where you are at.

So at this point it makes sense for you to do Anapanasati. However, it sounds like you misunderstand what that means. Anapanasati is not just watching your breath and disconnecting from the world. It is using the breath as a focal point for directly seeing your mind, and cutting through any negative thoughts that assault you.

The end result is that you come back to a fresh open mind, as if you have just awoke.


In his Great Minds of the Eastern tradition lecture series Grant Hardy identifies 6 orthodox schools of Indian philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Mimāṃsā, Vedanta). He also identified 3 heterodox schools

Cārvāka (materialist)
Jainism
Buddhism

The heterodox schools are those who reject the authority of the Vedas. So based on this then Buddhism was opposed to the Vedic religion.Interestingly the Buddha came to be seen as an avatar of the god Vishnu in some forms Hinduism. I guess that it's better to have the Buddha inside the tent chanting out then outside the tent chanting in (or words to that effect).


The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.

In Buddhism, "myself" as an entity would be a mind-object: a concept, something one conceived / imagined, which receives attention -- a 'self' is taught to not be in the range of actual experiences such as a touch, a smell or primitive mental phenomena (such as a mental image, or mental sound) that can be contacted.

In Buddhism, one is "aware" of the detailed micro experiences (that, among other things, give rise to a concept of self). In buddhism, this "detailed awareness", or "attention" to a specific "primitive experience" is called consciousness (vinanna), which is formulated in buddhism as six-fold: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness1.

Then, it's said that if there's  eye organ and visual forms,  eye-consciousness arise. The coming of the three is contact. For example in my visual field now there are bed sheets, wall frames and a TV. But while I write this, I'm not conscious of any of these forms, only of this visual character I'm typing right now.

For example, I just realized there was a lamp in the ceiling with lights on in my visual field, even though it has been reachable all the time. Until that moment, there was no contact (my consciousness was not directed) to this particular visual object.

The same occurs with mind as a sense: there are mind objects (e.g. thoughts) a "mind organ", and a mind-consciousness arise; the coming of the three is contact (e.g. when one gives attention to a particular thought). With contact, pleasant, unpleasant (or neither one) occur -- and so on.

  Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)

I think this is close to what  mindfulness (sati) is in buddhism. It has different/related meanings depending on context but without going into details, I would summaryze as Thanissaro Bhikku put it: "What does it mean to be mindful of the breath? Something very simple: to keep the breath in mind."

  "Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.

I'm not sure how your "being aware of what I am doing" is different than your "know what I am doing".

  A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.

In buddhism, I think this could be mano, sankhara, or even possibly cetana.

  Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.

I don't quite understand what you mean on this one.

  Consciousness is awareness of being a self.

I would not say one is aware of a self (or 'myself', see first point) -- e.g. as if 'self' was an experienced object grasped by any of the 6 sense faculties. But one does elaborate a (by buddhism, incorrect) understanding of being or having 'a self'.

Now, to the question...

  Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?

In Buddhism (and if you understand mindfulness to be sati), no.

For a detailed investigation on the meanings of mindfulness I suggest  Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in Early Buddhism

1: The point, I think, is not to say that there is such a thing as consciousness and it can be perfectly divided in six part (an ontological statement). Rather, it is that understanding the mind in this way is useful / helps with training and understanding of dhamma, and consequently, with final liberation.


Everything I do is motivated by greed/aversion. How to react?

It is actually a nice realization, to see oneself like you did. I remember when I got mine, I was about 20 - and I was shocked to realize all my re-actions were motivated by desire to make myself look better in others' eyes. This means you are getting mature.

This is normal, especially when we are young(er). It is well known that small children are often extreme egoists - they don't even realize other people also have wants, interests, and problems. As we grow up, our circle of awareness grows and we begin to appreciate other people's perspectives and care about the world at large.

You are right that the kind of drive you describe leads to tension and battles and suffering. And you are right that dropping it will not solve the problem. Suppressing it would only suppress the source of energy you have within yourself. It would also create problems in your personal life. What I suggest instead, is that, like Buddha did, you put this drive for perfection to the service of Enlightenment.

Meaning, you continue to strive to be perfect, but you expand your definition of perfection to include freedom from ego. All your actions can still be optimized to be as objectively flawless as possible, as long as you never act in order to feed your ego in your own or others' eyes. See what I mean?

Watch yourself for egoistic thoughts, motives, judgments - and eliminate them as soon as you notice any. Then continue to act as impeccably as possible for the greater good. This attitude - when you do your best to be as perfect as possible with the goal of eventually helping others, as opposed to doing it as food for your ego - is called "bodhi-citta", the mind of Enlightenment. You can get much more detailed instructions on this particular approach to Enlightenment in a book called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" by Chögyam Trungpa. Good luck.


Which of the five hindrance does 'comparison' fall in?

Specifically "comparison" sounds to me like (i.e. it reminds me of the doctrine about) one of the 'fetters', i.e. "conceit" -- see this answer -- then see also this Wikipedia.
I think the opposite of mudita is meant to be "envy" -- so see issā where that's identified as one of the "unwholesome mental factors" etc.

As for getting over it, it reminds me of this,  quoting from A Still Forest Pool -- Lessons in the Forest

A Western monk at WatBa Pong became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the detailed and seemingly arbitrary rules of conduct the monks had to follow. He began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chah's teaching. At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.
Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

Re. Ajahn Chah's laughing, thoughts like "he got this and I got nothing" doesn't seem to me the kind of mental habit that a forest monk has trained towards.
The suttas say -- and Ajahn Chah too says, in this quote -- that Buddhism is more about "letting go", rather than about "acquiring".
This article Letting go reminds me that among the first training recommended for a layperson might be acts of generosity or dana.
I think the Pali word that's translated as "letting go" is vossagga, and that it's identified as instrumental in initial stages of meditation.
Perhaps that -- i.e. renunciation, abandonment, detachment as a practice/training/choice -- is a reason why living as a Buddhist monk might be considered right and skilful (c.f. your recent question about "advantageous").


