Is an analogy between karma and modern day physics possible?

I need to do some more reading about quantum physics, I really do.  It seems very interesting.

What I can say, is there is a clear analogy (to me at least) between Buddhism (or how I understand it) and modern mathematics.

It is my opinion that the single most important theorem in mathematics is Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem.  Basically, this theorem shows that no system of constructing proofs of arithmetic is expressive enough to prove all true theorems and disprove all false ones.  No system of logic can tell all tales and solve all problems.

This hydra has many heads.  Another well-known one is the Halting Problem in computer science.  This one states that there is no single algorithm that can determine whether any algorithm halts.  This is an extremely deep result assuming the Church-Turing thesis, which states that any computable function at all is computable by a Turing machine.

It's very similar to the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.  While this is not a Buddhist text, nonetheless it opens with "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the eternal name."  We are extremely fortunate that it can be proven logically that all logic is faulty in some way.  We are privy to the knowledge that all knowledge is false, and that that is the only true knowledge.

It is my belief that there is no truth.  When somebody says "This statement is false", a good and proper response is, "Yes, every statement is false."  Newton's third law is not true, nor is any other physical theory true.  Edge cases will continue to be discovered ad infinitum.  If any physical theory were true, and the universe operated deterministically according to its laws, there would be no experience.

The only things that are real are the things that transcend this world, such as our Karma.  Of course, to us there is no difference between the things that transcend this world, since we cannot access or imagine them.

Do not rely on Karma to bring good results in this life, since the distinction between good Karma and bad Karma itself is just a dualistic notion.  Just know that you are here for a reason, and have faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFgZD4errQ


The first one represents desire, grasping something whose roots are impermanent.

The next ones look like Tathagatagarbha.


Combining meditation and bright light therapy

You can  get the citta into samadhi with what the buddha calls āloka·saññaṃ  which is sanna of light. The result of this samadhi is the knowledge of karma and before that, it energizes you.

  And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads
  to the attainment of knowledge & vision.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

Unfortunately, this samadhi is the least detailed of the 4 samadhis. Some puthujjanas claim it is just perceiving light, some say the light means the light of the jhanas (because they claim that the mind is luminous in jhanas), some say it is a kasina and some say it is light of wisdom...

Do not forget to perceive the origination, establishment and cessation in order to become an arhant.

For more info you can read

for the energy, section ''The 8 ways of overcoming drowsiness''
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.11-Pacala-S-a7.58-piya.pdf
for the karma
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/24.1-Samadhi-Bhavana-S-a4.41-piya.pdf


Is there a contradiction in the translation of the Bhūmija Sutta?

There's no such contradiction. Karma can indeed be categorised as prompted and unprompted as in if it was instigated by another or not.

What's refuted here is a person or a third party being able to create pain, pleasure or neutral feelings at will. Feelings arise due to contact.

Ex: One cannot say "let there be pleasurable feeling at the ear" and make it arise, if there's no contact at the ear. Even if one performs the physical act of playing a song, if one is deaf, pleasurable hearing won't arise since there's no contact.


Should you practices the noble eightfold path all at once or master is separately?

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.

Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.

Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).

As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.

As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.

So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.

Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.


Ten fetters in saṃsāra during meditation

The 10 fetters are destroyed by reaching the different stages of enlightenment.
Meaning the Sotāpanna gets rid off the first three fetters; the fourth and fifth are weakened by the Sakadāgāmi and completely destroyed by the Anāgāmī.
Fully free of all the fetters is the Arahant.
See http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/samyojana.htm) for a short list.

I'm not sure what you mean by the chain of fetters. Could you specify this?
Anyway, yes the fetters can be seen/experienced during vipassana meditation.


Is there any authenticity to the book 'The Deathbed Sutra of the Buddha: Or Siddhartha's Regrets'?

Deathbed Sutra of the Buddha
From the customers' reviews of the book, I get the impression that it is a fictional work to provoke a reassessment of one's thinking in light of controversies.
A few reviews from customers:

This book a very clever merging of philosophy and fiction, which examines and challenges some fundamental Buddhist beliefs in a manner that manages to be both deeply insightful but also delightfully entertaining. It’s a short work, but packed full of dense analysis of Buddhist thought, using the clever device of a fictional conversation between Buddha and his attendant, Ananda. Readers are likely to love it or hate it, but in either case it’s definitely a great read.
While it's not a "DaVinci Code for Buddhists" as stated on the back cover, it does offer a fast moving narrative conversation that moves along through the final night of the Buddha's life. It left me wondering what will happen next, and what will the Buddha say next? Thought-provoking and fun at the same time.

MVFWIW is if you are new to Buddhism then it is advisable to learn about the authentic teachings first and when you have cultivated wisdom and faith then to challenge that faith and wisdom with controversies.
As it is Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana have provided enough divergent materials for your wisdom and faith to work on.


Looking for anti-anti-monasticism apologia from a Buddhist perspective

Notably, a senior layperson once dragged a junior fellow layperson by the hair to see a Buddha:

MN81:9.1: Then Ghaṭīkāra grabbed Jotipāla by the hair of his freshly-washed head and said,
MN81:9.2: ‘Dear Jotipāla, the Buddha Kassapa’s monastery is not far away.
MN81:9.3: Let’s go to see the Blessed One Kassapa, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
MN81:9.4: For I regard it as holy to see that Blessed One.’

The senior layperson was Ghaṭīkāra. The junior layperson Jotipāla. It's quite the compelling ant-anti-monasticism sutta.  Here Ghaṭīkāra wishes Jotipāla to see the Buddha Kassapa. And Jotipāla stubbornly refuses in the most obnoxious anti-monastic way:

MN81:6.7: ‘Enough, dear Ghaṭīkāra.
MN81:6.8: What’s the use of seeing that baldy, that fake ascetic?’

But Ghaṭīkāra prevailed and they went to see the Buddha Kassapa. Inspired by that meeting, Jotipāla went forth.

MN81:12.4: And Jotipāla the brahmin student received the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence.

Ghaṭīkāra here takes the anti-anti-monastic role as a layperson. But Ghaṭīkāra is a special layperson, since he is also Buddha Kassapa's chief attendant in this sutta.
If you're interested, the sutta also explains why Ghaṭīkāra himself did not go forth. And Jotipāla? Jotipāla was eventually reborn as Gautama Buddha.


Each intention is it's own Karma. Whether one intention is better than the other depends on the purity of the intention. In other words, if it's defiled by greed, hatred and ignorance.


There's a Jakarta story of a previous incarnation of the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress. The reason for that act was to prevent the tigress eating her cubs, which would have damaged her sila.

  Therefore, I will kill my miserable body by casting it down into the precipice, and with my corpse I shall preserve the tigress from killing her young ones and the young ones from dying by the teeth of their mother.

My mum rescued a stray dog. She (the dog) was initially aggressive to other dogs, but my mum taught her not to be.
My mum also taught her self-restraint: including to not rush to get her dinner immediately, but to wait when the dinner bowl is set on the floor, wait until she is told that she can get it.

I like to think that you're able to help a dog, for example by teaching it some morality.

In terms of teaching them Dhamma, although they cannot read books I hope they can read you.


The needs of the same human being may differ at different stages of life. Can there be one Dharma for all stages?

Is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

There are many dharma preachings relevant to life stages.

Buddhism teaches Five Niyamas

In Kamma Niyama, it says every action has reaction. So don't do to others what you dislike.


meditation - How obvious should the touch of the breath be?

The touch of the breath should be totally obvious and clear.

Anapanasati is not something exactly easy to do. If it was easy to do, all of the posters on this chatsite would be enlightened.

You should stick to it and assume it will improve as does your concentration.

You should experiment with different methods, such as:

Place one finger horizontally under the nostrils and mentally note the thought "out" each time you feel the air touching/striking/warming your finger; and mental note "in" when you feel the air not touching your finger and being sucked back into your nostrils.
Make sure your finger is placed at a distance away from your face where the maximum impact of the breath can be felt. For example, my finger is about 6 millimetres away from my face/upper lip because i have a big nose.

Then continue to do the same but only mentally note "out" and stop mentally noting "in". Instead, let the mind be quiet, open & relaxed on the in breath; but continue to note the out breath.
If your arm gets tired/uncomfortable, change to your other arm & finger.
As your mind familiarizes itself with the sensation of the breath on the finger; then allow the mind to search for & feel the sensation where it is most obvious in the nose/nostril.
Also, as you start to regularly feel the breath in your nostril, then let the eyes & face relax and allow the mind to try to feel the breath in another place, such as in/through the throat. To only watch the breathing around the nostrils is not important.
There are other methods, such as to occasionally deliberately breath a little longer and postpone/extend the end of the breath a little longer (but not too long so it becomes pranayama !!!. We don't want to get dizzy practising Hindu pranayama).

Ultimately, the breath can only be perfectly lucidly experienced by the mind when the mind is very quiet and actually not even try to watch the breath. "Trying" to watch the breath is also another obstacle to clear knowing of the breath. However, if your mind is not quiet and has thoughts, "trying" to watch the breath helps suppress the thoughts.


