What is rhys david dictionary's license for now?

The blurb on Amazon.com says (about the PTS dictionary specifically),

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

Looking at Wikipedia's descriptions of copyright durations (USA and UK) suggests that may be so (though I'm not a lawyer).
If you access it via a web site or other publisher, they may (I don't know) have other terms of use.

A PTS news page says,

10 May 2013
Following the generous donation of a long-standing member of the Society, the Pali Text Society is pleased to announce that the following works, whose copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society, are now issued under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
The Pali Text Society retains all commercial rights, but permission is granted to reproduce, reformat, transmit and distribute these works for non-commercial use without further need to contact the Society.

So it's CC BY-NC 3.0 at least, and some sources (perhaps not the PTS) suggest it's public domain.
Its content exists (sometimes remixed with other content) on various web sites, which I use for free (i.e. gratis), so I suppose these are "non-commercial" sites which publish it noncommercially.


Once the practitioner attains certain level of mastery in meditation and mindfulness, their sleep acquires a character of meditation. It's not like they don't sleep at all, but they do retain certain level of deep awareness during their sleep.

Specifically, when they see a dream, they know it's a dream. They remain aware of their body lying down on the bed. They remain aware of the content of their consciousness no matter how disjointed it gets during a deep sleep. If something happens around them, they wake up easily to provide their help if needed.

From my personal experience I can say this has gotten increasingly true for me over the years of practice.

As far as specific methods, stopping internal dialogue and mental gossip really helps mindfulness.


The Buddha lived till the age of 80, which is 45 years after his enlightenment, according to tradition.
Based on the Pali Canon, he seemed to have lived a mostly healthy life and only suffered from dysentery a short while before his death.
From the essay "Footprints in the dust: Buddha’s travels in India" by Ven. S. Dhammika:

In the famous Mahaparinibbana Sutta we know that he went from Rajagaha
to Kusinara via Nalanda, Patna and Vesali, a total distance of about
300 kilometres.

I think to travel 300 km on foot, he must have been quite healthy.
Similarly, his disciples like Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Moggallana were arahats and also seemed to have lived generally healthy lives.
As far as I know, enlightenment does not have a detrimental effect on the body. Of course, they are no longer attached to their bodies, so they may not lovingly take care of their body, looks and health in the same way non-enlightened folk would. They would follow the Middle Way in taking care of their health i.e. neither extreme asceticism, nor indulgence and vanity.
Ageing, disease and death affects all sentient beings, regardless of whether they are enlightened or not. All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe sankhara anicca).


I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta
meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation.

If these are real external disturbances (rather than internal delusions):
(i) they are not beings from another world;
(ii) they are merely minds with psychic powers, as described in the Pali suttas; and
(iii) these minds are engaged in transgressions of the Buddhist Vinaya, as follows:

Displaying psychic powers. A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkata. (page 266)

(iv) this type of activity is cult activity; trying to engage in mind control.
(v) in the Pali suttas, being "captured by non-humans (devas)" is one of many reasons for not reaching the ocean of Nibbana, as follows:

The Lord Buddha continued,
If that log is not caught on the near bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not caught on the far bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not submerged under the water, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not land on a small island in the middle of the river, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a human being, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a deity, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not sink into a whirlpool, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not become rotten, it will reach the ocean.
Parable of the Log

They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me
during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make
some good progress.

The fear overwhelms the mind because what is occurring is psychologically intrusive. It is worse than physical abuse because it is very difficult for the nervous system to control the psychic power sense contact; which causes loss of sleep; because psychic power is external mental energy entered into the nervous system. Because the mental energy is not created by the afflicted mind, the afflicted cannot control the energy; unless the mind is highly developed.
It is ideal to view the sense contact as 'nama-rupa' or 'a sound' (rather than as a "being"). The Buddha taught external objects are merely mind & matter (nama-rupa) and not-self (anatta). Refer to SN 12.19, which is properly translated as:

Bhikkhus, for the wise man, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this group (of five aggregates) has thereby originated. So there is this group and
external mentality-and-materiality: thus this dyad.

What is experienced is not "beings" but mere "mentality".

I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back
again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well
prepared and so the fear of being disturbed again does not overwhelms
me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear
behind. Thank you for reading this.

Personally, I would not return to this place because, to me, it sounds like an immoral cult that does not follow the Vinaya of Buddhism.


Is the new "Spread Mind" philosophy actually Buddhism?

Alright, I will take a stab at this.

(Disclaimer: unless I'm quoting a text, all of the following is my own personal understanding, based on my study of primary texts, commentaries, and practice of insight meditation, with or without guidance and confirmation of entitled lineage masters)

"Consciousness is the object one is conscious of."

In Buddhism, consciousness (vijnana) is experience of an object along with its context/background/environment. Vijnana is not a separate entity or substance cognizing an object. It is the very experience itself. Vijnana is necessarily interpretative in its nature. It involves grasping available "signs" or "features", retrieving past experiences matching the signs, and recognizing the object/situation, with experience arising as final state of this process of recognition. So far sounds pretty close to Mr. Manzotti's ideas.

A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.

In Mahayana Buddhism, as explained specifically in Madhyamaka, entities do not have inherent existence. Instead, entities are considered abstractions, assembled by the mind by picking whatever criteria for identity and temporal/spatial boundaries that are useful in a particular context, with a label of name stamped on top. So from the Buddhist perspective, the actual existence underlying mind's modeling process cannot be characterized as being made of any fixed entities. Moreover, causation in Buddhism is considered a useful simplification, dependent on reification of the cause and reification of the effect. Instead, what we call "events" are in fact arbitrary points we call out in an otherwise analogue/continuous process of interaction and transformation. So from this perspective Mr. Manzotti's statement above sounds a bit superficial. I think he is hinting at his primary thesis of all existence without exception having relative nature, which Buddhism is in agreement with, but his talk about existing entities and actual causes sounds naive.

The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.

This seems to be the hardest of the three ideas for me to decipher. I think he is talking about determinism and free will, correct me if I'm wrong. From Buddhist perspective, the nature of the world is deterministic, as without determinism the mechanism of karma-and-its-effects would be unreliable, and it is. However, despite determinism, from the perspective of an individual being seeking Enlightenment, free will remains a real phenomena, and a useful perspective to have, since falling into fatalism would preclude skillful behavior and therefore Attainment. From the perspective of an enlightened mind, determinism and free will are not in conflict with each other as absolute and relative perspectives correspondingly. So in this sense we can say Buddhism is more or less in agreement with this statement, as in Buddhism we say that an effect of an action, once created, cannot dissipate by itself and will be experienced in a way it is to be experienced - and that at the same time, individuals have choice to act skilfully or unskillfully to create their own future.


Actually, only warriors can attain enlightenment.  All Buddhas have to die on the cushion if they’re going to wake up.  It takes tremendous courage, fortitude, and self sacrifice in order to make that happen.  Only a warrior possesses those qualities.

But to answer you question, the one really doesn’t have anything to do with the other.  It really astounds me how often people forget that the same temple that gave us Zen is the very same one that brought us the 8th century equivalent of the Apache helicopter.  Shaolin monks were no slouch with the sword.  Many of them fought, many of them died, and many of them killed.  Many of them were also deeply awake.

I hope it’s fairly obvious what distinguishes the Shaolin monk from your average mass shooter, John Rambo wannabe, or even the samurai. To put it plainly, the true Zen warrior wholeheartedly follows the dharma.  All of his decisions are made facing emptiness.  Mu doesn’t tell you blow up buildings, pick off people in the street, or to be a solider of fortune.  Shunyata isn’t a lord one serves or a stilted code of beliefs one takes up to defend.  Seeing emptiness, the zen warrior feels compassion.  His sword is drawn with compassion.  If he acts with violence, it is to further that compassion even if doing so destroys him inside.  The real warrior of zen serves mushin and nothing else.


Is the Avatamsaka Sutra the only Buddhist scripture that talks about multiverse?

The Avatamsaka Sutra speaks of "worlds" or "realms", not of universes, and certainly not about the scientific theory of the multiverse:

In all atoms of all lands Buddha enters, each and every one, Producing
miracle displays for sentient beings: Such is the way of Vairocana....
The techniques of the Buddhas are inconceivable, All appearing in
accord with beings’ minds.... In each atom the Buddhas of all times
Appear, according to inclinations; While their essential nature
neither comes nor goes, By their vow power they pervade the worlds.