Is playing computer games an unwholesome activity?

There are different degrees of unwholesome activity. The term akusala (lit. unskillful, unwholesome) is a broad term that in addition to referring to 'bad' deeds (e.g. killing, stealing, adultery etc...) can refer to any kind of action that doesn't lead to the highest happiness. In this broader sense, all types of sensual indulgence such as food, sex, entertainment, wanting good clothes, etc... are akusala.

By teaching that sensuality is akusala the Buddha wasn't teaching that everyone must abstain from them or else they are being bad Buddhists, but rather that they don't lead towards Nirvana, and that renouncing them is superior, and that in the end when one becomes Enlightened, one will give up the desire for them. That doesn't mean that as practicing Buddhists we cannot enjoy sensual pleasures within moderation, but giving them up is in the long run a much better way of finding happiness.


Buddha's advice regarding meditation practice

Consider the story of the blind weaver's daughter, Verse 174 of the Dhammapada,

  Verse 174: Blind are the people of this world: only a few in this
  world see clearly (with Insight). Just as only a few birds escape from
  the net, so also, only a few get to the world of the devas, (and
  Nibbana).

The girl contemplates death and dying for three years having only heard a single sermon of the Buddha and having learned no samatha technique.

  The main points the Buddha stressed on that day may be expressed as
  follows:

  "My life is impermanent; for me, death only is permanent. I must certainly die; my life ends in death. Life is not permanent; death is
  permanent." (source)

She is ready for stream entry by merely practicing this dry insight. The rest of the story is quite instructive too, but doesn't pertain to dry insight.

As regards the difference between meditation practices of monks and lay people, there are a few traditions today that seem to institute such differences for various reasons - too painful, too difficult, too complicated, however there is no practical barrier to practice per se. Painful ascetic practice of the Dhutanga monks were rarely attempted by lay people for obvious reasons. In the time of the Buddha it wasn't unusual for lay people to take temporary vows of monasticism on retreats lasting even a few years. This was more popular (see caves of lay people where they retreated a few months a year in India) in contemporary religions like Jainism which even included very painful penances.

Meditation is synonymous with Buddhism today, but even in Buddhist countries like Burma meditation almost died out, with most monks eschewing meditation in favor of sutta practice. It was laypeople who sometimes preserved the tradition of meditation.

For example, Sayagyi U Ba Khin (1899-1971) and his disciple S.N. Goenka (1924-2013) are famous lay meditators of Burma who revived and spread a branch of the Vipassana system world wide.

Anapanasati Sutta: Mindfulness of Breathing is the canonical meditation taught by the Buddha. However, the Buddha taught over forty kinds of meditation.


Need more information about samanera or sramanera in India(Theravada tradition)?

There is the Maha Bodhi Society in India. They have monastic training centers in Bengaluru and Hyderabad.

There's another monastery called the Mahabodhi Jetavana Monastery in Ladakh.

I found these through Google, to be honest.


Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

When attachment is ceased desire is ceased. When desire is ceased, suffering is ceased.

This should be understood correctly. The statement "When attachment is ceased desire is ceased" does not mean that a person devoid of attachment, has no desires. Desire is still present, but the person can freely choose what he wishes to desire. His desires are not conditioned by past kamma anymore. So, when he notices "oh this is suffering", he simply frees himself from these desires which cause this same suffering, to the point when he is completely liberated from suffering.

Desire without attachment can still lead to suffering, but this suffering is short lived, because a person with non-attachment can easily free himself from this same desire. That's how a person free from attachment identifies desires that cause him suffering. By seeing and knowing desires that lead to suffering, he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and stops it completely.

An enlightened being is free from all desires that cause him suffering. He could choose to be unwise and desire to suffer, but he chooses not to because he knows "suffering creates more suffering". Thus, because he doesn't want to create more suffering, he chooses to completely stop suffering. By seeing and knowing "suffering creates more suffering", he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and the suffering of other beings and minimizes it as much as he can.


You will probably not find a better explanation than that of the Dalai Lama.

It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.
The entire talk can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/omph.htm

Thus the six syllables, OM MANI PADME HUM, mean that in dependence on the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech and mind into the pure body, speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of Buddhahood are within. As Maitreya says in his SUBLIME CONTINUUM OF GREAT VEHICLE (UTTARA TANTRA) all beings naturally have the Buddha nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity, the essence of a One Gone Thus (TATHAGATAGARBHA), that is to be transformed and full developed into Buddhahood. (From a lecture given by His Holiness The Dalai Lama of Tibet at the Kalmuck Mongolian Buddhist Center, New Jersey.)


Does SN44.9 imply an intermediate state between births?

Piya Tan has an essay on the topic here: Is Rebirth Immediate? (SD 2.17)

And a commentary and translation of the sutta here, Kutūhala,sālā Sutta, which includes "To Vaccha’s second and final question, the Buddha makes his famous statement on the intermediate state."

My paraphrase of the essay (if I've read it correctly) is that:

The Abhidhamma and commentaries denies an intermediate state, on not very strong grounds (e.g. that the Buddha didn't teach explicitly that there is such a thing)
Many people (Theravada and other schools) believe in such a state anyway
There are suttas (which it quotes) which may be describing an intermediate state
Other sources include the Chinese Agamas, and the Sanskrit, the Milinda Panha

That essay totals about 15 pages -- you can read the details.

