How are Prasangika and Svātantrika different?

First, the Gelug and the Nyingma presentations of the Prasangika system vary (in particular with respect to other-emptiness / self-emptiness). My answer is from the Gelug standpoint.

Second, I am confident that the following references would answer your questions:

Editor's introduction to The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham,
Editor's introduction to Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham, and
The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?

Prasangika give a short definition of conventional truth:

  An object found by a mind distinguishing conventionalities.

While the short definition of ultimate truth is:

  An object found by a mind distinguishing the ultimate.

Although the Svatantrika definitions differ, these two help understand the issue at hand. The definition mentions what consciousness has one or the other truth as its object: in one case, "a mind distinguishing conventionalities", in the other "a mind distinguishing the ultimate." It is important to understand what a conventional valid cognizer and an ultimate valid cognizer are, because they apprehend different objects. A conventional valid cognizer apprehends conventional truths while the mind analyzing the ultimate apprehends ultimate truth, the lack of inherent existence. Nihilist think that, since a mind analyzing the ultimate does not find conventionalities (i.e. all it finds is the absence of inherent existence, emptiness) then conventionalities are utterly non-existent. This is the reason why Khedrup Je reminds us: not seeing sounds does not refute the existence of sounds... in the same way, not finding conventional truths with a mind of ultimate analysis does not refute the existence conventional truths. It is not because an Arya in meditative equipoise on emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, not apprehending any conventionality, that conventionalities are refuted. Conventional truths and ultimate truths are just the objects of two distinct cognizers, just like smells and sounds are the objects of two distinct consciousnesses.

Both Svatantrika and Prasangika assert that ultimate truth - the absence of inherent existence - is not found by any conventional valid cognizer: it is found only by the pristine wisdom realizing emptiness. This wisdom is a mind that we also call "mind distinguishing the ultimate", "mind of ultimate analysis", "mind analyzing the ultimate." Svatantrika posit that phenomena are empty of inherent existence ultimately because the mind of ultimate analysis apprehends the lack of inherent existence, but they are not empty of inherent existence conventionally because such emptiness is not found by any conventional valid cognizer. Khedrup Je says:

  Therefore, when [Svatantrika] explain that entities are natureless, it should be taken in the context of referring to an ultimate [nature, and should not be taken as denying that things exist from their own side]

Prasangika disagree with this assertion. They posit that inherent existence is utterly non-existent. Therefore, phenomena do not exist inherently, be it conventionally or ultimately. Emptiness of inherent existence is not found by any conventional valid cognizer but this does not entail that phenomena are empty only ultimately and not conventionally. According to Prasangika, phenomena are empty of inherent existence even conventionally, since inherent existence is a mode of existence that is refuted by ultimate analysis. Since emptiness of inherent existence is apprehended by an ultimate valid cognizer, its opposite –  inherent existence – must be utterly non-existent. Another way of saying is that inherent existence is not an object of knowledge of even conventional valid cognition. Therefore, no phenomena exist inherently in any way.

Both Jetsün Mipham and Geshe Dreyfus suggest that this distinction was overly emphasized by Prasangika while needed not be. It is the point of Geshe Dreyfus's book: What Difference Does a Difference Make? In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it also says:

  Those who, through practice associated with the view of the concordant ultimate, thus attain the experience of the ultimate truth in itself may be called either Prasangika or Svatantrikas depending on the way they make or do not make assertions in subsequent attainment. But one should know that in terms of their realization there is no difference between them. They are both in possession of the wisdom the Aryas.

Prasangika claim, however, that the object of negation asserted by Prasangika is not the same as that of the Svatantrika. Asserting that anything exist inherently in any way (as the Svatantrika do) is untenable. Therefore, according to Prasangika, only a proponent of Prasangika tenets is “in possession of the wisdom of the Aryas”. Indeed, we often believe that all Superiors (Aryas) must be Prasangika by tenets.

The thing is that Svatantrika posit a conventional analysis while Prasangika do not. Since they posit the entity of conventional valid cognizer differently, what these cognizers apprehend must differ as well. Prasangika argue that no conventionality is an object of analysis, but an object apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer that does not investigate the mode of existence of anything. The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

  [Some] think that to affirm a tenet that investigates conventional
  phenomena is incompatible with the Prasangika stance, which is to
  accept phenomena as they are, without analysis, according to the
  general consensus.

This is because conventionalities – conventional truths – are just that: conventions. They are not to be refuted or investigated. Once, in a class I was attending, a student asked our teacher “Since I only see John's body, and the person is not intrinsically one with her body, then it means I have never seen John, doesn't it?” It is due to this type of misunderstanding that Prasangika refute any conventional analysis. It shows just how important it is to understand how conventional truths are objects of conventional cognizer, not of minds analyzing the ultimate. As soon as one engages in analysis, he leans towards the direction of realizing emptiness, and the mind realizing emptiness does so in a non-dualistic manner, it does not apprehend conventional truths.

On the other hand, Svatantrika posit that one can analyze the mode of existence of phenomena by way of a mind of conventional analysis, and thus refute that phenomena exist in certain ways conventionally. For instance, Svatantrika-Yogacara posit that external establishment can be refuted with a conventional analysis. Thus, they claim that phenomena lack external establishment conventionally, do not lack inherent existence conventionally, lack inherent existence inherently. They lack external establishment conventionally because a conventional valid cognizer can refute external establishment; they do not lack inherent existence conventionally because the emptiness of inherent existence can not be found by way of conventional analysis; they do lack inherent existence ultimately because the emptiness of inherent existence is found / realized by way of a mind analyzing the ultimate.

The introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita reads:

  It must be said, however, that in the context of pramana, or valid
  cognition, applied on the conventional level, [according to
  Svatantrika] it is quiet acceptable to say that phenomena exist
  according to their characteristics or that they are established by
  valid cognition and so forth.

Prasangika say, on the other hand: (1) there is no such thing as conventional analysis (2) inherent existence is utterly non-existent even if its absence is found only by a mind of ultimate analysis, because inherent existence and its emptiness are opposites. It is important to understand what conventional valid cognition and ultimate valid cognitions are to understand what their respective objects are. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

  The Prasangika texts refute 'true existence' (bden grub) and
  'existence according to characteristics' (rang mtshan nyid kyis grub
  pa) indiscriminately. But when one makes a distinction between these
  expressions – as the Svatantrikas do (refuting true existence on the
  ultimate level and asserting existence according to characteristics on
  the conventional level) – one must distinguish, if one is not to
  confuse the issue, the two kinds of reasoning and their respective
  spheres.

Additionally, according to Prasangika, if a phenomena was inherently existent, then it would have to appear the way it exists (i.e. it would have a truly existent phenomena).

According to Svatantrikas, however, conventional truths are empty of true existence (i.e. they do not exist the way they appear) but are not empty of inherent existence conventionally. When Prasangika say that a phenomena does not exist inherently, they mean that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you do not find it. Svatantrika mean something else, since they posit both that (1) they exist inherently and (2) they do not withstand ultimate analysis. In the introduction to Mipham's commentary to Shantarakshita, it says:

  [According to Madhyamika-Svatantrika-Yogacara] if conventional
  phenomena were assessed from the standpoint of ultimate valid
  cognition, they would not be even slightly established thereby.

This helps understand the Svatantrika position that conventional truths do not exist inherently ultimately but do exist inherently conventionally.

How do conventional phenomena appear, according to Svatantrikas? They appear as:

existing by way of their own characteristics
not being imputed by mind

While they are, both:

existing by way of their own characteristics, and
imputed by mind.


How can we make sense of the Universe from the Buddhist perspective?

There may be other intelligent lifeforms out there, as there are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars surrounded by planets. As physicist, futurist and science communicator Michio Kaku says, ants are not aware of human beings standing near them and looking at them. Similarly, there may be beings far more intelligent than us looking at us right now, but we may not be aware of them.

How does a Buddhist make sense of the billions of galaxies and stars and planets out there?

As we know, none of the planets, stars, galaxies will last forever. Everything dies out eventually, including our whole universe. Apparently, we could be living in a multiverse where there are many universes. An entire universe itself could experience birth and death, what more things inside them. Who knows? There could even be a multiverse of multiverses. But one thing for sure - everything changes and nothing lasts forever.