Karma is not something one accumulates; this question gets asked so often because, as you say, there is a misconception of it being a 'a solid, substantial' entity.

Karma is volition (intention is a bad translation, IMO), or in abhidhamma, the seven javana citta present in an ordinary mind process (i.e. every moment of experience).

All this means is that every experience you have has the potential to affect future experience in some way; the fact that karma produces a result in kind is indicative of how natural the process is - karma is simply the law of causality that moulds our lives according to our actions. That this should continue after death is not a problem for Buddhism since, as I've noted several places here already, death according to Buddhism is just a concept. The mind states continue to arise and cease according to the law of causality.

As to how one mind can affect the next, I really have no answer besides that through the practice of meditation you can verify for yourself that it is indeed the nature of reality; why it is this way is somewhat irrelevant.


In the (translated into English) Pali text that I have, there's a section titled "The Admission of Women to the Order" within a chapter titled "Stability of Societies". This section describes Ananda's asking the Buddha whether Maha-Pajapati could join the order.

When Ananda asks for the third time, he asks,

  "Lord, are women capable, after going forth from the home unto the homeless life under the Norm-Discipline set forth by the Tathagata, -- are they capable of realizing the Fruit of Stream-winning, of Once-returning, of Never-returning, of Arahantship?

And the Buddha's reply to that question,

  "Women are capable ... of doing so, Ananda."

(Which is why and how Ananda persuaded the Buddha to allow women to be ordained.)

FYI I did a Google search for Bahudhātuka Sutta -- because that seems to be the one/only basis on which other answers claim that a woman's being a Buddha is impossible.

The first search result is this paper, The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels
On Women’s Inabilities.

The Abstract for this paper says,

  The present article offers a comparative study of the
  Bahudhātuka-sutta, based on a translation of one of its parallels
  found in the Madhyama-āgama preserved in Chinese translation.
  The study focuses in particular on the dictum that a woman cannot
   be a Buddha, which is absent from the Madhyama-āgama version.

Its conclusions is (page 166),

  the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society

and (page 166)

  This tendency can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where -- as far as the texts allow us to judge -- gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.

and (page 185)

  Kajiyama (58) concludes that, regarding the listing of inabilities of
  women, “it is most likely that the dictum did not exist when the Buddhist
  Order maintained one and the same tradition, but that it was created
  after the Order was divided into many schools and was inserted into
  sūtras of various schools.” However, the suggestion by Kajiyama (70) that
  “the dictum that a woman is incapable of becoming a Buddha arose
  probably in the first century B.C.” may be putting things at too late a
  time.

The arguments for why is this is a late addition start in the section titled Comparison of the Parallel Versions of the Bahudhātuka Bahudhātuka-sutta on page 151 and can be summarized as:

Evidence that other parts were added:

"Aggregates" seems to be new
Items were added to the "elements" topic

Therefore it's possible that an item (the item regarding women) was added to the "impossibilities" section.
The difference between versions could be explained as a later addition (into some versions), or as a later loss (from the other versions); but an addition is more likely.
There are various other differences in the "impossibilities" section.
The "impossibilities for women" doesn't exist in all versions
In the versions which do include the "impossibilities for women" section, there are differences between versions.
Buddha's being a woman, or low-caste, would be incompatible with contemporary society (because they wouldn't be respected when alive), which was the reason for the argument that a woman would have to be reborn as a man before she could be the Buddha
Some versions (not the Pali) say that a woman cannot even be a Paccekabuddha, which is proof that more and more degradation of women's abilities were added over time. (page 164)
It's therefore significant that one of the versions doesn't mention it at all (i.e. it implies that it wasn't original)
The addition doesn't fit, wasn't useful in the context of other information which was intended to be practical (page 166)

Maybe could better link the transition of the context? (from arahantship being possible to women, to the question at hand)

I think you're asking why my first quote (the Buddha's reply to Ananda's question, which was about "Arahantship") is relevant to this question, which is about the Buddha.

The paper I linked to above says that, at that time, no-one had the ambition of becoming the future Buddha: perhaps Arahant was synonymous with the highest feasible spiritual attainment, and that women were able no less than men to achieve it (page 163):

  Here it needs also to be taken into account that the presentation
  in the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels still stems from a period in the
  development of Buddhist thought when the idea of aspiring to Buddhahood
   had not yet become a general option. As pointed out by Kajiyama
  (64), “the dictum that a woman cannot become a Buddha ... did not have
  a target to which it could have been directed,” since at that time “no
  one, neither man nor woman, aspired to Buddhahood.”53 In sum, then,
  the inability of a woman to assume the position of a ruler on earth, a ruler
  in various heavenly realms, or a ruler in the field of Dharma reflects
  leadership conceptions in ancient India.

The footnote says,

  53 Romberg (164) notes that once “the aim was no longer to become an
  Arhat, but to become Buddha ... this shift made, in fact, the situation for
  women worse, because a doctrinal foundation was laid for the necessity
  of changing the sex before being able to become enlightened.” In fact the
  Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that a woman will not realize the awakening of
  a Buddha because already an advanced bodhisattva has left behind womanhood
  for good and will not be reborn again as a female, Wogihara
  (94,3): na ca strī anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyate. tat kasya
  hetoḥ? tathā hi bodhisattvaḥ prathamasyaiva kalpāsaṃkhyeyasyātyayāt strībhāvaṃ vijahāti bodhimaṇḍaniṣadanam upādāya na punar jātu strī bhavati; cf.
  also Paul (212 note 7). Harrison (78) concludes that “women ... are generally represented in such an unfavourable light as to vitiate any notion of
  the Mahāyāna as a movement for sexual equality. Compared with the
  situation in the Pāli Canon, in which women are at least as capable as
  men of attaining the highest goal, arhatship, the position of women in
  Mahāyāna has hardly changed for the better.”


Can I plan for future while doing meditation on death?

Not sure where the quote is from, but the instant death that buddha talks about seems to regard the death of the self. He is talking about anicca and anatta, in other words.

One can of course plan for the future - or ones livelyhood - for instance, but there is a difference whether one plans with attachment or whether one plans with reminiscence of impermanence.


Why does Milinda step into Nagasena's trap?

If I remember correctly, the traditional interpretation of this is that a pile of components on the ground is not the chariot either.

I suppose in modern language we could say that "Chariot" is a designation for the function that depends on the right configuration AND on the external supporting factors like the road, the horses, the gravity, the driver, the passengers etc. Plus, if individual components of the chariot are replaced with functionally equivalent but non-identical ones - the new chariot is neither the same nor different. Furthermore, the wheels etc. are only designations for things that can perform function of a wheel etc. - not to those particular wheels.

So the functional nature of the chariot arises from a number of functional conditions coming together - for which "the chariot" is only a label.

A similar illustration can be found in Vajira Sutta:

  So you believe there's "a being"?
  -- this is a view of Mara.
  In a pile of mere components (sankhara)
  no any such "being"'s found.

  Just as they say 'chariot'
  of an assemblage of parts,
  So they'll call "a being"
  the mere heap of components (skandha).

The key word here is "an assemblage" or in another translation "when the parts are rightly set". So that's why they are saying that the chariot is not all its parts together either - because the parts by themselves do not produce a function (of a chariot, a being etc), the right combination (of conditions) does.

But on the other hand, there is no "secret sauce" either - nothing apart from the factors and components that would set things in motion:

(from Viticcha Jataka)

  The Ascetic tried to catch him in his words: "What is the Ganges? Is the sand the Ganges? Is the water the Ganges? Is the hither bank the Ganges? Is the further bank the Ganges?"

  But the future Buddha said to him: "If you take exception to the water, the sand, the hither bank, the further bank, where can you find any Ganges River?"

The "neither found in any individual part, NOR in the pile of parts, NOR apart from the parts" thesis is probably constructed after canonical Buddha's line in which he shows how such phenomenon as the "Tathagata" can neither be found in the five skandhas ("piles") nor apart from them:

(From SA 105)

  [The Buddha] asked again: "How is it, Seniya, is bodily form the Tathāgata?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha asked again]: "Is feeling … perception … formations …
  consciousness the Tathāgata?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata distinct from
  bodily form? [32b] Is the Tathāgata distinct from feeling … perception
  … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata in bodily form?
  Is the Tathāgata in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is bodily form in the Tathāgata?
  Is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness in the Tathāgata?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata without bodily
  form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."

In my understanding, all of this is a finger trying to point out the fact that reality underlying conventional expression can never be exhaustively described, that our attempts to represent the reality is always an exercise in isolating individual factors and reassembling them into a model, like projecting a multidimensional figure on a two-dimensional surface - with a label (nama) stamped on top.

From taking our models seriously ("reifying" them) comes trying to make them our base, leaning on them, identifying with them, attaching to them - but because our models are merely designations for the fluctuating soup of factors - to assume them to be stable is an inherently faulty assumption - and from this comes dukkha. When we see reality as reality and models as models, we can stop confusing the two, stop getting attached to models, stop trying to establish our base in a model - so from this right vision (of the ineffable reality and the modeling activity) comes baselessness and from this baselessness comes cessation of nutrition of old dukkha and non-production of new dukkha.


