Difference in Buddhist meditation and meditation in other religions

One of the key aspects of meditation in Buddhism is that there are, very broadly**, two different kinds (or styles or methods or purposes or ...). One kind is intended to train the person's ability to focus their attention, and to calm their mind. That kind is called samatha (or shamatha) meditation; its aim being various forms of samadhi. The aim of the other kind of meditation is to gain insight into -- that is, to understand and experience -- the fundamental nature of reality, specifically the three characteristics -- i.e. that, contrary to the normal view reality: is impermanent, does not provide freedom from suffering, and does not contain any specific permanent thing that we can call "self". This form of meditation and its aim have the same name -- vipassana.

The first of those two kinds is not specific to Buddhism, and can be found throughout Hinduism and other religions. Buddhism's unique offering to the world is the second kind, Vipassana. That said, it's not clear that it's entirely unique to Buddhism in the sense that there are practitioners of other religions who appear to have achieved the outcomes that vipassana is intended to achieve. For example, it's arguable that St Teresa of Avila, a Catholic Christian nun, was describing stream entry (one of the major attainments in vipassana meditation) in her seventh mansion in her "The Interior Castle". Of course that may be because Christianity, especially contemplative/mystical Christianity, was being influenced by the earlier Buddhism. Regardless, the point is that in practice a style of contemplation (meditation, prayer, etc) leading to fundamental insight does exist today outside of Buddhism.

--

** It can be argued that there aren't two different kinds at all, but in typical "western" discussions, that's how it's spoken of. It's not, as far as I can see, a gross error to speak of it like that.


Why is sniffing a flower considered to be stealing?

I guess one possibility is that "steal" is an inaccurate translation, and that a better translation might centre more on the "conceal" and "stealth" meanings of the words (e.g. concealing or taking a scent by stealth, secretly ... and observed only by a deva).

Another possibility is that it's taking what is not given: what is given (by lay-people to bhikkhus) are "requisites" -- food, medicine. The scent of a flower is not a requisite; taking the scent might be considered a sensual craving.


How can a person realize that a particular thing doesn't bring "happiness" without personal experience?

The core teachings of the Buddha are universally applicable.

There is suffering. - Everyone knows suffering, rich and poor alike. The suffering of the poor may seem more obvious, but is there any doubt that the wealthy suffer mentally as well, regardless of their resources?
The cause of our suffering is our attachments. - The wealthy have more to be attached to, in fact.
There is a way to end suffering.
The way to end suffering is the practice of the Eightfold Noble Path.

We really only need to know that we suffer and that we seek relief from our own suffering. But it's a long path. If a person is convinced that money will end his or her suffering, they can give it a go; and then eventually realize that making money didn't end their suffering and pick up where they left off. That sort of thing probably happens a lot. My guess would be that many converts to Buddhism have found the teachings of the Buddha to resonate with them after having first tried other ways of finding happiness. It's because we try other ways of finding happiness first, and learn first hand that the things we thought would bring us happiness, didn't, that we can appreciate the wisdom of the Buddha's teaching.


Did the Buddha have special instructions to deal with masturbation?

he didn't prohibit it for secular people, it's not even subsumed under sexual misconduct
but since it's a lustful urge and act it is unwholesome and unskillful, and those need to be handled using the Right effort

[i]"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

Maggavibhanga Sutta (SN 45.8)
Four Right Exertions
avoid situations and sensory stimuli which may provoke sexual desire, at that guarding of the sense doors is helpful
when and if it still arises think of the drawbacks which giving in to the urge may bring, contemplate its impermanence, develop understanding that it's going to eventually subside anyway, so that it loses a degree of its attractiveness and immediacy


What to focus on in the practise of sati?

The Satipatthana Sutta does not instruct to be aware of bodily movements.
Instead, the Satipatthana Sutta instructs to know what you are doing according to the Dhamma when there are bodily movements. The Satipatthana Sutta says:

Furthermore, a monks acts with situational wisdom when going out and
coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending
the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating,
drinking, chewing and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when
walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking and keeping
silent.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhikkante paṭikkante sampajānakārī
hoti, ālokite vilokite sampajānakārī hoti, samiñjite pasārite
sampajānakārī hoti, saṅghāṭipattacīvaradhāraṇe sampajānakārī hoti,
asite pīte khāyite sāyite sampajānakārī hoti, uccārapassāvakamme
sampajānakārī hoti, gate ṭhite nisinne sutte jāgarite bhāsite
tuṇhībhāve sampajānakārī hoti.
MN 10

For example, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of keeping silence and preparing a rifle to murder another person, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
Again, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of taking drugs, engaging in sexual misconduct or maintaining the perfect quiet of a burglar robbing a rich man's house at night, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
What the Satipatthana Sutta is instructing is meditating upon the body to ensure the body is engaged in wholesome dhammic bodily actions.


Did the Buddha believe in the existence of soul?

What is a "soul"?

In the Christian New Testament, the "soul" is most often described as the human conscience that becomes defiled or purified, similar to the mind-heart ("citta") taught by the Lord Buddha.

In later-day-Buddhism, the idea of "relinking consciousness" was manufactured; which is similar to the meta-physical idea of the Hindu soul that leaves one physical body at the end of life and enters into a new physical body. This idea is alien to the Lord Buddha.

The Lord Buddha himself was not concerned with meta-physics but with ending suffering. Therefore, the Lord Buddha was not concerned with a meta-physical soul but with the egoistic covetousness & possessiveness that creates suffering.

While the Buddha's teaching of not-self (anatta) is a natural reality; the important reason it was taught is it ends suffering. If anatta did not end suffering, the Buddha would not have taught it.


Does hell exist in Buddism?

Yes it does. It is a destination in which you mental state is painful and also painful mental states are sometimes called hell. Hell is mentioned in Bala Pandita Sutta. Painful mental states are compared to hell in Patala Sutta

  It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

Buddhism is universal hence there is no notion of punishment. If a Hindu, Muslim, Christian does good then good results follow.

But having said that holding into wrong views does have consequences regardless if you consider yourself a Buddhist or not.

    For one with wrong view, Lohicca, there is either of two destinies, I say, that is, hell or the animal womb.

Source: (Sāla,vatikā) Lohicca Sutta

  It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

If you look at the Abhidhamma associated the right view is belief in Karmic repercussions. Even Hindus can have it. Also to a certain extent people of other faiths if you believe an action has repercussions. This is not aimed at keeping you believing. Also right view does have shades and purity. The ultimate would be the experiential understanding but at a conceptual level the best understanding you can get is by reading Samma,ditthi Sutta.

Also Buddhism is not about any belief but experiencing the realities pertaining to our existance hence understanding the arising of stress and sorrow through whereby you can find a way out of it. You have to have some faith in the techniques as you would have to have in a doctor and his treatment to follow through with it.

  If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a rule for making people behave themselves?

Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu was preached to make people understand reciprocation of Karma hence behave themselves. This also is not to keep someone tied to believe in the teaching. Also I do not believe this was added later.


Is nirodha (cessation of suffering) dependent on the existence of suffering?

Although nirodha is usually translated "cessation", its main meaning is "restraint", "prevention" - e.g. of crime or any undesired activity/outcome. In modern Hindi, nirodh is even used as a word for condom.

If you really think about it, this makes sense. The way cessation of dukkha is achieved is through non-attachment - i.e. non-creation of conditions that make arising of dukkha possible. In other words, non-attachment is prevention of dukkha.

Prevention of X does not depend on existence of X.


What is known about the years of oral tradition of the Pali Canon?

Traditionally the original source of the teachings is Ananda. Ananda was the Buddha's cousin and primary attendant during a lot of his life up to the Buddha's death. Being
so close to the Buddha, he heard at first hand the Buddha's teaching and was able to commit them to memory. Shortly after the Buddha's death the First Council was convened and Ananda was prevailed upon to recite all the Buddha's teachings he could recall. Fortunately for us he could recall a lot.

This is why many of the Pali Canon sutras begin with 'Thus have I heard'. It is Ananda speaking and recalling the Buddha's teachings from his own experience.

