How do I refute the claim that the Buddha was actually preaching Vedanta?

This is a modified version of the answer that I posted on Hinduism.SE comparing the Buddhist Madhyamaka (by Nagarjuna) and the Hindu Advaita Vedanta (by Adi Shankara). Usually, the emptiness in Madhyamaka is equated to Nirguna Brahman (formless attributeless God) in Advaita by Hindu scholars like Prof. Chandradhar Sharma. Prof. Sharma also equated the Eternal Buddha concept (based on the Buddha's Dharma body) to God. I modified this answer for posting here.

First: What did Adi Shankaracharya teach?

We can see this from Adi Shankaracharya's own compositions:

  Brahman is real, the universe is an illusion. The jiva is Brahman
  itself and not different. (Brahmajnanavalimala 20)

  This Atman is a self-cognised entity because It is cognised by Itself.
  Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the Supreme Brahman,
  and nothing else. (Vivekachudamani 216)

  There exists no other material cause of this phenomenal universe
  except Brahman. Hence this whole universe is but Brahman and nothing
  else. (Aparokshanubhuti 45)

  The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire
  universe is nothing but Brahman. (Brahmajnanavalimala 19)

  Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity, pure, supreme,
  self-existent, eternal and indivisible Bliss, not different (in
  reality) from the individual soul, and devoid of interior or exterior.
  It is (ever) triumphant. It is this Supreme Oneness which alone is
  real, since there is nothing else but the Self. Verily, there remains
  no other independent entity in the state of realisation of the highest
  Truth. All this universe which through ignorance appears as of
  diverse forms, is nothing else but Brahman which is absolutely free
  from all the limitations of human thought. A jar, though a
  modification of clay, is not different from it; everywhere the jar is
  essentially the same as the clay. Why then call it a jar ? It is
  fictitious, a fancied name merely. None can demonstrate that the
  essence of a jar is something other than the clay (of which it is
  made). Hence the jar is merely imagined (as separate) through
  delusion, and the component clay alone is the abiding reality in
  respect of it. Similarly, the whole universe, being the effect of
  the real Brahman, is in reality nothing but Brahman. Its essence is
  That, and it does not exist apart from It. He who says it does is
  still under delusion - he babbles like one asleep. This universe is
  verily Brahman - such is the august pronouncement of the Atharva Veda.
  Therefore this universe is nothing but Brahman, for that which is
  superimposed (on something) has no separate existence from its
  substratum.  (Vivekachudamani 225-231)

  Therefore the universe does not exist apart from the Supreme Self; and
  the perception of its separateness is false like the qualities (of
  blueness etc., in the sky). Has a superimposed attribute any meaning
  apart from its substratum? It is the substratum which appears like
  that through delusion.  (Vivekachudamani 235)

  Becoming thyself the self-effulgent Brahman, the substratum of all
  phenomena - as that Reality give up both the macrocosm and the
  microcosm, like two filthy receptacles. (Vivekachudamani 289)

The above quotes clearly show the teaching of eternalism.

Brahman is eternal, infinite, self-existent and transcendental absolute reality. Brahman is the substratum or foundation of the universe. Brahman is the material cause of the universe. Brahman is the only thing that is permanent and ultimately real, while the universe is ultimately an illusion.

The individual soul, which is a self-cognized entity, is ultimately the same as Brahman.

While Brahman is without qualities, it appears as the universe and individuals with qualities, through delusion.

This summarizes the nature of reality according to Advaita Vedanta.

Second: What did the Buddha teach?

We can see this in the Buddha's own words (Buddhavacana), from the Sutta Pitaka in Pali, which is included in the Mahayana Agamas and the Tibetan Kangyur.

It is widely speculated that some Buddhist schools teach annihilationism or nihilism, but this is not true. It is only non-Buddhists who have this wrong impression. The Buddha and 99.9% of Buddhist schools teach the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. This "middle way" teaching is the unique feature of the Buddha's teachings.

The Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self of any kind:

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” - Attakari Sutta

However, the Buddha was very clear in the Ananda Sutta (SN44.10) that rejecting both eternalism and annihilationism,  he teaches that "all phenomena is not self", which means that there is no permanent or eternal standalone entity of a self in all phenomena (sabbe dhamma anatta).

  "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmins & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmins &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

  "No, lord."

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

The Buddha instead taught that the self is not eternal and not non-existent, but is dependently originated (Pratītyasamutpāda):

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

A summary of dependent origination is that the self arises dependent on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Please see this answer for further elaboration, including the lute analogy.

He taught that both the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self" are inaccurate in the Sabbasava Sutta. He also taught that the views of one being Nirvana, one being in Nirvana, one being apart from Nirvana, calling Nirvana "mine", and delighting in Nirvana, are inaccurate in the Mulapariyaya Sutta.

The Buddha did teach emptiness, but it is restricted to the nature of the self i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self (see Shunya Sutta). The Buddha did not comment on the nature of all non-sentient things like the universe, besides noting them as being conditioned and impermanent.

The Buddha was not interested in commenting on the nature or origin of the universe, because he considered it to be unimportant to the path to liberation from suffering - see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow (from MN63). The Buddha was not interested in metaphysical speculations. It was not because he taught the Upanishadic truths through silence, as implied by Prof. Chandradhar Sharma.

Third: What did Nagarjuna teach?

While the Buddha stopped at describing the "middle way" and emptiness with respect to the nature of the self, Nagarjuna expanded these concepts to cover the nature of the universe and all reality. He did this in his magnum opus, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, whose name itself means "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way". Nagarjuna did not contradict the Buddha's teachings, but rather, expanded it.

The Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka (which contains its own citations) summarized Nagarjuna's teachings very well:

  Central to Madhyamaka philosophy is śūnyatā, "emptiness." The term
  refers to the "emptiness" of inherent existence: all phenomena are
  empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) or inherent
  existence, because they are dependently co-arisen. At a conventional
  level, "things" do exist, but ultimately they are "empty" of inherent
  existence. But this "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not
  have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental
  reality beyond or above phenomenal reality.

  Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature (svabhāva) argues
  that anything which arises according to conditions, as all phenomena
  do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what
  conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there
  can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhāva), i.e. something which
  is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has
  own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor
  other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial
  existent nature (bhāva). If there is no true existent, then there can
  be no non-existent (abhāva).

Rather than the annihilationism that nothing exists or the eternalism that something exists eternally, Nagarjuna taught the "middle way" that all phenomena is empty of its own "inherent existence" or "substance" or "essence" (what he called svabhāva).

If nothing has inherent substance, then nothing can depend on something else for substance, so there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva).

Nagarjuna's unique philosophy however, is that even this emptiness is empty i.e. this emptiness does not have its own inherent substance. This means that there is no transcendental reality beyond phenomenal reality. This is what is implied by ultimate reality not being absolute reality.

A very nice and simplified explanation of the Madhyamaka emptiness can be found in Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh's writing, "The Fullness of Emptiness".

The only disagreement between Theravada and Madhyamaka is the need to expand the "middle way" and "emptiness" beyond what the Buddha taught. What is common between Theravada and Madhyamaka is that both reject eternalism and annihilationism.

