source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Does the concept of evil spirits occur in Buddhism? Some of the western religions have evil spirits like devils and demons. Does the concept or belief in evil spirits occur in Buddhism? <Q> In mainland Southeast Asia, indigenous spirits have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into Buddhist belief systems. <S> I believe this is known as syncretism. <S> In Burma these spirits are called nats , in Thailand phǐ. <S> Thai phǐ can be benign, like house spirits, or they can be malevolent “ghosts”. <S> You can see a variety of Thai ghosts in this TV ad for light bulbs (the slogan is “in the bright light, no one is afraid”). <S> The family is having a picnic within the grounds of a temple (an odd thing to do), and the father tells his son the name of each ghost. <S> The huge emaciated type, which is called a preta or hungry ghost, you might say is more “Buddhist” than the others because it often appears in depictions of Buddhist hells. <S> The preta’s <S> mouth is just a tiny hole, so it can’t eat properly, which might be punishment for greed in a former life. <S> Thai light bulb ad <A> It's not always as clear as 'good' or 'evil'. <S> Angry, vengeful spirits also exist in forms of Buddhism. <S> Sometimes also seen as protectors, they can be a source of controversy. <S> More common is one's own belief in (or, more practically, fear of) something that is indefinitely, and irreparably, sinister or evil. <S> We subscribe to all sorts of interesting notions as children, some things tend to persist. <S> Ultimately, it's what your mind manages to trick you into into feeling; there are plenty of Christians that don't believe that demons exist so it really does depend on the individual. <S> So, yes to the concept (with emphasis on what neubau mentions about indigenous spirits ), but belief is a little more complicated; belief coupled with a healthy dose of ambivalence can be quite common. <S> For children, I think the boogeyman is rather universal :) <A> No. <S> If it were, it would be the same as saying: "I am a Buddhist, you are not, you do the opposite of what I do and "believe in", hence I am good and you are wrong, hence you are devil." <S> In my humble opinion, it is only about being able to going back to null and "see" things around as they are and those who don't (haven't). <S> And those who don't (haven't) are not evils, for they haven't understood and therefore they are still bind to pleasures, attachments, ego and the "I" that drive them to perform what they do. <S> They haven't been able to "unshell" themselves from these "qualities" through compassion and dis-attachment of the aforementioned. <S> Thanks for question. <A> In Pali Canon, in Jatakas, and in Tibetan Buddhism poems (for example "100,000 songs of Milarepa") there are numerous references to spirits and demons, both good and evil. <S> Many of them are metaphorical depictions of various psychological forces taking possession of a person (e.g. Mara, the spirit of doubt and confusion, that famously challenged Buddha by suggesting he wasn't really enlightened). <S> Others are personifications of the "spirit" (energy, mood) of a certain place (e.g. a haunted forest). <S> There are also Rakshas, (former) people so completely possessed by evil forces that they are no longer considered people , e.g. the jungle cannibals. <S> From modern perspective, the concept of demon is not necessarily a superstition, but more like a poetic way to talk about real phenomena taking place. <A> Checkout the "States of Deprivation" under the 31 planes of existence .Beings <S> there are not necessarily evil. <S> Rather they were born there because of evil deeds. <S> But we do have an evil god called the Mara. <S> He lives in the heaven called "Paranimmita-Vasavatti" Whoever holds the title 'Mara' is always evil as long as he holds that title.
|
Yes, Buddhism has evil spirits :)
|
Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem? Attachment (aka craving or greed) is one of the Three Poisons. Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison? Perhaps it's related to the Tibetan Buddhist lojong "Don't make gods into demons"? <Q> Sez who? Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress. <S> To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!" <S> (Not to be taken too literally.) <A> If we find that his teachings don't work, then we should feel free to leave them behind and pursue other paths. <S> That said, there is also the idea that some attachments are better than others. <S> For example it is probably better for an alcoholic to replace their attachment to alcohol with an attachment to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. <S> Likewise, it would be better for someone who is attached to suffering or causing suffering in others to replace that with an attachment to the Buddha's teachings. <A> Buddhism is a "kayak" (a guide) that takes one from the endless sea of sufferings to find a harbor. <S> What would one do in order to commence and land on the harbor? <S> Leave the kayak - Buddhism - and disembark. <S> If not, one is attached to the kayak. <S> Still at sea. <S> The sea of sufferings. <A> If someone is insulting the Buddha and the Dhamma, and you become hurt, you are poisoned! <S> But if you feel neutral (Uppekha) or compassionate (Karuna) towards the person, you are fine! <A> Identifying with something doesn't necessarily mean you're attached to it, especially if that something is just your way of living. <S> I identify best with Zen Buddhism, but I'm not attached to it any more than I'm attached to my own consciousness; it's just become how I think, which dictates how I feel. <S> I can't 'lose' Zen without completely losing myself, which is going to happen to all of us one day or another :) <S> Preference is also commonly confused with attachment. <S> I prefer a certain knife in my kitchen drawer for slicing tomatoes, but I wouldn't be at all upset <S> if it wasn't there one day, I'd simply replace it. <S> A part of daily meditation can be imagining losing that which you value the most, so you've experienced it when it ultimately happens, which softens or even mitigates the suffering that might otherwise ensue. <S> If you can't do that with something, then it's probably not something you could become attached to, but more just a part of your being. <A> Do the teachings of the Buddha cause you suffering? <S> If not, perhaps it's ok to hang on to them for a little while longer on this journey. <S> :) <S> I find Buddhism refreshing in this manner as the teachings of some other religions actually do cause suffering for their followers. <S> For example people who are excluded from participating fully in their chosen houses of worship due to sexual orientation. <A> Actually Buddha stated in his suttas after following the Eight Fold Path to attain Nibbana, you should give up the path when you attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. <S> It is something like this; think that you wanna cross a river. <S> There's no boat near by. <S> So you collect wood and creepers and finally build a small boat and you cross the river using it. <S> After crossing the river, will you carry the boat with you where ever you go thinking "this boat helped me to cross the river"? <S> No. <S> You'll leave the boat by the river and you'll go where you need to go. <S> Buddha state that similarly one should give up the eight fold path after perfectly attaining the supreme bliss of Nibbana. <A> @THelper <S> to elaborate on Toby's point. <S> To call oneself a buddhist is to identify oneself with an ideological construct and therefore to dwell in a mental fabrication. <S> The ideas of buddhism are arranged into a belief system more commonly known as a view. <S> To associate your self with this view, is exactly the kind of housebuilding which the buddha espoused against in practically every sutra. <S> Buddhism is the only "religion" which fervently encourages its followers to abandon any part of the belief system when it begins to hold them back rather than help them. <A> I think there is a misunderstanding here. <S> Buddha was not a Buddhist, he was not attached to the previous Buddha (Kassapa) and still the attained the maxium goal. <S> Becoming a Buddha or an Arahant does not require attachment, on the contrary, it requires deattachment and equanimity. <S> Don't think about Buddhism as a tradicional religion, it is more like an analysis of the laws of the universe (both inside and outside), Buddha was simply explaining how things work, what the mind is, the best path to take and the consequences of good and bad deeds. <A> You should have confidence and gratitude towards the Buddha. <S> If this becomes a strong attachment this will hinder your progress on the path. <S> The story of Vakkali is a good example. <S> If you are dealing with Buddhism as a phylosophy then you are dealing with matters at a conceptual level. <S> This is feeding into your perception than helping towards the cessation of perception. <A> If one calls oneself a Buddhist, one has already missed the point.--- from a teacher my daughter had. <A> Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison? <S> Because Buddhism (attachment to Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) has meta-attachment:it teaches to even let go of Buddhism itself--but only once one has mastered Buddhism's practices and not a moment sooner. <S> To be detached from Buddhism a moment sooner would be like a HS student dropping out before he finished. <S> In short: Buddhism teaches detachment from Buddhism itself. <S> No other tradition does this.