Example from the Mangala Sutta

  Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Exalted One was dwelling at
  Anathapindika's monastery, in Jeta's Grove, near Savatthi. Now when
  the night was far spent, a certain deity whose surpassing splendor
  illuminated the entire Jeta Grove, came to the presence of the Exalted
  One and, drawing near, respectfully saluted him and stood at one side.


It should be highlighted that there are two different aspects of thangka painting - iconography and methods. The book mentioned in the question describes the methods only and such knowledge should not be considered as a part of some Buddhist teachings. Iconography, however, is an important aspect of Tibetan Buddhism used in thankgas, statues and visualisation practices.

It is not straightforward to get access to texts describing the details of a given Buddha form. Tibetan Buddhism is based on a direct (usually oral) transmission and some texts are allowed to be used only after the authorization from the teacher. For example, I did receive the authorization to practise the meditation on Vajrasattva and I totally agree that the Dorje should be in the right hand of the deity. (Admittedly, this very detail can easily be checked on Google images by typing in 'Vajrasattva' or 'Dorje Sempa'.)

Iconography of Yidams (Buddha forms) is very strict and systematic. Every detail of a form has a meaning and thus if one wants to use the thankga (or a statue) for practise purposes, it has to be painted correctly. In practice it means that the artist should have a proper training - possibly a direct transmission from another artist and/or meditation master. I've also heard that the best if the artist is meditating on the Buddha form while he is painting it.

I know some people who are buying thangkas and statues in Nepal to be later distributed in European Buddhist centres. They said that they never buy ready-made thangkas as most probably they are made for the tourist market that is for the customers that use them as a decoration rather than for a proper Yidam practice. The most reliable way of obtaining a genuine thangka is to find a renowned artist and commission a specific thangka from him. Then one can be sure that it will be done with all the due care as the artist knows that he can spend days or weeks on one painting because he will be paid for his hard work immediately. Afterwards the thankga should be checked by some master who has a transmission on that Buddha form to confirm whether it indeed has been done correctly. One may wonder why it is such a hassle. Well, either one wants to have a nice decoration on the wall or one wants to practise on Yidams. There is nothing wrong with having some Buddha picture on the wall if one finds it inspiring and calm-giving. If the thangka lacks some details, no harm is actually done. If one wants to practise on Yidam, however, the Yidam itself has to be painted with all the fine details. But then it presumably means that one obtained some authorization and explanations from the teacher who is also able to check the quality of the thangka.


What are the differences between vipassana and mindfulness meditation?

When Buddha taught meditation he did not explicitly separate it in different types. If you read Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Kimattha Sutta, Cula-suññata Sutta, and any number of suttas mentioning the Jhanas, you will see that the overall progression is to first learn to pacify the mind at will, then learn to gladden the mind at will, then develop deep quiet satisfaction, then deep non-judgmental awareness, then turn the mind to seeing the implications of how things work (impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc.), and then turn the mind to liberation.

The earlier stages of this process are referred to as Samatha and the later stages -- as Vipassana (or Shamatha and Vipashyana in Sanskrit).

Because the goal of samatha is to "tame" the mind, samatha is designed to be rather invasive. One target object is picked (a certain physical or a visualized object - depending on the nature of disturbances dominating the practitioner's mind) - and then a one-pointed concentration on that one object is cultivated. This requires mindfulness aka non-distraction: the ability to hold the object of concentration firmly without forgetting what you're supposed to be doing.
Once the mind gets minimally pliable and you can hold attention on one object for several minutes, you can switch to anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) meditation. This is when you use your breathing as a feedback to gauge the state of your mind and calm the mind. This type is what's usually called "mindfulness meditation" in the West. As you cultivate this, you develop a type of concentration that gives you direct access to the overall state of your mind, what used to be largely subconscious. Some people call this vipassana, but in my opinion this is somewhere in the middle between samatha and vipassana.
Once you learn to calm the mind using the breath as an indicator, you switch to gladdening the mind using specially constructed narratives. Basically, instead of telling yourself a sad story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" mismatch, you tell yourself a joyful story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" match gloriously. As you cultivate this, you learn the functioning of dukkha/sukha in context of Second and Third Noble Truths. These are already first elements of vipassana. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much breathing, as the thoughts in and off themselves - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Once you learn to gladden the mind using the narratives, you switch to generating joy/pride directly by consolidating the mind around experience of surety and rightness. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much thoughts, as the mind in-and-of itself - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
The next level is to get over the generation of joy and cultivate the quiet state of satisfaction, grounded in the experience of inherent purity and harmony. There is still a little bit of samatha in this.
The next level after cultivation of satisfaction is cultivation of pure awareness. Just sit and watch whatever happens inside and outside without making any qualitative assessments of the experiences. Don't go with thoughts, don't go against the thoughts. We could call this 100% mindfulness meditation and 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Heart of Prajnaparamita Sutra should be studied.
The next level is pondering the real-life implications of the core Buddhist principles: impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc. while keeping the level of calmness and concentration achieved on the previous levels. In my opinion, this is no longer mindfulness meditation, but is still 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Realization happens.
The next level is what's known as meditation of non-meditation, or cultivation of non-cultivation: experiencing uncontrived natural mind. This is no longer vipassana nor mindfulness. You go beyond abiding in any station and enter what's known as the Diamond Samadhi.

So, as you can see it is hard to say what is mindfulness and what is vipassana. Most of the time things are not so cut and dry:

Some Tibetan schools prefer to emphasize samatha meditation, and require their students to master a complete one-pointed samadhi-with-seed before proceeding straight to the pondering meditation - something I personally found very frustrating... In this case the watching / tuning one's mind phase is implicitly included in samatha.

The Theravada schools seem to teach very strict vipassana as a watertight attention radically focused on microscopic level of phenomenological experiences. IMHO this is very prone to having some practitioners miss the forest behind the trees...

Some Zen schools have their students practice all of the above all at once, without separating it into any levels or giving any hints about the method or the goal. The idea is that a capable student will figure out the path by intuition. Not everyone does. You could call this kind of undifferentiated watch-and-figure-out meditation as "mindfulness meditation"...

Other Zen schools (like Thich Nhat Hanh's) actually teach the whole progression step-by-step: calming, gladdening and all -- and call that "mindfulness meditation"...

This whole Buddhism thing is a mess. People call things however they want. If you understand what is actually going on, like the levels above, you will not be fooled by names anymore and your practice can proceed without confusion.


How to stay mindful of the gap in the breath

What I watch are the feelings of irritation or tension or rushing in my mind, generated in the very beginning and the very end of the gap.

My goal in meditation is to notice how I subconsciously create/maintain emotional tension or inner discord through subconscious grasping some idea, and to stop doing that.

When I see that around start and end of the gap my mind has a character of nervousness, then I know I have something to let go. Once I let go, my breathing winding down to the gap and then restarting again from the gap, feels peaceful and more natural.

So, what I really focus on is letting go and relaxing, until I basically feel perfectly good in the here and now. And the breathing around the gap serves as an indicator of the remaining tension.

As I relax, I keep watching more and more closely, in order to notice even smaller and subtler tensions and nervousnesses. It's like zooming in, more and more, on the precise moments the breath stops and restarts.

Then at some point when I really relax, I don't really care about watching the breath anymore, I watch something else (mind?) -- I don't know how to describe.


Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures?

The Mindfulness practice that is taught in a secular fashion in the West is based on the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna-vipassanā practices, but it is a bit different. For one, in Buddhism, vipassnā is meant to be practiced within a certain framework of Buddhist thought and forms only a small part of the overall practice. Second, the "nonjudgemental awareness" you find in secular Mindfulness is something you won't find in the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna practice. In the discourses the practitioner is instructed direct the mind away from unskillful states and direct the mind towards skillful mental states, so there's definitely an evaluation going on. See Bhikkhu Analayo's "Satipaṭṭāna: The Direct Path to Liberation" text for an in-depth discussion on this.

As a result of the above, the experiences of Mindfulness practitioners can only be loosely connected to what we find in the Buddhist texts. In the discourses, the awareness of impermanence is said to lead to this:

“Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, it eliminates all sensual lust, it eliminates all lust for existence, it eliminates all ignorance, it uproots all conceit ‘I am.’" - SN22.102

Buddhist meditators who practice is within the traditional framework certainly experiences these things (it takes a good deal of concentration - i.e. calming of the mind - to get to this point), but do Mindfulness practitioners do as well? And if they do, is that really what they hoped to get out of it?