That's how a Buddhist should make sense of our glorious universe - everything changes and nothing lasts forever. "Sabbe sankhara anicca" - everything that is conditioned and compounded is impermanent.

The Buddhist should also remember one of the Buddha's last words from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  vayadhammā saṅkhārā, appamādena sampādetha.
  All conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on with heedfulness!


Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why?

Yes, Buddha did meditate. This is for the pleasant abiding here and now.

From the discussion, What did Buddha do to pass his time? --

  Some relevant info:

    Then the Blessed One, having emerged from seclusion after the passing of
    three months, addressed the monks: “Monks, if wanderers of other sects
    ask you, ‘By means of what dwelling, friends, did Gotama the
    contemplative mostly dwell during the rains residence?’: You, thus asked,
    should answer them in this way: ‘It was by means of the concentration of
    mindfulness of breathing that the Blessed One mostly dwelled.’ …

  This means that right mindfulness functions not only as a factor of the path,
  but also as a pleasant pastime for those who have fully developed the path and
  tasted its ultimate fruit.

This quote is originally from the Icchānaṅgala Sutta  (SN 54:11).


In Pure Land Buddhism, what realm do the pure lands belong to? Are they outside of the usual six realms?

From wikipedia:

About Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism:

  Upon entry into the Pure Land, the practitioner is instructed by
  Amitābha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas until full and complete
  enlightenment is reached. This person then has the choice of
  returning at any time as a bodhisattva to any of the six realms of
  existence in order to help all sentient beings in saṃsāra, or to stay
  the whole duration, reach Buddhahood, and subsequently deliver beings
  to the shore of liberation.

About the Sphere of No Form:

  Bodhisattvas ... are never born in the Ārūpyadhātu even when
  they have attained the arūpadhyānas.

About the Pure Abodes tier of the  Sphere of Form:

  Because a Śuddhāvāsa deva will never be reborn outside the Śuddhāvāsa
  worlds, no Bodhisattva is ever born in these worlds, as a Bodhisattva
  must ultimately be reborn as a human being.

In the rest of the realms of the Sphere of Form the beings continuously dwell in the state of mind corresponding to one of the four dhyanas, and therefore arguably cannot possibly be "instructed by Amitabha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas".

This leaves the Sphere of Desire (kamadhatu) of which the only appropriate place for Pure Lands is the world of gods (aka Heavens). Indeed, the famous Tusita heaven is where the Bodhisattva Natha currently resides, who will later be born as the next Buddha, Maitreya.

  Tuṣita (Sanskrit) or Tusita (Pāli) is one of the six deva-worlds of
  the Kāmadhātu, located between the Yāma heaven and the Nirmāṇarati
  heaven.
  [...]
  In Mahayana Buddhist thought, the Tuṣita Heaven is where all
  Bodhisattvas destined to reach full enlightenment in their next life
  dwell for a time.

However,

  Tuṣita is part of the same world-system as Earth, and so is relatively
  close, whereas the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha is treated as a
  separate world-system entirely.

From all of the above it follows that Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism are inside "the usual six realms", namely they are part of the heaven realms.


Are there Goddesses in Buddhism? If yes, who are they?

I'll answer in two parts-- what sort of looks like a god in Buddhism and which of those are female.

Early Buddhism didn't see gods as important to solving their fundamental problem of ending suffering. Gods were seen as a possible destination for our reincarnation. Gods didn't provide any help to us humans, they were too busy enjoying themselves (devas) or jealously fighting each other (asuras). In Mahayana Buddhism, the devas are not the target of devotionalism, respect and appeal for help, so I'll skip over them. (Except maybe to the extent that they were recast as Bodhisattvas & Buddhas)

Later Buddhism developed the Bodhisattva Path, which was based on the idea that one should strive to become a Buddha. The Bodhisattvas were models of behavior, but rapidly also became devotional targets who would provide various this-worldly benefits, such as defense against snakes.

Also by this time, the Buddha and enlightened people in general were supposed to have extreme long life, the ability to know past lives, to do "astral projection", and so on. As sutras evolved, Buddhas gained more powers until they were indistinguishable from a conventional god from a more familiar religion like devotional Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

There was a lot of controversy about if a woman could reach enlightenment (arahathood) or become a Buddha (full Buddhahood). I think it's not controversial to say that from the time of the historical Buddha the relevant societies were deeply sexist and reluctant to admit that woman could become Buddhas.

Avalokiteśvara was Bodhisattva who once the story arrived in China became a woman (Kwan Yin). Kwan Yin is both a devotional target and a model.

Tara is an important Yidam in the Tantric system. People appeal to Tara both for this-worldly aid and use visualization techniques to imagine themselves as a Tara-- i.e. an enlightened being.

Jan Natier has a good discussion about women in Buddhism, in this paper, although it is is somewhat specific to the Lotus Sutra by the end: https://www.academia.edu/8164216/Gender_and_Hierarchy_in_the_Lotus_S%C5%ABtra


When saying that the aggregate is not-self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called self?

I think that perhaps "we" are not predicting nor denying the existence of a thing called self: for details see for example How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said ...

I don't know him but it sounds like he's being a sophist. :-) I guess he's saying we should (or can) only talk truthfully about things that exist, because the non-existant is unknowable.

I think that Buddhism asks a slightly different question: i.e. is a belief beneficial, is it a skilful view?

unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple"

Can't we say that "a thing is not a unicorn"?

More importantly people generally do view the aggregates as self (at least more-or-less depending on what you mean by "self"): for example, "this is my body, it is mine, my body is me", and so on.

So if that's a common but an unskillful view (from which arises suffering and so on), perhaps it's worth contradicting.


Why did Dr. BR Ambedkar convert to buddhism?

i think Wikipedia articles on the man and on the Dalit emancipation movement give some insight into his reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Conversion_to_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement#B._R._Ambedkar

they appear to be primarily socio-political rather than existential and spiritual


First off, I wouldn't recommend Tibetan Book of the Dead, since it's not exactly a primer in Buddhism, I don't think. There are lots of introductions from various traditions; the perennial favourite is What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. He's also written pieces on the difference (or lack thereof) between the various schools, so he's pretty unbiased that way.

Indian Buddhism by A.K. Warder is a great in-depth look at how Buddhism evolved, though like everything by the author it is terribly dense.

Bhikkhu Bodhi is another modern author who has some good resources; his introductions to the nikayas, e.g. in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, are well-done. He also has an audio series on-line about the same that seems well-received.

I guess I'd be careful about modern sources either from the West or East as an introduction, since without a solid background, it will be easy to become swayed by skewed teachings. Reading the words of the historical Buddha himself would most likely help to provide such a background. Again Bodhi's translations are a good choice.


What is the difference between a nature and a behaviour?

I welcome such a discussion and find this question enjoyable, especially because it merits personal views and not just carved-in-stone texts.

Even from a scientific point of view, defining "what is nature (natural)?" has been a difficult task that has been evolved in different fields such as meta-physics, astronomy, mathematics and religious studies, etc for many many years.

A simple question as follows could solicit long discussion, which could bring up hundreds of other questions that would eventually become a "chicken or egg?" problem:

Is acid rain natural?

If one thinks in her own logical way that has been taught in school, the answer is Yes and No.

Some say it is natural in a sense that it is "cause and effect".

While some say it is not, because it shouldn't exist.

Putting science aside and leaning back on my own personal view of what I have read/learnt in Buddhist books and articles over the years:

One thing we could be sure of:

We are all born with a good heart and will. Having a good heart and will not in a sense that we start making donations to charities, look for someone to save, or counter others whose deeds we deem "bad".

Rather, we were all born a "Buddha". But we are not (yet), due to "senses (feelings)" that we so quickly acquire the second after birth.

Examples:

It tastes good.

He is handsome.

She looks beautiful.

I must do it against all odds to uphold and thus protect this, because of my tradition. (clinging)

I hate ....

It is so funny (laughters).

From my own thinking based on books that I have read, people and nature that I have met and observed (including observing my own self, too), to be "natural" (nature) is to lose those layers of "cocoons" that bar us from being a Buddha since birth.

Those layers being - senses and feeling - hence thoughts (judgements, logic, biases, preferences, liking, disliking, stubbornness, heroism, etc etc).

Other words, following the buddhist path is to become one with everything and all (even an ant is of greatest "importance" in its own existence in this space).