Fourth: Comparing Advaita and Madhyamaka

Comparing what Adi Shankaracharya taught and what Nagarjuna taught, we come to see very clearly that both are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible:

Shankara said Brahman is eternal and absolute. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said nothing is eternal and absolute.
Shankara's Brahman (clay analogy) implies that it is the only thing that has a true inherent substance (what Nagarjuna called svabhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna says nothing has inherent substance.
Shankara's Brahman is the material cause (again, clay analogy) of the universe. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's emptiness is not a material cause for anything including itself.
Shankara said that the universe depends on Brahman as its substratum (what Nagarjuna called para-bhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva) i.e. no substratum for anything else.
Shankara's Brahman is the Ultimate Reality that is the Transcendental Absolute Reality. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's Ultimate Reality is an "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of transcendental or absolute reality.

What is common between Advaita and Madhyamaka is that both proclaim the non-dualism between the Ultimate Reality and the phenomenal reality. However, Advaita's Ultimate Reality is a Transcendental Absolute Reality, while Madhyamaka's Ultimate Reality is the "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of any transcendental or absolute reality.

My conclusion is that Adi Shankaracharya's Nirguna Brahman and Madhyamaka's "emptiness of emptiness" are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible.

This is supported by Banaras Hindu University Professor T. R. V. Murti's statement (quoted below) in this book chapter: Murti T.R.V. (1973) Saṁvṛti and Paramārtha in Mādhyamika and Advaita Vedānta. In: Sprung M. (eds) The Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta. Springer, Dordrecht

  It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

Fifth: Comparing Vedanta and Buddhism

All Vedanta schools accept that Atman (soul) is eternal (according to Bhagavad Gita 2.20), and Brahman is absolute and eternal. This is based on the teachings of the Upanishads.

Meanwhile, the anatman teaching subscribed by all schools of Buddhism, states that there is no eternal self (i.e. no permanent standalone eternal entity) in all phenomena.

A very apt conclusion for this comes from eminent German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

  In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

and

  Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.


Quick-overview lists of Dhammas within Buddhism

Theravada Buddhism

Dhamma List that contains an overview of the most essential dhammas in theravada buddhism. They are ordered and downloadable in PDF-format.

In here you will find the different theravada dhammas, pali-to-english translation of most used words and a quick-guide to the Tipitaka.


Do all Buddhist schools give dharma names upon ordination?

An interesting twist is that at least one school of Buddhism does not have monastics but does give Dharma names to lay followers at a ceremony called Affirmation. For example, from: http://bffct.org/bff/resources/shin-buddhism-in-a-nutshell/

  In the Shin religion, there are no monastics, monks or nuns, but there are teachers both ordained clergy and certified lay instructors. They are not seen as above everyone else or holding the secret keys to spiritual liberation, but are ordinary people, both men and women, who are just more learned or experienced spiritual seekers.

In the particular American group referenced above, lay followers are invited to participate in an Affirmation ceremony upon completion of a number of requirements including general Buddhist studies and participation in a retreat. The lay follower selects their own Dharma name from a Zen tradition list such as:

http://www.ciolek.com/wwwvlpages/zenpages/ZenNames.html#H

The names range from lovely to self deprecating, which might be desirable for someone who wanted to keep the idea of humility close to heart.

I saw some scattered informal references to laity in Zen traditions receiving Dharma names (not sure of the extent of this practice) and even a mention of the deceased receiving a Dharma name in Japan:

  In Japan, other than the standard usage of dharma names for monastics and laity, it is also tradition for the deceased to receive a dharma name (戒名, kaimyō; lit. "precept name") written in Kanji from the priest. This name supposedly prevents the return of the deceased if his name is called.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name#cite_note-3


In what sutta does the Buddha talk about Paccekabuddhas?

In MN116,

Once upon a time, five hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves dwelt
for a long time on this Isigili. They were seen entering the mountain,
but after entering were seen no more. When people noticed this they
said: ‘That mountain swallows these hermits!’ That’s how it came to be
known as Isigili.
desessāmi, bhikkhave, paccekabuddhānaṁ nāmāni.
I shall teach the names of the Buddhas awakened for themselves.
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī”ti.
Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“The Buddhas awakened for themselves who dwelt for a long time on this
Isigili were named Ariṭṭha, Upariṭṭha, Tagarasikhin, Yasassin,
Sudassana, Piyadassin, Gandhāra, Piṇḍola, Upāsabha, Nītha, Tatha,
Sutavā, and Bhāvitatta. ......
These and other mighty ones awakened for themselves, enders of the
attachment to rebirth— honor these great hermits who are fully
extinguished, having got past all ties, limitless.”

Other translation: From Piyadassi Thera


How to tolerate if someone insulting Buddhism?

But at the time when someone insulting Buddhism what to do ?

I think you're supposed to remember that people are heir to their own karma.

If people insult Buddhism instead of respecting and learning from it, instead of benefiting from it, then you might feel pity for them (or preferably compassion).

I'm not sure you or I should see a need for forgiveness (i.e. a need for us to forgive them) because I (hypothetically) don't see their disrespect as hurtful towards "you" or "me". Perhaps you're identifying with Buddhism in some way (thinking that their disrespect is hurts others or hurts you, and needs forgiveness)?

I get really really angry.

See for example the Dhammapada, which
begins with,

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Getting really angry doesn't seem to me appropriate. I think of replying with anger as being like "putting out fire with gasoline", i.e. it may fuel disrespect and further anger, rather than putting it out.

I realize many people feel that they shouldn't usually get angry, but might feel that sometimes anger is excusable, normal, necessary, even praise-worthy, and inevitable (e.g. "if I get angry that their fault for being disrespectful, not my fault"); for example:

I don't usually get angry; but if you insult my mother then I'll punch you!
I wouldn't usually fight; if you attack my country then of course I will!
I'm usually a nice guy; but if you attack my religion then I can't stand it!

I also realize that some countries/societies criminalize disrespect, which might make it see normal to try to punish disrespect (e.g. by meeting it with anger), and/or to be averse to (and unaccustomed to) disrespect.

But ignoring what society does and looking at the scripture, remember the parable of the saw:

  Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

because of the silence of the good people

If you think it might help, maybe you can disagree without getting angry.

If someone tells a lie about Buddhism, for example, maybe you can say what the truth is; or if it's not an appropriate place and time for a lecture, maybe say something short like "I disagree" or "I don't think so" ... enough so that if someone is interested then they can ask for more.

The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.

I think that Buddhism teaches that causes of suffering are ignorance, craving and attachment and so on.


Can I count my contribution to the open source as a dharma?

Open source is awesome philosophically speaking, and that's really what counts in the dharma, not the actual benefit that accrues to others. A core tenet of Buddhism is to not cling:

"And he clings to nothing in the world."
-- The Buddha (MN 10)

So, regardless of the nature of your work, the fact that you are able to give up your attachment to its ownership is positive. If, for example, you produce pornography or a drink-mixing app, well, that's bad. If you make it open source, that is good, since the alternative is to cling to it.
Some years ago, a Buddhist monk threatened me with legal action over a text translated from the Pali 60 years ago that his organization owned the copyright to and which I had posted on our website in HTML format. It was remarkable to note at the time that people in the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) community sounded more Buddhist than the Buddhists. Mark Shuttleworth, for example:

That’s the magical thing about creation and ownership. It creates the possibility for generosity. You can’t really give something you don’t own, but if you do, you’ve made a genuine contribution. A gift is different from a loan. It imposes no strings, it empowers the recipient and it frees the giver of the responsibilities of ownership. We tend to think that solving our own problems to produce a patch which is interesting to us and useful for us is the generosity. It isn’t. The opportunity for generosity comes thereafter. And in our ecosystem, generosity is important. It’s at the heart of the Ubuntu ethic, and it’s important even between competitors, because the competitors outside our ecosystem are impossible to beat if we are not supportive of one another.
(source)

Or Richard Stallman (admittedly, not the best Buddhist role model):

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.
Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed to”, is antisocial.
(source)

So yeah, the FOSS movement is awesome; a lot of open source advocates are Buddhist, or at least Buddhaphiles. There's even a Bodhi Linux, for example. It runs on the Enlightenment desktop. Actually, I'm not sure if that's dharmic or just crass...
I think you have one too many commas in your question, but if you are asking whether software development is dhamma practice, then I guess the answer is that the part of it that is you letting go of your attachment to stuff is dharmic. Coding software itself is not the same as developing your mind towards enlightenment, though...