Most practitioners of Mindfulness do it with the expectation of receiving benefits for their everyday lives. But in Buddhism Satipaṭṭāna practice has usually been the domain of monks and nuns living an ascetic lifestyle. The texts never claim, to my knowledge, that it would make a person more ready to go through the hustle and bustle of a daily layperson's life.

According to Guy Armstrong, a meditation teacher at Spirit Rock, for a while he found that could not relate at all to the Buddhist texts with regard to this meditation practice. But later after his practice deepened and his emotions stabilized, he realized that he was practicing for "emotional healing" but the Buddhist texts were not aimed at that purpose.

So in summary, the secular Mindfulness practice taught in the West today, while having origins in Buddhism, is a 1)slightly different practice and 2)aimed at a different purpose.


Difference between Kamma, Kammanto, and Kammanta?

They are basically the same word, though the anta suffix does give it some specific meaning. Remember that the word karma has heavy religious baggage in ancient India every though it simply means action, from the verbal root /kar = "in regards to doing". So kammanta is a way of specifying that one is merely talking about actual mundane action or work. kamma is still often used to mean mundane  work, however, e.g.:

tena kho pana samayena aññatarā itthī kammaṃ karoti. aññataro bhikkhu sāratto taṃ itthiṃ etadavoca -- “tiṭṭha, bhagini, ahaṃ karissāmīti
At one time, a certain woman was doing some work. A certain bhikkhu, enamoured with that woman, said this to her: " Rest, sister, I will do it."
(duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadaṃ)

Nouns in Pali and Sanskrit are "declined", meaning their endings change depending on how they are used. -o declension is used in Pali for masculine singular nominative (when it is the subject of the sentence) of -a nouns. That's where kammanto comes from.
As to the idea of a task, something one must or should do, there are words like karaṇiya and katabba.


When during meditation we forget where we are

Since you are asking from a specific tradition, I can give a pretty specific answer:
Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ?
Yes, it is expected at the stage of bhaṅga-ñāṇa (knowledge of dissolution).  Though generally available texts don't mention this phenomenon, teacher manuals make reference to it. Here is the general state that leads to this phenomenon:

For at that time each object that is being noticed seems to him to be entirely absent or to have become non-existent. Consequently, at this stage of knowledge, it seems to him as if he were engaged in noticing something which has already become absent or non-existent by having vanished; and the consciousness engaged in noticing appears to have lost contact with the object that is being noticed.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Progress of Insight

Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ?
No, but it is common in bhaṅga-ñāṇa to think that your practice is not progressing because of an inability to notice objects clearly (only noticing their disappearance):

It is for that reason that a meditator may here think: "I have lost the insight"; but he should not think so.
-- Ibid.

The reason for losing perception of where you are in bhaṅga-ñāṇa, or the similar observation also common to bhaṅga-ñāṇa of losing perception of the position of the body (i.e. thinking the body or part of the body has disappeared), is because with bhaṅga-ñāṇa the meditator has broken through the illusion of concept into the reality of ultimate existence, no longer putting attention on concepts like "place" or "body". Since in ultimate reality you aren't anywhere and your body doesn't exist, these concepts have no place in the yogi's mind at that time.


Lay practitioner ==> monk is not a one way street. Some monks renounce their vows for various reasons (not always bad). A famous example in Western Tibetan Buddhism is Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who ordained in 1947 and renounced in 1970, but kept teaching in lay status all the way until 1987. He still sat on a high platform and enjoyed the same honors as an ordained teacher. This is less about your official status and more about your spiritual achievements and realizations.

As Buddha himself said (AN 5.166),

  Why should an elder be honored, respected, held in esteem, and venerated? On account of his broken teeth, grey hair, and wrinkled skin?

...

  Possessing five qualities, bhikkhus, an elder is respected and esteemed:

  He is virtuous; he dwells restrained by the Patimokkha, possessed of good conduct and resort, seeing danger in minute faults. Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them.
  He has learned much, remembers what he has learned, and accumulates what he has learned. Those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing, which proclaim the perfectly complete and pure spiritual life -- such teachings as these he has learned much of, retained in mind, recited verbally, mentally investigated, and penetrated well by view.
  He is a good speaker with a good delivery; he is gifted with speech that is polished, clear, articulate, expressive of the meaning.
  He gains at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhanas that constitute the higher mind and are pleasant dwellings in this very life.
  With the destruction of the taints, he has realized for himself with direct knowledge, in this very life, the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and having entered upon it, he dwells in it.

From this we can see that it is not whether you are a lay person or a monk that is important for you being a teacher, but your spiritual achievements and realizations, plus communication skills.


What did the Buddha do, and what does a teacher do, to teach?

At least in the Theravada tradition, there is no mystical energy seed that needs to be transferred from the teacher to the disciple through a medium like touch or speech, in order to kick-start the disciple's spiritual growth.

Rather, the teacher teaches the Buddha's Dhamma (teachings) using his own knowledge, experience and insight, much like how a mathematics teacher teaches mathematics to others.

The teacher must have the following qualifications according to the Udayi Sutta:

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?

  "(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'

  "(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'

  "(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'

  "(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'

  "(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.' (see Note)

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
  established within the person teaching."

  Note:
  According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself.
  "Hurting others" means putting other people down.


No it was not practiced. In Kerala very minor group of people follow the Buddhism. Buddhism probably flourished for 200 years (650-850) in Kerala. The Paliyam Copper Plate of the Ay King, Varaguna (885-925 AD) shows that the Buddhists benefited from royal patronage in the 10th century.
Hope this helps..


Software programming/Art and Buddhist Practice - Pursuing creative activity

Yes it's a problem.

To some extent an impossible problem, in the sense that ...

  The Difficult We Do Immediately. The Impossible Takes a Little Longer.

Quote Investigator also gives that as,

  "If it's possible, it's done. If it's impossible it will be done.

  I get flustered

Anyway, I read "I get flustered" as saying that when the going gets difficult then you suffer a crash.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about this (which can happen as the result of some "set-back") as a "gumption trap" or "loss of gumption".

The way I perceive it as that I need to use my head for storage: my head is meant to be running (or at least simulating the running of) the software, simulating input data (possibly several data, all possible data), keeping in mind the expected output, comparing my model of the needed software with my observtion of the actual software, understanding the "steel threads" while using hygienic techniques to sanitize any errors paths. If there's a setback (e.g. an emotional setback) then I might lose all that and it takes a while to reconstruct it. If I'm (emotionally) unwilling then the afflictive emotion is what occupies (clouds) the head. And repeated setbacks might tend to train you to feel aversion (which is a vicious cycle).

See also Are mindfulness and flow related -- I wanted to find the answer[s] to that useful, but haven't yet.

My little understanding of flow is two-fold:

If you use a scanner (perhaps an MRI) to look at brain activity, they say a a brain in 'flow' state is less active than unusual, i.e. there are various parts of the brain which aren't active; perhaps that's like, those other parts of the brain are distractions, or like, various flaps and spoilers and undercarriage and so on is folded away when an airplane is cruising.
Flow state happens when the difficulty of the work is in a Goldilocks zone: not too easy (which is so boring that it doesn't hold your attention), and not too difficult (which a mind that wants to experience success might be averse to).

Consequently, two bits of advice:

Avoid distractions
If the work is too difficult then simplify it (e.g. analyze it, write it down, automate testing, etc.).

Furthermore:

If you stop working because you care too much, because you identify with the failing software, then try to be a bit more dispassionate
Conversely if you stop working because you care too little, then maybe reflect a little more on the (real world) consequences

A technique which can help is incremental development: take it from one working (satisfactory albeit non-final/temporary) state to the next ... perhaps like Tai Chi walking where you maintain balance during and after each step, or like rock-climbing where you move from one safe hold to another.

  and frustrated sometimes when something doesn't work

It's not going to "work" until it's 'finished'. The majority of your time is with it unfinished and therefore in a non-working state ... so you can't afford to get too personally upset about that, perhaps like a doctor couldn't afford to get too upset with everyone's illnesses (or a garbage collector with people's garbage).

