What Nichiren Buddhism says about rebirth and reincarnation?

Nichiren explains the Buddhist concepts of Twelve Linked Causation and Transmigration

On the Principle of Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life
"Question: What is the twelve-linked chain of causation as it applies to the process of transmigration?
Answer: The first link is ignorance. The Dharma Analysis Treasurysays: “The state resulting from past delusion is ignorance.” That is to say, ignorance represents the earthly desires of love and craving that one gave rise to in the past. Thus a son may conceive hatred for his father and love for his mother, or a daughter may conceive hatred for her mother and love for her father, as described in the ninth volume of Dharma Analysis Treasury.
The second link is action. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “The various deeds carried out in the past are called action.” That is, the deeds or karma one has created in the past are called action. There are two kinds of karma. The first is “karma leading to rebirth,” that is, karma that determines what realm of existence we will be reborn into. The second is “completing karma,” which represents all the karma not included in the above category. It is past karma that determines such things as whether one will break a leg or cut a finger. This is completing karma.
The third link is consciousness. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Consciousness is the one of the five aggregates that is crucial in the forming of life.” The five aggregates are already present when the child is in the mother’s body. The five aggregates are form, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness. They are also known as the five components.
The fourth link is name and form. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “What precedes the six sense fields is name and form.”
The fifth link is the six sense fields. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “After the eyes and other organs are produced, but before the three elements of perception,1 the six sense fields come into being.” The six sense fields are the activities, or output, of the six sense organs, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
The sixth link is contact. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “In the process of perception, the stage before there is any awareness of whether the perception is pleasing, unpleasing, or neutral, is known as contact.” This is the stage in which one does not yet understand that fire is hot, that water is cold, or that a knife is something that can cut a person.
The seventh link is sensation, or perception. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “The stage before any inordinate desire exists is called sensation.” At this time one understands that a thing is hot or cold, but has not yet experienced any sexual desire.
The eighth link is desire. Dharma Analysis Treasury states: “The craving for material goods or sexual satisfaction is called desire.” This refers to the time when one desires a woman and has feelings of sexual desire.
The ninth link is attachment. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Because one hopes to acquire various objects, one races here and there in search of them, and this is called attachment.” This means that while one is in this present life, one pursues worldly affairs and is greedy tograsp and acquire things that belong to others.
The tenth link is existence. Dharma Analysis Treasury states: “Existence means that one performs karmic actions that will determine the kind of fruit, or state of existence, that one will have at one’s next birth.” That is, existence here refers to the carrying out of karmic actions that will lead to one’s receiving life once more in a future existence.
The eleventh link is birth. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Birth refers to the receiving of life in one’s next existence.” This refers to the time when one receives life in a future existence and enters the womb of one’s mother.
The twelfth link is aging and death. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Until one reaches the stage of sensation in one’s future existence, one is subject to aging and death.” To be subject to birth, aging, and death means that one suffers the anxieties and distress of aging and death.
Question: How do the twelve links in the chain of causation apply tothe three realms of past, present, and future and the two categories of cause and effect?
Answer: Ignorance and action represent two causes in a being’s past existence. Consciousness, name and form, the six sense organs, contact, and sensation represent five effects that appear in a being’s present existence. Desire, attachment, and existence represent three causes appearing in a being’s present existence. Birth and aging and death represent two effects that will appear in a being’s future existence.
I will summarize these as follows: two causes in the past (ignorance, action), five effects in the present (consciousness, name and form, the six sense organs, contact, sensation), three causes in the present (desire, attachment, existence), and two effects in the future (birth, aging and death).
Question: How does the twelve-linked chain of causation operate when it applies to the process of transmigration?
Answer: Ignorance is the condition that causes or brings about action, action brings about consciousness, consciousness brings about name and form, name and form bring about the six sense organs, the six sense organs bring about contact, contact brings about sensation, sensation brings about desire, desire brings about attachment, attachment brings about existence, existence brings about birth, and birth brings about the anxieties and distress of aging and death.
Thus it is that one transmigrates through the sea of the sufferings of birth and death. This is how one comes to be an ordinary mortal.
Question: How does one go about wiping out the twelve-linked chain of causation, thereby attaining emancipation?
Answer: Wipe out ignorance and action will be wiped out. Wipe out action and consciousness will be wiped out. Wipe out consciousness and name and form will be wiped out. Wipe out name and form and the six sense organs will be wiped out. Wipe out the six sense organs and contact will be wiped out. Wipe out contact and sensation will be wiped out. Wipe out sensation and desire will be wiped out. Wipe out desire and attachment will be wiped out. Wipe out attachment and existence will be wiped out. Wipe out existence and birth will be wiped out. Wipe out birth and this will wipe out the anxieties and distress of aging and death. This is how one wipes out the chain of causation, thereby attaining emancipation. This is how the Buddha frees himself from earthly desires.
In my view, persons who are in the intermediate state between death and a new life are not affected by all of the links in the twelve-linked chain of causation. Likewise, beings in the heavenly realm are not affected by all of them. And likewise, beings in the world of formlessness are not affected by all of them."


Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?

I would not go as far as to call Pudgalavada "a school", as with most early Buddhism there were people who held certain position, that later received a name and was used for comparison with mainstream traditions.

If I remember correctly, Pudgalavadins claimed that person exists for all practical intents and purposes, so I think that means conventional existence, not ultimate. You should be able to find more details on Pudgalavada in Ch. 9 of Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya of Vasubandhu. See this for a quick summary - pp. 89-91:

  The Pudgalavadins introduce the notion that persons are conceived on the basis of the skandhas as fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel without being other than or the same in existence as fuel.
  Pudgalavadins assert that in addition to phenomena that are conditioned & unconditioned (samskrta/asamskrta),
  impermanent and permanent (anitya/nitya), the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, etc., there are, in addition, phenomena that are
  inexplicable (avakrtavya). For the Pudgalavadins, conventional realities may be substantially established (as they are for the
  Vaibhasikas) or inexplicable. Inexplicable entities are entities without separate identities – they are neither the same as, nor
  different from, the skandhas. The Pudgalavadins reject the logic that everything is either substantially real or substantially
  established. Inexplicable persons are conventional realities insofar as they are conceived in dependence upon the skandhas,
  but ultimately exist insofar as they exist apart from being conceived. Persons are single entities without separate identities, an
  inexplicable unity.
  The Pudgalavadins maintain that the person is perceived through an inexplicable
  perception incidental to a consciousness perceiving its proper object. It is an inexplicable perception because it is neither the
  same nor different from the perception of the object.
  The basic attitude of Vasubandhu, and others, toward
  the Pudgalavadins is that in their theory of persons, it can appear that the person is substantially real, despite attempts by the
  Pudgalavadins to refute this attribution.

Mahayana, in particular Tibetan Nyingma tradition, insists that to say that person conventionally exists still leaves the mind grasping after the person, so more for didactic than for analytical purposes they say that there is no person is the right view. See "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" (Mipham uses the traditional rhetoric of "snake", "vase" etc. but what he means is person, or entity in the broad sense)

Also see Satyasiddhisastra of Harivarman pages 67-74 for various other views around Pudgala and their refutations. As of late I consider Satyasiddhisastra a key text providing the missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana, with Abhidharmakosa and Mulamadhyamakakarika correspondingly on one and the other sides of the divide (conceptually, not chronologically).


3 years back i had to face with an relationships Problem with my ex boy friend and at that time i was pregnant. I had to abort my child at
  that time as a result of those problems.

If necessary, please practise loving-kindness meditation to forgive yourself for this.

The ideal conditions for bringing a child into the world is a strong relationship & family support, including financially. There are many challenges in the modern world that put pressure on women to have abortions. Please grow in understanding & forgiveness.

  Now i am married for 10 months and got pregnant 5 Months back. i was okay till to the 11th August and i was 25th week of my pregnancy then
  i got to know that my child's Heartbeat has stopped and he is no more
  live. This was unexpected and we cannot bear this pain.

I am very sorry to hear this. I do not wish to ignore your personal pain & sorrow however I wish to say such pregnancy problems are common due to the fragile nature of the physical body. In the ancient Buddhist scriptures, we can read how many women & children perished during child birth. Fortunately, having children today is infinitely safer than in ancient times however loss of child still occurs today due to the nature of the physical body, which is fragile & can be abnormal.

  I had that fear whether that bad karma of previous abortion will be affect to this time. But according to the doctor everything was okay
  until baby's 25th week. We are suffering lot with this and have a fear
  that i will have to face the same situation in the future as well.