The preceding on "Nature" is only my personal view based on my own experience and thinking.

The following brings us to "Behavior":

Behavior, in my opinion, is what has been mentioned above - senses and feelings - all these surmises to thoughts.

Thoughts bind you to do or not do something regardless whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad".

It becomes a fuel that "supports" your actions based on senses and feelings.

Other words, behaviors are learnt since brith though sense, feeling - thus thoughts.

Examples:

"My mother told me...."

"I was trying to be nice to her, but she, nonetheless, refuses to go out with me. I guess all girl with short hair are mean."

"It feels so good, even feels better in the winter....." (senses)

"I loved him so much, although I knew he has wronged me. But I just couldn't help it, I hope he will love me one day and sees finally what I have been doing to myself out of love of him.."

All of the above behaviors could be unlearnt and thus undone, usually though:

"My mother was wrong; now I know because ..."

"No, not all girls with short hair are mean; my neighbor has short hair and she is very friendly"

"You know what, I have read that even it feels good, one shouldn't do it because ......"

"I guess I was naïve; he was not for me, now I met the greatest man of my life, who cares for me......"

The above are examples of "counter-behaviors".

In buddhist sense, the above is not the way we should lead ourselves to.

We shouldn't need to find a counter-behavior to eliminate a behavior.
Other words, we should not pick up the behavior from the beginning.

Example:

One does action (behavior) A.

Years later, one finds that action (behavior) A is bad, then she finds (learns) action B to counter action A.

1 + (-1) = 0

It would stay so, as long as action B "prevails"; if one day, through time and experiences, you find action B unpleasant or you simply lose your will to hold on to it, you revert back to carrying out action A.

In short, Buddhism teaches us to not pick up "action A" or behaviors through senses and feelings in the first place, thus eliminating the "need" to find a counter-action such as action B, because the process is clinging and un-clinging, which disturbs our peace of mind and our "Nature" to become one with everything.


A wall of energy slammed me back during meditation? What was this?

If your breathing, body & mind are currently functioning normally, I would forget about it because your question is an example of 'attachment', which Buddhism teaches to let go of.

Naturally, I can't say exactly what happened, whether the cause was purely mental (a cathartic emotion); or otherwise purely energetic due to some kind of (non-Buddhist) yogic energy manipulation? But obviously what you regarded as "deep" was merely something unnaturally forced & temporary. It sounds like you pushed to some kind of limit in your energetic-breathing-nervous-system due to non-Buddhist yogic practice.

You should ensure your breathing is currently normal because excessive yogic practises can bring harm to the body, breathing & nervous system.

Buddhist meditation has its foundation in letting-go & non-attachment rather than pushing or manipulating.

Below is an example of a yoga practice called 'pranayama', which is a deliberate controlling of breathing:


It is inappropriate to ask such questions, because they unequivocally end in an argument which is basically the same as trying to convince someone in the 14th century of how an aeroplane works. It simply isn't possible to explain without the experience.
Imagine trying to describe the colour blue to someone who has not seen it.


Loneliness is the memory of love. The memory of being selfless together, complete, without greed, hate or delusion. Chasing that memory into the Matrix, Neo-like, to escape dystopia can give you a simulation of love. But then you log out to loneliness. Did that work? No? How about do it again? No? How about a new perspective?

Unpeel the loneliness and look within, quietly, gently.

"In the middle of lonely is One"--Ven. Ajahn Brahm.


How to deal with our aversions & judgements?

But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine.
I used to feel that way about alcohol. :-)
Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, ...
Yes unfortunately it can be massively insidious. IMO it's a bit like smoking cigarettes but more so -- addictive, people who try it like it, and IMO their liking its (transient) effect affects their judgement and will-power, self-control -- and physically people can do it a lot, repetitively, and for a very long time, without its killing them immediately.
... it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated.
I think I'd call that "a defence mechanism" according to pop psychology.
Buddhism might judge this kind of thing, according to whether it's "skilful", whether it's "beneficial".
There's plenty of advice in Buddhism for lay people, about not getting involved with bad friends and bad habits, wasting money and time and health, and everything -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), which I think of as the sutta about the "six directions".
Your friends' nonchalance might imply they're comfortable with their actions (and possibly that they're "in denial" about their own anxieties and/or the disadvantages of their own drug habits). Normally your innate human sympathy might suggest that therefore (because they are nonchalant) you ought to be happy/comfortable too, but in this case I reckon it's wise that you shouldn't, and wise not to agree with them, even if (or even, because) that anxiety you feel isn't pleasant ... and isn't neutral.
I mention "neutral" because there's Buddhist doctrine that feelings can be categorised as pleasant (and associated with craving), unpleasant (associated with aversion), and neutral (associated with ignorance). I think it warns that unenlightened people aren't good with neutral feelings, don't recognise them, don't know what to do with them -- and instead only crave what's pleasant and flee from what's unpleasant.
I feel very hypocritical
I'm not sure that's "hypocritical" -- I think that hypocritical would be blaming others while thinking that you can do no wrong -- for example, "It's fine for me to abuse the drug, but it's wrong of you" would be hypocritical IMO.
And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
I guess that being judgemental is a bit contrary to the ethos of the drug culture (which might also want you to share drugs)
Someone who's judgemental isn't popular (and in general doing and saying whatever makes you unpopular might arouse anxiety too).
And I suspect that people who are (still) into drugs suffer from a relatively poor sense of judgement. Conversely I think that Buddhism (especially as described in the early texts) is about not suffering, and as a result of making good judgements (e.g. having "right view" and so on).
I also suspect that taking drugs will impair judgement, in various ways and for several reasons. Some drug users see that as a reason for taking drugs -- to "escape reality" or to have "an altered view" of it.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
Yes, doctrine about the Brahmaviharas might be helpful:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I summarise them to myself as,

I hope you're alright, "may you be well"
I don't want to hurt you
I'm happy when you're doing well (or doing good)
and equanimity

IMO nothing there requires you to be happy about the fact that people are abusing drugs, but the attitudes might be a good alternative to enmity/hatred/aversion (the Dhammapada too, says, "hatred is never appeased by hatred, only by loving-kindness").
Another thing you should consider is whether these people are good friends. I think that Buddhism is keen to recommend that you spend time with, learn from, associate with good friends -- and avoid bad friends (see e.g. DN 31 again, Kalyāṇa-mittatā, the Rhinoceros sutta etc.).
I might say that in my own experience, if you're going to keep bad friends, then it's especially important (at least for your own well-being if not for theirs as well) for you to also find and get good advice from, counsel, from "good friends" -- people who are virtuous, sensible, self-controlled, knowledgeable, perhaps professional.
You might even (among other places) learn something from Nar-Anon -- learning from other people's experience -- or perhaps (from a more explicitly Buddhist context) https://5th-precept.org/ (though unlike -Anon I've haven't experienced that .org).
Another thing that Buddhism recommends is "seeing things as they truly are". I don't know a lot of doctrine about that. I guess that includes the doctrine of Dependent Origination, i.e. seeing how senses (sense-impressions, sense-contact, sense-consciousness) give rise to perceptions and feelings and cravings and so on and so on and so on. I guess it might also include accurately assess the advantages and disadvantages of, you know, different courses of action, different intentions, different reactions and decisions. And I think it means viewing things without craving and aversion, so it's a bit of a circular definition. :-) But I think it doesn't mean trying to see things with altered senses (acid and mushrooms) -- more to do with having a wise and non-grasping attitude towards reality (see also "suchness").
Finally (or firstly) I'd mention the four noble truths of Buddhism -- especially the second and third, i.e. that suffering is associated with craving, and, the cessation of suffering with the cessation of craving. My stereotype says that addicts get attached to drugs. That it was also because of the poisons that they turned to drugs in the first place (so now they have two problems, i.e. their original problem and now the drugs). That craving (for the drug) and therefore suffering ceases when they take the drug (which is why they take it) -- but only temporarily (that effect of taking-a-drug is impermanent, as well as being long-lasting in other ways, hence the temptation to take it again). So I'd recommend (and you probably agree) that what's better (than taking drugs to stop the craving) is to avoid the condition in which that craving arises, i.e. by not taking/becoming/remaining addicted in the first place.
One more thing, which might be a bit subtle but I think ties into to the doctrine of the Brahmaviharas. This answer associates "conceit" with "comparisons". And I think this is an opportunity for making comparisons (e.g. "being addicted is inferior to not being an addict" and "I am not an addict and they are"). Still, that answer says, a characteristic of semi- or relatively-enlightened people is that they make "true" (accurate) comparisons. However see also what Wikipedia says about conceit (Māna):

It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Perhaps that's part of what you mean by not wanting to be "hypocritical" -- i.e. it's not wanting to be "disrespecting others" and so on. Conceit is also said to be a basis for (counter-productive and hurtful) sectarian arguments.
There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations.
Perhaps it's normal to have preferences.
I'd personally prefer not to hear stories about people getting injured, or being cruel to each other, or horror movies, though I couldn't honestly say that it never happens. And in theory there are more or less tactful (adult, graceful) ways to listen -- ask if you can help -- or say you'd prefer not to, change the subject...
There's a whole bit of the Buddhist "noble eightfold path" -- i.e. Right Speech.