Perhaps ideally you'll see that "not working" as a fault of the software (not a fault of you), and identify what and how to add to or remove from the software (including, your model of the software).

However the dissatisfaction you feel with non-working software is why they're paying you (to work with it) and why you're motivated to fix it: the subjective experience needn't be entirely pleasant all the time.

I guess that I may be more of a "feeler" than a "thinker" (than most other programmers are) on the MBTI, so I use my feelings (e.g. "satisfying" or "not satisfying") as a tool which gives me feedback of whether the software is working. I can't wholly recommend that (it has drawbacks) but that's maybe what I have to work with.

If you're aware you've become "frustrated" then a change in pace or situation might help (see also "the aha! moment"); I won't recommend you go for a cigarette, but maybe take a walk outside.

  How to decide efficiently in these cases?

A traditional way to do that is with a clocked schedule:

"For the next hour, I'm going to be working"
"I'm going to work from 14:00 to 17:30 with a short break each hour"

Whether that's "efficient" I can't tell you. Some other people swear by "being in the zone" at irregular hours.

  I would like to know if someone dealt with this and how?

Perhaps it's obvious they do. Maybe they master it, continue to practice it, and experience its "three characteristics" too.


Craving, attachment in the present lead to becoming and fabrication due to ignorance. Ignorance is included and if it is not present there is no craving and clinging to feelings hence no fabrication.

What is subjected to birth decay and death (in the future) is a being composed of the 5 aggregates due to fabrication and ignorance in the present.

Craving, clinging in the past due to ignorance hence leading to becoming and fabrication creates the rebirth, mind and matter, 6 sense bases, contact and feeling in the present.


Most beneficial Buddhist organizations and monastic orders?

My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness. Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma.

The correct dhamma is related to the teaching rather than to the quality of the speaker. For example, Christianity often preaches about humility, generosity and selflessness but obviously has a different dharma (teaching) than Buddhism.

  Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers

Yes. Buddhism Stack Exchange and Dhammadhatu is most beneficial.

  and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries

My impression of Buddhist countries (such as Thailand & Burma) is, prior to Western contact, there was relatively little need for 'humanitarian work' because, despite inequities, most people had sufficient requisites of life. For example, Thailand is not a country historically known for poverty and it is well-documented Burma was a country of great domestic abundance before the British raped & pillaged it economy & politically.

I think an examination of history might find 'Christian humanitarian charity' goes hand in hand with Western (Christian) colonialism & exploitation. For example, while I know little about if  British colonialism contributed to poverty in India, I do know the British created a man-made famine in Bengal during WW2, which killed around 2 million Indians. Even my own father immigrated to Australia because of the poverty Britain created in his country of birth.

  I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement

Despite your obvious good intentions, refugee resettlement is generally the addressing of a symptom rather than the addressing of a cause. For example, in my lifetime, there have been Vietnamese, Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi & Syrian refugees in my country of birth, each caused by American wars (directly or indirectly) towards those peoples.

It is well-known in Western history Christian missionaries quickly followed Western conquerors, which includes in the recent Iraq War.

Despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.

Unlike Judaism, Christianity & Islam, Buddhism has no doctrine of imperialism, conversion, world salvation & world conquest.

  addiction treatment and recovery

In Thailand, there are lots of traditional addiction treatment and recovery using traditional herbal medicine, where monks are involved (even though Vinaya appears to forbid this), such as Wat Thramkrabok

  fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc. Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization?

Again, despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.

Each nation has evolved, slower or quicker, technologically in its history and each nation obviously does its best to advance what Buddhism calls the "four requisites" of food, clothing, shelter & medicine. This said, while Buddhism clearly teaches medicine is a human life requisite, it is not the role of Buddhist monks to develop medicine and medical technology.


Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training in india?

Following lists out Buddhist monasteries in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_monasteries_in_India


Does the will to live cease after enlightenment?

"Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal. That's not a good description.

Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss.

You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases.

When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel to many countries, spend more time with my family, enjoy different types of food, build a career, become successful, raise my children to be successful etc." - well, that kind of thinking and emotions cease after enlightenment and is replaced with the peaceful bliss of the moment.


Is there a reason that monasticism is an afterthought?

Someone answered my question in a comment

Some trust that the foremost is the foremost, some find it out, some will always not recognice it right. A matter of faith and wisdom, assosiation with fools or wise. – Samana Johann


Can rebirth-linking conciousness (patisandhi-citta) actually be rooted in knowledge?

The first link of paṭiccasamuppāda is “avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā” (conditioned by ignorance, formations arise). Analyzing this from the perspective of the Abhidhamma:

Ignorance is moha concomitant with the 12 akusala cittas
Formations is cetanā (volition) in the 12 akusala cittas, cetanā in the 8 kāmāvacara kusala cittas, cetanā in the 5 rūpavacara kusala cittas and cetanā in the 5 arūpavacara kusala cittas (these are the kamma that have the potential to create rebirth, both unwholesome kamma and wholesome kamma)

The second link of paṭiccasamuppāda is “saṅkhārā paccayā viññāṇaṃ” (conditioned by formations, consciousness arise). Analyzing this from the perspective of the Abhidhamma:

Formations are defined as part of the first link
Consciousness is the 32 lokiya vipāka cittas (sense-consciousness, receiving, investigating and all the life-continuum cittas); does not include the kamma-creating cittas, the supramundane cittas or the functional cittas

So your assumption that "all mundane consciousness regardless whether they are wholesome or unwholesome in root occur with ignorance as a condition" is not correct.

You are correct that birth is dependent on the existence clinging and the desire of being (due to ignorance). However, this does not imply that the specific kamma-creating citta which generates rebirth into an existence contains a root of ignorance. If this were true, then there could only be rebirth in the Woeful Planes.

The fetters, the things that bind one to saṃsāra are latent and do not arise in every citta.

Rebirth-consciousness is a life-continuum citta. Jhānic states are kamma-creating cittas (not life-continuum).

@Amansa, you seem to be conflating things from the macro-view (paṭiccasamuppāda) with things from the microscopic-view (Abhidhamma) and this may be the source of your confusion. I suggest that you start with reading the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (page 295 - 298 analyze paṭiccasamuppāda).

Follow on Answer

What causes rebirth with three wholesome roots? Superior three-rooted wholesome kamma (See page 214 of Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma). Three-rooted wholesome kamma arises when a wholesome intention arises together with understanding. Superior means supported before and after by other wholesome kamma.

If I offer food to a monk, that is wholesome. If I offer food with an understanding that this is a meritorious deed, then this is three-rooted. If I offer food reluctantly, or regret later, then this is inferior (not qualifying as superior). If I rejoice before and after the offering and the offering is done with understanding then superior three-rooted wholesome kamma is created.

If this superior three-rooted wholesome kamma plays the role of rebirth-linking at the end of my existence, then the next life will have a life-continuum citta containing three wholesome roots (maybe human, perhaps even deva). A being whose life-continuum citta has three roots has the potential to attain jhāna and sainthood. A being whose life-continuum citta does lacks three roots cannot attain jhāna or sainthood in that lifetime.

Having a life-continuum with three roots is a minimum requirement for jhāna and sainthood. Actually attaining jhāna requires developing the accumulations to temporarily supress the five hindrances. Actually attaining sainthood requires developing the accumulations of the pārami.

In my opinion, a being whose life-continuum citta has three roots is likely to be “spiritually inclined”. In other words, they want to develop the accumulations. In my opinion, a being whose life-continuum citta does lacks three roots is unlikely to be “spiritually inclined”, more likely to be hedonistic, so they don’t have the motivation to develop accumulations.

I believe that there are many, many humans whose life-continuum citta has three roots. Based on the fact that you are asking these questions, I suspect that your life-continuum citta has three roots. But having a life-continuum citta with three roots is only the starting point. Spiritual development is necessary to build accumulations for jhāna or sainthood (and this takes a lot of training).


If a substance enhanced the ability to stay mindful, and didnt cause intoxication or carelessness, would it still violate the fifth precept?

Given that the fifth precept specifically refers to substances that cause "intoxication and carelessness", such a hypothetical substance would of course not violate it, no.