|
My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not attach ourselves to him or his teachings. Attachments are bad because if you lose them, you suffer.
|
What type of Buddhist monks are only allowed to eat two meals per day and why? In this answer , user yuttadhammo described that monks are only permitted two meals per day during the morning hours, from dawn to noon. What type of Buddhist monks are permitted only two meals per deal? Why are theseBuddhist monks only permitted two meals a day in this time period? <Q> Those monks who follow the pātimokkha (Sk. <S> Prātimokṣa), either Mahayana or Theravada, keep this rule (or, in certain cases, a rule to eat only one meal per day). <S> The rule is simply: 37. <S> Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed. <S> The wrong time is generally understood to mean outside of the morning hours between dawn and noon. <S> So, technically, one could eat ten meals during this time if one so desired. <S> The Buddha himself enjoined a single meal, as stated in the Bhaddāli Sutta (MN 65): <S> “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. <S> By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding. <S> Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. <S> By so doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.” <S> (Bodhi, trans.) <S> Later, the monks were concerned about eating rice soup in the morning, thinking (I assume) that it would be considered a second meal. <S> The Buddha enjoined them to partake of it, citing physical benefits (can't find the source right now, will try to add it later). <S> So, it is generally understood that one should eat a single meal before noon, but may partake of something light at first light of dawn as well. <S> Many monks these days stretch or even break these rules, drinking milk, soya milk, etc. <S> or even eating in the evening, but <S> those who follow the rules, in both Mahayana and Theravada, will generally stick to one or two meals per day. <S> Eating once per day is actually specified as an optional (dhutanga) practice, meaning one would forgo even rice soup in the morning. <A> Actually, in Pali Canon, Buddha suggests to his students to only eat one time a day, before noon. <S> (that could be interpreted as intention to steal, or rape, etc.) <S> resulting in bad reputation for the sangha. <S> Apparently, some students were begging too much and then hid their food in holes they dug in the ground. <S> This was promoting anti-sanitary conditions and cases of monks stealing each other's food. <S> Eating once a day reduced the need to store food. <S> Not eating too much, especially in the evening, supposedly helped the students feel better both mentally and physically. <S> After Buddha's death, many of these rules, originally meant for the wondering mendicants, were carried over to monasteries. <A> The legend goes in such a way that Siddartha came from a position of abundance and instant gratification, then stopped eating altogether, until he nearly starved and was offered food. <S> Realizing that neither way released him from suffering, he started the "middle way". <S> So food restriction is a form of the middle way: enough to survive, but not so much that it would cultivate gluttony.
|
Among the reasons he provided, the three I remember are: Because eating required begging, not eating in the evening meant not begging at dark, which could be both dangerous for the beggar and, more importantly, scare the householders by generating all kinds of ambiguous situations
|
Differences of Ultimate Realities in different traditions In Theravada Abhidhamma Pitaka there are four Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammaa) mentioned, Citta Cetasika Rupa Nibbana Is there any variations in these realities in other traditions of Buddhism? <Q> There are those traditions that disregard pursuing an "ultimate reality." <S> In Tools of Perception (and mp3 ), Thanissaro says: <S> There's a point where the perceptions have done their work <S> and you put them aside. <S> That's the correct use of all the different ideas and concepts that we pick up from the study of the dhamma. <S> The incorrect use is to say there is an ultimate view of reality and there are conventional views of reality and what we're trying to do is get the ultimate view which describes things as they really are . <S> And so you latch on to those ideas: okay, this is ultimate reality and you hold on to it as if you could hold reality in words. <S> But if you hold on to it with words, what are you doing with it ? <S> His point being that even if you found an "ultimate" reality, what use is it compared to what your actions are? <S> What use is having a mental description of something when the mind has not gone beyond suffering: <S> So we're not trying to get to an ultimate description of reality, we're trying to get to an end of suffering--two very different things. <A> Since you asked about "other traditions" I could not go by without mentioning Prajna-Paramita, a movement within early Mahayana that emerged as a reaction against Abhidhammists (personified by Sariputta) allegedly reifying dhammas as ultimately real. <S> According to Prajna-Paramita, the view of dhammas as having independent self-existence (despite Buddha explicitly declaring anatta as a characteristic of all conditioned phenomena without exception!) is yet another hindrance in the mind, leading to fear, confusion, and preventing awakening to (self-existing, unconditioned) Nirvana. <A> The Theravāda school has 1 citta (arising in 89 or 121 combinations), 52 cetasika, 28 rūpa and 1 unconditioned element (Nibbāna). <S> The Sarvāstivāda school had 1 citta, 60 cetasika, 11 rūpa and 3 unconditioned elements. <S> The Sautrāntika school had 6 citta, 29 cetasika, 8 rūpa and 1 unconditioned element. <S> Each of these schools used the same set of Suttas, but analyzed them in a different way, according to their own doctrines. <A> This is one of classifications of paramartha dharmas . <S> In (most) expanded form they also known as dharma lists . <S> Sometimes traditions differ in content (if some element should be included in the list or not), sometimes in status of elements in there. <S> Probably all four categories have difference in some or another tradition. <A> In my opinion there should be no changes from school to school. <S> Conventional reality is what is within the field of Perception. <S> Ultimate reality is things not comprehended or understood within the field of Perception.
|
The Yogācāra school had 8 citta, 75 cetasika, 11 rūpa and 6 unconditioned elements. There is many variations in these lists between traditions. Instead, the only ultimate reality is said to be Shunyata, unity of form and emptiness, an umbrella term for Three Characteristics of Existence plus Nirvana.
|
Why does the Buddha appear androgynous in some depictions? In quite a few depictions of the Buddha in artwork, he appears androgynous. Does this represent something significant in terms of a Buddhist message or ideal, or is this just an artistic style? <Q> The impression of androgyny is arising in the mind of the viewer (not necessarily every viewer), and part of its cause is our arbitrary cultural standard of how men and women should look. <A> A young lady named Kisa Gotami, seeing prince Siddhartha in the street, uttered: <S> “Nibbuta nuna sa mata - Nibbuta nuna so pitaNib buta nuna sa nari - Yassa’ yam idiso pati.” <S> It means: “Peaceful is the mother who has such a son. <S> Peacefull is the father who has such a son. <S> Peaceful is the wife who has such a husband.” <S> So you can imagine how the artwork should look like. <S> India's first prime minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehru once wrote in his writings, that, while he was in prison, he hung a photograph of the Buddha, and <S> he stated that this particular Samadhi Buddha statue(in Anuradhapura) photograph brought him much happiness and solace when he was in the cell. <S> You can also study the 32 major and 80 minor physical characteristics of the buddha to get an idea. <A> This is a feminine depiction even in Asian culture. <S> I asked some Thai colleagues why some Buddha images look very feminine <S> and I loved the answer. <S> They said Buddhism negates duality. <S> So the Buddha cannot look only male or only female. <S> They must incorporate both. <S> They are both. <S> Isn’t that a wonderful explanation? <S> It is also consistent with Buddhist philosophy.