What is the consequence to living life with self realism behavior?

Any seed's highest behaviour is to blossom into a full-fledged state which is fruit, flower etc similarly Humans can be full-fledged beings which are in the state of Blissfulness and other pleasant states if he/she gives proper attention to achieve this.

I must tell you this when you are thinking about the past there is only one moment which the moment we are living now there is no other moment cause past and future are just a phrase one can never go to future (and yes we should prepare for future) or the past so it's just in our mind only.

If you are aware enough then there should not be any thoughts come into your mind about sadness you just feel joyful about being alive. Most of the humans unconsciously think they are immortal but once you know or understand that you are mortal, you will do things only which are precious or important to you in life.

Thanks for reading.


Generally speaking anger can be the result of any/all of the three root kleshas. They are:

not knowing the full reason for our anger (moha)
holding on too hard to something (raga)
lacking compassion for others (dvesha)

Mindfulness can help easing the first two kleshas, by investigating the cause for your anger, and to examine whether your anger is caused because someone/something is getting in the way of your attachment.

Mindfulness can also help you identify any hindrances to develop understanding or non-attachment.

Lastly, metta bhavana meditation can also help in easing your anger, by developing warmth towards others (the opposite of anger, essentially), and by  seeing the others side of things. It may be helpful to both you and your surrounding, and can contribute to a more objective or balanced outlook on things.


Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure

Not clinging to pleasure does not mean there is no pleasure. It is the opposite. The more there is non-clinging, there more there is pleasure. For example, the suttas say the pleasure of 'jhana' ('meditative absorption') is reached by making 'non-clinging' the meditation object (SN 48.10). Or the suttas say Nibbana is the supreme pleasure (Dhammapada 204).

When Ajahn Chah refers to the word 'like', this is not synonymous with the words 'pleasure' & 'happiness'. 'Pleasure' is a 'feeling'. Where as 'like' is a 'view' or 'opinion'.


I've been practicing in a zen dôjô for the last year, and have been singing the haramita shingyo a lot of times without really understanding it. Your question made me look for a translation online, and I found this (for french readers only) whose introduction says,:

  Ce texte, très court, qui se présente comme le "cœur" des sûtra bouddhistes indiens de la Perfection de Sagesse (prajñâ pâramitâ) est devenu en Chine, puis au Japon, une sorte de credo aux vertus magiques. Au nom de la vacuité, il met à mal les anciennes doctrines des quatre nobles vérités et de coproduction conditionnée.

(my translation):

  This text, very short, which presents itself as the "heart" of the Indian Buddhist sutras of the perfection of wisom, has become in China and then in Japan a sort of credo (creed) with magical properties. In the name of voidness it breaks from the ancient doctrines of the four noble truths and of conditioned
  co-arising.

From what I've understood, this sutra is about putting the 4 noble truths in a vacuity perspective. Considering this, there is no Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha nor Magga as they are mental constructions themselves and, thus, you should free yourself from the 5 aggregates.

Here is a humble translation from French to English of the 5th paragraph that seems meaningful to me :

  There is no ignorance and no cessation of ignorance and so forth there
  is no aging nor death and no cessation of aging and death.There
  is no suffering, origin, extinction nor path.There is no
  knowledge and no obtaining for there is nothing to obtain.


What is the easiest way to achieve a state of no physical suffering?

You can reach states after a couple of years of practice where the "suffering" caused by pain is mitigated to a degree.  The sensation of pain is still there, however.  The only state I've read of where pain might not be felt is in nirodha samapatti.  Here, feeling and cessation cease.  In fact, the consciousness stream temporarily ceases almost as if you were dead.  I don't think you can put a number on how many years (lifetimes!) it would take to reach that state.  It's only available to one who has mastered the other eight absorption (rupa and arupa) and then possibly only to those who have reached the stage of arahantship or non-returner.  See MN 111 for a description of Sariputta entering this state and the Visuddhimagga at XXIII for a gloss of nirodha samapatti.


What's the advice for dealing with an abusive partner?

I think the texts are ambiguous -- they generally have advice which ranges from, "there's no fellowship with a fool", to, "it can be great if the partners are equal and/or well-behaved and living in tune", to, "your morality (including e.g. good-will) should be unconditional".
If the "abuser" can't solve the issue then in my experience that requires external intervention (e.g. a doctor or psychiatrist), and/or a change in the situation or relationship or the way in which the couple communicates (e.g. relationship counsellor or therapist of some sort), and/or possibly divorce lawyers.
If it isn't psychiatric then consider it may be a psychological problem, like post-traumatic stress.
If the problem persists perhaps the partners suffer from learned helplessness ...

Over the past few decades, neuroscience has provided insight into learned helplessness and shown that the original theory actually had it backwards: the brain's default state is to assume that control is not present, and the presence of "helpfulness" is what is actually learned.

... or perhaps "ignorance" about how to solve it -- so do, try to find help if you can't solve it.
I also suggest you might think it's the other person's problem ("they're the abuser who misbehaves, I am the victim") but when you're in a relationship it's not that simple -- if you went to Al-Anon/Alateen meetings for example you might hear how the behaviour of the family permits or cooperates with the continued misbehaviour.
A counsellor might provide some neutral ground and ensure that both parties are listened to.
A separation (a least a temporary or trial one) might be an option, to explore or consider -- or even just a holiday -- or some other agreement, perhaps a renegotiation of fundamental premises (like "who is expected to do what, and when?"), which a counsellor might suggest.
Beware that people have limits -- if one person is so stressed that they behave irrationally, the other partner too might be vulnerable (to stress and irrationality and abusive behaviour) even if to a different extent/manifestation.
Being too generous or permissive of bad behaviour might be harmful, a teacher (or a paid counsellor) might help to assess if you're going too far.
Unconditional love might in the end be the greatest thing -- or perhaps it's foolish -- who knows, perhaps it's up to you.

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

This might be relevant to your question too -- Reconciliation, Right & Wrong -- and might match some of the things I suggested, e.g. ...

A monk seeking reconciliation with a lay person follows a similar pattern, with another monk, on friendly terms with the lay person, acting as mediator.

... suggests that having a third-person neutral/friendly counsellor might help to repair a relationship.


Is this just a logic or experience about mind(reality)?

Sounds like the hinderances have been temporarily tamed to some degree.

Oneness as I experience it using metta, self investigation and mindfulness just means there doesn't nessasarily have to be a distinction made by us human beings between me and other, us and them, tree and it's background, hand and fingers, sky and ground, good and bad, out and in, foot and ground, right and left, eyelid and eye,  you and me, up and down and so on. If no distinctions are  taken for granted one can transcend only perceiving distinctions and percieve everything as one yet distinct.

Dissociation with the concept of oneness or dissociation with needing to bring on oneness might be desirable as oneness can so easily be clung to.

How do you get beyond? Simply don't try to get beyond, that detached kind of  attitude is in harmony with getting beyond.  Keep at it, it sounds to me like your doing alright.


What is a "sentient being" in Tibetan Buddhism?

Purbuchok. in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Posessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers:

  With regard to persons, the definition of something’s being
  a person is: a being imputed in dependence upon any of its five
  aggregates.

  Self, I, person, and being are synonymous. An illustration is a being
  who possesses a basis of one of the three realms.

That which is both a person and is not an arya buddha is a sentient being. An arya budha is a person, but not a sentient being.

From Geshe Gyaltsen's commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum:

  Person pervades all sentient beings and sentient beings pervade all
  ordinary beings, or ordinary persons. There are therefore three
  possibilities. Therefore the broader category is person, the person
  being someone with a mind, whereby all sentient beings and arya
  buddhas are included. Arya buddha is the buddha as a person.

According to the so-called Wheel of Life (Skt. bhavacakka; Tib. srid pa'i 'khor lo) there are six realms, that is six types of rebirth, six types of sentient beings. It is thus generally accepted that the are the six : hell beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, demi-gods and gods. All other existent (minerals, plants, fungus, my carpet, my cup of tea) are not sentient beings. Then, suffice it to establish that bacteria are fungus in order to establish they are not sentient beings, but it goes already beyond the scope of Tibetan treatises.

The wheel is talked of in the tales called Divine narratives (Skt. Divyāvadāna).


Meditating and including buddhist philosophy in your life without abandoning previous religious beliefs?

I think we can split Buddhism in 3 different levels of commitment:

Meditation, Dana (charity) and basic Sila (precepts). In this level, you can easily keep any peaceful religion, you will benefit from meditation and people will feel you are slowly changing, more inclined to a spiritual life, usually your family/friends/priests/bishops etc. will not see it as a threat.
Lay Buddhist Life. Here you may have some conflicts depending on your religion and how orthodox you are. Lay buddhists may prostrate and take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is where your previous religion may tell you that you are turning your back on them.
The life of a monk/recluse.

So, as long as you commit to the first level, i.e:  meditating; cultivating generosity; refraining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants, you should be fine with your current religion.

Problems will arise if you want to progress in the Buddha's teachings while keeping your current religion, but it is up to you; the path is there, it is your choice.


Is Mahayana Buddhism a form of idealism?