It is normal for a person to have the fears you have. It is normal to ask yourself: "Why did this happen?" & turn to religion for answers. However, I think it is the most wise & realistic action is to take the doctor's advice. I recommend to look to the modern medical profession for answers or assurances (rather than religion).

This said, about karma, the Buddha taught: "Kamma is intention". Since you did not have the intention to miscarry your baby, the miscarriage is not related to karma. An abortion is kamma but miscarriage is not kamma (unless there is direct action that leads to miscarriage, such as taking drugs, heavily drinking alcohol, playing violent sports or other carelessness).

  I love kids so much. But once i had to done such a horrible thing due to the horrible situation with my ex.

The Buddha taught in the scriptures if we see clearly we made a mistake in life, this is a positive step in our growth as a spiritual person. The Buddha had 100% understanding & forgiveness. It is good you have remorse because, as you know for yourself, abortion can make a woman unhappy. You must reflect (think) thoroughly about those good intentions for having the abortion & forgive yourself, with the understanding you have learned a lesson and you are now much more careful, wise, compassionate & loving in the future. Often in life, our real love for people & life grows from the mistakes & hurt we previously did. The Buddha taught it is from suffering the real spiritual path & development begins.

  Please advice me how can i prevent from this bad karma and what should i do to survive from this.

My advice is:

Attend grief counselling for your loss. This is very important.
Let go of the idea your abortion caused your baby's heart to stop beating. Generally, the reasons for such miscarriages are related to the body of the child. This webpage has explanations: Why Does The Fetal Heartbeat Stop?.
Realise miscarriage is common in women who have not had abortions.
Realise women who have had abortions & miscarriages have later successfully had children.
Respect yourself for the genuine remorse, love & future commitment you have towards children.
Wisely reflect the Buddha taught our sorrow is a measure of our love; the physical body is fragile; patient endurance overcomes sorrow & suffering; peace comes with goodness, compassion, wisdom & love.


Can One Evaluate the Effects of Meditation?

Meditation is like a knife. Every use it wares out but you only notice it one fine day.

So you are making progress which you do not notice until some later date.


Originally in Hindu yoga and Jainism, Jhana/Dhyana was deliberate thinking on a given topic.

The word seems to share its root with Sanskrit verb "dhyayati" (pronounced JAH-YA-TEE), that supposedly means "to think over", "to imagine", "to visualize".

Jains, the primary contenders for a honorary title of "precursors to Buddhism", used to recognize four types of Dhyana:

Artta Dhyana -- serious mulling over problems and issues coming from one's duties and responsibilities
Rudra Dhyana -- cruel mulling over evil plans
Dharma Dhyana -- rightful mulling over virtuous subjects
Shukla Dhyana --  pure mulling, non-conceptual concentration.

Apparently, Buddha's first teacher, Arada Kalama, taught Shukla Dhyana through visualizing oneself in the center of progressively empty context (village --> empty field --> empty sky --> nothingness), culminating in a state of thoughtless concentration with no content.

While Buddha's second teacher, Udraka Ramaputta, supposedly taught him a different practice, that of deliberately thinking the opposite thoughts (so-called "antidotes") to the ones the mind was dominated by, the target state being one of perfect ambiguity.

Buddha famously mastered and then rejected both target states, instead proposing his own progression of dhyana themes, targeted at achieving first a disgust of this body with its lowly interests, then, once the poisons of worldly desires were destroyed by the antidote of disgust, at generating a joyful mind (first with discursive support, then directly), followed by a calm-and-positive mind, and finally an unfettered mind that sees things as they are (tatha). He subsequently replaced disgust of this body with mindfulness of breathing as the object of meditation he recommended to entry-level students.

A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the first of these states (joyful mind with discursive support) is called "the first jhana".

A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the second state (joyful mind without discursive support) is called "the second jhana" and so on.

In this case the word "jhana" has a more specialized meaning of "level of mastery of Buddhist meditation" rather than "meditation" in general.


All things exists in the past present and future , Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha?

As I understand, Sarvastivada explains that all things exist in continuity. Nothing comes from nowhere and disappears into nothing, but everything transforms. Therefore the past contains seeds or elements that become things found in the future. In this sense, everything exists at all times, just not in the same form. None of the forms are permanent, but everything that existed in the past, exists in the future, just not in the same way.

The original teaching of the Buddha said that the notions of existence and nonexistence are two extreme simplifications, and that the truth is in the middle. Things develop into other things, come together, and fall apart.


If "be like water" is Buddhist, it sounds to me like an Eastern form of it (i.e. Chan or Zen).

One view/aspect of Chan or Zen is that it's the result of Buddhism's mixing with Taoism.

If you want to know more about "be like water", one place to find that might be in the (Taoist, not Buddhist) Tao Te Ching, for example,

  The supreme good is like water,
  which nourishes all things without trying to.
  It is content with the low places that people disdain.
  Thus it is like the Tao.

  In dwelling, live close to the ground.
  In thinking, keep to the simple.
  In conflict, be fair and generous.
  In governing, don't try to control.
  In work, do what you enjoy.
  In family life, be completely present.

  When you are content to be simply yourself
  and don't compare or compete,
  everybody will respect you.

For example, you wrote,

  because water dont fail - they dont take a break - so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water" theory dosnt work cause water dont stop and get back up

The Tao Te Ching has imagery of water occupying the low places, the valleys:

  All streams flow to the sea
  because it is lower than they are.
  Humility gives it its power.

I'm not sure I understood your question, but if you find yourself in a low place, maybe that (where you are, in the low, in the place) is where you meditate: without self-striving to get back up before you do.

Also, water has three states: vapour rises, water flows, ice is more solid. When you wrote, when I read, "I fail", I thought of that as being more like ice than being like water: because it sounds like a fixed/solid view of "I" ... instead of a natural/flowing view (I'm not sure how water could be said to fail).

Also I think that Zen meditation posture includes being solidly planted/rooted on/with the ground.

Also, on topic, a different example of being like water, here is one story: Great Waves. I'm not sure what "bashful" means in the story, I suppose it's a harmful or confused or ignorant form of being 'self-conscious'.


Yes, though Pali is a "dead language" in the sense that it has no native speakers left to use it, that doesn't mean it can't be used to communicate with others. I remember Professor Gombrich mentioning that it got used to communicate by monks who did not have any other common language.
You can also find examples mentioned in this thread: can people who are pali experts converse in it? in posts by "James the Giant" and "cooran".


Alternative to Willpower in Fighting Cravings

Some stuff for you to try:

Pace yourself, by letting cravings go in manageable steps (If everyone else deserves compassion, so do you in your practice of letting go)
Don't quit cold turkey, instead replace your habits with alternative
activitites (essentially anything related to the eightfold path, not
least meditation)
Do Asubha bhavana (foulness meditation)
Study dhamma (disperses ignorance on this topic, and is also conducive to comprehension/panna and hope/saddha, as alternatives to viriya/willpower)
Ask your sangha (You already did)


The opportunity afforded by human life is rare and precious. To embrace oblivion as a human would be...sad.

SN56.47

  “Mendicants, suppose a person was to throw a yoke with a single hole into the ocean. And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years.
  What do you think, mendicants?
  Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?”

  “Only after a very long time, sir, if ever.”

  “That one-eyed turtle would poke its neck through the hole in that yoke sooner than a fool who has fallen to the underworld would be reborn as a human being, I say.

Also see DN23 on Nihilism:

  Nihilism

  Seated to one side, the chieftain Pāyāsi said to Venerable Kassapa the Prince:
  “Master Kassapa, this is my doctrine and view:
  ‘There’s no afterlife. No beings are reborn spontaneously. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.’”

  “Well, chieftain, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone holding such a doctrine or view.

  For how on earth can anyone say such a thing?


Dealing with Contempt and Social Comparison

May I suggest a book: Only don't know by Zen Master Seung Sah. It is not directly related to your problem, but I think its title provides an answer to your problem.

The way I deal with these sort of judgmental thoughts, is by "not knowing". 99% of these judgements are based on our superficial assumptions about these people's lives, based on a few signs we can observe. If you think about it that way, it becomes clear that we construct an idea of these people in our heads, and then we judge that idea! We think we are superior or inferior than an idea we ourselves constructed. Isn't that funny?

In Buddhism, one of the key elements of applying Dharma in practice is becoming good friends with ambiguity. Normally we are used to clarity and the confidence that comes from clarity but in Buddhism we recognize that this clarity is illusory. In fact we know very little about the world, may be 5%, and the rest we infer ourselves. From this inference, which most of the time is not very accurate and sometimes outright wrong, come all kinds of problems. So one of the essential skills in Buddhism is remaining open, unconclusive, ambiguous with regards to people and the world. This is known as "beginner's mind", and is what's referred by Zen Master Seung Sah as "only don't know".