In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the relation between nirvana and phenomenon?

Since you said individual interpretations are ok, here is mine. I'm approaching this from a secular Buddhist perspective, one which treats Buddhism as a psychology and rejects anything unscientific.

Everything is conditioned, including Nirvana.  Furthermore, since enlightenment is realizing the self is conditioned, it makes no sense to claim the enlightened "self" is unconditioned.

However, one can use "unconditioned" in a relative sense when speaking of Nirvana.  Our contentment is usually a function of what we encounter, and in this we are conditioned.  Yet if our contentment is relatively independent of what we encounter (Nirvana) then we can speak of us/Nirvana being unconditioned -- relatively speaking.

Again, this is to be taken in a very relative, phenomenological sense.  Our biology is still conditioned, what brought us to Nirvana was conditioned, etc... Yet our experience feels unconditioned as our well-being is not dependent upon the usual conditions, and in that sense we can say we are unconditioned or that Nirvana is unconditioned.

I hope this helps.


If you feel alert, and not sleepy or distracted while it happens, it may be one of the things that naturally occurs as you start to get deeper concentration.

A number of vaguely unpleasant experiences can spring up- aches, itching, etc.; they come with the territory, and aren't problems in and of themselves, although they may feel frustrating when you're starting to enjoy the sense of concentration.

Take note that it happens, and take note of the feelings of frustration or distraction as they emerge. If you have time, see if you can sit until you get to the other side of it; but don't worry too much if you can't, right away. It's likely a sign that you're doing well, believe it or not.


The Buddha, according to tradition, sat under the bodhi tree for 7 days without moving. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree.
He had practiced with other teachers before this though.


Bundle of processes, constantly remaking ourselves using past materials

We are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

According to Mahayana this is more or less right, but only as a simplification. If you dig in-depth, you eventually reach the limits of description and hit Emptiness, as Nagarjuna loved to point out.

Buddha said that almost all dharmas (things, phenomena) are saṅkhāras (bundles, assemblies). Dharmas that are not sankharas include Nibbana, and, according to some schools, but not all, Akasa (sky or space) and stuff like that (e.g. Time). Buddha explained that saṅkhāra-dharmas emerge when causes and conditions "come together" (samudaya) in a certain configuration and disappear when one or more of the necessary causes or conditions goes out. This is the fundamental principle behind the key teachings like Anicca (impermanence), Anatta (as explained through inability to control anything), and therefore Dukkha (esp. because of unreliability). It is also the fundamental principle behind Second and Third Noble Truths, explaining that Dukkha is also a sankhara, emerging when certain causes come together, and therefore can be stopped and prevented (nirodha) by removing one of the necessary causes, namely Craving (tanha) for things to be different than they are. It is also the fundamental principle behind Buddha's liberation from death, which, too, considered a sankhara and is traced back to its causes, among which Buddha identifies birth as the key element we can use to stop/prevent death, and then on the next cycle, taking birth as sankhara and looking for its causes, Buddha finds identification and appropriation (bhava and upadana). Note that Buddha never said death has no other causes other than birth, it obviously does (such as a strike of knife) - but birth is the key element we can work with - and so on all the way to Ignorance. So as you can see, the bundle theory is at the very center of Buddha's teaching on Three Marks of Existence, Four Noble Truths, and Twelve Chain of D.O. - the core of the core of Dharma.

Now, if we expand this analysis to include Mahayana perspective, we could note the following:

When we say "We are the bundle of processes", what exactly does that mean? First of all, what is a "process"? My teacher explained that processes can be seen like chains of events, like a sequence of billiard balls pushing each other. This can be understood. The billiard balls keep pushing other balls until they all get in a certain configuration temporarily and this configuration is a person (or other dharma). However, are we saying that each dharma (e.g. a person) is literally a bundle (sankhara) of a specific number of precisely identifiable processes? How many processes are there then? Where are the boundaries of each process? Is it the same number of processes over one's lifetime or does it vary with time? As soon as we start asking these questions we must necessarily realize that these "processes" we are talking about, are themselves not concrete. They are just a manner of speech. The processes are approximate abstractions, conceptual simplifications for describing the infinitely forking and joining network of causes and conditions leading to emergence of phenomena.

In Mahayana, we say that all Dharmas are empty. We also say that so called "Hinayana" (which is not necessarily a name for Theravada, just a name for simplistic/superficial understanding of Buddha-Dharma, because indeed there are Theravada practitioners who clearly understand this stuff), we also say that so called "Hinayana"-level of understanding naively assumes that dharmas that e.g. people are made from are themselves concrete and real, that they exist in the ultimate sense. No, according to Mahayana, they are not. According to Mahayana all this talk about processes and dharmas is a useful simplification. Everything is a simplification. Once we go all the way, we reach the limits of description and see that final reality is unspeakable. We call this Emptiness.

So, to say "we are a bundle of processes" is more or less right as long as we understand the limits of the semantic context within which we are making this statement.

Now,

  ...and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

What is "every moment"? Is there such thing as a single moment? From the above it should be clear that the answer is No. The dimension of time is infinitely slicable into infinitely smaller pieces. There is nothing like single moment, because the duration of moment depends on the scale of observation, which depends on perspective.

Are we really remaking ourselves? Or are we maybe "being remade"? Who is the driving force here and are we really in control? According to Buddha, it is a combination of the forces of inertia (latent results of past action or karma) plus the force of choice and determination being made in the now. So we can't say that each of us literally remakes oneself in isolation from everything else. We are being made by our past and we make ourselves and each other with our choices.

  Using the materials inherited from our past.

This sounds like "material" is something real and tangible that actually stays around, with things being made from combination of materials. This is not a Buddhist position, this is simple materialism. In Buddhist understanding, once you look close enough you see that so-called "material" is actually made of sankharas each of which is a just a focal point of interaction of other sankharas and so on. There is nothing tangible here, just interactions upon interactions. These interactions do not actually stay in the same place, they keep interacting, which is why things morph all the time, things get old, drift apart, and new things grow from them.

In Zen tradition this is well-explained by Dogen in his very important work "Time-Being".

So it's not like something tangible actually gets "inherited from the past". It's more like spreading and intersection of multiple waves - each next moment is a development - or unfolding - of the previous moment according to the rules of interaction. What's inherited from the past is form as well as force, the form of force, combination of energy and information.

Finally, see how it's saying "we are" and "our past"? That's identification and appropriation right there! Why is this stuff "we" and what makes that past "ours"?

Now, with all of the above, when you say "we are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past" - and while saying this you understand what Buddhism would mean by "bundle", "process", "moment", "remaking", "materials" and "inherited from the past" - as well as the limit of what's meant by "we" and "our" - then you can understand the picture that this phrase is trying to paint.


