In a sense, this series of questions is probably too broad to be answered in this format. Given Buddhism's 2,558 year history, it's rich and varied traditions, and it's spread throughout Asia and much of the world outside of Asia, Buddhism's history is not homogeneous. It's been adopted by many different cultures and each of those cultures adds it's own flavor to it's practice of Buddhism.

But there are some things that can be said. Unlike Hinduism, the prevalent religion in the region when Buddhism originated, a follower of the Buddha's teachings did not need to be born into any particular class or caste to be ordained or to be considered a teacher or leader. So the answer to your question about Buddhism's rituals being performed by a certain social class is, no.

A section of the Dhammapada called "Brahmanavagga: The Holy Man" reinforces this in quotes such as:

  Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and

  I do not call him a holy man because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging — him do I call a holy man.

Perhaps the most universal Buddhist rituals are Taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Also accepting a number of precepts, 5 for ordinary lay people, 8 for more serious or dedicated lay people, serious meditators, and ordinary lay people on an Uposatha day and hundreds of precepts for ordained men and women. Taking refuge and precepts might be considered a ritual in the sense that they are often stated aloud in a group; although these are equally valid when done privately. The fact that both of these "rituals" can be done privately without any connection to a religious institution or particular type of religious leader would seem to indicate no connection to furthering political ends or interests.

I think anything else that would be considered a ritual in Buddhism is more related to the particular culture practicing it; a cultural overlay if you will. In fact, in Buddhism, release from adherence to rites and rituals is one of the hallmarks of a person who has reached a particular level of attainment. From Wikipedia's page on Sotāpanna:

  Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery (issara nimmāna). Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the right view of the sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is the elimination of the notion that there are miracles, or shortcuts.


Should Buddhists in India celebrate diwali (New moon of November)?

It's a Hindu festival. So a Buddhist should not be a part of the religious aspect of the festival if those activities are incompatible with Buddhism. That does not mean a Buddhist cannot meet up with his Hindu relatives and have a good time.


Being mindful all the time is an important part of the practice. Not just at the time of death. But if you have a wholesome thought at the time of death, your next birth will be better.

Whether it's human or animal, what makes you think killing will relieve a being from suffering? It could be born in a worse place. Your action is based on a big assumption or at worst, annihilationism.

In any case, if killing ended suffering, Lord Buddha would have preached it as the fourth noble truth, instead of the noble eight fold path. :)


The conditioning main component of speech is thinking and pondering.

  Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

So I believe regardless of if you speak it or write it the results are the same.

If you just think it and do not follow through with the communication then the effects will be less as this is purely mental karma. If one follows through, more people come in contact with what you have said and comprehends what has been said more the karma. E.g. if you lie and 2 people get deceived this is worse than 1 person. If you lie and nobody understands this is less bad than one person understanding what you said.

The guidelines would be the same for both online and non-online interactions, namely. abstaining

from lying,
from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, and
from idle chatter.

See: Sacca Vibhanga Sutta

For further guidelines see: Right Speech


In AN 3.86 it is taught that a stream enterer will be born in human and deva realms for a maximum of seven life times:

"[Some,] with the wasting away of the three fetters, are
'one-seed-ers' (ekabijin): After taking rebirth only one more time on
the human plane, they will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'family-to-family-ers'
(kolankola): After transmigrating & wandering on through two or three
more families [according to the Commentary, this phrase should be
interpreted as 'through two to six more states of becoming'], they
will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'seven-times-at-most-ers'
(sattakkhattuparama): After transmigrating & wandering on among devas
& human beings, they will put an end to stress."
AN 3.86

In Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy, by Nyaponika Thera it is mentioned that she wasn't a stream enterer at the time of her death. He gives the reason for her birth in hell as:

When Mallika died her twofold transgression-her sexual contact with the dog and her mendacious attempt to free herself from blame-caught up with her and brought about a rebirth in hell.

and later he says,

Although it was a very short-termed sojourn there, one can see that Mallika had not yet attained stream-entry during her life on earth...


"I want Happiness" / "Remove `I` and `want`" story

If the story given above true? If not why not?

It's not canonical -- A man said to the Buddha, ‘I want Happiness.’ is listed as one of the "fake Buddha quotes".

As for whether it's true, yes and no.

Yes to the extent that "wanting" is associated with unhappiness, though even there you might have to split hairs to distinguish between "unwholesome craving" versus a "wholesome desire for enlightenment" -- though even the wholesome desire is allayed once the goal is attained.

And no I guess it's not as simple as that -- it's like going to a doctor and saying, "I have cancer", and the doctor saying, "well take away the cancer then, problem solved" -- the Buddha was more helpful/detailed than that.

Also no because its "truth" depends on the definitions of various words, like "happiness", which are maybe just empty words.


My morning meditation is my clearest meditation.

I also take quiet breaks a couple times a day. Sometimes I even fall asleep for 10-20 minutes. It renews me.

The evening meditation is important to me to clear away the unresolved issues in the day and prepares me for the rest that is so important for a stable mind in these uncertain and stressful times.
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/231282-zen-mind-beginner-s-mind

  “So we should be concentrated with our full mind and body on what we
  do; and we should be faithful, subjectively and objectively, to
  ourselves, and especially to our feelings. Even when you do not feel
  so well, it is better to express how you feel without any particular
  attachment or intention. So you may say, “Oh, I am sorry, I do not
  feel well.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal
  Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/62707.Shunryu_Suzuki

  “When you accept everything, everything is beyond dimensions. The
  earth is not great nor a grain of sand small. In the realm of Great
  Activity picking up a grain of sand is the same as taking up the whole
  universe. To save one sentient being is to save all sentient beings.
  Your efforts of this moment to save one person is the same as the
  eternal merit of Buddha.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki

Some suggest that as long as we are aware we meditate. We do dishes aware, we walk aware, we shower aware. Certainly we have meditation practice but to expand that beyond a ritual and a routine is the opening to an extraordinary life.


I am 32 and I live in Florida. Florida is full of older people and they outnumber us 20s and 30s year olds. As for Buddhism, the ratio stays pretty consistent to the overall demographic. In my sangha of over one hundred, and I maybe one of three people under 40 years old. Our local university often sends students to experience the sangha for extra credit, but they rarely stay past the assignment.

However I have started a wake up sangha for people in their 20s and 30s (www.wkup.org) here in Fort Myers, and the wake up sanghas do seem to be growing.


Is there any research on physiology of deep and long meditative states (i.e. days and weeks of sitting)?

Check out this article: Meditation as a Voluntary Hypometabolic
State of Biological Estivation by John Ding-E Young and Eugene Taylor.

It's a really interesting, brief read. Basically, it is a review of several studies on the physiology of meditators. It provides evidence for the case that aspects of meditation may be similar to hibernation, or "hypometabolism". For example, like some bear species are able to not eat or drink for months on end (as far as I know) and come out fine, maybe meditators are able to lower their metabolism and thus meditate indefinitely without physiological upset. Some really cool examples of people meditating underground for days, or in airtight boxes for multiple hours with no ill effects.


How come SN Goenka thought that buying milk does not lead to suffering?

It's all about the intentions of the individual.

According to Right Livelihood, one of the types of businesses that should not be undertaken is the business in weapons, which is "trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing". These weapons are used for injuring and/or killing other beings. There is no other purpose for them. So, if you are a weapon salesman, then you have the intention of helping someone harm or kill other beings.

Another is the business in meat where "meat refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed ... also includes breeding animals for slaughter." Here, anyone participating in such a business have the intention of depriving other beings of their lives.

If you read this answer, it says that an actor can go to hell because he had the intention to inflame emotions in his audience, after inflaming emotions in himself.

On the other hand, if you read the story of the hunter's wife in this answer which is from Dhammapada 124, it is evident that the hunter's wife who brings her husband his weapons with the sole intention of obeying her husband, is not at all guilty of having the wrong intentions.

From the Theravada perspective, a person who goes to the supermarket and buys milk and meat that is on the shelf, is simply buying meat, with the intention of tasting this food. This person has no intention of depriving other beings of their lives. The animal was already dead, and this person did not choose the animal or instruct the butcher to slaughter a particular animal. Rather, this person is simply choosing a piece of dead meat off the shelf.

As Sankha wrote in this answer, even farming vegetables that are not organic, cause plenty of deaths by pesticides, land clearing and animal traps. But the person who buys vegetables has no intention to kill insects that die due to pesticides, which are used in the process of growing those vegetables.