|
It's an artistic style.
|
Is it possible to "over-train" in samatha meditation? Every morning I set aside one hour for meditation -- primarily just counting breaths, but occasionally abdominal noting. My overall aim is to achieve some kind of basic tranquility so I can then decide if I should move onto something else. That is, I'm doing "samatha meditation" as preparation for "vipassana meditation". (Although I have asked about that apparent dichotomy in another question .) However, although I reserve a whole hour, at the moment I'm only doing 20 minutes (built up slowly over some weeks from 10 minutes). My current plan is to keep to that gradual build, but sometimes I wonder if I should just "go for broke" and sit for an hour at a time. One reason I don't is the same reason I wouldn't start out by running for an hour. Instead, I'd start with a shorter period, and build it up. But I don't know if my concern is valid for meditation. There are clear physiological reasons for not building up physical exercise too quickly. Muscles and tendons need time to build strength and flexibility, so even if I felt like running for an hour, I wouldn't. I'd force myself to increase only slowly. But does the same thing apply for "mental" exercise -- i.e. for Buddhist samatha meditation of the kind I describe? Should I "hold back" even though I'm keen to do more? Is it possible in any way to "injure" oneself by over-training when it comes to meditation. Note, I'm specifically interested in the mental/spiritual aspects. Im pretty sure it's possible to physically overdo it by, for example, trying to sit in full lotus too long in the early stages (or, in my case, ever). <Q> First, physically, you're probably always going to cause some pain by sitting in a strict posture unless you've been doing it since you were young. <S> So if a person had just started meditation and did so with a great deal of zeal, I could see them causing some pain and stress in the body by doing too much at once. <S> They might even cause some permanent damage if, in their zeal to do it right, they won't sit in anything other than full lotus, even when they're causing pain. <S> The bigger issue though is that, mentally, there's the danger of getting burned out. <S> Thanissaro mentioned in one of his talks he had friends who would go out into retreat alone for long periods and the problem they would run into is making no progress. <S> Weeks and weeks of no progress in their meditation. <S> It must be tough to become a monk, have one goal, do nothing but practice toward that goal and end up making no progress. <S> I think it's universal: your practice will have ups and downs. <S> There are times where the mind becomes more and more focused, it lets go of all discursive thought, the precepts become easier to follow, and then there are times when it seems you're sliding backwards. <S> As to whether it would be better to do less sitting than more, I'm not sure. <S> Are you the kind of person who takes on new projects easily and then gives up easily when you encounter difficulty? <S> I suppose the more short-term oriented a person is, the more I'd recommend they just take things slow and steady so that they don't run into a patch of doldrums, get frustrated and give it all up entirely. <A> I aim to sit for an hour in the early morning and an hour in the evening. <S> I find samatha meditation more difficult and sometimes I break the sit before the hour is completed. <S> When I do noting, I experience impatience less and therefore I am more likely to complete the whole hour. <S> If impatience does arise, it can simply be noted as impatience, impatience, impatience, until it passes away. <S> Often I begin with samatha for say 10 minutes and then when I feel that my concentration is strong, I shift to vipassana. <S> I sit in the classical meditation position with my legs folded under. <S> I find that I can hold myself totally still for an hour or more in this position, though in the colder months my knees get abit achy by the end of the sit. <S> I can't sit in any lotus variation for very long. <S> I found that I began to get better results once I was able to sit for longer periods of say 40 minutes to 1 hour. <A> I would recommend a relaxation exercise before beginning any meditation e.g. you focus your attention first on the feet and gradually work up the body consciously relaxing each part in turn. <A> If you are willing to read, I think you will enjoy Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: <S> Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" . <S> This book is only about satama , about the levels of focus, the benefits, the hindrances and some pitfalls. <S> My current plan is to keep to that gradual build. <S> (...) But does the same thing apply for "mental" exercise -- i.e. for Buddhist samatha meditation of the kind I describe? <S> For sure. <S> If you go to 1 hour right away you will probably just get yourself tired. <S> And also, I think it is much better to meditate for 20 minutes every day than one hour once a week. <S> Should I "hold back" even though I'm keen to do more? <S> But like physical exercises, you should improve the quality of the practice (i.e. focus and stillness), instead of just increasing the duration. <S> Is it possible in any way to "injure" oneself by over-training when it comes to meditation. <S> Yes, but only if you have some severe mental illness, or if you do a long recluse retreat. <S> These are just some quick answers. <S> But I strongly recommend you to read Wallace's book, because it is much more extensive, detailed and instructive.
|
All in all, the real danger, if there is any, of overtraining is this mental burn out, because when you sink a huge amount of time and energy into something, you want to see short-term progress. I think if you are willing to do more, go ahead.
|
Was Buddha one man? On Wikipedia Buddha redirects to Gautama Buddha , but there is also a List of the twenty-eight Buddhas Was Buddha a single human man? Or is Buddha a concept or maybe a spirit often reborn? <Q> It means "awake" or "enlightened". <S> Usually, when one mentions "the Buddha", one is referring to Gautama Sidharta, who lived about 2600 years ago and founded what is now called Buddhism. <S> Some traditions, however, say that he was just one in a long line of Buddhas, who come into the world whenever the dharma is forgotten by the people. <A> Yes, Buddha was a one human. <S> There were previous humans who attained the same knowledge and understanding before. <S> Gautama was the recent Buddha's name. <S> He was born between c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE ( roughly) and lived for 80 years. <S> History of Buddhas has a brief summary of the event when Gautama Buddha talked about previous Buddhas. <S> Venerable Særiputta asks the Buddha when it was that he first resolved to work for attainment of the Buddhahood and what pæramis (virtues towards perfection) he had fulfilled to achieve his goal of Perfect Enlightenment <S> Then Buddha described: How as Sumedha the hermit, being inspired by Deepankara Buddha, he makes the resolution for the attainment of Buddhahood and how the Buddha Deepankara gives the hermit Sumedha his blessing prophesying that Sumedha would become a Buddha by the name of Gotama after a lapse of four asankya and a hundred thousand kappas (world cycles). <A> This could be answered either or both ways, yes <S> and/or no. <S> No -- Religious heroes are established in aggrandizement proportionate to their distance in time and forfeit from recorded, accurate history. <S> Those featuring extraordinary and outrageous, supernatural characters display the most obvious departures from reliable records, and at best they are embellishments on numerous legendary and partly-historical human beings. <S> The Buddha, so called, is precisely of this character, enshrouded in legend, having for hundreds of years been described orally before accreted and proposed biographic and tutelary details were integrated to this shifting picture. <S> Much more was not known about any human being behind the title than was known, and politics and social trends, fashions, and fads all contributed to the assemblage which comes down to us as an inspirational and stellar success story. <S> Instead he is said to have, as a young adult, discovered these phenomena, abandoned his wife and family, taken up austerities with the spiritual authorities of India in his time period, sufficiently mastered them so as to gain insight into their limitations, and perfected the Middle Way. <S> His 8-Fold Path or Marga is said capable of yielding the worthy result of Nirvana, the extinguishment of craving and the anguish it is said to cause. <S> While others may have been provided titular resonance insofar as they also are supposed to have 'awakened' (and are thus called 'buddhas'), only one individual is known particularly for this feat of wakeful discovery or for his transcendance of death in Parinirvana thereafter. <A> Buddha is title which used to identify the wisest man in the whole world (including heavens and brahma worlds). <S> Buddha is coming to the world when the dhamma has completely disappeared from the world. <S> Normally one aeons has one Buddha, but this differs sometime. <S> And Buddha's teaching he has told about the nearest past and future Buddhas. <S> So the list of 28 has come from that teaching. <S> They are the previous Buddhas born to the world. <S> There are aeons where no buddha is born. <S> Anyway Gauthama Buddha was born around 2500 years ago. <S> And before that (previous aeon) the name of the Buddha born to the world was Kassapa and the next Buddha to be born is Maithree . <S> Like wise this cycle continues. <S> Buddha is not a reborn. <S> Because Gauthama buddha has explained how he met Kassapa buddha in previous life (in last aeon). <S> His name at that time was Sumedha . <S> And at that time Sumedha was not expecting to understand the Dhamma, what he focused / aimed was to be a Budda . <S> So Sumedha has done the things he need to be a buddha (which is called Paramitha ) in the last aeon to this aeon period. <S> And could attain the position called Buddha as Gautama Buddha . <S> Same like that Maithree bodhisattva is now in the path to be the next buddha. <S> And It's believe that Maithree bodhisattva currently is in heaven. <S> And he will be born in the human world, when the correct time has come.
