Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior"

From the Garava Sutta (SN 6.2):

  I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly
  Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara
  River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was
  alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness:
  "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference. Now on what
  brahman or contemplative can I dwell in dependence, honoring and
  respecting him?"

  Then the thought occurred to him: "It would be for the sake of
  perfecting an unperfected aggregate of virtue that I would dwell in
  dependence on another brahman or contemplative, honoring and
  respecting him. However, in this world with its devas, Maras, &
  Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its
  royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative
  more consummate in virtue than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence,
  honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  concentration that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in concentration than I, on
  whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  discernment that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in discernment than I, on
  whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  release that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or
  contemplative, honoring and respecting him. However, in this world
  with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans
  and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another
  brahman or contemplative more consummate in release than I, on whom I
  could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of
  knowledge and vision of release that I would dwell in dependence on
  another brahman or contemplative, honoring and respecting him.
  However, in this world with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this
  generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and
  common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more
  consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could
  dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

  "What if I were to dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I
  have fully awakened, honoring and respecting it?"

  Then, having known with his own awareness the line of thinking in the
  Blessed One's awareness — just as a strong man might extend his flexed
  arm or flex his extended arm — Brahma Sahampati disappeared from the
  Brahma-world and reappeared in front of the Blessed One. Arranging his
  upper robe over one shoulder, he saluted the Blessed One with his
  hands before his heart and said to him: "So it is, Blessed One! So it
  is, One-Well-Gone! Those who were Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened Ones
  in the past — they, too, dwelled in dependence on the very Dhamma
  itself, honoring and respecting it. Those who will be Arahants,
  Rightly Self-awakened Ones in the future — they, too, will dwell in
  dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it. And
  let the Blessed One, who is at present the Arahant, the Rightly
  Self-awakened One, dwell in dependence on the very Dhamma itself,
  honoring and respecting it."

  That is what Brahma Sahampati said. Having said that, he further said
  this:

  Past Buddhas,
  future Buddhas,
  & he who is the Buddha now,
  removing the sorrow of many —

  all have dwelt,
  will dwell, he dwells,
  revering the true Dhamma.
  This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.

  Therefore one who desires his own good,
  aspiring for greatness,
  should respect the true Dhamma,
  recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.


What is the appeal of not Re-incarnating?

The Buddha clearly rebuked the idea of consciousness/mind that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth] in Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38).

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

Birth(Jati) is caused by becomming (bhava).

"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

Bhava Sutta: Becoming (AN 3.76)


How would Buddhist monks organize countries and the world?

I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic.

If one assumes that it's purpose is to make the earth a place with no violence, or to make peaceful beings not die from life-threatening attacks, it is utopic. But that assumption is incorrect.

  What is the long term plan of the Buddhism?

Buddhism is not an abstract view of society. It does not put forward any grand vision of what an ideal society should be.

But within a society (a real one), it offers useful principles to guide human affairs. The utility of these are always within the theme of decreasing suffering of people.

  How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?

A monastic person is one who put aside most wordly matters, which include governing. Having them organizing countries, the world, would be to put back on their plate what they specifically put aside.

For a historical understanding of how buddhism have being put to use on government affairs, I suggest as a starting point of research the emperor Ashoka.

  Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

This is a very speculative question, which not only is something that buddhists are taught to avoid, but the policy of this community also does not promote developing such discussions. However, if this question's subject is reduced to an individual instead of countries, the dilemma might be preserved and maybe a satisfying answer can be given. So, to the reformulated question:

  how a buddhist person reacts to a life-threatening situation, given that non-violence is preached?

...while it's hard to say how buddhists reacts (any attempt in my part would be factually wrong), the Buddha taught abandoning ill-will. Note I'm not saying buddhists react with non-violence. I'm saying that the Buddha drew a very strong line on this matter1 (and its up to each one to decide to live by it):

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching." (MN 21).

To conclude, Buddhism is not something that needs the agreement of everyone (or from a large group of people) to operate satisfactorily. It's not about society. It's a road for an individual to decide if that is the kind of person he or she wants to be.

1 this is not without it's nuances and polemics, say, when it comes to the use of violence in self-defense or helping others by means of harming. Without going into detail, what seems generally accepted is if the state of mind that manifested violence came from greed, hatred or ignorance, it is blameful.


Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times?

These are covered in the:

15 Wrong / Right Views
16 Doubts
108 thought-courses motivated by craving mentioned in this answer

15 Wrong / Right Views

  Let go of the past

  “How, bhikshus, does one pursue the past?

  (1) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such form in the past.’

  (2) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’

  (3) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’

  (4) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’

  (5) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one pursue the past.

  And how, bhikshus, does one not pursue the past?

  (1) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘I had such form in the past.’

  (2) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’

  (3) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’

  (4) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’

  (5) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one does not pursue the past.

  Let go of the future

  And how, bhikshus, does one hold fond hope for the future?

  (6) One seeks delight there thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’

  (7) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’

  (8) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’

  (9) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’

  (10) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one holds fond hope of the future.

  And how, bhikshus, does one not hold fond hope for the future?

  (6) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’

  (7) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’

  (8) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’

  (9) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’

  (10) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one does not hold fond hope of the future.

  Let go of the present

  And how, bhikshus, is one dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises?

  (11) Here, bhikshus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, who has no regard for true persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma,

  regards
  - form as self, or
  - self as possessed of form, or
  - form as in self, or
  - self as in form.

  (12) He regards

  feeling as self, or
  self as possessed of feeling, or
  feeling as in self, or
  self as in feeling.

  (13) He regards

  perception as self, or
  self as possessed of perception, or
  perception as in self, or
  self as in perception.

  (14) He regards

  formations as self, or
  self as possessed of formations, or
  formations as in self, or
  self as in formations.

  (15) He regards

  consciousness as self, or
  self as possessed of consciousness, or
  consciousness as in self, or
  self as in consciousness.

  This is how, bhikshus, one is dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises.

  And how, bhikshus, is one not dragged along [undistracted] by each present state as it arises?

  (11) Here, bhikshus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma, who has regard for true persons and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma,

  does not regard

  form as self,
  nor self as possessed of form,
  nor form as in self,
  nor self as in form.

  (12) He does not regard

  feeling as self,
  nor self as possessed of feeling,
  nor feeling as in self,
  nor self as in feeling.

  (13) He does not regard

  perception as self,
  nor self as possessed of perception,
  nor perception as in self,
  nor self as in perception.

  (14) He does not regard

  formations as self,
  nor self as possessed of formations,
  nor formations as in self,
  nor self as in formations.

Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta

16 Doubts

  He unwisely attends in this way:

  (1) ‘Was I in the past?’

  (2) ‘Was I not in the past?’

  (3) ‘What was I in the past?’

  (4) ‘How was I in the past?’

  (5) ‘Having been what, did I become what in the past? [What was I before I became that in the past?]’

  (6) ‘Will I be in the future?’

  (7) ‘Am I not in the future?’

  (8) ‘What will I be in the future?’

  (9) ‘How will I be in the future?’

  (10) ‘Having been what, will I become what in the future? [What now would lead me to that future
  state?]’”

  Or else, right now he inwardly has doubts about the present, thus:

  (11) ‘Am I?’

  (12) ‘Am I not?’

  (13) ‘What am I?’

  (10) ‘Having been what, what will I become in the future? [What now would lead me to that
  future state?]’”

  (11) ‘Am I?’

  (12) ‘Am I not?’

  (13) ‘What am I?’

  (14) ‘How am I?’

  (15) ‘Where has this being come from?’

  (16) ‘Where will it [this being] go?’”

Sabb’āsava Sutta

I have quoted the Pali Suttas. I would believe the Āgama texts may have a similar parallel.


Miracles from Lord Buddha vs messages from Gods?

There is a lot of business with it, especially in Asian countries and people love to share each other such stuff on facebook. Yes 1000 of such events :-) They would just not see if an Arahat would cross their ways, or not even look deeply in the Miracle of Dhamma by practicing it.

