How should one properly handle cases of insults, criticism and discrimination, according to the Buddhist teachings?

Here's what the Buddha had to say to the monks:

  For even this external earth element, great as it is, can be seen as
  impermanent, can be seen as liable to destruction, liable to fall,
  liable to change; so what of this body, which is clung-to by craving
  and lasts but a while? There can be no (considering) that as ‘I’ or
  ‘mine’ or ‘I am.’

  So then, (thus having seen this element as it actually is) if others
  abuse and scold and curse and threaten a bhikkhu, he understands thus:
  ‘This painful feeling born of ear-contact has arisen in me. That is
  dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact.’
  Then he sees that contact is impermanent, that feeling is impermanent,
  that perception is impermanent, that mental formations are
  impermanent, and that consciousness is impermanent. And his mind
  enters into that very object (taking it just as an impersonal)
  element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein).
  -MN 28, The Greater Discourse on the Elephant-footprint Simile

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

  "Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of
  the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you
  could not endure?"

  "No, lord."

  "Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw.
  That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness."
  -MN 21, The Simile of the Saw

  "Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they
  insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"

  "If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta
  people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with
  their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I
  will think, O One Well-gone."

  "But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a clod...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a stick...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."

  "But if they hit you with a knife...?"

  "...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."

  "But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"

  "If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are
  disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and
  disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but
  here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' That is
  what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One
  Well-gone."

  "Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit."
  -SN 35.88, To Punna

In addition, with cases of blame or disrepute, you might want to take a look at this answer.


If Theravada doesn't posit the selflessness of phenomena, then how to interpret SN 22.95?

Piya Tan in his commentary on the lump of foam sutta, quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary below:

  This sutta is one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature
  of conditioned phenomena; its imagery (especially the similes of the
  mirage and the magical illusion) has been taken up by later Buddhist
  thinkers, most persistently by the Madhyamikas. Some of the images are
  found  elsewhere in the Pali Canon, eg at Dh 46, 170. In the context
  of early Buddhist thought, these similes have to be handled with care.
  They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view of the world but
  to show that our conceptions of the world, and of our own existence,
  are largely distorted by the processes of cognition. Just as the
  mirage and magical illusion are based on real existents — the sand of
  the desert, the magician’s appurtenances — so these false conceptions
  arise from a base that objectively exists, namely, the five
  aggregates; but when seen through a mind subject to conceptual
  distortion, the aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their
  actual nature. Instead of being seen as transient and selfless, they
  appear as substantial and as a self. (Bodhi S:B 1085 n188)

I think the above commentary discusses the Theravada view accurately. The sutta does not talk of an illusionist view of the world. It does not imply that the five aggregates are not real. It simply points towards the five aggregates as being transient and without a self.

Also, please see the Suñña Sutta, which explains this more literally, as the five aggregates being empty of a self.


Is vipassana practice the same as insight practice?

They are synonymous. Insight is in fact the word that is used to translate the word Vipassana.

All schools of Buddhism that talk about meditation talk about Samatha and Vipassana (but of course they'll use the sanskrit names Shamatha and Vipashyana, or their translated terms 止 観 (Chinese Zhi and Guan, Japanese Shi and Kan) or in Tibetan shiné and lhatong. They understand the meanings of these somewhat differently but no one has a monopoly on any of them.

The Vipassana movement is a particular trend of Buddhist meditation that started in Burma in the 1800's and encompases several traditions (Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc..) and they are called the Vipassana movement just because that is their primary emphasis. But other traditions have it too, even though they might very well use very different sounding language to talk about it and have different meditation methods.


Husband has sexual activity with other woman with the consent of wife

It does not break the third precept if the husband has the wife's willful(not forced) consent. It's somewhat similar to kings having more than one queen.

Having said that, there is no such thing as a "biological need" regarding sexual pleasures. Water is a biological need, air is a biological need, food is a biological need as you cannot survive without them. You do not need sex to live.


What weight has the kamma when forced to do bad things as a child?

I don't think it possible for sentient beings to objectively quantify the weight of karma. In other words, there is no objective answer to this question that will properly quantify the weight of negative karma relative to other acts.

What is clear is that negative karma will almost certainly accrue. How do we know this? Because being forced to kill is unsatisfactory. It is disturbing to the mind. It will leave a negative imprint.

Now, is it possible that some child is actually an advanced Bodhisattva or Buddha manifesting as a child and what appears to us mundane sentient beings as a child being forced to do harm could in actuality be an enlightened being manifesting and doing acts that are ultimately beneficial motivated by compassion? Yes! This is possible. In such a case, no negative karma will accrue for that manifesting being. That being's mind will not be disturbed even the slightest bit.

However, if the child is an ordinary sentient being then the predicament is negative and the fruits of it are going to be at least in part negative. Why do I say at least in part? Maybe the child also has a thought of compassion for whatever sentient being it is forced to kill. That compassionate thought is virtuous and will without a doubt manifest positive fruit. Nevertheless, negative thoughts most certainly will also arise and give negative fruit.

Anyway, I don't think we can quantify it. I think we can say it is most likely some negative stuff going on and children forced to do this type of thing are going to be negatively impacted both in the moment when they are forced into a negative act and in the future as negative fruit ripens.

One thing to keep in mind is that karma is not justice. It is not like there is some court or bank that is keeping tally of our good/bad deeds and doling out consequences accordingly. It is not like that. Karma and the law of karma just are the way things work. Children don't deserve this kind of thing happening to them. On the other hand, they don't not deserve it either. Deserve / not deserve, does not apply. Karma just is.


What's the origin of the Chinese Farmer story?

There may be earlier renditions, but this story is in the Huainanzi compiled around 139 BCE:

  近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：此何遽不為福乎

  Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who
  led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into
  barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what
  makes you think this is not a good thing?"

  居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：此何遽不能為禍乎

  Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb
  barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said:
  "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?"

  家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：此何遽不為福乎

  The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He
  fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said:
  "what makes you think this is not a good thing!"

  居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保

  One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All
  the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people
  living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he
  was lame, the old man and his son were both spared.

  故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。

  Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns
  into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity
  can never be fathomed.


Does Vajrayana Buddhism incorporate the use of cannabis?

There's a copy of the referenced article here: The Religious and Medicinal
Uses of Cannabis
in China, India and Tibet by MIA TOUW.

The relevant quote from the article (which was copied into Wikipedia) is,

  In
  Tantric Buddhism, which flowered in the TibetoHimalayan region, cannabis is an important part of the
  meditative ritual which may or may not include sexual
  intercourse. It is taken to facilitate the meditation and
  heighten awareness of all aspects of the ceremony. The
  large dose, taken orally, is timed so as to ensure
  increasingly heightened awareness from the beginning of
  the ritual onwards, with the greatest "high"-delayed when
  taken orally by about an hour and a half- coinciding with
  the climax of the ceremony (Bharati 1965). Secular use, both medicinal and
  recreational, is equally widespread but, as Sharma (1977b)
  notes, cannabis is taken for granted in the Himalayas and
  therefore is not much discussed.

The "Bharati 1965" reference is

  Bharati, A. 1965. The Tantric Tradition. London: Rider & Co.

There's a Wikipedia article about the author of that reference -- Agehananda Bharati.

The book is available for bout $20 from Amazon -- The Tantric Tradition Mass Market Paperback – January 1, 1970


Why is a sotāpanna defined as unable to take another teacher and unable to commit matricide?

A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).

From the Vera Sutta:

  "And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?

  "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:

  The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.

It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.

Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."