In my opinion (and there are definitely different schools of thought here), the significance of this practice derives from the fact that breathing is the most direct connection between our normal rational mind and our emotional/subconscious/somatic mind. Breath is also on the intersection between our willful acting and our spontaneous being, since we can both control it OR leave it running on autopilot. This puts it in a key position as far as integration between our different sides or levels of mind. Also, there is a peculiar connection between our free-floating association process, our inner dialogue, and our breathing. I can't quite put it in words, but they seem to be functionally connected.

Just casually watching the breathing expands one's awareness to include that which is usually left out. This allows for an information exchange between the levels and serves to the benefit of all sides. It definitely allows one to get significantly less carried away by the affects, and over time leads to a more "grounded"/"balanced" overall disposition.

Practiced as a form of meditation, deep focus on breathing, when done right, provides direct access to non-conceptual mind. This enables discovery and processing of old unconscious traumatizing experience that might have stiffened and became a source of stereotypical pathological automatic reactions and stress.

Most South Asian Buddhist teachers recommend focusing attention on or around nose (the breathing sensations on nostrils or the upper lip). Instead, following my (Korean) teacher's recommendation to focus on the movement of abdomen, I came to appreciate the diaphragm as my perfect focal point. That's what I watch when I do formal sitting meditation - and when I just move around I'm in the habit of watching my overall breathing system, the entire state of all muscles participating in breathing - from abdomen, to diaphragm, to ribs, chest, and shoulders. As my practice progressed, I learned to expand attention to also include limbs, posture, and the muscles of face. Developing this overall awareness of the body (I believe) is what Buddha called "kayagata-sati" and is highly recommended.

I can't think of any specific guidelines other than this:

Do not blame yourself if you keep forgetting. This is not just a casual remark! Blaming yourself in connection with any meditation practice, formal or casual, including mindfulness of breathing, leads to aversion towards the practice, so it ends up being very counterproductive. Don't do that. Be kind to yourself, like you would be to a very young child.
Try to find a sense of how mindfulness of breathing is not something external you impose upon yourself, but rather how it allows you to stay in contact with your "private self" and therefore to remain more yourself. It should feel more comfortable to remain in touch with your breathing (and therefore with your emotional side) - than to lose that connection. It should be a very healthy feeling.
There is no need to artificially control your breathing, or to relax it - but you may naturally start making more sighs and the frequency and amplitude of breathing may start reducing by itself. You may find yourself suddenly becoming aware of and relaxing your shoulders and other muscles that you used to keep tense. That's a good sign - but you don't have to contrive it on purpose.

That's all I could think of, based on my own practice and the instructions I received from my teacher. Hope it helps.


Both have Priti. In Banga you can see it through out your body where you can see complete dissolution. In Jhana dissolution aspect might not be that clear depending how you gain it.


Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publicly serves to free students of their egos?

In general, no. To me, it is cultish behaviour.

  What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching
  method?

No general advantages. Probably some drawbacks, such as making the student project ego onto the guru. The student that cannot free the mind from ego will abandon their ego & take up the ego of the guru.

  Why do you think it works or does not work?

The Buddha, according to the Pali suttas, simply pointed the way/path & the student went off & practised alone. The capacity to give up ego can only occur in a mind ready & prepared for it.

  In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego
  attachment.

Possibly in Hinduism, Mahayana or Zen but I do not recall reading this as something that commonly occurred in the ancient Pali suttas. While I have read public admonishments in the Pali suttas by the Buddha for monks publicly preaching wrong views (e.g. MN 22; MN 38), I don't not recall many of these public admonishments leading to enlightenment (although there might be some, somewhere). For example, in SN 22.85, Venerable Yamaka was publicly preaching wrong views and the Venerable Sāriputta approached Venerable Yamaka, in private, addressing Venerable Yamaka as "friend", to rectify the wrong views, which resulted in Venerable Yamaka attaining enlightenment.

  I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated.

Indeed.

  The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own
  suffering.

Indeed.

  The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me
  stuck in fixation.

Yes, in your own meditation. If the teacher gently pointed out the ego-fixation in private, the same result may have occurred. I think public humiliations give a bad example to students. Often students imitate their teachers.

  Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar
  experience?

Yes. Teachers can disappoint us when they do not act with the virtue & care we expect however this gives us an opportunity to be more firm & mature in our own virtue & care. Even if a public humiliation resulted in your mind eventually abandoning 'false-self', this does not mean you should engage in this cultish behaviour.


Your question is posed mainly from a modern Western/Capitalist perspective where seclusion from economical "responsibilities" for spiritual practice is - to say the least - not encouraged. Also, the West doesn't have a tradition of handing out food to begging monks, in fact, in many countries this practice is illegal. It was very different in Asia before the industrialization.

During the Golden Age of Buddhism in China, the Ch'an (Zen) school actually consisted to a large extent of 行者 (wandering monks), who would travel throughout China, searching for the "right" master, entering into a discussion with the master of every temple they came across. This is still a common and widely accepted practice in many Mahayana traditions.

The mythological monk Bodhidharma, claimed as their founder by several Chinese Buddhist schools, would definitely qualify as a wandering monk, as does the mythological Budai.

Also in the Ch'an tradition, there are a series of drawings called the Ten Oxherding Pictures, the tenth picture is entitled "Return to society":

  Barefooted and naked of breast,

  I mingle with the people of the world.

  My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,

  and I am ever blissful.

  I use no magic to extend my life;

  Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

As for laypeople, Huineng was a layman, but is considered to be one of the most important Ch'an masters.


Are theravada monks allowed to stay in lay people's house?

Sankha's answer is technically right from an orthodox point of view, but may not be a correct interpretation of the texts. The word the Buddha used is "sahaseyya", which means "sharing a place to sleep", so the rules quoted about roofs and walls are not literal translations, they are extrapolations based on the commentary.

The origin story is what makes me think this rule should be considered less strict; in it, Anuruddha goes to stay in a rest house (āvasathāgāra) and is invited by the owner to sleep in a "bed that is within" (mañcakaṃ abbhantaraṃ). Now, I understand that the commentary gets into an explanation of how even a seven-story palace is considered "sahaseyya", but following the story, it seems likely that the point is not to stay in the same bedroom as the woman. The room where Anuruddha stayed, by the language used, seems to have been an inner room in the rest house that belonged to the owner herself; when he spent the night with her there (teaching her the dhamma, no less), he caused controversy, and instigated the rule - though it seems clear he never laid down, which would be necessary to break the rule.

If Anuruddha had stayed in the outer room, he ostensibly would not have instigated the rule (provided there were no women staying there).

There are other reasons, however, for not staying in a lay person's house, especially that of a person of the opposite gender, and the strict interpretation of the rule is probably for the best - to keep monks in line and to keep lay people from becoming too intimate with the monks, leading to problems on both sides.

My reason for giving this answer is to reassure you about the monk's intentions - many Theravada monks have no problem with staying in the same building as a lay woman, as long as they are not in the same room. I don't personally think it is a good idea, but I'm not convinced that it is breaking any rule, especially in modern times, where our lives are lived inside single buildings that can even house multiple families.


'Death' happens to a 'person', 'self-entity' or 'self'.

When the mind is free from thoughts of 'self', it will know 'death' only happens to a 'self'.

It will also know when the mind is free from 'self', there is no 'death'.