The characters written in the text for this are usually 境界 (Jìngjiè), where 境 means "territory" and 界 means "world", usually rendered in English as "realm".
For "universe", the characters 宇宙 (Yǔzhòu) would be used. These do not appear anywhere in the Chinese text.


Can someone explain about children monks?

In Thailand, male novices (called nen or samanera) are a fairly common sight.  Very often they have taken vows only temporarily.  They may do it during the phansa (rainy season) period, during summer holidays from March to May, or just for a few days in order to make merit when a parent or grandparent has passed away.  The latter motivation is in a sense repayment of a debt owed to family members for being under their care as a young child.  According to Thai wikipedia, novices should be no younger than 8.  A temple website states that they follow only 10 precepts.  A Thai friend of mine told me that one motivation on the part of parents is that since the boys learn the basics of meditation practice, they are more mature and exhibit fewer behavioral problems when they come out.  I recall reading something like this in a biography of one well-known Thai monk – it might have been Buddhadasa bhikkhu.

Regarding language, my friend said that some of the special monastic vocabulary (like chan for ‘to eat') is used when speaking to novices as well as monks, but that the overall politeness level is less formal (e.g. novices are not addressed as ‘venerable’.)

In Burma I have seen young girls (samanerī or the Burmese equivalent) in pinkish robes out on alms rounds, perhaps later in the morning than monks.  You wouldn’t see that in Thailand though.

Donald Swearer discusses additional motivations for ordaining as a teenager in his book ‘The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia’ (1995), p. 48:

  In Thailand one of the principle reasons for being ordained is to acquire an education.  Among poorer families often children cannot afford to attend school.  Ordination as a novice provides for their material needs as well as a basic education.  Indeed, if a boy is bright and highly motivated he may complete secondary school as a novice or monk, graduate from a monastic college, and then earn an advanced degree from a university in another country, such as India.  After teaching in a monastery school for several years or serving as an administrator in a larger provincial monastery he will probably disrobe and take a responsible and respected secular job.  Although such exploitation of the monastic educational structure siphons off able leadership, it has become standard practice and bears little or no social stigma.

I have known several university teachers who followed this career path - they were all from the relatively poor northeastern region of Thailand.

Swearer goes on to suggest that in an earlier era, ordaining at the age of puberty was a kind of rite of passage that all males went though.  Monks in fact lead rather comfortable lives and for a child from a poor family, being a monk would mean raising one’s economic and social status.  Given the traditional link between education and the sangha, it should be no surprise that males ordain at a young age and that this is encouraged by local cultural norms.  In comtemporary Thai society the link has been weakened with the advent of universal secular education, but elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos and Burma) it is likely still quite strong.


The knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth

The Buddha taught 4 yokes;

The yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance. - AN 4.10

4 clingings;

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
views clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana)

The expression

Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots.

As i understand it, one can interpret the knots as untied by unyoking, unyoked one enjoys non-clinging. 1st & 2nd knots are fully untied at the unyoking from sensuality as anagamin, 3rd & 4th would be untied by a stream enterer as the 3rd is silabattaparamasa fetter and the phrase in question i assume is an untieing due to unyoking from the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance, a non clinging to the doctrine of self & pernicious wrong views, these too are abandoned by a sotapanna.
As to why it's a bodily knot, i guess because it binds to getting a body due to being yoked becoming/existence but some say Kaya is a tricky word and if one makes those assertions then one can pull different interpretations.
Also one can interpret the knots closer to the tangle sutta.
There is this verse (SN 7.6):

A tangle within,
a tangle without,
people are entangled
in a tangle.
Gotama, I ask you this:
who can untangle this tangle?

[The Buddha:]
A man established in virtue,
discerning,
developing discernment & mind,
a monk ardent, astute:
he can untangle this tangle.
Those whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
have faded away,
arahants, their effluents ended:
for them the tangle's untangled.
Where name-&-form,
along with perception
of impingement & form,
totally stop without trace:
that's where the tangle is cut.


Best book or documentary related to mindfulness

Most Buddhists don't know what mindfulness is therefore i cannot recall any good books about it except a short talk by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa called The Use of Dhamma.
Pra Payutto wrote a lengthy book called Sammasati:
An Exposition of Right Mindfulness however it contains errors, such as the following:

It is attentive, as if keeping its eyes on each impression that
passes into consciousness and then bearing down on it. When one wishes
to concentrate on a particular object, it maintains one's attention
fixedly upon it, not allowing the object to drift away or disappear.
By means of sati, one keeps placing the mind on the object, or
recollecting it, not allowing oneself to let it slip from the mind.
There is a simile likening it to a pillar, because it is firmly
embedded in its object, or to a gate-keeper, because it watches over
the various sense-doors through which sense-data pass, inspecting all
that enters. The proximate cause for the arising of sati is a firm and
clear perception of the object [OMG!], or any of the different sorts of
satipatthana that will be spoken of below.

I recommend to read the scriptures, namely:

Indriya-Vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties.
SN 46.3 - Sila Sutta.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty.
Nagara Sutta: The Fortress.

In summary, "mindfulness" means "to bring to mind (to recollect), to remember & to not forget" to practise the Dhamma teachings. Mindfulness does not mean to observe objects.
This video called "Buddhist Meditation: Sati Sampajanna" by Ajahn Jayasāro is reasonably good.


According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first
  jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he
  entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the
  fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he
  entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the
  sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the
  attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he
  attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.

  And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."

  "No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
  entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."

  Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
  nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
  he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
  attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
  jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
  entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
  first jhana.

  Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
  the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
  jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
  the Blessed One immediately passed away.

Piya Tan's commentary here states:

  Samanantarā. Samyutta Commentary: Here there are 2 kinds of
  samanantarā: immediately after dhyana and immediately after reviewing.
  In the former case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, descends into the
  life - continuum (bhavanga) and attains parinirvana. In the latter
  case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, reviews the dhyana-factors
  again, then descends into  the life-continuum and attains parinirvana,
  as in the case of the Buddha. But buddhas, pratyeka buddhas, noble
  disciples, and even ants and termites pass away by way of the noble
  truth that is suffering, with a karmically indeterminate bhavanga
  consciousness (SA 1:224)

Dhyana is jhana. The difference between jhana and bhavanga is explained in  this answer:

  Jhana is more than just the giving up of the five senses. Each of the
  jhanas is the result of very strong samadhi, and has specific factors
  that go along with it. For example, the first jhana has five factors:
  rapture, pleasure, initial application of mind, sustained application
  of mind, and oneness of mind. As one goes deeper into the second
  jhana, one leaves behind initial application and sustained application
  of mind, and so on.

  Bhavanga is very different than this however. Bhavanga is like a blank
  slate. All it has are the mental factors that are necessary for mind
  to be there and nothing else. It only occurs in the space between
  other kinds of mindstate. None of the jhana factors are present at
  all, and there isn't even any meaningful degree of awareness in it.

So, according to these commentaries, the Buddha did not actually pass away in the fourth jhana. Rather he passed away in bhavanga.


How to do metta for a long time (before sleep)?

just repat the metta cycle again and again and again?

I guess you mean "repeat the words"?

I think not.

As an analogy: if I decide to go somewhere, then I might be verbal or have some specific direction[s] initially -- I might decide, for example, "I will travel, to that place". After I have started, while I'm going there, however, I won't keep repeating that same phrase -- instead, I am conscious of 1) being somewhere 2) moving in a direction toward a destination 3) what I see on the way.

If I decide to start meditating, instead of what I was doing before, then discursive thinking (producing words) stops. Instead of thinking about words, I think about "real" (defined as "actually existing as a thing", so physical as well as sentient) people, who as people exist here and there in directions more or less far away from me.

Thinking about that physicality (with the intention of being kind "in real life") switches off my discourse. Switching off my discourse, my breathing changes, instead of shallowly I breathe deeply. Conscious of suddenly breathing relatively deeply I'm conscious of being more relaxed, of well-being, of well-being being associated with metta.

Conscious of well-being (or of "travelling in the right direction") I have no desire to change that direction, and instead want to continue in that state. If you're travelling (for example on foot or by car) and start to veer towards the right or the left, then you correct the steering to resume the right path/direction. If I start to leave the state of well-being then I'm conscious of what I'm beginning to do wrong (for example, thinking about myself instead of expanding my conscious attention to include and wish well towards other people, or for example beginning to think discursively again), and undo that (don't continue in the wrong or less rewarding direction) to return to the right direction.

