How does Buddhism refute the inherent existence of sub-atomic particles?

In this paragraph:

  Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly
  singular will not work. It would be impossible to ... Having no
  differentiable sides, ... Such a particle would not be able to ... All
  the surrounding particles would ... Nothing with any extension could
  ever come to be.

The author is, in my estimation (I have no familiarity with the book or the author), doing one of two things:

Confusing Buddhism with Physics. Whether this particle is this or that particle is that, it won't help you become a better person and understand your mental reality any better. Although the above quoted paragraph would make an interesting question on physics.stackexchange.com.
Speaking poetically in order to help the reader become absorbed with the idea. Perhaps this is the case.

During an course I attended under the name "Introduction to Asian Philosophy", my professor explained emptiness as a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not. Nirvana is defined as everything Samsara is not, therefore Nirvana is "empty of essential qualities". Similarly, Samsara is meaningless without a Nirvana to compare it to. This logic can be extended to all entities and concepts: Without night there can be no day, without a whole there can't be parts, etc.

You may or may or not you agree with this reasoning, but for me it's a practical interpretation of the doctrine of emptiness that helps us to not cling to our perceptions of what things are.

In other words, as R. Barzell says in the comment below, Is emptiness ontology, or a way of seeing to free us from the bondage of concepts? Is treating emptiness as ontology missing the point?

Lastly,

  What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

Meditation will probably help, as it gradually helps the practitioner become free from the limitations of language, thoughts, and concepts. The better we understand the way our minds work, the less we can be obstructed by our minds.


Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or always identical?

Yes.  The difference in terms just highlights a difference in emphasis.  All zen teachings basically point to the same thing.  The difference is dependent on what obstacle the teacher is pointing too.  For someone who is always striving, a teacher might call it original mind to emphasize that he is already in possession of what he's striving for.  For someone who thinks zen is about rarefied states or accomplishments, a teacher might call it ordinary mind.  For someone who is caught up in intellectualizing, he might simply hold up a flower.
Its all the same shit - namely the shit you are caught up in.


is the 'magical'/spiritual world another dimension of mind and thus an illusion

To insist emptiness is the reality without having realized what the words mean brings no benefit..  in order to become realized one must train in both merit/virtues and wisdom.  Through gathering the two accumulations of merit and wisdom one can arrive at the perfectly awakened state.

What is your question?  The entire world is rather magical!


are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?

Yes. Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful to the Buddha, however small.

From Vaccha Sutta:

  "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Sangaha Sutta:

  "There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help,
  & consistency in the face of
  events,
  in line with what's appropriate
  in each case.
  These bonds of fellowship [function] in the world
  like the linchpin in a moving cart.

From Sigalovada Sutta:

  "Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.

  "The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.

  "The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.

  "The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.

  "The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

From Dullabha Sutta:

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

From Itivuttaka 75:

  "And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.

  A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

From Itivuttaka 100:

  "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."


Is the Mahayana shunyata same as the Theravada papanca?

Yes, more or less.

Although, strictly speaking you are making a category error.

Shunyata refers to the fact that everything is an abstraction, simplification, subjective observation, and that in fact everything appears from interaction of a bunch of processes (known in this context as "causes and conditions") - including the process of perception. Shunyata and Sankhara are closely related.

While Papanca refers to the process by which we take that empty stuff, those appearances, and because of ignorance assign to them the status of real, objective, clearly delineated things.

Papanca is something that can be stopped through Buddhist education. But Shunyata cannot be stopped, it's a fundamental law.

In one sense they are opposite: Papanca is "bad" (because when mind does Papanca - it's confused) - but Shunyata is "good" (because when mind sees Shunyata - it's enlightened).

You are right about Nirvana. It's empty when you think about it as the object of your mind. But when you actually realize that everything is Shunyata and stop clinging to things because of that (including clinging to the concepts of Nirvana and Shunyata) - now that's real Nirvana which is not empty.


Which case is "I am a professor" with identity view?

"I am a professor" is conceit not self view. But if self view arises before conceit as "professor is attā", then the conceit, which arises after that, will become misunderstood conceit.

The explanation

There are 3 clauses in tipiṭaka:

"etaṃ  mama-this is mind"  is thought by taṇhā.
"esohamasmi-I am this"  is thought by māna. <<< this is conceit.
"eso me  attā-this is my attā" is thought by diṭṭhi. <<< only this one is compatible with your quoted identity view,  Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).

But there are the complicated arising of taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi, because taṇhā must co-arises with only one, diṭṭhi or māna, per mind-moment arising. And  diṭṭhi can't co-arises with māna. So:

2 taṇhā = 1. sotāpanna's taṇhā 2. puthujana's taṇhā.

2 diṭṭhi = 1. sotāpanna's diṭṭhi 2. puthujana's diṭṭhi.

3 māna = 1. we are the same 2. I am better 3. I am worse.

There are sotāpanna's taṇhā and 3 māna of sotāpanna, but there are not diṭṭhi of sotāpanna.
There are 2 taṇhā, 9 māna, and 2 diṭṭhi of puthujana.

Therefore, there are just 3 māna of sotāpanna, but there are 9 māna for puthujana, 6 Diṭṭhi-Before&After(misunderstood) and 3 No-Diṭṭhi-Before&After māna's arising (right understood).

  "eso me  attā-this is my attā" is thought by diṭṭhi. <<< only this one is compatible with your quote,  Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).

There are 20 sakkāya-diṭṭhi which thinking about attā in Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85).


Right Livelihood and Working in Technical Support

At the core of The Right Livelihood training rule is the same principle as behind the rest of the Eightfold Path: to stop creating causes of suffering.
The jobs and professions that involve creating suffering, either directly - by killing or torturing others, or indirectly - by creating latent conditions for conflict, confusion, physical or mental sickness etc - are obviously unwholesome.
Jobs that focus on healing, rescuing, reconciling, educating about healthy lifestyles, etc. - in other words those that create direct or indirect causes of peace and harmony - are obviously wholesome.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. A job that you describe definitely falls on the "good" side of the spectrum, since like you said it saves the people from frustration and reconciles the potential conflict between them and the company providing the service.
Perhaps if you transmit enough warmth in your communication you can even make a deep and long-lasting difference in someone's life. This definitely sounds like a good livelihood, in my opinion.


How to avoid the dangers of gain and honor (lābhasakkara)?

Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?

That sutta implies that even accumulating dung can be a problem for some.

So I'm not sure it's feasible to solve that by avoiding literally everything (especially for a house-holder, but presumably mendicants too -- the sutta seems to be addressed to bhikkhus, not to arhats) -- even including, for example, "food" and "honours".

Instead the problem seems to be in the mental attitude toward accumulation, for example:

"With a mind overcome and overwhelmed by possessions, honor, and popularity"
"they look down on other good-hearted mendicants"

There are other suttas nearby on the same or similar theme -- for example, SN 17.3 offers,

  Whoever enjoys and likes arisen possessions, honor, and popularity is called a mendicant who has been pierced with a harpoon

I suppose the problem originates from the delighting in such things.

Perhaps the sutta itself suggests one of the remedies -- if you see (view) it as being like dung, not nourishing, then you might not be inclined to accumulate (eat) it.

And, as you pointed out in a comment, SN 17.30 says,

  We will give up arisen possessions, honor, and popularity, and we won’t let them occupy our minds.


How should I view others sufferings I cannot affect?

Firstly, meditation isn't about becoming an unemotional robot, it is about living a life not being control by your emotions, it's completely different! You can either be the master of your mind or the slave.