The 'termination of life' is not the same as 'death'.

These things the mind can know when entering into 'emptiness' (śūnyatā - 空).


How are the fetters by Anapanasati diminished?

I think the progression described in the Anapanasati Sutta can only lead to stream-entry and once-returner but not to non-returner or Arahant because the Anapanasati Sutta includes knowing of in & out breathing at every stage therefore does not yet include the jhana (that has no knowing of breathing) required for non-returner or Arahant.

This said, both the stream-enterer and particularly the once-returner have significantly reduced sensual desire and anger.

How this exactly happens during Anapanasati is insight (vipassana) into not-self (anatta) reduces the self-centredness that is the root of sensual desire and anger and particularly the calming (samatha) stages (4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15) provide the non-sensual happiness that allows the mind to naturally lose interest in sensual pleasures. Once sensual desire reduces, the impulse to worldly anger reduces (although some tendency to anger due to moral righteousness may remain).

Stages 5, 6 & 7 are also important (vipassana) because they allow the mind to transcend or decouple from enslavement to pleasant feelings; when it is discerned the peace of non-attachment & samatha is more pleasant than the strong vibrations of pleasant feelings; particularly the agitating quality of rapture (piti). Naturally losing interest in rapture by intimitately experiencing rapture's true nature is a very significant step to losing interest in sensuality.

Stage 9 is also important, where the ugly polluting nature of defilements are discerned directly; like coming face to face with the devil.

In summary, an important result of Anapansati is calm (samatha). When calm is experienced, it feels better than sensual desire or anger; thus breaking/reducing these fetters. Feeling this calm starts at stage 3, which is actually called: "experiencing all bodies (kaya)". The word 'kaya' refers to the physical body, breath-body and mental-body (nama-kaya). Stage 3 is experiencing how a mind of non-desire, non-anger & non-attachment results in the breathing calming and the physical body calming. Stage 3 is about experiencing the 'inter-relatedness' between the mind, breath & body. At stage 3 alone (when properly practised), it is experienced how a mind without sensual desire & without anger causes the breathing, body & mind to calm & feel satisfying peace.


What were the Buddha's meditation methods and practices during his pre-enlightenment wandering years in India?

The Buddha talks about this in MN 36: Maha-Saccaka Sutta. It's quite a long and detailed passage, in which he describes how he went to different teachers who taught him the Jhanas and starved his body to the extreme. His story sums up the extreme ways of practicing, that one should avoid using The Middle Path: First living in sensual indulgence & luxury while growing up in a powerful family, then leaving this live behind and almost starving himself to death.

  "I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'


Whether or not Buddhism is Humanist depends on your interpretation of Buddhism.

First, Buddhism is a program for humans to find happiness, and as such seems humanistic.  However, it does this by a thoroughgoing program of deconstructionism, which includes the self itself, and this may seem anti-Humanistic.

Second, while Buddhism is individualistic in a sense, there is the Bodhisattva ideal, which aims at the benefit of all sentient beings, and some of the attempts at transcending ego can involve serving others, so some types of Buddhism can be seen as benefiting people collectively.  However, there is a movement for Engaged Buddhism, which would seem to imply that this view of Buddhism is not universal (otherwise, why make an effort to stress this)?

Third, although the Four Noble Truths talks of the futility of trying to find happiness through our typical pursuits (and paints what some say is a grim picture of life), it also teaches that we have the power to transcend our situation.  In this sense, it seems to value human agency.  On the other hand, we're taught that we're not independent selves and (some interpretations?) even try to transcend the sense of doership as the handmaiden of the self, and as such, human agency may be devalued.

Finally, some Buddhist teachings value critical thinking and/or evidence over faith (Kalama Sutra), but there's also a critique of rationality (see Madhyamaka deconstructionism, especially Nagarjuna's).

In short, YMMV


Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana?

Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw teaches both Samatha and Vipassana meditation. First one develops Jhanas and then one can progress to Vipassana if wanted.
Here is a description from the website of Pa-Auk Forest Monastery:

"The meditation taught at Pa-Auk Tawya is based on the instructions by The Buddha as found in the Tipiṭaka (the Pāli Canon) and its commentaries.
In brief, the main practice is to begin with Samatha (tranquility) meditation, which is to develop absorption concentration, also called jhāna. A yogi (meditator) is free to choose any of the forty Samatha subjects as taught by The Buddha. In Pa-Auk Tawya, most yogis develop jhāna with mindfulness-of-breathing (ānāpānassati).
Having developed Samatha, the yogi may proceed to practise Vipassanā (insight) meditation".


There istance a monk with psychic ability looked into the water and saw there were microbes and asked the Buddha if drinking will harm them. Buddha said don't look and drink.

One intention of Buddhist morality is the stabilize the mind so it is free from remorse and so it can develop concentration and wisdom.

So if you use antibacterial soap without much thought there are microbs and intention of killing microbes then there will be not issue.


This sounds like an issue best analyzed according to the Buddha's teachings on right speech. The Buddha famously expounded how he personally determined how to decide on what to say in the Abhaya Sutta, saying:

  [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  [2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  [4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html

In essence, one should consider four factors of truth, benefit, agreeability, and timeliness. The relevant point here is that even if one might say something that is true, if there is no real benefit to be gained from it, then you shouldn't say it. Certainly not all cases of political correctness fall into this, but it isn't dishonest to hold back from saying something if it will lead to no good.


There is a freely available talk by Vessantara, an order member in the sangha I practice with (Triratna) that addresses this kind of issue. If one entirely rejected rebirth (or if it were proven to be untrue) then what would this do to the Dharma? My previous opinion was rebirth was a cultural accretion not a core teaching so if rebirth wasn't true the Dharma would remain essentially the same. There might be some reframing and reemphasising but the essentials would be the same. However Vessantara disagrees. The following parts of the Dharma would be shaken, possibly irreparably damaged (list not exhaustive)

The Bodhisattva Ideal. It is difficult to see how one could hope to aim for the enlightenment of all beings in one lifetime. It's not going to happen
The Buddha enlightenment experience. A central part of this was his visions of previous rebirth. Are we saying that this is not true. What other parts of his enlightenment experience are also not true
Death proximate Karma. There is no rebirth so the powerful karmic effects at the point of death are unreal.
The niddanas. There are one lifetime interpretations of these admittedly but other interpretations (3 lifetimes) would be thrown out
Enlightenment as the deathless. This is common imagery in texts such as the Dhammapada. Without rebirth what could deathless mean? It's unclear (to me)
Nirvana as 'blowing out'. Enlightenment as the concept of stepping off the wheel of samsara. Without rebirth there is no endless round so what are we stepping off from.

I could go on (i won't). I was just impressed with the talk and I think it's an interesting exercise to see where a rejection or disprove of rebirth might end up. I'm certainly not banging the drum for rebirth, in fact I remain at best agnostic. I know that rebirth-less interpretation of each of the six points are available but the question is - are we twisting the Dharma completely out of shape? This talk argues that we would be.

As a footnote an alternative view is available from another order member, Nagapriya in his book Exploring Karma and Rebirth. This book takes the opposite to Vessantara and argues that all rebirth-less interpretations are valid and do not lose their meaning. The talk and the book taken together give excellent (and opposing) views - companion pieces almost.


I don't think the idea that breath meditation is universally suitable has any explicit basis in the texts. I'm not sure if you are aware or interested, but the Visuddhimagga has an explicit opinion on which types of meditation are suitable for which sort of individual:

  As to suitability to temperament: here the exposition should be understood
  according to what is suitable to the temperaments. That is to say: first, the ten
  kinds of foulness and mindfulness occupied with the body are eleven meditation
  subjects suitable for one of greedy temperament. The four divine abidings and
  four colour kasiṇas are eight suitable for one of hating temperament. Mindfulness
  of breathing is the one [recollection as a] meditation subject suitable for one of
  deluded temperament and for one of speculative temperament. The first six
  recollections are suitable for one of faithful temperament. Mindfulness of death,
  the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of
  repulsiveness in nutriment, are four suitable for one of intelligent temperament.
  The remaining kasiṇas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of
  temperament. And anyone of the kasiṇas should be limited for one of speculative
  temperament and measureless for one of deluded temperament. This is how the
  exposition should be understood here “as to suitability to temperament.”