Attached to form, sound, smell, taste, bodily sensations not to speak of intellect, its had to see.

Once you meet Devas, that you do not need to seek for such on Facebook. Some inspirations:

  Knowledge

  This is called manomayiddhi. When the mind is firmly established, you
  can go see these things. Or you can go to the land of the nagas, the
  different lands on the human level — sometimes, when you get tired of
  human beings, you can go visit the heavens: the heaven of the Four
  Great Kings, the heaven of the Guardians of the Hours, the
  Thirty-three gods, all the way up there to the Brahma worlds. The mind
  can go without any problem. This is called manomayiddhi. It's a lot of
  fun. Your defilements are gone, your work is done, you've got enough
  rice to eat and money to spend, so you can go traveling to see the
  sights and soak up the breezes. That's manomayiddhi.

(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.)


Reference request for "our Buddha nature chooses not to be enlightened"?

When a sight comes before the eyes, a sound to the ears or a smell to the nose, there is no choosing involved here in terms of seeing, hearing or smelling. The seeing, hearing & smelling occur automatically, without choosing.

Similarly, when the mind is actually getting enlightened by experiencing the truth, it is not involved in choosing.

The mind may choose to establish itself in the path, that is, choose to develop concentration. However, the path is only the path & not the destination.

Developing & establishing concentration is similar to removing dust from the eyes, wax from the ears or mucus from the nose.

When the concentration is complete, i.e., when the mind is lucidly clear, the enlightenment occurs without any choosing.


It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient?

Let me add some qualification to that:
It's ok from the perspective of the Five Precepts and Right Livelihood for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient.
The word for sentient being is satta.
From SN 5.10:

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

From my understanding, all five aggregates must be present, in order to consider it a sentient being. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do not have consciousness and mental formations, to the best of my understanding.
From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). Plants neither possess nor require consciousness. Trends in Plant Science, 24(8), 677-687.
From SN 23.2:

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'

Also here, from my understanding, a plant does not mentally cling to the five aggregates, so it's not a sentient being by this definition.
The first precept of not taking a life (of a sentient being), therefore does not apply to plants.

OP: Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life?

If pesticides are not used, then it doesn't harm sentient beings.

OP: Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving (tanha), not agriculture and farming. The problem is in the mind.
If we have an aversion (dosa) to agriculture and farming, then that's a negative state of mind.
For lay people, agriculture and farming without pesticides, is ok from the point of view of Right Livelihood and the Five Precepts.


Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it?

Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.

In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.

Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late (the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).

Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.

Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one. One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.


There are 4 related suttas, but they may not fit your description precisely.

Pañhapuccha Sutta (AN 5.165) describes 5 types of motivations for asking questions:

Stupidity and bewilderment
Evil desires and greed
Contempt
Desire for knowledge
'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

The last type of motivation for questioning usually applies to the Buddha and Arahant teachers toward their students.

Pañha Sutta (AN 4.42) describes 4 ways of answering questions:

There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
There are questions that should be put aside.

Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 3.67) describes 4 types of persons who are fit and unfit to talk with:

A person who does not answer a question with the type of answer that is fitting to it (based on AN4.42), is unfit to talk with.
A person who, in his answer, does not stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true, doesn't stand by standard procedure, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then he is unfit to talk with.

A person who is fit to talk with, is the opposite of the above.

The Buddha concludes the purpose of teaching and discussing, as quoted by Samana Johann in his answer:

  For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel,
  that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear:
  i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.

The Kesi Sutta (AN 4.111) describes the four approaches the Buddha has towards a student:

Gentleness or mild training.
Harshness or harsh training.
Both gentleness and harshness, or both mild and harsh training.
Give up teaching the student for whom the 3 methods above do not work.


I think they're related but not identical.
I think the Sallatha Sutta can be paraphrased along the lines of, "physical sensations lead to feelings (I feel that I like this, or that I don't like this) which lead to attachment (I want this to continue, or I want this to stop)" -- which means that, now you have two problems, i.e.

an unpleasant physical sensation
not getting what you want.

That's what's meant by,

"... So he feels two pains, physical & mental".

I think the reason given for the second pain is,

... he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him.

So I think this is an example of clinging or attachment causing suffering.

He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling.

Instead he ought to see that the feeling (and sense-contact) is impermanent, that it arises and passes away, and not be attached to it.

Whereas a disidentification or decentering which you quote from the 2002 paper by Teasdale seems to me, not exactly the concept of 'detachment' or of seeing impermanence, but more specifically the concept of 'anatta' or 'non-self'.
For example, the article "No-self or Not-self?" suggests that any concept of self is a cause of suffering.
There's a description of decentering in the Gaddula Sutta,

It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

I think there are two related concepts:

Detachment from the clinging-aggregates (perhaps by observing arising-and-passing-away, which is an object of vipassana meditation)
Learning to avoid the view that, "This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am".


I am asking personal help, I want to renounce my home?

There once was a potter named Ghaṭīkāra, who was the chief supporter of Buddha Kassapa. He was a lay person, deeply devout, and was once asked why he did not go forth.

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

His answer was simple:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

Ghaṭīkāra was also a non-returner.

MN81:18.6: Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence.  He has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones.  He is free of doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.  He eats in one part of the day; he’s celibate, ethical, and of good character.  He has set aside gems and gold, and rejected gold and money.  He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands.  He takes what has crumbled off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a carrier. When he has made a pot, he says,  “Anyone may leave bagged sesame, mung beans, or chickpeas here and take what they wish.” He looks after his blind old parents.  And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there,

The story of Ghaṭīkāra shows that one can take refuge in the Buddha, the teaching and the Saṅgha while living a simple life at home.
May your suffering ease in the limitless.


Which sutras are most directly relevant to the virtue of courage?

"Courage" isn't listed as one of the 37 factors.

So, wondering how "courage" is defined, I found this (non-Buddhist) definition on Wikipedia:

  Courage (also called bravery or valour) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss.

I guess two suttas I admire are (according to the above definitions):

"Physical" courage: Punna Sutta (SN 35.88)
"Moral" courage: Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2)

And the Dhammapada is interesting too, some verses for example:

  Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

and

  He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached — him do I call a holy man.

The essay Freedom From Fear suggests that "fear" is a mixture of other emotions:

  Think of a deer at night suddenly caught in a hunter's headlights. It's confused. Angry. It senses danger, and that it's weak in the face of the danger. It wants to escape. These five elements — confusion, aversion, a sense of danger, a sense of weakness, and a desire to escape — are present, to a greater or lesser extent, in every fear. The confusion and aversion are the unskillful elements. Even if the deer has many openings to escape from the hunter, its confusion and aversion might cause it to miss them.

Later it says ...

  The Canon lists these mental strengths at five: conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment.

... and tries to explains the role of each of these.

I think that "courage" isn't defined as a primary strength -- perhaps courageous acts are understood as being a consequence of other mental "strengths".

Do you feel confident in recommending any particular Jataka tales, re: a Buddhist view of courage? There are quite a few

There's one about the tigress and her cubs: the prince throws his body off a cliff to feed a hungry tigress, who would otherwise have eaten her own cubs. A moral aspect of that tale is that her eating her cubs would have been a grave "sin", a moral transgression -- it was that which he was saving the tigress from, I guess the moral being that ethics and compassion are more important than life.
Another is about the Bodhisattva as the captain of a ship. There's a pirate on board who's about to kill the other passengers, so the captain kills him. The moral aspect is that the other passengers were themselves Bodhisattva, killing them would have been a great sin, so the captain compassionately guarded the pirate from the terrible consequences which the pirate would have suffered as a result of killing Bodhisattvas.

That story is kind of famous because I think it's the only bit of Buddhist (or some might say pseudo-Buddhist) literature which appears to condone killing for some reason -- conversely for example see Getting the Message which includes ...

  When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.

Anyway I think that the name of the captain in that story is "Captain Compassionate".


Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?

Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment/lust; far enemy – hatred
Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of
others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for
others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy
– envy
Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

Practicing loving kindness towards the opposite sex does not increase attachment or arouse lust. But if you are a lustful person, you can easily mistake the counterfeit near enemy as the loving kindness and as a result arouse lust and increase attachment in you.

So if you have an urge to make physical contact with someone or chat up and winover, you should avoid practicing loving kindness towards them until you are skilled enough to identify the counterfeit from authentic Metta.


Since you tagged this with "accademic Buddhism" I'll point you to "Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticism where the author reads all the various ancients rules for dealing with monastics that had family obligations of various types.  I've only read the first chapters-- I don't want to pay $41 for the thing. The author's thesis is that the ideal of the "Rhinoceros Horn"-- quitting all social ties to wander away alone, was an ideal that people liked the sound of, but didn't really want to follow through with it.  So they maintained contacts with their family after ordaining. Sometimes, married couples would ordain at the same time, ordain at with kids, and so on. What it remind me of were some sort of modern commune.

Anyhow, that's just ancient Indian Buddhism. The institution varies from place to place.


This article on wikipedia discusses some of the kleshas or poisons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)#Two_obscurations

Some of them appear to be feminine (emotional) and some masculine (intellectual)

Two obscurations[edit]
Mahayana literature often features an enumeration of "two obscurations" (Wylie: sgrib gnyis), the "obscuration of conflicting emotions" (Sanskrit: kleśa-avaraṇa, Wylie: nyon-mongs-pa'i sgrib-ma) and the "obscuration concerning the knowable" (Sanskrit: jñeya-avaraṇa, Wylie: shes-bya'i sgrib-ma).[19]


Did I describe the following concept correctly?

That's a great translation.  Other words that may fit like impulsive

hasty
imprudent

@ChrisW mentions in a comment that kusala means skillful, so a +kusala would mean the negation of kusala (if you look at how sanskrit works), thus another word may be unskillful  and it sounds like your meditation friend was trying to expound on what that term actually means.

Many words have nuances that can become lost in translation, so sometimes it is good to leave words untranslated, or look at how they were constructed.  For example: we could not say "pulsive" as the negation of "impulsive" even though "possible" and "impossible" have the same relationship as "kusala" and "akusala" -- it just depends.  Again, good translation, but be open to the idea that not everything need be translated (and thus nuance can be ushered into a new language body and preserved)


I think the doctrine is saying that you shouldn't "identify yourself" at all. Quoting from this answer

  "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

I think that, "I am form", "I am formless", "I exist", "I don't exist", are all self-theories ... theories about self ... and from accepting or assuming any of these theories arises "sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair".

There is also (quoting from MN 2):

  "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... so if you say that, "I am pretty confused", I think that is what the dhamma was predicting as the result of attending to views of self (i.e. it predicted "a thicket of views", etc.). I remember "a thicket of views" as a warning, a sign, of attending inappropriately to some view[s]-of-self.

See also:

What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

And yet I also like Why is the Buddha described as trackless? and The Trackless One?

Perhaps there's some ambiguity: between "not describing (not constraining, not leading) the Tathagata", compared to "describing the Tathagata as 'not' (or describing as 'formless')".

But that kind of consideration is, more or less, stuck right in the middle of "the thicket" again -- so, if the question is confused, I maybe shouldn't try to tie a (clear) answer to a (confused) question.

So instead of this answer, I hope you find its references helpful.

If it helps, I once saw a video (Dalai Lama's guide to happiness) where the Dalai Lama said,

  ... I always open.
  I never consider myself as a something special.
  If I consider myself something different from you, like, I am Buddhist, or, even more, I am His Holiness Dalai Lama, or even is I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner.
  I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings.
  We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are same.


Is it recommended in Buddhism to know people from other nations and learn their languages

...
You should not cling to a regional language; you should not reject common usage.
This is a summary of the analysis of non-conflict.

Arana Vibhanga Sutta
A lot more discussions in Language and Discourse by Piya Tan


There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness".

Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.

In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

  The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.

So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.


what is the difference between Ego and self respect?

In Pali Buddhism, any positive term that includes "self" is merely a statement of conventional language because there is no other way to communicate whatever concept pertaining to individual persons that needs to be communicated.

In addition, most teachings that positively use the term "self" are mundane or moral teachings. They do not represent the highest truth. For example, (somewhere) it is taught one of the benefits of giving/charity/generosity is 'self-respect'.

For the most part, 'self-respect' is related to freedom from remorse, guilt &/or regret. Here, to use the word 'self-respect' is not so necessary because 'freedom from regret' implies 'self-respect', such as in AN 11.2, which states:

  For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

  For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

Where as the teachings about ending "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra & mamaṅkāra) represent the highest truth about freedom from suffering (Nibbana).

In summary, 'self-respect' is a statement of conventional mundane reality where as the destruction of "I-making" and "my-making" is a statement of ultimate supramundane reality.

The way to keep self respect without showing ego is to comprehend the word 'self' is only a word, only a convention & not something inherently real, as explained in SN 1.25.


Is the beginning of coming into birth described in the twelve nidanas?

If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert
  has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came
  into his first birth?

There is no first birth. Samsara is beginningless. But you can end it. Robert is a concept. There's no Robert existing in reality even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life.


This stems from the different interpretation of Parimukham in Anapanasati Sutta and relate other Suttas. Here in Ajahn Brahm's tradition what is said is to simply establish mindfulness. (See Ven. Sujato's interpretation in What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?)

One way to judge what is the right interpretation if the instruction can be put to practice easily, after all these are meditation instructions. In this context both interpretations seem valid.

Also Suttas like Sammaditthi Sutta mentions the calming of verbal fabrication, i.e., calming of thinking and pondering. The beast is way to start this process is the develops concentration by anchoring your mind on a small fixed object like the centre of the upper lip.


What is the term for not believing in cause and effect after death?

Annihilationism - Ucchedavada - Taught by Ajita Kesakambali

This is considered a wrong view. Here is no heresy in Buddhism but any view or notion which you have not verified empirically at the experiential level but cling onto causes misery psychologically as in Buddhism.

Also see my answer in: The "empirical self" in Buddhism


Can the seeds of desires bowed in the past lives can now be eradicated from the mind completely?

First of all, a seed of desire, or a seed of anger, etc. are not karmic seeds (or karmic imprints). They do not ripen in the same way at all. A seed of desire will give rise to a mind of desire. Second, desires are not seeds. The seeds are non-associated compositional factors while an instance of desire is a mind.

Yes, the seeds of the afflictions can be abandoned so that they never give rise to an afflicted mind, such as a mind of anger, lust, etc.

There are two types of abandonment:

Partial abandonment, and
Complete abandonment.

Partial abandonment is also called 'non-analytical cessation' since such an abandonment happens when you engage in Samata and the Jhanas. When you reach a concentration of the form realm (such as a mind of calm abiding, etc.) afflictions of the desire realm are abandoned, but the seeds are still there. This is a partial abandonment, since the seeds are not yet abandoned.

The way to abandon the afflictions together with their seeds is by generating wisdom directly realizing emptiness. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness acts as an antidote, it abandons afflictions together with their seeds, this is called analytical cessation and it is complete abandonment. According to Prasangika, the first moment of a wisdom directly realizing emptiness does not abandon all afflictions altogether (and their seeds), but merely the intellectually acquired afflictions and their seeds. It is only later, when the wisdom is conjoined with an accumulation of merit (or with the six perfections) that this wisdom is strong enough to abandon innate afflictions and their seeds.

Usually, according to so-called Hinayana tenets, the seeds are abandoned by way of generating wisdom directly realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths.

In any case, such a wisdom is a mind of special insight and is thus a union of calm abiding and special insight. Calm abiding must be attained first.


How exactly i can access my Astral body in meditation?

It is important to say that their is no meaning to aim for developing Siddhi. Doing so demonstrate that you are on the wrong way and therefore it will take much more time to reach them. Siddhi are fruits on the path.

Doing things with Astral body is possible for anyone, since it is just a part of yourself. The point is to get a part big enough of your conscience to go with it.