This passage is according to the abhidhamma treatment of the attainment of nibbana. The two to three mind moments (yes, that's what it means) are called anulomañāṇa ("anuloma~naa.na") - knowledge of conformity, the twelfth stage of knowledge.
The Visuddhimagga (XXII.128) describes this according to the abhidhamma:

128. As he repeats, develops and cultivates that equanimity about
formations, his faith becomes more resolute, his energy better
exerted, his mindfulness better established, his mind better
concentrated, while his equanimity about formations grows more
refined.
129. He thinks, “Now the path will arise.” Equanimity about
formations, after comprehending formations as impermanent, or as
painful, or as not-self, sinks into the life-continuum. Next to the
life-continuum, mind-door adverting arises making formations its
object as impermanent or as painful or as not-self according to the
way taken by equanimity about formations. Then next to the functional
[adverting] consciousness that arose displacing the life-continuum,
the first impulsion consciousness arises making formations its object
in the same way, maintaining the continuity of consciousness. This
is called the “preliminary work.” Next to that a second impulsion
consciousness arises making formations its object in the same way.
This is called the “access.” Next to that a third impulsion
consciousness also arises making formations its object in the same
way. This is called “conformity.”
(Path of Purification)

The next thought moment arising after these three takes nibbaana as an object.
EDIT: In plain terms:
Through the gradual understanding that all formations are impermanent, suffering, and non-self, the meditator attains an absolute certainty of one or another of the three characteristics and this leads to a release based either:

signlessness - based on impermanence, that there is no telling what will happen in advance; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen suddenly speeds up;
desirelessness - based on suffering, that there is no benefit to clinging to any formation; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen suddenly feels unbearable;
emptiness - based on non-self, that all formations are void of self and there is no relationship of ownership or control in regards to all formations; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen appears to proceed automatically without interference from the meditator.

This realization lasts two to three thought moments, during which the mind realizes the truth of suffering and discards the truth of the cause.
The next thought moment is an experience of cessation, where there is no arising of sense experience (including mental sense experience). This is the realization of path consciousness (the noble truth of the path) because it has the power to destroy fetters and therefore lead to freedom from suffering. It takes nibbāna as an object.


Is Dhamma-thinking considered wise attention?

Yes, if that Dhamma-Thinking is arising continuously without five strings, without five hindrances, and with understanding the real reality, more than trillion times in a second, with it's real relation.
However, most people are thinking of Dhamma with five hindrances in between because they have not enough concentration meditation power, so their mind can't meditate to the end, Nibbāna.


Pain is just pain, it is empty of a self, it isn't a self; does not belong to a self; is empty of an owner

Seen as being empty of the quality of self or belonging to a self; there does not come to be an 'I am' in regards to the pain; there being no 'I am' in regards to the pain there is no 'I am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am experiencing pain' there is no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain ' there is no 'may i not be experiencing pain'

Understanding emptiness in this sense removes the basis for aversion that could arise in regards to a painful feeling


The Buddha made a distinction between slow and fast practice. Since you're asking about procrastination, let's look at what the Buddha said about slow practice. As you can see, this path is indeed painful:

  AN4.162:2.1: And what’s the painful practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They often feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

However, a better approach is to choose a more pleasant path with less craving, more kindness and deeper insight:

  AN4.162:5.1: And what’s the pleasant practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is not ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They rarely feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

An even better approach is to choose a pleasant path that is quicker:

  AN4.162:5.5: They have these five faculties strongly:  faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. Because of this, they swiftly attain the conditions for ending the defilements in the present life. This is called the pleasant practice with swift insight.

But since you asked about procrastination, the third path, which is the best, would only be available for one who gave up procrastination.


What percent of income do Buddhists give to temples?

From DN Book 3 8:265, Buddha said 25% is to be consumed, 50% is to be in investment/trading, 25% is to be in keep for retirement or emergency safe. This does not include donation reserve to answer your question but by doing justified modification of above dividing, 20% should go to donation if we have to calculate proportionally.


Will I be reindividualised after death?
Perhaps the answer depends on whether you are "individualized" now?
In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote (emphasis mine),

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana.
In any case, as useful as rebirth may be in reminding us of what's really at stake in our dhamma practice, far more useful is an understanding of the present moment, something that really has little to do with past or future lives.

I don't know which Buddhist school you're asking about, but I think that according to the Four stages of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism, you should expect to abandon "identity view" or "self-view" at the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) ... and "conceit", "material-rebirth desire", and "immaterial-rebirth desire" (and ignorance and restlessness) only at the last stage.
I asked about some of these concepts/topics here:

Is rebirth a delusional belief?
What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?
The Bhikkhuni Sutta (which may be intended for not-yet-enlightened people) says,

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes 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,]

'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'

Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food.

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Note too that there are different kinds of "desire": for example, unvirtuous craving, and a more virtuous desire for liberation -- see, for example, How to develop Chanda?


You can use mindfulness of the actual sensations of the breath as your "anchor" meditation object but when there is a distraction then the distraction itself, as it is, becomes the meditation object until it falls or it is appropriate to go back to the anchor object that is usually the breath (although it could be any aspect of experience depending on who is teaching or what the technique is).

The distractions are not judged (if they are then that very  judging or partiality is a distraction that can be the next object focused on, as it is,  in the present moment).

We have all kinds of emotional feelings like anger, impartiality, sadness, disgust, disliking, liking, euphoria, delight, happiness, partiality and so on

We also have perceptions, thoughts and more or less solid opinions.

We have physical sensations that can often give us a clue to how we're feeling. Like tension in the neck and shoulders or a wonderful warm fuzzy feeling in the heart or it can just be an itch, pain, warmth, cold, shock, ache and so on.

We have all kinds of emotional feelings like anger, impartiality, sadness, disgust, disliking, liking, euphoria, delight, happiness and partiality.

These are examples of the kinds of experiences that arise through the senses and the mind all the time, if wee notice them or if we don't notice them.

When we really get into this kind of meditation, we will see how one thing leads to another and we start seeing more and more subtly in our own experience. We will often see how subtly partial we are with every experience we focus on. The idea is to have equanimity or full impartiality at even the most  subtle level. This kind of meditation with morality and concentration* will slowly show us how to let go and accept reality as it is so we can...
 ...understand how to live
 ...be ready when we get sick
 ...be ready and in harmony with death

*Some techniques have the concentration part built into the meditation such as the Mahasi Technique.

There are many techniques but all I know how to tell people about adequately is the one I do myself -- two links to the full on step by step Mahasi technique (insight meditation):

Sayadaw U Pandita: How to Practice Vipassana Insight Meditation
Bhante Yuttadhammo: How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace


What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

  "For reflection, sir."

  "In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

  "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

  "While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.

  "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.

Majjhima  Nikaya 61

Concentrate on whether your behaviour is beneficial to you and them, and if not, adjust it accordingly.

This is by Kahlil Gibran, not a Buddhist, but the jist of his thought is not un-Buddhist!

  And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of
  Children.
       And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you
  but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to
  you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have
  their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls,
  For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot
  visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but
  seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries
  with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living
  arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the
  infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift
  and far. Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness; For
  even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that
  is stable.

My child is very stubborn, he is 5, and mostly learns through his own errors, not my translation of my errors to him - in my hope he avoids them for himself a-priori. People learn from their own errors for the most part, we can only guide them if they accept guidance. If they don't, guidance will only push them away or to rebellion, better accept if they demand distance, and wait until they see their errors, and return.