Also, it is quite a popular idea in some cultures that you should buy a beggar food instead of giving him money, because he might use that money to buy alcoholic beverages. Then it would be your bad karma, if he becomes drunk using the money you gave him. This is not true according to the Theravada tradition. If your intention in giving money was to satisfy the beggar's hunger (because you believed him), then your karma would only be based on your intentions. But once you know the beggar's tricks, you would do better the next time by buying him food instead.


Does "which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them" refer to nibbana or the knowledge that abides in nibbana?

The roots (greed, hatred, delusion, non greed, non hatred, non delusion) creates conditioned fabricated state. When the root condition passes away so does what was fabricated. The root conditions are impermanent hence is the result. Each root condition and the result is tied with sensation which are unsatisfactory they neither last or in control of them.

When you do Vipassana and keep eliminating to roots a stage will come where there is no more results of past conditioning nor is you mind creating new conditioning. At this state you experience the 1st glimpse of Nirvana. As the root and result is tied to sensation what you experience as Nirvana does not have any sensation hence is satisfactory (not unsatisfactory) and since not dependent on an impermanent root it is permanent though still it is not not in ones control (you cannot bestore it on someone else nor can you realise it by will or wish).


I think one of the major proponents of 'Secular Buddhism' was S.N.Goenka, although I doubt if he himself would call his lineage that.

First, let me give a brief idea of the tradition. S.N.Goenka's lineage could be traced back to Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, a Buddhist monk who was instrumental in reviving the practice of Vipassana. In his retreats, S.N.Goenka emphasizes on how the pain and suffering we face is universal irrespective of one's religion. And hence, he stresses, that the path of liberation from this suffering is also universal and not based on one's religion. He famously said at the UN's Millennium World Peace Summit that the only conversion involved in Vipassana is from misery to happiness, from bondage to liberation and from cruelty to compassion. You can also watch him introduce meditation to an audience at the Harvard Business Club here.

A very primary book on Vipassana written by William Hart, one of his students is 'The Art of Living'. In this, he talks about basic Buddhist ideas like suffering, its cause and the path of coming out of it in a very secular fashion. You may look at some other books and CDs here.

At his 10 day retreat, he gives discourses which are also very secular in nature. You can register for the retreat here.


What increases the Anisanasa of Dāna (the rewards of giving)?

Ananda, there are these 4 purifications of giving (catu dakkhiṇa,visuddhi). What are the four?
(1) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
giver, but not the recipients.
(2) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver.
(3) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of neither
the giver nor the recipients.
(4) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of both
the giver and the recipients.
(1) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but
not the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, but the recipients are immoral, bad by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but not the
recipient.
(2) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver? Here, Ānanda, the giver is immoral, bad
by nature, the recipient is morally virtuous, good by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the recipients, but not the
giver.
(3) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is
immoral, bad by nature, and the recipients are immoral, bad by nature.
Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor
the recipients.
(4) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the giver
and the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, and the recipients, too, are morally virtuous, good by
nature. Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the
giver and the recipients.”
These, Ananda, are the 4 kinds of purification of giving
-Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta

So, yes it is more meritorious to give to  someone more virtuous. The best scenario is if both the giver and recipient are virtuous.
Other factors that make the gift great:

Gift is given attentively
Gift is given respectfully, in person.
Gift is given with the view that it is good Karma.
Gift is useful to the recipient


Feeling intense sensations in my forehead and also my head and body is shaking a lot during meditation

It maybe several things.But here's something to investigate.You may or may not have this problem.If your doing anapanasati meditation with the aim of developing tranquillity your body should be relaxed.Having intense emotions on the forehead,body shaking,and rigidity could indicate excessive effort,you may be paying too much attention on the breath in a stressful way.Notice if your breathing heavily as well.Try not control the breath.Loosen the grip.If possible repeat "calm,calm,or relax,relax,let go,let go" while breathing in and out.


Compassion is a result of knowledge. But what about Courage?

Which types of knowledge results in courage?

Emptiness. Realizing Emptiness leads to courage, because when you have nothing you have nothing to lose. Abidelessness is the ultimate courage. Abidelessness is having no conceptual home, no warm stinking lair of the ego to defend, no territory to call your own. You are a "wanderer" in the ultimate sense of the word.

Understanding Emptiness conceptually is not enough though. This aspect of vidya is active spontaneousness, sincere unforced action without calculations. Of course before you can be like that you have to remove all guilt first, hence the practice of sila, morality. As Buddha said in suttas, dirty mind has many fears, pure mind has none.

Then you have to "leap off the cliff", metaphorically speaking. This means, expose yourself, with all your imperfections. Become open and vulnerable in the world. You jump right into fear, the fear does not stop, but you ignore it, defy it, and keep going. You setup the intent to keep going, no matter what your doubts tell you. You make your own mood, instead of your mood making you.

You no longer rely on the expectations of the world to set your direction. You don't even rely on your Buddhism teacher and Dharma anymore. You have to figure out your path by yourself, which is like the baby learning to walk for the first time.

I refer you to the following articles:

Facing Yourself by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and Pema Chödrön
Bravery: Taking a Leap by Sakyong Mipham

As well as this book by my beloved teacher Chögyam Trungpa: "Smile at Fear. Awakening the True Heart of Bravery”


What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?

What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to the different lines of practice? How are they rationalized?

Here are some:

  Etymology:
  pari- is a prefix used with the connotation of around, about, all over, or that of completeness. Thus dhāvati means
  'to run' and paridhāvati means 'to run about'; vajati - 'to go/
  proceed' becomes paribbajati, 'to wander about', ie. 'to live the life
  of a religious mendicant'; carati - 'to walk' becomes paricarati - 'to
  walk around, ie. to serve, honour'; gaṇeti, 'to count' becomes
  parigaṇeti - 'to calculate'.

  mukhaṃ means primarily and literally 'mouth', by extension 'face' and
  figuratively 'entrance', 'opening', 'brim', then in a more abstract
  meaning 'the front', 'the foremost' and finally 'that which is an
  entrance into something', ie. 'a mean', 'a cause'.

  Strictly from the point of view of semantics (ie. neglecting
  contextual information), the following meanings could reasonably be
  derived from the juxtaposition of these two components: around the
  mouth, all over the mouth, completely on the mouth, around the face,
  all over the face, completely on the face, around the entrance, all
  over the entrance, completely on the entrance, around the front, all
  over the front, completely on the front

Note: The above link also has references to commentaries & later Pāḷi literature.

  Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  To the fore (parimukhaṃ): The Abhidhamma takes an etymological
  approach to this term, defining it as around (pari-) the mouth
  (mukhaṃ). In the Vinaya, however, it is used in a context (Cv.V.27.4)
  where it undoubtedly means the front of the chest. There is also the
  possibility that the term could be used idiomatically as "to the
  front," which is how I have translated it here.

  Ānandajoti Bhikkhu:
  Parimukhaṃ means at the front, or perhaps, around the mouth, i.e. it
  is a vague area, not meant to be confined to one particular spot or
  place, which would have been easy to designate if that is what was
  meant (like specifying oṭṭha, the lip). It is of course the
  mindfulness that is important in the practice, not the breathing as
  such, which only provides a basis for the mindfulness.

  Anālayo Bhikkhu:
  Once the posture is set up, mindfulness is to be established “in
  front”. The injunction “in front” (parimukhaṃ) can be understood
  literally or figuratively. Following the more literal understanding,
  “in front” indicates the nostril area as the most appropriate for
  attention to the in- and out-breaths. Alternatively, “in front”
  understood more figuratively suggests a firm establishment of sati,
  sati being mentally “in front” in the sense of meditative composure
  and attentiveness.

  Sujato Bhikkhu:
  In the gradual training, sati and upatthana occur together in the
  common idiom parimukhaṃ satim upatthapeti. Here the term parimukha is
  one of those simple words that is so hard to interpret. It modern
  renderings usually use something vague like 'in front'. However the
  phrase frequently occurs in contexts outside of anapanasati, making
  the interpretation 'at the nose-tip', or any literal spatial
  interpretation, unlikely. The Sanskrit has a different reading,
  pratimukha. This has many meanings, among which are 'reflection' and
  'presence'. Both of these would be appropriate in meditative context.
  But the word usually, as here, occurs in close conjunction with
  upatthana, which also means 'presence'. I think here we have another
  example of that common feature of Pali or Sanskrit, a conjunction of
  synonyms for emphasis: literally, 'one makes present a presence of
  presence of mind', or more happily, 'one establishes presence of
  mindfulness'.

  S. N. Goenka: The awareness is established around the mouth,
  the entrance to the nostrils: parimukhaṃ. Certain traditions
  translate this as "in the front," as if the awareness is imagined to
  be in front of the person, but this sets up a duality. Actually you
  have to feel the breath coming and going around the mouth, above the
  upper lip, which is parimukhaṃ.