  Path of Purification 3.121

I think it is proper to question the assumption that any meditation practice would be suitable for all individuals, though one might say that sati or "mindfulness" in general is universally applicable.


Reason(s) for being born as men and women

The Aggañña Sutta gives a creation style account of human development. In it it says that humans were originally asexual and only later differentiated and grew sex organs. To quote

  And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the
  difference in their looks became even greater. And the females
  developed female sex organs and the males developed male sex organs.
  And the women became excessively preoccupied with the men, and the men
  with the women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other,
  passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later
  because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity.

Bear in mind though that these is a feeling that the entire sutta is a satire on the  brahminical claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system.


Is it OK to mentally multi-task during vipassana meditation?

Multi-tasking is an illusion... I have read that the mind and the senses are like a monkey sticking its head out six different windows rapidly in succession.

A great lama once told me that trying to solve a puzzle when you sit down to meditate is in actuality making another samsara.


What is laughing wisdom and swift wisdom?

Footnotes 50 and 51 from Piya Tan's analysis of SN 55.24:

  Of joyous wisdom,” hāsa,pañña, alt tr “of laughing wisdom” (from hasa, “laughter, mirth, joy”). “Here one
  with much joy [laughter], mirth, contentment and gladness perfects the virtues: this is joyous wisdom” (Pm 21.17/
  2:199 f). Comys mention hāsa,paā (joyous wisdom), javana,paā (quick wisdom) [see foll n], tikkha,paā
  (sharp wisdom, which cuts off all defilements) and nibbedhika,paā (penetrating wisdom, by which one maintains
  dispassion toward all formations) (DA 3:391-393, 4:84-86; MA 4:84; SA 1:120-123, 2:85 f; AA 2:85; ThaA 3:106 f;
  NmA 1:231 f; cf PmA 3:640 on hasa,paā)
  “Of quick wisdom,” javana,pañña. This refers to one who quickly understands that the 5 aggregates are all impermanent, suffering and non-self (Pm 21.18/2:200). See prev n.

"Pm" is the Patisambhidā Magga.


Technically, you could resolve this either way. As long as you can completely convince yourself to take a stance and forget the other alternative, you'd be fine.

However in Buddhism we are advised to try and maximize the positive qualities of mind. So if one of these choices makes you more motivated and energized than the other, you will probably do better long term by going that way.

Now, regarding your parents, in this case you're not violating any ethics, except their expectations of your life, which is the domain that you own 100%.

Regarding goal vs desire concept, in Buddhism it is the blinding desire/craving/lust that is recognized as a danger, for obvious reasons. Yours is not like that. Also, a type of desire that we think about but never fulfill or can't fulfill, leads to suffering. Yours is like that at the moment, so the most Buddhist advice would be to either start fulfilling it or to drop it. Staying in this limbo is definitely a case of generating suffering.


In what ways are the Advaita concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' and the Buddhist concept of Buddha Nature similar and different?

One short paper that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta".

When we compare the Advaita Vedanta, especially as interpreted by Shankara and Madhyamika, whether be it the Svatantric from of Bhabya or Prasangic form of Candrakirti, the sharing of the same language, culture and analogies while talking about two different paradigms becomes obvious. Because of the use of the same language structure (be it Pali or Sanskrit) and the same analogies to express two different paradigms many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamika is a re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta.
In fact, the Buddha, after long years of Brahmanic as well as Sramanic meditation, found the concept of Brahma (an ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum to this ephemeral transient world) not only inadequate to solve the basic issue of humanity- i. e. sorrow (dukha) and questioned the very existence of such an eternal substratum; but also declared that a search for such an imagined (Skt. Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a form of escapism and therefore not really spiritual [...]

[...]

Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism.

[...]

Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality then there can be no liberation from the changing, transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahman- such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahman is necessary a dead end which leads nowhere, let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i. e. realizing groundless.

[...]

But even though Sankara copied the use of these words from Buddhism and also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with these words different. [...] In the Vedantic context, the relative truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is that this samsara is an illusion and the ultimate truth (skt. paramartha satya) is that there is an ultimately existing thing (skt. paramartha satta) transcending/ immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist and the both transcendent and immanent Brahman will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality.


Addicted to a particular pleasure even when you know it has its drawbacks.

Even after one has seen and understood that there's a better way, that's still not sufficient to abandon sensual pleasures. One would need to attain and experience the higher path himself. As taught in MN 14:

  Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.


Why is the first lines of the Dhammapada twin verses sometimes translated using the word 'heart'?

Thanissaro's translations are... unique. The word being used, as others have pointed out, is "mano", the leader of an irregular group of nouns called the "manogana" - "the group with mano as its leader".

The PED has a huge article on mano, worth reading in full if you're interested. I've copied the gist of it below, but as you should see, it is probably misleading to translate it as "heart". There is a word for that, "hadaya", which is sometimes used as a synonym of mano, viññāṇa, etc., but also refers to the physical heart organ.

It is fair to say he is within his right to use poetic license in this case; it is, after all, poetry, and the mind and the heart are much the same in Buddhism. As you can see below, though, manas generally refers more to the thinking side of things, than the emotive or the substantial entity of "the heart" or "the mind".

  Mano & Mana(s); (nt.) [Vedic manaḥ, see etym. under maññati]

...

  II. Meaning: mind, thought

...

  Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense -- reaction ("perception"), and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness (cp. Mrs. Rh. D. Buddhist Psychology p. 19) -- The rendering with "mind" covers most of the connotation; sometimes it may be translated "thought. As "mind" it embodies the rational faculty of man which, as the subjective side in our relation to the objective world, may be regarded as a special sense, acting on the world, a sense adapted to the rationality (reasonableness, dhamma) of the phenomena, as our eye is adapted to the visibility of the latter.

...

  As regards the relation of manas to citta, it may be stated that citta is more substantial (as indicated by translation "heart"), more elemental as the seat of emotion, whereas manas is the finer element, a subtler feeling or thinking as such. See also citta2 I., and on rel. to viññāṇa & citta see citta;2 IV. 2b. In the more popular opinion and general phraseology however manas is almost synonymous with citta as opposed to body, cittaŋ iti pi mano iti pi S ii.94.

As to your ancillary questions:

What is the original Pali phrasing?

As others have pointed out, the original is:

  manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā.
  manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā.
  tato naṃ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

Which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart?

Some words used more or less interchangeably are citta, viññāṇa, mano, hadaya, ceto and nāma. Any one of these could ostensibly be translated as either "heart" or "mind". The only one that literally means "heart", as mentioned, is hadaya. The rest have colloquial connotations and are derived from various roots, e.g. √cit = to think, √ñā = to know, √man = to consider, or not from roots at all (hadaya = heart, nāma = mentality).

What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?

The technical meaning of the verse is that wholesome and unwholesome deeds come from wholesome or unwholesome mind states, not mere physical acts. In this, Thanissaro's translation is misleading. The emphasis should be on the fact that it is the mind as opposed to the body, not the heart as opposed to the mind.

The origin story about the elder Cakkhupala makes this clear; during his walking meditation, many insects were killed because he was blind. The Buddha spoke this verse to show that Cakkhupala was innocent.

To get an understanding of the colloquial meaning of this verse is a bit involved, but reading the PED's article on how mano is generally used might help. Its usage here does seem to be to emphasise the mental nature of guilt and innocence. Otherwise, citta is a more common word. The word for heart, hadaya, is used when talking about emotion, e.g. hadayaṅgamā - going to one's heart (i.e. heartwarming), and doesn't seem appropriate in this context.


It means to 'know' or have an intelligent understanding of something as being true. So when the Buddha says "yam kinci sampajanasi..." it means "whatever you know...".


How can you use Q&A to gain good Karma and also aid to realize liberation?

By reflecting on a few principles when asking & answering:

Asking & Answering

Notice in what category does the question lie in:

  "There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There
  are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly
  yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with
  an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
  There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
  There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways
  of answering questions."
  -AN 4.42, Questions

And if the answers given are appropriate to that kind of question:

  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a
  person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a
  person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a
  question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical
  (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer,
  doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a
  counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put
  aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with.
  But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to
  a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer
  to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question
  to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question
  deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person
  fit to talk with.
  -AN 3.67, Topics for Discussion (I recommend reading the entire discourse since it has additional valuable advice. You might also want to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation)

Notice that not all questions deserve an answer since they are off-topic or have implicit assumptions which makes them so. Here's an article regarding this kind of questions which I think is worth reading.