Androsov has translated and commented it. I'm not sure if his translation is very good - he might have some strange terminology sometimes - but he is one of the leading Russian scholars in that field. See "Nagarjuna's teaching on Middle Way" - Андросов В.П. Учение Нагарджуны о Срединности... М., 2006

Another interesting text on the topic might be Chandrakirti's "Introduction to Madhyamaka":

Чандракирти. Введение в Мадхьямику. Перевод с тибетского, предисловие, комментарии, глоссарий, и указатели Донца А. М. под общей редакцией Монтлевича В, М, – СПб.: Евразия, 2004. – 464 с. ISBN 5-8071-0165-0

ББК 86.39 УДК 2 418 Научное издание Утверждено к печати ученым советом Института монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии СО РАН Ответственный редактор канд. филос. наук С. П. Нестеркин Рецензенты доктор филос. наук С. Ю. Лепехов доктор филос. наук, профессор В. Б. Цыбикжапов


Story about Ven Moggallana might be interesting to you.  He was struggling with sleepiness (or tiredness) on his path to liberation.  Buddha gave him specific set of instructions.  Per Buddha, Last step to fight sleepiness is to actually sleep.  Maha-Moggallana


Harmlessness as the highest form of generosity?

Dhamma-dana, the gift of the noble teachings, is said by the Buddha to excel all other gifts:

The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. ~~ Dhp. 354 ~~


If I for example buy cheap products from china and sell them with a higher price to other people in a different country in ebay - is this really wholesome?

It depends on the intention / volition motivating the action. If the action is based in one of the unwholesome root defilements, namely Greed, then yes it is unwholesome.

If it is based in the wholesome roots of Renunciation, Good-will and Harmlessness, then no, it is not unwholesome. An example could be, that one tries to earn more money in order to donate them to charity or help beings in need.

If one just wants to earn more money for oneself, then you are right, it is not helping either oneself, other beings or society.

Another key factor is the consequences of ones action. One should ask oneself, what would happen if I payed the seller in China a larger salary? It might be more beneficial to pay them more, than to earn more money for oneself. If the seller needs the money more than oneself, then one could help that being by paying more for the goods.

If people have more money to cover their basic needs, then they will also have more time for spiritual / religious practice.


Why do we not remember our past lives?

It is a protective mechanism, kind of like how when you enter REM sleep your body paralyzes you to avoid hurting yourself. Similarly most of our chakras are in a semi-open, unpurified state because the full power of it can be harmful to ourselves and others. Many spiritual powers remain dormant. (I would not rely on the explanations of famous modern teachers because most of them are just intellectuals and have not put the prerequisite solitude and focus to attain realization... and sometimes they have to make publicly acceptable comments to avoid attack.)

If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought?

Yes. By entering the 1st jhana, one can even recall one's past lives. The below passage from MN 36 indicates Buddha went to 4th jhana before doing so, recalling many more. I would refer to the book Mind Experiment by Bavo Lievens for references on Buddhist texts, as well as beautiful Buddhist cosmology and how to go about doing this. Go to page 80.

Here is an excerpt from MN 36:

  "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
  two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
  many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
  eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
  manifold past lives in their modes & details."


I do not know what is my Dhamma anymore; Can anyone help?

Following the Dhamma towards the end of suffering, is not doing the natural thing. It's actually doing what's opposite to what's natural. It's going against the current. What is natural is to follow cravings.

From Itivuttaka 109:

  "Suppose, bhikkhus, a man was being borne along by the current of a
  river that seemed pleasant and agreeable. But upon seeing him, a
  keen-sighted man standing on the bank would call out to him: 'Hey,
  good man! Although you are being borne along by the current of a river
  that seems pleasant and agreeable, lower down there is a pool with
  turbulent waves and swirling eddies, with monsters and demons. On
  reaching that pool you will die or suffer close to death.' Then,
  bhikkhus, upon hearing the words of that person, that man would
  struggle against the current with hands and feet.

  "I have made use of this simile, bhikkhus, to illustrate the meaning.
  And this is the meaning here: 'The current of the river' is a synonym
  for craving. 'Seeming pleasant and agreeable' is a synonym for the six
  internal sense-bases. 'The pool lower down' is a synonym for the five
  lower fetters. 'Turbulent waves' is a synonym for anger and
  frustration. 'Swirling eddies' is a synonym for the five strands of
  sensual pleasure. 'Monsters and demons' is a synonym for
  womenfolk (i.e. sexual attraction).
  'Against the current' is a synonym for renunciation. 'Struggling with
  hands and feet' is a synonym for instigating energy. 'The keen-sighted
  man standing on the bank' is a synonym for the Tathagata, the Arahant,
  the Fully Enlightened One."

The Buddha recognized in the Ayacana Sutta that the masses who delight in attachment, excited by attachment and enjoy attachment, would not easily understand the Dhamma.

  "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me."

We should not underestimate how "natural" it is for the masses to indulge in sensual pleasures. From the Magandiya Sutta:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Ananda Sutta (SN22.83) paraphrased here, tells that the self ("I am") is also very natural, as long as one clings to the five aggregates.

  If somebody should want to see his reflection or image, he could do so
  only through a cause, namely a mirror or a clear body of water. In the
  same way do the five aggregates reflect the image of "I am." As
  long as one depends on them and is supported by them, so long will an
  "I" be reflected. Only when one does not rely on them any longer, will
  the image of "I" disappear.

In the Mallikaa Sutta, we find that another most natural thing is that the most dear person to oneself is oneself. So, it's also quite natural to be self-centered.

However, in general, people tend to feel an underlying sense of dissatisfaction, because despite pursuing pleasures, it never lasts, and ageing, disease, decay and death cannot be avoided. This sense of dissatisfaction, which is sensing suffering, is what drives some people to consider the Dhamma, and pursue the path that is not natural, going against the current of the river of samsara, towards the end of suffering.

What is my dhamma? I guess by that, you mean, what is my destiny?

By default, your "natural" destiny is to go along with the current of craving and clinging, on the river of samsara, towards the destination of suffering. It's up to you to decide to go against the current, and change your destiny, towards the end of suffering, which is on the stable river bank of Nirvana, where the Buddha stood.

In other words, instead of asking "what is my destiny?", you would have to ask "how can I change my destiny?", "how can I change my fate?".

Your dhamma is to decide your own destiny, for you are your own refuge, according to Dhammapada 380.

  Dhp 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could
  the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery
  that is hard to gain.

  Dhp 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By
  oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and
  impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

  Dhp 380. One is one's own protector, one is one's own refuge.
  Therefore, one should control oneself, even as a trader controls a
  noble steed.


What are Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?

This excerpt from DN 13 may answer your question sufficiently.

“Well, of the brahmins who are proficient in the three Vedas,
Vāseṭṭha, is there even a single one who has seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers’ teachers seen Brahmā
with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has anyone back to the seventh generation of teachers seen
Brahmā with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, what of the ancient hermits of the brahmins, namely Aṭṭhaka,
Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṅgīrasa, Bhāradvāja,
Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, and Bhagu? They were the authors and propagators of
the hymns. Their hymnal was sung and propagated and compiled in
ancient times; and these days, brahmins continue to sing and chant it,
chanting what was chanted and teaching what was taught. Did they say:
‘We know and see where Brahmā is or what way he lies’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that none of the brahmins have seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, and not even the ancient hermits claimed to know where he is.
Yet the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas say: ‘We teach the path
to the company of that which we neither know nor see. This is the only
straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to
the company of Brahmā.’
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.
Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front:
the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last
one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’
statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the
first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one
does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void
and hollow.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to
them and beseech them, following their course from where they rise to
where they set with joined palms held in worship?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins
proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of
the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct
route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun
and moon’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the
company of the sun and moon.
But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which
they neither know nor see.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.


Yes, a Sammasambuddha does not make mistakes as they are omniscient and do not have any Vāsanā remainders.


Miscarriages & Natural abortions as a result of evil beings?

Upasaka Theravada,

Things happen, and killing a human being is not a just a peccadillo. But things have been done.

There is no better than to maintain as much as possible mindfulness, train the mind and do meritorious deeds. Focus everything on Metta Bhavana and keeping precepts eager from a mind of metta. Being aware that things may ripe and not engaging to fight against things.