Mr Suminda here expressed well what is included in sentience.

The working out of the exact results of action & intention is not to be done, as far as i know.

The consequent origination is without a discernable beginning and the exact results of this or that action is not something that is easy to figure out.

There is no forumulae or a solver which can simulate two beginningless worlds, arrive at the same states of the world and split the desicion tree to compare outcomes; that would not be possible because if two systems evolve in exact same way with an infinite complexity then it is unreasonable to expect the decision tree to split in and by itself, as a matter of fact there is no decision tree either because world just evolves, it does not stop to think should i go this way or that way, become this or otherwise; it goes according to prior development.

However even if there was a decision tree there is no basis for a split if values are exact and same given that the systems simulate the same exact premises and conditions. This is not like simulating a move in chess or blackjack because these games have determined starting points and a "decision maker".

Therefore one can not evaluate actions in this way, there is no way to input values and simulate outcomes for action A comparing to action B, having solved for which one could say that 'one is better than the other because the better one has exactly this much estimated shorter time to Parinibbana'.

Therefore the exact values are difficult to work out. There are other circumstances where this comes into place, like the Parajika of stealing; "A bhikkhu must have stolen a certain amount for the circumstance to be considered an offence of defeat". Figuring out these values in their exacts & particulars is impossible at this point afaik.

Nothing else makes sense, the type of thinking; 'If i get maggots i will have found my assasin', is going to lead to inconsistencies and reveal hipocrisy imo.
This is because a person who says he will be devoured by worms rather than break his training, he is saying "lives of others are sacred, i can train even as i am devoured by worms", but at the same time this same person probably goes for walks to exercize his legs where he might step on an animal, drives a car that might kill even a group of people or he causes others to walk and drive even if it is for his training or the training of others, so why sacrifice beings when it is better to train even when devoured by worms?

It is going to be inconsistent because there is no way to say this life-form goes and this one's are ok to hit with a car on a way to make living or the supermarket. There are all sorts of problems with that thinking, it seems like a person like this would want to sit down and not break the sitting posture until arahantship and then go without food but maybe that is not an option as it might kill the bacteria, beings and worms currently in the body.


What are the Ānāpānasati Kammaṭṭhāna as Taught By Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero

Mainly it is concentrating on one's breath as "l'm inhaling short, I'm exhaling short" or otherwise "I'm inhaling long, I'm exhaling short".

This is what Lord Buddha asks us to do in the beginning. He also says this meditation isn't for everybody. This meditation isn't the only way to understand the Four Noble Truths.

Official Website: http://mahamevnawa.lk/

Meditation Section:
http://mahamevnawa.lk/meditation/

You can find English sessions of Sound Cloud in that website and might find English guides on meditation.

The thero also published a book in sinhalese called É Ama Nivan Suwa Bohoo Dura Nowe (ඒ අමා නිවන් සුව බොහෝ දුර නොවේ - The Nirvana is not that far away) which explains Maha Satipattana Sutta, which contains the above form of breathing. Buddha states also to note that the breath isn't me, mine or my soul (hence the book contains it).


Universe is a concept. Concepts are permanent but they have no footing in reality. They exist only in the imagination. If by universe you mean the 'All', this is what the Buddha said about the 'All':

Sabba Sutta: The All (SN 35.23)
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."


The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.

So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.

However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

  The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.


First, there are permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena. All products are impermanent, whereas all negative phenomena are permanent. For instance, space, emptiness, mental images are permanent due to not being products, that is not arising due to causes and conditions.

Second, the meaning of permanent is that of not being subject to change. There are permanent phenomena that are not eternal but occasional: for instance, the emptiness of the cup no longer abides if you break the cup.

Then, there are various bodies. The Dharmakaya has two parts (bodies) :

The wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha. As it is a mind, it is impermanent, it is compounded
The nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. As it is an emptiness - suchness without defilement - it is permanent and uncompounded

The Dharmakaya is endowed with four aspects:

Permanent, in the sense of not being subject to birth [not taking even a mental body, as opposed to an arya bodhisattva who takes a menal body due to uncontaminated karma and knowledge obscurations]
Constant, in the sense of not being subject to the inconceivable transformation of death [of a mental body] and therefore his enlightened deeds are un-interrupted
Peace, in the sense of being free from all harm
Unalterable, in the sense of being free from aging [contrary to even the arya bodhisattva on a pure ground]

Most Mahayana traditions consider Shakyamuni Buddha's body - the one ordinary being could see - as an emanation body (not a mental body), emanating from the pure dharmakaya.

For more information, See Maitreya / Asanga's Sublime Continuum and commentaries, such as Gyaltsabe Je's.


I disagree with you about 'mano puggmama dahma mano setta mano maya' in the Dhammapada, which is about the mind creating intentional actions (rather than about the mind creating illusion).

  1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

  2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.

It is the Phena Sutta which refers to the mind as an "illusionist".


Is the emptiness of persons an emptiness of essence or just substance?

In the Pali suttas, 'emptiness' ('sunnata') refers to emptiness of 'persons' or 'self' rather than emptiness of defining characteristics, which is why the Pali suttas state the five aggregates are empty, or the sense spheres are empty, or the elements (dhatu) are empty.

'Consciousness' does lose its defining characteristic of 'cognition'; the earth element does not lose its defining characteristic of solidity; the fire element does not lose its defining characteristic of heat; the Nibbana element does not lose its defining characteristic of peacefulness.

  Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self?

  The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of
  anything pertaining to a self.

  The ear is empty...

  The nose is empty...

  The tongue is empty...

  The body is empty...

  The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
  self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
  world is empty.

  SN 35.85

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold,
  deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by
  contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is
  deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels
  pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It
  feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it
  perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it
  perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called
  perception.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call them formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations. And what
  is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned
  form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they
  construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct
  conditioned formations as formations; they construct conditioned
  consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’
  bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it
  cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it
  cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes
  salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is
  called consciousness.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  SN 22.79

  And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
  internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by
  nutriment]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.'

  MN 62


How to practice “In the seen will be merely what is seen”

This topic is famously developed in Vajrayana's highest tantras such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
The point is to shift the focus of experience from the samsaric mind with its constant judgement of things in relation to ego and the values ego identifies with, e.g. "is this useful to me or worthless", "is this cool enough for me or too basic", "will this make me dirty in any sense", "is this spiritual or lowly material", "is this democratic", "is this stylish" and so infinitely on -- and towards experiencing the authentic quality of things on their terms, as they are.
So instead of "look at this beautiful sunset" - you just look, you truly look and see it all, without bringing your preconceived ideas and simplistic concepts such as "beautiful". Instead of judging a person as primitive or advanced (substitute any other category) you take them as a little mystery they are just like each of us.
You get the point, to see things as they are is to stop overgeneralizing our experience by limiting it to projection of what we know. It means to look with our eyes, not with our brains. It means to see the new and unknown, the unspoken, the inexpressible - instead of only seeing our own thoughts.
Samsara is a subjective realm made of our thinking. We feed and maintain it by dwelling on samsaric thought patterns, which can all be summarized as instances of generalization, stereotyping, and reification. We feed these by replaying them over and over in our thoughts. The practice of seeing things as they are is unmaking this cyclic feeding/sustenance and breaking through to the actual reality beyond our bubble.
When we do this we discover that reality has an extra dimension we never saw. Seeing this extra dimension requires allowing ourselves ambiguity of interpretation. Going beyond the stable ground of habitual interpretation allows us to walk that extra dimension. This is the freedom the Buddha has taught.


How does an arahant know that ignorance won't return/re-arise after death?

How it can be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise or why it won't return/re-arise if there is no consciousness at the time.

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.

  “What Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which has as its final goal the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion … which has the Deathless as its ground, the Deathless as its destination, the Deathless as its final goal … which slants, slopes, and inclines towards Nibbāna. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
  SN 45.180

So ignorance won’t arise anymore because an arahant has cut off all 10 fetters. Ignorance is one of those fetters. An arahant have direct knowledge of these fetters and he knows their destruction and he also knows if the fetters are abandoned or not.

It seems to me that consciousness is required for knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowledge and thus certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death?