Additional References:

Parimukhaṁ article with Āgama references
Footnote 55 of Piya Tan's Study of Kāyagatāsati Sutta
Dictionary entries


What does Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana sources mention about food? Does other Theravada source have such references?

Basically it cautioned the practitioner not to crave and endulge the 6 sense objects (form, sound, smell, etc.), clothing, food, drink, medicine, etc. for craving of those leads to suffering.
The Pali source mentioned the Four Nutriments which includes food as the physical nutriment, contact, mental volition, and consciousness. Analysis and various suttas are available here


There is a big obvious difference between doing something because you want it and enjoying the effort, VERSUS beating yourself with a stick like a horse. In one case you are working hard but you're enjoying it, you doing what you believe in, you're getting deep sense of satisfaction from it. In the other case, you are forcing yourself, breaking yourself, torturing yourself - you don't really believe in it, you hate yourself for doing it, but you're still doing it.

My teacher said that the feeling of special enjoyment or satisfaction is a key criteria for success in spiritual practice. If you're doing too little, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are pushing yourself too hard, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are doing it right, it may be hard and painful - but you will feel happy and proud and inspired.


This rule is put in place because joining a monastic order (like any thing else one does in life) is a karmic act, and one should strive not to do harm. The idea that a child might disappear into a monastic order, never accomplishing any of the 'normal' things that parents expect of children — gainful employment, grandchildren, social status or respect, or any of the other hallmarks of worldly 'success' — can be frightening and disturbing to a parent. One is asked to seek parent's permission so that one does not enter monastic life leaving a cloud of fear and resentment in one's wake. It's an act of compassion for parents and the world they live in.


According to my teacher, mood instability comes from not having a stable frame of reference as far as one's values. Meaning, when one has a stable system of coordinates in one's head, according to which everything is evaluated, one's values are stable and one can optimize one's actions within that frame of reference. However, when one does not have that, then for such person it is typical to waver between different coordinate systems of other people. As a result, one's values keep fluctuating. Today, according to this system, everything is great - and tomorrow, according to another system - you are a loser.

The traditional medicine from that is to work on internalizing the Dharma until it becomes one's stable frame of reference. This starts with taking Refuge as the commitment to never hold any other system of values higher than Buddha-Dharma. As a result one's values and one's assessment of one's situations stabilizes and the mood swings diminish and disappear.

The next step is to work on going beyond a single frame of reference and to become capable of switching frames of reference without getting stuck mentally or emotionally. This ultimate level of this is cultivation of spontaneity, or being oneself. This basically means that one becomes one's own system of coordinates, one always trusts one's own judgement and therefore is immune to any and all mood fluctuations.

In terms of meditation, I would recommend analytical meditation on the first three Noble Truths.


Definitely no killing. That's the first among the Five Precept to be observed. Do what you can to help. If it's a large animal, call the local animal shelter helpline. If it's a small animal like a bird or a bug, at least move it to a safer place like under shade of a tree to avoid the hot sun and to prevent people from stepping on it, cover it with some large leaves, etc.. Any kind of help no matter how small might still bring great peace to other beings.


Feeding meat to pets is it a good karma or bad?

According to the Brahmanet Sutra you should not own any pets which typically eat meat, except dogs who guard your property. Part of the reason is that a bodhisattva should not be engaged in fostering the consumption of meat, which is not compassionate. However, I would also be concerned with the health of the animal on a vegetarian diet.


What's the "wise" answer when the epistemic distance is important?

It is for this reason that upaya, skillful means, exists. Sometimes you have to trick people onto the right path by appealing to what makes sense in their subjective universe. Perception is subjective (~illusory), so creating the right perception can be very effective. This is the true meaning of the "rainbow body".


What are the arguments Yogacara makes to deny the reality of sensory objects?

They don't believe that.  That's an almost universal misunderstanding.  Yogacara doesn't make any ontological statements about the universe, perception, reality, and so forth.  Their approach was strictly soteriological.  They were exclusively concerned with liberating the mind, not with describing things as they are.  What Yogacara is concerned about is how the mind (store house consciousness and "I-making" consciousness) "perfumes" and "transforms" the sensory gates and how that in turn impacts perception.  You aren't seeing a chair, for instance, but rather your entire life history, memories, prejudices, etc. dealing with chairs.  That means that the chair you see isn't the same chair that someone at, say, the Buddha's time would see even if you were looking at the same object.  Something that you might take to be a pretty shoddy looking recliner, after all, might be a veritable throne to them!
This has very real implications when it comes to liberation.  Our personal histories impact not just our existential lives but even the very way we deal with and perceive the world.  Our habituated, unenlightened perception makes us miss so much of what's actually there.  We don't see the spaces between things, we don't perceive the energy, and we are wholly negligent of the emptiness that is always there.  Hell, we don't even hear properly.  Yogacara training (especially as manifested in Zen koan study) seeks to reacquaint us with what we are missing...not to assert any concepts regarding the nature of reality.


I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say?

Dogen quotes from Goodreads on the internet

Life and death are of supreme importance. Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Each of us should strive to awaken. Awaken! Take heed, do not squander your life.

This dew-like life will fade away; avoid involvement in superfluous things.

There is a simple way to become buddha: When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate toward all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not excluding or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you will be called a buddha. Do not seek anything else.

One must be deeply aware of the impermanence of the world.

It's too late to be ready.


Is fourth precept personal and depends on the individual?

The precept is very clear:

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
  Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Musāvādā comes from two words: musā, which means neglectfully, falsely, or wrongly; and vadati which means to speak. Musāvādā as a noun simply means "a lie". The language is clear: this precept means not to tell lies.

If you are asked how you are and you respond with "I'm fine" when you're not fine, you've told a lie: it is false speech.

If you say food tastes delicious but it really doesn't, you've told a lie: it is false speech.

Do these "white lies" break the precept? By the simple language of the precept, yes. One might tell these kinds of lies to avoid giving lengthy explanations of our health or moods, or to avoid offending someone when we don't like their cooking. But to lie is to break the fourth precept, regardless of the reason for the lie.

What can we do? Use a skillful approach to responding that does not require telling a lie. "How are you doing?" even if you are miserable can be answered with another truthful statement, such as "Oh, I've been very busy" (assuming you've been very busy). "How is dinner?" could be answered with "I'm enjoying it greatly" if you are in fact enjoying it (which isn't the same thing as liking the taste specifically; it's entirely possible to enjoy a meal without liking the taste if you're enjoying other aspects of the meal, such as the opportunity to be with friends and family, or perhaps the opportunity to eat mindfully and regard the flavors of the food even if they're not your favorite).

To follow this precept is to keep your speech pure. If the precepts were easy to follow, we wouldn't need them! Avoiding false speech requires great skill and thoughtful responses, but we can all do it.


How do the concepts of anatta, rebirth and karma coexist together?

Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,

"Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?"

to which you replied,

"If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically."

Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.
To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.

"How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?"

What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.
Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of anatta which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.
I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)


Can someone provide a transliteration of Sri Lankan script following the western Pali standard?

Google translate Singhala

If you type Pali you get the Romanised version below the text.

Also, this might be helpful: Sinhala script - Use for the Pali language


So far I have found three texts providing more or less clear interpretation of Buddhism as ancient form of applied semiotics:

A 2003 article by Mario D'Amato titled "The semiotics of signlessness: A Buddhist doctrine
of signs":

  [There is a] distinction between an analysis of Buddhist semiotics and a semiotic analysis of Buddhism: While the former would be an analysis of a Buddhist doctrine of signs (as, for example, is given in this paper), the latter would be a semiotic analysis of Buddhist cultural forms.

  ...

  Through seizing on the signs or characteristics of things, mind functions according to a conceptual matrix that is not in accordance with the way things really are, and this occurrence is the very basis of suffering. Thus, to give a semiotic interpretation to the three entrances to nirvana — signlessness, desirelessness, and emptiness — if signs and semiotic processes were to be properly understood, signifying could be brought to an end, seizing on things would terminate, and the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena would be realized.

  ...

  The ultimate goal is not to ‘regress’ to a pre-semiotic condition, but rather to arrive at a completely perfected mode of semiosis wherein there is no longer a barrier between the sign and reality itself: When everything has been signified, when the sign encompasses all possible interpretants (signs), then a state of semiotic perfection has been attained and semiosis has been brought to its completion.

  ...

  Thus, all phenomena (all signifieds) are to be ultimately understood
  as nothing more than conceptual constructions. And because there are
  ultimately no objects, there is nothing for signs to refer to. Hence, the
  highest awakening entails the end of semiosis.

  ...