Its also good if such as a forgiving ceremony for her former child is made. Such declaring of the misdeed and closure should come from heart and should have an understanding for the "victim" and not be made just to protect one self. So one must see ones fault accept the results and act simply as an obligation for the victims welfare.

Atma is not sure if there are people who are trained and taught in such as "family constellation", which, if the teacher is a good one, helps a lot since he/she would help that such things are not done just on the surface but form heart to heart which gives one the needed release to walk on.

In the same spirit, one should not do such things as having the intent to dispel or harm or kill spirits. That would make things even worth. So she would do good NOT to seek and wish for any exorcism. That is like to kill again and has not confession and accepting of ones misdeed as a drive. So she should work firm to see the transgression and simply act like that. But also, it does not make sense to fall into "I am bad. Punish me" thinking. That is also foolish. What has been done, has been done.

Its good to seek good teacher in Dhamma who explain and make here Dhamma understandable but never ever hire people to fight or even hurt and kill spirits. Seek for people who are able to explain what and how one self should act and practice, so that there are no causes that one gets hurt.

For giving spirits no opening, there is nothing better as mindfulness, being mindful and never lose earthing. One being aware does not give his body. Mind and body needs to be firm together. Sometimes such as physical exercises maybe even such as yoga, are good that people get aware of there body. And again: All training, all actions, are not meant to fight others or to harm them but with the purpose "May I not harm any being, may I am always firm in my precepts so that no beings is caused harm by heedless actions of mine"

There might have been no fault by the monk aside that he just did something that they wanted. Even he canted such as a protective paritta, when such is used with aversion mind it turns out even more worse. So its needed that she learns about the Dhamma and why metta is useful and how the mind have to be that it is a protection. Atma thinks even to make a month a retreat and been taught by monks and nuns would be good, taking on 10 precepts. Maybe in the nunnery of Na Uyana Aranya. It makes less sense to approach normal village monks and those making a living with spells and services for laypeople. They make it even worse.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


What's the Buddhist view of fostering pets?

It is good karma to save a living being's life, which is what you do when you take care of one.

Fostering is better than buying one, because when you foster a pet, you don't encourage inbreeding and other abuses that happen in pet-breeding.


Doing daily or complex activities without attachment

In Buddhism things are slightly different. Being aware and mindful of what you do (as you say) is more of a hindu concept if it is from the Bhagavad Gita.

This itself is good. A surgeon, ballerina, acrobat, etc. will need to be mindful and aware. If they do not then they cannot do their job. This will make you do a good job in whatever you do.

In Buddhism what need to be done is you should be aware of the arising and passing away of sensation you experience with equanimity. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2) This is what will eradicate the 3 evil roots which in turn helps you realise nirvana.


Does Jukai imply a student commitment to the preceptor?

Who can actually give Jukai? Who is entitled to?
Anyone can give, but you will receive more benefit if you get it from a realized master you have a feeling of connection with / admiration for. Realized masters transmit Sat-Dharma in their every move and having a sense of connection and admiration makes you more receptive to that subtle teaching.
What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)?
To quote Chogyam Trungpa:

By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security. We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway. We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.
The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path, and in the sangha as companionship.
At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that point.

How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it?
It is not like that, it is between you and Dharma:

The refuge ceremony is a formal acknowledgement that you have become a Buddhist. This is not a matter of institutional affiliation, or of belonging to a group. Refuge means that you have recognized the fundamental principles of Buddhism as an accurate reflection of reality and that you intend to live according to them. Refuge is only meaningful if you understand those principles and have experienced their application in your life.
One takes refuge in Buddhism, not in a particular school, lineage, or teacher. Taking refuge at [particular temple/school/teacher] does not imply any continuing commitment to [that temple/school/teacher], only to Dharma at large.


Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too?

Till the experience of clear seeing and knowing, realizing, what ever deed by body, speech and mind is good to considered as a habitual ritual, householder Ilya Grushevskiy and interested.

Ways of belief, expecting certain happiness and release, to the extend of not knowing, not clear seeing, are rituals.

In regard of abounding the fetter of ritual toward an aspiration headed to Nibbana it requires the knowledge of the path through realization. Relaying on this, it's also again practiced as ritual (habitual) but no more destined toward anything else as well as raw rituals not headed toward the aim have been abounded.

The same, of course, would count also for the path into the Brahma-realms, if realized once.

To possible understand the underlying point as well: believing is an action (mental), a practice, as well, and the foremost in becoming also signs and physical deeds, rituals. Usually the word ritual is used for practice that would not really cause the desired effect (i.e. actually: mind is one, sign, physical another). Sometimes ritual refers also to holding on certain actions by signs and deeds although the mind might not be directed at it's purpose, perceived as habitual only outwardly.

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


Eclecticism in the Dhamma (as per AN 3.72; AN 3.65; MN 20)

The Pali suttas say there is only one path to Nibbana.

  273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
  passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
  best.

  274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight.

  Dhammapada


"If the self is scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"

Let's be very clear: the self has not been scientifically measured. It has not been measured by any scientific discipline let alone social psychology which is about as soft a science as you can find. Set aside the replication crisis that is most profoundly visible in social psychology and look at your assertion on the merits. Please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal - regardless whether it has been replicated - that shows the objective measurement of "the self" itself.

No, you cannot do this because there exists no such study or result. Why? Because all that has been "measured" by social psychology are ideas or subjective feelings, impressions, or perceptions about the self. But ideas, feelings, impressions and perceptions are not the same as the self.

Do you stipulate this is true? I hope so, because otherwise it will be hard to go further. If not, then again please cite one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even suggests otherwise.

Assuming you do stipulate, then let's correct your assertion above to:

"If feelings, impressions, perceptions or ideas about the self are scientifically measured, what is the Buddhist view on this?"

The Buddhist view on this is that these feelings, impressions, perceptions and ideas about the self are not in dispute. Indeed, the only remarkable thing would be if social psychology found that these ideas, impressions, perceptions or feelings about the self did not exist. But of course they do. The Buddhist view stipulates that all these exist and befuddle sentient beings into believing that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way when in fact no such real, essential, inherent self can be found.

"As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion"

Again, if you think there is strong evidence from social psychology that the self exists in a real, inherent, essential way then please cite even one study or result in a peer reviewed scientific journal saying so. I don't think you can. No, what you'll find is numerous findings indicating people talking about their subjective impressions, feelings, perceptions or ideas about the self. That is not scientific evidence that the self exists in a real, essential, inherent way.

BTW, I never said that the self is an illusion. Rather, it is like an illusion just as all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way. Let me say that again for emphasis: far more than just the self, all phenomena exist in an illusory-like way completely void of real, essential or inherent existence. What's more, there is not one valid empirical scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise. Proffer even one scientific study or result that conclusively shows otherwise and like His Holiness the Dalai Lama ... I would be more than happy to investigate and change my mind if something, anything, can be shown to exist under ultimate analysis.


Tilakkhana is Pali for "three lakṣaṇa". "Lakshana" means indication, symptom, attribute, feature, omen, that by which a thing is recognized.

Anicca, dukkha, anatta are the three aspects of all dharmas or all phenomena. Dharmas have many different attributes or qualities, but these three are the subset of qualities that helps us let go of our simplified assumptions about dharmas and to realize their true mode of existence aka "ultimate reality".

The way dharmas really exist does not come in three pieces. Anicca is not separate from dukkha is not separate from anatta. Instead, the ultimate reality is this fluid stuff. We, being equal parts naive and fearless, try to describe this stuff in terms of distinct dharmas, but every time we create these distinctions they are inaccurate, unreliable, and unstable - and that's what trilakshana refers to.

So it would be more accurate to say that trilakshana is a characterization of our description of reality than something that applies to reality itself.

In other words, trilakshana is Samsara we overlay on top of Nirvana - not Nirvana itself which is free of the three marks.


Why is Buddhism less evangelical than Christianity?