Mahayana Buddhists do NOT believe that the whole world and all objects are literally created by the mind.
Yogacara and especially Mahayana is not a form of subjective idealism, that's a popular urban myth/misunderstanding.
"the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams)" - yes of course.
"but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together" - maybe but that's beside the point.
The way I would put the mainstream Mahayana view is: each person's subjective reality is a projection of their mind which in turn is a result of their background and choices. Different backgrounds&choices give rise to different minds which project different subjective realities. Subjective realities overlap to the extent the backgrounds/choices/minds are alike.
Your friend and you see similar trains to the extent your minds are alike. To the extent your backgrounds are different you will pay attention to different aspects of the train, your interpretations will differ etc. - to that extent your respective trains will be unique.


Ānāpānasati (mindfulness of breathing) -- concentrate on nose, or on whole body?

The way I understand the object of Anapanasati is the breath.
So, Keep your attention on the breath whichever form is presented.


1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
Ability to enter and abide in 1st Jhana is needed for deriving pleasure from meditation. This involves gaining access concentration (upacara samadhi) and then shifting focus to a pleasant sensation in the body or smile etc.
This is one of the simplest guides I've found for entering jhanas:

Instruction for Entering Jhana (by
Leigh Brasington).

You can also refer to:

9 Jhanas -- The First Jhana: Pleasant Sensations
The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation --
Part 2: How to Enter the Jhanas

From the first link:

You watch the breath until you arrive at access concentration, and then you let go of the breath and shift your attention to a pleasant sensation. There is not much point in watching the breath that has gotten extremely subtle or has disappeared completely. There's nothing left to watch. Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation, preferably a pleasant physical sensation. You will need a good bit of concentration to watch a pleasant physical sensation, because a mildly pleasant feeling somewhere in your body is not nearly as exciting as the breath coming in and the breath going out. You've got this mildly pleasant sensation that's just sitting there; you need to be well-concentrated to stay with it.
The first question that may arise when I say "Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation" is "What pleasant sensation?" Well, it turns out that when you get to access concentration, the odds are quite strong that some place in your physical being, there will be a pleasant sensation. Look at this statue of the Buddha: he has a smile on his face. That is not just for artistic purposes; it is there as a teaching mechanism. Smile when you meditate, because when you reach access concentration, you only have to shift your attention one inch to find the pleasant sensation.

2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
I don't know about all the meditation techniques available, but out of vipassana and shamatha, shamatha is conducive to gain pleasure and tranquility. Some times you get pleasure out of vipassana as well, but it is not conducive for that, the objectives are different.
3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
Like for practicing for eightfold path and liberation? Then no. If it is for mundane or daily activities, it is easy to get attached to the pleasure.


Why does the mind always want to 'do something' and how to cultivate 'non-doing'?

Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time?

There may be several reasons for this, and i can't say what is relevant in your particular case. However, generally speaking, the feelings you are describing is the consequence of one or several conditioned causes listed below:

the assumption that it is wrong to spend time reflecting on your inner workings
the assumption that self worth is only built on being productive
the fact that you are facing real problems that require real solutions
something else, yet to be discovered

  OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way?

It seems that you have caught on to something in Bashos quote. Have you asked yourself why that interests you?

  How can I train my mind to just be?

It seems to me that your training already has begun, because you are reflecting on these tendencies and asking the right questions (from a buddhist understanding) as far as i can tell.

Roughly speaking, training to "just be" from a buddhist framework builds on:

meditation and investigating these thoughts, emotions and tendencies (samadhi),
studying what is truly helpful according to buddhism (panna), and also
making the habitual adjustment for improved wellbeing for yourself and others (sila)

A good continuation would be a meditation called anapanasati (perhaps you're already familiar with it). More information about how and why it is recommended can be found here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html


Is nirvana just the end of a causal series?

Nirvana is not 'caused'. This is why the Buddha referred to the "path" to Nirvana rather than the "cause" of Nirvana.

Imagine being blind-folded. The eyes cannot see any sights. But if the blind-fold is removed, sights can be seen.

Similarly, greed, hatred & delusion are like a blind-fold that prevent experiencing Nibbana. Nibbana is not something 'mental' although the mind experiences Nibbana (as a sense object).

This is similar to how a tree or flower is not the eye, but the eye experiences the tree or flower.

  It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html


i do correct vipassana meditation finished with a short metta meditation - still i dont enjoy it really not the 1 minute meditation not the 2 hour meditation

Vipassana meditation is not meant to feel enjoyable. It might sometimes but thats not really the point of the practice. The practice is undertaken in order to purify the mind from defilements. Its a purification process.

  maybe if i say i eat a piece of chocolate/listening to music/watching videos etc after i meditate ? but that is to much greed and will probably harm the meditation cause i will think about the "prize" at the end.

This approach defeats the purpose and will just increase delusion and craving.


Vibrating Sensation in Middle of forehead during meditation?

Yes the sensation is a normal condition.

It is just muscle/nerve spasms. They may be happening throughout the day but go largely unnoticed. They are also at level of neuron firings so you typically will not be able to see them physically. During meditation you are probably more aware of the tiny changes in your body. One thing I notice during meditation is how loud my stomach has been this last week. The more you become aware of them the more intense they will probably appear to manifest. Unless it is a medical condition such as a hemifacial spasm they will typically go away on their own.


You don't need to believe anything in Buddhism, but a little faith can give you a boost in your practice. It would certainly be difficult to progress if you had no sense that the people teaching you knew what they were talking about.

But in the end, a good teacher will just tell you "This is the path to enlightenment", rather than "I am enlightened", and leave it up to you to discover the veracity of their claim.

Certainly, once you practice according to the Buddha's teaching, you will gain understanding about reality that will allow you to verify that karma and enlightenment are very real.


When did Vasubandhu, the teacher of Dignāga, live?

The problem is that in the oldest known source (Paramartha's "Life of Vasubandhu", compiled around 550 CE) conflicting dates are mentioned. This has lead to several different theories about the exact dates that mark Vasubandhu's life.

According to Wikipedia Vasubandhu lived in the 4th century CE. For this information they refer to this essay where it says:

  it is known that he was a contemporary of Emperor Candragupta I. Ramashankae Tripathi, History of Ancient India (Delhi 1942), gives the dates 320 to circa 335 AD for the reign of Candragupta I, and c. 335-375 for that of his militant successor Samudragupta. This situates the life of our Vasubandhu between 290 and 370 AD.

However in 1951 Erich Frauwallner, a professor in Buddhism, wrote an article called "On the date of the Buddhist master of the law Vasubandhu" in which he posted a theory that there were 2 Vasubandhus;

the first Vasubandhu was the co-founder of the Yogācāra school and lived  from 320-380 CE,
and a second Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma-kośa, who lived from 400-480 CE.

This view has been criticized and doesn't seem to be widely accepted. More info in these papers:

Dan Lusthaus - What is and isn't Yogacara (against the two Vasubandhu-theory)

  Since the progression and development of his thought, however, is so strikingly evident in these works, and the similarity of vocabulary and style of argument so apparent across the texts, the theory of Two Vasubandhus has little merit.

Marek Mejor's - The problem of the two Vasubandhus reconsidered (in favor of the two Vasubandhu-theory)


Is the skeleton meditation of Buddhist origin?

Yes it's a Buddhist teaching. Contemplation on a skeleton is called atthika-sanna in Pali. Buddha's teaching of this is in Atthikamahapphala sutta (SN 46.57), however, there's no English translation of this .This technique is commonly used by forest monks to overcome sensual desires. You can practice it with a real skeleton, a picture of it or visualizing a skeleton in mind.


Questions about the “Tatiyavitthārasutta”

What are asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī ?

In SN 46.3, Bhikkhu Bodhi translates these terms as:

'Nibbāna without exertion'
'Nibbāna with exertion'.

This translation appears inaccurate to me, since 'sankhara' here probably means 'thinking' rather than 'exertion' (although the practical meaning is the same).

The terms 'asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' & 'sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' are described in AN 4.169, which states per the translation below:

  Cattāromecattārome?, bhikkhave, puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ.
  Katame cattāro?

  017.09. Bhikkhus, these four persons are evident in the world. What four?

  Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme
  sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo
  kāyassa bhedā sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha pana, bhikkhave,
  ekacco puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha
  pana, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo kāyassa bhedā
  asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti.

  Here, bhikkhus, a certain person extinguishes here and now with
  substratum. A certain person extinguishes with substratum at death, a
  certain person extinguishes here and now without substratum. A certain
  person extinguishes without substratum at death,

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes here and now with substratum?

  Kathañca, bhikkhave, puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme
  sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
  asubhānupassī kāye viharati, āhāre paṭikūlasaññī, sabbaloke
  anabhiratisaññī, sabbasaṅkhāresu aniccānupassī. Maraṇasaññā kho
  panassa ajjhattaṃ sūpaṭṭhitā hoti. So imāni pañca sekhabalāni
  upanissāya viharati— saddhābalaṃ, hiribalaṃ, ottappabalaṃ,
  vīriyabalaṃ, paññābalaṃ. Tassimāni pañcindriyāni adhimattāni
  pātubhavanti—saddhindriyaṃ, vīriyindriyaṃ, satindriyaṃ,
  samādhindriyaṃ, paññindriyaṃ. So imesaṃ pañcannaṃ indriyānaṃ
  adhimattattā diṭṭheva dhamme sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Evaṃ
  kho, bhikkhave, puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī
  hoti.