There is a big difference in ignoring the worlds suffering, compared to understanding the root cause of all suffering. As for the suffering of the external world, i would recommend studying and contemplating the 4 Noble Truths. Once you realize that ignorance is the root to all suffering, then you will view the world completely different.

Also if you want to help the suffering of the external world, i would suggest not increasing the suffering of others, that would be a good start, and to achieve that, it would be for you to continue your practice into freedom, then you can be an example for others!!

I hope i have been of some help.

Metta.


MN 36 parallels for section where Buddha as a 9 year old boy has first jhana

I could find the part about the 4 jhanas instead of only the first jhana, but I could not find the part about the earthworms.
From Ekottarāgama 31.8 of the Taisho Tripitaka:

「爾時，我作 是念：『今日可食一果。』爾時我便食一果。當 我食一果之日，身形萎弱不能自起居，如 年百二十，骨節離散不能扶持。比丘當知，
爾時一果者，如似今日小棗耳。爾時，我復作 是念：『非我成道之本，故當更有餘道。』爾時， 我復作是念：『我自憶昔日，在父王樹下無
婬、無欲，除去惡不善法，遊於初禪；無覺、 無觀，遊於二禪；念清淨無有眾想，遊於 三禪；無復苦樂，意念清淨，遊於四禪。此或
能是道，我今當求此道。』

Using Google Translate, I got:

"At this time, I just said: "I can eat one fruit today." At this time,
I eat one fruit. When I eat one fruit, I am weak and unable to live by
myself. For example, when I am a hundred and twenty, my joints cannot
be separated. Support. Bhikkhus should know that when there is a
fruit, it is like today's jujube ears. When you are here, I repeat it
by saying: "It is not the foundation of my enlightenment, so I should
have more surplus." "I recall from the past, under my father’s tree,
there was no lust, no desire, no evil and unwholesome dhammas,
swimming in the first meditation; no awareness, no insight, swimming
in the second meditation; pure mind without many thoughts, swimming in
the third meditation; Resume suffering and happiness, pure mind, swim
in the four meditations. This may be the Tao, I should ask for it
now."

The Chinese used in the agama is probably a bit different from modern Chinese, so the machine translation may be inaccurate.
Ekottarāgama is the Sanskrit equivalent of the Pali collection of Aṅguttara Nikāya.


There are two that come to mind from the Shoyoroku.  The first is Case 98 and it's entitled Tonzan's Heed.  In that instance, it more refers to reticence on the part of the teacher in not wanting to lead the student into intellectualism.  I'm not sure if that is the image you were after. The second is at Case 41:

  When he was about to die, Rakuho addressed his assembly and said, “I
  have one matter to ask you about. If you say ‘yes’ to this, you are
  putting another head on your own. If you say ‘no,’ you are looking for
  life by cutting off your head.”

I don't think this is what you are looking for exactly, either.

I can't think of a single koan in the Mumonkan or Hekiganroku that has an image like that, however.  But kicked into mud?  Cat cut in two?  Finger cut off?  Nose pinched?  Now that's a different story!

(Note: the Shaseki-shu has something about heads being cut off.  Unfortunately, that collection does not contain any actual koans.  Those are parables.)


'Sankhara' Dependent Origination: Bhikkhu Analayo vs Bhikkhu Thanissaro. Which is right?

Ajahn Thanissaro’s description is accurate. The 3 sankharas in MN44 is the same as SN12.2.

Arahant’s sankhara is NOT conditioned by ignorance. Arahant’s sankhara arises and ceases with knowledge. Feeling still arises and ceases in an Arahant, but it’s not conditioned by ignorance, which is why it doesn’t lead to craving. Contact conditions feeling. So long as the Arahant is still alive, there will be contact impinges on the 6 sense bases, and feeling will arise. As stated in SN12.51, the Arahant feels a feeling detached. Please note that the “sankhara” that Arahant does not generate (as stated in SN12.51) is kamma, and not the sankharas in MN44/SN12.2.

There are 2 sets of sankhara used in the Nikayas. First set is used in dependent origination discourses (MN44, SN12.2). Second set is used in kamma-vipaka discourses (SN12.51).

The dependent origination essay below discusses sankhara in more detail (including the above 2 sets of sankhara). It’s very concise and informative.

https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf


Is the Buddha capable of making mistakes?

You have misunderstood the sutta SN 54.9.

The Buddha taught the technique of loathsomeness of the body, which is to be used to remove feelings of sexual lust and attachment to the physical form. This technique is useful to be practised by a monk or practitioner who is overwhelmed by sexual lust. However, too much of this practice, especially when it is unnecessary, may lead to depression and suicidal tendencies.

To counteract depression and suicidal tendencies, the Buddha prescribed mindfulness of breathing, which can generate rapture and joy.

So, as you can see, every technique has a different purpose. Any one single technique does not fit everyone at all times. Sometimes, you have to change your technique depending on the circumstances.

For example, a person who is momentarily overcome by one of the five hindrances would have to try some technique to overcome that particular hindrance.

Hence, the Buddha did not make a mistake in this case. He merely prescribed different techniques for different conditions. Please also see this answer.

The Buddha will not make mistakes when it comes to the teachings and practice of Buddhism.

Although the Buddha was known to have some psychic powers, he was not completely omniscient (i.e. knowing all things in the past, present and future), in the way people consider a Supreme God to be. Buddhist enlightenment is about freedom from suffering. It's not about becoming God-like.


Kamma is largly based on intention...in both the cases you have given the intention is not clear.

Moreover Kamma is not some measurable quantity that can be quantified...so you cannot ask such questions like whose Kamma is more bad...


What is the relevance of Pratityasamutpada in Nagarjunas system?

I took a university course in Asian Philosophy and my professor explained emptiness this way:

Nagarjuna makes the claim that an essence (a list of essential qualities that make a thing what it is) can only be stated in reference to other things. This is a way of saying that all things are defined in relation to other things, including samsara and nirvana.
The point of doing this, supposedly, is to help us realize that this means enlightenment and samsara are defined in terms of each other: Without samsara we can't define enlightenment, and without enlightenment we can't define samsara.

Basically according to this professor, Nagarjuna makes the argument that "We're all in this together" and we should be helping each other reach enlightenment and not strive for it by ourselves.
He also stated that Emptiness is a flashy re-packaging of the teaching of dependent origination.
In my opinion, the concept of Emptiness makes sense, but I don't really see how it's useful above and beyond the teachings in Early Buddhism. If anything, an enlightened person is more able to help others, so there shouldn't be a problem in striving towards enlightenment.


I'm curious as to who told you wearing robes was beneficial.  There are specific ways of wearing robes (as outlined in the vinaya) that can aid in mindfulness, but the simple act of having them on isn't beneficial on its own.  Be that as it may, I wouldn't put them on until you reached the meditation hall.  Wearing them in public has a bit of a "look at me" quality to it.  Taking the more humble approach is almost always best.  (Cue the folks who are going to say that I'm calling monks immodest or saying they shouldn't wear robes! - there is a distinct difference between lay practitioners and monastics on this subject.)


The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"?

Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”


Is it harder to attain enlightenment without a living Buddha?