Doing this in bed is especially pleasant: relaxed, warm (under cover), eyes closed. Eyes closed makes it easier to expand/extend my awareness (or imagination or consciousness) of space (instead of being stuck behind my eyes and looking in one direction, i.e. visual consciousness).

Warm and relaxed, and breathing, contributes to the feeling of well-being. Sometimes my thought (or focus of awareness) comes back to my body (instead of being 'out there'). I think that's because it "needs attention" e.g. it's tense or uncomfortable in some way ... it's enough to consciously relax that part (musculature) that feels of tense, for the feeling (of tenseness) to go away, after which my mind is free to leave again.

It usually isn't very long before I'm asleep, though. See also Meditating as sleep aid.

Another pleasant thing about a metta meditation is that it's time to do nothing except goodwill (i.e. wishing people well). It's time to stop making practical plans, to switch off the discursive machinery.


If someone causes me pain but I don’t lament it, feel sorrow about it- what circumstance, if any, warrants acting against the person causing pain?

Remaining equanimous doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t take action.

It means not reacting automatically from your emotions.

Step 1) someone hurts you.
Step 2) you observe this and ensure you are equanimous and non reactive.
Step 3) take mindful, conscious action. Not out of pity or anger, but out of compassion and reason.

For example if someone assaults you, it’s not that you should be a passive rag doll. You can defend yourself, but it’s important to have clarity and peace of mind before and while you do it.


What is the meditation and what is its purpose?

Meditation is when the mind comes back home. When the mind comes back home it can sit by the fire and enjoy its own warmth. It can stop being busy with all kinds of "doing". Meditation is the ultimate "not-doing". Just sit in presence and let the nature of things take care of itself.

Meditation is not thinking. It's more like watching the cows graze. The cows represent thoughts, if they start misbehaving you show them their place -- other than that, you just let them graze. When the mind watches itself, there is some processing going on, some laundering, some mending and healing, some connecting, some letting go.

The practical purpose of meditation, beside processing, mending and healing, is to reunite with the original state of "this is enough", "this is peaceful". The supramundane purpose of meditation is to lose form and go deep into formless, the real nature of things.

When you completely lose attachment to any form, you get supernatural powers - yes.


Are there meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills?

I am not aware of any meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills. However (although I am not an academic), I have found, in my experience, the more clear & calm the mind is, the better my logic & problem solving skills.


The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. It encourages shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (otappa), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma.

  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’


What arises first - feeling of object or visual representation of object?

The optic nerve first goes to the amygdala where emotion resides and then to a large processing area to the back of the head where the image is formed.

So indeed feeling is first but still this knowledge must be realized for oneself by oneself through meditative attention or else it is just intellectual knowlegde.


If Buddhism is about moderation, then why is it that you can attain nirvana only after renouncing worldly possessions?

These are common misunderstandings of the middle way. The middle way is best explained through the Buddha's life story.

The Buddha began as a nobleman who had the money for all the indulgence in sensual pleasures which he wanted. However, indulgence in pleasure did not lead to lasting happiness. This is the first extreme. The Buddha then became an ascetic who starved himself and took part in self mortification. This was an attempt at gaining happiness through pain, or indulgence in pain. This is the second extreme and it did not lead to lasting happiness.

The middle way is neither indulgence in pleasure nor indulgence in pain. The middle way is not about moderation, it is about the attitude to indulgence.

Taking a simple example like eating chocolate: There are extremes of never eating chocolate or eating 10 bars of chocolate each day, but eating in moderation such as 1 bar per day is not going to bring about happiness. If you eat 1 bar of chocolate and you treat it as the best thing you've ever tasted then you're already indulging in pleasure. The amount of chocolate is irrelevant. The point is to eat chocolate without doing it to seek pleasure and without doing it to seek pain.

One final common misconception which you didn't mention is "The middle way is for laypeople, monks don't follow the middle way". This misconception comes from the idea that the middle way is moderation. Although monks deny themselves things like sex or perfume this is not a type of indulgence in pain, the purpose of the rules is entirely different. The monks don't try to use perfume in moderation but as I've explained moderation is not the middle way.


In short, what is the path to enlightenment? Where to begin?

The shortest explanation of the path to enlightenment is to not crave or cling egoistically (possessively) to anything, which includes meditation & enlightenment. For example, in meditation, if everything becomes peaceful, calm & blissful, the mind does not think: "I am blissful" or "I love this bliss". Instead, the mind just experiences the bliss, without thinking about or judging it.

Similarly, when reading or hearing about 'breathing meditation', the mind should not try to do breathing meditation because this is craving. Instead, the mind should just quietly & gently free itself from craving (while sitting in meditation) and allow the breathing meditation to occur by itself.

While 'non-clinging' is not exactly the same as 'non-judging', for a beginner, it is similar. Therefore, a short path to enlightenment is described as follows:

  You should train yourself thus: 'When seeing, merely see what is seen; when hearing, merely hear what is heard; when
  sensing, merely sense what is sensed; when cognizing (a mental
  object), merely cognise what is cognized.' In this way you should
  train yourself, Bahiya.

  Bahiya Sutta

Meditation for enlightenment requires the foundation of non-harming; with the aspiration to not harm anything or anyone. This makes & keeps the mind pure, without obstacle or hindrance. It also generates compassion, which is an important energy for meditation. Here, a clear v ision/view in respect to sexual morals is especially important because the primary obstacle to meditation for enlightenment is often sexual desire. When there is non-harmful view about sex, the instinctual sexual drive can be transformed into compassion.

Also, beginning by doing a short meditation retreat (7 to 10 days) in a meditation centre or monastery can be particularly useful; not so much for the teachings; but for the atmosphere.


Is there an intermediate state between death and rebirth in Theravada tradition?

When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fueled by craving382. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.

  — SN 44:9 The Debating Hall
  (Bodhi, from SuttaCentral)

And another:

  Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.

  — SN 44:9 Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta
  (Thanissaro, from Access to insight)

Here's Bhikku Bodhi's note #382 in his printed edition of the Saṃyutta Nikāya:

  Tam ahaṃ taṇhūpādānaṃ vadāmi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Theravāda orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

So on the one hand, there's Theravadin orthodoxy which denies it. On the other, there are passages in the Pāli canon, as above, which could be taken to support it.

I personally take the passage above as literal and that the Buddha says some kind of state between death and birth exists, without being specific as to how long it is.

Other resources I found when searching:

Rebirth and the in-between state in Early Buddhism by Sujato
Dhammawheel.com post on the subject
Google cache of a thread on dhammawheel.net discussing the same subject

In this last link, one of the posts as dhammawheel.net mentions, very apropos of Bodhi's comment on Spk:

  The main reason the commentaries go to lengths to deny a bardo is because it's inconsistent with the scholastic Abhidhamma framework, and the associated notion of a single moment of rebirth-linking consciousness.


Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "You insulted / offended / angered / hurt me?"

One could "say" anything but that would only be a relative truth. Ultimately one person doesn't cause another persons anger. One causes their own anger.

It is hard to understand ultimate reality unless one reflects within by atempting to experience  things that arise in one's experience moment by moment in the present moment. Remembering to see things moment by moment is basicly what is meant by mindfulness.

The reason the Buddha's teaching is so seemingly contradictory is because of these two ways of approaching reality called ultimate and relative(conceptual) reality.  Reality is an other word for truth. Ultimate truth means our own instance of moment by moment atomic experience.

Most people are asleep to the ultimate, experiential and moment by moment aproach to reality. When we are not aware of our experience then we let defilements like anger and greed take us over. This is called mental proliferation and is basicly the opposite of mindfulness. Mental proliferation is the reason everyone suffers. Moment by moment mindfulness of the things that arise in one's own experience kills mental proliferation. Mindfulness is the cure for our suffering.

Here's a video, which hints that it's possible to use mindfulness to avoid reacting angrily:

Ask A Monk: Criticism and Insults

It's only 5 minutes long; I don't have a complete transcript but here are some selected extracts/sentences:

  No other person can cause "suffering" for you, all they can do is impinge upon your six senses. ... They can make you see etc. but they can't make you get angry ... or make you get attached, only you can do that.
  The problem is not the dirty look or the criticism, the problem is your reaction to it.
  ... we can change that through the meditation. ... that's quite difficult, that takes a lot of training but we are training to get to that level ... and it does work if that's continuous, even in daily life when it's difficult to do so, if you're careful and especially if you're prepared for it. ... If you prepare yourself in advance then when the situation comes up then you find yourself really able to deal with it in a much more profitable way.
  (you can use a similar technique to stop anger snowballing if it does arise)
  You mentioned losing all energy when you're criticized, don't worry about that, I think even if you're enlightened it would be very tiresome to be around, they say even the Buddha was tired when he was around such people and would often dismiss them. ... if you're going to live your life in a peaceful and happy way you're going to have to surround yourself with peaceful and happy people ... if you can't do that then try to say to yourself the greatest treasure that we have is our solitude.


Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals?

Karma is a universal law. It works the same for all beings. Whether you are a god, human or an animal, what matters is the strength of craving, aversion and ignorance.

Yes, if you sink below the level of humans, it's pretty difficult to come back. That's why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara.


How come movies/video games decrease the motivation to do buddhist practises?

What happened to me? How those videos cause me to lost my interest for buddhism? How I lost that resistance?

I suspect something you wrote points to the answer – you wrote that college work stressed you out, and these videos “helped me forget the problems.” People respond to stress in their own way, e.g. overeating, indulging in drugs or sensual pleasure, or zoning out on YouTube videos. They’re all easy distractions that are pleasurable in the short term and an escape from your troubles. As you’ve found, watching videos online can become compulsive – there are always endless more videos to watch, endless suggestions and enticements. It may not cause the same obvious physical downsides caused by overeating or drug use, but there is a definite negative effect as it takes over your time and stunts your motivation for other, healthier endeavors. Internet addiction in general is a very real thing, and perhaps reading a bit about it will give you some insight as to how your mind has been affected by your time online.

How can I get back to that previous state?

Not to get technical, but there’s no such thing as going back to a previous state, nor should you want to. You’re currently learning a challenging but important lesson – distractions will always exist, and now you know that a weak spot for you is internet videos. Guess what? You’re going to get through this, and then you’re going to encounter the next challenge and overcome that one, and so on. And at each step you’re going to become wiser about pitfalls, how to avoid them, and how to climb out of them. I suggest you start by reading (or re-reading) about the five hindrances and their antidotes. Of the five hindrances to progress – sensory desire, ill will, sloth-torpor, restlessness-worry and doubt – you seem to be plagued by a mix of the last three. They each have their specific antidotes, in this case such aspects as rousing energy, having a schedule/routine for meditation, and developing contentment and trust in the process. Underlying all of this are the constants of Buddhism: being mindful of our thoughts and impulses, investigating them to understand them, and detaching from them as you realize they’re not “you” and they’re just as transient as anything.
I believe having a schedule/routine for meditation is critical. As the body and mind get used to it, we just automatically do it and are less likely to skip it in favor of distractions. Keep to the schedule and give yourself time to get in a groove. Don’t beat yourself up if it’s tough at first. I noticed that the election week stress threw me off, and I’m just now getting more focused day by day. Best wishes to you.


Did Japanese Buddhists once use sky burial?

I was curious about this question and I found some sources that might answer this question more or less:

...in ancient Japanese society, prior to the introduction of Buddhism and the funerary practice of cremation, the corpse was exposed in a manner very similar to the Tibetan sky burial.

This excerpt is from the wiki article on Excarnation.

The following link opens to a part in an ebook that might help answer this question:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CZM2AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Excarnation+~Japanese&source=bl&ots=DF_qKCS7PC&sig=H9zvNsP284SQteLueDyDmyvWmjI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQurPevcDKAhVW2mMKHS6ADKkQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&q=Excarnation%20~Japanese&f=false


What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka?

I have been watching this question for sometime, because the original poster posted this question in response to a comment I made earlier. I have refrained from replying because I didn't feel I could do justice to the Lotus Sutra, especially without coming across as attacking Theravada Buddhism.

However, given that Saptha Visuddhi above have decided to attack the Lotus Sutra and Mahayana Buddhism, I feel I must correct these erroneous views.

First of all, I must state that, in contrary to common Theravada claims about being the 'Pure Tradition' handed down by the Elders, Theravada is not the same as the Buddhism taught during the time of the Sakyamuni Buddha. Indeed while it is the most conservative, but it is not 'pure'. A common narrative asserted by the Theravada was that they maintained all the teachings handed down since the Early Buddhist Council, and maintained that they are descended from the Sthavira sect, while Mahayana are Mahāsāṃghika. Theravada narrative assert that the Mahāsāṃghika split off from the elders because they want to modify the Vinaya. While historical evidence and the narrative of other schools indicate that it was in fact the Sthavira who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya. Never the less, the current surviving Vinaya of the Mahayana traditions (East Asian and Tibetan) are in fact also descended from the Sthavira, and has more monastic rules than what is scholarly accepted to be the oldest the Mahāsāṃghika.

Further more, the Abhidhamma according to Theravada narrative asserts that it was taught by the Sakyamuni Buddha to his mother in heaven. This should have indicated that skillful means was being employed on the origins of this teaching.  Historical scholars indicate that the Abhidhamma as a synthesis of the Buddha's teachings, and has a checkered history and was not accepted by all Buddhist schools, and were actually one of the reason for the Early Buddhist schisms as each schools reject or accepted the metaphysical doctrines of other schools. Indeed some Buddhist sect did not consider Abhidhamma to be canonical at all as originally the teachings were called Dharmavinaya, containing only two 'baskets'.

The Abhidhamma made a lot of metaphysical assertions, as the teachings of the Buddha were analyzed and compiled. Prophetic predictions were made about the coming of the Future Buddha Maitreya, the disappearance of the Dharma and so forth. The differences between Buddhas and Arahants, and indeed the Four Stages of Enlightenment were analytically described. These four stages would have originally correspond to having attained Right View to practice the Noble Eightfold Path (stream entry), Ethics (Once Returner), Concentration (Non Returner), culminating in the Wisdom of a perfect Arahant. The differences between a Buddha, an Arahant, an a Pratyekabuddha were further described. In fact, many of these metaphysical doctrines made their way back into the Sutta Pitaka.

  Scholars, however, generally date the Abhidhamma works to originating some time around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the death of the Buddha. Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha himself, but those of disciples and scholars.

  Anguttara Nikāya

  According to Keown, "there is considerable disparity between the Pāli and the Sarvāstivādin versions, with more than two-thirds of the sūtras found in one but not the other compilation, which suggests that much of this portion of the Sūtra Piṭaka was not formed until a fairly late date."

  Khuddaka Nikāya
  This is a heterogeneous mix of sermons, doctrines, and poetry attributed to the Buddha and his disciples. The contents vary somewhat between editions. The Thai edition includes 1-15 below, the Sinhalese edition 1-17 and the Burmese edition 1-18.

However we can begin to see some common controversies and problems that exist to this day. For example, the nature of Nirvana, the nature of the discrete states of enlightenment. And the nature of prophecies. The role of women. The role of Arahants. How many times have you seen Buddhists passively accept the decline of the Dharma because it was already foretold by the prophecies. I have even seen Theravada Buddhists stated that in this Degenerated Dharma age, no one can attain Arahantship and that the best bet is to hope for rebirth in the time of the Maitreya and become enlightened then. The passive fatalistic world view was threatening the survival of Buddhism itself. Indeed even Sri Lanka, the very heart of Thervada Buddhism has demonstrated, they have actually lost the Dharma transmission at least 3 times in their history and had to be revitalized from else where.

Further more, certain schools such as the Madhyamaka led by Nagarjuna utilizing the doctrine of dependent origination, logically show that because all phenomena are dependently originated, they are ultimately empty, that is impermanent and selfless. Hence in Nirvana there is no actually leaving to go anywhere. As the Buddha would say the five aggregates are impermanent and not self.

  Eight Negations Of Nagarjuna

  no elimination
  no production
  no destruction
  no eternity
  no unity
  no manifoldness
  no arriving
  no departing

This probably imply in my own opinion to mean that there is no permanent cessation of birth and death. The cessation of suffering and sankhara are impermanent.

Hence, the ideal of the Bodhisattva was born, instead of desiring to be free from all worldly attachments as soon as possible, Buddhist monks and laymen alike were exhorted to remain engaged with the larger society. If escape from Samsara was in some sense impossible, what then is the goal of the Buddhist life?