Thanissaro Bhikkhu at some point gave a very good talk (I listened to it in recording, it must be available online but I can't find it at the moment) on Ego and Egolessness. The gist of his message was that, basically, Ego is a giant overgeneralization that we make, a horrific simplification about ourselves. We create this caricature of who we are, and then struggle to fit that with (again) a caricature of the world that we likewise created. Instead, the Buddhist approach is to be free from generalizations, free from the caricatures. 99% of our judgemental thoughts come from these sort of generalizations or caricatures - of either ourselves or others.

So the main technique to overcome these thoughts of contempt and social comparison, whether in your favor or not, is to learn to challenge your own assumptions and generalizations. Perhaps talk to some people and try to really understand their personal world. It may not be the happiest world but in my experience it is almost always a world that has its own logic, its own sense of goodness, honesty, pride. It will usually have some samsaric elements to be sure: attachments, Ego, side-taking, karmic tangles - but within that setting there is always a sentient being that is doing their best to be good. The definition of "good" may be skewed in their system of coordinates, due to traumas and all kinds of karmic situations, and their level of skill and motivation may vary - but they always want something good and try to achieve that within their limits.

When you stop creating caricatures of people, and try to see the world through their eyes - nothing but compassion arises.


How do Mahayana Buddhists perceive the world?

Buddhist doctrine includes the idea of a "middle way between extremes" -- which is used in various contexts. In general one meaning of "middle way" is, "neither extreme", or, "avoiding to the two extremes". And philosophically or logically, I see it as meaning to beware of dilemmas or false dichotomies.
I think that the question (to which that quote is a reply) is slightly tricky to answer, and wants a careful answer. It's tricky because it invites "extreme" answers, e.g. either "yes" or "no".
But the two extreme answers are possibly too extreme -- either might be untrue, or have harmful consequence.
And so the quote is trying to provide a careful answer which is neither exactly "yes" nor "no" (not careful enough perhaps, if you didn't understand the answer; but it may require a lengthy explanation).
I think there are several fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine which are important to understand. If I can invent a simile, these fundamentals are like rocks -- and the answer is like a ship, which must steer a course which takes into account and doesn't hit (doesn't contradict) any of these rocks.

Non-self
One of the fundamental elements of doctrine is "non-self". That means (very briefly) that there's nothing which deserves to be called "myself", furthermore that a "self-view" (e.g. "this is I, this is me, this is mine") is a dissatisfactory view and gives rise to suffering.
Examples of self-views being an occasion for suffering include, "I am sick", "I am healthy now but I will be sick", "I want something I don't have", "I want to keep something I can't keep", "I'm better than you are", "I'm not as good as you are", and so on.
There's a simile here (not Mahayana but perhaps all forms of Buddhism agree on this kind of topic):

Suppose a dog on a leash was tethered to a strong post or pillar. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, it stays right beside that post or pillar.
In the same way, an uneducated ordinary person regards form like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ When walking, they walk right beside the five grasping aggregates. When standing … sitting … lying down, they lie down right beside the five grasping aggregates.

I'm not sure what solipsism is, something like "I exist and you don't", or, "I'm sure I exist and I don't know about you". And I think that those views are not Buddhist doctrine for various reasons, and one of those reasons is the "non-self" doctrine.
I don't know if Descartes' "I think therefore I am" might be an example of solipsism. I think that according to Buddhism, proving that oneself exists is just reinforcing an unfortunate view. Possibly a more accurate formulation is, "A thought is perceived which gives rise to a (perhaps transient) sense of self".
Also classical grammar (a.k.a. "logic") implies nouns and subjects -- "If a thought is perceived therefore a 'thinker' exists". This isn't necessarily true -- "unicorns" don't "really" exist even though there are words that describe them; and some languages (e.g. Chinese) aren't as strict as Western languages at requiring subjects and nouns in every sentence.

Emptiness
There's a doctrine of "emptiness" which I feel I ought to mention if only because it's one of the more specifically Mahayana doctrines.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its method is to look at the components of a thing -- to observe that what one might have thought was "a thing" is just a collection of other things -- and its purpose is to see things as they really are and perhaps to not get too infatuated with or attached to things (because attachment is associated with suffering), and to "unbind".
Like, I don't know, "I think therefore I am" is just a thought, a transient thought -- and not an especially worthy thought in my opinion, and contrary to Buddhist doctrine which recommends against self-views.
I think the practice of emptiness applies to everything -- to things you're attracted to or may be addicted to; to things you dislike; even to mental states (not "things" at all) for example anger etc.
So perhaps that's a reason NOT to say dogmatically "I exist" or "other people exist" -- because the non-self and emptiness doctrines are seen as beneficial, and as true or axiomatic. And so you get the circumlocution in the quote, i.e. "'we act as if' each person...".

Nihilism
It's explicitly wrong (a so-called wrong view) to interpret "emptiness" as "nothing".

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Instead we're taught there is, if not exactly "good and bad", and least "skilful and unskilful", "suffering and non-suffering", and "consequences of actions".
That's another explanation or reason for, "We act as if ...".

Sentient beings
There's a concept of "sentient beings" in Buddhism, which might be more central to Mahayana Buddhism, which I don't know so much about. According to me that term has two meanings.

One is that it refers to, broadly, anyone with feelings. So includes all people, and also animals (and possibly beings of other worlds too, including gods and ghosts). A characteristic of a sentient being is that they're able to feel hurt (able to suffer), and as good Buddhists it's our duty and desire to at least avoid inflicting hurt (with what's called in the West "the Golden Rule" in its "negative or prohibitive form" i.e. "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated " being used as an argument).
Perhaps you'd agree that the quoted statement is better than its opposite, i.e. "We DON'T act as if etc.", which might be sociopathic.
So if you're a sentient being for example then I don't want to kill you, steal from you, make you lose your family, nor lie to you -- that's basic ethical behaviour.

Another interpretation, and I don't know if this is a mainstream view, is that a "sentient being" is (whether by definition or axiomatically or evidently, I don't know) "self-aware" or having a "self-view". Remembering what I wrote earlier, a self-view makes a being vulnerable to suffering: "I hurt", "I want", "I have lost", etc.
With enlightenment perhaps "self-views" and the notion of being "a being" are discarded. See for example SN 5.10 where Vajira refuses to see herself as a being.
Incidentally this whole topic is described as a "thicket" that's not worth thinking about.
But that touches on your question again: perhaps a relatively "enlightened" being is not a "sentient" being in the usual sense, and being enlightened is relatively immune to any grief. EVEN SO I expect that most of us should probably act "as if" they were sentient, vulnerable.

Compassion
Compassion is important in Buddhism. Perhaps it's fundamental in Mahayana Buddhism.
It seems to me that compassion is an antidote to being self-centred (where, if you remember, being "self-centred" is a cause of suffering).
Compassion isn't "pity", note: pity implies comparison, being better-off than someone else.

A lot of what I wrote here is -- due to my unfortunate ignorance of Mahayana -- based on (possibly earlier) suttas. Maybe that's alright, because the quote says "Following the Buddha" etc. implying the earlier doctrines (the buddha-vacana, "words of the Buddha") are on-topic.
I'll conclude with a quote from the current Dalai Lama (who I suppose is as much an authority on Mahayana as anyone). There was a video where he says, I paraphrase, "If I think of myself as special -- as "His Holiness" or a "the Nobel Prize Winner" -- then I'm trapped, imprisoned [in an identity-view]. Instead I see myself as being just like everyone else."
I think that's compatible or inline with the quote you asked about, and unrelated to solipsism.


Impermanence, nonexistance of self, meaning of life

Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living?

No.Buddhists believe the purpose in living is to free one's self from suffering.

And if there is, what is it based upon?

The universal need for happiness.

Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something?

Now that you know the Buddhist goal is to be free from suffering this is where all the motivation goes to. Buddhism teaches the Eight Noble Path that when practiced,cultivated,developed and perfected will lead to happiness.

Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ?

Because choosing to do good is better than choosing to do bad.Also Buddhists believe in karma so the more bad things you do the more suffering follows.

And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?

Because Buddhists believe if you commit suicide you'll just get reborn but the problems stays the same, if not worse.Not only is it pointless but by committing suicide you are creating a lot of bad energy.More bad karma than you can handle even.As killing is a very heavy karma and that includes killing yourself.You may also acquire the habit or tendency to commit suicide in future lives and trap your self in a never ending circle of suffering.