I guess it is both. On one hand, Buddha new the weaknesses of each individual and was able to recommend what type of meditation that's suitable for him. He new how much each person's five spiritual faculties were developed and provided the right recommendation. This type of knowledge that a Buddha possesses is called indriya-paro-pariya-ñāṇa. I think this is why some monks practice different kinds of meditation techniques alternatively since there's no Buddha to guide them now.
On the other hand, the people during Buddha's time have had perfected paramis onto such an extent that some of them would get enlightened by hearing just one stanza of a sutta. e.g. Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero.
In Puggalapannatti of abhidhamma pitaka mentions four types of people,

Ugghatitannu - an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, and
who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through
the mere hearing of a short concise discourse.
Vipancitannu: an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, but
who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the
short discourse is expounded to him at some length.
Neyya : an individual who needs to study the sermon and the exposition, and then
to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years,
to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries
hard with guidance from the right teacher.
Padaparama : an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this
lifetime. can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence
if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth
either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana.

In Buddha's time most of them were type 1,2 and 3. So I guess Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero fall under the first category.
These days unfortunately most people fall under third and fourth categories.


I think you go over the meditation, what you did, how, compare with other meditation sessions to find out how to easily get jhana.

I did this and this and I got that result and the other time I did that and that and got another result.

So in time you get better at recognizing the factors and how to get in jhana.


Mahayana view on why Theravada's anatta is insufficient to uproot ignorance?

why anatta is insufficient to uproot suffering? Here is a simple answer:

One type of suffering comes from craving. In other words, if I am sitting over here and in my mind I crave for something over there that I can't obtain - that very experience of painful mismatch between the two is suffering. Another type of suffering comes from fear of losing something. This is the same mechanism at play as with craving, just in reverse:  I sit over here having something nice, feeling good - and I know that over there in the future I will inevitably lose it. Hence, that experience of the painful mismatch between the two is suffering.

Oftentimes (but not always!) these two scenarios occur with our sense of "I" as the object of craving or loss. In case of craving, let's say I want to become a great Buddhist teacher, or a successful businessman, or a big boss, or a father of a big happy family. The mismatch between what I want to be and what I am now is experienced as suffering. Or, in the case of a loss, let's say I already feel that my state of being is good, however what if I know that in the future, due to a sickness or war or simply due to old age - I will lose my happy peaceful state of being. Again, there is a mismatch in the mind, and this mismatch is experienced as suffering.

Anatta can help us become immune to this type of suffering. If we stop identifying ourselves with any social role or any lifestyle or even with this body or this mind - then, if we start losing any of it, we will not regret and we will not suffer. If we are not attached to any idea of "I", any particular manner of being, we will be at peace with who we are now and with whatever happens in the future.

However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example, consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever there is a mismatch.

So anatta can't help with this type of suffering. But shunyata can. According to shunyata, an idea (a form) such as "man" is a stereotype or a reified generalization. In reality, there are all kinds of qualities: such as strength, rationality, joy, sense of beauty etc. - that are present in  both man and woman to various degrees and should not be lumped into "man qualities" or "woman qualities". The example of "man" vs "gay" is just one example. Our everyday social life is full of examples when we attach to some form, some idea, some concept of how things are supposed to be, some idea of "rightness" that is based on some overgeneralization - and then from this attachment there comes all kind of conflict and suffering.

When you understand shunyata, you understand the principle behind all generalization, all delineation of entities. You clearly see that every human concept in this civilization is some kind of convention, abstraction, or generalization. You also see that our subjective perception, from our limited experience and single point of view, is always partial - it never includes everything that possibly exists. Because we don't know that our experience partial, we assume that our understanding of the world is how it really is - and then based on this we engage in action that leads to conflict and suffering. Deep understanding of shunyata uproots this source of trouble.

And even at the basic everyday level, anatta does not always help to stop impossible desires that lead to suffering. Let's say I met a beautiful woman that meets all my criteria: she is smart, beautiful, sexy, and has a great character. However, she is already married to another man. Because I'm so deeply in love with her and craving to see her, hug her etc. -- I have a huge mismatch between how things are and how I want them to be. From this craving comes suffering. Can anatta help me with this suffering? It might. If I think about my fantasies about being with her as "my future", "this is how I want to live" - then may be by meditating on anatta I can drop that fantasy of living with her. However in practice, this craving is not entirely based on thoughts about I and "my future". This craving is mostly based on the idea that she is perfect, including her physical, mental, and emotional qualities. This craving is based on overgeneralization of her as a perfect object (in my mind). Here again, shunyata can help. By clearly seeing that my idea of her is mere idealization, a generalization - that in real life she cannot possibly be always looking perfect, always being in happy mood, always attracted to me - as she is in my imagination - by seeing how her image is a creation of my mind - I can liberate myself from craving and suffering of unrequited love.

To summarize all of the above, suffering can be classified as a two-dimensional two-by-two matrix. On one dimension we have 1) suffering that comes from craving and 2) suffering that comes from fear of losing. On the other dimension we have A) suffering that comes from some kind of overgeneralized idea about "I" (my state of being in the past, present or future) and B) suffering that comes from some kind of overgeneralized idea about something else (some external object or even an abstract concept of how things are supposed to be). Anatta can provide liberation from suffering caused by 1A and 2A - but not from suffering caused by 1B and 2B. only shunyata can provide liberation from that.


This is an interesting question. Is morality objective?

I recently watched a video where Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that he once debated with an atheist. The atheist apparently stated that he did not need God and he is aware by himself that murder, theft and other immoral actions are wrong. To this, the rabbi responded that humans were made in God's image, and that's why he has intrinsic awareness of morality - because God put it in him.

How would Buddhism respond?

  OP: Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

Yes, of course.

According to the Kimattha Sutta:

  "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."

You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.

So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.

Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? Now with the pandemic, many governments enforce social distancing rules - should you follow them? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.

But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.

  OP: If yes, how?

Where is this source of objective morality?

According to Udana 5.1:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
  occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
  palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
  than yourself?"

  "No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
  about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"

  "No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."

  Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"

  Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

    Searching all directions
    with your awareness,
    you find no one dearer
    than yourself.
    In the same way, others
    are thickly dear to themselves.
    So you shouldn't hurt others
    if you love yourself.

Also found in the Dhammapada 10:

  All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
  All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
  One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
  One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.

What does this show?

Morality is objective, not because it has a source like God.

Rather, it's because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.

So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.

How do I know this to be true?

Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.


What is suchness (esp in Tendai or Soto)

Suchness means there is no construing. Kalaka Sutta may be useful to know the meaning of "such":
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html


Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ?

What is wholesome is what you perceive positively at the time the result manifests. Since all worldly experiences are unsatisfactory, experiencing Nirvana is wholesome. Anything that reduces your stress and suffering is a good thing.

When you are practice Right Mindfulness, you do not create new Karma then your old Karmas start surfacing which reduce your old stock of karma and newly created karma. Development of the path factors is good Karma. Path factors are also part of the Mental Factors (cetasika).


Why Vipassana meditation need a base object?

I think (please kindly correct me if i wrong) Vipassana is about letting go of control & judgement, and the meditator will just aware and accept things as it is. Will it be pain, thoughts, sound, and physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath).

That sounds more like shikantaza/zazen.

Vipassanā means insight into reality: seeing the three marks of existence dukkha, anicca, anatta. The practice is described in suttas such as Satipatthana and Anapanasati. So, the actual goal is not "letting go of control & judement" -- however, "letting go" is a useful tip at some points in the practice.

  I wonder why do we have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why dont we just let go from the very beginning and just aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object?

Because insight into reality need some faculties developed. Two of them are concentration (samadhi) and mindfulness (sati). It so happens that is very difficult to develop concentration without something to anchor our attention: meditation objects.

Finally, samadhi and sati are not just random faculties. Both are listed in the Noble Eightfold Path and in the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.


What are the elements (Mahābhūta) references in the Sarvastivada Satipaṭṭhāna?