It quotes Ven. Sujato's commentary on The Kutūhala,sāla Sutta:

  From this we can conclude that the Buddha, following ideas current in his time—for Vacchagotta
  was a non-Buddhist wanderer (paribbājaka)—accepted that there was some kind of interval
  between one life and the next. During this time, when one has “laid down” this body, but is not
  yet reborn in another, one is sustained by craving, like a flame tossed by the wind is sustained by
  air. The simile suggests, perhaps, that the interval is a short one; but the purpose of the simile is to
  illustrate the dependent nature of the period, not the length of time it takes. While a fire is burning
  normally, it is sustained by a complex of factors, such as fuel, oxygen, and heat. But when a
  tongue of flame is momentarily tossed away from the source fire, it can last only a short while,
  and in that time it is tenuously sustained by the continued supply of oxygen. Similarly in our
  lives, we are sustained by food, sense stimulus, and so on, but in the in-between, it is only the
  slender thread of craving that propels us forward. The difference is, of course, that the flame will
  easily go out, while the fuel of craving propels the unawakened inexorably into future rebirth.


The answer for this comes in the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Of course, the question was phrased differently by Kassapa, but the essence of the question is the same.

  Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

The second useful sutta is the Acintita Sutta which states that the precise working out of karma cannot be conjectured:

  "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The third useful quote below comes from the Sivaka Sutta, teaching that not everything we experience in life is due to karma. Some times it's due to the weather or indigestion etc.

  As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama,
  there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine,
  this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done
  before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"

  [The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on
  bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on
  bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view
  that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."


First, we can't tell with absolute certainty what is the original teachings of the Buddha -- unless we were there. In principle, any buddhist who says "this is the absolute original teachings of the Buddha" is putting forward a belief. A belief that may have varying degrees of proximity with the real facts. But that belief can be quite different from another buddhist living in a different buddhist culture.

So a question here is how can we tell what is original and what is not? People who misinterpret something think they interpret it right. How are these people different from "us", those who think interpret things right -- maybe we are the ones misinterpreting it. And what is the source of the information misinterpreted? A text? A teacher's word? A feeling?

Five hundred years after the Buddha, there were over 18 distinct names identifying distinct buddhist groups. These already disagreed with each other in some topics, so of course two thousand years later buddhists still disagree with each other over topics.

But also, there are buddhists and there are buddhists. For example, Brazil has a large percentage of catholics. Most likely, the great majority never read the bible. It's reasonable that many buddhists are buddhists due to being born in a culture of buddhism, but this does not mean such a person is familiar with the entire doctrine -- or with any word believed to be said by the Buddha. The general case is they don't know. There are even buddhist monks who didn't even know scriptures quoting the Buddha existed.

Moreover, just because there's a large population who are not quite engaged with their religion doesn't mean the religion is declining. After all, there are the buddhists who take it seriously, who dedicate their life to it.

Also, some people come here with varying degrees of knowledge of Buddhism and very distinct interests on Buddhism (e.g. super powers), who may not even be buddhists themselves, and may ask questions that are perceived as strange to some buddhists. But these questions are not evidence that buddhists are going bananas.

It seems to you Buddhism comprises some abstract concepts and way of life that you claim have been forgotten. But other Buddhists are following their traditions -- which they claim to be genuine -- or are reading old scriptures -- which they believe to contain the words of the actual Buddha. To them, Buddhism is being practiced. They think themselves to be genuine monks when they follow what they read in the scriptures, e.g., that the Buddha instructed them to not eat meat if they know the animal has being killed for them to eat it.

And to answer your question: yes, the Buddha forbade, in the sense that he instructed people to abstain of many kinds of actions.

But forbidding is inconsequential for a doctrine to be a religion or not. One could still spawn a religion by just saying what people should do or how people should understand their lives, etc.


This is a Mahayana question and I'll answer it as such.

The cosmology of the Amitabha Buddha is described as something akin to an infinite number of parallel universes (or galaxies, the cosmology isn't or wasn't trying to be accurate in the astrophysics), each with a Buddha. The Buddha of each universe arise and disappear to be replaced by a new one, the next one in our universes is Maitreya.

The respect in which Sakyamuni Buddha is Supreme is that he was the most recent Buddha in our world. He was preceded by seven Buddhas.

Via reincarnation you can appear in a universe with a different Buddha, which is the whole point of the Pure Land Sutras. The gist is that progress towards enlightenment in this world is difficult, but easy in the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha.

In the cosmology there is the idea that there can only be one Buddha in the world at time. Personally I haven't come across a convincing explanation for why. My personal opinion is that this is related to the Precept on making false claims of enlightenment. If you are running a sangha and six monks all claim to have become enlightened and all think they are now the rightful leaders of the sangha, that could be a problem.

The Buddhas of other Lands appear to have intercessory powers in our world, for example the Medicine Buddha (Bhaisajyaguru) vows to provide a number of this-worldly benefits to those who say his name.

On the other hand, there is no limit on the number of Bodhisattvas-- Kwan Yin/Avalokitesvara, Kstigarbha, etc. all can exist in the same universe.

Now if this question is really about finding monotheism in Buddhism, you can find that, too. The Adibuddha and Vairocana have been suggested to be the Buddhas from which all other Buddhas emanate, and syncretic Buddhism from time to time has explicitly or accidentally reincorporated a Hindu style Brahma-- a universal, shared soul that is also the monotheistic god or supreme being.

The evidence for all this is from sutras, and presumably the meditative inspirations and visions of the authors. If that doesn't do anything for you, that's fine, too, it reads fine as a myth-- a fictional story to illustrate the Dharma.


Translation of Akkosa Sutta: Insult - ."He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"

The Sujato translation is:

When you get angry at an angry person
Tasseva tena pāpiyo,
you just make things worse for yourself.
yo kuddhaṃ paṭikujjhati;
When you don’t get angry at an angry person
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
you win a battle hard to win.
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ.

I have zero competence in translating Pali but my mere guess is:

Tasseva (3rd person pronoun in genitive case; genitive means having possession) tena (because of) pāpiyo (sinful)
One has a sin/sinful because of
yo (one who) kuddhaṃ (accusative case is object of the verb; is provoked; is angered) paṭikujjhati (verb; is angry in return; pati + kudh + ya);
one (yo) getting angry/provoked in return (paṭikujjhati; verb) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ; object of the verb)
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
When one (yo) is not angry/provoked in return (appaṭikujjhanto) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ)
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ
one wins a battle hard to win.