The Lotus Sutra is one of those text which laid out the purpose of Buddhism. It points out that ultimately there is only One Vehicle, not three distinct vehicles, The Savakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas are ultimately on the same path - the Noble Eightfold Path. While there are differences in relative abilities, they are not ultimately irreversibly separated from one another. The teachings are only different because the abilities of people to understand something is different. Skillful means was emphasized as the manifold ways which a Buddha can teach sentient beings the Dharma. This was demonstrated with the parable of a rich man with the burning house who attracted his children out of the house by promising the rewards of different carts, but when they ultimately leave the house, the real cart "the one vehicle" they received is even more beautiful than the promises. The Lotus Sutra overturn the metaphysics described in the Suttas and emphasized that they are only skillful means, that is metaphors for the holy life.

Further more, Nirvana is compared to a phantom city magically conjured in the desert, allowing weary travelers searching for treasures to rest. Because the spiritual life is so difficult and demanding, nirvana allowed them to rest, before being exhorted to go further to the true purpose of the practice, to attain enlightenment. That is the Lotus Sutra state the goal of Buddhist practice is not to merely attain the state of no suffering, but to attain the full wisdom of a Buddha. This was compared to another parable where a runaway son returned home but did not recognize his own father, and the father set him out to do simple tasks at first to instill confidence until he can fully take on the inheritance of his father himself. Hence all beings have the potential to become a fully enlightened Buddha, regardless whether they are women, non humans or even sinners like Devadatta.

Further more, the Buddhas themselves are described as immortal because the True Dharma is immortal, unconditional and always present, the Noble Eightfold Path will always be the universal gate to experiencing Awakening.

This is reemphasized in the Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, said to be the very heart of the Lotus Sutra and a focus of many Mahayana Buddhist school. In it, it is stated that Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva can save beings who call upon him from the dangers fire, flood and storm, knives, demons, chains and demons. The dangers are of course the fire of anger, flood of cravings, storm of delusion, the knives of conceit, the demons of temptations, the chains of attachments and the robbers of afflictions, and we will indeed be saved as long as we apply the Dharma compassionately. The Avalokiteshvara is further stated to be able to transform to whatever beings as needed to teach the Dharma, reminding us that the Dharma is present everywhere if we knew how to look. The finger is not the moon, the raft is to ferry us across, not to be carried after we have arrived.

If you are attached to the metaphysics of Theravada Buddhism, you will be unable to see the wisdom within the Lotus Sutra.

I recommend reading this as a good introduction:

http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Lotus%20Sutra%20Book%20Preview.pdf


Telepathic Communication, do Buddhists Believe in it?

It is a well known super power attained by advanced meditators. You can find references to such powers in the stories of the Buddha, and in biographies of well known monks.

Kevatta Sutta:

  "Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having
  directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle
  of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of
  instruction.

In the Theravada tradition the Visuddhimagga is well known for speaking directly about mastering the occult powers, and in the Madhiyamika tradition (Tibet) the path of the Bodhisattva requires learning to see into the minds of others so they can be helped.

Accounts from recent times, such as the biography of Ven. Acharya Mun Bhuridatta Thera include incidents where he communicated with other monks living elsewhere.

Ajahn Chah's telepathic powers: https://youtu.be/mPIJhO8ipgs

The Buddha forbade speaking about or giving importance to powers with good reason, so in general accounts are not first person, but third person where a monk (usually) talks about witnessing another's powers.


The cognitive process: the stage of investigating consciousness

Many people try to read too much into the "17 thought moment sensing process". Please see page 164 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" which gives Ledi Sayadaw's explanation.

Basically, in the case of eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" captures a small patch of colour. This is followed by gazillions of mind-door processes that glue the entire field of vision together, grasp shapes, recognize shapes, grasp the name, recognize the name, etc. The comparing the object to past experiences comes much later after lots of thinking has been done. In other words, in the case of the eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" brings a small patch of colour into the mind. That's it. All the subsequent analysis is done by gazillions of mind-door processes.

If you want the "bigger picture", the best place to start is the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18), "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."

In this sutta, the "compared / coupled to past experiences" that you are asking about happens at the final stage.


Should a beginner try to educate others about the benefits of Vipassana?

Well, if you take your own case as a guideline, most people really just need a point or nudge in the right direction.  Depending on how interested people are, you might share the benefits you've discovered.

If it's a teacher or another great being who is putting practice into their daily life, talking and discussing can be great.  Especially view these people as pure guides so you can benefit as much as possible.

On the whole, the practice should transform your life and pysche, so if you are talking about practice without letting the transformation happen first, it's no good.  We must transform, then let our lives-as-examples embody the truth we wish to speak.

Writing is also very important, so if you have a friend with whom you can write back and forth about Dharma, so much the better.  To journal your own notes and gather your thoughts is prime.

In general, if you are really interested in bettering someone else's life, a master would spend a decent amount of their effort trying to understand what that person needed and how they could present it in a gradual and follow-able way that would lead to fruition for the person, but also the knowledge that it is effort which carries you.


Is it ok for lay meditators to have counsellors/therapists/psychologists

Both Mediation and Counselling can help. Talking about something can help you lighten your mind. Similarly meditation can help your reduce stress. But it is best to keep them independent without having spill over from one form of perspective to the other when you meet the respective people / crowd.

If there is any perspective which contradicts the other, you can evaluate both and decide whether to choose between them or formulate your own perspective.

The main idea in Buddhism is to see things as they are. So be prepared to set aside any perspective you build from either advice or your thinking when you see things for yourself through your practice.

Following courses also might be of help:

Buddhism and Modern Psychology
Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World


The Buddha taught 'birth' with an 'animal' state of mind is a state of woe (beset by chronic suffering) or lower state of 'existence' (being).

The Lokapala Sutta states that people who do not have moral shame (human conscience) and fear of wrongdoing (compassion for self & others) will behave like dogs & thus not have the bright principles that protect, respect & honor the world.

The Kukkuravatika Sutta explains people behaving like dogs will lead those people to the company of dogs; but if it does not, it will lead to hell. This is why we can observe in society like-minded immoral people who create cliques where they keep eachother's company but, eventually, they turn on each other.

For example, recently my neighbour's dog killed their pet cat. While pet dogs & cats can live harmoniously & friendly with each other, if the dog or cat is emotional, it will act without conscience & concern for the other pet. This is similar to people who are killed by their pet lion, snake or crocodile who they mistakenly thought was loyal & tame.

Dogs can be very loyal to their human masters that feed them but they also bark at strangers & fight a lot, particularly about sex & territory.

In Western countries, dogs are generally desexed thus do not have normal sex lives. However, in non-Western countries, this does not generally occur and one can witness male dogs literally bite each other to shreds over sex during the mating season.

Many people also behave like this, such as politicians & those in government, who tear each other to shreds, stab each other in the back & start horrible wars merely for the purpose of (imperialistic) territory, power & empire building.

Thus, the Buddha may have shown unconditional love to all living creatures but this does not mean he encouraged all of their behaviours.


Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).
In addition, in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants or draw up statistics.


Everything is work in progress (becoming)  except Nibbana (non-becoming) according to Buddhism.


Difference between "Becoming" and Anicca

My answer assumes you are specifically referring to the ideas of Heraclitus (the originator of Western ideas of Becoming). There are some interesting correlates between the origins of the Western idea of flux or becoming which was first articulated by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus and the Buddha's idea of Impermanence (Anicca). For Heraclitus ...

  Everything flows and nothing stays.
  Everything flows and nothing abides.
  Everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.
  Everything flows; nothing remains.
  All is flux, nothing is stationary.
  All is flux, nothing stays still.
  All flows, nothing stays.

  No man ever steps in the same river twice.

There is subtle distinction between the Buddha and Heraclitus on the mechanism of change. For Buddha the process of change is driven by dependent origination - the idea that every phenomena exists entirely dependent on the causes that proceed it. Heraclitus had more of a transformative concept of change - that phenomena are the result of the tension and flux of the opposites. The end result is the same however - constant change.

So essentially there is very little difference between the Buddha's concept of  Annica and Heraclitus's ideas of Becoming.

Other interesting similarities between Heraclitus and Buddha:

Both were born into aristocratic families and were first in line to inherit.
Both rejected their inheritance and chose rather to pursue a life of contemplation instead.
Both their philosophies rejected the prevailing eternalism of their respective cultures and chose rather to rely on reason and personal experience to arrive at the truth.
They were fairly contemporaneous with each other - Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE) & Buddha (6th century BCE)

There are many articles and books dedicated to investigating the similarities between the views of Heraclitus and Buddha on the internet. Nice summary here -  Heraclitus and the Buddha on Impermanence


What is the purpose of using a wand to hit a monk in Zen meditation?