I'm not sure if there're English versions out there. Anyway, Chapter 9 of the Dharmaskandha's Chinese version, the Foundations of Mindfulness, refers to the same Mahabhuta as the Pali version: earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. ("唯有種種地界水界火界風界空界識界。如是思惟諸界相時。")


Does sottapana have perfect morality (sila)?

No, just an Arahat has such. But a Streamwinner has what is called "virtue pleasing and praised by the wise". Not capable to make grave faults and lead deliberate misconduct. In affect he/she is still able to conduct unskillful deeds, but would not hide it and leave them covered, would confess them quick, be ashamed and intent to correct.

(You may find the wish after resources, there where you lead the discussion and try to argue on other place.)

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


Did Buddha Return to Extreme Asceticism?

By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled.

The ascetic practices he did were the methods he thought would lead to some spiritual attainment. He thought that not eating and making his body weak could have some benefit.

Going to the Bodhi tree and not leaving is not a method. He didn't think that the act of not leaving the shades of a certain tree was a particularly interesting practice on its own merit.

The vow is interpreted not as asceticism, but as resolution or commitment. Whether he really meant that he would die under the tree we can't tell, but by the time he took food, it's clear that he was giving up the idea of trying to inflict pain in his body as a means to spiritual progress. Finally, it's clear that the practices he undertook under the tree were not ascetic in nature.


Is there any benefit in learning Pali or Sanskrit?

There absolutely is value in learning either Pali or Sanskrit (and I'd stick to the one for the lineage you are practicing - Theravada = Pali, Mahayana in general = Sanskrit).  You don't have to become fluent, but it is extremely helpful knowing a good deal of the vocabulary.  There are certain words that just don't translate well into English or just don't have any English equivalent.  I think this is especially true for the meditation terminology - especially mental factors and phenomenology.  To give you an example from Pali, the word pīti is a condition that arises during mediation.  It is often translated as "rapture", but I don't think this really gets at it (bright joy?  I don't know.  Something like that.)  The point is, if you read that word just as "rapture", you miss out on the full meaning of the concept.  Translated texts put you at one remove from those subtle nuances.  And really, it's the concepts we're worried about in our practice; poorly translated words lead you away from that core essence.

Don't learn to speak it though - that's a total waste of time!


So now we go for the Zen view.  Or I should say Rinzai view.  I want to first pat you on the back. You are absolutely right to say "realize" emptiness.  Please do not try to understand it.  That's a complete waste of time.  I'm not sure if you intended the question this way, but what you are asking for, specifically in your inquiry regarding the emptiness of other things/objects, is nothing less than a request for a full exploration of the path.  I will try to be brief as I can.  The short answer is that you need to sit and that you need to find a teacher.  The long answer follows.

When you first walk into the zendo, your teacher will normally tell you to watch your breath much in the way taught in anapanasati.  Here, you begin to develop and collect your mind.  As your sitting deepens and your focus improves - and this may happen over the course of months or even years - you will begin to notice one of any number of phenomenon.  For some people, it feels like your body is expanding, for others your body may disappear, and for still others, your head may feel like it's twisting.  What you experience isn't necessarily as important as that the experiencing is happening.  This is your first glimpse of samadhi.  In the ten oxherding pictures, this is seeing the ox's tracks for the first time.

Upon seeing the tracks, the next thing that your teacher will do is give you the Mu koan.  This practice uses the collected mind you developed with anapanasati and directs it toward an actual experience of emptiness.  On every out breath, you will say "muuuuuuuu".  As the Pali suttas say, you will follow this for the whole body of the breath with the most important place being the very end of your exhalation right before you inhale.  As this practice deepens, you will begin to notice a blankness.  This is your first glimpse of emptiness and it usually happens completely by accident.  In the ox herding series, this is seeing the ox's butt sticking out from behind a bush.  Your next task is to make that experience habitual.  This is grabbing the ox's reins.  To hold the reins is to generally know where the ox is at all times and how to find him when you need him.  With the ox's reins firmly in hand, your next task is to gain mastery over the experience.  In essence, you are deepening your command of body, breath, and mind.  This is taming and leading the ox.  With the ox tame, you may now ride him.  This is becoming one with emptiness or one with Mu.  As Master Mumon says, here "all the illusory ideas and delusive thoughts accumulated up to the present will be exterminated, and when the time comes, internal and external will be spontaneously united. You will know this, but for yourself only, like a dumb man who has had a dream."  At this point, you will be asked to call Mu by your teacher.  Your calling of mu will demonstrate how well internal and external are united...how well you, the ox, mu, the body, emptiness, the breath, and mind have all become one thing.  Getting to this point can take years.

And with that, your Zen training wheels come off.  From here on out, emptiness is no longer a realization.  Instead, it becomes a tool that you will use for the remainder of your training.  After you answer the Mu koan, you will begin to work through any number of other koans.  Zen calls this climbing the mountain of swords that is riddled with the skulls of the fallen.  And it can be every bit as daunting as that description implies.  Each koan forces you to confront some aspect of yourself - some fear, attachment, belief, etc. - that is keeping you from true enlightenment.  But rather than working with these things intellectually as you might in therapy, you approach these karmic impediments from the experience of emptiness.  The deeper you go into mu [emptiness], the better the insight you gain, and the more likely you are to unshackle yourself from these obstacles.  The entirety of this practice is a dance between the world of form and the world of emptiness.  You delve into emptiness in your sitting and you bring it back to the world of form in your probing of the koan you are working with.

Bit by bit, koan by koan, year after year, sesshin after sesshin, the wall between you and enlightenment breaks down.  Eventually, it will fall away completely.  At the moment of enlightenment, the very separation between the world of form and emptiness dissolves entirely.  You will know, just as intimately as the feeling of your butt against the cushion, what the Heart Sutra means when it says that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".  You will directly see the emptiness of all things - of yourself, objects, thought...the entire universe.

And then you get to be the fat old Buddha who gets drunk with the butchers and generally causes a nuisance in the town below.  Happy sitting!


In the Vakkali Sutta – SN 22.87 Supreme Buddha said:

  He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

The Buddha is rightly described as a teacher par excellence. He attempts only two things: (a) make you think and (b) gradually train you in an orderly way to lead onwards to realize immediately this truth [sandittiko, opanaiyko]. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is INSIGHT or vipassana. But insight (vipassana) depends on samadhi or CONCENTRATION. And concentration (samadhi) depends on Sammaditthi or RIGHT VIEW.

To make Dhamma easy is a travesty. Always learn to ask: Why is the Buddha saying this and not that?
Some statements that you do not understand right now, you must put aside, till you have understood thoroughly the fundaments. Later, when you detect the structural principle of the arising and cessation of dukkha, and the principles of paticcasamuppada, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would find the answers all your questions.  Let us first know the Noble Qualities of the Dhamma, as one who  truly seeing Dhamma, one sees Buddha.

The Teaching of the Buddha also has six supreme qualities:

Svâkkhato  ~ Perfectly explained and taught with great compassion
Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed"). The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom),

Sanditthiko  ~  The benefit of the Dhamma can be seen in this lifetime, Here and Now
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dhamma can be tested by practice and therefore he who follows it will see the result by himself through his own experience in this very lifetime.

Akâliko   ~ The timeless truth that is immediately effective
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "immediate") The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.

Ehi-passiko ~  Inviting any wise person to come and see
Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects.

Opanâyiko ~  Each person must practice the teachings and realize their value within one's own experience
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.

Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti. ~  To be realized by the wise, each for himself.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be personally known by the wise"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

To get closer to Buddha, you will have to know His nine supreme qualities. You will find a detailed description of these nine supreme qualities HERE.