When an arahant dies he is free of the 10 fetters including ignorance and he also know the four noble truths so he will not be reborn. At the moment of his death, there was no ignorance so all things in the dependent origin that comes after ignorance will not arise because ignorance is not present at the moment of death.

Is it through direct knowledge of the entire future that occurs before death?

An arahant usually knows that birth is ended. It is usually mentioned in the suttas.

Is it known through abhijñā i.e "direct knowledge", of the entire future, before the arahant dies?

There was one sutta where a guy asked an arahant if he has psychic powers but the arahant replied no. I can’t find this sutta so can anyone tell me. So the abhijna or the six higher knowledge aren’t required to be an arahant except the last one which is the ending of mental fermentation. An arahant can develop psychic powers after becoming an arahant but they probably don’t have any desire to achieve those powers.

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' This, too, is how striving is fruitful, how exertion is fruitful.
  MN 101

So as you can see, an arahant knows that he is released and that there will be no further birth.

Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?

No, only the Buddha was omniscience. An arahant would know that there will be no further birth because

1) The Buddha told them that attaining arahantship will end rebirth

2) When he is released there is the knowledge “release”

3) He knows there is no next life by looking into the future with psychic powers.

I think 1 and 2 are the most possible way to know that he will not be reborn because not all arahants have psychic powers. It’s not even needed to look into the future because arahant knows that there is no further birth.

How does one know that the abhiññā is true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

If you are literally flying then you would know there you are flying. If you can travel to other realms then you would know it. Omniscience is not required. You don’t need omniscience to know that your memories are real or not. If you try to remember what happened just an hour ago then you know that memory is true. In the same way, when you recollect your past lives you know that it’s true. Abhinna are as real as moving your hands or legs.  So you will know if you have abinna or not.


What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)?

The core buddhism's meditation is not about body parts or anything related to outer world. It's always about the dependent co-arising.

Below is about the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person from Assutava Sutta

  "Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted
  with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow
  dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that?
  Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this
  body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might
  grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

And below is about instructed disciple of the noble ones from same Assutava Sutta

  "The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends
  carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

Therefore based on above, the famous asubha meditation conflicts with that sutta. So the reason should be asubha is misinterpreted.
Explained detailed on Asubha meditation is in Kuddaka Nikaya-1 -> Asubhanupassi Sutta (If anyone found an english reference please add). This says that sabba sankharesu aniccanupassino viharathi That's the abstracted meaning of asubha meditation. (I'm referring to sinhala - pali cannon, sorry I can't translate this to english)

There's another sutta which clearly says that, Noble meditation should not be based on air, fire, water etc. I'll try to find the reference to that as well.

With this you might be confused by now. Yes, most of the meanings are mis-interpreted. The real dhamma is out there now, It will come famous but will take sometime to accept by people.

With Metta...!


Does practice build good kamma despite wrong action?

Let me put it this way.

If you steal, you temporarily get ahead in wealth, but if you get caught you are looking at some jail time and returning what you stole, legal fees and all kinds of other headaches in the process. This would means you are worse off than before on average for thieves.

Like wise this extends to many other situation where you can temporarily get ahead in life to fall back to worst situations later on.

Also some may get away but if you look at the average over a majority you take one step forward and then two steps back in many of these situations.


After months of daily meditation I can't concentrate

There are several things I would advise:

Start with your body. Change your attention from "life" to feelings in your body: tensions, emotions, energies etc. Reconnect with the parts you've not been paying attention to. Feet are often completely forgotten. Relearn to feel everything, first part by part, then all of your body at once. Relax all tensions, sometimes there may be tensions in abdomen that take years to relax, just sit & watch it and trust your intuition/feelings which part needs your attention.
Make a very careful study of your breathing. Breathing is always connected with emotions. Short, long, calm, nervous, blocked, there are millions, no - billions - details in the breathing. If you watch your breathing muscles, particularly diaphragm but really chest, shoulders, abdomen, and everything else, you can "read" your subconscious mind like a book. Then start relaxing breathing, no need to force it to be slow or calm, just watch for blockages and remove them. Just remove them one by one. This may take days and days, but eventually you should be able to achieve breathing that is very smooth, very subtle - and your mind will be the same, because by relaxing your breathing you're healing your mind.
If your mind is chatting, pay attention to your mouth muscles: tongue, lips etc. They sometimes have the habit of moving very slightly and "saying" things (this is called "subvocalizing"). Try relaxing the mouth muscles by feeling how tired they are from constant work. If this does not work, try reading a mantra - any mantra that you like and that makes you feel good - it should help wash out habitual talking. In worst cases this may take a long time, up to a year.
Finally, no need to worry so much about "concentration". Women's mind is different from men's (not better or worse, just different). Women's mind is naturally wide open, while men's mind loves to box itself. No need to box it. Just sit and stay open. The more open you get, the less fight there is inside you, the fewer thoughts and images will your brain generate. The metaphor for this is lion's gaze (unlike dog's gaze). Dog's gaze follows the objects, while lion's gaze just stares at everything, ready to jump. Be like a lion, strong, confident. It's a mood you can generate: bright, strong. Don't worry about thoughts, focus on the mood. Thoughts come and go but the lion stays in place, with its majestic presence.


The future is only just an imagination at best as it has not happened and the past is only an memory. You cannot see the in details anything other than what you remember or things yet to unfold.

So present moment is what you can study to get a understanding of reality at the subtlest level.


To reach 1st jhana, do we have to let go, or do we have to put some effort?

The method you cite first is correct.  Do not pursue the second.  Any authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord.  Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana.  The first stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem to come out of no where.  We cannot force them to arrive.

If I had to guess, I'd say the main reason why you [and really most people] aren't experience jhana is that you haven't been sitting enough.  Outside of a retreat setting, daily 90 minute sits is really the bare minimum for effective samatha meditation.  Any less than that and the mind just isn't quelled enough for jhana factors to present themselves in any kind of stable way.  To be terribly honest, you are also highly unlikely to find full absorption outside of a retreat setting.  It usually takes at least three days of 10+ hours a day of sitting for the mind to release its hold on the world and the grosser manifestations of the hindrances.  Only afterwards is the mind prepared for jhana practice.


Sutta/Sutra guideline for choosing actions in ethical dilemmas

Don't paralyze yourself with ethical intellectualism.  You're just going to drive yourself batty.  Eventually you do have to act.

I'm going to give you two answers.  They're related to each other.  The first comes from the Majjhima Nikaya.  The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) (one of my personal favorites!) rightly places morality as an aid to enlightenment rather than making it an end in and of itself.  It also recounts just how destructive certain actions are to the contemplative life and, rather being prescriptive about morality, it instead places the locus of agency firmly within the volition of the practitioner.  Providing guidelines rather than dogmatic law, emphasizing reflection rather than strict obedience, and handing off moral decisions to each of us is uniquely Buddhist.  It's also why this sutta gets my vote.

To answer what I take to be the larger part of your questions - namely paralysis by analysis when it comes to morality - let's look at a Zen koan from the Mumonkan -

  Case 38 A Buffalo Passes the Window

  Goso said, "A buffalo passes by the window. His head, horns, and four legs
  all go past. But why can't the tail pass too?"

  Mumon's Comment

  If you make a complete about-face, open your eye, and give a turning word
  on this point, you will be able to repay the four kinds of love that
  have favored you and help the sentient beings in the three realms who
  follow you.

  If you are still unable to do this, return to this tail and reflect
  upon it, and then for the first time you will realize something.

  Mumon's Verse

         Passing by, it falls into a ditch;
         Coming back, all the worse, it is lost.
         This tiny little tail,
         What a strange thing it is!

Instead of thinking about buffaloes and windows, let's instead think about suitcases and clothes.  You've seen plenty of cartoons, I'm sure, where Daffy Duck is packing for a trip.  He crams everything into a suitcase except the sleeve of his shirt is hanging out the side.  All that effort in packing, everything in there all delicately placed, neat, and even the latches close snugly.  But still that damn piece of sleeve.

So what do you do?  Do you leave it hanging out?  Well that's annoying!  But what are your alternatives?  You could cut it off, I suppose, but that would just damage your shirt.  Obviously, the thing to do is to just leave it.  I mean, how important is it really that everything fits into the suitcase perfectly?