SGI is, or was, very evangelical, keen to prosthelytize. In the US, the various immigrant communities, by the fact that they provide service only in Thai or Vietnamese or what have you, might be prothelytizing, but it would be invisible to me since I don't speak Thai.

Ancient Buddhism was not content to wait for people to just magically show up and learn the Dharma,

  "The Sangha had grown to 60 in number ..
  and Buddha sent them out in all directions to travel
  alone and teach the Dharma. "
  ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnath

There is a better quote for this, but I can't find it.

In China, Thailand, India for a while, Japan, it was a state supported religion. As such, it has a massive advantage in getting adherents. In fact, in Japan, the government would just assign you to the county Buddhist temple.

And finally, when people talk about growing membership, all they can think about are Jehovah Witnesses at the door with Watchtower trying to do essentially door to door personal sales in a world where nothing is sold that way anymore. Marketing is done with online media, writing books and getting them on book store shelves, getting the military to recognize your religion so it can participate in the chaplain program. All of that is  a million times more effective at getting more members than tacky, pushy person to person sales.

In the Brahma Net Sutra, there are several precepts obliging precept takers to teach the dharma and to teach it well, which as a side effect may result in more self-identifying Buddhists.

So Buddhist doesn't lack in prothylthizing, what it lacks (other than the example of SGI) is a marketing campaign involving tacking person to person sales. Just about everyone else is working on "growing membership" but by other means.

(This contrasts to what a lot of atheist think-- that no one should teach anyone, not even children, anything about any religion unless that person spontaneously and enthusiastically asks for it)


Does studying mathematics or science lead to a practitioner of Buddhism acquiring wrong philosophical views and mental afflictions?

If you are looking for enlightenment you should be concerned of not being attached to these studies, or averse to what you disagree. The same fits to Buddhism itself, you should't become absorbed, or obsessed, to the Dharma.

All philosophies are mental phenomena, they aren't either good or bad in themselves. But they can hinder your search for enlightenment if you are too concerned about them.

Math and science share a side of problem elaboration and solving. So it would contradict Buddhism if you enjoy or think it is meaningful to be worried about all those problems. Over-thinking about anything and having a heavy attitude over theories or facts are opposite to the practice of meditation.

The point of meditation is to not being absorbed to mental elaborations. So there is no sense to think all over a sitting session. Then this extends to daily life, there is no sense to have a sharp and clear mind when meditating and daydream in the rest of the time.

For short, the point isn't what phenomena you engage, but it's how you engage to phenomena. If you can elaborate on any philosophy in a detached way it wouldn't be a problem at all. So the practice would be to think while being present and aware. (yes, this one is quite paradoxical)


To become a Buddha must a person be born in a highest caste in their society?

In the Digha Nikaya in Mahāpadāna sutta, the Discourse of the biography of the Buddha, and in Acchariya Abbhutadhamma sutta we get to read about the life stories of the seven Buddhas: Vipassi, Sikkhi, Vessabhu, Kakusanda, Konagamana, Kassapa and Gotama.  The full life story of Vipassi Buddha given in this sutta explains that the incidents discribed are a Rule (Dhammata) for every Buddha.

When a Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be) fulfils all the Paramitas in the last life of before his birth in human world he will be born in the Tusita Heaven. When the time approaches, various signs appear in the ten thousand world systems. The Devas of all worlds assemble in Tusita heaven and request the Bodhisatta to be born in the human world as a human being to become a Buddha. The Bodhisatta will not reply until he has made the five great investigations. (Panca maha vilokana – divine foresight) regarding time (Kala) continent (Dipa), place of birth (Desa) clan (Kula) and mother (Matha).

Kala- Time: It should be a proper time. It should not be more than one hundred thousand years of human life span and less than one hundred years of life span. If the life span is too short people will have excessive defilements. Because of excessive defilements people to not comply with the advice given by the Buddha.

Dipa- contement: Only in Jambudipa / India the Buddhas & Pacceka Buddhas are borne.

Desa- place: (Madhyadesa) – a region in Jambudipa / India

Kula- clan: Khattiya or Brahmana.  The Buddhas belonged to all the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmanas. It is another of the Rules (Dhammata). So the question of "if someone is born in a low caste, is he unable become a Buddha?" would not arrise.

Matu- mother:  The Bodhisatta Mata in her last birth must not passionate. She should have to practise five precepts without violating them for her life. She should not have more than (7) days life after the birth of the Bodhisatta.


"Being" or "Existence" in Paticca Samuppada

From the explanations I've seen/heard in Mahayana context, and also etymologically, the word "bhava" means "a state of (personal) existence",  "being something or someone", "being in a certain configuration or position", "having a specific form/manner of existence" - something like this. The connotation is not just "being", it is a particular manner or configuration of being, and thinking that that configuration is you.

Of course, this can happen both on a long-term, as well as on the moment-by-moment scale. Being someone is the mind of grasping onto a particular idea of self, identifying with a particular form - which can be something large-scale, like thinking one is a Buddhist - or something small-scale like getting frustrated when you unexpectedly slip going down a stair. One common theme is getting used to a particular way things are, expecting that they will go according to plan, and holding on to that idea even as things go in a different direction. These are the symptoms of bhava - "being something", "identifying with something".

My teacher always said (paraphrasing): you must stop being someone, get rid of all these ideas that you are this or that. You must have no idea who the hell you are. Once you have no such idea, you are free, because there is no you. That is cessation of bhava.


As a Buddhist you should seek your happiness while working towards the happiness of others.  Feeling bad is a self-indulgent activity done to justify inaction.

There is nothing selfish about being happy in the face of suffering, provided you are doing something to help address this suffering. For instance, you mention the suffering of animals.  Very well, what are you doing about it?  Are you a Vegan?  Are you encouraging Veganism?  Do you contribute or volunteer at any related causes?

If you aren't doing something to address the issue, then ask why.  Why do nothing to materially fix the world (which benefits the suffering), yet go to such great lengths to make yourself unhappy (which benefits no one and adds to the suffering of the world -- you).  Could it be that this "feeling bad" is a way of feeling better about not helping?

The mind often throws barriers to the path, and sometimes the best thing you can do is see through these barriers by asking what is REALLY going on.

So the Buddhist path is to seek your happiness while working towards the benefit of others.  The right mindfulness component of this is to scrutinize your thoughts in this regard, in particular the thoughts propping up this "guilt".


When using a computer you get a lot of input or information to process. This leads to more vitakka and vicara hence dispersion of the mind. It is best to limit this and try to be more mindful when using computer and phones.


Is luminous mind unconditioned and not impermanent?

Actually, no. Because pabhassara-citta must arise. Because if pabhassara-citta will never arise, it can't be defiled by incoming defilements which will arise to defile it, too.

Citta, viññāṇa, mano are the synonym of each other in SN Nidānavagga, assutavasutta:

  “But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and
  ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
  revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
  liberated from it.

So, pabhassara-citta is  conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) by  SN Khandhavagga, Aniccasutta:

  consciousness is impermanent.

Therefore, paphassara-citta is included in one synonym of citta In abhidhamma, dhammasaṅgiṇī, kusalacittuppādakaṇṭa:

  The citta which is arising while the occation (that 1st wholsome citta
  is arising) means citta, mano, mānasa,    hadaya, paṇḍara (paphassara),   mano,  manāyatana,  manindriya,    viññāṇa, viññāṇa-khandha, and tajjā
  manoviññāṇadhātu — this is the citta which is arising while the occation.

  (Translated version is not correct, so I did not quote from that. I have to translate myself.)


What are the Core Teachings of Buddhism?

I want to know what Siddhartha taught.