In one of (R.1.1) right view, wrong view (W.1.1) is abolished and the many evil unwholesome states (W.1.2) that originate with wrong view as condition are also abolished, and the (R.1.2) many wholesome states that originate with right view as condition come to fulfilment by development .... In one of (R.10.1) right deliverance, wrong deliverance (W.10.1) is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states (W.10.2) that originate with wrong deliverance as condition are also abolished, and the (R.10.2) many wholesome states that originate with right deliverance as condition come to fulfilment by development.

  Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the
  wholesome and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome.

10 right factors + 10 wholesome states originating from 10 right factors + 10 wrong factors + 10 unwholesome states originating from 10 wrong factors = 40


Feeling versus Analysis in Compassion Meditation

The more you contemplate on the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukka) and understand the suffering in each plane, the better you will be able to spread loving kindness. Because when you say "May all beings in the Eastern direction be free from Suffering" and so on, if you have seen and contemplated on suffering in each of those worlds (hell, animal, peta, asura, human, all deva worlds & all brahma worlds) you truly feel compassion towards all living beings. The more you practice, it is as if you could replace each of those beings or worlds with the word "dukka" and you start to see without differentiating that everyone who is born is suffering. (And your mind will be fixed on Nibbana as well).

Also, when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. (metta sutta, vattupama sutta, mettakatha in patisambhidamagga, etc).

A good discourse to learn that will help practice loving kindness is the metta-sutta (in Suttanipata). Try this Metta Sutta Meditation You will learn in great detail how to practice loving kindness, all the way up to Nibbana.

With Metta


Peculiar Experience of Shamatha / Vipassana

Your question gives the impression that you have not developed meditation within a certain teaching/practise tradition for a prolonged period but have been learning theory from different random sources. If that is true, your question thus gives the impression the various theories of meditation have confused you.

In the West, there is a popular form of 'meditation' from Burma that is erroneously called 'vipassana', where practitioners are preoccupied with noting thoughts, images or sensations. This is so because practitioners have many distractions so this method accommodates & attracts those kinds of practitioners.

In formal Buddhist theory (such as in the old scriptures) having few thoughts, images or sensations is a good thing. In formal Buddhist theory, samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (concurrently), with samatha predominating in the beginning & vipassana developing naturally as samatha deepens.

In formal Buddhist theory, 'vipassana' does not mean noting thoughts, images or sensations. 'Vipassana' means 'seeing clearing' the impermanence & selflessness of phenomena.

For example, on a very basic level, the mind can develop samatha by continuously observing the breathing in a balanced equanimous way. As the mind is continuously observing breathing, it will naturally notice the breathing is impermanent; in that the breathing comes & goes; that it becomes short & long; that the various breaths have different textures & qualities, such as being smooth, rough, agitating, soothing, etc; ultimately to the point of seeing clearly it is the body that breathes (rather than "I" or the "self" that breathes). Seeing clearly the impermanence & selflessness of the various breathing ins & breathing outs is real vipassana.

Then as samatha develops & deepens, certain feelings of rapture & joy will predominate in the mind. When these feelings predominate, they will also be objects of vipassana, in that the rapture & joy will be seen as dependently arising, impermanent & selfless.

Then as samatha deepens, more profound vipassana will occur in different ways.

Therefore, in my opinion, you should consider developing samatha more because this leads to calmness & non-confusion. You should forget about thoughts & images because these are actually hindrances to meditation.

The 'sensations' that are ideally observed are the subtle sensations within the breathing; the sensations of the breathing being smooth, rough, etc. Then later, as samatha is profoundly developed, the mind observes the sensations of rapture & joy that arise from the calming of the breathing.

After this, the mind will be very clear & can discern the 'dependent origination' of thoughts, consciousness, other mentality & sense objects.

The classic original Buddhist path is based on developing samatha. Further, based in what you described in your question, the impression is your mind is predisposed or inclined to develop samatha, since it has equanimity & few attachments.

  [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).

  Maha-salayatanika Sutta


I depend on concentration and sincerity of on thoughts.

If one can keep out other distracting thoughts one's concentration increase thus increasing the effectiveness.

If one just repeating words than sincere this decreases the effectiveness.

Ultimately what is needed is:

one generates compassionate thoughts
develop compassion as a quality
break barriers where one classify beings as favourable and unfavourable


Did Gudo Wafu Nishijima claim that there will be no pain for anyone after death?

First off, the concept of death and rebirth in Soto Zen (Nishijima was a Roshi of the Soto school) differs from the general cosmology during the Buddha's lifetime.

The Buddha's world-view was greatly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant world view in his region during his lifetime. The original Buddhist concepts of karma, hells and rebirth are basically a facsimile of these concepts in Hinduism and were taken quite literally during and after the Buddha's lifetime.

The Mahayana view on hells and rebirth is not necessarily taken so literally. For example, one hell is populated by constantly angry beings, another by constantly hungry beings with very small mouths, so it's impossible for them to quench their hunger. In several Mahayana schools, it is suggested that humans go through these realms of hell every waking day when feeling angry, hungry, etc. In Nichiren, this is called "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life". You should read Nishijima's statement in this context.

Also, in Mahayana Buddhism, "death" does not necessarily refer to physical death. Reaching a single moment of Kenshō is referred to as "the Great Death".

Lastly, on the concept of "pain". Eastern teachers will often use this word to refer to Dukkha which can be translated as pain in the Pali canon, but is also translated as "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing sadness". It refers to the unsatisfactoriness of daily life caused by the five Skandhas. This is the cause of traversing "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life".


What's the role of altruism in Buddhism?

Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
With respect to Buddhism, altruism is therefore:

AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

Quite significantly, Buddhism goes further:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Importantly, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are not practicing stinginess in the conventional sense. Rather, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are in seclusion extinguishing defilements of self-involvement.
Ultimately, Buddhists ideally practice to benefit themselves and others:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

When I first read this, I found it a startling departure from my preconception that altruism was the highest ideal.
A parallel consideration here is that altruism concerns itself with "good deeds". Here, too, the Buddha says quite simply:

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results;

But the Buddha goes on to say more:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

We're all familiar with the muddle of dark and bright. But what is the fourth goal?

AN4.233:5.1: And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?  It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.

That fourth goal leads to the end of suffering for all.


How is meditation considered a good deed?

Because generosity alone can only get you so far. One's hindrances, defilements, ignorance, etc. are still there. Meditation and moral virtues are required to get one further on the Path. Matter of fact, through meditation, one becomes a more virtuous person and that itself is a superior kind of generosity. As taught by the Buddha in AN 8.39:

“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."
“Again, a noble disciple, having abandoned the taking of what is not given, abstains from taking what is not given … abstains from sexual misconduct … abstains from false speech … abstains from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness. By abstaining from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the fifth gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the eighth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."


Is the Buddha nature nothingness or the Dharmakaya?

According to Yogacara, buddha nature is a seed in the mind basis of all. According to Madhyamika, buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. It is not the dharmakaya.

Dharmakaya is divided into two (sometimes three): 1. the wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and 2. the nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the mind of a buddha. We also call the nature truth body: 'emptiness [of the mind] without defilements' while buddha nature  is 'the emptiness [of a mind with] defilements'. Just like the emptiness of the table is not the same phenomena as the emptiness of the cup, the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha) is not the same as the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. Therefore, we can not say that buddha nature is the dharmakaya or that an arya buddha possesses buddha nature.

Moreover, in no traditional text have I seen the dharmakaya qualified as 'transcendent'.


Can you help me identify this English translation of The Gateless Gate?

I stumbled upon the answer to my own question elsewhere.