This is why it is Better to understand things so you don't suffer.But even if you can't understand anything.It's still better to Not commit suicide.Because that's will save you enormous amount of suffering.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time?

Yes no Essence (like soul in Christianity).

If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?

It's one of the random parts connected together in a certain point of time you mentioned before. Though it's not random it follows a pattern of cause and effect.In other words it's conditioned.

"All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true?

I don't understand.What do you see in the world that makes you think everything is permanent.People are born and die.Food are bought and rots.Leaves turn green and falls.Flowers bloom and wither.2 years olds eventually become 80 years olds.You were thinking of jogging now your thinking of what's on tv.You were cold now your warm.You were standing now your sitting and now your standing up again.You had the intention to read about Buddhism now you have the intention to write a post.Even an atom is always moving.Always.Nothing stays fixed the way it is FOREVER.A tv might look a tv now but in 100 years it's probably molten liquid.

One of the reason people mistaken things for being permanent is because of not being able to see things from a wider time scale.


Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation?

why would nature be so cruel

"Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that.

So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent.

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation

I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom.

They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self".

To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya.


Conscious Attention for Inner transformation during daily activities

Mindfulness should be from awakening to falling asleep, i.e., throughout the day. Formal practice time is just a booster and practice to keep your mindfulness thought out the day.


Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?

The answer depends as follows:

As a householder, no, celibacy is not required. It is only required to abstain from improper sexual conduct. And what is improper sexual conduct?

  He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their
  mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their
  relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail
  punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
  -AN 10.176, To Cunda the Silversmith (Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta)

As a monastic, yes, celibacy is required. You can get a better understanding of monastic celibacy by reading this discourse (AN 7.50, which is at the bottom of the linked page).

This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to be celibate if they feel inclined to do so.


How to juggle between the need for Prosperity and Desires for a Samsaric mind?

There are two kinds of right livelihood:

MN117:30.2: Right livelihood is twofold, I say.

One may give up bad deeds for good deeds and prosper:

MN117:30.3: There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:31.1: And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:31.2: It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood.
MN117:31.3: This is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements.

Even better, one may give up attachments:

MN117:30.4: And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:32.1: And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
MN117:32.2: It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
MN117:32.3: This is right livelihood that is noble.

The path is gradual and the first step is understanding the nature of good deeds. In other words, let ethics temper the siren call of desire. MN8 provides a list of ethical considerations:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
...

For example, buying and driving a Ferrari alongside a hungry person would be cruel. But helping to ease that person's hunger would be kind and it would also be cheaper.

AN10.28:4.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’


I am having hyper vigilance issue in my daily life

First and foremost, you must establish mindfulness of the body. Your mind should always be in your (lower) Dantian. Initially you may have to do exercises, push your abdomen out 100 times, several times a day, until you get used to being aware of your dantian.

Whenever you deal with people (talk to strangers), you should force yourself to stay in your body. Do not "fly" over to their perspective, or to some imaginary point in abstract space. Stay inside your body.

You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow.

Second, you need to stop relying on people's opinions for your right-and-wrong. Your right-and-wrong should come from Dharma. When your right-and-wrong comes from Dharma, as long as you act by the Dharma, you'll no longer care what people think about you. Then you will not try to please them or be likable. Then you can be your own center, with Dharma being your center.

Third, you should also sit without doing anything for one hour every day. When you sit you reconnect with your center.

To summarize, develop awareness of your body esp dantian, stay in your body when you talk to people, develop grace, don't try to please people - instead be your own center acting by the Dharma, sit daily and reconnect with your center.


How important are incense and candles to a meditation practice?

Incense and candles are not essential to a meditation practice. They can aid in concentration, but they can also become an emotional crutch if we become attached to them. I did the ritual of lighting candles and incense during my practice for a few weeks, and quickly got tired of it.

If you are practicing vipassana (a.k.a insight meditation) as opposed to samatha (a.k.a tranquility meditation) then it's really not necessary to create that kind of environment. In fact in vipassana we want to become free from external dependencies, so creating a certain type of environment might actually be counterproductive to the practice.

I'm one of Venerable Yuttadhammo's students, and he teaches vipassana in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. Check out his videos and/or book if you haven't already.

Unfortunately I can't comment on samatha practices, as I haven't been taught in that area.


What Buddhist materials describe how to increase the number of people with good Karma in a geographic area?

Though not directly affecting karma, there is a variation of Metta Meditation mentioned in the Visuddhi Magga that increases universal love and brotherhood. Though the object is universal, its obvious that nearer vicinities would be felt more profound an effect.

If there is one thing in this world that can influence peoples' Karma, it is meditation. Karma is nothing but the result of aeons of conditioning of the five aggregates, and only with insight (pradnya) can they be positively affected.

As a practical experiment, just arrange a series of group meditation sittings among the people of the geographic area you want to improvise. After each sitting, just feel the metta vibrations in the air!


What is the phantom in the conclusion of the Diamond Sutra?

No phantom, no...

The Diamond Sutra in Classical Chinese, wherein one of the verses instantly enlightened the 6th Patriarch Huineng, the corresponding verse to your quote is this:

  一切有為法，如夢幻泡影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀。

This beautiful verse was done by this guy with his league of national selected translators:

Kumarajiva is held by some Great Buddhist Masters as the "return of Sariputra". A memorial was built for him right after his cremation wherein housed his tongue Śarīra,  Kumarajiva Temple in Gangsu, China:

Recently out of curiosity I studied some Vinayas, one incident got description of Sariputra, said he was with small built; immediately echoing with the above image in my mind... though that saying remained just a saying.

If I render the above verse, it should read as:

All conditional things are, like mirages of the bubbles also an illusive dream, like dews also as if lightning, as such thus should be seen.

This verse transmitting the message that all existences are empty, constructed as if mirages and dreams; short-lived like morning dews, fleeting like lightning.

The phantom could be a different translation of mirage. A star at dawn could be the different translation of dew since by sunrise the dew will evaporate without trace... etc.


Could a Sotapanna reject to give if asked and has?

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share?

I may have missed it, but i have yet to find something in buddhism that says we should give or agree on something that will be harmful to ourselves (as well as what is harmful to others, of course).

  In what cases, if he could reject, would he?

I'm not sure there are any hard rules. It seems that it depends on the situation. I hope someone who knows the sutras better than me could chime in on this.


How does one know which kamma-cetana and action is related to which kamma-vipaka being experienced?

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be  an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.

If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.


According to Buddhism, to do a sin, you have to consciously do something using your body, speech or using sitha.

In a dream you are not doing anything consciously. Therefore simply you can not sin in dreams.


Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"?

Buddhism discerns phenomena through the idea of skandhas, meaning that our experiences consists of five components. The rupa skandha pertains to material properties, and vedana regards the emotional qualities. Thus far these skandhas correspond to your example. Further, skandhas also consists of perception, mental factors, and consciousness.

  Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

One purpose of understanding the world through the concept of skandhas is that we get a closer examination of what our perceptions actually consists of. Building on this, buddhism concludes that our experiences are ever transforming and impersonal, which in turn means that they're an unreliable base for understanding the world, and how to act in it, so yes, both notions - as well as the other skandhas - are crucial to be wary of. If we fail to realize this, suffering becomes a fact. Instead, breaking out of this illusion with the aid of the noble eightfold path is an alternative to liberate us from this suffering.


Is it correct that dependent origination will cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas?

will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas?

Yes.

  In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need
  water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the
  originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of
  the observer. So how do the two relate?

'Paticcasumuppada' ('Dependent Co-Arising') is the subset of 'Idappaccayatā' ('Conditionality') that explains the 12 conditions for the arising of mental suffering. The suttas say:

  And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

The conditionality related to the arising or coming-to-be of trees is not called 'Paticcasumuppada'. The arising of trees is merely an example of general 'Idappaccayatā'.

  And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

This question is not valid because not all examples or occurrences of 'Idappaccayatā' are 'Paticcasumuppada'. The mind (while living) can experience the depletion of 'Paticcasumuppada' but the mind (while living) cannot experience the depletion of 'Idappaccayatā'. Even though the suffering of 'Paticcasumuppada' can end; the 'Idappaccayatā' of Nature will continue to be discerned. In short, suffering can end but trees will continue to grow, clouds will continue to form, the body will continue to live nourished by food, consciousness will continue to operate conditioned by sense organs, etc.


Can a person without any of the five physical senses attain arhatship?