Well yes, don't we all want to know that. :-)
Though it may seem a bitter pill to swallow. :-/

Some Wikipedia articles FYI:

Early Buddhism includes a timeline showing the "where and when" of the various schools
Pre-sectarian Buddhism is an article about "the Buddhism of the Buddha himself". You might not find it interesting/satisfying, but that's life! :-) It says,

  The information on Buddhism in the period before the rise of the early Buddhist schools is based on accounts of Buddha's life and teachings in the scriptures of the Theravadin Pali Canon, and the surviving portions of the scriptures of Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka and other schools, most of which are only available in a Chinese translation. Some individual scriptures found in Nepal, however, are composed in Sanskrit. Recently the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts were recovered from Afghanistan. The central body of sutras in these texts is so similar that they are considered to be different recensions of the same text.[15] The accounts in these individual scriptures might be tainted by the particular philosophies of those schools or by translation issues. However, since various recensions of these texts (from various schools) are available, comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn, to filter out the most obvious of these taints.[16]

So perhaps you can see why people are interested in the "Pāli Canon":

  The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the first known and most complete extant early Buddhist canon.[2][3]

  It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.[a]

Re. the comment saying that "comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn" about "different recensions of the same text ... (from various schools)", one example of people trying to do that is this document (which I tried to summarize in this answer): to do that they read and compare several 2000-year-old documents written in antique languages and scripts, and that document's bibliography references 50 other papers. And all that is just to analyze one sutta, and even then it's not "canonical".

So, inferring what pre-sectarian Buddhism was, using the current (sectarian) literature is a complicated job, for scholars of Buddhism.

It (i.e. the Buddha's dhamma) is a question which also interests practitioners of Buddhism: who are perhaps meant to discover an answer for themselves, by practice, and via teachers.
Early Buddhist schools seems to be a more detailed history of "early Buddhism", from the time Siddhartha died until their Legacy which includes "the Theravāda school" and "various Mahāyāna traditions".

All the above is to say that it's difficult to be sure of exactly what the historical Buddha taught: especially if you try to disregard Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana because they didn't exist in his time.

I hope the above helps to begin to explain some history about why/how/when/where there are different schools.

Your question about the "core teachings" is partially answered by the answers to this other question, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? Apparently (or allegedly) those are teachings which all the schools agree on.


Purpose of scattered thing or food under tree?

The fruit etc is probably offerings to the spirit that lives in the tree. Worship of tree spirits (or dryads) is widespread through South and South-East Asia, and a very common element of traditional Buddhism. In Thailand such spirits are known as Nang Mai.

A Buddhist Tree Shrine, Thailand.
Tree spirits (Pāḷi rukkhadevatā) can be found in the Cūḷadhammasamādāna Sutta (MN 45; p.406 in the Ñānamoḷi and Bodhi translation). Tree spirits along with other nature spirits are also found in the Gilānadassana Sutta (SN 41.10). They are also found in a number of Jātaka tales. According to Bhante Dhammika, in his essay Trees in the Buddhist Scriptures, it was common practice to make offerings to such tree spirits:

Other trees were worshipped and given offerings because the spirits were believed to grant wishes. Milk and water were poured on the roots, garlands were hung in the branches, lamps of scented oil were burned around them and cloth was tied around their trunks (Ja.II,104). There is the occasional mention of animal and even human sacrifices being made to trees. The victim’s blood was poured around the foot of the tree and the entrails were draped over the branches (Ja.I,260; III,160).
Note Ja = Jātaka.

Many animist elements, such as yakṣas and nāgas, are evident at every level of the early Buddhist texts and must have been assimilated very early on.
According to the London Buddhist Vihara website offerings of flowers etc, and food, are made from feelings of devotion and not with the expectation of reward.


Schopenhauer’s inexplicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana?

There is a similar question here: What is the starting of Samsara?.

I would be surprised if there was any Buddhist reference supporting Schopenhauer's claim that "the world came into being as a result of some disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana." To me, this statement even sounds "plain weird."

Samsara refers to two phenomena:

A place
The contaminated aggregates

In Buddhism, the expression "the world" might refer to either, depending on the context -- see What does the word “world” mean in the Buddhist context? In either case, although it is said that the world is produced due to karma and afflictions, it is usually said to be without beginning. There are countless traditional texts and authoritative teachings establishing this statement. Here are a few:

In Cutting the Root of Samsara, Lama Zopa Rinpoche says:

  [Suffering] comes from the past karma created by the self-cherishing
  thought and it is also dependent on our present-life attitude as well.
  From beginningless rebirth, it's been like this.

The Abhidharma Sutra says:

  It is said: "Though beginningless, it entails an end -  What is
  naturally pure and consists of permanent dharmas  Is not seen, since
  it is obscured by a beginningless cocoon[...]

The third Karmapa's commentary to it reads:

  Consequently, though samsara is beginningless, once the reality[...]

There are four types of nirvana. Without going in details, nirvana is the final analytical cessation achieved in dependence upon a union of calm abiding (shamata) and special insight (actual vipassana) directly apprehending the nature of reality, emptiness. According to Mahayana, abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive obscurations while non-abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive and knowledge obscurations. There is no disturbance "in" nirvana.

It is definitely not like we ever abided in nirvana and subsequently "fell" from it. There is no such "genesis" in Buddhism.


This page which describes The Thirty-one Planes of Existence places yakkhas immediately above the human realm:

Devas of the Four Great Kings (catumaharajika deva) -- Home of the gandhabbas, the celestial musicians, and the yakkhas, tree spirits of varying degrees of ethical purity. The latter are analogous to the goblins, trolls, and fairies of Western fairy tales.

See also this Wikipedia article,

Yaksha (Sanskrit यक्ष yakṣa, Pali yakkha) is the name of a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, who are caretakers of the natural treasures hidden in the earth and tree roots. They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts. The feminine form of the word is yakṣī or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).
In Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist texts, the yakṣa has a dual personality. On the one hand, a yakṣa may be an inoffensive nature-fairy, associated with woods and mountains; but there is also a darker version of the yakṣa, which is a kind of ghost (bhuta) that haunts the wilderness and waylays and devours travelers, similar to the rakṣasas.
Yakṣas in Buddhism -- In Buddhist literature, the yakṣa are the attendants of Vaiśravaṇa, the guardian of the northern quarter, a beneficent god who protects the righteous. The term also refers to the Twelve Heavenly Generals who guard Bhaiṣajyaguru, the Medicine Buddha.

See also this (long) definition of Yakkha (as well as this page which contain back-story to the Alavaka Sutta).

The idea of a dangerous guardian reminds me of this other topic about a "guardian" that seems "wrathful" and/or dangerous: What is a wrathful Buddha?


Don't focus on suffering as it is the reason for suffering. You can have a goal of reaching that eternal freedom. But, make sure you enjoy the journey without too focusing on the end...


Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in
  the future

Yes, this is called Kamma. Good thoughts have the potential to cause good consequences. Bad thoughts have the potential to cause bad consequences.
But the Buddhist way of identifying a good/bad thoughts has nothing to do with positive/negative thinking.
If a thought is tainted with craving, aversion and ignorance, it is a bad thought. If not, it is a good thought.

ex: Going after a mirage, thinking that it's a real stream of water can be a positive thought, if you really believe in it. But it's not going to bring intended results. Thinking that slaughtering animals and offering them to a god/demon will result in a good harvest can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking that there's an all loving, all governing god who's going to save you from suffering can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking about impermanence, suffering can be taken as negative thinking. But they are good thoughts according to Buddhism.

All bad thoughts have the potential to give repercussions. But not all good thoughts give future results. Ex: the thoughts of enlightened being are called Kiriya citta. You could call them neutral, but they are good since they don't cause harm.

  So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively.
  Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too
  often to prevent them from happening.

This is not possible! Bad and good things happen because of causes. If the causes are not present for something to happen, you simply can't make it happen, regardless of your mood.
To take the same example, just because you pray to a god, you won't get the things you pray for. There should be someone listening, who is in a position to give you what you want. And that being should decide to help in the way you want.