The translation I was seeking was prepared by Katsuki Sekida (1903—1987). Sekida was a school teacher by profession, after retiring he dedicated himself to his lifelong interest in Zen, including preparing excellent translations of the Gateless Gate and Blue Cliff Record.


Why have a legal/ justice system? Let karma take care of things?

I think your idea is not practical. A justice system is a convention developed based on social norms and logic. But karma is a metaphysical phenomenon which goes beyond logic. Therefore, we will have to let karma take its course and respect the conventional legal system.


Mindfulness : relation between manasikāra and Citta

Manasikara is a cognitive and thinking function of the mind and related to volition or sankharas. Basically you bring your attention to an object, but this can be tainted by our perception, views and habitual tendencies. Yonisho-manashikara is wise habits of thinking where attention is directed to the source or cause of experience and events. It is a factor of stream-entry (Sotapanna) or first stage of enlightenment. Ayonisho-manasikara is unskillful habits of thinking (paying attention or fixating on unwholesome thoughts, feelings, perception and irrelevant issues)  that perpetuates suffering and entanglements.

Your attention should be on the awareness of the arising and passing within the framework of the 4 foundation of mindfullness, without clinging and craving towards any sense inputs / sensations (equanimous). This way your attention is right.

When reciting a word it creates verbal fabrications. When you have sloth and torpor then this is fine, to stir up energy. But in general practice may not be the best thing to do, unless you are aware of it's implications.

When doing daily work be mindful of the breathing, postures by scanning the outline of your body, sensations on your body, as they are generally easy to do.


This could be the hindrance of Restlessness-worry which accompanies irritable tingling tingling sensations.

This is increased by not giving wise attention to it. That is to look at the sensation with equanimity noting that it arises and passes away.

  There is, bhikshus, the lack of mental calm (cetaso avupasamo). Frequently giving unwise attention
  to them is food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, and for the growth and abundance of arisen
  restless and worry.

  ...

  There is, bhikshus, mental calm (cetaso vūpasama). Frequently giving wise attention to them is not
  food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, nor for the growth and abundance of arisen restless
  and worry.

(Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta

The enlightenment facts to cultivate and not to cultivate are as follows:

  And should cultivate:When the mind is restless it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of the doctrine, energy and rapture, because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them.

  When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.

Aggi Sutta | The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest


Is mano or mind function of brain? Then what we perceive is mere creation of brain

The question "is mano or mind a function of brain" is irrelevant.

There is a sense organ with the function of knowing what are called 'mental objects', namely, feelings, perception, thoughts, emotions, mental images, etc. These mental objects, unlike many physical phenomena, can last for merely a moment. This sense organ is called 'mano'.

The sense organ also develops 'intelligence'; based on its experience of these mental objects, particularly in how these mental objects accord with or produce another mental phenomena called 'happiness' & 'suffering'. Thus, from the accumulated experience of this "mano" arises "mental intentions" that produce actions (as described in Dhammapada verses 1 & 2).

Buddhism has its own view on the Indian term "nama-rupa". "Nama-rupa" in Buddhism means "mind-body" (as defined in SN 12.2). This term is used as a compound to highlight the inseparableness of mind & body. Not only are 'mind' & 'body' inseparable; but also the consciousness (sense cognition) is inseparable from this 'nama-rupa' (per SN 12.67).

While "mano" probably functions dependent upon the brain, its role is "mental" rather than "physical". What is "physical" is explained in MN 62; in the paragraphs about 'earth, water, fire & wind property'.

SN 12.61 may help here understand the difference the 'mental' ('nama') & 'physical' ('rupa'):

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness (vinnana)' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

  SN 12.61


Are the Jhanas related to some of the 31 realms of existence

The jhanas are related to to Brahma realms

  "There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

  "Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara devas. The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

  "Again, there is the case where an individual, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Subhakinha devas. The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

  "Again, there is the case where an individual, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Vehapphala[4] devas. The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

  AN 4.123

So as you can see, if a person dwell in the first jhana often until he dies then he will reappear in the brahma’s retinue. So I think you have to master the first jhana and dwell there very often and not lose the ability to enter it until you die. Only then you might be reborn in the Brahma retinue. If you enter the first jhana once and start killing your parents or an arahant then you probably won’t appear in the Brahma realm and will go straight to hell because you will probably lose the ability to enter jhana.

If you want to know more about the 31 planes of existence then go to this link. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


As one Tibetan lama explained in one lecture I attended, this type of anger comes from attachment to a certain form of clarity.

Because in meditation you experience clarity born of unification of mind (lack of inner conflict), when in post-meditation a conflict between "is" and "should" arises, attachment to clarity leads to suffering, rejection of which then manifests as anger.

Read up on tanha (craving) and the second noble truth, then watch yourself carefully millisecond-by-millisecond and try to catch the moment just before the anger arises. For this to be possible you may have to establish mindfulness of body first.

More broadly, a usual problem with beginning meditators is so-called "spiritual materialism". If one sees oneself as (secretly) superior to others, one's practice becomes a (secret) way to confirm one's superiority. This leads to irritation due to (projected) imperfections of others. This is likely why your empathy is reduced. You should be stalking and murdering your ego, instead of feeding it.

Unfortunately with increased popularity of direct methods in the West, like meditation and chakras/energy-yoga, problems like yours are bound to get more common. Opening the floodgate of Emptiness without having built a strong foundation of Discipline can only lead to Rudrahood. I personally am a big proponent of at least 5 years of Sila practice before one is introduced to meditation or energy-yoga.


Where can I find the "10 merits of life liberation" in the Tripitaka?

This is a bit delicate, because the list of ten you have mentioned includes statements such as:

  One will have abundant offsprings for future generations.
  One will easily attain what one wishes.

With #4, since monastics are generally celibate as part of the Vinaya, there would be no "abundant offspring" in the literal sense. Perhaps in the spiritual sense would might have "offspring", but with the wording, that would be a bit of a stretch.

With #5, this also a bit in contradiction with all the suttas such as SN12.23 that clearly state that craving leads to suffering. Wishing is a tricky word to use. One might wish for a Ferrari or one might wish for a spiritual path.

Compare your referenced list of ten with a list of ten from the DN33 sutta:

  A mendicant has given up five factors, possesses six factors, has a single guard, has four supports, has eliminated idiosyncratic interpretations of the truth, has totally given up searching, has unsullied intentions, has stilled the physical process, and is well freed in mind and well freed by wisdom.

Indeed, why would a Liberated One wish for anything? Grasping a wish, one searches for the fulfillment of that wish. And above we have clearly stated that there is no more searching.

Note, that one might argue that the list you've quoted is a list for lay practitioners. However even here, we have AN8.61 with Ugga the Householder happily choosing celibacy:

  I’ve undertaken the five training rules with celibacy as fifth

I would recommend reading AN8.61 yourself to understand how far the list you have linked differs from what the Pali Canon shows in the suttas.

When lay instructions differ from monastic instructions it is always good to understand the differences so that we our practice progress rather than regresses.

Advantage #5 is very close to the following quote from DN33. Yet the following quote provides more context. One must be ethical and pure.

  The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

This is a very important consideration. When we live by violence, that is impure. WHen we give fearlessness, we are being ethical. So item #5 should be read in the context of being ethical. It does not stand alone.

DN33 goes on to say:

  If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of well-to-do aristocrats or brahmins or householders!