This as nothing to do with meditation or Buddhism.
To have a good mediation it is more important to be here and now, well centered, and therefore with your astral body inside. Nowadays, most of the person have their astral body somewhere else (high astral, low, or around).


What is the difference and relation between chanda and cetana?

OP: What is the difference between chanda and cetana?

Chanda is the desire to act. E.g. if you stand from a seat you have to have the "intention" to do it, but can choose not to if you want

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

Cetana is volition. This is what makes you commit a certain course of action to realise a goal or a wish. E.g. I a feeling hungry hence I will to get up and go to the fridge to get some food.

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

  OP: How do these two relate to each other?

Cetana is what pulls you in a certain direction in taking action. Chanda is the desire to do the act. E.g. (1) I am feeling hungry, but I am lazy to get up from bed. Here I have the intention but not the will to act. (2) I have money to buy a beggar or donate it to a beggar, but I choose to donate it. Here there is an intention to eat and donate but volition to donate.

Chanda is karmically neutral. Cetana is what decides the karma.

  OP: If they are related, which one comes first, and which after?

They are present in the same mind moment if Chanda occurs. Cetana is a universal mental factor and is there in every mind moment. Chanda is an occasional factor hence there only in certain mind moments.

  OP: Is one a condition for the other?

Cetana is the driving force which conditions chanda also.


Cause and effect are mutually dependent like father and son. If there is no son there is no father, and if no father then no son.

In this way Nagarjuna proves the non-existence of these things except as appearance/emptiness.

He explains that the cause cannot exist prior to the effect, the effect cannot exist prior to the cause and they cannot come into existence simultaneously. Ergo, it's all smoke and mirrors.


How should one teach the Dhamma to others?

I think most of the people contributing on Buddhism.SE do not qualify to call themselves Dhamma teachers. Their answers also cannot be considered a Dhamma teaching.
The following is a better approximation, from Mahāgosiṅga Sutta (MN 32):

“Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion
about the teaching. They question each other and answer each other’s
questions without faltering, and their discussion on the teaching
flows on. That’s the kind of mendicant who would beautify this park.”

As a side note - a question arose in the comments whether the MN 32 quote should be translated as "about the teaching / Dhamma" (Sujato translation) or "on the higher Dhamma (Abhidhamma)" (Bodhi translation).
The following opinion by Bhikkhu Analayo supports the Sujato translation.
From pages 70 - 71 of the book "The Dawn of Abhidharma" by Bhikkhu Analayo:

In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel the reference to “abhidharma  talk”  or  to  discussing  the “abhidharma”
occurs alongside “Dharma talk” or “teaching the Dharma”. This gives
the impression that the two terms Dharma and abhidharma are here
interchangeable. In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta,  the  prefix abhi- would
thus  convey the  sense  of “about”  or “concerning” the Dharma. The
passage  would then describe having a talk “about the Dharma” and
discussing “about the Dharma”, abhidharma.49
The notion that the prefix abhi- conveys a sense of superiority appears to reflect a later understanding of the implications of the
term. In line with later understanding, the commentary on the
Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Atthasālinī, refers to the present passage in
support of the authenticity of the Abhidharma-piṭaka as the Buddha’s
word.50
A discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya describes a group of elder monks seated together “talking abhidharma talk”.51 In this
case the Madhyama-āgama parallel does not employ the term abhidharma
at all, but rather describes that these monks were “wanting to settle
a matter of dispute, namely  to  discuss  what  is  Dharma  and
Vinaya,  what is the  Buddha’s teaching”.52 This case would
be in line with the impression that abhidharma talk can simply stand
for talk about the Dharma.


What Is the significance of 'Sal Tree' in Buddhism?

The Sal Tree has Religious significance in Buddhism. It was believed that the prince Siddhārtha was born under Sal Tree and Gautama Buddha did Parinibbana (DN 16) under the pair of Sal Trees.

The sal tree in Sri Lanka might be different from India and Burma but if people do respect to sal trees, it must be the two reasons above.


It is DN 16, here

The Buddha said to him: “Ānanda, Vesālī is lovely. And the Udena, Gotamaka, Sattamba, Bahuputta, Sārandada, and Cāpāla shrines are all lovely.
Whoever has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power—made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them—may, if they wish, live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon. The Realized One has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power, made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them. If he wished, the Realized One could live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon.”
But Ānanda didn’t get it, even though the Buddha dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign. He didn’t beg the Buddha: “Sir, may the Blessed One please remain for the eon! May the Holy One please remain for the eon! That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.” For his mind was as if possessed by Māra.

... and here

Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone. For even though the Realized One dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign, you didn’t beg me to remain for the eon, or what’s left of it. If you had begged me, I would have refused you twice, but consented on the third time. Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone.


After Enlightenment - 7 Weeks (Sath Sathiya)

There was a possibility that Buddha stayed in Uruvela forest more than four(4) weeks. It was mentioned in Mahavagga Pali, section 6, end of paragraph 10 but it did not specify exactly 3 weeks more or places of additional weeks. The last line of that paragraph here

did mention Buddha stayed more than four(4) weeks probably made the best timing for five foremost monks for first discourse.

If found about this more details in any sutta, I'll update here.


What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed?

No, actions can not be done undone, breath, past can not be destroyed. So also their results will come into being, as long (as excluded to be answered) there is to BE.
That's importand: outside there is no escape.
By effort, having a cause, certain deeds are done or not, and those effects will take place or not.

Breath: "I read now at manual of abidhamma that karmas can destroy other karmas - and a comment from some member here that if some karmas dont have a chance to rise in this life or the next they destroyed (by destroyed i mean they dont have any effect)"

Maybe add a link in your question, for such is not the Dhamma of the Buddha: no effect, when there is a cause. One may, as said, by training the mind skillfully, bear it with more ease, of cause even to big extend. Nevertheless, what has been caused will have it's effect.
Here again some illustrations and Suttas (also to do not understand the law of kamma as a straight line, determinated):

Aṅgulimāla’s case illustrates a general principle stated in AN 3:101: If the workings of kamma required strict, tit-for-tat justice—with your having to experience the consequences of each act just as you inflicted it on others—there’s no way that anyone could reach the end of suffering. The reason we can reach awakening is because even though actions of a certain type give a corresponding type of result, the intensity of how that result is felt is determined, not only by the original action, but also—and more importantly—by our state of mind when the results ripen. If you’ve developed unlimited goodwill and equanimity, and have trained well in virtue, discernment, and the ability to be overcome neither by pleasure nor pain, then when the results of past bad actions ripen, you’ll hardly experience them at all. If you haven’t trained yourself in these ways, then even the results of a trifling bad act can consign you to hell.
The Buddha illustrates this principle with three similes. The first is the easiest to digest: The results of past bad actions are like a large salt crystal AN 3.99. An untrained mind is like a small cup of water; a well-trained mind, like the water in a large, clear river. If you put the salt into the water of the cup, you can’t drink it because it’s too salty. But if you put the salt into the river, you can still drink the water because there’s so much more of it and it’s so clean. All in all, an attractive image. The other two similes, though, underscore the point that the principle they’re illustrating goes against some very basic ideas of fairness. In one simile, the bad action is like the theft of money; in the other, like the theft of a goat. In both similes, the untrained mind is like a poor person who gets heavily punished for either of these two crimes, whereas the well-trained mind is like the rich person who doesn’t get punished for either theft at all. In these cases, the images are much less attractive, but they drive home the point that, for kamma to work in a way that rewards the training of the mind to put an end to suffering, it can’t work in such a way as to guarantee justice. If we insisted on a system of kamma that did guarantee justice, the path to freedom from suffering would be closed. (from: Wisdom over Justice)

See also:

Kamma & the Ending of Kamma

The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH

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


Is it allowed to quote a Buddhist teaching in a fiction book?

Buddhist scriptures are so old they are not under copyright. Translations maybe. Some are made freely available. Best is just ask the author or do your own translation. Also quoting a small portion may be acceptable as fair use.


How our body/soul is composition of five elements?