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides reflecting loathsomeness in the
  body, loathsomeness in food, detachment from all the world, seeing
  impermanence in all determinations and the perception of death is
  thoroughly established in him. He abides relying on these five powers
  of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse, effort and
  wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are sharp in him as a result he extinguishes
  here and now with substratum.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes with substratum after death?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides reflecting loathsomeness in the
  body, loathsomeness in food, detachment from all the world, seeing
  impermanence in all determinations and the perception of death is
  thoroughly established in him. He abides relying on these five powers
  of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse, effort and
  wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are blunt in him as a result he extinguishes
  with substratum after death.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes here and now without substratum?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual thoughts, angry
  thoughts, hurting thoughts and evil thoughts ... re ... and abides in
  the first higher state of mind. Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes ... re ... abides in the second higher state of mind.
  Developing equanimity to joy and detachment ... re ... experiences
  pleasantness with the body too and abides in the third higher state of
  mind. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with
  equanimity. Dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier
  having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, purifying mindfulness, so
  that unpleasantness or pleasantness does not enter the mind, he abides
  in the fourth higher state of mind. He abides relying on these five
  powers of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse,
  effort and wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are sharp in him as a result he extinguishes
  without substratum here and now.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes without substratum after death?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual thoughts, angry
  thoughts, hurting thoughts and evil thoughts ... re ... and abides in
  the first higher state of mind. Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes ... re ... abides in the second higher state of mind.
  Developing equanimity to joy and detachment ... re ... experiences
  pleasantness with the body too and abides in the third higher state of
  mind. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with
  equanimity. Dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier
  having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, purifying mindfulness, so
  that unpleasantness or pleasantness does not enter the mind, he abides
  in the fourth higher state of mind. He abides relying on these five
  powers of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse,
  effort and wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are blunt in him as a result he extinguishes
  without substratum after death.

  Bhikkhus, these four persons are evident in the world.

The sutta is unambiguous. 'Asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' appears to mean 'extinguishing without using the sankhara aggregate', namely, the development of jhana, which is the stilling of thought. 'Sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' appears to mean 'extinguishing with using the sankhara aggregate', namely, the development of wisdom or right view.

  What is the meaning of vadāmī?

'Vadami' simply means 'speak' or 'I say' (it seems).

  Do dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī mean Cula Sotapanna?

Dhamma-follower & faith-follower appear to not be sotapanna (stream-enterer) but headed for sotappana (stream-entry).

  Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is
  clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who are Dhamma-followers or
  faith-followers are all headed for enlightenment. MN 22

  Is the maximum of seven lives applicable to Cula Sotapanna?

No. The suttas do not mention "seven more lives". The suttas only mention: "seven more", which obviously means "seven more fetters to breakthrough", as indicted by SN 13.1:

  In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to
  stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended &
  extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having
  at most seven remaining [fetters] is next to nothing: it's not a
  hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with
  the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of
  breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is
  of obtaining the Dhamma eye."


How is body language linked with meditation success?

Thich Nhat Hahn is the only one I have read who attributes a significance to smiling. It may have to do with the challenging times he has had to endure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-schnall/beliefs-buddhism-exclusiv_b_577541.html

The interview with him contains much of his practice, but here is an excerpt about smiling

  We humans have lost the wisdom of genuinely resting and relaxing. We
  worry too much. We don't allow our bodies to heal, and we don't allow
  our minds and hearts to heal. Meditation can help us embrace our
  worries, our fear, our anger; and that is very healing. We let our own
  natural capacity of healing do the work.

  Total relaxation is the secret to enjoying sitting meditation. I sit
  with my spine upright, but not rigid; and I relax all the muscles in
  my body. Breathing in, I bring my attention to one part of my body;
  breathing out, I smile with gratitude and love to that part of my
  body. For example, I breathe in and I bring my attention to my face.
  On my face there are about 300 muscles, and whenever I get worried,
  angry or sad, these 300 muscles harden, and anyone who looks at me can
  see that I'm tense. But if while breathing in I can be aware of my
  face, and breathing out I can smile to my face, then that tension
  immediately dissipates. It's almost like a miracle. In just a few
  breaths we can feel peace, happiness, and relaxation on our face. Our
  face becomes light, fresh, like the kind of flower it was before.
  Every face is a flower.

  After breathing three or four times with "breathing in I am aware of
  my face; breathing out I smile to my face," then I can breathe in and
  bring my awareness to the muscles in my shoulders, because our
  shoulder muscles are often tense. As I breathe out, I relax and smile
  with my shoulders. Gradually we can move through the whole body, so
  after just a few minutes we can already normalize our body so it feels
  light and relaxed.

  This is something everyone can do in the first minutes of sitting, and
  not only when we are in the meditation hall. Wherever we sit, we can
  sit beautifully, just like we are doing sitting meditation, and we
  will feel stability and freedom. Sitting down to eat or do paperwork,
  we sit upright and relaxed. Let us sit like the Buddha.


I would view the answer to this through the lens of right effort. Your practice should aim to be formal enough so that you stick to it and fluid enough that you don't just end up going through the motions. That said I would err on the side of regular times and being a bit stricter with yourself - particularly if one is just starting out (not certain that applies to you).

As far as hindrances go I wouldn't let that stop from either meditation practice. I've been advised to use the hindrances as an object for meditation so could potentially led to some interesting insight.

More generally, at various points I have been give various advice to help maintain an effective practice. So in no particular order

Find a particular time of day that is better for you to practice. Typically this would be early mornings or late evenings but doesn't have to be
Get a place for meditation. Set up a shrine if that helps but have a spot. Keep your cushions set up so you can just slide onto them when the time for meditation is there
It's better to meditate for 5 minutes than not at all. Sometimes you can just sit and connect with yourself and others as best you can. It's enough.
If you can't meditate one day don't beat yourself up about it. Be very kind and patient with yourself. It's a long journey.

Generally it's the middle way which seems easier said than done. But that's the middle way for you.


Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want.

I think you've already identified the crux of the matter. You've been directing most of your energy into a frivolous un-productive activity and have nothing left for other productive ones. So, the next time there's an urge, get outdoor and start doing some cardio exercises. There's nothing better for your body than doing cardios out in the open air, running, jogging, biking, walking, etc. Since your body is still weak, don't overdo it. Start out light, and build up the strength and stamina gradually. Combining exercises with adequate sleep and a healthy nutritious diet, and also nurturing your spiritual side with meditation and Dhamma cultivation, you should be on your way back to a strong healthy body and mind in a few months.


Sleep, references to the buddha and other arhats

I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this.

One of the most common references in the early texts is the wakefulness (jāgariya) pericope:

  "And how is the disciple of the noble ones devoted to wakefulness?
  There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, sitting & pacing
  back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the
  mind in check. During the first watch of the night [dusk to 10 p.m.],
  sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities
  that would hold the mind in check. During the second watch of the
  night [10 p.m. to 2 a.m.], reclining on his right side, he takes up
  the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful,
  alert, with his mind set on getting up. During the last watch of the night [2 a.m.
  to dawn], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any
  qualities that would hold the mind in check. This is how the monk is
  devoted to wakefulness."
  -MN 53, Trainee Practice

Notice that, in the second watch, sleep (niddā) is not mentioned. It mentions only lying down on the right side in the lion's posture (dakkhiṇena passena sīhaseyyaṃ kappeti). This could be an indication of not sleeping at all and continuing to practice mindfulness while, at the same time, resting the body.
On the other hand, the absence of the line "he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check", which is included in the first and last watch, may indicate a less active practice or even sleeping.

I'm sure there are more references regarding this theme but I don't recall any additional ones at the moment.


Love is a very overloaded term. There are many different phenomena that fall under the umbrella label of "love":

There is love as obsessive kama (liking/desire) towards someone or something. This should probably be classified as lobha (greed, obsessive desire).
There is non-reciprocated love, longing for something you can't get. This is probably tanha (unsatisfied thirst, craving) - the root of dukkha.
There is love towards your mother, family, friends, town, country. This could be pure metta (loving-kindness) or metta with attachment. The first is a wholesome kind of love, producer of good karma. The second subtype, love with attachment, will serve as the root of dukkha once the impermanence kicks in.
There is love of self. This can be an egoistic form of love, or a kind of acceptance/appreciation - a factor of healing.
There is love as unconditional acceptance/appreciation of someone or everyone and everything -- a non-dual kind of love that does not draw lines between "self" and "other". In my understanding, such love is a factor of Enlightenment.

Summarizing the above, there seems to be two main types of love: attachment-type and acceptance/appreciation-type. The first type is a factor of dukkha, the second type is a factor of good karma, healing, Enlightenment.