So yes, in the context of Right View, one will easily attain what one wishes simply because what one wishes for is Right. This is where the precepts come in for lay practitioners:

  It’s when a noble disciple doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence
  --an5.179

The following warning from DN33 also indicates that being rich, young and healthy and having abundant offspring is a temporary condition with uncertain outcome. One must focus on Right View:

  It is not because of endowment with family, wealth, or health that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
  It is because of endowment with ethics or view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

The list of 10 therefore does have concrete roots in the suttas. The suttas mostly deal with monastic study. They do also have instruction for lay practitioners. The lay instructions are usually quite terse and somewhat restrictive. Indeed, many lay practitioners would have trouble following the first five precepts (e.g., avoid alchohol?). Because of this, one might list out the advantages of following the first five precepts. I believe the list you have referenced is one such list. It is a list of advantages to be gained from following the path of:

Right View
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Immersion


Is the self an illusion or is it *like* an illusion?

Is the self an illusion or is it like an illusion? Well, let's just say that it's not truly existent. The lute analogy in the Vina Sutta explains that very well. Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates. This is in stark contrast with the Hindu view found in Bhagavad Gita 2.20.

Next, why is it so important in the Pali Suttas that the self of persons is not truly existent, but it is not important in the Pali Suttas that the self of phenomena is truly existent or not truly existent?

This is an easy question to answer in my opinion.

The self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering. That's why it is so important in the Pali Suttas. The Cula-Saccaka Sutta (MN 35) explains why the self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering.

On the other hand, the self of chairs is unrelated to the cause of a person's suffering. The self of chairs is also unrelated to the cause of a chair's suffering (or rather, I cannot imagine how a chair would experience suffering). This is why whether a chair has a self of chairs or not, is not important in the Pali Suttas.

In fact, the self of phenomena may even fall into the category of unconjecturables in the Acintita Sutta as follows:

  "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.

The point here is that the world may or may not be truly existent. The world may or may not have a self of phenomena. The world may or may not be an illusion.  The world may or may not be like an illusion. But in all these cases, it is not related to the cause of a person's suffering, and hence it is not important to the path to the end of suffering. At least, this, in my opinion, is how Theravada views it according to the Pali Suttas.

And this also shows how the Pali Suttas are extremely pragmatic.


Is curiosity, for non Dhamma subjects, a bad thing?

Asking questions / being inquisitive can lead to intelligence.

Having said this the quest for knowledge can lead to:

attachments to per suits of no benefit to this life, after life or liberation hence wasting time and effort
attachments to the quest of seeking answers leading to pure study / research or philosophising, this also may not always be time well spent.

If you are leading a householders life you cannot avoid these always. But your per suits should be fruitful for either:

This life
Next life
Liberation

Beneficial to either:

oneself
others, or
both

If your quest is not profitable best is to leave it a side.


How to breathe into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?

How to breath into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?

When you breathe with your diaphragm (instead of just with your rib cage) you breathe more deeply.
To avoid hyperventilating then, you presumably need to breathe more slowly:

Longer pause between breaths
Longer duration during breaths (during each inhale or exhale)

Try both:

Breathe slowly (because deeply; the only time I deliberately breathe deeply and rapidly would be during vigorous exercise)
Don't be in a hurry to deliberately take/start the next breath after exhaling (instead, taking a next breath is a reaction to needing more air)

I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short

"Where" are you think about your breathing: is your focus somewhere around your nose?

An alternative might be to focus somewhere lower: e.g. on your diaphragm; or lower (e.g., according to the Chinese, "The Lower Dantian (Jing), located two inches below the navel, is the source of energy which builds the physical body").

Or even lower: my Tai Chi teacher once said to imagine breathing through your heels!

In Anapanasati -- Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Bikkhu Buddhadasa, it recommends you shift your point of awareness (in Appendix D in the section titled "Getting Started: Establishing Sati"):

  Note the three primary segments of each breath: beginning, middle, and end. For the inhalation these
  correspond to the nose, the middle of the chest, and the abdomen. For the exhalation the reverse is true, beginning at the
  belly and ending at the nose. Watch and wait at the nose until the incoming breath is felt there. Then skip to the middle
  of the chest and watch there until the breath is felt. Then skip to the abdomen and watch there until the breath is felt.
  Continue watching as the inhalation ends and wait for the exhalation to begin.

That's just a preliminary practice though:

  This hopping from point to
  point is a relatively easy way to establish sati on the breath. It is a good way to get started. It becomes, however,
  somewhat crude and agitating after a while. Once we are skilled at it, we will want a more refined and peaceful way to
  be mindful of the breath

After that, it says,

  Next, we connect the three points into a continuous sweep or flow. This more closely approximates the breath
  itself. We call this "following, chasing, hunting, stalking." While breathing naturally, without any forcing or
  manipulating of the breath, sati follows the breath in and out, between the tip of the nose and the navel.

And finally:

  Once "following" becomes easy and constant, it will begin to feel unnecessarily busy and disruptive. Now we
  are ready for "guarding," a more peaceful way to practice sati with the breathing. By this time, a certain point in the
  nose will stand out.

In summary:

  If at first our breaths are short and shallow, with movement in the chest only and not in the abdomen, then simply
  follow the breath down however far it goes. After sati is established we will relax and the breathing will become deeper.
  Before long we will feel movement in the abdomen. If we see that the breath is passing by many places at the same
  time, do not use this fact as an opportunity to complicate things. Keep it simple. A simple flow from the tip of the nose
  to the navel and from the navel to the tip of the nose is sufficient for our purpose.

These quotes are extracts; I'd recommend you read the book for a further or more complete description.

Am I actually trying to breath into my stomach

Air should go into the lungs as usual, not literally into your stomach!

I think it means to drop your diaphragm (so that the lungs expand downwards).

When you do that there's less room (less volume remaining) for your stomach, intestines, etc.: so you need to relax your abdominal muscles (which might normally keep the belly from protruding) and let your belly appear to push forward when you breathe in.

Imagine you had a metal band, tied around your ribs, so that you couldn't inhale by expanding your rib-cage: you'd still be able to breathe by using your "stomach" (i.e. diaphragm and belly) ... that's what "breathing into the stomach" means.

To be honest what I just described seems to be contradicted by something in the Anapanasati book I referenced above (in Lecture Two, in the section titled "Step One: The Long Breath"):

  When there is a deepest
  possible long breath, does the chest expand or contract? Does the abdomen expand or contract? These are things to
  examine. In doing so, you may learn that it works differently than you thought. Most people have the overly simple idea
  that when we breathe in the chest expands and when we breathe old: the chest contracts. In studying the breath
  carefully, however, we find that in taking the longest inhalation, the abdomen will contract and the chest will expand.
  With the very long exhalation, then, the abdomen will expand and the chest will contract or deflate. We find the reverse
  of what common sense teaches. You ought to investigate this business of the very long breath, the longest possible
  breath, to see what changes happen. Do not take anything for granted. You ought to understand even these most basic
  natural facts.