No! Once you attain Nibbana, the defilements are annihilated without the possibility of return. Just like uprooting a tree instead of chopping it down or trimming it. So it can never grow back from roots. Nibbana does not depend on the condition of the body or any other thing. It is uncaused, unborn and permanent. Venerable Moggalana was beaten up by thugs until his bones were pulverized. Still his mind was at perfect peace. One Arahath thero in Sri Lanka was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil by the order of a King. That even caused a Tsunami in sri Lanka. But he was still at perfect peace when his life ended.

Take a Sothapanna person as an example. He can die 6 times before attaining Arhathship. If death itself is not going to affect his attainment, how can brain damage affect it?


Does regret help us to correct our faults?

In the Abhidhamma, regret and remorse over the past is considered an unwholesome mental factor.

Worry (kukkucca) is remorse, brooding, and repenting over evil acts
done in the past or good acts left undone.

The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. It encourages shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (otappa), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma.
So, remorse and regret over the past is unwholesome. But shame of evil and fear of evil, or basically moral shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (otappa), for the future, is wholesome.

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

Hiri and otappa are explained below in Ven. Bodhi's "The Guardians of the World" :

The Buddha points to two mental qualities as the underlying safeguards
of morality, thus as the protectors of both the individual and society
as a whole. These two qualities are called in Pali hiri and ottappa.
Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is
moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing. The Buddha calls these
two states the bright guardians of the world (sukka lokapala). He
gives them this designation because as long as these two states
prevail in people's hearts the moral standards of the world remain
intact, while when their influence wanes the human world falls into
unabashed promiscuity and violence, becoming almost indistinguishable
from the animal realm (Itiv. 42).
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.

And from Iti 42:

"Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
other honored persons."
Those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are not consistently found
Have deviated from the bright root
And are led back to birth and death.
But those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are consistently ever present,
Peaceful, mature in the holy life,
They put an end to renewal of being.


let go of wanting to change the past in my meditation practice

The scripture Iti 74 says a child who practises Dhamma is superior to parents who do not practise Dhamma.
You cannot change the past.
However, you can clearly comprehend the immoral & wrong actions of your parents and then aspire to live in the opposite way.
You can aspire to not be like them, which means you treat other people in the manner you yourself wished you were treated.
In other words, you aspire to never ever repeat your parents mistakes & errors.
If you have some care for your parents, you can dedicate your efforts to your parents, as though to make merit for their sins.
As for 'gratitude to parents', the scriptures say children honor & venerate their parents who have been compassionate (rather than cruel) towards them. Refer to Iti 106.
Also, refer to my answer to this related question.


Is a starving person justified in stealing food?

In general, in Buddhism taking without asking would still be considered unskilful. The relevant precept is adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi "I undertake the training principle of not taking the not given". There is nothing to stop someone asking for food if they are hungry. Indeed by stealing one also deprives the other of the opportunity of gaining the merit of generosity.


During walking meditation it happens automatically,without any initiation

There is an intention (Cetana) behind every movement in the walking meditation. If you look carefully it can be seen. There's e.g. an intention to lift the foot, move it, lower it, place it, etc. With practice one will begin to see intentions everywhere such as the intention to swallow, to blink, even behind a thought, there's an intention to think.
With consistent practice this part of reality will reveal itself.


It's Pācittiya 57:

  Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper
  occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a
  half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a
  time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a
  journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper occasions here.

  (Thanissaro, trans)

The reason is ostensibly that bathing is an unnecessary luxury. The benefit to the rule is that monks will not become overly attached to cleanliness and that they will not become a burden on society. The story behind it is that the king was unable to bathe because the monks were bathing.

Note that the rule only applies to bathing; showering is not mentioned.


Finding it difficult to cultivate mudita(empathetic joy)

The problem is most people don't understand what mudita really is and what the goal of it is. It's not to just unilaterally develop non jealousy and partake of joy in any kind of success that others enjoy. For example, if you resent Donald Trump, it's not mudita to do, "I hope he gets reelected again and he stays happy for a long time.".
It's only proper mudita if the vicarious joy is based on kusala Dhamma activities. That is, if Donald Trump behaves in accordance to the Dharma and enjoys success and happiness from those Dharmic activities, then it would be mudita to vicariously experience joy and hope he continues that type of kusala Dharmic activity and reaps the benefit of it for a long time.


Does final nirvana conventionally exist - especially in the lotus sutra?

In my experience, zen and tibetan buddhism do not claim that the self of an enlightened one can be completely non existent. In fact a zen master when asked this question might answer "Uncertain." or "yes" or "no". Ask for definite answers is a limiting factor in an unlimited universe.

The following article discusses your question in far more detail than I can:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

  Here is an excerpt that applies to your question: But there is no
  doubt that they affirmed the reality of the self or person, and that
  with scriptural authority they held that the self of an enlightened
  one cannot be described as non-existent after death, in “complete
  Nirvana” (Parinirvana), even though the five “aggregates” which are
  the basis of its identity have then passed away without any
  possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material
  form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.

  It seems, then, that they thought of some aspect or dimension of the
  self as transcending the aggregates and may have identified that
  aspect with Nirvana, which like most early Buddhists they regarded as
  an eternal reality. In its involvement with the aggregates through
  successive lives, the self could be seen as characterized by incessant
  change; but in its eternal aspect, it could be seen as having an
  identity that remains constant through all its lives until it fulfils
  itself in the impersonal happiness of Parinirvana. Although their
  account of the self seemed unorthodox and irrational to their Buddhist
  opponents, the Pudgalavādins evidently believed that only such an
  account could do justice to the Buddha’s moral teaching, to the
  accepted facts of karma, rebirth and liberation, and to our actual
  experience of selves and persons.


All in all, the boundaries between thinking and not thinking are more conventional than real. The brain is a machine that is always at work doing its thing, whether we create narratives like "I'm thinking", "I'm meditating" or not. It's a machine that can see patterns and connections between the things it sees -- so as you keep looking, seeing happens (semi-)automatically. As long as you look with clear attention, that is. Learning some dharma theory does help with seeing things in the right perspective, but it sounds like you already have that. So in some sense it doesn't really matter what you do - as long as you keep looking with right attention your mind will almost "enlighten itself".

Anything you do is fine, there are no hard rules. You can interleave analytical meditation and introspection if you want. You can read a paragraph of a book, put it down, think about it. Or you can watch your mind in parallel with reading a book. As you become more advanced all boundaries between different types of meditation begin to melt and look obviously contrived. As my Zen master used to say, regular thinking is not different from meditation. Regular mind is not different from the Diamond Samadhi.

However, there is virtue in formal meditation that is pure introspection. In this approach we don't discursively reason about things we see. We engage attention in looking inside and let the pattern-seeing machine of our brain do it's work connecting the dots on autopilot. Makes sense? So you just look and stare at that emotion, trying to go deeper into it, and then boom, you see it's root in some sort of childhood event, that created a preconception that now manifests as attachment. You don't "calculate" this insight analytically, it happens by itself through deep looking.

Similarly, there are other, deeper, types of insights that are only accessible through this sort of intuitive staring, informed by dharma theory. For example, you can stare at your mindstream and then suddenly realize you now know what they meant by suffering and attachment. Or what they meant when they said everything is empty. The bottom line is that meditation is not entirely non-analytical, but it's not your regular thinking either.


Does Buddhism endorse pacifism in times of injustice?

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture?

The Vinaya governs rules dealing with issues within the community of monks. The purpose of becoming a monk is to renounce worldly ties, hence it is not expected of a monk to be involved in serving justice.

A Buddhist layperson can get involved if is in a position serving justice. In such case one must do what is fair.

  If we refer to Dhammapada 3 the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

This was addressed to Ven. Thulla Tissa. The fault or perpetrator was Ven. Thulla Tissa.

  Would a Buddha not support the actions of ally forces that killed the Nazis, who killed thousands upon thousands jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped, blacks etc.?

Endorsing anything will break the Sila is not fit for a Buddhist. So this will not be endorsed by the Buddha or Sangha.