In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi." (i.e. "I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels: so we have to have a good knowledge of the Ariya Sangha too. You will find a detailed description of the supreme qualities of the Sangha HERE.


Householder Goudakid, interested,

whether a Bhikkhu gives one ordination as Samanera (Novice monk) or the Community of a particular Sangha of Bhikkhus also higher ordination is aside of some limitations the Buddha gave, total up the Bhikkhu(s), an act of compassion and not something anybody whould ever have a right to. Thats importand. And the Sangha should be never seen as common social institution for a living.

Whether one goes for and gets ordained, even at good or bad communities is, how ever a matter of Upanissaya (strong conditions = dependent on strong paccaya, kamma, of past and present).

There would be limitations for higher ordinations in regard of grave illness since hard for the community to look after sick and not pleasing for supporters. But even if the case that one gets ordained, such would be not invalid, yet a wrong doing for the one who gives ordination.

As for novice, there are less formal questions which would limit aside of the always invalid criterias.

My person could not even generally say that hearing voices might be an illness at all categorical.

As long as not real "stupid" or holding grave wrong views, there is less limitation and the best way to get ones own possibility and the possibility of the Bhikkus known is simply to start (if allowed) to live with them and serve at monasteries, taking min eigth precepts.

Usually good monks would not close any possibility and seek for the best way for one, yet are limited in suggesting and it requires all that one would ask for what ever one desires. So own initative is needed and wrong shame (to do good things) may be strong hindrance, since nobody would invite you to make good choices and ask for accessing good areas and giving.

The more honest one approaches and speaks, the more wise people have possibilities to help and such is needed for the grow into the holly life.

Illness, if even a "real" one, are not for sure and nothing heals more than precepts and the holly life and my person would nothing but encourage to such, even if "only just" in white and serving the Tripple Gems. Don't householder wast long time and struggle around with doubts and go after a blessed good mindstate and seek for it, since good mindstates are seldom and not lasting.

Much success and if having further questions he may also feel welcome here, where are also not so public areas.

There are some related answers als well:

[Q&A] Meditation for Psychosis - Can Dhamma help for mental problems
When is the best time for ordination?

  Now. Don't waste time. Also good Intentions are not for sure.

Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms

(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment but as means for kusala deeds out of this wheel)


Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation?

To sit in zazen is to sit facing emptiness.  M H's answer is absolutely correct, but like most things in Zen there is more to the story once your practice deepens.  Relaxation and concentration on a focal point have their place, but really what zazen is after is the arousal of mushin or "no-mind".  In early Zen, and later in Soto, they sat in pi-kuan or wall gazing.  You'd literally just sit facing a wall.  No fancy techniques, no mantras, kasinas, or even the breath.  Just you, your cushion, and a surface staring back at you.  As you advanced in your sitting, little by little, things began to fall away.  (In fact, if you don't allow them to, you will drive yourself batty doing this practice.)  As that is happening, concurrently, you'll also begin to internalize that blank wall.  This happens through no effort of your own.  As you let go of you, emptiness is revealed.  Eventually you become the blankness - mushin - itself.  The wall becomes secondary if not entirely ancillary.
So don't worry about your thoughts, don't worry about the tip of your nose, and certainly don't worry about spontaneity.  Just sit and don't move.  Stare at the wall and see what happens.


Might immediate retaliation or reaction inhibit future bad kamma?

For the first question the answer is NO. In AN 5.57 we can see that Buddha has used this phrase,

  I am my own kamma, I am a heir to my kamma, I am born [in this life]
  from my kamma, I am the kinsman of my kamma, I am protected by my
  kamma. Whatever kamma·s I shall do, kalyāṇa·s or pāpaka·s, I shall
  become their heir.

So you can't neutralize someone else's bad deeds by your actions. He will eventually reap the results of his actions when all the conditions fall into place. I think it's easy to understand this if we consider kamma as a natural law like gravity.

There are four types of kammas with respect to the time of taking effect in abhidhamma.

  Immediately effective kamma (Dhitta dhamma vedaniya) - in the present lifetime
  Subsequently effective kamma (Aparapariya vedaniya) - in the immediately following lifetime
  Indefinitely effective kamma (Upapajja vedaniya) - in lifetimes two or more in the future
  Defunct (Ahosi) - kamma whose effects have ripened already

If I consider your example of hitting back when someone hits you, we can categorize this as a immediately effective kamma for the person you're hitting back. But we can't still say the power of his initial kamma has weakened. In another life, in several other lives or even in this life he may reap the results of this. If the conditions didn't fall the kamma may never function as well.

For the second question the answer is also NO. You may not have have anger at the point you hit him, but your intention is filled with delusion. You are purposefully hurting someone with a wrong view in your mind.


I've heard that they don't believe in any god.

It depends on what you mean by God. Buddhism does not have the concept of a almighty, creator (deism), sustainer, creator plus sustainer (theism), destroyer, everlasting god, external controller or owner or creator of the soul, enforcer of karma or retribution and rewards for one's actions, etc. but does mention Deva who are better described as celestial being / deity but which is sometimes translated perhaps loosely or incorrectly into English as gods.

Also see God in Buddhism.

  How can I get into buddhism?

Why don't you 1st take a course at a meditation centre. You can locate a centre close to you here: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index, http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html, http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

  What kind of books do you recommend to read for starters?

Start with In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) Edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi

  Can I be a Buddhist without joining any community?

Anybody walking the path (The Noble 8 Fold Path) with a view to come out of stress can be considered a Buddhist. It will be helpful if you are part of a community as it can help you with learning and practice. But also if you join the wrong community it can be detrimental.

You can try https://www.dhamma.org/ or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/. Also http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ has other groups which you can try out but be wary that not all forms of Buddist pratice give the same results.

  Is there any kind of "secular" Buddhism?

Secular Buddhism as in the west may have gone too far in re integrating Buddhism but inherently Buddhism is secular. Also see answers to this question on Secularized Buddhism

  I would like to learn about their vision of life without making any rituals. Is that possible?

Buddhism does have culture which has developed around it and the cultural significance change from country to country. There are not Rites and Rituals in Buddhism itself.


What is the textual source of the 4 infinitudes and the 6 coolnesses?

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

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

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html


Personal relationships and properly ending them

Personal ("sexual") relationship is a fiction, a hallucination. To paraphrase my Zen master, what worldly people call "love" is an obsession, a disease of the mind. Ownership of people is slavery and so is the owning relationships between people.
As said in the prophecy of Maitreya in the Maitreyavyākaraṇa:

[Gods, people, and other sentient beings] will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance.


Personal Relationships while on the path?

About 20 years ago I felt the same. People were talking about something pretty meaningless. It was not interesting. Also, according to the Buddhist precept of Mindful Speech, idle chatter should be avoided. So I stopped to spend much time hanging out with people.

Maybe 10 years later in such situations I was feeling that the talk could be deeper. We could address each other's hearts - contacting on deeper level, sincere and meaningful.

It doesn't happen just by changing subject to something more spiritual. It's more by looking deeper, into people's hearts, and opening your own heart to them.

Another 10 years later I can actually do that. People feel something interesting in me. I say something not for bringing a topic for discussion, but touching something meaningful for them.

People discuss with me their problems with children, health, alcohol, attitudes of others etc. Not in casual manner, but looking for wisdom. And I show how to discover that wisdom in themselves.

I still do not socialize much, and in companies I'm not like talking all the time.

Enjoying every moment, being present, with the mind of openness and wholeness is sufficient.