Morality is really the same thing.  We can devise all of these perfect systems, take special care in reflecting on our actions, but the more we pack into the suitcase - e.g. the further we expand our reflection - the more likely it's going to be that something doesn't fit perfectly.  There are always going to be loose ends.  We can't worry about it.  Unless we stop fretting, pick up our suitcase, and walk out of the door, we are going to miss our train.


Should Buddhists only cultivate native plants?

Unwholesome actions are created when the intention/volition behind the action is unwholesome.

If one is cultivating plants with intentions of greed, anger, non-harmlessness, then one is creating unwholesome kamma, which will produce unwholesome future resultants.

If one is cultivating plants with wholesome intentions such as good-will, caring, altruism, wholesome future resultants will be produced.

What is important here, is the Mind that is behind the action. Everything starts in the Mind, with reference to the twin verses in the Dhammapada.


If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now?

I think it's difficult to talk about rebirth as if it were a sure thing: for example because kamma comes from a being's previous life, but it also comes from the life before that, etc.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" is said to be unconjecturable.

Actually being able to directly see others' karmic destinations is one of the miraculous powers attributed to the Buddha:

  Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.


Did I break my 5th precept?

In order to break the 5th precept, the following four factors need to be present and fulfilled:

  Mada-niyam -- intoxicants.
  Patu-kamyata-cittam -- the desire to drink.
  Tajjo vayamo -- the effort is made.
  Pitappa-vesanam -- the intoxicants being drunk passing the throat.

Very importantly is the second factor, i.e. the desire to drink. This is also known as intention/volition (Cetanā).

If just one of these factors are not fulfilled, the precept is still intact.


Acceptance of impermanence as the right of passage to adulthood? My take on Buddha's teaching

“Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’” --MN62


No there are many people who do it. It is accepted by Buddhists with respect. This is called Anagarika. There are much respected and famous Anagarika people.


What does the word "world" mean in the Buddhist context?

In the quote you have provided, the “world” is the six senses. The Buddha often used the word “world” in a metaphorical sense. Here are some Suttas where "world" is used in a similar way:

SN 35.82:

  Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?
  "Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

  (repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body and mind-sense)

SN 12.44:

  Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

  "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

  The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

  (repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body and mind-sense)


The breathing naturally arises as a "sign" that the mind has right mindfulness & right concentration. If a meditator aspires to fulfill the 16 stages of Anapansati, they should never seek to observe the breathing & never be concerned about the breathing. The Buddha taught his path is the abandoning of craving. The meditator should only watch the mind; to ensure the mind is free from craving.

An analogy is a mother hen sitting on eggs hoping for the eggs to hatch. All the mother hen does is sit on the eggs, to keep the eggs warm & safe. In time, the chicks inside the eggs will hatch the eggs. The mother hen does not use a hammer or her beak to crack open the eggs.

Similarly, the more the mind thinks about watching breathing, the less the mind will watch the breathing. This is because thinking cannot watch breathing because what watches breathing is consciousness.

Using thinking to watch breathing is the same as a mother hen using her beak to crack open the eggs. It is the wrong method & will only harm the chicks.


Vibhava Tanha is simply the craving for an experience to go away or end. Ex: When you are meditating, if pain arises in the legs or back and if you are unmindful(ignorant), disliking will arise. This results in wanting the pain to go away. This wanting is Vibhava Tanha.

On a broader scale,  craving for annihilation after death is also Vibhava Tanha. But the view that everything ends after death is not the craving itself. That comes under Micca Dhitti. This view can give rise to Vibhava Tanha.

Craving for Nibbana can be either Bhava Tanha or Vibhava Tanha depending on your false view of Nibbana. If you think of it as a status to achieve or a land/heaven to enter or a state of bliss, those false views can cause Bhava Tanha. If you think of it as nothingness or emptiness or end of a being, those false views can cause Vibhava Tanha.

But just like how the suffering of pain does not end by craving for it to end, Nibbana(end of all suffering) cannot be reached by craving for it. When pain arises in the body, if you practice mindfulness instead of wishing for it to go away, the suffering will stop regardless of if the pain is still there or not. This is a mild realization of the Four Noble Truths. When this realization becomes matured and all-encompassing, all suffering will cease.

Destination of Vibhava Tanha is obviously a lower realm of existence or a state of misery.


In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller.

Also there is conventional and realities. As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. This is for the sake of communication.


Quoting from The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Appendix D: Examples of Vinaya Practice
This appendix illustrates how the bhikkhu's rules are actually practiced in different monasteries and communities. Each example is taken from the community's own guide or from devotees' experience.
(1) AUSTRALIA: BODHINYANA MONASTERY
...
One can also make an invitation, 'pavarana,' to cover any circumstances that you might not be aware of — a health problem, need for a toothbrush, etc., by saying, "Bhante, if you are in need of any medicine or requisites, please let me know." To avoid misunderstanding it is better to be quite specific, such as — "Bhante, if you need any more food...," "If you need a new pair of sandals..." Unless specified an invitation can only be accepted for up to four months after which time it lapses unless renewed. Specifying the time limit, or giving some indication of the scope of the offering is good, in order to prevent misunderstanding — so that, for instance, when you are intending to offer some fruit juice, the bhikkhu doesn't get the impression you want to buy a washing machine for the monastery!...
In practical terms, monasteries are financially controlled by lay stewards, who then make open invitation for the Sangha to ask for what they need, under the direction of the Abbot. So junior monks even have to ask an appointed agent (generally a senior bhikkhu or abbot) if they may take up the steward's offer — to pay for dental treatment, obtain footwear or medicines, for example. This means that as far as is reasonably possible, the donations that are given to the stewards to support the Sangha are not wasted on unnecessary whims.
If a lay person wishes to give to a particular bhikkhu, but is uncertain of what he needs, he should make invitation. Any financial donations should not be made to 'X Bhikkhu' but to the stewards of the monastery, perhaps mentioning if it's for a particular item or for the needs of a certain bhikkhu. For items such as traveling expenses, money can be given to an accompanying anagarika (dressed in white) or accompanying lay person, who can buy tickets, drinks for the journey, or anything else that the bhikkhu may need at that time. It is quite a good training for a lay person to actually consider what items are necessary, and offer those rather than money...

So I get the impression that,

There are rules (the vinaya)
Their interpretation varies somewhat from one monastery to another
In general a monk may ask if invited to ("please tell me if I can get you something")

The Vegetation section says that a monk can't dig nor command someone else to  dig, but ...

It is, however, allowable for monks to hint to laypeople or novices about what needs doing as long as the words or gestures fall short of a command. When bhikkhus need paths to be cleared, necessary work done on the ground, firebreaks made, etc., any lay attendant wanting to help should listen out for hints and indications: 'A post hole dug over there would be useful'; 'make this ground allowable,' etc. What is needed can then be clarified.

I don't know; that's only what I've read.
I try to avoid telling monks how I think they ought to behave -- more specifically I'll share with them what the rules of this site are, but I don't think it's my place to interpret their vinaya for them.
This is one of several questions on this site which ask what monks are allowed to do, I can't say I understand the motive for asking, so I feel it's difficult to understand what's really being asked.

You wrote that he replied,

"I could use some of my technology upgraded to teach online" upon being asked if he needed anything

I'm not sure what else you expected, "upon being asked". You could perhaps be happy to be told what someone needs, then you don't have to guess.


Pali Canon support for living on the edge between all dualities?

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist':
  That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata
  teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite
  condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering." SN 12.15


Is observing the start-middle-end of breath a correct practice in Anapanasati meditation?

He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  ...

  Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, understands that he is making
  a long turn, or in making a short turn, understands that he is making a short turn, so, too, a monk

  ...

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

Source: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta

Experiencing the whole breath is sometimes interpreted as being aware of the start-middle-end of the breath. Also the skilled tuner passage seems to imply such as cited by some in support of this interpretation.

See: How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?


Here is a physical problem: Knee injury from sitting postures without requisite hip flexibility. This applies to almost any floor-sitting posture, depending on the meditator's hip flexibility. This is based on my own experience injuring my knees in sitting meditation.