Note: for Sujato, possibly "tasseva" is in dative case, which implies "giving" or "making"; rather than genitive case, which implies "possessing".
While i cannot definitively translate the verse, my guess is the translation revolves around the 1st sentence: "Tasseva tena pāpiyo" and particularly who is the owner or maker of the "pāpiyo" ("sinful").
My guess is the person getting angry in return possesses the "pāpiyo" because it appears the "pāpiyo" ("sinful"), together with the "jeti" ("victory"), are the main subjects or outcomes of the entire verse.
Therefore, I merely guess the Acharya Buddharakkhita & Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations are the most accurate because the "pāpiyo" ("sinful") is possessed by "the person" ("tasseva") rather than possessed by Thanissaro's generalization of "things". But I could be wrong.
Often, our Soviet & European moderators are fluent with grammar and can assist, here.


What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English?

UPDATE:
These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693:

THE LIFE OF THEVETAT, Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli)
An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac

More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4:

Simon de La Loubère [...] in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy of
the king of France (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about the
Kingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691. Two years later an
English translation was published in England. La Loubère gave a fascinating
account of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included an
account of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of the
Siamese. He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,
and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between the
former and Sanskrit. He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts.

Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts:

A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: Printed by F.L for Tho. Horne ... Francis Saunders ... and Tho. Bennet ..., 1693.

Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include:

The History and Doctrine of Budhism: Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas

The Catechism of the Shamans (London, 1831) by Charles Fried. Neumann: contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese

Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844 (Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text)

None of these publications seem to have made a big impact.

In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...]. The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844.


Not! Bhanga nana is just the 5th of the 16 stages of insight. Sotapatti starts from the 14th, i.e. Magga nana.


So this is your questions: Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

1) Do buddhists pray?

  yes we pray.

2) Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner?

  Um, not to the universe, a universe is a science thing (which is actually existed outside of the earth. So rather just say "Heaven".
  We usually pray in our prayer to wish for the Heaven and let the wish go to the heaven and we believe something good will happen to us.

3) What are buddhists views on suicide?

  We believe someone who suicided will have to recycle in their another ten lifes - will end each of their life by suicides.
  But nowadays, I think people don't take it too much.

4) Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

  should say yes, I also believe being reincarnated is because of that thing - planning out a life or wishing to have something they have before. (means) They just can't leave their previous life and want to hold on it in any possible ways...

P.S: maybe my answers are not complete but I tried to let you know the basic things I wish I knew. Hope you find smth in it.


Often around 2:00 p.m. after eating, my body falls tired.

Might be a good idea to investigate and tackle the root cause to your tiredness first. Is it because you don't get enough sleep at night? or you usually eat a big lunch? or the workload is too stressful?...etc. It's actually not a bad idea to take a brief afternoon nap for 20-30 minutes to recharge your battery so you can come back to work all fresh and ready. Anyway, you should listen closely to your body. Try test it out/experiment with both of them, and see how your body reacts..


Does a Buddha see the heart objectively?

Feelings (vedana) are of one of these types: pleasant, painful or neutral.

Arahants will experience all these types of feelings.

However, the three poisons of lust or greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha) will not arise in arahants. Craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana) will also not arise in arahants.

Liking a feeling is basically lust or greed (lobha). So, this does not arise in arahants. They would only endure the pleasant, painful or neutral feeling mindfully.


Non appearance of dhammas to note during meditation

The goal of the trainee level of Buddhist meditation is for the mind to be free from thought.

The Mahasi noting method is like training wheels on a child's bicycle (to be eventually discarded).


From the Mettanisamsa Sutta:

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  "He sleeps in comfort.
  He awakes in comfort.
  He sees no evil dreams.
  He is dear to human beings.
  He is dear to non-human beings.
  Devas (gods) protect him.
  Fire, poison, and sword cannot touch him.
  His mind can concentrate quickly.
  His countenance is serene.
  He dies without being confused in mind.
  If he fails to attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-world.

Read this essay to get some exposition and experience on Metta. Particularly this experience:

  Once I had a meditation student who had been a child in Nazi-occupied
  Europe. She recounted an instance when she was around ten years old
  when a German soldier held a gun to her chest -- a situation that
  would readily arouse terror. Yet she related feeling no fear at all,
  thinking, "You may be able to kill my body, but you can't kill me."
  What a spacious reaction! It is in this way that lovingkindness opens
  the vastness of mind in us, which is ultimately our greatest
  protection.


Is there a connection between Guilt and Fear?

In Buddhism, there are two important related words that are generally used as a word compound, namely, 'hiri-ottappa'.

'Hiri' means to feel personally & inwardly ashamed of hurting others or oneself.

'Ottappa' means to have an innate 'fear', 'apprehensiveness' or 'caution' about hurting others & oneself.

A translation of these two words which captures their meaning is 'conscience & concern'. A short essay on hiri-ottappa can be read at this link: The Guardians of the World (by
Bhikkhu Bodhi).

These two natural psychological self-protective mechanisms, which are mentioned in Lokapala Sutta: Guardians of the World (AN 2.9), can be related to 'guilt' & 'fear'.

However, 'guilt' & 'fear' are very strong words & emotions, which often are not related to the natural psychological conscience but related to guilt & fear imposed by external authorities ('asura').


What is the proper way to foster generosity and gratitude?