|
"Buddha" is a title, not a name. Yes -- Gautama Buddha, also known as Sakyamuni and Siddhartha, was one individual human being described as having special birth signs, foretold as the World Monarch or the World Teacher, enshrouded in protection away from instances of sickness, old age, death, and the holy life so as to give him no incentive to abandon his princely and worldly station.
|
Is it useful (and polite) to ask a potential meditation teacher about their attainments? In another question , it was discussed whether it's possible to recognize if someone is an arahat. I'm interested in something slightly less formidable, namely the "attainments" that may lead to enlightenment. Specifically, if I want to choose a Buddhist meditation teacher, with an expectation that I will, under their guidance, attain some or all of the jhana absorptions, and also the various stages of insight, is it appropriate to ask them how much of them they themselves have achieved? One reason I think this could be useful is that I am very well aware that there is a difference between knowing about those attainments -- and maybe even knowing great detail about how they are achieved -- versus actually having achieved them. I, myself, have read around the topic a lot, and could pass for a teacher to someone who knows nothing. But other than possibly access concentration, I am an unattained noob. Is it worth asking others, so I can avoid a blind leading the blind situation? (Of course, there's the additional problem of knowing if someone who claims they have attained something is telling the truth. But at least by asking I could identify honest unattained noobs) On the other hand, I recall a story of a very early teacher who in fact was highly effective and led many people to enlightenment without himself first being enlightened. (The story ends well in that finally he got there, but it may be a counter to the argument that to help someone to attainment X one must onesself have attainment X). <Q> Worrying about whether something is polite or not is a hindrance. <S> I am sure some practitioners would find it offensive <S> but if they are offended that probably tells you all you need to know. <S> If you have yet to obtain the Jhanas then there are probably others who are still more advanced than you who have not yet obtained them either. <S> The way I see it, anyone who is beyond you can be a good teacher and anyone who you are beyond can be a good student. <S> According to the Thana Sutta: It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period... <S> It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and <S> then only after a long period... <S> It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and <S> then only after a long period... <S> It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and <S> then only after a long period... <S> You can't really know simply by asking. <A> It's like asking what's your ATM security key. <S> You might share it with a family member because they are your family and you trust them. <S> Just like that, an Ariya Puggala might discuss his attainment with the Buddha or with Arya Sangha. <S> But they wouldn't discuss it with ordinary lay people. <S> You could observe the teacher's behavior for a while and see if he becomes angry or afraid. <S> If he does, then at most he could be a Sakadagami. <S> But even if he doesn't show his anger, he could still be getting irritated inside. <S> So it's difficult to tell if one has attained a certain stage of enlightenment. <S> But it's easier to tell whether one is not an Arahath. <S> One of the methods I use is to see if my level of understanding, appreciation and confidence of the Triple Gem improves after listening to a sermon from a teacher. <S> Sometimes you might listen to a teacher who might have memorised a lot from Tipitaka and the Commentaries, but when interpreting the meanings, he might make you doubtful of the Triple Gem. <S> Sometimes you see certain teachers even going to the extent of insulting the authors of commentaries and questioning the authenticity of Abhidhamma to prove their point. <S> That's a clear indication that you should look for a new teacher. <S> With meditation, you can practice it and observe your mind to see if your defilements are subsiding and being eliminated. <S> If they do, the technique works and the teacher is good. <S> But it's still won't be as good as having instructions from an enlightened person. <S> Even with an enlightened teacher, you may not be able to be successful. <S> Even the chief disciple most venerable Sariputta thera couldn't help a certain meditation student . <S> Only after taking him to the Buddha, was he able to attain enlightenment. <S> Only the Buddha can give you the instructions that will suit your personality 100%. <S> So I'd stop focusing too much on finding the teacher's attainment and observe myself to see if the practice works. <A> If it's a monk they are forbidden from discussing attainments with lay persons due to some monks at the time of the Buddha using their attainments and powers unskillfully with lay persons. <S> Otherwise it's still not something you ask the person directly, although it appears to happen quite often as I've seen it on many Dhamma talk videos and in person at retreats. <S> Usually the person says flat out no or redirects the question in some way or another. <S> It may also be useful to observe your desire to have a teacher that matches your criteria and the judgments, expectations, and issues that arise from that. <A> The Buddha while he was a Bodhisattva did directly ask his teachers"So <S> I went to him and said, 'To what extent do you declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?' <S> When this was said, he declared the dimension of..." <S> (Ariyapariyesana Sutta MN 26) <S> Meditation teachers also have to be honest and open with their experience (attainments are mere labels) do they teach with direct experience or mere faith in a certain teaching, or because they like to teach, or because its a tradition of his Bhikkhu lineage, etc. <S> Somewhat similar to how you would go about selecting a teacher for another subject. <S> The Canki Sutta MN 95 gives a method of discovering via observation the worthiness of a potential teacher. <S> However it will take time. <S> "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. <S> Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' <S> As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one <S> no such qualities based on greed... <S> His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. <S> And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. <S> This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy..." <A> Here's very neat zen answer by Venerable Chong An Sunim to question about attainment. <S> It might give you some new perspective. <S> https://youtu.be/hOZKvRMBdAM?t=23m45s
|
It is important to understand what is it that the teacher is proficient in teaching, his/her personal experience and experience as a teacher, method(s) of practice etc. Yes, an unenlightened teacher with a sharp knowledge can still make someone else enlightened by giving a good sermon.