I think it's been said that beings in the formless realms cannot attain enlightenment because they cannot perceive (hear, read, or otherwise learn) the Buddha's Dharma ... perhaps too they also can't perceive the three characteristics of existence.

This says,

  The inhabitants of these realms are possessed entirely of mind. Having no physical body, they are unable to hear Dhamma teachings.

See also footnote 8 on this page,

  An Abhidhamma text, the Vibhanga — drawing on a passage in DN 1 — mentions another level of devas of form not listed here: the Non-percipient beings, a level in which there is no perception at all. The commentary explains that they are not listed here because this attainment is open to hermits and seers outside the Buddha's teaching, and does not require virtue. This, however, ignores the fact that the four jhanas and four formless states are also open to people outside the Buddha's teaching; and although virtue helps with the attainment of jhana, it is nowhere stated in the Canon that the jhanas cannot be attained by a person whose virtue is not pure. A more likely reason for omitting the Non-percipient beings here is that this state, unlike the jhanas and four formless states, is not conducive to the arising of insight, and so would not be considered a desirable goal.

I don't know how to reconcile the above two statements, i.e. whether formless is the same as non-percipient.

People who are blind or deaf, or who are blind and deaf can learn to communicate. So I suppose this is only applicable to non-percipient beings in the formless realms: not people.

Cakkhupala Thera was able to hear the dharma.


Relation of Productivity and Entertainment

There is work and there is play and both can be clung to. Personally I cannot motivate myself if there is no play so what I do is try to turn all my play into productive work.  I make music and I try to incorporate that into the Dhamma like I try to incorporate the need for food, clothing, shelter and medical care into spiritual practice.


To the first few questions the answer lies with parami/paramitas. These are the perfections which someone who made a vow to become a Buddha will have to develop to perfection for countless aeons. So a Buddha is someone who have trained for aeons until he is perfect to re-discover dhamma and teach. So his last birth will always be of a high social class.

"How does one relate this lives of those who do not have these safety nets?"

Develop the ten paramis and situations in life will change in such that one may have the opportunity.

In the Pāli canon's Buddhavaṃsa[3] the Ten Perfections (dasa pāramiyo) are (original terms in Pāli):

Dāna pāramī : generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla pāramī : virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma pāramī : renunciation
Paññā pāramī : transcendental wisdom, insight
Viriya (also spelled vīriya) pāramī : energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti pāramī : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca pāramī : truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna (adhitthana) pāramī : determination, resolution
Mettā pāramī : loving-kindness
Upekkhā (also spelled upekhā) pāramī : equanimity, serenity


Is Dana (donation) more about detachment from one's possessions & to break one's ego or is it more about helping others?

DANA SUTTA

In this Sutta, Buddha broke it down to 7 categories of why people give Dana
(1) To answer your question as to purpose of dana, people give for many reasons.
(2) some give to detach(ornament of mind) which bears great fruit and great benefit.
(3) some people give to help others.

I think you can answer yourself if the reason you want the merchant to maximize his profit is because you want to help him out or you are doing it to let go of your attachment.


How do you recognize the attainment of enlightenment?

The way to check the stage of enlightenment on or another person is in is by checking which fetters are broken and which are not. If all 10 are broken then you are fully enlightened. This should be done with utmost care as in many cases there is a chance one may overestimate.


How is it right to teach other?

If one's teachings teaches people how to become free from suffering and that teaching deals with ultimate reality then that would be considered wholesome way of acting.

If one teaches freedom from suffering but one's teachings are dealing with concepts such as a Creator God it is not wholesome since it will not lead people to Liberation. It will instead bring more delusion into other beings minds and steer them further away from the path to end suffering. Since delusion is what is keeping beings in Samsara it would be considered unwholesome to input more delusion in them.

  Is it right to share my thinking with others or not?

What kind thinking are we talking about?

If one is sharing unwholesome ways of thinking with others that might lead to wrong speech, wrong action.

Another aspect to mention is also whether or not the other being in some way has agreed to be told about one's thoughts. Sometimes a being might have problems in his or her own life and might not have energy to listen to other beings problems. If one then just unloads on that being without that being wanting to listen that might not be a good thing.

In the same way if one has criminal intentions and wants to commit a crime then if one tells another innocent being about ones plans one will actually involve that being in the act. Now that being has some unwanted knowledge which is placing that being in an unfortunate sitation. Should the being go to the police with the information or what to do? These are just examples of what might happen if we share wrong and unwholesome ways of thinking with other beings.

One could also choose to share wholesome thoughts, i.e. thoughts of renunciation, peace, friendliness, loving-kindness and the like. This would be beneficial not only for oneself but also for other beings. One might share an advice with another being who is in need for advice. Wholesome actions will produce wholesome results.

  Aren't we are becoming more dependent on others?

This question is difficult to answer since it can be answered in many different ways. It's actually subjective. Some people will say no while others will say yes. I do not have an answer for this question.

What i would like to point out is the "attachment-factor" in the question. The Buddha clearly stated that we should be our own refuge and not rely on other people for salvation. With that in mind one should strive to set oneself free. One should practice diligently and not be negligent. A human life is very short and we must practice while the body and mind is still intact. Old age, sickness and death will come to all of us.

See Dhammapada Verse 166 - The Story of Venerable Attadattha.

Being dependent on others will not set one free. The Buddha's only show the way. We ourselves must practice it.

May you be well and happy and free from suffering.


Difference between Sampajanna and Vipassana

Sampajanna is a prerequisite for right concentration. Vipassana is a result of right concentration.
Mindfulness > sampajanna > concentration > vipassana > liberation > nibbana
Sampajanna is a product of active volition & mindfulness; what is called 'wise or careful attention' (yonisomanasikāro); as described in AN 10.61:

Mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careful attention (yonisomanasikāro). AN 10.61

Vipassana is the automatic seeing of ultimate truth that occurs when the mind is clear & concentrated, as described in AN 11.2.

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are. AN 11.2

Sampajanna (applied wisdom) is the preliminary wisdom that mindfulness (remembering; recollection) brings to mind to establish meditation. Again, to quote AN 10.61:

The four establishments of mindfulness, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the four establishments of mindfulness? It should be said: ... mindfulness and clear comprehension. AN 10.61

For example, when meditation is established, sampajanna applies the types of wisdoms listed below, when required:

observing breathing brings peace therefore it is beneficial to observe the breathing

craving & attachment cause suffering & disturbances therefore I should meditate without craving & attachment

this hindrance harms myself & harms another therefore it should be abandoned

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa has explained 'sampajanna' & 'vipassana' below:

sampajanna, wisdom-in-action, ready comprehension, clear comprehension: the specific application of  panna as required in a
given situation.
vipassana, insight: literally, "clear seeing," to see clearly, distinctly, directly into the true nature of  things, into
aniccam-dukkham-anatta. Vipassana is popularly used for mental
development practiced for the sake of true insight. In such cases, the
physical posture, theory, and method of such practices must not be
confused with true realization of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness,
and not-self. Vipassana cannot be taught.
SAMPAJAÑÑA
Sampajanna is wisdom as it meets up with and immediately confronts a problem, as it deals with and wipes
out that problem -- this is wisdom-in-action. It is only that wisdom
specifically related and applied to a particular situation or event.
The word "wisdom" (paññä) encompasses many
meanings and understandings, we can't even begin to estimate its
content. However, the word "sampajanna" is far more limited in its
meaning. It is exactly that wisdom directly needed for the problem
that confronts us. Active wisdom isn't general, it is a matter of
particulars.
We can compare wisdom (paññä) with the medicine chest in our house. In it we store a wide variety of drugs, pills, capsules, ointments, powders,
and syrups for possible use. When we're actually sick, we must choose
from among the many the one drug which will be effective in treating
our ailment. We can't take them all; we take just what is needed to
cure our illness here and now. The same is true for wisdom. Understand
that there's an incredible amount of what we call paññä,
but that we only apply a little bit at a time. We apply just that
portion which can take care of the immediate situation. Know how to
use the Dhamma, the paññä, which is exactly relevant to our situation
and problem. The Dhamma or wisdom which controls that situation and
problem is what we call "sampajanna."
The Scientific Cure of Spiritual Disease


What should one meditate upon as a beginner?

That's like asking "what should I eat".

If liking to taste, here are the 40 meals, or better working places: Kammaṭṭhāna

For which one might be good for your tendency it would be best to look after a skilled meditation teacher but generally the ten recollections, best starting from below (and develope proper perception for them) are fine for one living at home, as well as the Brahma-viharas, later on.

What ever might be pleasing for the mind to go with it best possible without much laps.

  I am just a beginner...Just give me high priority 4-5 things to meditate upon.