This is explained later (in Appendix D, in the section titled "Long & Short Breaths),

  After sati is established (techniques two or three) we begin to notice the long and short breathing. The mind still may
  wander some but stays with the breath enough to learn what it is like. The first and easiest quality to note is length, in
  terms of both time and extent of physical movement. For our purposes, an exact dividing line between short and long is
  not important. Become familiar with your own breathing and learn what your longest breaths and shortest breaths are
  like relative to each other. There is no need to compare your breaths with someone else's. (D. 29)

  Generally, you will find that abdominal breathing is longer than chest breathing, that is, if abdominal breathing comes
  naturally. This is something we observe, however, it is not something we desire or seek. We are not "supposed" to
  breath in a certain way and we do not use Anapanasati to develop this or that way of breathing. So do not try to force
  abdominal breathing, the results would not be very relaxing. But should it occur naturally, you will see that it is longer,
  more relaxed, and healthier. (D. 30)

  Should your breaths become very long, you will discover an interesting point. You may have thought it strange when
  Ajahn Buddhadasa said that the chest expands and the abdomen contracts with the long in-breath (Marker 58). Common
  sense says that the abdomen expands on the in-breath and contracts on the out-breath. The two seem to contradict each
  other. Which is right? First, we observe the normal breathing. As we inhale, the diaphragm drops and pushes the tummy
  outward. When we exhale the tummy falls in again. This is the ordinary abdominal breathing before it becomes very
  long. It is a simple movement of the abdomen expanding (or rising) with the in-breath and contracting (or falling) with
  the out-breath. Some people will consider this short and others will feel it is relatively long. (D. 31)

  Now, there is a limit to how far the abdomen can expand. As we relax and breathe more deeply this limit will be
  reached. At that point there is, however, room left in the chest (lungs) for more air. If we continue to breathe in, the
  chest will then expand. This in turn pulls up and flattens the tummy. This is what Ajahn Buddhadasa meant. A very
  long inhalation begins just like a normal breath. The abdomen expands but the chest barely moves at all. After the
  abdomen's limit is reached the chest expands and the abdomen contracts. When the breath is really long you will
  discover this for yourself. The opposite movements (roughly) occur with the very long exhalations. So the very long
  breath is an ordinary breath plus more. Many of us will seldom experience this very long breathing until the body
  becomes very relaxed through Anapanasati. Eventually, it will happen more and more regularly - even outside the
  formal sittings. (D. 32)

In other words, a very long breath starts by depressing the diaphragm (abdominal breathing), and when that's full then the in-breath continues by expanding the rib-cage.


What's the (mental) quality different between aversive leaving (vi-bhava) and renouncing (nekkhamma)?

Vibhava tanha arises as a result of attachement, aversion and ignorance combined with the wrong view of Nicca, Suka , Atta and Subha.
Nekkhamma is a result of non-attachement, non-aversion and wisdom combind with the right view of Anicca, Dukkha ,Anatta and Asubha.


Not according to U Dhammaratana's commentary on the Visuddhimaga... There it is said:

  It could be said that they [kamma-bhava and sankhara] are two
  different ways of sayin the same thing

Kamma-bhava is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara is kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".

I think I see no way round this, besides questioning Buddhaghosa or the accuracy of the commentary. Unless sankhara is empty in a different way to kamma-bhava :/


You are simply seeing light touching your eyes

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people.  So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.


Significance of Three Customs Involving String

Chanting and good thoughts of the monks (even any other being) generate positive vibes. The string is used as a better means of conducting the vibration than may be air. (If you attach a tin to the end of two string and you speak into one you can hear the voice in the other.) Generally the string is wrapped around a vessel of water which cases the water to vibrate in tune with the chanting. These strings and water is given out as it the vibrations will carry some positive conditioning.


In the Sivaka Sutta (quoted below), the Buddha stated that some events that happen to us are a result of karma. But other things are caused by other causes including bile disorders, phlegm disorders, wind disorders, change of climate, careless behaviour, assault etc. The belief that all that happens to you is due to past karma is contradictory to Buddhism.

Elsewhere in the suttas, we find the Jain belief that in order to become liberated, one has to do penance to "burn" accumulated bad karma. This is contradictory to Buddhism.

Another belief that is contradictory to Buddhism is that karma is a system of universal justice, whose purpose is to mete out punishment on the wicked and reward the good.

In Buddhism, karma is the expression of our volition. Basically, by the expression of our thoughts, words and deeds, we try to fulfill our craving towards sensual things (of the six senses including the intellect), and to fulfill our craving towards becoming something. This is our response to greed.

However, if we do not receive what we crave after, or if what we are enjoying is suddenly taken from us, we may become angry or unhappy. In this case, we may express our thoughts, words and deeds as a reaction to our aversion.

In general, how we think, talk and act, would somehow influence our future. It's not hard to see how that works. If we act virtuously, the world responds to us positively and vice versa. It's not like if I donate exactly 10 dollars, in future, somebody will give me exactly 10 dollars in return (or the equivalent future value). Rather, it's like if I am a kind person who likes to help people, this will attract other kind and helpful people to trust me and help me too. And similarly for bad karma.

If you intentionally knock your head on the wall, you will feel pain. That's karma too.

If a change in climate causes you to catch a cold, that's not karma. That's just caused by a change in climate.

The result of karma and the result of other causes, based on the Sivaka Sutta, seem to be quite "natural" and in accordance with our experience of the world.

Of course, the "supernatural" aspect of the result of karma is rebirth. But we should not care too much about how we were born into our present life. That's not skillful or useful. What is skillful or useful is to use our volition to minimize suffering and increase happiness in future.

Also, it's useful to think of rebirth not as the rebirth of a person, but rather, as the continuation of suffering that can be ended only by Nibbana, and not by physical death.

As written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "To Suffer Is an Active Verb":

  This is one of the reasons why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go
  back into the past and ask, “What did I do to deserve an illness, a
  mental state, a situation in life?” He said that if you tried to trace
  all those things back, you’d go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t
  trace back and find a beginning point for the ignorance that underlies
  suffering. But you can see what you’re doing to sustain it now.

The Sivaka Sutta:

  Moḷiyasīvaka:
  “Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a
  doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it
  be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is
  caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say
  about this?”

  Buddha:
  “Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders:
  that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can
  know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now
  when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as
  this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or
  painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what
  was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and
  they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I
  say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.

  “Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
  originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
  three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
  … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
  feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
  oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
  those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
  ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
  the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot
  what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this
  is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”


Should a Buddhist feel offended by misuses of Buddha's name or image?

What would be your plan of action, if you saw someone running a brothel with your mother's name and picture on it? Feeling angry or not depends on if you have eradicated anger. You can do Metta meditation to deal with your anger. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to take action against such establishments, even if they mean no disrespect. There's nothing wrong in peacefully protesting, trying to make them come to their senses or using any legal options available. You don't actually have to get angry while doing it. You are doing them a favor since they are committing bad Karma due to their ignorance. Buddhists don't always have to accept people's ignorant acts meekly in the name of Metta.

Once there was this cobra practicing loving-kindness in the forest saying: May all beings be well, may all beings be happy, may all beings be peaceful. And an old woman who was collecting firewood saw this cobra and mistook it for a rope. So she used it to tie up the firewood that she was carrying. As the cobra was doing loving-kindness practice, it allowed this woman to do anything. So after the woman carried the bundle of firewood home, the cobra escaped, but with a lot of wounds and physical pain. So he went to meet his teacher who was the hermit(Bodhisatta) staying in that forest. The cobra said: See what happened to me! I was practicing loving-kindness, and now see the wounds and all the pain that I'm experiencing in my body! The teacher very calmly said: You have not been practicing loving-kindness. You have been practicing idiotic compassion, because you should have shown that you were a cobra. You should at least have hissed! So with regards to people like the person you've described, you have to learn to hiss, and in doing so you'll also be doing a service for that person.

So if you have any crowd pull, go hiss without biting. :) Or use social media to protest and let them know about it. If business owners get the idea that whenever they do something like that, there will be negative consequences, they will be reluctant to do it in the future as it is bad for business.