Supposedly it is used to help meditator fight drowsiness. It is said that drowsiness comes from stiffness, from meditator trying to artificially restrict their micro-movements and to severely narrow their scope of attention. While right concentration is said to feel open and flexible, with body actively balancing in meditation posture and attention wide open (but not engaged nor scattered). When supervising monk sees somebody nodding, he reminds meditator of the need to expand their awareness, by gently "massaging" the shoulder with the stick :)


My thoughts don't happen to other people so why are they 'not mine'?

When speaking in conventional terms, i.e. "my, mine, they, others, people etc." we are dealing with conventional reality. Here concepts such as "a man, woman, an animal, a Self" etc. exist.

When instead we turn to ultimate reality we realize that there is no such thing as concepts. They are not findable in ultimate reality. They have no real point of reference. We realize that the question arose out of having wrong view, as you also mention.

The reason why "your" thoughts do not happen to "other people" is because they are concepts.

If we instead construct the sentence in another way it might make more sense. The new sentence could be:

Thoughts arise and cease. Mental formations arise and cease. They do not belong to anyone or anything. That is a mental formation itself and it itself is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. There is no thinker behind the thought. There is no "owner" of phenomena. There is no experiencing entity. There are just physical and mental phenomena arising and ceasing.

I hope this shed some light onto it. If i may give an advice from personal practice, then do not think too much about these things. Instead keep doing insight meditation as you also mention you do. The experiental knowledge you gain will cast away all illusions and concepts and lay bare the true nature of reality.

Lastly, i would like to point you to this dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo. Its called "Anatta". Very good talk.

I have attached a picture to illustrate what happens when we are "trapped" in conventional reality. The bottom of the picture is when one is without insight knowledge into the 3 signs of existence and thereby thinking one has a Self. When one begins practicing the path and gains insights then the breaking away of illusions and concepts happen like in the top of the picture. We become free from wrong view and gain right view.


How can mindfulness/awareness be employed effectively for Forgiveness?

I want forgiveness for what others did to me and also forgiveness for myself for my past actions.

The first part isn't in your sphere of control. Having preferences like that other people better forgive you is in and of itself ok, however, if you turn that healthy preference into a command that they SHOULD forgive that will result -as in your case - in anger.
You can however cultivate self-acceptance. You judge your acts as bad but not your personhood. You judge the deed, not the doer, for the doer is fallible and too complex to give a global evaluation.
Just observing ill-will won't necessarily change your underlying beliefs and the resulting perceptions. You need an alternative perception that weakens the old belief. Therefore, mettā is employed to attenuate anger and increase kindness.
Refer to MN 62

"Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

~
You can also try to view people as unique, complex and fallible human beings (like you!), whose mind and body are constantly changing (like yours!),  and that they too are often prey of environmental factors and prior mind/body conditioning (again, like you!) -> At that moment in time these people haven't had better coping skills to regulate their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. In short: "It seemed so to them."
See them as human beings that have certain aspects that are annoying and then you can take that aspect and wish them metta with regards to the opposite positive quality. So if a person is annoying or dishonest, you can wish them: "May they know the happiness resulting from honesty and friendliness".
No matter which technique you employ, repetition is key. I employ especially the self accepting technique for over 2 years and it works out. Of course, sometimes I do get angry, but that is to be expected because I too am a fallible human being who can learn from his mistakes and try to restrain himself in the future.


What specific emotion would best describe dukkah?

There's a statement here (I'm guessing by Bhikkhu Bodhi) that it has no single best translation:

  No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.

Its saying "in a given context" implies to me that the word is applicable to multiple contexts, in which multiple different emotions are manifest.

Some of these emotions include grief (when loved ones dies), fear (of losing what you value), anger, denial, and so on.

Since you're asking about emotion, perhaps consider the so-called "afflictive emotions": a.k.a. the Kleshas. Different schools have slightly different ways to enumerate the Kleshas. I note that the "grief" and "fear" that I mentioned aren't listed but "attachment" is. I think that shows your question is difficult to answer i.e. what one person sees as grief another person sees as (or names it to be) attachment.

The quote above says that dukkha is "deeper and subtler" than any definition you can think of. For what it's worth the shallowest definition I can think of (the highest-level, most single-meaninged definition) is that it's the opposite of sukha. I think that's inaccurate though, to the extent that a lay person would see sukha as a or the worthwhile goal, whereas nirvana is the ideal for a monk.

The four noble truths associated it with tanha, so perhaps the single-emotion you're looking for is "unsatisfied desire" or even "unsatisfiable desire", or just "dissatisfaction".

So "multiple contexts", or perhaps even all contexts: it's canonically associated with all saṅkhārās.


Loneliness: Rhinoceros-Horn Sutta from a Lay person's perspective

According to Chogyam Trungpa, loneliness is the heart of Sila, Buddhist discipline. As such, the spirit of loneliness must permeate one's practice, whether one is ordained or not. Critically important at "hinayana-level", loneliness temporarily steps aside for the Mahayana phase, only to return with Vajrayana, this time to stay.

Loneliness begins with making commitment to the spiritual quest:

  The refuge ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. We are
  suspended in no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to
  relate with the teachings and with ourselves.

In terms of actual practice, loneliness translates to following guidelines:

Not looking for entertainment in any shape or form.
Giving up one's need for companionship, for relationships.
Relying on one's own resources, not waiting for help.
Taking a stance, however suboptimal, without confirming it with an external authority all the time.
Working towards one's goal (Enlightenment), instead of giving the entropy a free hand.
Learning to trust one's fundamental goodness.

  A lonely person could still relate with other people. You could be lonely, alone, and living in the midst of society at the same time. Aloneness does not mean you have to be a mountain hermit.

This loneliness -- the feeling that no one is going to descent in a golden chariot to take you to Nirvana, help you, or even acknowledge your existence, and that therefore your Enlightenment is on you and you alone, is solely between you and the universe -- is what eventually develops into wakefulness, or Bodhi.


text for the 2013 course: Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life. Class 2 on Motivation and 7 Point Mind Training

This is an old question, but just popped up at the beginning of my feed.
I am not sure about a handout, but the book on the subject by Alan Wallace is The Seven-Point Mind Training: A Tibetan Method For Cultivating Mind And Heart
The kindle or paperback is available on Amazon.


Conscious death and afterlife meditation

You might follow Buddha's example who entered the fourth Jhana, but it is only possible while you are aware of your peaceful death, the fact that you are dying slowly, so therefore - not very reliable advice.

Apart from that, only thing I know of about conscious death is Maraṇasati, which are only preparatory contemplations and meditations on death. These are closely related to Right effort. But it is not really same as meditating through death.

For Vajrayanic approach, Tibetans have the whole technique and special meditation practice on the moment of death and what follows (Bardo), which is divided in many phases of dying, also including the clear light you see at the moment of death. I presume you're not into Tantra so this is of little use though.


Do Buddhists believe in Akashic records?

I don't see "Akashic" or "record" in the linked "Glossary of Buddhism" ... so the term "Akashic" might be Theosophist and/or from a tradition other than Buddhist, but I don't know.

Buddhism does believe in "Kamma" which I suppose is a way of saying that "events and experiences are stored".

The Wikipedia article references a 19th century book titled "Esoteric Buddhism" which says,

Early Buddhism, then, clearly held to a permanency of records in the Akasa, and the potential capacity of man to read the same when he has evoluted to the stage of true individual enlightenment.

There is something similar to that described in, for example, the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta (in which the Buddha is someone who "evoluted to the stage of true individual enlightenment"), which says towards the end,

Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus ... he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, ... , many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, ...

That's part of the "miracle of instruction" (i.e. it's a miracle and instructive). Towards the top of that same sutta, the Buddha says,

Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of instruction.

That is somewhat quoting out of context, though.
It would be better to at least read the whole sutta than only the paragraph I quoted above, and to understand why the Buddha would call it "instructive" i.e. what he is trying to teach.


Is there any significance to shaving the head?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.
In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun (a.k.a. Bhikkhu) you have to shave your head.
There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long. It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.
The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

(source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II)
Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:

One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment (source)

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons

By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).


Why living beings like / dislike things in the world?

Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana,

Touched by an pleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that greed arises.

Touched by an unpleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that aversion arises.