First three recollections are of the virtues of the Three Jewels:

(1) Buddha
(2) Dharma
(3) Sangha

Next three are recollections of the virtues of:

(4) morality (Śīla)
(5) liberality (cāga)

Suttas in regard of them: Recollections

It would be good to ask first and likewise for Refuge and for the precepts first, taking them, best from a Monk or Nun, Dheeraj Verma.

(If having no access, but serious and having patient, one might be always welcome for such online.)

Mudita & Anumodana

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world]


Work on testing the credibility of these assumptions: soul, I, me ,mine, "I am happy" etc.  Practice Satipatthana meditation to get the answers you are looking for,


What meditation practice will allow me to sleep less and focus more?

I am also a second year medical student, and I also used to face the same problems that you do.

The meditation practice of 'Anapanasati' will allow you to sleep less and focus more. For instructions on how to practise it, follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=206&v=YKFl4E3YhlI

Practising this meditation makes your mind calm, concentrated and will give you a lot of mental power. The strength and the duration of these effects are dependent on how long you practise (a session of 1 hour would be optimal, but feel free to get up and go if you wish to before the full four), how frequently you practise (at least twice a day would be optimal), how regularly you practise  (try to stick to the schedule as best as you can), and the intention with which you practise (intend to let your mind become calm and concentrated). This practise of Anapanasati is exactly for this purpose of building attention and eliminating any stress you have, and it is also very powerful at accomplishing this purpose, provided you practise correctly and appropriately.
If you practise this meditation appropriately, you will find that your attention will grow rapidly and that your stress levels will be non-existent.

You will also find that you will have a lot more free time, because your elevated attention and non-existent stress levels allows you to get a lot more study done in much less time.Because your mind is very calm (since practising this meditation will declutter your mind) as a result of successful and appropriate practise of this meditation, you will find that your sleep will become very deep, and so you will not only need less sleep but you will also be much more refreshed.

The video that I linked to you that has the instructions on Anapanasati may seem too short, and not very comprehensive. But my advice to you is that comprehensiveness of instruction is not at all the key to success in this meditation, and not much more than what he says in the video needs to be known for successful practise of Anapanasati. The key is to be persistent and stick to the breath as much as you can, and gradually your concentration, calm and mental power will develop.

Although what I am about to say may cause some amount of sensation to arise in people who are attached to their insight meditation traditions, I would advice, from my personal experience, that you don't practise insight meditation exclusively (the anapanasati meditation that I recommend is not an insight meditation, it is a calming meditation) since it will cause many troubles, especially in a student life like ours. This is because exclusive practise of insight meditation will initially cause many defilements to come about (although the goal is the contrary) - for example, all kinds of craving will come about. This is not conducive at all to a successful student life.

You can, however, practise insight meditation during daily life (rather than the main meditation practise) such as while walking and eating and so on, without getting into much trouble, ASSUMING that you have a solid practise of Anapanasati going on.

I said earlier in the post that a sitting session of one hour at least twice a day is optimal. This might seem too much in the beginning, but the effects of sticking to this regular schedule will change your life so much that you will find that it is not too much at all, given the benefits that it provides you, and you will find that in fact it gives you a lot more free time than before.

To clarify what I meant by insight meditation, it is the exclusive practise taught by the Buddha whereby you will be able to understand reality clearly and therefore be free from suffering. Here is a manual on how to practise insight meditation, written by a great monk called Yuttadhammo: http://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf

My addition of insight meditation here may seem irrelevant to your question, since Anapanasati is the exclusive answer to your question, but I am assuming that you understand the doctrine that the Buddha taught and that you have set yourself on the path to freedom from suffering. So do bear in mind my warnings regarding insight meditation in the context of student life, so make sure that you are only practising Anapanasati during your sitting meditation session, and practise insight meditation during your daily life to the best of your ability.

You will find that if the calming meditation (Anapanasati) and insight meditation (the exclusive practise that the Buddha taught to be free from suffering) are practised together in the manner I described above, insight meditation will not only no longer be a hindrance (because your mind has become powerful and stabilized by your solid practise of Anapanasati, you won't be overcome by craving and other defilements) but it will support your Anapanasati practise, which in turn will support your insight meditation practise as well. In fact, the meditation schedule that I prescribed to you seems to be also what  even the Buddha seems to have taught to some people on a certain occasion, where he provides instructions on both the Anapanasati meditation and the insight meditation (traditionally known as the practise of 'Satipattana').

Feel free to ask for any clarifications, I hope what I said makes sense to you and that you too will be able to solve your problems.


Spoke to the Buddha in my dream-discard?

I met many interesting people in dreams or in visions awake: Jesus, my old Zen teacher, some other Buddhist and Hindu teachers and so on.

Some of them have told me very powerful mantras, some have encouraged me in practice or pointed at my mistakes. And of course I practised with them in my dreams, with joy and benefit. In none of those dreams or visions they deceived me in anything.

My old Zen teacher said (when another practitioner asked him) that he doesn't visit his students in dreams. But, he said, it's possible that some local spirit might took his appearance and give helpful advice.

Likewise, in your case it's possible that a local spirit took an image of the Buddha and gave you good advice. And it's possible it was real Buddha.

There are known stories of advanced practitioners who saw awakened teachers in dreams or visions and learned from them a lot. For example, if I recall correctly, Je Tsongkhapa meditated in a temple with a statue of Atisha, and Atisha started to talk to him and elucidated many topics of Dharma, and that allowed Tsongkhapa to write his fundamental Lamrim.

Of course it happens that our mind plays tricks with us, so it's possible to receive ill advice in dreams as well. Bodhisattvas can see Buddhas of Sambhogakaya realm (invisible to regular people), until then we have to decide for ourselves, was the advice good or not.

...Anyway, some people found excuses to not follow advice of real Buddha, when he was in human body...


Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas?

No, if speaking of "can one deed make another undone" (MN 101), Breath, but by the deed of traing the mind, one can reach the ability to bear results of fruits from deeds easier. See the The Salt Crystal.

Since it has much impact of general ways of thinking, living mostly in a world of believe that unrightouseness could be corrected, the Essay Wisdom over Justice might give certain inspiration, dealing at least with this issue outwardly.

For Suttas (teachings) on kamma (actions) look up here: Kamma

In detail, of what certain sects see as skillful (here Niyamas), there are certainly deeds which are not benefical at all for even lighten effects of old kamma, not to speak of going beyound. But such would need the discussiin of each of this practices. Some of this classical are benefical, kusala-kamma.

To get rid of the effects of ones previous deeds eternally, there is just one refuge: Nibbana.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


How is 'consciousness' (vinyaana) defined in Buddhist texts?

'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.' - MN 43

And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of
consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness,
mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness. - SN 12.2

The six classes of consciousness should be understood. ’ So it was
said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye
and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds,
ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odours,
nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the tongue and flavours,
tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles,
body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind and mind-objects,
mind-consciousness arises. - MN 148


kamma wise why cant i do a steady practice

Firstly, if you keep wallowing in self-pity over your assumed past kamma, then this will not help you move forward. It's considered unwholesome. So, forget about it. Similar to the Buddha's Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, you should think about how you can get the arrow out and heal yourself, rather than examining the origins of the arrow.

Secondly, it sounds like you are afflicted with one of The Five Hindrances called Sloth and Torpor.

Here's some advice by Ajahn Brahm on this:

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.

More advice by Gil Fronsdal here. I quote some parts of it below:

  The presence of sloth and torpor does not mean that energy is not
  available. It means we are not accessing it. With a change in
  conditions, energy may reappear in a moment. This can be seen clearly
  in young children who switch from being “tired” (while shopping, for
  instance) to being energetic (about an offer of ice cream, for
  instance) in a matter of seconds. The energy level depends on whether
  they evaluate the situation as boring or exciting.

  Chronic sloth and torpor may represent a lack of meaning or purpose in
  life. In this case, the antidote might involve taking time for deep
  inner reflection or thoughtful conversations with wise friends.

  When sloth and torpor are present and energy is weak, we do the best
  we can. When they are absent, energy will naturally be stronger.
  Rather than berating yourself when you are tired or praising yourself
  when you are alert, just keep practicing. Certainly it will help
  reveal the precious beauty of your own mind.


If the law of Karma is a natural law like Newton's law?

Newton's laws are simple, they model of a simplified universe. They describes the relationship between "force" and the motion of a single object in an otherwise-empty universe.

If you consider two objects in the universe then there are a bunch of other laws: the law of gravity, laws of electrostatics, etc.