  The perfected signifier is
  reality itself. ...  I take this to imply that the perfected
  signifier should be understood in terms of Peirce’s category of firstness. ... The perfected signifier is thusness itself, without the mediation of discursivity and without unreal imagination.

Chapters 9-14 of Nalin Swaris' 1997 PhD dissertation titled "The Buddha's Way: A Socio-Historical Approach". Can be purchased on Amazon or downloaded here:

  The Buddha developed a method for realising in practice what Derrida understood in theory. That is to say a way of achieving "bare perception" and realising "signless freedom of the mind"

  ...

  Humans suffer because of their ignore-ance of the true character of actuality as impermanent and without substance. Ordinarily, we do not see mere things or beings. We perceive them in terms of what they mean to us - 'good for me'/ 'bad for me'. In other words see not things, but signs, and we measure everything in relation to our interests. As a result beings and things trigger lust or hatred in us. We are not aware of what transmutes perceived forms into signs of lust or hate. It is therefore far more important to understand, not so much how things come into
  existence - ontogenesis - but semiosis - the processes by which everything in the universe is converted into 'Signs'. People live under the sway of signs which are identified by names. ...  It is by turning an ephemeral form into a fixed 'thing' that it can be made an object of lust, hatred and delusion. The diagnosis is illuminating. Lust, hate and delusion are not the result of qualities intrinsic to what is perceived. It is the gaze of the beholder which, under the sway of craving, transforms perceived
  forms into lustful, hateful or delusive 'things'. ... Craving transforms
  what is pleasant into lustful objects. But how does craving achieve this? Sariputta lays bare the stratagem - "lust is a sign-maker; hate is sign-maker; delusion is a sign-maker".

  ...

  Suññatā ... is emptying the mind of signs and liberating it
  from its sign-making proclivity - the habitual compulsion to project significations on to percepts. Overcoming this compulsion, says Sariputta, is animitta cetovimutti - "signless liberation of the mind". It is nibbanic freedom. It is liberation from what the Buddha called "the tyranny of names".

A 2008 article by Mario D'Amato, "Buddhism, Apophasis, Truth" says:

  According to Buddhist semiotics, there is a significant sense in which semiosis itself is systematically deceptive, binding one further to cyclic existence. According to Buddhist metaphysics, conditioned phenomena—phenomena which comprise “the world,” including whatever we refer to as “the self”—are radically impermanent and without inherent nature or essence. Signs, on the other hand, function to posit stable entities where there are none, affixing inherent natures onto hypostatized existents. While phenomena are in flux, signs posit enduring objects. While phenomena are without essence, signs posit essential natures. Signs point to a realm of stable referents, but the purported “objects” to which they refer are always on the move. So coming to a proper understanding of semiosis, and bringing about its end or terminus through a radical transformation, is understood in Buddhist traditions to be one of the very “doors to deliverance.”

  ...

  This is understandable insofar as according to certain
  strands of Buddhist thought, the fundamental cause of suffering, or the
  fundamental problem that must be overcome, is some form of conceptualization (sajñā), conceptual discrimination (vikalpa), conceptual construction (parikalpa), or conceptual proliferation (prapañca) — in short, the fundamental problem is some form of semiosis.

  ...

  All of this seems to quite clearly imply that when the goal is attained, even Buddhism itself will not ultimately be taken to be true: when awakening is attained, Buddhist doctrine is to be left behind. In the end, Buddhism should serve as a means of achieving the realization of signlessness, an attainment which dissolves the possibility for affirming any truth at all.


Is there really a story in the Pali Canon about a layman running away from home AFTER having attained arahantship?

As you found out on Reddit, the story sounds a lot like that of Yasa, who didn't of course become an Arahant before meeting the Buddha, and certainly not in his sleep! But to your general question, stories of lay people who have become arahants and then left home do exist in the texts. A notable example that comes to mind is Khema Theri (see palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ku/khemaa.htm).

Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an arahant before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible.


What is the difference between a cula sotapanna and 'faith follower' ?

Definition of Faith follower and the timing of his attaining of stream-entry can be found in SN 25.1

  One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

About Cula-Sotapanna, Piya Tan's comment on SN 55.24

  The Buddha goes on to list six categories of persons who are assured of liberation, namely:

  (1) arhats,
  (2) non-returners,
  (3) once-returnres
  (4) stream-winners,
  (5) [truth-followers] those who accept the Dharma only after pondering over it with wisdom
  (dhammā paññāya mattaso nijjhānaṃ khamanti) who do not have quick and sharp wisdom
  and have not attained complete release, but who do possess the five faculties (pañc'indriyani)
  of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom [sutta §11]; and
  (6) [faith-followers] those who only possess the five faculties but who have mere faith (saddhā,matta) in and mere love (pema,matta) for the Buddha.

  The elder monks of old (poraṇaka thera) call such spiritually developed persons like (5) and (6) as "lesser
  stream-winners" (cūḷa,sotāpanna) or "maturing stream-winner" (bala,sotāpanna).


Life expectancy (Ayu-Kalpa) changes, but not related to any individual's progress. This is related to the whole society itself.

  Ayu-Kalpa - a variable time span representing the life expectancy of a typical human being in a particular era or yuga. This can be as high as one Asankya or as small as 10 years. This number is directly proportional to the level of virtue of people in that era. Currently this value hovers around 100 years and is continually decreasing.

Source: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kalpa

As society declines or improves life expectancy declines and improves. A rough outline is as follows:

stealing 1st & 2nd thieves given financial aid - 80,000 years
killing: 3rd thief executed; stealing grows - 80,000 years
beauty decline; killing is widespread - 40,000 years
lying: beauty declined further - 40,000 years
slander: some beautiful, some ugly - 20,000 years
sexual misconduct: the ugly coveted the beautiful - 10,000 years
harsh speech & idle chatter - 5000 years
covetousness & ill will - 2500 years (some 2000)
wrong view - 1000 years (some 500)
abnormal lust, excessive desire, deviant conduct - 500 years
disrespect towards all elders and the holy life - 250 years (some 200)
beauty declines further - 100 years
life-span at its shortest; widespread immorality & war - 10 years

Adopted from: Commentary on Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta


Are all forms of Dukkha related to a sense of self?

From the second noble truth, we know that suffering (dukkha) is caused by craving (tanha). From the third noble truth, we know that the cessation of suffering comes through the cessation of craving.

What is craving really?

From this answer, we learn that craving is a habit of reification or objectification-classification (papañca). I quote that answer here:

  Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a
  generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A
  child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply,
  because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is
  attractive and desirable.

  Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its
  fake promise to make you happy.

Meanwhile, in this question, I quoted Sutta Nipata 4.14:

  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the
  world?"
  "He should put an entire stop to the root of
  objectification-classifications (papañca): 'I am the thinker.'

  Commentary (Thanissaro):
  The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads into the
  immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
  thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
  into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
  perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
  must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
  granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
  inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
  drop them.

Now what is the notion of the self? It's a mental fabrication. It's a view. It's a thought in the mind.

Due to this deep-seated thought or view of "I am the thinker" i.e. the notion of the self, one reifies everything that is perceived through the six senses into objects and classifies them according to its relationship to the self. It creates the duality of self and non-self, as well as classifies the relationship of non-self things to the self e.g. this belongs to me, that does not belong to me. Without the notion of the self, this reification would not exist.

And craving is, as said above, just a habit of reification.

For e.g. when you look at food that looks interesting to you, you experience craving. When the food is not present and you think about it, that's clinging. When you try to get this food, but it is denied to you, you experience anger. If somebody else took the last piece of that food and it is denied to you, you feel jealous as you see them relishing it.

To you, that meat thing on the plate looks like delicious food. To a vegan, that may look repulsive.

Why is this the case? That thing on the plate is just a thing. It's your mind that objectified it and classified it as delicious food. The vegan's mind objectified it and classified it as repulsive food.

Isn't it delicious food, only relative to you (the self) and your eating preferences (some characteristic of your personality i.e. part of your self)?

To a honey bee, that meat thing on the plate is not even food, because that's not the kind of food that it eats. That's just dirt to the bee. The bee objectifies it and classifies it relative to its self.

So, all types of craving and clinging and views are all relative to your self. If there is no notion of self, then the (sight and smell of the) thing on the plate is just something on the plate, that evokes no emotion.

So, all forms of sufferings are indeed related to the notion of the self.


Do the Theravādins believe in the Buddhaguṇas?

According to the sutta below, the main difference between the Sammasambuddha and the Arhat is that a Sammasambuddha discovers the previously unknown (or forgotten) path, becomes an expert of the path and is able to explain and teach the path to others.