According to Theravada Buddhism a person (satva) is explained in terms of six major elements. Patavi,Apo,Tejo,vayo,Akasa (space) and vinnana (consciousness)
The way I understand these elements are smaller than atoms. They are even not physical. The Buddhist term for them is Dathu.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html


Is Buddhism "opposed" to striving, or working towards a goal that you really want

In one perspective, buddhism shows something you likely already know: if your goal is not accomplished, and if you created expectations (to win, to see a crowd, to have personal accomplishment, etc), you have invited suffering. And because you don't have full control of the outcome, it's always possible the goal may not be reached.

It also shows that, depending on nuances of the "dissatisfaction with current situation", that dissatisfaction might denote a suffering in and on itself.

But it's quite possible for one to formulate goals without clinging to their outcome -- so that reaching or not the goal is not a source of suffering. And it's possible that the dissatisfaction is not an impediment in one's life, but something useful (e.g. a source of motivation for reaching a goal).

  However, what I understand from Buddhism is that this attachment to an end result in the future causes suffering.

Generally (and ultimately) speaking, any attachment is a source of suffering because it presupposes the object of attachment can be obtained, and if it is obtained, that it is stable and persists through time. Because we can't guarantee we can have what we want, nor we can guarantee what we "have" won't change or be separated from us, craving and attachment are ultimately bogus from the point of view of happiness.

  Does one live with some attachment and accept it, or is it something to be avoided entirely?

Attachment of any kind, from the buddhist point of view, is something to be done away with. But not everyone (buddhist or not) feels the urgency or will to go through the process of doing that. So it's up to you. Generally, the choice to remove an attachment comes from seeing the "bug" in it and develop enough dissatisfaction to do something about it.

So, just like the amount of race training you do is up to you -- ranging from training a few hours per week to full dedication under an olympic training --, the amount of buddhist training is also up to you -- ranging from a a few hours per week to full dedication as a monk.


Can one get into the heart of Zen Buddhism without Chinese?

A famous example is Thích Nhất Hạnh, who is Vietnamese.
He has given talks in several languages, including English and French.

There's also Korean Zen, and of course Japanese.

There are (and/or have been) many English-speaking Zen teachers in, for example, America.


It is not personification. There is evidence that Gotama Buddha exists in India. He is special so he was called Samma Sambuddha.
================
when the Buddha is designated a sammā Sambuddha, "a perfectly enlightened one," this highlights not only the fullness of his enlightenment but his authority and reliability as a spiritual teacher.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html


Is a Daruma doll a good motivation to meditate ?

They're great but I feel that if you can do it with a Daruma Doll you can do it with any other object.

Anything bright, cosntantly changing or unusual that you're never going to get used to will prompt you to meditate, once you have made that association.

If you're more traditional, set phone wallpapers and/or alarms.


Is Buddhism hell falsely claimed on wikipedia?

There are instances where painful mental states or experiances are called hell. [Patala Sutta] E.g. If I do something that might ripen in being born in hell you also get the hellish feeling here and now, [Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Cūla Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta] and in case you are born in the human world  similar pains will be experienced. [Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta, Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta]

A more vivid description of hell is found in Bala Pandita Sutta, (Yama) Deva,dūta Sutta and Deva,dūta Sutta. Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta mentions that the Buddha uses direct and indirect languages. Though these destinations may exist some of the descriptions maybe parables so you can draw an analogy of what is there to a concept that you might be familiar with as Arana Vibhanga Sutta mentions that when teaching Dhamma you should use common and familiar language giving allowance to the audience or region they are from. This does not mean that the destination are only exist in the mind or they are parables to experiences in this world.

Also the Wikipedia articles seams mix and match from multiple schools. Also it would be an idea to keep these descriptions as per the wording of the Buddha and let the reader infer its meaning.

With regard to the descriptions in the Suttas many of the experiences in hell will not have a description in common language as language is developed to describe what we come across in this world. What is mentioned would most likely give the best idea of the suffering involved in these worlds.


What is the real meaning of 'Knowledge and Vision' in the Pali-texts?

'Nanadassana' can be 'knowledge & vision' of truth, per SN 56.11, as follows:

As long as my true knowledge and vision about these four noble truths
was not fully purified in these three perspectives and twelve
respects, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world
with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics
and brahmins, its gods and humans.
Yāvakīvañca me, bhikkhave, imesu catūsu ariyasaccesu evaṃ tiparivaṭṭaṃ
dvādasākāraṃ yathābhūtaṃ ñāṇadassanaṃ na suvisuddhaṃ ahosi, neva
tāvāhaṃ, bhikkhave, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake
sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya ‘anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ
abhisambuddho’ti paccaññāsiṃ.

'Nanadassana' can be the psychic power of 'knowing & seeing', per AN 4.41, as follows:

And what is the way of developing concentration that leads to gaining
knowing & seeing?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā
ñāṇadassanappaṭilābhāya saṃvattati?
It’s when a monk focuses on the perception of light, concentrating on
the perception of day,
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ālokasaññaṃ manasi karoti, divāsaññaṃ
adhiṭṭhāti—
regardless of whether it’s night or day.
yathā divā tathā rattiṃ, yathā rattiṃ tathā divā.
And so, with an open and unenveloped heart, they develop a mind that’s
full of radiance.
Iti vivaṭena cetasā apariyonaddhena sappabhāsaṃ cittaṃ bhāveti

'Janami passami' appears to be a synonym for the 1st type of nanadassana, as follows:

I know and see the scope of convictions, the scope of grounds for
views, fixation on views, obsession with views, the origin of views,
and the uprooting of views.
Yāvatā, āvuso, diṭṭhi yāvatā diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhiadhiṭṭhānaṃ
diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamugghāto, tamahaṃ jānāmi
tamahaṃ passāmi.
AN 10.96


Is practice of Vedanta a prelude to practice of Buddhism?

If you read the Vedanta page on Wikipedia, you will find this info:

  Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu
  philosophy.

  Some of the better known sub-traditions of Vedanta include:

  Advaita Darshan - established by Adi Shankara (788–820 CE)
  Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE)
  Dvaita Darshan - established by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
  Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya (c. 7th century CE)
  Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE)
  Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE)

On the other hand, if you read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha:

  The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians
  in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
  More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while
  at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those
  who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side
  of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies,
  however, have not been accepted by all historians.

So, Vedanta came after the Buddha, and I suspect that Advaita Vedanta appeared as a philosophical response to Buddhism.

So, the Buddha could not have studied Vedanta, and this question is moot.


Are there detailed Buddhist teachings on/about energy (viriya)?

Buddha's many life stories are about the teaching of energy. More information from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%ABrya


Has any Buddhist meditator claimed that the mano-vijnana has a base to differentiate it from the other consciousnesses?

According to the Theravada Abhidhamma Mental Consciousness (mano-vijnana) is heart based. This is what Buddha realised through his meditation. Other consciousness arise with the respective faculties and the base, e.g. eye-consciousness with the eye.

It is suspended when you are in Nirodha Samapathi and in Bavanga consciousness. Also perhaps in Pala Samanapathi if this result in a momentarily entering Nirodha Samapathi but not very sure on this as there are different view on this.


Ideas to Contemplate When Meditation is Difficult

We always want things to be less difficult, that's why they are difficult.

I thought,  I need things to be easy now and latter I would ease into being able to handle what is more difficult but then I found that if I faced what is difficult head on with heroic and sustained effort then over time what is uncomfortable becomes way more manageable. This was a fundamental breakthrough idea for me.


"Tibetisches Totenbuch"? "Tibetanisches Totenbuch" - different books?

It looks like Tibetisches Totenbuch is a German name for what's popularly known as "The Tibetan Book of the Dead".

In that case, (quotes from Wikipedia)

  According to Tibetan tradition, the "Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State" was composed in the 8th century by Padmasambhava, written down by his primary student, Yeshe Tsogyal, buried in the Gampo hills in central Tibet and subsequently discovered by a Tibetan terton, Karma Lingpa, in the 14th century.