And then people feel interest in deeper talk with me, about our lives.

So I think it's a natural process. One day you leave useless samsaric concerns, later you come back to help others to expand their lives past those concerns too.


Inner conversation will greatly decrease in the second jhana, I'm happy you have experienced this. Yes, this is a development of Samadhi and you are on the right track. A lack of personality view basically speaking, means that you know deeply within yourself that you are simply body, feeling, mental formation, consciousness and perception. That's all, no matter how hard you look that's all you can find. and that's fine. The more developed Samadhi becomes the more the concept of personality fades. It must fade for Samadhi to arise. Keep in mind that until fully awakened you will still have a concept of personality, you need one to survive, however and any time you can turn inwards and try to look for the self or personality and find nothing, it is a very pleasant and peaceful feeling. In that moment you understand that you are everything and nothing simulatiously and nothing can touch you. The fully awakened arahant would reside continuously in this nothingness of self which would, unless he/she retreated to a forest for the lifetime, would find existing in society quite difficult. This is the final fetter of conceit the Buddha talks about. Furthermore, when one understands how personality and personality traits occur one understands them as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. Additionally, this is underscored and affirmed by recollecting past lives and seeing how much of a different person you were depending on different circumstances, this helps you to let go of attachment to the personality traits you have. Everything changes.


What dietary practices are most helpful for reaching enlightenment?

In some of the Suttas in which the Buddha describes the gradual training leading to enlightenment there is the following stock passage:

  "Now, when a disciple of the noble ones is consummate in virtue in
  this way, guards the doors to his sense faculties in this way, knows
  moderation in eating in this way, is devoted to wakefulness in this
  way, is endowed with seven qualities in this way, and obtains at will
  — without trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute
  heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now in this
  way, then he is called a disciple of the noble ones who follows the
  practice for one in training, whose eggs are unspoiled, who is capable
  of breaking out, capable of awakening, capable of attaining the
  supreme rest from the yoke."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html)

This is explained in other places like so:

  "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html)

As for Monks in the Theravada school, they only eat a single meal a day and do it before noon (although they are allowed to divide that meal into portions and have rice gruel before almsround). This kind of practice is also part of the 8 precepts that laypeople sometimes voluntarily undergo. The Buddha described the benefits of this practice here:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was wandering on a
  tour of Kasi with a large community of monks. There he addressed the
  monks: "I abstain from the night-time meal.[1] As I am abstaining from
  the night-time meal, I sense next-to-no illness, next-to-no
  affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding. Come now.
  You too abstain from the night-time meal. As you are abstaining from
  the night-time meal, you, too, will sense next-to-no illness,
  next-to-no affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html)

As can be seen, it isn't so much what you eat as how you relate to eating. If you eat with the attitude of caring for your health rather than for sheer pleasure, that will support your practice. Because this teaching is aimed at monks however, it is not required for a layperson to renounce eating food for the purpose of pleasure. It is only a recommended practice for laypeople.

On the subject of eating meat, the Buddha laid down three restrictions. In the Jivaka Sutta the Buddha said:

  "Jeevaka, those who say, that living things are killed on account of
  the recluse Gotama, and he partakes that knowing, because it was
  killed on account of him. They are not my words, and they blame me
  falsely. Jeevaka, I say that on three instances meat should not be
  partaken, when seen, heard or when there is a doubt. I say, that on
  these three instances meat should not be partaken. I say, that meat
  could be partaken on three instances, when not seen, not heard and
  when there is no doubt about it."

(Source: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/055-jivaka-e1.html)

In this particular sutta the Buddha not only permitted meat, but rejected the idea that eating meat is inherently evil. This fits in with the Buddha's other teachings on morality that Karma goes by intention. The killing involved with meat is too far removed from the eating of it to automatically make eating meat morally wrong.

That doesn't mean that it is wrong to be a vegetarian however. If out of compassion one desires to support the welfare of animals by vegetarianism I think that is a beautiful thing. It is just something above and beyond what is morally required of a person.


On Vipassana: Focus on feeling sensations VS Focus on describing sensations through words

Texts are all over the place about this.

For instance, one school of thought criticizes our tendency to conceptualize our experience, at the expense of actually experiencing the thing -- and says this is us sleep-walking through life (the dream is the conceptual template we overlay on experience).  For instance, I encounter a tree, think "this is a tree" and never actually see the thing before me.  This would seem to imply that labeling during mindfulness is a repetition of this mistake.

Another school of thought sees the labeling as a way to step outside of the experience, to not get sucked into it.

So who is right?

It depends.

The issue here is not getting pulled in by attachment and habitual reactions.  While these are a function of conceptualization, they are a function of a specific type of conceptualization.

For instance, if someone does something I dislike, and I conceptualize this person as a "jerk", I likely have a strong reaction to this, and am falling into the same attachment (aversions) that have caused me so much pain.

On the other hand, if I experience a reaction of aversion towards the way this person treated me, but start labeling the components my experience as Skhandas, then I'm effectively deconstructing the experience and undermining attachment in the process.

On the other other hand, if I watch the experience as it is, then I can be with the sensations without the problematic concepts.

So really, there is no right or wrong answer; the key is whether your technique takes you out of the conceptual trap that keeps you attached to the phenomena or reinforces it.  In this case, it's about fighting fire with fire (concepts with concepts) or fire with water (concepts with bare sensations).

The upshot is that you don't have the luxury of treating anyone as an authority, but have to see how you respond, and decide on the most effective method.


Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?*

Yes it's possible.

Skeptical doubt about the (whole) Dharma, about Buddhism (in general), is a hindrance (I think it would hinder "continuing to work").

The fact that you do continue, sincerely, suggests  a certain absence of doubt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "maintaining" a doubt. "Reincarnation" might be a topic where you'd find it more useful to be agnostic (i.e. "I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't understand, let's put that topic aside for now") rather than either believing or disbelieving. It's apparently a topic on which different people disagree (though you'll often find people try to emphasize that the dharma is "birth" or "rebirth" and not "reincarnation"); leaving that aside, perhaps there are other (perhaps, even, more important) topics that it's good to ascertain.

The topic (of rebirth) might become clearer as you understand other aspects of dharma.

There's even the Kalama Sutta, which suggests that "doubt", at least initially, about doctrines you find doubtful, is proper:

  It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; etc.

To be honest I fear that "reincarnation" is a topic which puts many Westerners off Buddhism. All they know about it is, "Oh, Buddhism: that's something to do with reincarnation, isn't it? Well I don't believe in reincarnation, so I'm not interested in Buddhism." I think that's a mistake, though. Obviously a disbelief in reincarnation does prevent (some) people learning more/anything about Buddhism, but I think that isn't necessary so.

To "cross the stream" I suggest it makes sense to concentrate not (or not only) on what you doubt (e.g. "reincarnation").


Buddhism says there is no core which is unchanging and nor an entity with absolute control over anything we call me or mine. Also, the practice is somewhat geared towards eliminating the notion of a permanent controlling self-identity view as this gives you a yard stick to measure yourself against others, which causes misery. So in conventional wisdom, it is you who attains the truth, although the notion of self will eventually be abandoned.


Regret requires aversion and ignorance. It's ignorance that makes one think that there's anything worth in Samsara to miss. Enlightened beings(Arahaths and Buddhas) have uprooted all defilements. So it's technically impossible for them to feel regret or sadness.


What makes Brahmas come back to human world at death?