On the other hand, the monk freed by wisdom (and therefore an Arhat) does so, following the path taught by the Sammasambuddha.

The other qualities described in the suttas like psychic powers (e.g. Moggallana) or the ability to be an eloquent and articulate teacher (e.g. Sariputta), may also be obtained by an Arhat.

Please note that when I say Arhat above, I mean a non-Buddha Arhat. This distinction is important, because the Buddha is also an Arhat.

From SN 22.58:

  “Mendicants, a Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha
  is freed by not grasping, due to disillusionment, dispassion, and
  cessation regarding form. They’re called a fully awakened Buddha. A
  mendicant freed by wisdom is also freed by not grasping, due to
  disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding form. They’re
  called a mendicant freed by wisdom.

  A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha is freed by
  not grasping, due to disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation
  regarding feeling …

  perception …

  choices …

  consciousness. They’re called a fully awakened Buddha. A mendicant
  freed by wisdom is also freed by not grasping, due to disillusionment,
  dispassion, and cessation regarding consciousness. They’re called a
  mendicant freed by wisdom.

  What, then, is the difference between a Realized One, a perfected one,
  a fully awakened Buddha, and a mendicant freed by wisdom?”

  “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. He is our guide and our
  refuge. Sir, may the Buddha himself please clarify the meaning of
  this. The mendicants will listen and remember it.”

  “Well then, mendicants, listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”

  “Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

  “A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha gives rise
  to the unarisen path, gives birth to the unborn path, and explains the
  unexplained path. They know the path, understand the path, and are
  experts in the path. And now the disciples live following the path;
  they acquire it later.

  This is the difference between a Realized One, a perfected one, a
  fully awakened Buddha, and a mendicant freed by wisdom.”


Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent does it have substance?

Nothing that is substantial can be permanent. Only absences (including cessations) are permanent. This is Buddhism 101.

In the Mahayana, Nirvana is the cessation (a permanent absence, never to arise again) of suffering and the causes of suffering.

What does not cease (in the Mahayana) is the continuum of consciousness, which has flowed from beginningless time, and will continue to do so after nirvana; It is a continuum uncontaminated by suffering and it's causes.

The continuum itself is not permanent in that it changes momentarily, just as it does while in Samsara.

Within the scope of the Asanga Mahayana, and the Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Zen/Chan traditions especially, the continuum of mind is what persists - the base nature of awareness. When we; through choosing to use the mind as both the subject and object of our meditation; become aware of the conceptual narratives that determine our identities, and then strip them away, we are left with just the mirror-like awareness of the mental continuum. It is then that the opportunities of recognising that the narratives of time and being are mere constructs arise.  Within the scope of Nagarjuna's Mahayana (the Madhyamaka) we also use anti-philosophy to guide us to an understanding of the essence-lessness of all phenomena, which we believe to be the definitive meaning of Anatta.  Himalayan traditions use both Asanga and Nagarjuna together to provide both a conceptual and an experiential approach to achieving the path of insight.


Are there any recollections of past lives in the more grievous realms?

In the story of the commentary to Dhammapada 15, the Buddha recalls somebody's past lives:

  Once, in a village not far away from the Veluvana monastery, there
  lived a very cruel and hard-hearted pork-butcher, by the name of
  Cunda. Cunda was a pork-butcher for over fifty-five years; all this
  time he had not done a single meritorious deed. Before he died, he was
  in such great pain and agony that he was grunting and squealing and
  kept on moving about on his hands and knees like a pig for seven whole
  days. In fact, even before he died, he was suffering as if he were in
  Niraya (hell). On the seventh day, the pork-butcher died and was reborn in
  Avici Niraya (worst hell). Thus, the evil-doer must always suffer for the evil
  deeds done by him; he suffers in this world as well as in the next.

  In this connection, the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

  Verse 15: Here he grieves, hereafter he grieves; the evil-doer grieves
  in both existences. He grieves and he suffers anguish when he sees the
  depravity of his own deeds.


Unless you are, at least, a Sotapanna, everything you experience is mundane.


Is it useful (and polite) to ask a potential meditation teacher about their attainments?

Worrying about whether something is polite or not is a hindrance. I am sure some practitioners would find it offensive but if they are offended that probably tells you all you need to know.
If you have yet to obtain the Jhanas then there are probably others who are still more advanced than you who have not yet obtained them either. The way I see it, anyone who is beyond you can be a good teacher and anyone who you are beyond can be a good student.
According to the Thana Sutta:

It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period...

You can't really know simply by asking.


Why does my mind feel slow to think nearly half day after my meditation?

Re: mind feeling "very slow", "very slow to think of anything" -- when someone tells you something, can you reply immediately without thinking? That's a sign of good meditation.

If your "very slow to think of anything" just means you are going around basically without thoughts, and you can respond to anything spontaneously with no blockages / no doubts - that's good. While, if your "mind very slow" means you can't respond - that means your meditation was basically cultivation of sloth/torpor.

It is said, if your meditation is wrong it can be a cause of being reborn in an animal world! Meaning, if in your meditation you generate "laxity", then you are only training in making your mind dull, like the mind of a cow or sheep! So you need to know what is laxity in real experience, and must be able to recognize it when it arises. Laxity is when your mind is not sharp and bright during meditation. Meditation mind should be very sober, not like a drunk mind or sleeping mind.


How do we apply reincarnation to phenomena such as reproduction by binary fission (amoeba) and creating animals like Dolly the sheep from a single sell?Also, why the population is rising in the animal kingdom including humans, surely, it cannot be other beings from different realms are coming to earth.
I am so confused about this although I am a practising Buddhist.

If you want to become an even more confused Buddhist, then keep pondering this :)
If not, then stop pondering this and go practice.
You might also want to take a look at the Four Imponderables:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

These imponderables the Buddha advices not to contemplate, since they will only agitate and destabilize the mind, making it less suitable for practice.


Do beings have control where they get re-incarnated

According to the Mata Sutta (SN 15.14-19):

  At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

  "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

In the Assu Sutta, the Buddha taught that the amount of tears that one person has shed in all his previous lifetimes added together would exceed the volume of water found in the four great oceans.

I made a calculation in this answer based on the Assu Sutta, to show that according to the Buddha, we have all been reborn no less than 20 quintillion (20 x 1018) times. However, since the Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident", I guess that it should be far greater than 20 quintillion times, perhaps approaching infinity.

In the Mata Sutta, the Buddha reinforces this point by saying that it's hard to find somebody in existence whom you have never had anything to do with.

In other words, your finding that you are probably born among relatives from former lifetimes is true, because almost every person you meet in your life was a relative in some former lifetime. In fact, every human being currently living on Earth may have been somebody you have known in a previous lifetime.


What is the Origin and History of Milindapanha?

Summarizing briefly from the introduction to the translation and analysis by A.V. Paribok:

The ancient parts are Book 2 and parts of Book 1 -- most likely written in Punjab (North-Western India) about 0 CE. The language of the original was probably Hybrid Sanskrit.

Book 1 (the narrative introduction) was evidently expanded and elaborated at a later time, probably to make it better fit with Theravada - the late parts include: the story of monks traveling to the heavens, Nagasena's birth, his travel to Pataliputra, Buddha's prediction of Nagasena's birth, the episode of Nagasena teaching Abhidharma expanded with TOC of Theravada's Abhidharma-pitaka.

Book 2 is the MP proper, ending with "In Milindapanha the questions and answers are finished".

The next part is Book 3 (the largest), written in 1st-2nd century CE, probably still in Hybrid Sanskrit. The way it explains controversial Buddha's quotes by interpreting them either as ultimate teaching or a mere provisional guidance, can be seen as an early element of Mahayana.

Books 2 and 3 are evidently the most interesting parts of Milindapanha as far as Buddhist teaching and philosophy.

Books 4-6 were written even later, most likely in Ceylon - already in Pali language. Of them book 4 is the earliest, written as a response to the question about existence of Buddha in Book 2 Chapter 5. Book 5 is written to address the unanswered question of Book 1: why go forth as a monk if the Goal can be attained in lay life. Book 6 was written even later, imitating the style of books 4 and 5.

The content of the text in its present form has probably stabilized by 500 CE.

In Theravada, Milindapanha is considered the middle ground between the Canon and the commentaries - because the commentaries often quote MP. Although it seems clear that MP belongs to the Sthavira family of schools (as opposed to Maha-sangha) - however when analyzed critically, MP does not exactly match the teaching of any single school, clearly mismatching Theravada on many points.