Asking

When asking, be aware of the motive behind your question:

  Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
  from any one of five motivations. Which five?

  "One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
  asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
  greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
  question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
  with this thought, 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

  "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
  five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
  it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
  -AN 5.165, On Asking Questions

For a broader and more in-depth understanding of this topic, I recommend reading the related discourses which are mentioned at the end of the discourses linked above and a brilliant book written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu named Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught. It has many examples of Q&A's that fit the above categories.


What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times?

This answer is based in the Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition.

Do you have any regular breaks during your day? Like short minute breaks or lunch breaks. If so you could use these breaks as "stations" for re-centering yourself before going back into the storm.

With 12 hour working days it's understandable that there is not much time for formal meditation. The best advice i know of is to carry the practice into your daily life, i.e. to work on staying mindful during the working day. Then how do do that in the middle of a storm?

It's about finding that still-center inside the tornado. In this center there is quiet and silent. That center is your abdomen. The rising and falling of the abdomen will take you back into the present. It will enable you to see things as they are and not to extrapolate on them, e.g. if a stressed out collague of yours decides to yell at you or say something infuriating then by noting it as "hearing, hearing" will let you see this as just being sound. If one is not mindful the mind begins to identify and take ownership of phenomena. It begins to extrapolate on phenomena and based on that cultivate a respons which might be to yell back or take revenge, thereby only adding to the suffering of oneself and others.

To try to avoid these situations and when things get hectic and begin to spin out of control then try to remember to bring your attention back onto the abdomen. Just a few seconds is usually enough to ground oneself in the present and thereby getting a hold of oneself. From there you can then decide how to act accordingly to the situation.

By remembering to center yourself throughout your working day you will be less likely to be tossed around by the waves. When mindful one is interacting instead of reacting to reality.

So to sum up. My best advice is to use your abdomen. Make a firm determination before going to bed in the evening, before going to work in the morning and throughout your working day (that's the hard part) to remember to center yourself by placing attention on the rising and falling sensation of the abdomen. Then note "rising, rising" or "falling, falling" accordingly to the motions of the abdomen.

Back when i was a student i would have stressed out days and a lot of engaging with many people on a regular basis. At these times it would be difficult to remember being mindful. So every morning i took a pen and drew a little "M" on my wrist. I drew it there because i usually looked at my hands during daily activities so then i would see the "M" and instantly turn mindful. It's a great tool to use until mindfulness are so powerful that one does not need it anymore.

I think this method could maybe help you out too.

Then you have 3 methods now.

First one is to make a firm determination to center yourself in evening, morning and throughtout the day. Second one is that you perform the actual centering throughtout your day, e.g. in the shorts breaks or better yet during activites and third one you have a safe guard in form of that little "M" on your wrist in order to remind you to center yourself.

I wish you the best of luck with your practice and your busy day. Remember all phenomena are impermanent. So hang in there and this situation will end too some day. Also never beat yourself up about not having time to practice. Practice accordingly to what your capacity is at a given time. A little practice is better than no practice.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote please let me know.

Click on photos for full size


Sūkarakhata sutta and the "arahants seeking benefits they already have"

www.palikanon.com has a clearer translation.

  The Buddha questions Sāriputta at Sūkarakhatalena as to why a monk who
  has destroyed the āsavas should revere the Buddha and his teachings.
  Sāriputta answers that it is because such a monk has secured freedom
  from the yoke. "What kind of security is it?" asks the Buddha, and
  Sāriputta explains that it is security obtained by the cultivation of
  the five indriyas of faith, energy, etc. S.v.233f.

An Arahant reveres the Buddha and his teaching not because he/she has anything left to attain, but because the Buddha and the Dhamma are what led him/her to Nibbana. The faculty of faith peaks out when a being attains Arahantship. The closer you get to Nibbana, the more respect and appreciation you will have for the Buddha and his teachings.

Incidentally, venerable Sariputta attained Arahantship by listening to the Dīghanakha (or Vedanāpariggaha) Sutta at the Sūkarakhata cave.


Mindful meditation, problems with anger. Where do I find other Buddhist for learning support?

The 2 components to this:

the 1st case that made you angry
what kept you rolling in anger

Initially when some unwanted thing happens you get angry. The subject of anger can be towards a person of situation you are in. The 1st the initial experience cases your 1st unpleasantness (i.e., you get angry) and then subsequently through proliferation or thinking and pondering on the experience, how you could have handled it, how you would retaliate, etc. keep you in misery or sustains the unpleasantness (in this case your anger).

If you are angry or unpleasant due to what someone has done then you keep rolling in anger when you think "x did y to me". Here you have a notion of a doer and you the receiver or experiencer or some other association. When it is a situation you still may have the self identification as experiencer or receiver or some other association with the situation.

Now this can be due to your Karma and also the experience of what was done maybe in the past. Dwelling on this makes anger into feud if it is to do with a person. Contemplating this as past Karma, disidentification of the action from the identity of self as oneself and the other person or people, contemplating that situation will not last for even and subjected to change, also contemplating that there is no entry who did this and no entity who experienced this and whoever perceive has the doer has changed and no more and whoever you perceive as the experiencer has also changed and no more, etc. can help reduce this. Here the remedy is at rectifying the perceptional or the view which cases anger to arise.

At a more advance stage you can contemplate on the sensation this bring. You have a Perceived ideal as in how you should be treated or an ideal situation you should be in which what you experience deviates from then this results in unpleasantness. Similarly for when a pleasant situation or treatment changes and finally when you are in a situation or treatment which you do not evaluate positively or negative hence which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Though this you study the full sphere of sensation (vedana) or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). This is more or a permanent solution whereby you eradicate the roots which case this type of unpleasantness and your bondage to becoming which can cause future experiences of such nature.

This is easy said than done for and also influenced by personal temperament.


Your question is clear. I have not read anything in Buddhism that explicitly states that hate is a survival instinct. This is because Buddhism concerns itself with ending suffering & hate is something that is not peaceful (SN 35.28).

That said, from an evolutionary perspective, your idea is compatible with the fundamental Buddhist principle of 'cause & effect' (conditionality) since Buddhism studies 'natural law'.

Buddhism explains hate is an underlying tendency (AN 7.11) that exists within the (subconscious) mind/brain from child birth (MN 64) (even before a child can express hate).

Buddhism states hate is a natural element or dhatu (MN 115).

  The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
  things about it, namely:

  (1) What are the characteristics or properties of the object?

  (2) From what does the object arise?

  (3) What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its
  allurement?

  (4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
  that lies concealed in it?

  (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by means of which we can get the
  better of it?

  Question
  45 page 59


What is (so special) different about Dzogchen?

Dzogchen teaches a non-dualistic state of one's own primordial nature, with nothing to reject or accept, that is pure from the beginning in the nature of a light body. -- Khenpo Palden

In simple words:

Original Buddhism introduced many new concepts to describe 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. Theravada's approach is to preserve these teachings as closely as possible without alterations. From Theravada's perspective it is the student that must adapt to the Teaching - not the other way around. So the student is expected to learn the exact original definitions, ideally in the Pali language. However, for many students this approach makes it difficult to see the forest behind the trees.

Mahayana Buddhism prefers to stay away from repeating the rigid concepts from Pali suttas and instead tries to re-tell the same meaning in its own words. This is why Mahayana often prefered writing new texts instead of quoting original suttas. So Mahayana's approach is more focused on conveying the "point" of the Teaching, rather then the "letter". In Mahayana, the teaching adapts to the spirit of times and places, to explain Dharma in the way the students can relate to. Still, just like Theravada, Mahayana Buddhism is mostly about 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. But this is not all there is to Dharma, it also has the third part: Result!

In Dzogchen speak, the three parts are called Ground, Path, and Fruition - and Dzogchen focuses 100% on the third. Truth be told, some parts of Mahayana like Madhyamaka do approach Fruition in their teaching about Emptiness - but they mostly try to explain it conceptually, in terms understandable to the unenlightened mind. In contrast to that, Dzogchen directly teaches how the Enlightened mind sees and acts. Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana. After all the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana are learned, and all the practices fulfilled - after the Raft has been used to cross over to the other side and left behind - what remains at that point? That's what Dzogchen is about.