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world." ...and more on lessons of gratitude

Danilo, your observations are totally right in regard one has already a broader view and the question is a good and useful one to understand things better. But & Because: Yet most people are not even able to fullfil their duties (break silas and do not take what is not give, or pay the price, hold to promises) and stay to contracts (virtue) in relation of sensuallity (material things and reverence). The next higher stage then is toward more selfless giving of material things. So even if most made in this way, it's useless to build a tower on a muddy baseless place and one needs to start where the mud is places, do the hard and "dirty", painful job, first.
Above the first gods (those giving birth, parents), if those are recognised, one can walk on to the higher goods, , those introducing, nurishing this the four needs (food, shelter, cloth, medicine), those teaching, leading to heaven and then even to liberation.
If the base is not done, e.g. not even obligation as reward of sensuality is recognices and duties payed off, if even parents are not put on the right scale, there is no way to ever develope that much freedom to be able to interact and receive on a higher scale. One makes nothing but more and more debts on this way, in all directions, even if feeling released by certain thought constructs.
It's maybe importand to understand that parents can aside of being the first gods be also the higherst. Some are that gifted, some even recognice it.
The issue of giving and the issue of duties (sila) which also may include giving is not that easy understood. Sometimes giving is a deal for expected gain, sometimes a required obligation for a relation (deal), sometime a payment for release seldom really generosity and it is gain and again worthy to note that the treasure of real generosity is only gained by a person of integrity, e.g. comes after perfection of silas.
Most not even managed in regard of giving at large plays all in the section of sila, starting from proper veneration to service and assistance.
What the proper places for generosity are, for all being, regardless of relation, nice or bad, is mentioned in timely giving and is of course always excelled by Noble Ones and those train for it.
It's very difficult to make western or better modern people basics (at least right view) understandable because they are not at all used to generosity, feelings of obligation, gratitude... but raised in a society, if good, where all has a to be payed marked price, and no, really no, neither at home, nor at school, good basic conducts are trained.
For defilements even a pleasure to here that giving to immoral people is not conductive, yet they would not include the own person when making their greedy excuses to deny even obligations.
May person once had a longer discussion with a typical western Buddhist and it might be of use, even the place itself there is not one to advice for a good. The topics discussion and links may explain certain basics and misunderstandings: Dana (Generosity, Charity)  "Abhidhamma in daily life "
To understand guṇā (best transated as "giver" or "benefactor") here are also some explaining. Usually translated as goodness or "people of goodness", it's meaning starts by the sense organs and is then used for goodness making real sense and beyound: guṇā គុណ - Gönner, Verbindubg/Band | benefactor, string/bound (just in German, if one like to translate, feel given)
It's impossible to walk a spiritual way if not having placed all benefactors on the right place in the heart at a matter that even most modern or western monks are not able to get fixed. At least it's underlying right view and becoming a person of integrity, either on faith, Dhamma or by entering the stream to get really ride of macchariya which only Noble ones, but right from the beginning are free from. If that and gratitude is still a problem, don't even think on Jhanas or any attainments: impossible.
Since those basic topics are merelt tabu and not welcome at all, leading even most to anger and aversion, the so called buddhist community in the west and modern world is merely just a wellness and trade branch and not really a source of real attainments at all, does not even have any basic positiv effects in normal live and sociaty which can be easy observed everywhere.
But back to a many helpful "classification" of worthyness in regard of people or relations, of course not really possible to distinguished in a very firm way, but merely an orientation and a source to think and reflect more about it:

A raw ranking based on it, in regard of worthy (general, can differ in cases aside of Noble Ones):

Ordinary beings

Ordinary people

Ordinary beings hungry, lacking existencial needs

Normal friends and wordily fellows

Normal elders

People of goodness:

Wordily teachers

Ones family and relatives

Ones first goods, parents

People keeping 5 precepts

People keeping 8 pr.

People keeping 10 precepts

Homeless 10 precepts

Samanera

Young Bhikkhu

Full Bhikkhu

Thera

Maha Thera

Ecxeled by innwardly qualities, case by case:

wordlings

Layperson following the training (still enjoys sensuality)

Recluse/monastic following the training (still enjoying sensual pleasure)

Layperson living the wholly life in full, following the Arahats

Recluse/monastic living the wholly live full, following the Arahats

Noble One 1. Path winner

Fruit Winner..2, 3, 4 Patg winner

Arahat

Buddha

In regard of Noble Ones, Recluse excels Lay person.

At least, not as a demand or just to belittle but as a matter of generosity and compassion, Danilo, so that you may have more ease and more doors to good places open in future, to train youself in good conduct, is actually not respectfull, not praisworthy and possible for the most cases a hard hindrance to ask indirect, without reverence and yes of course in certain equal manner. So for normal and strict holding on secure ways, Danilo might not only get any useful answer but also be known, like many, as someone with less virtues not at all worthy of gifts. But again, that is just for you and others grow, being aware that good conduct and proper behaviour is something unknown an utopistic in the modern and internet realms.
One might feel free to go into the topic even deeper or to train here, on a given and more proper place. At least most might be really wasted giving, as mentioned in the question, yet for those possible to get healed still.
How to foster generosity and gratitude?

Again and formost: association with people of integrity and generosity, gratefull people, people rejocing in deeds of giving and devotion, able to share merits and encourage to such and by avoiding places and people not used to, the usuall "cool" ones, like poison.

Rendering service and assistance in monasteries, for monks, for elders, teacher, virtuous. (e.g. practice Silas and pay obligations proper back or even without hope of reward)

Practice generosity where ever there is a possibility.

Learn to great, address, pay respect and good verbal and bodily conduct and use it everywhere, whether usual or not (it also helps to cut of "enemies" for prosperty)

Get used and train youself in all of the ten kinds of merit-making.

Stick to right view, even it goes against all grains and let it be adviser for your daily action rather to let your defilements make use of transcend right view while still living next a punch of fetters and a refrigerator.

He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

Once, again, right view is adopted by faith, certain vision or even clear seen and gained, generosity, after virtue and gratitude proper and right placed is no more a matter at all. At this point, not out of reason, one is incapable to do grave, even deliberated misconduct and behave improper.
May it be for release and ease, who ever might be capable to take, make use and understand.
And be carefull, it's not free and not without strings and one might be already hardly caught, with no chance to fall back any more!