If you consider three objects in the universe then it cannot be generally solved by an equation:

  In 1887, mathematicians Ernst Bruns [4] and Henri Poincaré showed that there is no general analytical solution for the three-body problem given by algebraic expressions and integrals. The motion of three bodies is generally non-repeating, except in special cases.[5]

... and that's just classical mechanics, ignoring relativistic and quantum mechanics.

Something like the weather (how strong the wind is going to be, whether it will rain, what the temperature will be) is arguably "part of nature". There too there are "lots of variables" involved. In order to predict tomorrow's weather, "an equation" isn't enough: they need to use many, many equations, and a supercomputer on which to run simulations, and even then it's only limited accuracy and range.

Similarly I think it's possible to say that Karma exists and is a "natural law", just as it's possible to say that weather exists.

Perhaps you'd think it might be easy, but in practice it isn't easy, to describe weather even using several equations, let alone just "an equation". You needs laws describing temperature, pressure, density, fluid dynamics, Coriolis because the earth is spinning, differential heating, and then local weather caused by the existence of land and sea and mountains and ocean currents etc. etc. etc.

Again I suggest you stop trying to see a link between Buddhism and Physics. Physics is useful as far as it goes, but it cannot even describe the relationship between a boy and his dog (or perhaps "between a child and a teacher" if you don't have any relationships with dogs).


Samatha, Vipassana, Shikantaza scientifically compared?

That (above comment) said, there are numerous studies of what is called Open Monitoring (OM) vs Focused Attention (FA) meditation within the "mindfulness" category, for example the paper Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation, which first defined OM and FA. FA is pretty clearly related to at least some aspects of shamatha, and OA has sometimes been equated to "mindfulness" or even "vipassana", though both characterizations are in serious dispute (see below). So in that (complicated and quite likely misleading) sense, there are studies of shamatha vs vipassana, which you can find by looking up citations to the above paper.

The only study I know of comparing (parts of) two full and contrasting systems of meditation is the recent Arousal vs. Relaxation: A Comparison of the Neurophysiological and Cognitive Correlates of Vajrayana and Theravada Meditative Practices. Interestingly, that paper discusses FA and OM (or as it is called there, distributed attention) and concludes that the distinction is neither coherent from a phenomenological meditation standpoint nor supported by neuroscientific studies.


What happens to consciousness/awareness when entering Paranirvana?

Any form of existence after parinirvana is "an inconceivable" in the Buddha's Dharma. This is equally true of Theravada as it is of Mahayana here. The Buddha, "after death," is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, after death, is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, before death, is also inconceivable. The Buddha questions Vesālī:

“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices …
consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as in
form?”
“No, sir.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from
feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in
choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness … or as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as
possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as one
who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”

(Anurādhasutta SN 44.2)
The Buddha is not defined via five aggregates like a sattva is. This is before even parinirvāṇa. After parinirvāṇa, the Buddha is also not defined via five aggregates. With this in mind, we can go to the 25th Parīkṣā of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with the Madhyamakaśāstra commentary from ~2-400 AD by Venerable Vimalākṣa (青目, an alternate Sanskritization is "Piṅgala" )

25:17 The Tathagata, after parinirvāṇa, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.
25:18 The Tathagata, presently, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.

"Presently" here should be taken as "while alive."

25:19 Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the slightest differentiation.
25:20 From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this, there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.
25:21 "Existence or nonexistence after parinirvāṇa," et cetera, "the boundaries of existence," "constancy," et cetera -- all (of these) views depend on nirvāṇa being in the future or in the past.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments:

(1) "The Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists," or (2) "The Tathagata does not exist," or (3) "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist," or (4) "The Tathagata neither exists nor not exists," or (5) "The world is finite," or (6) "The world is infinite," or (7) "The world is both finite and infinite," or (8) "The world is neither finite nor infinite," or (9) "The world is constant," or (10) "The world is inconstant," or (11) "The world is both constant and inconstant," or (12) "The world is neither constant nor inconstant" -- these in three kinds are twelve views. When after the Tathagata's parinirvāṇa he is (1) existent or (2) nonexistent, et cetera (3-4), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) nirvāṇa. When the world is (5) finite or (6) infinite, et cetera (7-8), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) the future. When the world is (9) constant or (10) inconstant, et cetera (11-12), those four views are dependent on (the notion of) the past. Whether the Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists or does not exist, et cetera, is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Like the origin and destiny of the world, if it is finite, infinite, constant, inconstant, et cetera, it is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Consequently, we say that the world and nirvāṇa are not different.

Āyuṣmat Nāgārjuna's Kārikā continues.

25:22 If all phenomena are empty, what is finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, or neither finite nor infinite?
25:23 Why is there the one and the many? Why is there the constant, and inconstant, and both constant and inconstant, and neither constant nor inconstant?
25:24 All phenomena being inconceivable is the cessation of the frivolous ponderings. To no person and in no place has the Buddha ever spoken.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments again:

All phenomena at all times of every variety conform to
dependent origination. All in all, they are empty, and thus they have
not their own natures (自性, svabhāva). Which body exists to be the same
as the soul? Which body exists to be different than the soul? Thus
proceeding are the sixty-two demonic views. Each and every one within
emptiness is untenable. When all existence completely ceases,
frivolous ponderings are entirely gone. When frivolous ponderings are
entirely gone, it is because we have penetrated the true aspect of the
many phenomena and attained the tranquil path. Hearkening back to the
chapter on causality, if we inquire into the many phenomena, they are
neither existent nor nonexistent, nor are they both existent and
nonexistent, and nor are they neither existent nor nonexistent. This
is called 'the true aspect of all phenomena.' It is also called 'the
true nature of the phenomena,' 'reality,' and 'nirvāṇa.' Therefore,
the Tathagata at no time, in no place, to no persons, ever spoke of
nirvāṇa as with particularized characteristics. When all existence has
entirely come to an end, frivolous ponderings have ceased.

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.34c14)
Which directs us back to the OP inquiry: What happens to consciousness when entering parinirvāṇa? It ceases.

Of all forms of disease, none is greater than that of having a body —
he extinguished the body. Of all forms of torment, none is more severe
than that of having a calculating mind — he erased it and submerged in
the vacuous. The mind is taxed by the body; the body is burdened by
the intellect. The two pull each other, turning like a wheel on the
endless road of misery. It is said in the sutra, “The intellect is
poison, the body is shackles. Because of them the quiet silence of
liberation remains beyond reach; they are the cause of all
tribulations.”
The Perfect turned his body into ashes and extinguished his intellect,
he relinquished his form and discarded his reason. Within, he
abandoned the stirrings of illumination; without, he put to rest the
basis of misery. Transcendent, perfectly free from all existents;
boundless, he became great and vacuous. Tranquil, inaudible, clear,
non-manifest, mysteriously gone forever into a destination unknown.
When a lamp goes out its flame is extinguished, the oil and the flame
gone all at once.
This is nirvana without remainder. In the words of a sutra, “The five
aggregates are no more, like a flame extinguished.”
[...]
The terms “with remainder” and “without remainder” are only external
appellations for nirvana, conventional designations for the divergent
modes of the sages’ responding to things.
[...]
As for these (two) appellations (of "with remainder" and "without remainder"), they are established to indicate the
various modes of sagely response. When the Sage manifests traces, we
call this “arising”; when he makes them vanish, we call this
“cessation.” His “arising” is referred to as nirvana “with remainder,”
his “cessation” as nirvana “without remainder.” All along both
appellations — “with” and “without remainder” — remain rooted in the
nameless. Surely the nameless will take any name? Thus, the Perfect
becomes a square when he inhabits a square, a circle when he stops in
a circle, a deva when among devas, a human being when among humans. To
become a deva or a human being in accordance with circumstance is
surely not something that devas or humans could do. It is precisely
because he is neither a deva nor a human that he can become one or the
other.

(Venerable Sēngzhào Zhào's Essays T1858, translator unknown by poster, published by BDK as Three Short Treatises by Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, and Zongmi)
Though the Buddha's mind ended upon parinirvāṇa, he was never identified as, with, or in his mind to begin with. When I say "to begin with," I mean "after the bodhimaṇḍa," after he touched the earth in response to Mara, the godling prince. Nothing changes for the Tathāgata when form, consciousness, etc., ends, because he has already discarded, transcended, and escaped all of these.
In the Sarvāstivādin Mahāvibhāṣa ("The Great Commentary" of the Sarvāstivādin Śrāvakas), it explains nirvāṇa using some clever wordplay: "Vāna" means forest and "nir" means escape.
As it is the escape from the forest of the aggregates,
it is called nirvana.
When we ask a question like "Is the Buddha aware after parinirvāṇa," we are trying to pin the Tathāgata down, to identify him, using the aggregates by which ignorant sentient beings are bound. This can't be done.
Overlong, but hopefully helpful in some way.