So Dzogchen is even more "to the point" than Mahayana - in its purest form it throws away all those teachings and explanations, and goes: "here is what Enlightened mind is like, now you do it". This is what makes it so radically different from everything else.


Should modernization of the environment lead to renewal of teaching texts?

I think this is already happening but we perhaps don't recognise it. While I've not heard of any move to completely rewrite a Buddhist canon, it is easy to find examples of books that help the reader access Buddhists texts. These could be simple primers, commentaries or retelling of traditional stories.

Breath by Breath is an example example of the extension of the commentarial  tradition of Buddhism. Larry Rosenberg picks apart the Anapanasati Sutta and really goes into each stage. I've read this twice and find it extremely useful

The anapanasati sutta isn't the only modern commentary. There's a lot more. Analayo has written Satipatthana The Direct Path to Realization which is a commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta. It's a real drill down into the sutta and is a bit more thorough and analytical than Breath by Breath.

But you don't need to get all academic to enjoy Buddhists texts. My 4 year old daughter loves the Jataka Tales as retold in the Buddha at Bedtime. It's a modern simplified version of canonical Buddhist texts - with lovely pictures and a summary from a cartoon Buddha at the end of each one. What's not to like.


If you want to build a house, it is easier done having read a book about it than without. It will guide you through the process, hint you at problems that may arise and give possible solutions. But then, there may be other solutions around, no problem with that.

On the other hand, reading the book alone will not be much beneficial; without actually building your house, you will not be able to sleep under the protecting roof.

As for "being not compatible" - I think this is rather unlikely, as long as you are open-minded. Of course, one has to be careful not to take laziness as incompatibility, i.e. it would be too easy to give up meditation after 30 seconds, labelling it "frustrating, my mind isn't built for that".

So I take the literature as a wealth of wonderful ideas I can ponder on.


I have no definite answer, but maybe this info will be useful:

According to Mahayana views, the material world we ordinarily perceive is only a part of reality. Another part of reality can be viewed as some kind of "spiritual realm", Sambhogakāya.

In a sense, both that spiritual realm and this material world are projections from true reality. It's not like there are other dimensions somewhere out there; rather, limits of our ordinary perception let us see only a part of what is here.

On some levels of advanced practice, we are able to perceive Buddhas and Bodhisattvas from Sambhogakaya realm,

  may gain access to the Sambhogakaya and receive direct transmission of doctrine.

(All the quotations are from the link above).

  In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Chan Master Huineng describes the Samboghakaya as a state in which the practitioner continually and naturally produces good thoughts:

    Think not of the past but of the future. Constantly maintain the future thoughts to be good. This is what we call the Sambhogakāya.

    Just one single evil thought could destroy the good karma that has continued for one thousand years; and just one single good thought in turn could destroy the evil karma that has lived for one thousand years.

    If the future thoughts are always good, you may call this the Sambhogakāya. The discriminative thinking arising from the Dharmakāya (法身↔fashen "Truth body") is called the Nirmanakāya (化身↔huashen "transformation body"). The successive thoughts that forever involve good are thus the Sambhogakāya.

In that light, it seems quite possible that Venerable Mahakashyapa abides in Sambhogakaya to these days, and it's not impossible to meet him and receive teachings.


Did Gautama Buddha cease to exist after death?

This is exactly one of the topics (i.e. whether a Tathagata exists or doesn't exist after death, or both) which the Buddha "didn't declare" -- see the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63):

  And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.


Role of the Buddhist in preserving the original teachings

First a couple of comments...

It is to be expected that in a non-Buddhist country you wouldn't find as much authentic Buddhist literature as you would in Buddhist countries. In Thailand, for example, it is quite easy to obtain a full translation of the entire tipitaka... two different translations, actually.

Of course, the fact that the tipitaka is tens of times the size of the bible makes it relatively expensive to translate, print, ship, etc., and so it is not exactly the kind of thing you see in hotel rooms (for other reasons as well).

I think there are several reasons for the plethora of misleading or quasi-Buddhist literature available today: the sheer magnitude of the teaching can lead to lopsided interpretations; the difficulty in penetrating the teachings can lead to sloppiness, etc.; the general usefulness of the teachings can lead to misappropriation of the teachings due to ulterior motives, etc.

But, to answer your question.  It's important to distinguish between what a monk should do and what a lay person should do. There is relatively little in the Buddha's teaching about what lay people "should" do in matters like this; there isn't always definitive guidelines even for monks. Buddhism is much less a religion of "should" than it is a religion of "can", in the sense of laying out a description of reality and pointing out the causal relationships between actions and reactions.

There is some guidance to be found in this particular matter, though; specifically in the Brahmajala Sutta, which begins with a nice intro tale of how to react to those who malign (or praise) the Buddha, Dhamma, or Sangha:

  "If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.'

  DN 1

So, there's a "should" for you. There are also rules of protocol in the vinaya on how to deal with monks who profess wrong views, e.g.:

  Should any bhikkhu say the following: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says
  are obstructive, when engaged in are not
  genuine obstructions,” the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not say that,
  venerable sir. Do not slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed
  One. The Blessed One would not say anything l
  ike that. In many ways, friend, the
  Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when engaged in they are genuine
  obstructions.

  Pāc 68

but these are of course restricted to within the monastic order.

A lay person who speaks in dispraise of the dhamma may be ostracised by the monks (Sg 8), though I don't suppose this relates directly to your question.

Ultimately, I think there is precedence for pointing out when someone has clearly misrepresented the Buddha. Whether one "should" do so seems highly dependent on circumstance and ability - both of oneself to correct, and of the other to accept correction.


Need help understanding this about the jhanas

I think this passage is addressing something that's more explicitly stated elsewhere.  In the Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36), for example, we find:

  secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, [he] enters &
  remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion,
  accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

The operative word here, of course, is "secluded".  Vitaka and vicara (i.e. concentration) only come into the equation once rapture and pleasure are born of that seclusion.  Piti and sukkha help to calm, gladden, and focus the mind allowing concentration to strengthen in to full jhana.

So of course, this begs the question of how one finds that seclusion.  There are some who are lucky and can just shut the door on their negative and unwholesome states.  Other have to win their seclusion through other methods like suppression and substitution of opposites.  I think the latter group is who your quoted passage is addressing.


In modern times what percentage of monks are female?

In reply to "what percentage of Buddhist monks are female?" -

In Korea, the number of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis is very similar.  In Taiwan, the numbers of bhikkhunis now substantially surpass the number of bhikkhus.  I am not sure about Vietnam.

In the Theravada Buddhism of Southeast Asia, with the Bhikkhuni Sangha in the early stages of a revival and not yet State supported, the numbers of bhikkhunis are growing, but still much less than the numbers of bhikkhus. In Sri Lanka, there are now more than 2000 Theravada bhikkhunis, far more than anywhere else in the world.  In Thailand, there are less than 200 bhikkhunis, as compared to around 200,000 bhikkhus. In Theravada Buddhism in "the West" (in Australia, the United States, Canada and Germany combined), there are also less than 200 bhikkhunis.

Here in Northern California, there are more Theravada bhikkhuni viharas than in any other state or region in North America.  In this region there are ~60 Theravada bhikkhu temples (at last count) and 4 Theravada bhikkhuni viharas and hermitages. That's a 400% increase in bhikkhuni viharas in the past 5 years.


What is considered lying in Buddhist (five) precepts?

Not providing all information, changing the subject or staying silent does not break the precept. But, marketing harmful food as healthy food or selling counterfeits as originals does break the precept.

Understanding the importance of honesty and knowing when to speak,what to speak and whom to speak are all instances of wisdom.


Dilemma caused by differing viewpoints regarding soul and karma

A concrete, substantial self implies inherent existence. Inherent existence is the lens of delusion through which we naturally view the world. Buddhism teaches dependent origination, which helps free you from this root delusion.

To believe in the Hindu scriptures, you have to rely on faith. Buddhism's principles become self-evident through honest introspection, not faith.

The purpose of meditation is to free beings from suffering, at least from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. If you are still clinging to cyclical existence, this ultimate end seems impossible as you are still heavily under the spell of the root delusion.