|
Significance of touching forheads in Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu)? I have visited a local group of Karma Kagyu practitioners once, hearing a Dharma talk and participating in the mantra, rituals, and meditation. At this occasion, the members of the Sangha greeted one another by touching foreheads with each other. I didn't ask why at the time, and haven't been able to find a description of that tradition online. Could someone shed some light on this custom? <Q> My main teachers have a lineage coming from both Nyingma and Kagyü, so their explanations might differ slightly from 'pure' Karma Kagyü teachings, but I was told that touching foreheads is a gesture of very endearing closeness. <S> Good old friends might touch their foreheads as a recognition of their proximity. <S> I was also told that it would be very impolite to 'demand' that a particular teacher touches their forehead with us, to somehow publicly recognize a closeness that doesn't truly exist. <S> Specially gentle, kind, and compassionate teachers will often never discriminate among students — they will always insist to touch their foreheads after a teaching is giving. <S> HH the Dalai Lama also often does that to complete strangers (with some eyebrow-raising from his entourage!). <S> The point here is that a Bodhisattva truly never discriminates among sentient beings — he or she will feel close to everybody! <A> A blessing as it were. <S> Your 'Sky Eye' or sixth chakra is known for being the holding of enlightenment and is regarded as a wonderful light source. <S> By 'light', I sort of mean knowledge -- an ability to 'see' in a way that takes a lot of meditative practice and devotion. <S> When we touch things to our Sky Eye, it enables another connection and closeness to emerge. <S> A mutual understanding, relationship and insight. <S> My Lama often greets people in this way; gently holding their heads and meeting foreheads with an exchange of great joy. <S> It is an amazing thing to see and be a part of! <S> Connecting with others in this way as a greeting or a blessing can create a very instant, quick mutual bond. <S> Especially when you are both part of the Sangha and therefore hold similar beliefs, or have been undergoing meditative practice for a while which will enable your Sky Eye to be quite 'open'/'aware'. <S> It is also seen as a way of showing that no one is seen as more important, or 'higher' than the other, and that we are all equal (even when this is done by a Rinpoche). <S> Those of higher importance will also touch gifts to their forehead as a way of blessing them. <A> When I was given my son to hold during the first few minutes after his birth, as I looked into his new eyes and he (seemed) to look into mine, I was STRONGLY compelled to touch my forehead to his. <S> I couldn't resist if I'd wanted to. <S> It just felt like the "right" way to welcome him into this world. <S> I still remember how it seemed to hum where we touched and behind my eyes, and my throat and heart ached. <S> It was one of the three most charged (physically and emotionally) moments of my life. <A> To me, it may be one of the highest expressions of love and respect for another person, regardless of age or gender. <S> What I think makes this practice rare <S> is probably because these feelings, that makes us feel a certain way, are rarely expressed.
|
Similarly, teachers feeling a strong bond with some students will touch their foreheads with them when the students thank them for a teaching received. I too am part of the Kagyu lineage, and was told by my partner at the time (who teaches under the Kagyu lineage) that it also known as a 'spiritual kiss'.
|
Buddhism and past lives? The idea of having more than one life in Buddhism is regarded not just as a theory but a truth that can be experienced and verified If this is so, what was the technique used by the Buddha to recollect past lives? What is the exact technique that leads to remembering one's past lives according to Buddhism? <Q> According to my teachers (Korean Zen and Tibetan Vajrayana), because Buddhism explicitly denies existence of soul (see anatta ), the concept of rebirth does not refer to reincarnation of the same person, but rather to propagation of information from one life to another. <S> Recollection of past lives then is not to be understood literally but as a metaphor for clearly seeing patterns of karma acting out from one generation to another. <S> This requires shedding an irrational belief in existence of "I" as a solid entity, subject of experience, and independent agent of action. <S> The technique for achieving this level of insight is known as vipassana or "special insight meditation", to be preceded by "calm abiding meditation", samatha , in order to attain the necessary clarity of mind. <A> See my answer to this thread: <S> What exactly is Jhana? <A> "Visuddhimagga" Chapter XII can be used as the reference. <S> It begins with Now, in order to perfect those kinds of direct-knowledge the task must be undertaken by a meditator who has reached the fourth jhána in the earth kasióa, and so on. <S> Here it describe 5 kinds of "direct- knowledge". <S> The 4th one is the knowledge of recollection of past lives; According to the text the technique is quite lengthy (hence not going to past here) and very well described. <S> Apart from that, I have read /listened to various "Dhamma" talks regarding this subject. <S> According to those, it is required to have a deep state of "samadhi" to begins with. <S> Then you can train your mind to remember the past. <S> You could start with remembering things backwards. <S> For example, what was I doing before now, then before that, then before that... <S> When you got stuck, just come back to the meditation, develop the "samadhi" again and try training again. <S> Please have a look at these could of videos as well. <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlcz5hMHPXw Hope this helps. <S> Ref: <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf <A> According to the Maha-Assapura Sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a practitioner works on The Three Knowledges, one of which is recollection of past lives, after obtaining all four Jhanas.. <S> " <S> And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: <S> purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress. <S> "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.
|
Technically, the memory of past lives requires the four meditative stages to be accomplished.
|
What is the difference between a Bodhisatta and a Bodhisattva? Lots of Buddhist words have two different spellings (kamma/karma) because one is the Pali version and the other is the Sanskrit version; but the meaning is the same. My understanding of Bodhisatta and Bodhisattva though, is that they have different meanings. Can anyone elaborate? <Q> Bodhisatta is Pali , Bodhisattva is Sanskrit , they have the same basic meaning. <S> Wikipedia: <S> In Buddhism, a bodhisattva <S> ( Sanskrit: <S> बोधिसत्त्व bodhisattva; Pali: बोधिसत्त bodhisatta) <S> is an enlightenment ( bodhi ) being ( sattva ). <S> Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to <S> attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. <S> According to Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is one of the four sublime states a human can achieve in life (the others being an Arhat, Buddha, or Pratyekabuddha). <S> In Theravāda Buddhism , the term "bodhisatta" (Pāli language) was used by the Buddha in the Pāli <S> canon to refer to himself both in his previous lives and as a young man in his current life, prior to his enlightenment, in the period during which he was working towards his own liberation. <S> In later Theravāda literature, the term "bodhisatta" is used fairly frequently in the sense of someone on the path to liberation. <S> Mahāyāna Buddhism is based principally upon the path of a bodhisattva. <S> Mahāyāna Buddhism encourages everyone to become bodhisattvas and to take the bodhisattva vows. <S> With these vows, one makes the promise to work for the complete enlightenment of all sentient beings. <S> The vows are an expression of bodhichitta , the desire to realize enlightenment for the sake of others. <S> The exact wording of the Bodhisattva vows varies from school to school. <S> The most basic form is: May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. <S> Mahāyāna schools like Zen, Nichiren, Tendai, and others use vows translated as: <S> Beings are numberless, I vow to save them <S> Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to end them <S> Dharma gates are boundless, I vow to enter them <S> Buddha's way is unsurpassable, I vow to become it. <A> Bodhisatta is a Pali term, usually used in Theravada ("orthodox" Buddhism), while Bodhisattva is Sanskrit term, more often used in Mahayana (either "degenerated" Buddhism, or Buddhism "upholding the true spirit of the teaching above its letter", <S> depending on your perspective ;) <S> Although both terms are local versions of the same basic word (that means "awakened being"), the two branches use the word in very different sense. <S> In Theravada, bodhisatta is primarily used in Jatakas (didactic tales targeted at lay audience of the times) to refer to a person on his way to Buddhahood, depicted at different stages of his spiritual growth. <S> This person is usually understood to be the same individual that eventually became Gautama Buddha. <S> In Mahayana, bodhisattva is an advanced practitioner who renounced entering Nirvana indefinitely, helping the rest of sentient beings achieve Enlightenment. <A> Nope! <S> They are exactly the same. <S> There's also 'Maha-Bodhisatta'. <S> That term is specifically used for a being who has gotten the confirmation from a fully enlightened Buddha that he is also going to become a fully enlightened Buddha in the future. <S> ex: <S> Mathree Bodhisatva who is in Tāvatiṃsa heaven at present will become the Maithree Buddha in the future. <S> He will be the 5th and the final Buddha to appear before the world ends. <A> I'm not a Pali scholar, so can't quote line and verse, but I understand that a Mahayana Bodhisattva can take rebirth as several people, each representing a different characteristic of the predecessor.