My limited understanding is that 'I' never really was in the first place.  That which never appeared cannot vanish.  That which was never born cannot die.  The cycle of birth and death is broken by truly realizing that the entire cycle is predicated on ignorance.  Practice is the road to the eradication of ignorance, though doing good, avoiding evil and purifying this mind.


I don't have a complete knowledge in Buddhist teachings.

There is a quote which says,

'No one can save us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.'

So we can just help them show the path, but they have to walk their own path.


Is there a correlation between sukha and passadha?

When Piti arises and you stay equanimously watching the arising and passing knowing its impermanence (with no attachment or craving to this feeling) then Piti will fade away and Passadhi will arise. When Passadhi initially arises you may think your meditation is regressing as you loose Piti and also board after a few hours of Passadhi.

Piti is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara resulting from craving.

Passadhi is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara from Ignorance or Sanna.


Look. You basically keep asking the same question. So my answer from last time still applies. But I suppose it's very hard to break through this mood, so let me re-emphasize a few things:

You are not alone to feel this way. I feel this way. Buddha felt this way. There is nothing fundamentally "wrong" about your situation. Feeling that everything is empty, is what some people would call a great realization. Hurray, you already have it, congrats. Yes, it feels shitty - they didn't tell you in the books?
The Buddha struggled with friendships too. You did not know? Yes, he did. Read the Mara chapter in Chinese Samyukta Agama. He thought something was wrong with him because of that. Then he came up with the trick to identify such negative thoughts as "Mara" and counter-act them with self-affirmative arguments. This was post-Enlightenment! If Buddha had to do it, guess what? You must learn to self-affirm!
Relationships are addicting. I know, I've been through some. Intimacy generates tons of dopamine or serotonine or whatever. Your brain gets addicted to that. Then you no longer get it. Then you feel like shit. This is THE drug addiction. Guess what, this is the way humans work. Every move, thought, impulse, perception is always accompanied by dopamine changes, plus or minus. So everything always hurts or delights - and then hurts when it ends. This is how life works, for everyone. Pain. So the only way out is to learn to trick the mechanism, by changing your definition of "good" in such a way as to be rewarded all the time. Makes sense? This is what Buddha taught.
Let go of your past karma. Meaning, stop feeling bad about the circumstances of your childhood and your parents, that led you to be what you are. It's not your fault, it's not their fault, it's not anybody's fault. It is just a sequence of causes and results, like the billiard balls. Everyone gets their share of this mess. Even Buddha did (putting aside the legend). His relationship with his father was awful. Father was ashamed of him, said he was a failure. And they  never reconciled all the way until father's death. His mother died, and his maternal aunt who was his stepmother begged him to come back, and when he did not, she shaved her head and became first female Buddhist, just to be with her son. There was lots of drama in Buddha's life.

Buddha struggled with doubts all the time, he just learned to overcome them. You think it was easy when his students committed suicide? He thought, gosh what kind of teacher am I, if my students commit suicide! But then for the sake of other students who were still alive he put on a smile and said: this guy who killed himself has reached Nirvana, but you should practice breathing meditation and teach yourself to feel good, if you ever hope to achieve what I achieved. Makes sense?

Now, please stop beating yourself with negativity, I know it's hard, because I'm just like you - but please learn to be yourself, to assert your right to be in this world, and even to praise yourself. Killing yourself is a cop out. Buddha did not kill himself when he "awakened" to emptiness of it all, did he?


Are we taught to try to understand our fears?

Yes, we are taught to understand our fear and see where it comes from.

It comes from the projections of our mind.

  As fear is based on something that we think may happen in the future, it is clearly a mental process which tries to predict the future - in that sense, the reason of fear is a projection of our mind.
  We can be afraid to fall, but once we are falling, we are afraid to hit the ground, once we hit the ground, we may fear we have a bad injury, once we know we have a bad injury, we may fear the pain and the consequences of not being able to work for some time or become disabled etc. So one could say that fear is always based on something that has not happened yet, and is therefore a fantasy of our mind rather than fact.

There are some fears which are wholesome:

Hiri and Otappa which are fear of shame and fear of unwholesomeness are called "Guardians of the world":

  "Two lucid things, o monks, protect the world: moral shame and moral dread. If these two things were not to protect the world, then one would respect neither one's mother, nor one's mother's sister, nor one's brother's wife, nor one's teacher's wife ...." (A. II, 7).

There is another fear which results from the practice of vipassana as pointed out by eudoxus:

Knowledge of fear - bhaya-nana

  This gives way to the knowledge of fear, (bhaya-nana). In the disappearance of everything examined, the mind at some level begins to realise: there is nothing beneath this parade of changes. There is no foundation. At a fundamental level, there is nothing at all. The result is existential anxiety. In its strong form this can manifest as panic. In its weak form, it can be merely a sense of existential unease, a sense of nothing going right, a sense of helplessness, a sense of loss of control. At this stage of the practice, the meditator’s insight into anatta, not self, usually takes the form of a sense of loss of control. The realisation that "I am not in control of ‘my’ life".


How does teaching of Buddhism deal with waste? How does teaching of Buddhism deal with acceptance even it causes unhappiness?

If you don't want or don't need something that you have, donate it or give it away to others who need it, instead of throwing it away.

Donating to monks or virtuous people is better than donating to unvirtuous people. But any kind of donation, even to animals, is a source of merit.

From AN 3.57:

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

Wastage of things and wealth in Buddhism is not about throwing things away. Rather it's about not using things and wealth for the benefit of oneself and/or others.

From SN 3.19:

  "That's the way it is, great king. That's the way it is. When a person
  of no integrity acquires lavish wealth, he doesn't provide for his own
  pleasure & satisfaction, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his
  parents, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, &
  assistants; nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He
  doesn't institute for brahmans & contemplatives offerings of supreme
  aim, heavenly, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven. When his
  wealth isn't properly put to use, kings make off with it, or thieves
  make off with it, or fire burns it, or water sweeps it away, or
  hateful heirs make off with it. Thus his wealth, not properly put to
  use, goes to waste and not to any good use.

  "But when a person of integrity acquires lavish wealth, he provides
  for his own pleasure & satisfaction, for the pleasure & satisfaction
  of his parents, the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, & assistants; and
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He institutes for brahmans
  & contemplatives offerings of supreme aim, heavenly, resulting in
  happiness, leading to heaven. When his wealth is properly put to use,
  kings don't make off with it, thieves don't make off with it, fire
  doesn't burn it, water doesn't sweep it away, and hateful heirs don't
  make off with it. Thus his wealth, properly put to use, goes to a good
  use and not to waste.


Why are "Fear and Shame" listed among the beautiful cetasikas?

It's a translation issue. The Pali terms are Hiri and Ottappa, and they are hard to translate into English because they have no one word equivalents.

Hiri refers to the feeling of not wanting to do a bad deed because you know the deed itself is bad, and Ottappa refers to the feeling of not wanting to do an evil deed because you know that the consequences of it are bad.

They definately do not mean what is normally meant by the English words fear and shame. Many suttas speak of fear as unwholesome, and shame in the sense of remorse is mentioned as unwholesome in other Buddhist writings.

For this reason the translator Ajahn Thanissaro prefers to translate these terms as conscience and concern.

The Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a very good article on these two terms called The Guardians of the World. Here's a very good excerpt:

  While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task
  of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their
  individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of
  shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and
  induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal
  honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is
  the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of
  moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful
  kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for
  liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the
  difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with
  excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is
  like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is
  smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in
  the place where it is red hot.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html


Does the concept of evil spirits occur in Buddhism?

It's not always as clear as 'good' or 'evil'. Angry, vengeful spirits also exist in forms of Buddhism. Sometimes also seen as protectors, they can be a source of controversy.

More common is one's own belief in (or, more practically, fear of) something that is indefinitely, and irreparably, sinister or evil. We subscribe to all sorts of interesting notions as children, some things tend to persist. Ultimately, it's what your mind manages to trick you into into feeling; there are plenty of Christians that don't believe that demons exist so it really does depend on the individual.

So, yes to the concept (with emphasis on what neubau mentions about indigenous spirits), but belief is a little more complicated; belief coupled with a healthy dose of ambivalence can be quite common.

For children, I think the boogeyman is rather universal :)