  It is part of a larger terma cycle, Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation through the Intention of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, (zab-chos zhi khro dgongs pa rang grol, also known as kar-gling zhi-khro, popularly known as "Karma Lingpa's Peaceful and Wrathful Ones."

  The Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation is known in several versions, containing varying numbers of sections and subsections, and arranged in different orders, ranging from around ten to thirty-eight titles. The individual texts cover a wide range of subjects, including meditation instructions, visualizations of deities, liturgies and prayers, lists of mantras, descriptions of the signs of death, indications of future rebirth, and texts such as the bar do thos grol that are concerned with the bardo-state.

From what I can see on the Internet, it looks like  Tibetisches and  Tibet-an-isches are used interchangeably and both simply mean "Tibetan". If this is correct, then they most likely refer to different versions or different translations of the same basic text.


Which buddhist traditions are typically viewed as most liberal?

For some (unspecified) definitions of "liberal", might Soka Gakkai International (SGI) be among the "most liberal"?
For example,
this page says,

In their Study of SGI, Phillip Hammond and David Machacek suggest that the religion is "characterized by an almost libertarian perspective on individual behaviour."

I visited some SGI meetings many years ago, and those I met seemed like nice enough people, OTOH I didn't understand (didn't get much of) their doctrine.
They call themselves Buddhist, e.g. here is the meta description from their web site,
<meta name="description" content="Worldwide Buddhist network which promotes peace,
culture and education through personal transformation and social contribution.
Buddhist concepts, news, links with SGI organizations around the world and more." />

Wikipedia's introductory paragraph says,

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese new religious movement based on the writings of Nichiren and the teachings of the organization’s presidents Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, Jōsei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. It is one of the larger Japanese new religions. Originally a lay group within the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist sect, the Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and places the chanting of the name of the Sutra at the center of devotional practice. The movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics. It has also been at the center of controversies.

I'm not sure whether to say it is a Buddhist tradition or whether it's from a Buddhist tradition. Here's what they write about their organization:

What is SGI?
Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a lay Buddhist movement linking more than 12 million people around the world. SGI members integrate their Buddhist practice into their daily lives, following the Lotus Sutra based teachings of Nichiren, a 13th-century Japanese Buddhist priest.
Just as the lotus blooms in a muddy pond, all people can manifest the Buddha nature--inner resources of courage, wisdom and compassion that can equip them to overcome life's challenges and lead happy and fulfilling lives. As "engaged Buddhists," SGI members aim to create value in any circumstances and contribute to the well-being of others. Their practice sparks a process of ongoing inner transformation and empowerment known as "human revolution." The promotion of peace, culture and education is central to SGI's activities.


Reference request: where is this text about abandoning hindrances from?


Ways to strengthen the perception of the breath

You could also "breathe strongly, firmly and rapidly", as they do in Sunlun's method. Rapidly means really rapidly, see the last part of this video.


Why translate 'X etadahosi' as 'the thought occurred to X'?

I'm not an expert (please consider this instead as an "exercise for the student" for someone to correct).

When it's used in a phrase like, "bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi", isn't "bhikkhus" there in the plural genitive or plural dative case? Anyway, not nominative. So wouldn't you translate that as "of the bhikkhus", or, "to the bhikkhus"?

You say you translate 'etadahosi' literally as 'was thus' ... could it mean instead, "this was"?

Anyway, given that "bhikkhus" isn't nominative, maybe the most literal translation is, "this was, to the bhikkhus" ... or in other words, "this (thought or statement) occurred, to the bhikkhus".

If I look at other instances of etadahosi I see they too are preceded by a noun with the naṃ or ssa case endings.

Also it sometimes is translated as "they thought".


What is the Buddhist perception of injustice, considering the law of Karma?

It's certainly been seen as a difficult question for Buddhists. I've heard it termed the Glenn Hoddle question after an ex-footballer used karma type arguments to explain disability - to quote

  You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and
  half-decent brains. Some  people have not been born like that for a
  reason. The karma is working from another lifetime

He was sacked as England coach. However it is a difficult question and I will attempt a decent answer

Karma isn't cause and effect

Karma isn't just cause and effect - there is more going on. To quote the Sivaka Sutra

  Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view
  that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or
  neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,'
  then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted
  as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part
  of these ascetics and brahmans.

It's not as if someone lies in one life then is reborn as with a disability in the next. Sometimes the fruits of karma (action) are immediate, sometimes they are delayed, sometimes the fruits don't come to pass at all.

There is more going on than Karma

Also in Buddhism there is the concept of Niyamas which explains outcome dependant origination (the underpinning of reality). These being

kamma niyama: ("action") consequences of one's actions
utu niyama: ("time, season") seasonal changes and climate, law of non-living matter
bīja niyama: ("seed") laws of heredity
citta niyama:("mind") will of mind
dhamma niyama: ("law") nature's tendency to perfect

The above list is taken from here. So karma would only explain a fraction of someones present conditions.

Karma isn't blame

I guess the other thing to point out is that there is no concept of blame in any of this. The audio here is very interesting - a Buddhist nun discusses this exact issue with someone with seeing difficulties.

Even if someone's unfortunate circumstances were caused directly by their actions (which is no means as simple as that) then this wouldn't stop us feeling compassion for them. This would be true in this life or the next. If someone was run over because they didn't look both ways before crossing the road then it is a normal human response to feel compassion for them - Buddhist or not.

As I say though a difficult and interesting question. I hope that helps some.


Yes, once you have reached sufficient level of concentration you may continue on the breath (samatha) or investigate the mind (vipassana). In my own practice I have a preference for reaching the calmest level possible, so I simply stay with breath, but more quietly, gently, less control, just allowing it to be, no more. At the same time, I don't ignore or suppress things as they arise, i just let them arise, fall, arise, fall. In one door, out the other. It's "kind of" a combination of both Calm and Insight.


There is a Theravada group which is run by monastics at Bhavana Society. They run the group through Discord, they do group meditations, sutta readings and book study sessions. You can join their Discord server here

There is also an online meditation group who use google hangouts. They usually do meditations twice every weekday. They aren't affiliated with any Buddhist tradition although there is a monastic who hosts meditations regularly. This is their google plus page


You might want to try Samatha meditation. This type of meditation would have you fix your attention on a single object of meditation over a period of time. The common object is your in and out breaths. The point of focus is usually the tip of the nose or the upper lips where you could feel the in and out breaths making contact. Since this training requires you to stay with a single object over a long period of time, it could help your mind maintains a higher attention span and lasting focus on a subject. Sutta reference is available here and a detailed analysis is available here. Good luck..


What is the meaning of "Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others."

Shantideva’s work is among the most beautiful and profound pieces of writing ever composed on earth in any language. It is jaw dropping in its profound beauty and the author must have been an extraordinary Bodhisattva if not a fully accomplished enlightened being. Personally, I prefer to see it as the work of a fully and completely enlightened being. To me this verse was written out of compassion by this perfect being  to show others how to accomplish the same by overcoming the foes of conceit and self-importance.

The purpose of this verse is a thought training by the author intended to show others how to subdue conceit and lust for reputation. It is a verse which is full of humility and self-deprication designed to counteract conceited and prideful thoughts.

Shantideva's text is a master class in training the mind to be a Bodhisattva. All the verses are examples illustrating how a Bodhisattva practices and thinks.


What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity?

As someone who was born into Orthodox Christian faith, has been baptized, attended church occasionally, has read full Bible, both New and Old Testament (BTW the Orthodox version of which includes 11 more "books" than the Protestant, 4 more than the Catholic), who has high respect for the teaching of Christ, appreciation of Father, and deep connection with Holy Spirit, and also as one who's been practicing and studying Buddhism for decades now, and became independent of others in regards to Buddha's message -- I suppose I'm in a good position to answer this question.

The words representing "faith" (śraddhā & pistis) in both religions share most of their semantic fields: belief, trust, confidence, loyalty. Sraddha includes a couple more meanings like assent/approval/consent/reverence, and appetite/longing/wish/expectation -- which too are connotations of "faith" as it is understood in Christianity. So overall, we have two rather similar words.