|
The Theravada Bodhisatta is the simple continuation of the principle being destined for eventual enlightenment.
|
How important are incense and candles to a meditation practice? What is the function of incense and candles to a meditation practice? Are they used in all types of meditation or only some types? <Q> Incense and candles are not essential to a meditation practice. <S> They can aid in concentration, but they can also become an emotional crutch if we become attached to them. <S> I did the ritual of lighting candles and incense during my practice for a few weeks, and quickly got tired of it. <S> If you are practicing vipassana (a.k.a insight meditation) as opposed to samatha (a.k.a tranquility meditation) then it's really not necessary to create that kind of environment. <S> In fact in vipassana we want to become free from external dependencies, so creating a certain type of environment might actually be counterproductive to the practice. <S> I'm one of Venerable Yuttadhammo's students, and he teaches vipassana in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. <S> Check out his videos and/or book if you haven't already. <S> Unfortunately I can't comment on samatha practices, as I haven't been taught in that area. <A> Incense Incense sticks, especially sandalwood ones are good cleansers. <S> They cleanse the entire room or the surrounding area, preparing the area for a peaceful meditation or prayer. <S> Not only for prayer, burning incense in rooms used by patients or emotionally affected places also helps in cleaning the energy in those areas. <S> Candles or Lamps While incense is used for cleansing, candles, lamps and other lights energize the surrounding area. <S> Lit lamps are considered a symbol of enlightenment in many traditions. <S> Both of these when used in a meditation hall provides the perfect environment for a peaceful and fruitful meditation. <S> Hope this answer helps you. :) <A> It depends on what you're goal is with meditation. <S> There are different meditations and people meditate with different motivations and goals. <S> With some goals incense is useful. <S> With others it can be a hindrance. <S> As meditation is experiential you can actively map or watch your own state of consciousness to see what the incense is doing. <S> Is it helping or hindering? <S> There needs to be a distinction made between those who are meditating to be calm and relaxed, to feel better and those who are trying to move into states beyond all mental fluctuations. <S> They are different enterprises. <S> I've been taught that meditation is fundamentally about involution of consciousness (turning consciousness inwards). <S> As you go deeper you move away from the part of the mind that is related to the five senses. <S> You enter deeper states of inner silence. <S> Sensory input makes your mind react this inner silence is affected by fluctuations of your mind. <S> Incense affects your sense of smell which is a very basal sense. <S> It goes deep into your brain. <S> This results in deeply rooted reactions in the mind. <S> Incense thus produces mental fluctuations which limits your ability to enter no mind states. <S> Note that some people meditate in darkness with no sounds or smells to help the process of involution. <S> The senses are starved of stimulus. <S> So if your goal is to move beyond mind into complete silence then incense may hinder you as it stimulates the smell sense resulting in mental fluctuations at a deep level in mind. <S> So if you are meditating for calmness and relaxation then it could help you. <S> Clearly Buddhism uses incense for many practices and rituals. <S> But do Buddhist practitioners who are attempting to reach states of no mind use incense? <A> I don't think it is important to create such rituals in meditation practice. <S> I haven't encountered any description of such in my readings of Suttas. <A> For meditation <S> NO need any candles or incense things. <S> just Focus your mind for one thing & meditate. <S> but you should in a calm Quite place to do meditation
|
Alternatively some incense has a calming effect on the mind and many people use it to achieve a sense of calmness and relaxation.
|
What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta? Together they refer to one's mental processes as a whole. Separately, what are they and how are they different? <Q> 'Citta' (the C is pronounced as ch in cheetah) is a generic word for mind, including thoughts as well as emotional state. <S> When the Chinese translated Buddhist texts they often used 'shin', the heart-mind, to indicate citta. <S> 'Vijnana' (jna is pronounced as jnya - i.e. with soft n) <S> is experience of reality that arises from mind's ability to recognize and interpret new stimuli by relating and comparing them with memories of past experiences. <A> This is what i've gathered from reading about this in the Plum Village (Thich Nhat Hanh) tradition and from my own experience. <S> Please feel free to update and improve, i am not sure about everything <S> The eight conciousnesses <S> There are eight consciousnesses (not counting Vijnana which is split into six parts): Vijnana <S> Eye Consciousnesses <S> Ear C. Nose C. <S> Tongue C. <S> Body C. Mind C. Manas Citta (Store C.) <S> Vijnana <S> The "top level" of conciousness - we are most conscious of the experiences happening in this part of the mind <S> The first five c. <S> The first five consciousnesses have access to "reality in itself" with no discrimination/dualism (me and you, subject and object, etc). <S> They are in "direct contact" with reality. <S> They are not distorted by our thinking and our past experiences. <S> The sixth c. <S> The sixth conciousness "mind" is the part of our mind with ideas and it has access to (at least parts of) all the seven other conciousnesses. <S> When the sixth conciousness collaborates with the first five the connection with "reality in itself" is interrupted <S> The sixth is itself suspended for example while sleeping without dreaming. <S> When dreaming the sixth is active and gets all it's information from the eigth conciousness (Citta) <S> Manas Strongly connected with the sixth conciousness (mind c.) <S> , it grasps at experiences <S> Thich <S> Nhat Hanh writes : <S> In the seventh consciousness there are four basic afflictions: self-delusion, self-love, self-view, and self-conceit. <S> The basic illusion inherent in all four afflictions is the illusion about self: this body is mine, is me; this feeling is me; these emotions are me; this consciousness is me and I am independent from everything else <S> I drew the picture below for our Sangha group where we brought up manas and am happy to share it here. <S> The image contains an example where a seed in the store (Citta) has been watered (maybe by something we have seen or heard together with our perceptions) and that seed has manifested in the mind consciousness References: <S> Dharma Talk: <S> The Habit of Happiness Dharma Talk: <S> Consciousness and Quantum Physics Wikipedia: <S> Manas-vijnana Image file: <S> The Eight Consciousnesses - by sunyata - Can be reused under the CC BY-SA license <A> Sometimes it's also said that manas is fore-running, citta far-going, and vijnana <S> is birth-relinking activity of mind. <S> Also, manas is supporting (subsequent) and thinking/contemplating aspect of mind, <S> citta is accumulating and diversity aspect of mind (it's increase with defilements or cease without them), and vijnana is cognizing aspect. <S> In Yogacara citta is equated with alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness), manas with klista-manas (defiled mind), and vijnana with pravritti-vijnana (functioning mind). <A> ever seen a buddhist prayer wheel? <S> that's the citta,the little ball at the end of the string. <S> the object itself is the metaphor. <S> when you still the mind using concentration, and at the same time observe the mind using mindfulness, then you will observe the spinning citta. <S> as you focus on the citta more, you will bring it to rest. <S> it has no mass, and so it has no inertia. <S> it can spin up to mhz in a fraction of a second, the moment thought arises and is let through by the observer. <S> in this way the spin of the citta can be controlled. <A> There is a great lack of agreement among scholars in translating. <S> This study tries to seek some clarity between the three terms: Triune Mind in Buddhism: A Textual Exploration by Suwanda H J Sugunasiri <A> While there have been many attempts to show that these are either the same or different, in my view that is missing the point somewhat. <S> The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts: Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering. <S> Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering. <S> Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth. <S> The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth. <S> https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/citta-mano-vinnana-definitions-and-distinctions/4254/2
|
Citta Unconcious, contains all experiences we've had, all is stored here Visual overview 'Manas' (both As are pronounced as in Adam) is the "inner eye" that can see thoughts, memories, and one's state of mind (citta). Manas is past mind, citta is future mind, and vijnana is present mind.