For those who'd like to read MP online, the versions I find available are T. W. Rhys David's early translation circa 1890 and Bhikkhu Pesala's highly abridged and simplified version - which he himself calls "free rendering". Unfortunately Horner's translation titled "Milinda's Questions" is only available in hard copy and the cost is prohibitive. Access To Insight has excerpts from Books 2 and 3.

There is also an abridged version edited by  N. K. G. Mendis which is based on Horner's translations with some borrowings from T.W. Rhys David plus editor's own translation - this is supposed to be pretty good to deserve Bhikkhu Bodhi's endorsement but I'm not entirely convinced the editor was not biased to Theravada school.


The "passion" you talk about sounds like a craving for something which you haven't defined. Your question seems to be asking, "I crave something (I crave something to feel passionate about), but I don't know how to find the object of my craving. Can Buddhism tell me how to find what I crave?"

I think that basic Buddhism teaches one to recognize that "craving" as the source of dissatisfaction.

If your craving were for the sense-pleasure or the feeling-pleasure of an addictive drug (cocaine for example), I think that Buddhism would recommend that you seek less of it rather than seeking more.

The "happiness" you mention at the end sounds to me like it might be Sukha. I think there are several sources of sukha (i.e. several conditions, several types of activity which condition sukha), for example such as listed in the Pali literature section of that Wikipedia article.

Someone once lent me a book, titled The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness, which I recommend. It organizes, summarizes, and references suttas which contain practical advice for laypeople. There are a lot of them! It has various chapters: about earning, saving, and spending money; having good relationships with people; making good decisions; and so on.


Devas as gods in buddhism ,is it a corruption of original teachings..?

In buddhism there are 31 realms of existence and each realm is inhabited by beings: animal, petas, asuras, humans, devas, brahmas.

Now these are just inhabitants: beings with different appearances and abilities according to their kamma.

Now if we translate brahma as god then it is different form the Hindu brahma in that the buddhist brahma does not create the universe etc.. buddhist do not unite with brahma in the end. Buddhist brahma dies after a few hundred aeons etc...

These are some of the definitions of the buddhist brahma which is different from the Hindu brahma.
See Buddhism and the Brahma concept


Help me to understand the concept of Svalakshan & Savikalpaka jnana intuitively

Shcherbatskoy wrote in "Buddhist Logic" (translating Dharmakirti's Logic Manual) something like this:

Senses can directly perceive only one 'moment', but there is a 'chain of moments' that enters our consciousness, thanks to the activity of mentation (which unites them in regard to that moment) on the basis of sensual perception.
Only a chain of moments can enter the consciousness on the basis of perception, because one moment cannot be apprehended by consciousness.

As I understand, it means we build our knowledge not on the basis of those momentary discrete appearances, but on the basis of something like their superpositions, somehow prolonged in time.
But that leads me to another question: are these momentary and discrete things actually real?
It seems possible that "momentary" and "discrete" are just our ideas.
Maybe there's nothing really "momentary and discrete" at all.
PS to explain more:
(1) More on Svalakshana, read Shcherbatskoy: The Buddhist Logic. It's a well known book, where he translates and comments Dharmakirti. I have only Russian edition, so I myself translated the quotation above to English, which might introduce some inaccuracies, as I'm not a native speaker.
Also I found an interesting article by Victoria Lysenko, who explored exactly those problems - sense perception (pratyaksha), conceptualizations, etc. In an article "Svalakshana" in Russian Encyclopedia "Philosophy of Buddhism" she says that Svalakshana is somehow a controversial term, understood differently in Sautrantika and Yogachara.
http://www.fshq.ru/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY_Svalakshana.html
I don't know is there this text anywhere in English, so here is the Google-translation with several my corrections:

Svalakshana
[The opposition] Svalakshana - samanya-lakshana (Sanskrit svalakshana: literally "characterizing / defining itself". Sämänya-lakshana: "defining through the common [with others]") - the terms of the epistemology of the Dignaga and Dharmakirti schools, denoting individual, concrete, singular, unique - "particularity", in contrast to the general characteristic - "universalia". Svalakshana is something that is perceived in itself, as a reality, independent of any other things, whereas samanya-lakshana is the result of comparison, comparison of the given perception with something else, or their perception in some capacity, in some role, in otherness. Between them there is an impassable abyss: the svalakshanas are changeable, or rather, instantaneous (see Kshanikavada), and the general characteristics, on the contrary, are stable. Since reality, from the POV of Buddhists, is a discrete flow of dynamical point events - dharmas, then svalakshanas are real, while Samanya-lakshanas are mentally constructed.
The opposition Svalakshana - Samanya-lakshana goes back to the abhidharmic opposition of the truly existing (dravyasat) and nominal (prajnaptisat) dharmas, where the former are endowed with their own nature (svabhava), and the latter are declared unreal. In abhidharma schools, svalakshana is the self-nature of the phenomenon, distinguishing it from other phenomena, or a specifying characteristic (eg, svalakshana of Earth - resistance, of Fire - burning, etc.). Ontologically, S. - S.-l. become these units of analysis in the philosophy of Dignaga-Dharmakirti.
Dharmakirti puts forward a number of criteria that distinguish svalakshana from samanya-lakshana: the ability to produce effects in the form of expedient actions (artha-kriya-shakti), dissimilarity [with nothing else] (asadrishta), nonspecificity by word, perceptibility regardless of any other factors (such as agreements on the use of words, etc.) (Pramana-Varttika III, 1-2).
According to Dharmakirti, actual existing svalakshanas are perceived in two ways: in their own form (svarupa) and in the form of something else (pararupa), i.e. in the form of generalization. Hence two tools of reliable knowledge (pramana): direct perception (nirvikalpaka-pratyaksha) - for svalakshanas, and logical cognition (anumana) - for samanya-lakshanas.
If there is almost no disagreement in the interpretation of Samanya-lakshana, since this term is unambiguously associated with mental construction (kalpana, vikalpa), which is in Buddhist Epistemological School of Dignaga-Dharmakirti belongs to the category of non-genuine, conditionally-true being (parikalpita; see Trisva-bhava), then there are different, often mutually exclusive opinions about the much more complex and ambiguous concept of svalakshana, sometimes even from the same author. For example, Shcherbatskoy, on the one hand, saw in this term an analogue of the Kantian noumena and "things in themselves"; on the other hand, he likened the svalakshanas to "sensory data", sense data, sensibilia (Stcherbatsky 1930, vol. 1, p. 68, 79, 87 ). The difficulty of interpreting Svalakshana is that in the teachings of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the position of the epistemological idealism of Yogachara is combined with realistic position of Sautrantika. Amar Singh, criticizing Shcherbatskoy's attempt to bring the concept of Svalakshanas closer to Yogachara idealism, notes that the real opposition of the Svalakshana as the ultimately particular object of perception to Samanya-laksana as an object of logical cognition is possible only within the realistic theory of knowledge of Sautrantika (Singh 1984). From the point of view of Sautrantikas, cognition does not deal with external objects, but only with their representations in consciousness - sensory data, which, however, are caused by objectively existing external stimuli. It is these stimuli that are called in Sautrantika Svalakshanas. From the position of Yogacharas, once cognition is independent of external objects, svalakshanas can only be sensory data. In the works of Dharmakirti, the term svalakshana is used, as a rule, in the context of the realism of Sautrantika. However, here arises the problem of the relationship between the Svalakshanas and their sensory reflections in cognition, images (abhasa, akara): are these images similar or different to their svalakshans?! Are svalakshanas noumenas or are they knowable?
Dharmakirti did not give direct, unambiguous and consistent answers to these questions. First, he adhered to the Sautrantikan concept of similarity (sarupya) between the cognitive image and his real prototype, i.e. external object (see Sakaravada - Nirakaravada), and secondly, he acknowledged that the svalakshanas are "grasped" (grahya) by pratyaksha (sensory perception, sensation), which implies that they can not be noumenal. But then in what sense can we speak about their inaccessibility to verbal expression? In Buddhist epistemology this is explained, first, due to the instantaneousness of the Svalakshanas (see Kshanikavada), because of which they can not be objects of empirical experience, which is a mixture of instantaneous sensations with their conceptualization - kalpana (only buddhas and other enlightened beings are able to recognize kshanas), and secondly, by Buddhist nominalism - the conviction that the meaning of words is only mentally designed universalia. Therefore, the verbal ineffability of Svalakshanas does not imply their transcendence in relation to perception. Against the noumenality of the Svalakshanas is also the fact that Dharmakirti speaks of Svalakshanas as atoms (paramanu - meaning Buddhist "phenomenal" atoms of colors, tastes, etc. qualities). Though, he does not develop this idea; so researchers argue about whether he understands by Svalakshanas individual atoms or their clusters (samchita) and, accordingly, whether the atoms generate one sensation (sensum, eg, a color spot) or a set of atomic sensations, which are then synthesized into color spots.
Analysis of new sources, inaccessible in the times of Scherbatskoy, especially Skt. and Tib. commentaries of the followers of Dharmakirti, allow to better understand the dilemma faced by the Buddhist philosopher. If he recognizes that the svalakshanas are single atoms, then this will contradict the Buddhist postulate of the non-perceivability of individual atoms (from the POV of Buddhists, atoms are perceived only in mass, like hair); but if he would assert that these are aggregations of atoms, he will face the objection that the accumulation of atoms, as representing "single in many", is actually a universal (samanya-lakshana), and, cognizing it, sensory perception turns to be conceptual (Pramana Varttika III. 194). In response to this objection, Dharmakirti denies the possibility for one object to be both single and multiple at the same time, citing the example of a multicolor on the wings of a butterfly, which is perceived as a single color (the reference to the well-known concept of the "motley" color "chitra" in the Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya schools, which is not a collection of different colors, but an independent color). According to the commentators, Dharmakirti interpreted the cluster (samchita) of atoms not as a whole (avaya-vin), different from the sum of its parts (avaya), but as an impulse acquired by each individual atom as a result of the impulses of other individual atoms entering the causal complex (hetu-samagri), which generates the sensible given. Since in Dharmakirti's teachings it is the Svalakshanas that are causally effective (artha-kriya-karitva) stimuli of perception, and therefore the only real entities, they should be identified not as a collective impulse of all atoms, but rather as a complex of interdependent impulses of individual atoms (Dunne 2004, p.103-109). This interpretation ultimately proves to be close to one of Shcherbatskoy's interpretations, who often compared svalakshana to energy point-moment. ("External object is not matter, but energy ... reality is instantaneous and consists of moment-points, which are centers of energy" - Shcherbatsky 1930, vol. I, p. 510).
However, the question remains open: what is the content of this sensory given - a mere reflection of the Svalakshanas, which by definition are non-spatial, - or it is an image, for example, of a color (a color spot) having a spatial extent? Dharmakirti does not give an answer, but it is obvious that the lack of spatiality of the Svalakshanas jeopardizes the principle of congruity (sarupya) of the cognitive image and its external referent, to which he was committed. Critical analysis of the concept of S. - s.-l. of Dignaga and Dharmakirti was performed by the Madhyamik-Prasangik Chandrakirti.
REFERENCES: Stcherbatsky Th. The Buddhist Logic. Vol. 1-2. Leningrad, 1930-1932; Singh A. The Heart of Buddhist Philosophy - Dinnâga and Dharmakïrti. D., 1984. P. 117-137; Dunne JD Foundations of Dharmakïrti's Philosophy. Bost., 2004. P. 91-113; Arnold D. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. NY, 2005.
V.G. Lysenko. Source - Encyclopedia Philosophy of Buddhism - Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy

That's an interesting text, and there are more interesting articles by Lysenko - on Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Vasubandhu, Vachaspati Mishra etc., e.g. "What is immediate perception? The Buddhist answer". Download PDF here: http://www.iias.asia/sites/default/files/IIAS_NL44_2021.pdf
or from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/8135589/What_is_immediate_perception_The_Buddhist_answer
(2) So if you asked what I think, I approach it from Madhyamaka (as I understand it). Or, in modern logic, from what they call "constructivism". How did ideas of "momentary" and "discrete" appear in our thinking?
They might look self-evident, from the point of view of our experience:

a book moved by my hand seems to be a discrete object;
and an idea of "zero-length moment" comes from imagining a frozen cut of the world...

But does "zero-length moment" have any reality except being our imagined concept?
No.
Then are we sure that separate moments exist at all - even of non-zero length?
What if the world and the time are not discrete at all, in any sense?
Then how can we speak of elementary constituents of our perception as discrete momentary things?
Did you ever perceive really discrete momentary perceptions? Even a flash of lightning is not a discrete perception, because it has a "tail" of subsiding blindness.
So isn't "discreteness of moments" just a mental construction which we use to cut the world in our imagination?
I.e., "discreteness" might belong only to our mental constructing, but not to primary sensory data or their sources.
Do these questions make sense?
Then, speaking about discrete things, are they really discrete, or that discreteness exists only in our modeling of the world?
Is the book in my hand really discrete thing, or that is just an illusion, developed in my mind?


Can bhavanga-consciousness be compared to the non-dual mind-state rigpa?

Generally speaking it is difficult to compare assertions made about the mind from different cultures many centuries apart.

For example the Theravādins invented the bhavaṇgacitta for a specific purpose. There is a fundamental problem in Buddhist philosophy. Pratītyasamutpāda tells us that conditions must be present for effects to manifest (imassmim sati idam hoti) and that when the condition ceases the effect also ceases (imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati). However the idea of karma requires that effects (vipāka) manifest long after the condition (kamma) has ceased. The two do not work together. I call this the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance.

In order to get around this early Buddhists invented several different new ideas. The Theravādins opted for the the idea that each dhamma is very short-lived and acts as the condition for a similar dhamma to arise immediately afterwards. This creates an unbroken chain of short-lived mental events that accounts for karmic effects long after the action that set them in motion.

But it has a number of downstream problems.

One is that we go to sleep everyday and consciousness stops in deep sleep. The bhavaṅgacitta is like a neutral gear for the mind, it keeps ticking over while the mind is inactive when we are asleep or at other times such as deep meditation when sense experience stops, or even when we stare vacantly at the view and there are no thoughts in our minds.

Another problem the bhavaṅgacitta solves is that a wholesome mental event (kusala citta) cannot give rise to an unwholesome mental event (akusala citta). And because our minds alternate between kusala and akusala cittas there needs to be some way to get from one to the other. So the Theravādins say that when this happens a moment of bhavaṅgacitta has to be interposed.

The fact is that while this was satisfactory to medieval Buddhists the scheme doesn't really work, even on it's own terms. See The Logic of Karma.

I'm much less familiar with the Dzogchen idea of "Ground Luminosity", but it looks to be influenced by another solution to the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance, the Yogācāra. In this view a metaphor from early Buddhism was taken up by Vasubandhu and reified by his followers. They liken an action to a seed and invoke the analogy of how the seed is planted in the ground and watered and eventually grows into a tree. Early Buddhists often used analogies from nature to try to explain their theories. The metaphor is that kamma is a seed. And of course the analogy requires a metaphorical "ground" for the seed to be planted in. And so the ālayavijñāna was invented as the metaphorical ground for the metaphorical seed to complete the analogy. Unfortunately Buddhists often lose sight of metaphors and reify them. The metaphor of ālayavijñāna as ground for karma seeds, became a real thing - an aspect of our minds that underlies all consciousness. Never mind that this becomes more or less identical to Brahmanical ideas of ātman/brahman and is thus eternalist. Not only does the underlying basis of consciousness become a real thing, but some meditative experiences are interpreted as contact with this luminous substrate - just as Brahmins had earlier mistaken such experiences for direct contact with Brahman centuries earlier.

So no, the two ideas can't really be compared. Although at root they seem to stem from the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance and they both amount to reified metaphors. They may even amount to two different traditions interpreting similar meditative experiences according to their ideologies. But the interpretations themselves are not the same.


The healing Bodhi tree for Shakyamuni Buddhas long term sitting?

Does the Bodhi tree actually have medicinal properties as some Buddhists claim?

Maybe it does? For example, Phytopharmacology of Ficus religiosa references studies which say it does. I can't judge whether these are good/reliable studies (questioning the reliability of those studies might be a good question for Skeptics.SE if you really want to pursue it).

Are the medicinal properties sufficient enough in explaining away the pressure sores we would expect to find on Shakyamuni's body through his prolonged meditation model (years)?

I can't say I'm an expert on pressure sores, I'm not sure what to expect.

Bicyclists for example can sit on their saddle for hours and days on end, partly because they have become physically accustomed to it through practice/use.

Also, for what it's worth and for example, to prevent pressure sores in a bed-ridden geriatric patient, this paper says,

  When older adults are admitted to a hospital or a nursing home, caregivers should inquire how often patients will be repositioned, Edsberg says. She suggests ascertaining the facility’s policy on repositioning. “It’s recommended that the patient be repositioned every two hours,” she says. “Caregivers might want to consider being proactive in enforcing this by setting a timer in the patient’s room so that it’s not forgotten.”

It also recommends good nutrition. Anyway, that confirms my preconception that occasional repositioning is important (and is used) to help prevent pressure sores.

See also this topic, Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree, which questions whether the Buddha "sat and did not move for days"... a meditator might change position occasionally.