  How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

If one is in a position of the military, justice or politics one will inevitably have to take action which is decremental to oneself or which is unwholesome. What is unwholesome not endorsed but one has to do what is needed to be done for society to function. This involves:

dispensing justice
involvement in wars

Other religions may have a position about law, politics and wars, but Buddhism does not have such position as punitive action would have karmic consequences and these are conventions which change with time and society. Certain laws and politics which were considered just in medieval times are no longer considered just. The Dhamma Buddha perches transcend time and society so everyone can accept it at all times and societies.


Does kama have a place in the life of a practitioner after losing kamacchanda?

Since kamacchanda is one of the five hindrances, it seems to be
  something to overcome.

Yes, it is. Such as nivaraṇapabba (hindrances title) in mahāsatipatthānasutta.

  Does that mean then that there is no more place for art and beauty in
  the life of a practitioner after the first jhana, according to
  Buddhist teaching?

Yes, it is till that practitioner still can keep his jhāna. But it is still can return when he loose his jhāna. Because jhāna-mind just arise instead of hindrance-mind, jhāna-mind does not destroyed chance to arising of future hindrance. It is a duty of vipassana. However, jhāna is required, for vipassanā of taṇhācarita-puggala.

  Or can you have a healthy relationship with kama?

Yes, the practitioner can practice the right mettā, without kāmacchanda. But the practitioner must be smart to choose his friends (be able to all ariya)/partners (be able just for sotāpanna and sakadāgāmī), too.

  Is taking pleasure in a tree or a conversation with a friend kamacchanda?

It is up to the practitioner's present, arising, mind factors on that time. See my answer about chanda here to understand about chanda.


Five Hindrances Right Mindfulness Interrelated?

The Pāḷi phrase for "frequent and careless attention in the Sutta (SN 46.2) is "ayonisomanasikārabahulīkāro".

ayoniso = unwise, manasikāra = attention, bahulīkāro = continuous practice

The role of manasikāra is to direct the mind, just as a rudder steers a boat. Manasikāra can be wholesome or unwholesome.

When manasikāra is steering the mind in a way that is in concordance with the dhamma, this is called "wise attention" (yonisomanasikāra). Wise attention is a proximate cause for non-attachment (alobha), non-aversion (adosa), equanimity (tatramajjhattatā) and understanding (paññā).

When manasikāra is steering the mind in a way that is not in concordance with the dhamma, this is called "unwise attention" (ayonisomanasikāra). Unwise attention is a proximate cause for delusion (moha), restlessness (uddhacca) and doubt (vicikicchā).

Accoding to Iti 1.16:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "With regard to internal factors, I don't envision any other single factor like wise attention as doing so much for a monk in training, who has not attained the heart's goal but remains intent on the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A monk who attends appropriately abandons what is unskillful and develops what is skillful.


How can we include meditation in our daily activities or day to day life?

It simply comes down to two words… sati sampajanna.  Sati is mindfulness.
The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.

Our happiness, our lack of happiness, depends on our actions. So that’s where we focus our attention. That’s what we should keep in mind. This is called dhammanussati, keeping the Dhamma in mind. This is why the Buddha has us listen to the Dhamma, read the Dhamma. Whatever thinking that you do, it needs to be through the Dhamma.

When you create a frame of reference here in the present moment, there are lots of things you can tune in to. You can choose the body in and of itself. You can choose feelings, mental states, mental qualities in and of themselves.

Whenever your thoughts go to recollecting your past incarnations, try to get them out of your mind, as they are a-Dhamma. To be consciously forgetful in that way requires an act of mindfulness—in other words, deciding which level you’re going to tune in to while you let everything else go for the time being. Of all the sensory input that comes in at any one particular moment, you make a choice of what you’re going to pay attention to, what memories, what frame of reference you’re going to bring to that particular moment. And it’s an important mental skill to be able to shift your frame of reference as necessary.

Being mindful means being very deliberate and clear about what you bring to whatever you’re doing: what you’re going to remember, what you’re not going to remember, what you’re going to recollect, what you’re going to let go, which things are useful to recollect right now. If you wanted to, you could sit here and spend the whole hour thinking about facts that would make you totally miserable, but what does that accomplish? We’re sitting here to think about things that are useful for the mind, so remember the things that are useful for the mind, that will help it develop. As for the other voices coming in and out of the mind, listen to the ones that are helpful and ignore the ones that are not. You can be selective.

This way, mindfulness becomes a quality we can apply to everything we do. And instead of making us unable to function, it actually heightens our ability to function, because we understand the process that the mind goes through.


In which current societies mainstream Buddhism is relevant for daily life?

You can follow Buddhism and get results in any society. But as a Buddhist, you will come across less obstructions in societies in which Buddhism is the main religion. Especially for monks, life is easier in Asian Buddhist countries compared to others as the people almost consider it as a duty to support and protect the community of the Sangha.

Monks keep to the 227 precepts and the lay people keep to 5 or 8 precepts. Monks advice lay people on spiritual development and the lay people support the monks by providing the necessities of life and what is helpful for teaching the Dhamma.

The Buddhist lay people are not prohibited to spend money on the newest technical equipment or the latest fashion or any other sense pleasure that wouldn't break the precepts. It's just that they are being advised by the monks that those comforts are temporary and are encouraged to practice spiritual development whenever they can, in order to attain the final solace.


Getting rid of long discourses from Tipitaka, what could be true intention?

To make a blanket statement that the "DN was not spoken by the Buddha" would not be wise. Obviously, there are certain suttas in the DN that reasonably conform with what the Buddha taught in other suttas as verifiable truth.

It must be noted the core principle of the Buddha-Dhamma is that is it 'verifiable', namely: sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi. Any sutta that departs from this core principle is open to question.

It must always be kept in mind that pre-Buddhist Brahmanism was very different to Buddhism however, over time, both Buddhism & Hinduism changed so much that they became largely indistinguishable resulting in Buddhism becoming extinct in India. Many commentators have attributed this to Buddhist efforts to proselytize the religion & the DN has been deemed (for example, by Bhikkhu Sujato; by Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 31 of his SN) to be the major vehicle of proselytization. In other words, it was corrupted Buddhism designed to seduce Brahmans. It is widely acknowledged that:

  Recent
  scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya
  may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
  converts to the new religion."

If the DN was composed for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
converts to the new religion, then it is unlikely the Buddha spoke for this purpose, since the Buddha was only interested in converting those with little dust in their eyes (MN 26) and keeping his doctrine pure (AN 2.23, AN 2.25, MN 22, MN 38, etc).

As for the Brahmajala Sutta itself, it is not the specific sutta best chosen from the DN to make a claim the DN was not spoken by the Buddha because the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta appear sound. It is others suttas best chosen to make such claims, such as the Maha Nidana Sutta, which is obviously a corruption of the Buddha-Dhamma.

This being said, the Brahmajala Sutta might possibly contain words or doctrines that are not found in any other sutta, such as saññīvādā, antānantikā, amarāvikkhepikā, etc. I think only a competent scholar could make a reasonable hypothesis. If so, it is open to question.

Another peculiar feature of the Brahmajala Sutta is it is a response to a debate between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta. It is possible but it also seems strange the Buddha would give such a lengthy, pedantic & close to paranoid anal discourse due to the discussions between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta.

The paranoia or defensiveness gets even worse, with the morality sections referring to "Gotama" himself abstaining from attending unsuitable shows, games and recreation, etc, to the point of sounding very childish. At least I would expect the Buddha to refer to his Vinaya abstaining from these worldly behaviours rather than himself personally.

To me, the Brahmajala Sutta sounds like a PhD dissertation rather than the words of a Buddha. That being said, as already posted, the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta are sound. Therefore, there is nothing explicit in the Brahmajala Sutta to deem it not Buddha-Dhamma.

If one wishes to critique the authenticity of the DN, others suttas are best chosen.