I don't know if this is something that is possible. Steve Taylor has done a 10 year study of enlightened (I use that word extremely liberally in the case of his study) individuals in which he documents some cases where people have lost the state in his book The Leap - The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening. However, in my opinion his 10 year study only really scratches the very surface. I say this because there are many who are fooled into thinking that they are enlightened when in fact they probably entered a jhanic state for sometime then lost it. This is the tomfoolery of awakening. Jhanic experiences can be drastically life changing and one can attach that change to a conclusion concerning their spiritual discovery only to become disappointed by the certainty of impermanence.

Additionally, from the Buddhist perspective, enlightenment occurs at Sotapanna stage when one enters the stream but one is still subjected to conditioned states in the stream. Apparently, there is a place where conditioning no longer has any influence, termed nibbana or enlightenment. Im not sure how one could fall back from the stream having realised knowledge of the four noble truths and suffering.


Platform sutra describes 'non-symbolic repentance' as including sincere promise to never repeat faults in the future, and acknowledgement of our past faults, that are caused by defilements of mind (ignorance, pride, and envy), which we decide to clean off our thoughts for good.


I don't understand the whole quoted text, because my english is terrible, however I understand upekkhā-brahmvihāra's enemy, so I will explain just it:

Near enemy = fake-upekkhā = unwholesome mind that acting like upekkhā, but it is just a lazy and a fool mind that don't has any knowledge to manage that situation, so fake upekkhā just acting like upekkhā, but the real mind is difference.

Far enemy = appeared enemy = antonym of upekkhā. upekkhā mind factor is in the middle way between unwholesome mind especially lobha and dosa. So lobha and dosa are an opposite of upekkhā.

I am not sure that you already knew this:

In path of purification, visuddhimagga, said that there were 10 difference phrases that upekkhā is used in tipitaka.

Your quoted text is upekkhā-brahmvihāra, tatramajjhattatā mind's factor. It is not upekkhā-vedanā mind's factor.


What role does zen or zazen play in Tendai?

The Tendai school has its own system of meditation based on the writings of the founder of the school, the great Chinese monk Zhiyi, who wrote a classic meditation book called the Mohe Zhiguan which means The Great Shamatha Vipashyana. This meditation style in Japanese is simply called Shikan, which is the Japanese pronunciation of the last half of the name of the book meaning Shamatha Vipashyana.

I don't know too much about it but it is a different system of meditation than Soto Shikantaza or Rinzai Koan practice. I think that it is a more structured and explicit system of meditation but I don't have much direct knowledge on this point.


Is the next Buddha the same entity/being as the previous Buddha, or another discrete being who comes to the same realizations as the previous Buddha?

Next Buddha is a totally unrelated separate person to previous Buddha. He will realize the same truth as previous Buddha when his(previous Buddha) teachings are no longer among us.

Once someone becomes Arahant, He will never be born again. The whole purpose of being Arahant is not to be born again.

How can previous Buddha can tell prophecy about next Buddha?

To be a Buddha, its saying we have to do lot of good Karma and endless sacrifices. Buddha can see someone's Karma and how these Karma going to effect them. Therefore, Buddha can see whose Karma is fulfilled to be next Buddha and when it happens.

As become a Buddha is so difficult, it's only for great persons who has endless courage and such a kind heart for all beings to preach them Dharma and make them aware of Samsara.


How Lord Buddha's Way Make Me Out Of This Depression!

What you describe is suffering. Intense mental suffering. I am very sorry you are going through this and will try my best to help as I once went through something very similar and it was extremely unpleasant.

The true cause of your suffering is ignorance. In short, you are under the control of a delusion right now and the only way out is through knowledge and understanding of this delusion. You need to try and see the situation clearly with sober eyes.

So what is this delusion? This person you are so attached to and yearning/aching for... this woman of your dreams... she is utterly unreal just like a dream. She exists as nothing more than a figment if your fevered and frenzied imagination. You conjured her up based upon a whole slew of endless cravings and yearnings that you mistakenly believed would lead you to happiness and now you are discovering it only leads to suffering.

So what is the solution? Simple. You have to wake up from this dream of her and realize that she is utterly unreal just like a dream. When you realize she is nothing more than a mirage... the fever will dissipate and the attachment will dissolve.

How do you wake up? Also simple. Meditate on her to see her for what she really is: like an illusion.

Some suggestions:

Is she a fixed and permanent thing that never changes? Has she changed even slightly over the course of your relationship? Or is she changing moment by moment?
Is she really as perfect as you make her out to be? Consider all of her faults. Really look at them and don’t turn away.
Is she really capable of providing you lasting happiness? If that were true, then why are you so miserable right now?
Is she subject to aging, sickness and death? Is she going to die some day? Is your eventual parting from her an absolute guarantee?

I think if you really look you are going to find she does not exist as you have been imagining her. That imagination of her is just that: pure imagination. See that imagination for what it is and wake up from your day dream of her.

I really hope this helps!

Here is a video of Venerable Thubten Chodron giving a teaching on the above in a much more eloquent and useful way than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aq1fpjEe0Q Please have a look and see if it helps.


The word, as spelled in english, is "gak-cha," and it refers to the object whose existence we deny.

The idea is that things, including our selves, do not exist "out there, independently," or "from their own side."  Such a thing, according to Mahayana buddhism, could never exist.  When we catch our mind falling prey to relating to some thing (including our "self") as if it really existed independently from our perceiving mind, then we have located the "gak-cha."

There's a transcription of a talk by Lama Yeshe that goes into some depth:
Lama Yeshe Archive


What are the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?

From what I found Hinduism was the religion, Siddhartha was raised in. Hinduism has a vast arrays of Gods, Like Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, an so on. Buddhism to my understanding Has no God in it. The difference starts there. Hindus have many gods and Buddhism has none, although it can become difficult when comparing Bodhisattva's an Buddha's an the dwellers of the celestial world depending on your Buddhist tradition.

Buddha concentrated more on not worrying about the divine beings. But to worry about fixing your self.Basically in the aspect of Karma you decide for yourself what happens to you. There is no judge to your life but yourself. You rebirth higher or lower depending on your Karma ( depending on the Buddhist tradition ). You are the master of your self, an so focusing on yourself you alone can help yourself. You do not worry about appeasing deities. Or the origin in which you came from, an what lies beyond today. To be in the present an to judge according to your own understanding seems to be the Buddhist method.

So a religion that focuses on the worship of their deities, the practices of the deities, the rewards an punishments from the deities. All this becomes distractful an can cause great deal of suffering when you are trying very hard to appease a certain deity. An in Hinduism there are vastly many of them. There are many gurus that teach very different an strange customs. Some traditions still perform animal sacrifice ( Kali )

Buddha ultimately walked away from the Brahmin teachers, an the way of Hinduism, as he did not see the path leading to happiness. He saw that people became ascetics an starved them selves and pierce there bodies in harsh ways to prove the devotion to their gods. Buddha once tried these methods to find enlightenment, but almost starved to death an realized, if he had died nothing would have been gained from doing these things. So he focused on how to find true happiness, an that was through insightful meditations an begin teachings the Dharma.

The main difference is the Deities, the customs an practices of both can become mingled as they have a similar basis on some things. But really the focus is what makes them different. To focus on a god or to focus on your self as a "god". Hopefully this helpful in some way.


It is the intention that has the karmic effect in this life or future ones. This is made clear in the Abhidhamma, and by the Buddha

There are three unwholesome roots. Which three?

Greed
Hatred
Delusion

There are three wholesome roots. Which three?

Non greed
Non hatred
Non delusion

For example:
A blind monk, without intentions of any of the six intentions listed above, killed a bug when he was walking. And he was a thera. The fellow monks noted he squashed a bug, and were displeased with it because it is against the first precept to kill and to harm another living being. That is one of the ten unwholesome actions:

  "Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings." -The Buddha (Saleyyaka Sutta)

Later the Buddha became aware of what has happened. He told the monks that Cakkhupala's actions of squashing the bug will bear no karmic potency since he had no intention to kill it.

Here is an excerpt of the story:

  "One day, Venerable Cakkhupala who was blind came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. While he was pacing up and down in meditation, he accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting him found the dead insects. They thought ill of him and reported the matter to the Buddha. When questioned by the Buddha whether they had seen Cakkhupala killing the insects, they answered in the negative. The Buddha then admonished them, 'Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, being an Arahant he had no intention of killing, and was not guilty of committing an unwholesome act.' On being asked why Cakkhupala was blind, the Buddha revealed the following story to explain the nature of kammic effects."

This is the Dhammapada Story that gives an explanation to the first verse of the Dhammapada:

  "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart." The Buddha, Dhammapada verse 1

The Dhammapada Stories for the explanation of the Dhp. verses


How can you know that meditating isn't selfish?

But if you define the 'self' as your inner core/soul is it still possible to meditate selfish?

One purpose of meditation is to deepen your understanding for anatta, non-self. Meditating as intended, one develops a different view on the self than the definition above, for instance.

  If so how to know this and how to prevent this?