Faith in Early Christianity

The "main" definition of faith in Christianity is found in Letter to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul and goes like this:

  As for faith, it is realization of the expected and confidence in the invisible.

In Orthodox Christianity this phrase is explained as follows: "Not only we who carry Christ's name consider the faith as the greatest, but everything done in the world, even by people strange to the Church, is done by faith, since the one who does not believe that [he] will rip the grown fruits, will not tolerate the labors". Another example given is the faith of the seafarers, who "entrust their lives to a small wood" and "give themselves to unknown hopes and have by themselves only faith, which for them is more reliable than any anchor".

From this we can see that "confidence in the invisible" is not as much blind faith in the existence of something we can't verify, but rather "realization of the expected" -- confidence in the outcome of our effort, based on our prior experience and our knowledge of how the world operates. This means that as Christians interacts with the world, they are supposed to get first-hand evidence/support of why the Son's Commandments make sense, see Holy Spirit at work, and recognize the law of Father behind all.

At the same time Orthodox Christians, like Zen Buddhists, recognize that our understanding can never exhaust the depth of things. There will always remain something which escapes analysis and which can not be expressed in concepts. Therefore, any realistic view of the world necessarily includes reverent recognition of this unknowable depth of things, that which constitutes their true, indefinable essence. This appreciation of the ultimate ineffability of the Law is a major component of faith.

Standing on these two legs -- appreciation of the order of things, and fascination with the depths -- we can have courage to do what's right, even though there is no 100% explicit guarantee it will work. This is faith.

Faith in later Christianity

Where this starts breaking up, is in its application to actual Christian practice, which virtually demands a Christian to take the following creed:

  I believe (pisteuo) in God,
  the Father almighty,
  Creator of heaven and earth,
  and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  born of the Virgin Mary,
  suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  was crucified, died and was buried;
  he descended into hell;
  on the third day he rose again from the dead;
  he ascended into heaven,
  and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
  from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the holy catholic Church,
  the communion of saints,
  the forgiveness of sins,
  the resurrection of the body,
  and life everlasting. Amen.

So as we can see, what started as very rational declaration of faith as expression of experience, understanding, gratitude, fascination, courage, and righteousness -- was later turned into an ultimatum.

Faith in Early Buddhism

Although many Buddhist define their faith as a growing conviction one gains as one is exposed to Dharma and progressively verifies it on one's own experience, this is not what I see in Pali Canon.

Instead, Buddha speaks of faith as the first phase of the path, during which the practitioner gets inspired by the message of Buddha, based solely on a verbal exposure (MN 125):

  A householder or a householder's son or one born in another family hears that dhamma. Having heard that dhamma he gains faith in the Tathagata. Endowed with this faith that he has acquired, he reflects [on his life and decides to joins the spiritual path]

At this point one is called faith-follower (SN 25.3):

  [1] One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill.

The following two phases will help us understand the limits of faith:

  [2] One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower.

  [3] One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer.

Such unwavering faith, that drives one until one sees for himself, is often mentioned in Pali Canon in context of the factors of the path, along with persistence etc. (MN 70):

  For a disciple who has faith in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I'... 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.'

Faith in later Buddhism

By the time of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa (4th or 5th century CE), faith is beginning to acquire a character of dogma:

  If it is asked, what is faith? Faith is full confidence in the efficacy of actions and their results (i.e. karma), in the (noble) truths, and in the Three Jewels; it is also an aspiration (for spiritual attainment) and clearminded appreciation (of the truth of Dharma).

This eventually becomes e.g. a following dogma:

  How is faith perfect?
  This is believing deeply that the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are Eternal,
  that all Buddhas of the ten directions make use of upaya,
  and that beings and icchantikas all possess the Buddha-dhatu.

  It is not believing that the Tathagata is subject to birth, old age, illness, and death,
  that he has undergone austerities,
  and that Devadatta really caused blood to flow from the Buddha's body,
  that the Tathagata ultimately enters Nirvana,
  and that authentic Dharma dies out.

Reminds something, huh? :)

Summary

In both Christianity and Buddhism we can see the process of gradual codification / dogmatization of symbols and principles, this is normal. Both religions have layers, and if you explore the populations of practicing representatives of both religions, you will always find a gamut of sophistication, from the most superficial to the most profound.

Putting aside the question of the cyclic process of regression and reinstitution of Sat-Dharma (True Teaching), we can see that originally the faith in Buddhism and the faith in Christianity were kinda opposite. Indeed, like I showed above, in Christianity faith used to be an expression of one's (however limited) insight into the Cosmic Law, first and foremost in its ethical aspect. While in Buddhism faith used to refer to a condition of inspiration and unwavering drive one has until one confirms the teaching first-hand. The object of Christian faith, although implicit, is here, while the object of Buddhist faith is over there.

This is because early Buddhism is based on a metaphor of Ground, Path, and Fruition -- while Christianity is in some sense based on a metaphor of Field (whether the battlefield of good and evil, or the field of one's life). The later Buddhism, esp. some strands of Mahayana have adopted this notion of Law (Tao, Bup etc.) and became somewhat less goal-oriented, which found reflection in their definition of faith.

To finish this up, let's consider a perpetual question: which one is better? In my sincere opinion, both the faith as appreciation of the implicit and ultimately inexpressible but evidently effective Law, and the faith as putting one's trust in not yet clear but inspiring the confidence Teaching are important. One starts with the second type and eventually attains the first type. Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in first-hand knowledge of the Law of God? May be. This is how I see it anyway ;)


How to intentionally move to second jhana

Ajahn Brahm gives a very nice explanation about how to get into higher Jhnanas. Imagine that you are in a long corridor with soap water on the floor and you play the game where you come running and slide on the slope water in order to get to another side of the corridor. In this case, the more energy you will slide within the beginning the farther you will get, and in all process, you have to Let-go. So as per my information, you have to further Let-go, to get there. You cannot summon it with the will, the will has to be dropped.

I will recommend you to read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm -- that will answer the question in great detail.

And maybe this will help: The Basic Method of Meditation (by Ajahn Brahm)


Must I continue a relationship with my abusive parents?

I wrote an extensive answer for the question: How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?

In summary, you are not wrong if you choose to not to have a relationship with them. Love is something earned. Core on-going relationships require the maintenance of on-going wholesome qualities from both sides. In Buddhism, parents have the duty of being compassionate towards their children & protecting their children from harm.

Naturally, it is up to your judgment, but if your parents insist you have relationship with them, you can honestly communicate to them your reasons for your reluctance. Note: this may be very hurtful to them; even though such hurt is self-made by them.

Buddhism teaches family relationships have four necessary qualities: (i) honest straightforward communication; (ii) training in self-improvement; (iii) patience/forbearance; and (iv) unselfishness.

Therefore, the 1st step is honest straightforward communication. The 2nd step is self-improvement, that is, your parents' willingness to recognize what they have done (which may be difficult for them).

Most of all, keep in mind, your parents acted as they did due to ignorance/not-knowing. Their minds were controlled by ignorance. Buddhism teaches ignorance an element in nature; like a disease, sickness or blindness people can have.


Is it possible to be Buddhist by nature, or only by indoctrination?

Many evolutionary psychologists, eg. Justin L Barrett and Ara Norenzayan, do argue that religion is a natural phenomenon. The argument are quite complex. Barrett for example argues that our brain contains various modules or devices. For example the Agent Detection Device helps us distinguish agents that are capable of directed motion, from objects which simply follow the laws of physics.

Having detected an agent another module which Barrett calls Theory of Mind, describes the object in terms of it's desires, motivations, and goals in order to help anticipate how it might act.

However if we mistake a stick for a snake we don't lose much. If mistake a snake for a stick we may die. So better to err on the side of seeing agents. But this means we tend to see agents everywhere. Plus our Theory of Mind Device means that we tent of think of agents as being like us - as having a human-like mind.

Barrett adds another element - the Minimally Counter-intuitive concept. If something we think we see is complete counter-intuitive we won't believe it. If it is completely intuitive, we'll believe it, but hardly even notice that we do. But something that is mostly intuitive but counter-intuitive in small number of ways we not only tend believe it, but to find it interesting and memorable.