Everything is impermanent. What the Brahma enjoys is the Pala or fruit. The fruit of any Karma including that arising from developing the Jhanas also passes after sometime. If you develop the Jhanas they also have a finite duration which you can have them before you loose them. The duration can vary based on past pratice, but as always finite. As in many cases if you lose the Jhana before the point of death then you will not be able to go the Brahma world as you need to have the Jhanas at the point off death for it to bear fruit.


"According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant?"
IN SN 22:58 we read the Buddha saying:

"The Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One [...]"

Describing himself as an Arahant, he proceeds:

"What is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? [...] The Tathagata, bhikkhus, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path"

There are other characteristics of a Buddha. In MN 115 (*) he declares:

It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. [...] It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. [...] It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One.

Also, MN 12 describes the ten powers of a Buddha (I don't believe these always apply to arahants):

(1) "Here, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible."
(2) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future, and present, by way of possibilities and causes."
(3) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations."
(4) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements."
(5) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations."
(6) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons."
(7) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments."
(8) "Again, the Tathāgata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births... Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives."
(9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathāgata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate... and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions."
(10) "Again, by realizing for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathāgata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints."

"My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?"
Yes. The difference, it seems, is not of attainment, but of role and skills. Many suttas depict the different skills of arahants, sometimes in contrast with Bhudda's skills.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi develops this further on:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

(*) While this excerpt exemplifies distinct characteristics of Buddhas, its important to note that the portion about the impossibility of a woman to become a Buddha is absent in the agama version of this sutta. See Analayo's paper The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities and related Q&A here


What is this?

It's merely a feeling. Just note it, observe its characteristics and return to the primary object. If you get attached or interested in it, then note that and take it as an object. Then move back to the primary object.

In Vipassana meditation one treats every object equally.

  Is it a sign of progress?

Yes, ie. if you were mindful during the processes of the object, not after or later, but while they were happening.

You noticed it proceeded in bursts, meaning its not permanent but ever-changing. You noticed that it eventually subsided meaning you saw (if you were mindful of it) that it was subject to cessation and uncontrollability.

Whether you saw these things, I cannot know, only you can know. But if you saw these characteristics, you have seen the Three Marks of Existence, which all compounded phenomena are subject to.


Confusion Over Intense Experience During Meditation

When stored accumulate stress dissolves, pure energy can rise up into the brain, causing this experience of "acceleration", "cleansing out of the mind" and "softening calmness".

The "heart beating faster" and "heavy breaths" is both exhilaration and the beginnings of fear (since the mind has not experienced this before).

Finally, the "fear" became strong and broken the meditation; because the mind could not handle the loss the control and the loss of self.

Unless you have a history of mental illness, the experience should not be worried about. It was a perfectly normal & ordinary meditation experience. If fact, the experience was a sign of progress (in terms of the calming & purification process).

When the body & mind cleanse themselves in meditation of accumulated stresses, these "special effects" will happen and then subside.

When the Buddha taught meditation, he provided the following basic instruction to be followed always; 99% of the time:

  There is the case where a monk remains... ardent, clearly comprehending & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.


Will parents full of Dhamma attract good minds for their babies?

In addition to what Suminda said. What usually happens is, whatever is a hidden trait in parents, it attracts a child mind with the same trait manifested explicitly. This works both ways, good and bad. If parents quietly despise imperfect people, they will attract the child mind that openly hates the whole world and may eventually develop a drug addiction or something. The same way, parents with few attachments will attract a child mind that may be too unfettered, perhaps to the point of having issues in school etc. So it's not as much bad => bad and good => good, as it is inner => outer and subtle => explicit.


Mental Factor which Unites Other Factors

Your questions sounds somewhat similar to Visākha's question to the nun Dhammadinnā in MN44:

  “But ma’am, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”

  “That grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

In summary, desire and greed perpetuate the five grasping aggregates as identity. The dissolution of identity (your "condition that causes them to separate") is another one of visakha's questions later on in the sutta:

  “But ma’am, how does identity view not come about?”

  “It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view does not come about.”


How can mindfulness be maintained while receiving and processing information?

At different points throughout your day, try moving your feet, wiggling your toes, knocking one foot on another, until you regain good awareness of your lower body. Also try to push your lower abdomen out.

In general, try to get in the habit of watching various parts of your body, stretch them, put them in comfortable positions. Neck, legs, waist, diaphragm, face muscles - everything. The more you recover awareness of your body, the better your connection with emotional/subconscious mind will be.

My Zen Master called this "coming downstairs" (from one's head to one's body and heart)


Does sankhara disappear in Samantha meditation or insight meditation?

One moment Shankaras are noticed is during vipassana meditation through a detailed body-observation as you go across the areas where feelings are more rude or notorious.

In order to make disappear the shankara, the acceptance of the feelings which arise during a concrete body area observation is needed. Understand the feelings, then accept them.

This acceptance, releases  the shankara from the whole metaphysic body of the meditator, not just the physical one, releasing the emotional concept underlaying the apparition of the shankara.

Technically upon shankara dissapears, there will not be possible that the same concept generates a new shankara as it is learnt as inner experience. This allows the character to completely release misery and thus obtain a true paññā in the path of illumination.


if the self is an illusion - all my relationships are illusion too?

You are asking something like "If superman is fictional, what happens to his relationship with Lois Lane?".

In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.


How to know if someone has achieved nirvana?

You'll only know other's achievement of nirvana if and only if you've achieved nirvana yourself. It is the same as real life, if you've not reached the same level as your opponent in the same field, you'll never tell if your opponent is of the same level as you.


sutta reference: forbidding to call the Buddha by name

This first occurred when he met the five ascetics after the enlightenment when they started calling him by his name Gotama before teaching his earliest discourse, Dhammacakkapavattana sutta.

  Bhikkus, do not address me by the name Gotama nor as a friend. I have
  become a Perfect One, worthy of the great reverence.

Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/damachak.pdf page 56


Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons?

I dont know how the word 'begging' came into Buddhism. BHIKSHA is a sanskrit word which translates nearly to Begging in Modern Indian social sense. But the word is rooted into Pali as the donation to Bhikku. This 'alms'(please dont consider the modern English meaning ) is not the result of begging. In the early era of Buddhism, the bhikkus/bhikkunis were Teachers/Gurus to the common men, and in return to their teaching / services to the Society ; their daily needs as Food / cloths were given as the form of donation. These kind of donations are utilized for the management of Dhamma Sanghas.
Later only, the Bhiksha word became derogatory due to the social religious changes in India. Donation is a main source of resources in major religions, Xianity for example, they run churches by donation. But in Buddhism, it not about begging / taking for granted. The Bhiksha we give to Bhikkus/Bhikkunis are the reward we offer to the teachers.
thank you


what is the purpose of the Buddhist marriage ceremony?

Buddhism has teachings for both monks & laypeople. If there were no lay people with worldly attachments, the monks could not be supported with food & other requisites.

Marriage is praised for laypeople, as follows:

  In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the
  East by their children, show their compassion:

  (i) they restrain them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable
  marriage, (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to
  them.