Bahukārasuttaṃ

Has done much

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

Of course very useful and in same value Utopia: Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice
The orderline duties » sila » generosity ... from the gross to the fine, can btw. be also traced likewise, as tried to point out at the beginning, in the Mangala Sutta and at each level of fullfilment or able to renounce certain relation and it's benefits, debts are growing void and giving is step by step growing to real generosity and compassion. Once a state around the stanca 6. and 7 is reached, no more falling back will accur for one.
Anumodana!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Oh, this is easy. This one I was taught many many times. Here is how it goes:

Regular untrained people live their life as if they will live forever. They 1) worry about small unimportant stuff, get offended, or scared, or enraged at things that are not really important. And 2) they waste days, months and years of life waiting for better life.

However, 1) Everyone dies, sooner or later. Even the Buddha had to die. First, our parents will die. Then our friends of same age will start dying. Then the day will come when our breathing will stop and we will die too. Every day we get a day closer to death. Every time we celebrate our birthday, that's one less year we have left to live. The time seems to go slowly, but if you look back you realize it did not take you that long to reach your current age. Similarly, one day you will look back and realize you have spent all of your time.

Also 2) Death comes without a warning. The other day my friend (a doctor) called me and said his patient died in a car accident. He had a big house, 3 children and a housewife. As he was coming home from work, a truck made a mistake shifting lanes, and pushed his car off the road. We have no idea how we'll die. We hope we'll die from old age, in our bed, surrounded by grandchildren - but there is no guarantee it will be that nice. People die from all kinds of causes: from accidents, to disease, to terrorism, to allergic reactions, to poisonous snakes or insects, to plane crashes, to sudden heart attacks, to cancer.

So 3) We should stop expecting we'll live much longer. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will live to see the next summer, or next Christmas, or our next birthday. In fact, we should get into habit thinking that any day could be our last day on Earth. When we go to work, we should expect that we may not come back. When we go to bed, we should expect that we may not wake up.

Therefore 4) We should not live a lukewarm life. We should live our life as if this was our last day. This pertains both to our Dharma practice, but also to our attitude to life in general. We should perform every act, every conversation as if this was our last battle on earth.

And 5) If we feel like we worry about something too much, we should compare this problem with death. If the problem is worse than death, then we are allowed to worry. But if the problem is not as bad as death, then we should sober up and stop worrying too much.

Mindfulness of death gives us a useful perspective in which truly important things matter and non-important things are seen correctly as unimportant. It also gives us strength to act with courage and not live lukewarm life. So no matter how you look at it, it is a very useful perspective to cultivate. And the way you cultivate it is by thinking about it, meditating on it, until you feel it, until it is with you at all times - judging all of your action and inaction. Then the death becomes your solemn friend: "You don't have that long left. Use it wisely"


Is there a german-language online-resource for the prajnaparamita sutra "perfection of wisdom in 8000 lines"?

I'm afraid the answer seems to be, no there isn't. This is somewhat surprising since many Sanskrit Buddhist texts were translated into German.


My question: When sitting shall we use a short sentence? Like: Death is inevitable. I am a mortal being. Like me all beings in samsara will face death when the time comes. Hence, we must transform our minds in accordance with the Dhamma.

Yes.Short sentences like this helps the mind to focus on a theme/truth.It helps the mind penetrate its meaning.

Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.

Now unless your contemplating on the breath,this is where it gets complicated.You are trying to understand a certain truth.For example,"Death is inevitable".But a 2 syllable word.One for the inbreath and the other for the outbreath.May narrow your concentration to a point where it hinders your ability to investigate/contemplate (especially if your object of meditation is not the breath).Investigation is whats needed in Discursive Meditation.

Mantra chanting is good to do before you start your discursive meditation or investigation as a means of stabilizing or anchoring the mind.But i don't see it as a way to strengthen contemplation.In fact i think it hinders it.By splitting the object of meditation in three.1.The Breath.2.The Mantra.3.The Meaning of the Mantra (Death is inevitable).


How should i understand "Stored up kamma"?

It's somewhat sloppy language... "stored up potency" doesn't really mean anything; it's a concept, the concept that certain experiences will somehow be related to other experiences. There is nothing in Theravada Buddhism, AFAIK, even hinting at karma being stored up, or of a continuum being imprinted.

So, it should probably be understood as conventional language, similar to explaining how a seed from one tree makes a new tree - the potency of the first tree is stored in the seed, creating a tree continuum. In ultimate reality, the continuum doesn't exist, nor the potency, the tree, or the seed.


OK, I'll have a go, based on my (re-)reading of Wallis himself at his "What Is Non-Buddhism?" page. First, I have to say that one possibility is, it's an elaborate joke or hoax. The page says almost nothing substantial, except to offer analogies with non-Euclidean geometry or Laruelle. He says mostly what non-Buddhism is like and what it is not, but very little about what it actually is. But giving the benefit of the doubt:

His point seems to be that the label "Buddhism" may be attacheable to something valuable but that "x-Buddhism" -- i.e. all the "regular" forms of Buddhism, its types and sects and lineages, and their thought, practice, culture, and so on -- sit within a framework that pretty much makes it impossible to get to that something valuable. Therefore, in order to investigate the heart of the matter, you have to stand outside the x- stuff, and take a view from there. It's an attempt to apply Laruelle's "non-philosophy" specifically to Buddhism.

On the one hand it could be much ado about nothing. It's not completely false, but to the extent that it's true it seems kinda obvious. On the other hand, it certainly is possible for there to be deep, undetected aspects of human discourse and culture that, despite being undetected, have significant impacts on our way of life, and sometimes those impacts can be limiting and negative. So it may not be as obvious as I think.

Here's an analogy. Once upon a time, Aristotle codified logic. It was cool, and helped us figure out if arguments were valid. But it wasn't powerful enough to handle certain kinds of argument. Fast forward 2000 years, and in comes Frege. He produces a much more powerful form of logic, and also helps us understand what math is. But he makes a crucial mistake. So in comes Russel, and he fixes Frege's mistake. Or, at least he thinks he does. Then in comes Wittgenstein to show not only that Russel's fix wasn't complete, but that the whole thing just wasn't fixable at all. A few years later, Goedel belts the final nail in the coffin of a specific portion of the problem, but in such spectacular fashion that everyone sits up and says "WTF!?"