On one hand - among other things - one needs to familiarize oneself with the theoretical concepts of:

the twelve nidanas, for general understanding on how wrong view leads to suffering
bhava tanha, for specific understanding of wrong striving for defining a self
the five skandhas, for right understanding of a wholesome alternative to defining a self

On the other hand, to prevent that our insights stays a mere theoretical product, we must also examine how these phenomena plays out in real life, with the aid of:

right mindfulness, in order to recognize when we falsely identify with a certain concept of self
right effort, to explore new habits allowing us to break the patterns creating more suffering, and to develop habits conducive to the cessation of suffering


O! Bhikkhus, it is volition - cetana that I call Kamma, -cetanaham
  bhikkhave kammam vadami

Karma is always mental. But the consequences(Vipaaka) are both mental and physical.


According to the Buddha, confessing one's misdeed, seeing the fault and blameworthiness in that misdeed, and resolving not to transgress again is considered a maturing, a growth in a person. So too is the ability to accept that confession, forgive the person and harbour no malice.

I hope your husband understands the hurt he has caused you after making a solemn vow of fidelity, and that he has resolved to never do that again.

Now that you have decided to continue stay married, the Dhamma would tell us to let go of thoughts such as 'he cheated on me, he lied to me, he betrayed me'. For holding on to such thoughts will not allow you to find peace and move forward. Re Dhammapada verses 3 and 4.

I did a search on Google a little while ago and according to the results the estimate is that 30% of married men will. Ofcourse the results will vary based on location. I am currently in Sydney.

Also some studies have shown that 1 in 4 or even 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce.

So relationships are risky business, but they can be rewarding too. People make mistakes. However having the maturity to, admit the mistake, have the insight to see the error in it, and forgive and continue to move forward together lovingly is the Buddhist way, but it takes two.

If one party is continually failing to hold up their part, the Buddha says it's better to live alone, our find suitable companions. Also even in relationships we are adviced to practice being an island unto ourselves. For all meetings end in parting.

I recall watching a talk by Ajhan Brahm on this topic some time ago. Perhaps you might find that useful.

No matter what you do, don't live in regret and with thoughts of anger.

In addition you will find it useful developing the practice of the 5 daily recollections recommended by the Buddha.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html

I wish you well.


Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea?

Yes, practicing mindfulness can be a bad idea.

When one practices mindfulness, he opens his eyes and comes to see more and more things that were previously unnoticed. That is the reason why beginners tend to think "When I sit on a cushion, there's a fireworks of thoughts, images, etc. coming to my mind. It seems like an endless waterfall of thoughts, etc.". This is a mistaken conception, though, since these "fireworks" were actually already present, but merely unnoticed. Thus, cultivating mindfulness (along with vigilance) helps one understand better what delusions are the master of him. He also comes to feel that he is enslaved by these afflictions (which is a necessary step in Dharma practice, since it leads to generate the wish to abandon afflictions, recognizing them as the origins of suffering).

All this is painful and stirs the mind quiet a lot. Through cultivating mindfulness, we exhume "demons" that we might not be able to face yet, or to understand. We might shed the light on things we are not able to look at yet. That is one of the reason it is necessary to rely to a teacher who gives you practical (and boring) exercises and with whom you have interview every so often. Moreover, opening one's eyes is necessary but not sufficient. We have to change what we pay attention to and the way we pay attention to them (these are usually part of the exercises). This is difficult because karma drives us to pay attention to always the same things that feed our deluded mind more and more. In addition to relying on a teacher, one must study, because by way of studying the teachings of the Buddha, you will come to know what to pay attention to, where to look, and how.


You are probably referring to this:

It is a "seed syllable" used for meditative visualisation, notably in the Tibetan Chenrezig prayer/ritual. The incantation phrase of this ritual reads:

Hri Le P’hag Chog Chen re zig


What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'

In Tibetan Buddhism they recognize a class of beings that we can call "latent informational energy entities". In modern language they can be explained as long-term memes or archetypes inhabiting the sphere of knowledge and capable of producing activity through that sphere.

This includes spirits, guardians, dakinis, and celestial bodhisattvas.

They are not organisms in our sense of the word, but they are acting entities in an abstract sense, having a certain identity, relationships with the world of people, and even something like attitude or perspective, that allows them to respond or react to human acts.

You could say that this is a kind of animism towards religious archetypes, and you would be right, except that our own system of political parties, corporations etc. is in essence based on the same principles.

So yeah, celestial Bodhisattvas are characters, like Batman or Spiderman, that have a certain role and function in human society. As opposed to normal Bodhisattvas who are actual people.


Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like?

Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) therefore it is obviously something known.

MN 26 says:

  Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced (vedanīya) by the wise.

SN 56.11 says:

  ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized (sacchikata).’

  Concise Pali English Dictionary sacchikata pp. of sacchikaroti
  realised; experienced for oneself.

  PTS Pali English Dictionary sacchikata seen with one’s own eyes,
  realized experienced

The Dhammapada says:

  205. Having savored the taste of solitude and peace (of Nibbana), pain-free and stainless he becomes, drinking deep the taste of the
  bliss of the Truth.

Nibbana is the dropping of all burdens; like the experience of relief when urgently urinating or dropping a heavy backpack or drinking cool fresh water on a hot day.

Read more here: SN 43.14-43 and Nibbana For Everyone


What was the historical Buddha's ethnicity?

The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama was probably Indo-Aryan.
He lived in what is today the Democratic Republic of Nepal. Nepal's ethnicity today comprise mixed race people of Indo-Aryan & East Asian ethnicities.

It is believed He spoke old Magadhi language. He belonged to the Ksyhtriya Varna of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty and Gautama Gotra. Before his enlightenment he was a practitioner of what is today called Hinduism.

Sakhya is derived from the Sanskrit word śakya which means capable, able [1]. Sakhyamuni just means a muni(renunciate) from the Sakhya tribe.

From Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, 2 of the meaning out of many others for the word sakya:

  śākya m.   Name of a tribe of landowners and kṣatriya - s in kapila
  -vastu - (from whom gautama - , the founder of Buddhism, was descended)

  śākya mfn.     derived or descended from the śaka - s (= śakā abhijano 'sya - )    gaRa śaṇḍikādi

Here the tribe of the Buddha is not given as decedents of Sakas(Scythians) since a distinction is made between Buddha's tribe and the Sakas.

The theory that Sanskrit speaking Aryans came from Southern Russia has been controversial and is disputed.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya


Yes, there is. There is a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana.

With the Brammaviharas, one can be as compassionate to the maximum, but that does not mean one has gotten rid of ignorance. Those beings in the Brahma worlds do not generate any hateful thoughts. They have perfected the four Brahmavihara of metta, karuna, mudita, & upekkha. Yet they have ignorance (moha), even though they don’t have a trace of hateful thoughts, and thus can be reborn in the four lower realms.

Even if one gets rid of greed and hate, will still have ignorance, and will end up getting back greed and hate due to ignorance. But when compassion is cultivated through Vipassana, wisdom, or panna arises. The Buddhist mental factor ‘Adosa’ is not mere absence of ‘dosa’, but embodies compassion. The more panna one has, it is more likely that one would be generating ‘adosha’ and ‘amoha’ thoughts of compassion more often.


Does Dogen's wholehearted way say anything about the status of memory?

If you are referring to the intellectual capability of memory (隨念智), then this is not mentioned in Bendowa.

The whole-hearted way is, as you say, awareness from moment to moment. According to Zen, it is the experiential reality, not the memory or interpretation thereof (even if the memory is one of realization). The memory of a previous realization cannot help you. It will in fact hinder you if it arises. This is well explained in Mumonkan case 22:

Ananda asked Kashyapa, "The World-honored One gave you the golden robe; did he give you anything else.
"Ananda!" cried Kashyapa.
"Yes, sir!" answered Ananda.
"Knock down the flagpole at the gate," said Kashyapa.


A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness

First of all I think it is important to remember that in the Mahasi Sayadaw system of meditation, you don't necessarily have to note distractions. When distractions arise you have a choice between staying with the primary object (e.g. the movement of the abdomen) or you can take up the distraction itself as an object. Both of these are equally valid. If the rocking motion is coming up a lot, you might decide to ignore it and stay with the abdomen. If it only happens sometimes it might make more sense to note it, but it makes less sense if it is happening continuously.

Also, if it is painful for your body to sit on the floor or on a cushion, I would recommend that you try meditating while seated in a chair and see if that is less painful. As long as your position is relatively stable and able to be maintained, there is no problem, and sitting in a chair fulfills these principles, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in a chair to meditate.


How does the 2nd Noble truth explain the cause of suffering-as-suffering (e.g. resulting from a severe burn)?

Dukkha-dukkha is just painful feelings accompanied by craving. Painful feelings are simply feelings. In the case of severe burns, one would experience a lot of painful feelings. But it is still just a physical feeling like any other physical feeling. It becomes suffering only when you wish it to go away. That is called Vibhava-tanha. In other words, the craving for a certain experience to go away causes you suffering.