  Sigalovada Sutta

~~~

  Husband & wife, both of them  having conviction,  being responsive,
    being restrained,   living by the Dhamma,   addressing each other   with
  loving words: they benefit in manifold ways.  To them comes bliss.
  Their enemies are dejected    when both are in tune in virtue. Having
  followed the Dhamma here in this world,   both in tune in precepts &
  practices, they delight in the world of the devas, enjoying the
  pleasures they desire.

  Samajivina Sutta


Have Matreiya ever meet the present buddha?

Gauthama Buddha first met Mithrie Bodisatta on His return to Sankassapura(Sankissa Basantapura in India) after preaching Abhidhamma at Tavatimsa heaven. At that time, Maithrie Bodhisattva was born as the son of Siriwaddana Situ of Sankassapura.  After listening to a Dhamma discussion attended by Ven. Sariputta, he had expressed the willingness to join the monastic order. Maithrie Bodhisattva obtained the higher ordination from the Buddha himself and was named “Bhikkhu Arya Miethirya.” There after he practised the teachings well and became famous as an excellent Dhamma expounder.

Once Ven. Maha Prajapathi Gotami Theri offered two robes to Ven. Arya Maithriya. Ven. Arya Maithriya offered them back to the Buddha. At that time the Buddha looked into the future and predicted that there will be a kingdom known as "Kethumathi" and a universal monarch called Sankha whose advisor Subrahamme and his wife Brahamawathi will be parents of future Buddha Maitriya and that he will attain enlightenment under the Naa(Mesua Ferrea) Tree. This was the last affirmation received by the Maithriya Bodhisatta. The prediction of emergence of the future Buddha was announced on an Il Full Poya Poya Day.

There is also a story on Maithriya Bodhisatta meeting Gautama Bodhisatta in the distance past which I'm not including in the answer.


The main schools of Buddhism today are Theravada and Mahayana. Vajrayana or Tantric Buddhism is a part of Mahayana.

Theravada Buddhism is mostly practised in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, but also in other countries.

Mahayana Buddhism today has the main divisions of East Asian Mahayana (including Pureland, Zen etc.) and Vajrayana (including various Tibetan sub-schools).

The article "A Comparative Study of the Schools" and the question "What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?" can help you with regards to comparison between the schools.

Nichiren Buddhism, which is the type of Buddhism propagated by Sokka Gakkai International (SGI) is considered to be a part of Mahayana Buddhism under the Japanese Buddhism or East Asian Mahayana Buddhism branch. It was founded by Japanese Buddhist priest Nichiren (1222–1282). Details on his life can be found here. His followers believed him to be either a Bodhisattva or Buddha. The chanting of "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" was a unique teaching and practice of this school. A brief description of Nichiren Buddhism can be found here.

These questions may also be helpful:

How is Nichiren Buddhism different from other branches of Buddhism?
What “technically” happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
How to chant the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?

You can find the online English translation of the Lotus Sutra according to SGI here. Another online English translation can be found here.

The relationship between the Lotus Sutra and the Buddha's original teachings is discussed in the question "What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka?"


Work, Love, and Buddhism in the modern setting

Would it be possible to maintain a career, one that you dedicate a lot
  of time towards and that you actively pursue, while still devoting
  your life to Buddhism?

Vanijja Sutta - On Business
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

Even if one is very busy with work, try to incorporate generosity, even encouraging words, an uplifting smile, live a harmless and balanced life, speak kind and truthful words, devote some time to dhamma study (say even 15 mins of reading the suttas), practice and develop even one of the four factors of mindfulness, or even one of the four right efforts, occassinally reflect on one of the three characteristics, or the dependent origination, such a person can be said to be devoted to the Dhamma.

  Would it be possible to maintain a physical and emotional relationship
  with someone?

Suttas in relation to Nakula Matha and Nakula Pita will be helpful. They wanted to be husband and wife in the next life as well and the Buddha instructed them how to do so :)
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5.2-Nakula-S-a6.16-piya.pdf

Hope this helps even a little.
May you be happy


What does Buddhism teach or say about Tolerance and accepting differences in general?

Buddhism teaches nature creates differences or diversity. For example:

  Again, the Tathagata (Buddha) understands as it actually is the world with its many & different elements. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too
  is a Tathagata's power...

  MN 12

Therefore, Buddhism accepts there are differences or diversity in nature and, as a result, extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards diversity. For example:

  Whatever living beings there may be;
      Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
  The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
      The seen and the unseen,
  Those living near and far away,
      Those born and to-be-born —
  May all beings be at ease!

  Let none deceive another,
      Or despise any being in any state.
  Let none through anger or ill-will
      Wish harm upon another.
  Even as a mother protects with her life
      Her child, her only child,
  So with a boundless heart
      Should one cherish all living beings;

  Karaniya Metta Sutta

However, just because Buddhism extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards difference & diversity, this does not mean Buddhism endorses, promotes or recommends all things because Buddhism only endorses, promotes or recommends a moral or non-harming way of life.

For example, Buddhism tolerates murder, theft, rape, sexual promiscuity, dishonesty, drug addiction, usury, gambling, businesses that trade in weapons, slavery, prostitution, intoxicants, etc, however Buddhism does not endorse, promote or recommend these things.

This distinction is shown in the following text about 'tolerating', 'avoiding' & 'destroying' and in Buddhist teachings about 'right' & 'wrong':

  [4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He
  tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life.

  [5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild
  elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a
  bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting
  appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats,
  wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with
  the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in
  the holy life suspect him of evil conduct.

  And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it & wipes it out of existence....Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence.

  MN 2

  In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development. Thus, monks, there are twenty factors siding with skillfulness, and twenty with unskillfulness.

  MN 117

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  Dhammapada


While body is not me or mine what is a wise response to those claiming various degrees of ownerships on body?

The body is considered not mine since one cannot maintain it as one wisher. The fact that others may store certain genetic information without one's liking is a good example that the body is not completely in one's control, hence not-self/non-self.


Looking for a letter exchange between Zen Teacher and (female?) student

Here is a link again: Yaeko Iwasaki´s Enlightenment Letters to Harada-Roshi and his Comments

This is published in The Three Pillars of Zen.


Can the Buddhism.SE site function as "the Sangha" for me?

Sangha means different things to different people.

Some people who "take refuge in the sangha" are referring to all the enlightened beings who have ever lived and their refuge is in being inspired by the example of such beings.

Some are referring to the community of ordained monks and nuns and they look to the monastic community for teachings of the dhamma and guidance in their practice.

Some are referring to all followers of the Buddha's teachings not only the enlightened and ordained ones. It's more of a "fellow travelers along the path" concept.

From Wikipedia, "Some scholars have noted that sangha is frequently (and according to them, mistakenly) used in the West to refer to any sort of Buddhist community." The point being there is not one particular thing that is understood to be the sangha that one takes refuge in.

To really answer your question, we'd have to know what you mean by a sangha. But from the context of your question, I'm guessing you mean a community revolving around Buddhism where you can learn and interact with others.

Here is what I'd like to think we're practicing here on Buddhism.SE. It's from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha:

  "Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

It's a great and wonderful thing that we have a format to try our hand at explaining the dhamma to someone else. It's a great opportunity and a deep responsibility to try our best to get it right. This is a good place. :)

But that said, I don't think it's wise to fully feel that one is taking refuge here as a sangha and depending heavily on it for learning. There are a lot of potential drawbacks. It's very democratic and that can sometimes result in unsound answers getting voted up. We welcome all traditions but that can result in such a mixture of views being expressed it can be confusing to newcomers to Buddhism. This answer to a question about the benefits of sticking to one tradition is a good explanation for what I'm getting at.

As great as the site is, it's not a solid substitute for learning from a teacher or at a center or in some manner of a structured program. It's not the same as walking into a physical location and feeling the quiet, calm, and peace of a space that is dedicated to meditation; even if you have to travel some distance for that experience occasionally. It's a great complimentary practice, but structured learning and meditation (whether local or online) in a particular tradition may offer the depth of the teachings and support for your particular practice that can't be offered in a short answer, democratic, Q & A format community.