The point is, Wittgenstein and Goedel spotted that not only were prior systems broken, but that they were so fundamentally broken they were simply not fixable from inside those systems. To give Wallis etc the benefit of the doubt, I think they're arguing something similar (I'm stretching my analogy very thin now) about Buddhism. It's so busted that to fix it they have to step outside it.


Sutta reference or teachings about Sleep timings?

Sutta Pitaka Vol 4 : Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāassapurasuttaṃ:

  What more is there to do?

  You should train yourselves like this: ‘We will be committed to
  wakefulness.

  When practicing walking and sitting meditation by day, we will
  purifying our mind from obstacles.
  In the evening, we will continue to practice walking and sitting
  meditation.
  In the middle of the night, we will lie down in the lion’s
  posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the
  other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.
  In the last part of the night, we will get up and continue to
  practice walking and sitting meditation, purifying our mind from
  obstacles.’

  Now, mendicants, you might think: ‘We have conscience and prudence,
  our bodily, verbal, and mental behavior is pure, our livelihood is
  pure, our sense doors are restrained, we don’t eat too much, and we
  are committed to wakefulness. Just this much is enough …’


The fear about questions about self is misplaced. What is intended by that admonition is refraining from speculations about the origin or destiny, or existence or non-existence of a self.

What the questioner is asking, I believe, is the definition in Buddhism of Self, and that is a legitimate question to ask and answer.

The answer is that it is that which one believes is under one's control (the scope goes beyond the individual body; usually expressed as 'self or what relates to self'). And further, though it is description by negative, it is the idea that a self under one's control would not suffer pain or come to an end.

The Dhamma points out that there is only one thing that is under one's control, and that is one's acts of mind, speech or body. The outcome of one's acts, however, is out of one's control.


I presume that your object is the breath, crossing the anapana spot (under the nostrils, on the upper lip).

You must be careful since wanting the Nimitta to appear will actually prevent it from appearing. As long as you desire such things, to experience Nimitta or Jhana, it will simply never happen.

Let go of such expectations, completely. Also, by wanting Nimitta to appear, there is a very high chance of it being the product of your imagination.

You must let it be, do not give it any attention. Nimitta will strengthen, stabilize, and merge with the object on its own. Always remain with the object.


Is there anything in Buddhism analogous to the Christian Eucharist?

Your question asks if there is "anything analogous." In my experience, the tsok feast fits that bill. Sharing the food gifts that were offered leads to a similar virtuous and calm mind, with feelings of gratitude and appreciation of community.


The concept of being the part of the universe

"I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?

The idea (or what is discovered) is that we are in a sense born from the universe (in a way this is obvious) but it may be better to say we are the universe. It could even be said we are not born at all. Even the statement 'we are' would be denied.

If 'Universe' means 'all that exists' then this is not a Buddhist meaning of the word since it would leave out the source of existence. This source would real where all else would be created thus not metaphysically or independently real. The Buddhist 'universe' is bigger than the universe of physics since it includes the totality of Reality and Appearance or both of Nagarjuna's 'two worlds', but also smaller since space-time and its contents would be reducible.

Hence the Buddhist Universe is a fundamental concept where the scientific concept is non-reductive. This would be why Buddhism has a coherent metaphysic while physics cannot find one. How we define 'universe' is therefore important. If we follow the scientists and say it is 'all that exists' we will have no hope of a fundamental world-theory.


My favorite is NewBuddhist, but I don't know that it has all those features.

I'd be interested in developing this as a project, I have been thinking of the "digital sangha" social network and I'm relieved I'm not the only one.


Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?

This is an extremely broad question, I will limit my response to Ch'an/Zen Buddhism.

Starting in the earliest schools of Ch'an in Sung China, we find the practice of a stimulus/response ritual the Japanese call sassho. It usually (but not necessarily) takes the form of a question-answer dialog between master and student and is used to both invoke and verify insight/realization. Some of these dialogs have become (in)famous and were compiled into Kung'An/Koan collections still used today.

The basic philosophy behind sassho is to verify whether the answer to a teacher's question is free-flowing or (pre)conceived. In the latter case, the answer would be rejected and the student would be requested to meditate further on the question.


Dear Gaveshika… if those people that you have come across are the type that tells any Tom, Dick or Harry that they meet that they are Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami, then you have nothing to fear. Only to such a person who has similar characteristics (gathi) as him/her, would a Sotapanna reveal that he/she is one such. By that what I mean is that, if an ordinary run-of-the-mill person asks you whether you a Sotapanna, you will evade that question, as this knowledge is something that you keep very close to your heart. So no fear, you have not committed an Aarya Upavaada.

But in case you had (even inadvertently) done a Aarya Upavaada to someone who walks this Noble Path that day, you could think about that person and ask for forgiveness. This is a very effective way to calm the mind and reduce tensions. If done sincerely, you should be able to see the effects in real life. You may notice that the tensions with that person is automatically reduced.
..........

A person who treads this Path in all sincerity knows at every stage where s/he is at.  One realizes that one is a Sotapanna, but it happens with time. When one observes oneself, it becomes clear to oneself that one has removed the characteristics (gathi) that prevents one from becoming such, and that you have attained that precious thing/stage sought by a Bhauddhaya (or a practicing Buddhist). Also, when you observe such characteristics (gathi) in a another (be it a much sought-after monk) you begin to question as to how that person could even be a Sotapanna. But you guard yourself and do not entertain such thoughts, as only a Buddha can say for sure whether a given person other than you, has attained magga phala or not. In this Path you will ONLY concern about yourself and NOT any other.