The knee injury occurs when insufficient hip flexibility causes the knee joint to rotate laterally. Lateral, in anatomical terms, means away from the body in a left/right direction.

The knee is a very simple joint mechanically, and is only designed to flex and extend. It is damaged by rotating medially/laterally. The lateral rotation required for sitting postures should come from the hip.

Full lotus position (each foot on top of opposite thigh) and half lotus position (one foot on top of opposite thigh) are the most dangerous positions for this case since they cause a lot of lateral rotation in the knees, if there is not sufficient hip flexibility. Burmese position (one foot in front of opposite shin) is much less dangerous, but might still injure a person with tight hip ligaments.

So the key is that we need flexible hips if we want to sit on the floor easily.

Although full lotus and half lotus position are discussed more in Yoga, and not in the context of Buddhist meditation, I feel this advice still applies since I injured my knees by sitting in half lotus. Now I protect my knees by avoiding lateral rotation, keeping my hips flexible, and only using Burmese position for sitting.

This video by KinoYoga shows how to prepare for lotus position safely, and can help to clarify by providing visual instruction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdVHk5C0L8U

And this page has many stretches I have found useful to loosen the hip for safer sitting:
http://zenmontpellier.voila.net/eng/lotus/lotuseng.html

Be well and take care of your knees.


What did the Buddha say about reincarnation?

Of course the Buddha wouldn't have used the word "reincarnation" because that's English (we've been talking on Meta recently about some difficulties translating Buddhist vocabulary into English).
This article, Buddhism and Death, says,

We can thus make a clear distinction between the terms "Reincarnation" and "Rebirth."
"Reincarnation" is the term used by those who hold that a real entity (a "soul") exists and passes on from life to life, occupying successive bodies.

Buddhism is more or less antithetical to the doctrine of a soul (it teaches Anatta), and so "rebirth" is a more usual translation than "reincarnation", of "what the Buddha said".
Then, searching for rebirth instead of reincarnation, you can find many suttas which mention "rebirth" -- for example using this search of the Access to Insight web site (on that page, click on "suttas" instead of "All results") ... that search seems to return nearly 400 suttas ... and I hope that's an answer to your question?
Access to Insight hosts translations of many but not all of the suttas in the Pali canon.
These sources are the "suttas" of the "Pali canon (Wikipedia)".
Additionally, note too that there are more than 100 topics tagged rebirth on this site (many more than are tagged 'reincarnation').


Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?

first karuna is not compassion. the pali word for compassion is anukampam.

second the buddha does not even claim he reached nibanna out of karuna, nor out of anukampam. The buddha claims that he taught out of anukampam though.


Buddha never seemed to accept materialism, or that mind was material, in much of the scripture.

A being has a material structure and mental structure (Namarupa).

  If it is true we are all evolved beings from microscopic organisms over millions of years via cell growth and evolution, would this not verify, then, that consciousness is truly material in origin? That our thinking minds evolved and gradually arose, over the years, from some material and previously mindless thing like a single celled organism?

There are fine material and immaterial planes where thinking is not linked to a material organ like the brain. Thinking is linked heart in the Abhidhamma. In immaterial spheres since there is no materiality thinking cannot be material base.

As for organism in this world, Buddhism does not seems to contradict Darwinism but Buddhism evolution is much more, where the evolution began from celestial beings.

    Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to be exhausted. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.

    After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to be exhausted, replaced by cassava or turnip-like plants. They also began to devour them night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied between each other, the concept of difference arose. The concepts of the beautiful and the ugly were born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant because of their appearance.

    Then, after the turnips, the earth was grown with rice plants. ...

Source: Aggañña Sutta

  Basically, my concern is this: if science is right that consciousness is just chemicals and nerves in the human brain, would a large part of Buddhism be disproved? If consciousness is really just a material reaction, would rebirth be impossible then since the mind would exist as brain functioning and cannot transmigrate?

There is both a physical and non physical part. Science cannot proble not non physical aspects hence. So any scientific proof and disproof is not considering all the facts.

  Basically, I seemed to have run into a block in my practice. I just have fundamental doubts about everything now. Is there a way we can prove the mind is immaterial or experiences the birth/death cycle...and is not just the evolved brain?

This you have to mediate. If you develop any higher knowledges then it is possible, but only a few are capable of this.


What is 'crazy wisdom'? (no uninformed guesses please)

What is Crazy Wisdom?

See Wikipedia.

Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?

  In the case of ordinary craziness, we are constantly trying to win the game. We might even try to turn craziness into a credential of some kind so we can come out ahead. We might try to magnetize people with passion or destroy them with aggression or whatever. There’s a constant game going on in the mind. Mind’s game- constant strategies going on- might bring us a moment of relief occasionally, but that relief has to be maintained by further aggression.

  In the case of primordial craziness, we do not allow ourselves to get seduced by passion or aroused by aggression at all. We relate to these experiences as they are, and if anything comes up in the midst of that complete ordinariness and begins to make itself into a “big deal,” then we cut it down- without any special reference to whether it is good or bad. Crazy wisdom is just the action of truth. It cuts everything down. It doesn’t even try to translate falseness into truthfulness, because even that in itself is corruption. It is ruthless, because if you want the complete truth, if you want to be completely wholly wholesome, than any suggestion that comes up of translating whatever arises into “your terms” is not worth “looking into.”

  On the other hand, the usual crazy approach is completely up for that kind of thing – for making whatever comes up to fit into your thing. You make it suit what you want to be, suit what you want to see. But crazy wisdom becomes completely accurate out of the moment of things as they are.

~Chogyam Trungpa, Crazy Wisdom

-- So the key difference is, ordinary craziness is acting out of Ego's overwhelming passions, aggression, and delusions - and "crazy wisdom" is acting out of enlightened mind but without concessions towards deluded samsaric ideas about right and wrong.

Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?

To cut through student's samsaric attachments and neurosis.

What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?

Please see Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's "Guru and Student in the Vajrayana" (original post on Facebook is here).


Cocoa is a powder made from the seed from the cocoa tree. Since seeds fall into the category of food, it would not be allowed outside of the morning hours.

Chocolate also has narcotic properties, so could potentially be considered a medicine. Wikipedia says it may reduce cholesterol and ease diarrhea symptoms, so for people suffering from either of those ailments, it could be used at any time and kept for life, provided that was the reason for use.

It is quite surprising to hear that otherwise strict monks are using it as a refreshment in the evening; I think they consider the natural fatigue and perhaps even hunger in the evening to constitute "sickness" that chocolate "cures". It is quite clear, however, that the Buddha allowed only fruit and vegetable juice for that purpose and using the oil found in much chocolate for this purpose is an abuse. Sugar might be okay, since it is technically dehydrated juice, but that is still a bit of a stretch.


How did bells become a part of Buddhist ritual?

A "bell" is mentioned in the Visuddhimagga.

In this translation it says,

  And, though sometimes not separate, applied thought is the first impact of
  the mind in the sense that it is both gross and inceptive, like the striking of a bell.
  Sustained thought is the act of keeping the mind anchored, in the sense that it is
  subtle with the individual essence of continued pressure, like the ringing of the
  bell. Applied thought intervenes, being the interference of consciousness at the
  time of first arousing [thought], like a bird’s spreading out its wings when
  about to soar into the air, and like a bee’s diving towards a lotus when it is
  minded to follow up the scent of it. The behaviour of sustained thought is quiet,
  being the near non-interference of consciousness, like the bird’s planing with
  outspread wings after soaring into the air, and like the bee’s buzzing above the
  lotus after it has dived towards it

A 'bell' is even mentioned in the Dhammapada,

  134. If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.


Is surrounding yourself with good people a form of aversion?

An analogy, in martial arts, when one needs to train and toughen up their knuckles, he wouldn't just start out punching bricks right away. He has to start with punching paper stacks, then move on to punching beans, then to sands, etc. Only after a period when his knuckles become strong enough then he'd practice on bricks. Similarly, your mind isn't conditioned to handle bad evil people with peace and equanimity. So first you have to start with good people to build up the needed strength. This doesn't mean you should completely avoid bad people. Try your best to treat them kindly and compassionately until the day your mind is strong enough to handle any kind of person or any kind of situation with peace and equanimity.