To conclude & to answer the question, the reason for dismissing DN suttas such as the Maha Nidana Sutta is because they promote wrong understanding of Dependent origination, which is the core dhamma of Buddhism.


Think of the brain as a proxy server connecting you to the internet(all past life memories). Just because your browser can only see the proxy server, is it wise to assume that the whole internet is contained in the proxy server?

Think of the electrical traces stored in neuron cells as the information stored in the cache memory of the proxy server. If somebody alters or adds new content to the cache memory, it will be shown on your browser. Then is it wise to assume that the whole internet is just electrical traces stored in the cache memory of the proxy server?

The brain is simply a tool used by the mind. Mind doesn't cease to exist even if the tool breaks.


Does an Arahant accumulate kamma in his/her life?

Cittas are classified in various ways. One such classification is according to their nature. In this classification we have:

Cittas which are resultant states of consciousness, vipaaka, the effects of previous kamma.
Cittas which are causes for action (kamma) through body, speech, or mind. We may call these "causative cittas." A wholesome citta (kusala citta) will issue in wholesome action and an unwholesome one (akusala citta) in unwholesome action.
Cittas which are neither kamma nor its result. These are called kiriya cittas. They are kammically ineffective, being merely functional. Some kiriya cittas perform simple functions in the process of consciousness, others represent the actions and thoughts of arahants, who no longer generate fresh kamma. Read more here

Therefore,

Statement 1: False
Statement 2: False
Statement 3: True, but they are called kiriya cittas. The term is indicative of the functional nature which is different from the intention of a worldly person.


I tired to answer that question on another site: see this answer.

In summary I think (based on my reading, not being an expert) that "tukdam" means 'dead and meditating' or 'meditating after death' (so, it doesn't mean, 'not dead' or 'body not dead').

The news article hyperlinked in that question includes a picture of the monk's mummified (dead) body.


My person thought, aside of encouraging to help each other to do merits also in very gross form, to give some tips of what might be conductive for getting and staying in contact with good people and perform also some merits by things even if far off:

That you may have admirable people in your real of living near, at least internet:

Look that you can provide space, connection, accounts... without strings, but given by your effort and strength, keeping them away from getting bond by contracts and duties.

There are (a devoted Upasaka found out and informed) today even possibilities to fill up such as cell-phone credits if you can manage that people living on alms can access devices and maintain them.

If you have room, space... try to let them know that they are always welcome. Also if having joy in giving alms-food, medicine and clothes, let it be known and try to maintain places where it could touch those who do not ask or write wish lists.

My person encourages you not only to share ways but also to share the merits, because otherwise, how many theoretical input you may gain, the Gems would not prosper for one who makes no scarifies at first place. One is wise if being that selfish in this way and does not much doubt in it's benefit.

Don't act like a consumer or even a trader. When just giving out of owning something or just to get something later back of which is perceivable, such wouldn't make you glad to an extend that you gain real joy with your self and the found freedom and richness you actually would have all the time.

Try it, and stick firm to precepts while doing so, or preparing for such, since without it would not last that long, just like a sort holiday with a lot of debts when returning home again.

May a lot of rejoice-worthy and for you inspiring hints and tips follow and it's always best not only to share ones merits as much as possible but to also invite others to join this or that undertaking.

Mudita

(Note that this is given only for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that nourishes your secure way out of the bond where trapped)


Mahasi Sayadaw / Yuttadhammo noting question

I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching
point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like
I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point.
feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just
practicing incorrectly.

You're experiencing disenchantment and dispassion which comes about through the recognition of transience, suffering and not-self. What you claim as a setback is the actual knowledge to be understood.
In your quote above there is classic transience, suffering and not-self mostly through seeking continuity of practice and becoming frustrated that its continuity has been lost. That's the knowledge right there.
It is not a mechanistic understanding governed by conventional learning, it is a wisdom-understanding governed by how the mind has been previously exposed to practice.


What is the reasoning for making a buddhist statue out of gold?

Practically, religious images are made using precious medals to prevent decay, so that the image can be available to venerate for many generations to come. From a more devotional aspect, choosing materials that we think of as beautiful shows a great reverence for the person that image represents. Religious images often "open and lift our minds" to higher ideals, including dharma practice, which is why, for example, people can be better practiticioners just by being in the temple's main hall, where the main images usually are.

I suppose a good analogy is showing respect for your boss and co-workers by coming to work in what best represents the workplace's business casual dress code, not just in a T-shirt with holes. Or, having enough respect for yourself to attend to your basic hygiene before leaving your home.

Precious metals and stones are frequently used in religious imagery. For example, in the Larger Pureland Sutra (Verse 54), we have:

  Furthermore, throughout that land are trees made of the seven gems. There are trees of gold; trees of silver; trees of coral; trees of amber; trees of agate; trees of ruby; and trees of lapis lazuli. Then there are trees of two precious substances, trees of three, four, up to all seven.

  Some gold trees have silver leaves, flowers and fruits. Some silver trees have gold leaves, flowers and fruits. Some coral trees have leaves flowers and fruit of amber. Some amber trees have leaves flowers and fruit of coral. Some agate trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of ruby. Some ruby trees have leaves, flowers and fruits of agate. Some lapis lazuli trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of all sorts of jewels.

  There are trees with red gold roots, white silver trunks, coral branches, amber twigs, agate leaves, ruby flowers and lapis lazuli fruits. There are trees with white silver roots, coral trunks, amber branches, agate twigs, ruby leaves, lapis lazuli flowers and red gold fruit. There are trees with coral roots, amber trunks, agate branches, ruby twigs, lapis lazuli leaves, red gold flowers and white silver fruit. There are trees with amber roots, agate trunks, ruby branches, lapis lazuli twigs, gold leaves, silver flowers and coral fruits. There are trees with agate roots, ruby trunks, lapis lazuli branches, gold twigs, silver leaves, coral flowers and amber fruit. There are trees with ruby roots, lapis lazuli trunks, gold branches, silver twigs, coral leaves, amber flowers and agate fruit. There are trees with lapis lazuli roots, gold trunks, silver branches, coral twigs, amber leaves, agate flowers and ruby fruits.

The general understanding is that even the most beautiful objects we have on earth still pale in comparison to the beauty of the dharma, and this is just our feeble attempt to reflect that, and, like Jyothi said, offer our best to the Supreme One, who gives us a much more valuable gift.

Edit - user70 clarified:

  What is the justification for such a statue? By justification I mean, what reasons would the Buddhists who created/use the statue give to explain why keeping gold (often seen as a sign of wealth and power) as a statue is right; as opposed to using the money from melting it down and selling it to buy meals for the homeless or others in need.

Well, a lot of institutions do both. At my Thai Forest (Theravdin) sangha, there are golden images, and we also give to charity, and obviously we do not charge for any services. The retreats, and even the Thai language classes, are completely donation-based. We do not shame anyone who cannot donate anything, and people with means donate more than enough to make-up for it. So we make sure that nothing keeps people from learning, not even lack of funds.

Not everyone will probably agree with this, but I propose that artistic beauty is an intrinsic good. This is why we continue to promote the arts in the secular world--I can't eat a beautiful painting, but it can nourish my mind, even if only in the moment I am looking at it. In my experience with working and feeding homeless people in a religious setting, many liked that we were providing them with food and warm shelter in the cold, as well as a beautiful setting to just appreciate our art. I don't know if many of us who have an almost unlimited access to beautiful images through internet searches can fathom living a life where all you saw was ugly, dark decay. It does not make for a healthy mind, which goes hand-in-hand with a healthy body.

So to answer your question, in the real world, it does not have to be an either/or decision (between beauty/charity), nor is it a zero-sum game where charity is sacrificed for art. When there are greedy people heaping up image after image for greed's sake, perverting the purpose of Buddhist imagery--which is to communicate the dharma--there should be accountability. The presence of art wouldn't hinder the advocacy of accountability.