Also I presume that Gautama maybe did develop sores and so on, when he was practicing during his ascetic period.

I suppose that ideally to answer this question you might like a comparative (double-blind) study of people sitting on Bodhi tree leaves, or something like that (I don't know of such a study); or an answer from someone with personal experience of it.


In my opinion, the linchpin teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of no-self. It is the pillar that holds the entire foundation, and once it falls, enlightenment is inevitable.

You have made a very common jump in logic that will hold you until you free yourself. You have two contradicting beliefs that will never allow you to progress in your path to freedom as long as they remain.

  Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?

You must not ask if mind belongs to you. By asking that question, you have already jumped to the conclusion that there is a “you” it can belong to. Ask instead if your mind is you. The teaching of no self can only be understood if we question the assumptions we make about ourselves. Do not ask if something belongs to you. Try instead to find yourself. Right now it may seem so obvious who you are, but the more you look, the harder it is to find.

  Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

No-self is not a practice. It is an instantaneous realization that causes the end of all suffering and a clear view of Nirvana. Understanding it experientially as opposed to logically is the end of the journey and utterly life changing.

All you need to do to inquire deeply about no self is to follow the following steps.

Think about something you identify as a part of yourself.
Ask yourself, does this thing ever change? When it changes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, does this thing come and go? When it goes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, is this thing essential? If it were gone, would I no longer exist?

Hopefully at the end of your inquiry, you will come to the conclusion that that thing is not you. If find it essential, send me an email and let me know because I’d love to know. =]

Continue this over time to slowly rid yourself of the beliefs you hold onto that keep you from seeing the world unfiltered. The only way to truly understand no-self, is to realize all the facts you have about who you are are actually beliefs. Then you must understand all your beliefs are incorrect. If you do so, eventually you will see the world as it is, which can not be done from the perspective of a human being.

I hope this was helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.


Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"?

As i understand it they think that those who do a ceremonial ritual of taking the Bodhisatta vows become Bodhisattas. I may be wrong tho.


If you can give more details on the type of meditation and your current situation -- like anger, and whether 'I' is still there or not -- helpers here might reach you.

Assuming that you are doing sensation-Vipassana, anger and 'I' have a comeback. As you mentioned, "less wondering thoughts" means that now you are able to see thoughts too.

It's a progress in meditation -- things coming and passing by, and you are aware of them. Your main focus must be to alter the defiled behaviour pattern by accepting the sensations and  thoughts as they are, and maintaining noble silence in front of them (this part of maintaining noble••• comes under practice of Citta-Vipassana).

What comes after anger?

Anger generates heat in body. Heat is due to sankharas. After anger seems to pass-by, leftover sankharas induce (or to be precise, divert mind to) other defiled characteristics like lust, memory-loss, frustration etc. These defilements, if  remain unseen wisely, enables anger to have a comeback.


Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

  On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

  one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,

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

  one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Titth’ayatana Sutta

  Cognizing a mental object with the mind, one examines the mental object as the basis for
  pleasure, or for pain, or for neither-pain-nor-pleasure

Saññā Nānatta Sutta

  Dependent on the mind-object element, there arises the perception of mind-object;

  dependent on the perception of mind-object, there arises the thought regarding mind-object;

  dependent on the thought regarding mind-object, there arises the desire for mind-object;

  dependent on the desire for mind-object, there arises the passion for mind-object;

  dependent on the passion for mind-object, there arises the searching for mind-object.

Here searching is for the pleasure the intellectual stimulation brought.

Also all 121 minds according to Theravada Abhidhamma is associated with sensation as the mental factors of sensation is present in each of them.

When dealing with any sensation from any source (Contact with Faculties, 4 Frames of Mindfulness) you have to look at the arising and passing of sensations. Use painful sensation to eradicate aversion, pleasant sensation to eradicate craving and neutral to eradicate ignorance. How to sensation tied to thoughts are as follows:

Adopted from Pahāna Sutta (also found in the introductory commentary as is). This goes for thoughts as well.

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

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

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

Avijja Pahana Sutta 2

  Here, bhikshu, the monk has learned [heard] that nothing is worth clinging to. And a monk has
  learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things. Having directly understood all
  things, he fully understands all things.

  Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs differently:

  He sees the mind differently; he sees mind-objects differently; he sees mind-consciousness differently;
  he sees mind-contact differently. Whatever that is pleasant, or painful, or neutral, that arises on
  account of mind-contact as condition, that, too, he sees differently.

  Monk, when a monk knows and sees thus, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge
  (vijja) arises.


Catuṣkoṭi or tretralemma is mostly made up by  intellectuals who commented on what they thought was the dhamma, and they tried to push their sloppy reasoning as the dhamma too, like Nagarjuna, so it is mostly in Mahayana. None of that stuff is strongly buddhist. The intellectual works like the Upanishads use it too, with their neti neti, and the jains also, to support exactly the same claim like Nagarjuna, ie ''you can't talk about reality'', ie the absolute truth cannot be said with conventional language. Buddhist intellectuals are not really rigorous logicians, even more so when compared to today logicians.
Plenty of people have tried to formalize the tretralemma like here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7744.pdf

Hence the interpretation of this modified catus.kot.i is: If somebody
denies all these alternatives, then he/she intends to mean by
abbreviation using the representatives that he/she declares that the
ultimate truth or the reality can- not be described by any formula of
any propositional calculus in which A is a generic formula.
Particularly any propositional calculus for which A is a sentence
letter doesn’t work to describe the reality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#LNCBudTet
In the sutras, the tetralemma is just rejecting a claim and also rejecting the negation of the claim. This is from the claim being ill-defined, completely out of topic. But intellectuals prefer to view it has a deep thing about reality.


Why are all the Buddhas born in Indian subcontinent only?

Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.


Do metta practices and anatta contradict each other?

"In general do these kinds of metta practice conflict with the annatta doctrine. I am assuming that they don't conflict as they are both fairly central in Buddhism. Given that, how are the two practices reconciled?"

I think this is something of a linguistic issue mixed with prescription/description issues -- and often discussions about "conventional" and "absolute" terms come up, etc.

For example, I can see a conflict through an ordinary/abstract approach (eg. if one disregard all that is context sensitive and assume words and meanings are fixed across the texts). Thus, the following show conflict (disregarding translation traps):

  May I be well
  May I be happy
  May I be free

And:

  To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

  -- SN 22.47:

This is a dead end. I think the issue is much like vaccine having the appearance of a contradiction: a person is cured by making her ill. The details that are important to make a better sense of it are implicit or words are too overloaded.

On a different approach, consider again an instruction to repeat the metta quote above:

If one repeats it without actively manifesting anything these words denote, one is probably exercising little more than memory by doing the repetitions.
On the other hand, if one directs the mind towards "giving" wellness, happiness and freedom, then a metta exercise is going on, in that it is expected the associated faculties to get stronger.
Now, if whatever is done while repeating, a reinforcement of a doctrine of "self" takes place, a reinforcement of wrong view happens, I guess this is the "contradiction".

So, even though the target of metta alluded to is "yourself", I believe it should be taken in the conventional sense (much as "you" and "I" are used by the Buddha), without reinforcing an illusory notion of "self". And it certainly is an important practice. For example, many struggle with self acceptance, remorse and lack of compassion towards oneself, which is not only a source of suffering but a crosscutting obstruction (may affect how one treats others, affects all kinds of things like health, humor, energy, obfuscate our views, makes it much harder to get into deeper meditation, or to jhana states, etc).


Cetana is executed by action, speech and thinking.

Samma Sankappa - Right Thinking
Samma Vaca - Right Speech
Samma Kammantha - Right Action

So the difference is Cetana includes speech and action where as Sankappa by itself only includes thinking.

Please note that "Right" here is explained properly by Samma Ditti and doesn't mean right action in general sense (eg. Teaching, Nursing).


Right view is the leader ('forerunner') of the path.
When you realize idle chatter leads to more dukkha, this is right view leading your speech.
When the mind maintains right speech in communication, this is right mindfulness.
In actually practising the path, right view & right mindfulness work together, as described below:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong speech as wrong speech and right speech
as right speech.
One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong speech & for entering right speech: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right speech.
Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty


The other answer on this site was fine in its essence, spirit, purpose & intent.

There is the unwholesome 'remorse' or 'guilt' (kukkucca), which is a hindrance; and there is the wholesome 'sense of shame' (hiri), which is a virtue and one of the five gates to Dhamma.

As the other answer on this site implied shame towards unskilful deeds is for a Buddha a means of learning a lesson and moving beyond guilt & remorse.

The Lord Buddha said:

  He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.

  He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.

  For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble
  ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.