In addition many experiences, such as the classic out-of-body experiences, make it very easy for people to believe in mind separate from body. This is more or less the default position for most people. This idea is discussed by Thomas Metzinger, in his 2005 article 'Out-of-Body Experiences as the Origin of the Concept of a "Soul".' Mind & Matter Vol. 3(1), pp. 57–84; I have written a precise for my blog:

All combined we get invisible agents as partially counter-intuitive, but interesting and memorable propositions. For many people these take the form of spirits. Spirits are common throughout the Asian Buddhist world. and some become gods. Of course in Buddhism we have both, but tend to down-play this. Still it's possible to apply these ideas to more abstract concepts like karma as well.

Most of the work of these scholars is focussed on theistic religion. I'm beginning to apply their ideas to Buddhism to see if it can add to our understanding of it. See for example my recent essay on Barrett's work in relation to belief in karma and rebirth: Why Are Karma and Rebirth (Still) Plausible (for Many People)?

Karma is a very important invisible agent that ensures a just world by making sure that people get the rebirth they have earned. Many people of my acquaintance find the twin ideas of karma and rebirth entirely plausible and likely even.

So it seems there is a good argument for saying that most people are religious by nature, but that some are not. It's entirely possible that someone could come to the same conclusions as a Buddhist about the world. Indeed these evolutionary approaches seem to be saying that it is atheism and materialism that require a more detailed explanation. Not believing in the supernatural is almost unknown in traditional societies, and yet it is quite widespread in the West, especially outside of America.


What is the visa process for ordaining foreigner monks in Sri Lanka?

Previous discussion from Dhamma Wheel.

1) I have obtained a residency visa by this method in the past and it states it clearly in the NUA information:

After arriving in Sri Lanka with the entry visa, you can apply for the resident visa. You will be given a 30 day-visa on arrival, and the monastery will help you to apply for the resident visa. Visas for monks and nuns are free. Lay people need to pay for the application. (~Rs 20,000/USD200 per year).

In relation to the visa, understand that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and the religion carries great influence in the secular sphere as well, it is part of Sri Lankan nationalism, just as Hinduism is in India. Don’t worry about the visa, if you have a genuine intention to become a monk, then NUA will organise it.

2) This, including the language barrier, has a disadvantage for foreigners, as they are regarded as outsiders and you will have to find your own way within the monastic system. You will be able to choose your own teacher and in many other ways will have to make your own decisions. The situation will not be a clear-cut training as you expect. It is not a training monastery (pirivena).

NUA APPROXIMATE TIMELINE TO BHIKKHU ORDINATION

1-4 months: Upāsaka (8 Precepts)
6-12 months Pabbajjā (going forth) and abiding as a Sāmaṇera (Novice monk) (10 Precepts and 75 Sekhiya rules) January – March: Vinaya Classes
April: Vinaya Exam
June: Upasampadā (higher ordination) at Galduwa Monastery

3) You should be familiar with the eight precepts and the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as custodian of the dhamma after it declined in India.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=30722


How to live life after acknowledging anatta?

Let’s get this straight. This is the problem when your mind is active and you’re reading all this stuff and thinking about it. The mind can only be confused. Because “moving above your intellect” is enlightenment, nirvana and all that jazz. Right now you seem stuck with your intellect, which can only dissect stuff and make you operational in this world which is a level lower.

You have to play a role in this society with some element of identity. Otherwise I can’t be talking to you right now. If you keep telling yourself “there is no self, there is no self”, that is a wrong view, because you have a viewpoint. There is a bias in your mind telling you that what you read somewhere is correct.

You cannot “think up” no-self. It is a direct experience. Not a thought. You’ll only end up dissociating and creating personality disorders for yourself. Just going crazy. Your mind will split itself up into a guy who is the ego and a no-self perspective. You see this mechanism of the mind? It is not true in your experience. I cannot stress this point enough. Right now your mind is sitting there going, “oh I am not-self, then what else is there...”

Let’s clarify this chicken and egg story. You are thinking right now because you’re alive, not the other way round. If I take your breath away all your mental nonsense will cease. What do you then know about this life actually? Nobody knows anything. They just “think things up”. If you try to think it up, then all kinds of contortions and twists will start to brew inside your head. And it will only lead to mental disorders.

When the Buddha (and so many other Buddhas) talk about no-self, they come from a direct experience of unity with everything. That is the source of “no self”. Their perspective is abolished. There is only truth for them. Unlike our experience where we are this body and mind and everything else is separate. And we have opinions about everything from our perspective.

So how to live life, you ask? Respond to everything, you are very much there, there is no “no-self” or “all self” or whatever your mind is brewing. If you really experienced no-self you wouldn’t be here asking this question :)


What is doctrine on ordinary daily posture?

In the Theravadan tradition, most of the rules governing posture don't come from the suttas, but rather the vinaya.  Specifically, they are found in the 75 sekhiyas.  The first 26 are almost all about posture.

The reason for these practices is really no different than those related to appropriate posture during seated meditation.  And it has a similar set of challenges.  In the West, we often set up a dichotomy between the mind and body.  No such division exists within Buddhism.  Form is just another skandha.  Just because Buddhism meditates on the foulness of the body does not mean that it should be ignored or viewed as somehow less important.  The body is also a tool that can be used on the way to liberation.  A posture maintained ardently, with mindfulness, and clear comprehension will have a comparable impact on cognition.  It establishes alertness and vigor while a bodily posture that is not meticulously maintained falls into sloth, heedlessness, and dissipation.  An upright body is an upright mind.  They are not different things.


Overwhelmed feeling when visiting Temple

Do you like the Temple? Is it beautiful in your eyes? Judging by your response, it sounds as if it is very meaningful to you. I know that when I visit my local Zen center, entering the meditation hall causes such a reaction (along with a deep feeling of peace).

Crying is a natural human response to many situations and stimuli. This article offers a socio-biological reason for the crying response.

Interestingly, at least according to Wikipedia, crying in Buddhism is considered unskillful, as it indicates clinging/attachment.


How should a theravada centre approach the lay people for support?

My favorite essay on dana is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "No Strings Attached:
The Buddha's Culture of Generosity".

In it Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out the main criteria Buddha himself set for right dana (AN 6.37):

  The donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is inspired; and after giving, is gratified. These are the three factors of the donor…

  The recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.

He then goes on to show that explicitly asking for donations goes against the above:

  In pressuring retreatants to give to teachers, it doesn't lead to gladness before giving, and instead sounds like a plea for a tip at the end of a meal. The frequent efforts to pull on the retreatants' heartstrings as a path to their purse strings betray a lack of trust in their thoughtfulness and leave a bad taste.

He mainly argues against putting hard dana amounts on dharma talks (making them paid lectures), but I feel it does apply to your case as well.

It's not clear what he proposes instead though, he does not really explain it at great details:

  The ideal solution would be to provide a framework whereby serious Dhamma practitioners could be supported whether or not they taught. ... a genuine culture of dana ...

I personally believe in membership fees. Those lay people who are associated with a given Dharma Center for a long time, could organize a sort of PTA club (with optional membership!), collect membership fees among themselves, and then donate them to the center.


What's the canonical definition of end of the buddha sāsana?

I was under the impression that the end of buddha sāsana occurs when noble eight-fold path(and the dhamma practitioners) disappear form all the realms including Śuddhāvāsa where only anāgāmins live.

Imagine a school where only music prodigies or math prodigies attend, one would never have to worry about the decay of the school's reputation. The Pure Abodes are also like that. Since it's a realm where Non-Returners reside, it'll never face the problem of Dhamma decline there. Earthlings on the other hands, are much more inclined towards sensual pleasures and many other unwholesome deeds. It's the Dhamma on earth that's facing a serious danger of going into decline.
In SN 20.7, although the Buddha didn't give an exact number on the life span of the Dhamma, He did give the clear sign and cause to its disappearance:

"...In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.