At this stage you do not need any guidance from another. You have seen the way to Nibbana (or a glimpse of Nibbana). You know what’s to be done, and silently you go about it, and your neighbours and others that you come across in your daily life will never know that you are one such (a Sotapanna). Once that knowledge that you have arrived at this stage of Sotapanna sinks in, your attitude, behavior, and outlook on life has changed forever.

Observing another person’s characteristics (gathi), you then get a feeling that there is a greater likelihood that the other person is at the Sotapanna stage or higher. ONLY with such a person would you share this kind of knowledge.


In which sutta does a lay disciple of the Buddha tell a non-buddhist mendicant that he has experienced jhana?

your best first try is this essay

perhaps this

When Do the Jhānas Become Necessary?

  While there seem to be no suttas that impose an inflexible rule to the
  effect that a lay noble disciple must possess the jhānas, there are at
  least two texts that explicitly ascribe all four jhānas to certain
  householders. One, found in the Citta-saṃyutta (SN 41:9/IV 300-2),
  features Citta the householder, the foremost lay preacher, in a
  conversation with a naked ascetic named Kassapa. Kassapa was an old
  friend of Citta who had embraced the life of renunciation thirty years
  earlier, and this is apparently their first meeting since that time.
  Kassapa confesses to Citta that in all these years he has not achieved
  any "superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision befitting the
  noble ones" (uttarimanussadhammā alamariya-ñāṇadassanavisesa); all he
  does is go about naked, with a shaved head, using a feather brush to
  sweep his seat. He then asks Citta whether, as a lay disciple of the
  Buddha, he has reached any distinguished attainments. Citta says that
  he has, and then declares his ability to enter and dwell in the four
  jhānas (he uses the standard formula). To this he adds: "Further, if I
  were to die before the Blessed One, it would not be surprising if the
  Blessed One would declare of me: 'There is no fetter bound by which
  Citta the householder might come back to this world.'"[32] Through
  this bit of coded text, partly a stock formulation, Citta is informing
  his friend that he is a non-returner with access to the four jhānas.

  The other sutta is AN 7:50/IV 66-67 and concerns the lay woman
  Nandamātā. In the presence of the Venerable Sāriputta and other monks,
  Nandamātā has been disclosing the seven wonderful and marvellous
  qualities with which she is endowed. The sixth of these is possession
  of the four jhānas, again described by the stock formula. The seventh
  is as follows: "As to the five lower fetters taught by the the Blessed
  One, I do not see among them any as yet unabandoned in myself."[33]
  This too is a coded way of declaring her status as a non-returner.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm


what the buddha said about his own karma?

The Buddha mentioned that there were 8 past Karma which were effective even after becoming Buddha. See: Why the Buddha Suffered - Apadāna 39.10

  but i am not much in karma logic.

Karma is one of the things that only a Buddha completely understands. We can only have a rough idea of its operation.

  I am seeing some people getting back in a very amazing way whatever they had done in their respective past.

Even outside Buddhism there is a saying your past catches up with you. In the Buddhist perspective this is termed Karma.

  Sometimes it is related to extreme past events, even.

There are 5 Niyamas or causal factors which define your experiences and also being in the wrong place the wrong time and the right place in the right time, i.e., random events. So past Karma or action does not dictate all results.

  Like having a generation gap

I do not think the generation gap has anything to do with Karma. This is more to do with social, technological and attitude changes.


Are there different factors for access concentration depending on which jhana an individual is entering?

I can only answer first part of your question, i.e. if a meditator returns to access concentration between Jhana-states.
You are correct in that understanding. Here is a quote from the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder, which describes access concentration and that between entering the different Jhana-states the meditator returns to access concentration. Highlights in the quote are made by me:

ACCESS CONCENTRATION
Meditators can eventually attain access concentration using either type of momentary concentration practice—samatha or vipassanā. However, samatha practices are more likely to lead to access concentration because of their more stable nature. Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of the jhāna factors. For most people, a period of intensive practice is required to reach access concentration. In access concentration, the meditative experience becomes smoother, easier, and more pleasant because of this lessening of hindrances and the arising of the powerful and blissful sensations of the jhāna factors. This allows meditators to meditate longer and progress more easily in the practice.
It becomes a positive, self-reinforcing loop.It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator’s continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and “bright.”Most of the practices outlined in this book are samatha practices specifically designed to settle the mind and develop laserlike awareness, leading eventually to full absorption into the jhānas. Examples of samatha practices designed to develop access and absorption concentration are ānāpānasati meditation (as presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw), the kasiṇas, thirty-two-body-parts meditation, skeleton meditation, and the bramavihāras (sublime abidings).
As access concentration develops, but prior to full absorption, it is also easy to confuse access with absorption concentration. In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna. (The differences between access and absorption are described below.) Even after a meditator has experienced full jhāna absorption and begins to move through the practice progression, access concentration continues to be used. With progression to each successive jhāna, the meditator first experiences access concentration as the awareness orients to the new experiences and increases in stability.
-- Practicing The Jhanas, p. 73-75


OP: Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?

No, Sinhalese language has many similarities to Pali. Many of the words in Sinhalese language were derived from Pali and Sanskrit.

In the introduction chapter of the book, "An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar of the Pali Language" by James D'Alwis, it has stated that;

  THERE is hardly a country on the face of the Globe which presents greater facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the Pali, than Ceylon; and, perhaps, no nation possesses greater advantages for its study than Sinhalese. Pali, like the Sanskrit and the Sinhalese, forms a necessary part of the course of education pursued by the natives. Our Alphabet is common to these several languages, and the affinity which the Pali bears to the Sinhalese, both verbally and gramatically, renders its study far more easy to the people of this country than even to the Burmese.

  Although the Sinhalese, as a language, has been latterly neglected; the Pali, from its being the dialect in which the Buddhist scriptures are recorded, has always been the principal study of the largest portion of the Ceylonese, who are followers of Buddha.

~ Cited from: An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar

  OP: Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

The answer should be yes to this question according to the above quoted passage mentioned in the answer to the first part of the question.