Should person with schizophrenia have children?

that's a loaded question with many factors to take into account.  Priority in life for those with serious illness should be given to self to make sure they live a happy healthy life.  If life is already difficult more than the norm, then having children will cause even more difficulties (if self is ill and having to take care of possible ill children).  Since this a Buddhist Q and A website, I'm going to try to link that.
remember this

  "whatever brings you joy, it will cause suffering"

It comes to personal choice, if he/she decides it is a fair trade off.
As for my personal thought. No, dont risk adding more troubles to an already troubled life.


What tools does a Buddhist have to engender others to take a wiser approach?

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's discomforts. I used to have similar panic attacks that would bring on hyperventilation, taking Xanax and in extreme cases calling the paramedics as well, even though I had studied Buddhism academically for many years and I "knew" it should be able to help me.

It was only when I actually started practicing in stead of studying the attacks subsided, mostly because I had learned to recognize their arising in my mind and the cascade of thoughts, feelings and physical reactions that followed out of them.

The best recommendation I can give you from personal experience is not to start with "staying with the discomfort", as this already requires a person to be able to "witness" the arising and setting of thoughts in the mind. I suggest you start with simple breath counting in a comfortable position and once she is comfortable doing this, ask your mother to observe the space in between thoughts. Doing so will allow these spaces to grow and allow your mom to see the arising of thoughts and sensations, in stead of them being constant and unstoppable, like we usually perceive them. Once you get to that stage, you can start focusing on "staying with" the discomfort, as she will no longer experience it as inevitably leading to the subsequent discomfort in her mind.

Hope this helps, best wishes to you and your mother.


Enlightend beings don't make more good or neutral karma?

In its essence, "kamma" means "action" with attachment.

While the suttas do refer to "kamma without attachment" namely, "neither-dark-nor-bright kamma" (AN 4.237), this type of kamma is also called the "kamma that ends kamma" (AN 6.63). Therefore, it is not really "kamma".

the essential meaning of "kamma" is "action with attachment", as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? 'There is what is given,
  what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of
  good & bad actions....

  MN 117

Refer to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa PDF booklet: Kamma in Buddhism


Karma and one's own belief about the event

In my tradition we recognize three ways to do repentance.

On the basic level, we should feel ashamed and guilty, tell someone about our misdeed, then decide not to repeat same mistake. Then stop beating ourselves about it, since that only makes things worse after certain point.

On the medium level, we should understand that our mistake was because of a particular delusion or reification that manifested as some sort of attachment, which then produced the behavior. We should make an effort to really see our preconception or overgeneralization or attachment that gave rise to the misdeed, and make an effort to let go of it.

On the highest level, repentance consists in simply recovering the stable and pure state of mind and staying in that.


Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana?

In early Buddhist texts one gains nibbāna and is freed from ever having to be reborn again. Many people achieved this and in relatively short time frames. The Buddha of the early texts seems to have expected the enlightened practitioners he left behind (hundreds if not thousands of them according to the texts) to teach others how to achieve this. If each disciple themselves freed only two other people, the whole world would soon be free. The traditional Buddha told his followers that the Dhamma should be their refuge and teacher when he was gone.

However by the time the Mahāyāna sutras were being composed a significant level of doubt and insecurity seems to have crept into their minds. At the same time they began to inflate the role and the capabilities of the Buddha in their retelling of the stories. (This trend is covered in my article: Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014). The dilemma is this: if the Buddha was truly compassionate, how could he die and leave us behind? Something of this dilemma is openly expressed in the opening of the Suvarṇabhāsottama Sutra (Fantastic Golden Light) in which Ratnaketu asks why the Buddha only lived 80 years if merit increases lifespan and the Buddha had infinite merit. The answer is that the Buddha only appeared to live and die, but that in fact he is eternal. This is typical of the hyperbolic response of the Mahāyāna and the gradual conversion of Buddhism into a more theistic religion, with Buddha as God.

In order to deal with this problem the Mahāyāna intellectuals conceived of the bodhisatva as getting to the threshold of awakening, and having more or less all the advantages of being awakened, but not attaining nirvāṇa which would ensure they could not be reborn. In this view the bodhisatva eschews enlightenment in favour of repeated rebirth to come back and help beings. In this view also we see a vastly inflated role for the bodhisatva. The Mahāyāna seems to have anxiety about the Dharma not being sufficient. One needs the (increasingly god-like) intervention of a Buddha or bodhisatva. Interestingly some Theravādins also lost heart. This view is seen, for example, in Peter Masefield's book Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. Masefield, a respected translator and practising Theravādin, argues that without the physical presence of a Buddha nibbāna was not possible - and that the possibility of enlightenment would have died out within a generation of the Buddha's death. It's a view that is relatively easily refuted, Masefield cherry picks his Pāḷi quotes and studiously ignores any contradictory information. (see my unpublished review of his book).

Thus we are left with the image of the bodhisatva with many magical or godlike powers, a kind of messianic saviour figure, who helps otherwise helpless beings by being repeatedly reborn amongst us to lead us to the goal that we are otherwise incapable of reaching ourself.

In many ways this is a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, though a very positive view of bodhisatvas and buddhas. It reaches its apotheosis in the teachings of the Japanese Buddhist, Shinran, who entirely abandoned the idea that human beings could become enlightened and preached reliance on the vows of Amitābha (recorded in the Sukhavativyūha Sūtras) a Buddha who lives in another universe but who has promised to meet people after they die and lead them to his Pureland from where they can become enlightened with no effort.

So yes, in Mahāyāna Buddhism one typically vows to become a Buddha, but a Buddha once dead cannot be reborn, so one, as it were, puts off Buddhahood until all beings are free, which at the present rate of beings being freed is essentially forever.


Why would a non-dualist mind choose the Bodhisattva path once it has stopped differentiating between suffering and non-suffering?

What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished?

The motivation is that, although Bodhisattva no longer splits the world, Bodhisattva understands that others still do and therefore have the basis for suffering.

In other words, suffering still exists for sentient beings, even though for Bodhisattva there is no suffering, no beings, and no Bodhisattva.

Because Bodhisattva understands that the nature of suffering is subjective experience, Bodhisattva helps out of great compassion.


The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth

The basic project of Buddhism is solving the problem of suffering (or sometimes some other variation of the fundamental problem), usually through a realization about who we really are.

In addition to that, the Buddha didn't bother to challenge many of the other ideas of his day regarding the realms, or karma. (He did take on caste, the economic system, to some degree the inequalities of men and women) He didn't challenge the world's thoughts on a lot of other issues, like medicine, astronomy, geography and so on.

The sutras were written 100s of years later, and accumulated all sorts of unrelated material. By 700 AD, when Vajrayana was well established, the Buddhist canon included books on medicine, astrology and more.

There are many varieties of Buddhism, the secular version dispenses with the cosmologies as instructive myths and the core project of Buddhism remains.

On the other hand, traditional Buddhism still holds the realms to be literally true, necessary for the Buddhist project and proponents like to call doubters "scientist", "materialist" or dismissive of "faith".

If the basic project is to stop the cycle of rebirth and enter a sort of heaven (nirvana), then the realms are essential to Buddhism, without them the basic goal becomes incoherent. If the basic project to end suffering, that is a goal that can imaginably be achieved in this lifetime and it's validity is unaffected by what may happen after we die.


What is meant by unchastity is the taint in a woman?

IMO "woman's stain" is a mistranslation (or at best gives the wrong impression).
The whole chapter (of the Dhammapada) is about ways in which the audience (e.g. you or me) may be stained (or are stained, were stained).
(It would be applicable to "a woman" only if she were the reader, the subject, the audience of the talk -- but in the AN 8,15 context, at least, the audience was all men, all bhikkhus).
I think that (i.e. that it's the audience's stain, or that the audience would be stained if they were blame-worthy) is evident from the context -- for example from the start of that chapter of the Dhammapada:

One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver.

... through to the end ...

Easily seen is the fault of others, but one's own fault is difficult to see. Like chaff one winnows another's faults, but hides one's own, even as a crafty fowler hides behind sham branches.

He who seeks another's faults, who is ever censorious — his cankers grow. He is far from destruction of the cankers.

It's meant as advice to you ... and is not a statement that's meant to censure "a woman" (itthiyā).
Similarly you may be stained by ...

Your being lazy in the presence of beauty
Your having a house and being negligent (or, possibly, being negligent because you have a house)
Your misconduct with a woman

The Pali (Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ or malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ) doesn't have all the prepositions which translators add to the English (at most the Pali nouns are declined, have a case ... I think itthiyā is declined like jāti, for what that's worth, so the syntax doesn't distinguish whether it's genitive, locative, dative, ablative, or instrumental; there's no verb).
I think the word-order in the Dhammapada is unreliable (it's highly condensed, to make it verse); but that the word-order in AN 8.15 i.e.

malaṃ, bhikkhave, itthiyā duccaritaṃ

... implies that the word itthiyā is there to qualify the type of misconduct, and not there to be the agent, owner, or object of the stain.

I cross-posted this to SuttaCentral -- Questioning the translation of AN 8.15, “Misconduct is a woman’s stain”.
I also wrote there that I think that the translations (or at least the interpretations) of most of the other stains are questionable too.


Buddhists usually cremate the bodies. But there's no Buddhist funeral law. You may or may not bath before, after or during the funeral if you see any health benefit to it.