In short avijjā-phassa is the cause of domanassa, somanassa and indifferent mindstates, feelings. Good to keep in mind that the third is actually often miss-discriminated as real equanimity, beyond householder-equanimity.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for release from this bonds in the world)


Buddhism on paying for previous bad Karma

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.

The above is wrong view. Many monks are idiots.

  I also appreciate that they were seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

The above is wrong view. The monks were offering a superstitious (rather than spiritual) answer to her questions.

  But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?

Buddhism became extinct in India because the Buddhism after the Buddha developed an obsession with past & future lives, which made it the same as Hinduism. It invented superstitions such as the Jataka Stories & added dodgy suttas into the suttas, such as the unique MN 135; which obviously justified the status quo of the society and supported the monks who pandered to the ruling classes for political support & financial donations. As a result, this corrupted Buddhism became extinct; absorbed into Hinduism.

Real Buddhism teaches about suffering & its cessation. When the Buddha taught about "kamma" ("action"), he taught about unwholesome & wholesome kamma that leads to "suffering" ("hell") & "happiness" ("heaven").

Obviously, a lack of a "worldly" quality cannot be explained by past lives. Our academic skills or intelligence, our ability to make money, our ability to play sport, our ability to play music, our physical beauty or ugliness, is obviously unrelated to "suffering" & "happiness". It is quite obvious many highly academically intelligent people are evil; such as the evil people who work in evil governments or evil industries that create evil things, such as wars & weapons of mass destruction. Or the many greatest musicians, most beautiful movie stars & champion sports people who die of drug addictions & unhappiness.

In summary, there is no correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". Since the Buddha taught Dhamma  was not something "worldly", there can never been any correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". In fact, a hypothesis could be pursued or researched about whether the majority of high level university graduates end up working in immoral unethical industries.

To end, similar to many current Western Christian schools, it appears the primary goal of this Buddhist school is not to make the students good people but to make the students high academic achievers for the gaining of worldly financial rewards. Similar to the dodgy MN 135, the impression is these religious schools are teaching narcissistic "spiritual materialism".


What is the difference between love, compassion, sympathy and empathy in Buddhism?

How is it different to love, sympathy and empathy

There's a description of compassion, empathy, and love in the Brahmavihara article on Wikipedia,

  Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) towards all: the hope that a person will be well; "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."[11]
  Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā): the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; "the wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."[11]
  Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: muditā): joy in the accomplishments of a person—oneself or another; sympathetic joy; "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."[11]

What the word means in English

"Compassion" is from a Latin word, "co" meaning "with" and "pati/passio" meaning "suffer", so "compassion" means "suffer with".

For example:

If someone is hungry then you think, "I wouldn't like to be hungry" so you feed them.
If someone is being bullied then you think, "I wouldn't like to be bullied"  so you stop whoever is bullying.
If someone is suffering for any reason then you think, "I wouldn't like to suffer for that reason" and so you try to help them.

If you're unable to help then it might mean literally suffering with: someone said of the earliest Christians that they'd love (have compassion for) each other; that if for example they didn't have enough food for two some day, then they would fast together and then eat together on the next day.

"Sympathy" is I think essentially just the same as "compassion", only it derives from Greek instead of Latin: "sym" means "with" and "pathos" means "feeling".

What the word means in Buddhism

Wikipedia's Karuṇā article seems like a fair introduction. It says,

  The Pali commentaries distinguish between karuṇā and mettā in the following complementary manner: Karuna is the desire to remove harm and suffering (ahita-dukkha-apanaya-kāmatā) from others; while mettā is the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness (hita-sukha-upanaya-kāmatā) of others.

I guess that the Dhammapada includes one classic example, at the start of the chapter on Violence:

  All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


What is "Pattichha Samuppadha" in buddhism

Pratityasamutpada means "gradual auto-emerging". It describes the process by which a newborn baby develops subjective experience of "I" and "desirable/undesirable objects" and "the world".

Information is an ever-present part of the universe. All physical interactions carry information. As these interactions have some amount of regularity (they repeat in patterns) - the baby accumulates information.

As information accumulates, it becomes more and more complex and integrated, until it can reflect or represent something about the world. Now it can be called "mind".

This process evolves until it culminates in recognition, when the baby can recognize something from before, and associations when it can relate things that were somehow connected before.

The process evolves further until the baby develops notions of objects or entities, each having a stable identity. The baby begins classifying these objects as "desirable" and "undesirable" based on experience of peace or disturbance that they bring. It starts pursuing desirable objects and avoiding undesirable.

Then gradually the baby develops a notion of "I", as the subject that experiences contact with the objects, and as the entity that pursues an object and enjoys the result.

In the baby's mind there is entire world, with people, objects, problems, and happy moments. It grows, matures, gets old, and dies.

Then the cycle restarts when a new baby is born. It starts from scratch again, going through the same process. This goes on indefinitely.

Every generation starts with complete ignorance of the fact that nothing completely disappears and nothing appears from scratch, and that everything keeps transforming from one form to another. Every person grows up assuming that he or she is completely separate from everyone and everything else. Then they begin pursuing some selfish goals and fighting with each other. The cycle repeats on and on.

If only they knew that this world of separation is an illusion! They would teach their children to live differently! No pursuit of stupid material goals, no fear of death, no fighting, no murdering the planet! But they don't know and so the cycle goes on and on and on...

This is "the cycle of existence" that "has run through numerous births".

  Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, like the flow of a river. - The Rice Seedling Sutra.

Now, if you look at this process from afar, you will see that it's not really about an individual baby, it is about the overall pattern of subjective experience emerging from information and then taking its model of reality for reality itself. The exact way this happens, the reason it relates to Buddhist Ethics, and the way to undo it, is the heart of hearts of Buddhism.


Learning about buddhism through text only

The website voice.suttacentral.net is designed for users with visual impairments. This website will let you search the suttas and it may be possible to read them with your braille device. For example, one can search for One thing can be developed.
Voice is dedicated to accessibility for Early Buddhist Texts and translations hosted on SuttaCentral. Indeed, we'll gladly adjust the site as we can to make it more accessible for you.
Your Braille screen reader should be able to navigate Voice.suttacentral.net much easier than the SuttaCentral website.


What do the words of the Mahayana Buddhist mean?

Let's say there's a person called George, who is a lay single unmarried man, aged 39, and is strongly interested in Buddhism.
Now let's take a look at other people around him.
Let's say his friend Tom, is of the same age and is happily married with 3 kids. He looks at George and pities him for being single and not having his own family. He thinks about advising George to try more diligently to achieve the goal of marital bliss in the near future.
Another friend of his, Bob, is an openly gay man. He looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is a closeted gay man and that's the reason why he's single and unmarried. He pities George for not being true to himself and opening up to his fullest potential of happiness.
And then there's his colleague, Jim, who went through a bitter divorce, separating from his ex-wife who cheated on him with another man. Jim is very emotionally hurt from his divorce. He looks at George and envies him for having made the right choice to remain single and unmarried.
Lastly, George knows a Buddhist monk by the name of Sadhu Bhikkhu whom he met at a Dhamma talk. Sadhu Bhikkhu looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is single and unmarried because he is considering joining the monastic order in future. Sadhu Bhikkhu is hopeful that more interested men and women would join the monastic order.
So, in each case, Tom, Bob, Jim and Sadhu Bhikkhu, all know the real person George, but they each form a different mental model or mental image of George. When they interact with George, they are interacting based on that mental model that they have created, and not based on the real situation of George.
I believe this is what is meant by the Mahayana Buddhist.


What's the different between kusala (good) and akusala (bad)?

The explanation for Kusala can be found in MN-3 -> Maha Chattarika Sutta ( I can't find this in english translation site, but this is in Sinhala / Pali Thripitaka ), So if I explain it how I understood by reading it,

It's about noble eightfold path, and in each it's describe two things one is lokottara (= focusing on Nivana) path the other one is laukika (= focusing on good things in this world: eg -> samma kammanta = to do a decent job, not kill animals and sell).

And the opposite of this is Akusala which doing opposite things not knowing what the right view, resolve, speech, etc..

About lokottara path that person should have a correct view what is the problem with the world, why we are attached to things, and why we should not attached, what's the danger in that so on.

Hope my description led some lights and I should accept that I'm not a good translator.