|
Vajrayana Buddhism relies on a teacher-pupil relationship. What in tradition or the literature explains how to find the appropriate teacher? Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Esoteric_transmission ) But in my travels through the Buddhist landscape, I find that teachers are human: some good, some mediocre. How do I find the right teacher? Are there tests that the student can apply to the teacher? <Q> "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche has a chapter (Ch. <S> 6) on how to choose, test and follow a "spiritual friend" (teacher): <S> pure, never having contravened any of the commitments or prohibitions (Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva's Vow, Secret Vows of Secret Mantrayana) unstained by negative emotions learned, not lacking in knowledge of sutras, tantras and shastras heart suffused with compassion, loves each being like his only child <S> well-versed in vast array of rituals and ceremonies not merely verbal but by putting the meaning of teaching into practice has actualized in himself <S> the achievements of riddance and realization generous, completely free of attachments language should be pleasant <S> teaches each according to person's needs acts in accordance with what he teaches <S> Teachers to avoid: Like a millstone made of wool (high lamas by birth but have not studied and practiced seriously enough for the above qualities to arise) Like the frog that lived in a well (with very limited exposure to true depth and breadth of Practice, having never seen a genuine spiritual master) <S> Mad guides (loose in discipline, strong in emotions, overemphasizing the esoteric and transcendental) <S> Blind guides (don't know what they are talking about) <S> "Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa has several pages (in Ch.5) on fully qualified masters vs. false teachers: (repeats most of the above and adds the following) <S> Good teacher must have few activities, exclusively preoccupied with Dharma His presence has transforming effect, inspiring all who meet him to seek for liberation Must have an unconfined view, having realized the equality of nirvana and samsara Having direct experience of the above, he is the source of his own freedom Has been ripened by empowerments that came down to him in an uninterrupted lineage. <A> The "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" by Gampopa describes different levels of teachers and their qualifications. <S> edit: it occurs to me that you may have been wondering about specifics , not just where you can find it talked about. <S> Some basics would be: have they taken the Bodhisattva Vow? <S> Do they have demonstrable knowledge of the Mahayana path? <S> Are they patient while teaching? <S> Do they make sure people understand? <S> Do they seem to get discouraged or disappointed with students? <S> Can they speak to you at your level of understanding? <S> And of course standard things like ethical behavior. <A> (Disclaimer: This is not a Vajrayāna approach so feel free to discard it <S> but I'd say the advice is useful nonetheless.) <S> To find a skillful teacher, one could approach the matter prudently by trying to get the most points checked from the following list: <S> Doesn't accept any money, especially for teaching. <S> 1 <S> Has the qualities mentioned in AN 4.73 & AN 4.192 . <S> Doesn't show traces of greed, hatred or delusion in their behavior. <S> Meditates frequently and for lengthy periods. <S> Eats once a day before noon. <S> 2 Is content with very little. <S> 3 <S> Is bent on solitude & seclusion. <S> 4 Note that these points are just good guidelines and should be taken as a supplement to one's own discernment . <S> For further references, you might want to read some early discourses concerning this: DN 12 : Teachers that are worthy & unworthy of criticism. <S> MN 8 <S> : The whole discourse is worth reading but I linked to the specific section about instruction called "Quenching". <S> MN 47 : <S> This discourse addresses the issue head-on. <S> AN 5.100 <S> : Teachers being covered up by their pupils. <S> AN <S> 5.159 : Five qualities a teacher should set up. <S> Dhp 158-159 <S> : Two verses about teachers. <S> Footnotes: <S> AN 5.159 has five qualities a teacher should set up. <S> The fourth one is that he will not speak for the purpose of material reward. <S> MN 65 is a good reference about the Buddha 's thoughts concerning this issue. <S> AN 4.27 is a good reminder about contentment with the bare minimum <S> but I wouldn't advocate it as a necessary guideline. <S> AN 8.53 has the qualities that make-up the Buddha 's teaching and one of them is solitude\seclusion. <A> I disagree with the comment "Don't accept money, especially for a teaching. <S> " <S> I am not sure where that particular comment comes from, but as both a Tibetan practitioner and an ordained monk, I have Never seen it written that one should not accept a teacher who is paid for his/her teachings. <S> In fact, and supporting teachers, who traveled from afar, individuals, benefactors, and Dharma centers all make donations to the teacher. <S> Most likely, the implication is that students should be wary of teachers who appear to be"money – hungry." <S> Finally, if you find yourself in a group where money and making money seem to be more important than teachings and/or Dharma, it is probably not a good place to be.
|
Some rely on the 31st chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra (also known independently as the "Sutra of the Ten Bhumis") which describes a set of criteria on which to judge someone as a Mahayana teacher.