Update:
Found more information on this. It's in Vibhangaprakaranaya-1, paticcasamuppada vibhangaya There you can notice what is kusala dharmayo, the explanation is given the paticcasamuppada cycle but it starts with sankara not with avijja that means when a thought is processed without avijja it causes to Nivana as it is a kusala


There are two methods for seeing past lives:

Through phenomena, and
Through time (or chronologically)

The 'through phenomena' method is not exactly a method. It is more of a chance thing, but it is also easier. In this case, a sight (or other sense-stimulation) occurs and one has a deja vu experience ("I've done this before"), but without the doubt. At this time bending down the mind (or focusing on, or concentrating on) the feeling and the phenomena, a previous occasion when this phenomena occured will come to mind. If pressed further details will appear.

Then you will have to fight your programming and half the other Buddhists in the world who tell you that there is no such thing as rebirth and that you are just imagining things. Would that I had a mind with such an imaginative power!

The chronological method is by way of a yonisomanisikaro=like tracing back of the events of this life from the present moment back to birth, back through one's time in the womb, the time of one's conception, to the previous life. This is rightly an aspect of your setting up of mind (satipatthana). It is also exactly similar to Casteneda's Don Juan's 'recapitulation' method where you start in the present moment, and review every detail to extract yourself from all attachments found there and then move back in time.

More or less unrestricted chronological viewing Past Lives is one of three 'visions' that are obtained by the Arahant, but anyone can experience awareness of past life events through phenomena.

In Buddhist studies you will find that viewing past lives is to be accomplished from the fourth jhāna. But this is just the optimal method.

The formula for the Buddhist seeing past lives can be found in multiple suttas worded similarly to:

He recollects a variety of former habitations,
that is to say

One birth,
two births,
three births,
four births,
five births,
ten births,
twenty births,
thirty births,
forty births,
fifty births,
a hundred births,
a thousand births,
a hundred thousand births,
and many an eon of integration
and many an eon of disintegration
and many an eon of integration-disintegration:

'Such a one was I by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I came to be in another state
where I was such a one by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I arose here.'

Thus he recollects divers former habitations
in all their modes and detail.

A helpful and cautionary Sutta which discusses the method for this and other powers is AN 9.35 (Hare's translation linked-to here:)
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.035.hare.pts.htm


Does Vipassana arise from Samatha/Anapanasati meditation? or is it another trap of monkey mind?

The word 'vipassana' means 'to see clearly'. It refers to seeing clearly the liberating truths of Buddhism, such as:

Craving & attachment cause stress/suffering.
Non-craving & non-attachment cause de-stressing/peace.
Conditioned things are impermanent therefore cannot be attached to.
Things are not-self, i.e., they are natural phenomena or elements.

Therefore, if in Anapanasati practise, the mind clearly sees the above, this is vipassana.

For example, if the mind clearly sees 'the body breathes' rather than the 'self' breathes, this is vipassana.

Or if the mind clearly sees craving, attachment & other monkey-mindedness cause disturbing agitated vibrations in the breathing, this is vipassana.

Or if the mind clearly sees equanimity of mind causes the breathing to become calm and the body to feel relaxed, this is vipassana.

Or if the mind clearly sees each breath appears, stays, then disappears, this is vipassana.


Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?

Yes and No. As Najarjuna stated: Neither one nor different (非一非異).

Also as the Heart Sutra stated: Neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increased nor decreased, therefore formless in Emptiness it is; no Taking, Thinking, Conducting or Cognizing; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; nor vision, sound, smell, taste, touch or phenomena; no dimension of eyes so forth even no dimension of consciousness; no ignorance also no ending of ignorance, so forth even no aging-death or ending of aging-death; no suffering, aggregating, cessation or the path, no wisdom also nor has any attainment. (This supposed is addressing to Śāriputra. But only few understand who or what is "Śāriputra" in the Heart Sutra. Xuanzhang translated it as 舍利子, not 舍利弗, the later is common translation for Śāriputra.)

Because this "Buddha-nature" is not an object or concept, anything the human mind capable of conceiving is not it. Like you can draw the moon, photograph the moon, look at the moon, but you cannot touch it or hold it in your hand. You might argue that the spaceman can touch the moon. But no. Think about it, he is only touching the moondust. Therefore the teachings can only teach what it is not.

  Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness

In the strict sense, we cannot talk about nothingness either. Many talk in our common language as if "nothingness" does really exist - see the mistake? Even the 7th Dhyana the Sphere of Nothingness, that nothingness is just a "pretence" - explaint by ancient meditation teachers in the Sutras. It is a kind of stoppage of mental activity or conceptual proliferation. Hence the Sutra said one died at the 7th Dhyana will be reborn in the Asamjnisattvah Heaven (the heaven without thought) and followed by the stupid animal realm.

Ultimately, talking about Buddha-nature perhaps a good exercise, but only seeing it gives the real taste.


Do insects feel less pain and humans more?

The purpose of the precept is to protect you and lift you up in terms of virtue (sila).

Undertaking the first precept of not killing is about changing YOUR state of mind.

It's so that YOU become compassionate, wishing for happiness of other beings, and not have violent and harmful tendencies.

Cultivation of virtues also has the effect of freedom from remorse, which leads to enlightenment. This is according to AN 11.1.

Also, please see this answer.


lo= mind, and jong=learn, train, purify. It is a combination of pithy instructions for training the mind on the Buddhist path, particularly for those who have taken bodhisattva vows, but can be used by any practitioner. It trains the mind to awaken compassion for self and others. Rather than dwelling on obstacles, crying mea culpa, one uses them to learn by taking on the suffering of self and others as a training exercise to improve the depth of ones compassion. The steps to mind training together with explanation are too extensive for this forum, however, Jamgon Kontrul's "The Great Path to Awakening" is a good place to find more in depth answers.


How can i use meditation to concentrate!

Deusllxll, You ask, "I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate." In the beginning, I used a "mantra" meditation to develop a rather laser-like concentration, although it was not associated with Buddhism.

First, have in mind what you are trying to accomplish. Is it a spiritual goal? Are you searching for the meaning of life, and to have a relative understanding about your existence here? Then you can begin with a mantra meditation. It will spill over beneficially to other areas of your life if you go this route, also. You will be able to concentrate the mind and hold it on one thing for extended periods, or concentrate the mind on nothing if you practice Buddhist meditation. All your meditation efforts will end up in the same place.

I started my meditation with a "devotional" slant, related to Bhakti yoga, with a 17 syllable mantra that was in spoken in the Sanskrit language.  I was instructed to do at least one hour (2 1/2 hours preferably) of meditation everyday.  The meditation was with a focus on love for the Divine, which took a while to cultivate. The love is important because it will bind you to the meditation through thick and thin, through the good times and the despair. Whenever I found myself drifting off into thoughts, I was to start over with the mantra.  A person is to keep his mind focused on the "third eye" while meditating, which some believe is where the individual is located spiritually. I did this for five years.

I eventually gravitated to Buddhism where the mantra is the incoming and out-going of the breath, and the feelings of love are compassion for all.

Any type of meditation you do will be a precursor to something deeper and more meaningful.  Those who meditate are on the path of expansion, just like a plant grows from a little seed.  The sign that you have developed an interest in meditation, and are reaching out for instruction means your path will be fuller and richer for you from now on.


How do I make non-buddhists help understand I operate with a different view?

As long as what you are doing is not immoral in my case I would go along with what the others are doing.

Main point is by doing this you should not accumulate more fabrication. One way is to reduce contact through it is not very effective, which you are trying now.

The more effective way is to go along with the crowed but what every you do be mind full of the sensation and its impermanence. It is reaction of clinging or aversion to the sensation created when you come in contact with something which causes fabrications. This is what you should actively avoid. Though you might not chase sense pleases you have to go with the flow in social contexts if you want to be a householder.


What effect does mindfulness have on dependent origination?

The three poisons is what pollutes karma and turns it into asava. This polluted karma causes differentiation/hardening of the phenomenal world as well as of the inner world.

The three poisons are the first inkling of the "sentient being", accumulated in/as sankhara. Sankhara is what later develops into skandhas, from that grows bhava, which eventually culminates in "I am this guy".

The wrong mindfulness (in terms of "objects" and "I", opinions, side taking, self-interest, any kind of ego-centric thinking) - serves to keep the fire burning.

The right mindfulness (in terms of the four immeasurables and Bodhicitta, altruism, objective good, impersonal perspective) - leads to awakening and liberation.

Any action that is permeated with personal desire/attachment, personal aversion, any personal attitude - is polluted and leads to becoming.

Right mindfulness is cultivation of impersonal perspective. It leads to decrease of craving, obsessing, personal-goal-making, polluted action, reification, and identification.