|
What are the canonical texts for the Buddhisms of the world? And as a follow up, what institutions are charged with expanding the list of canonical works, if any? <Q> For Theravada there is the Tipitaka: <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html <S> This consists of the "three baskets" of the vinaya pitaka, the rules for monastics, the sutta pitaka aka the sutta teachings, and the abidhamma. <S> Majjhima Nikaya ( middle length) <S> Samyutta Nikaya (grouped discourses) <S> Anguttara Nikaya ( numbered discourses) <S> There is also the Khuddaka Nikaya which is a collection of "little texts". <S> This is where the famous dhammapada and Sutta Nipāta reside. <A> I'll add the other part of the answer: <S> Tibetans take the Kanjur to be canonical. <S> It's is a huge list of documents. <S> New documents are added as new terma are discovered. <S> Terma are roughly teaching left long ago to be discovered today. <S> The Chinese Buddhist canon was compile a long time ago. <S> It also is a hug list of documents. <S> I would guess the natural role would be the Chinese Imperial Government, which doesn't exist at the moment, or at least is hostile to Buddhism. <S> The Pali canon, as mentioned by Jayantha is a huge set of documents and as far as I can tell, there isn't any institution that is attempting to add more text to it. <A> Just bear in mind: Different traditions will give you different answers, theravada and mahayana traditions have different suttas, the same thing goes for the commentaries and the importance of later works... <S> Nevetheless most of the suttas and the Vinaya are the same. <S> I always use tipitaka as a reference <S> and I like to read the 4 nikayas <S> (Im a lay person) metta,
|
It is generally accepted that the oldest and most core part of the Tipitaka that is closest to what the buddha said, are the four Nikayas Digha Nikaya (long discourses) As far as I know, there isn't an institution to expand it.
|
Conflict between theistic religious belief and Buddhist practice? From the Buddhist perspective, is there an inherent conflict between being a believer in a theistic religion and a practitioner of Buddhist meditation? <Q> According to Dalai Lama (targeting general public), if Buddhist ideals appeal to you, but you are already a member of another religion and worried about compatibility, you can (and should!) stay with your religion. <S> From his perspective, all religions declare the same basic values of compassion etc. <S> and if you practice your religion well, there is no point for you to switch. <S> Theistic religions posit a notion of Other Power (God) that you have to appeal to for your salvation. <S> While the nontheistic teaching has practitioner depend on his own power (with Guru's help). <S> From this perspective, the notion of God as an external entity must be transcended before the practitioner can fully reconnect with his/her fundamental sanity . <S> In Pure Land Buddhism practitioner initially depends on Other Power (Buddha Amitabha), which starts as an external entity, but eventually, through a change of perspective, is identified as one's true nature. <S> So we could say, on advanced stages the notion of external God is transcended there as well. <A> Some theistic beliefs could contradict with Buddhist views. <S> For example, if you believe that God is only savior, that is contradiction of belief in karma . <S> Or, if you believe that God judges your experience, that contradicts with karma again. <S> Or, if you believe that teaching given by God is best, that is contradiction with refuge in Buddha as best teacher of gods and men. <S> When you deny, in such a way, right view and Buddhist refuge , you probably not practice Buddhist meditation correctly. <S> But, if you just practice wishing of happiness to all beings ( metta ), that's not necessarily contradict with some God <S> is Love idea. <A> Volkov's answer is on point, there is no "other power" in Buddhism and the Buddha <S> indeed affirms that a person possesses agency; re http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/7.6-Attakari-S-a6.38-piya.pdf
|
According to Chogyam Trungpa however (targeting serious practitioners), there is a fundamental difference between theistic religions and Buddhism.
|
The danger in lying "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie." Also The person who lies, who transgress in this one thing, transcending concern for the world beyond: there's no evil he might not do. — Iti 25 So I'm mainly concerned with the part that says "there is no evil deed that is not to be done". I kind of agree with this, however, the people to which I've shared this, think it's somewhat exaggerated. Is it exaggerated? <Q> According to my current teacher, good character is an important prerequisite for Enlightenment. <S> Key qualities of good character are: Honesty Integrity <S> Responsibility Responsibility depends on Integrity. <S> Integrity depends on Honesty. <S> If there is no Honesty, there is no Integrity. <S> The person without Integrity can do anything if it is in their interest, they can't be trusted. <S> A person who tells lies deliberately has a corrupted value system. <S> If they went as far as to warp reality to cover up their fault or to advance their case, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to what they may do under pressure. <S> Hence "there is no evil deed that is not to be done". <A> For most of human history your word truely was your bond.. <S> It was everything, and to lie was to put the reputation of your house, your family, and yourself in danger to the point where you became an outcast or worse. <S> These days things are different in many ways, our words are not necessarily connected to our social and physical survival, but they are still important. <S> When trust is lost it is not so easily gained back. <S> So do i believe anyone who lies will also kill people and do horrible things? <S> Most likely not, but deliberate lieing is a dangerous thing that is unskillful and not beneficial to yourself or others. <S> It puts us back along the path and is to be avoided at all costs. <A> A lie is directly supporting ignorance . <S> And an ignorance is directly supporting all defilements (it's present in all of them), which directly supporting all type of evil deeds. <S> It's usual that weight of deeds is greatly misperceived by common people in compare to Buddha. <S> Mental deeds are most important in consequences. <S> And deliberate lie, probably , does most damage to a mind. <S> It's said that Bodhisatta in previous lives could do all evil, except lie. <S> (Harita-jataka, JA 431). <A> Reading the earlier ones there in Itivuttaka: <S> The Group of Ones , you can see things like, Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. <S> Which one quality? <S> Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return. <S> Next it says, Abandon one quality, monks, <S> and I guarantee you non-return. <S> Which one quality? <S> Abandon aversion as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return. <S> And, Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. <S> Which one quality? <S> Abandon delusion as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return <S> This is referring to the three poisons which are shown as being at the centre of the 'wheel of life'. <S> My understanding, from the way they're represented/illustrated, is that they cause or feed each other. <S> Wikipedia claims that ignorance is the root cause: <S> Of these three, ignorance is the root poison. <S> From ignorance, attachment and aversion arise. <S> Whether or not it is the "root" cause, the implication of the suttas above is that if/when you can eradicate any one of them then you can break the chain or cycle. <S> The corollary though, IMO, is that if a person indulges in or abides in any one, then they cause them all. <S> The second noble truth explicitly warns against greed, but the 'three poisons' also warn against anger and ignorance. <S> And it seems to me that lying is (except in vanishingly rare circumstances) intended to promote ignorance. <S> A person who thinks they can lie successfully might think that they can 'get away with murder'. <S> You ask, "Is it exaggerated?" <S> IMO 'not lying' is also connected with Right Speech, with being able to share (true) Dharma, with not causing schism in the Sangha.
|
In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given him, commit adultery, drink strong drink, but he may not tell a lie, attended by deception that violates the reality of things.
|
Is there any extreme of physical pain that a fully enlightened person would find unpleasant on any level? In other words, by not conceptualizing sensations of physical pain, do fully enlightened people still experience unpleasantness and simply not label it as such, or is the experience fundamentally without anything that an unenlightened mind would label as unpleasant, so that the degree of pain becomes like pitch in music? <Q> It's said that enlightened person feels single pain (only physical), while not enlightened feels two pains (physical with mental pain). <S> SN 36.6 , Sallatha Sutta: <S> The discerning person, learned, doesn't sense a (mental) feeling of pleasure or pain: This is the difference in skillfulness between the sage & the person run-of-the-mill. <A> An enlightened person feels the sensation corresponding to pain, but it does not feel as pain, rather as pure (informational) sensation. <S> My teacher taught me an exercise thanks to which I had this experience first-hand. <S> It is called kuem chok in Korean (I'm probably misspelling it badly). <S> kuem chok is performed by taking one of especially designed postures, "eagle posture" or "sleeping tiger" and others, which are inconvenient enough to generate bodily pain, but simple enough to maintain for a long time. <S> The idea is to "go through" pain by exercising willpower, by not succumbing to the feeling of self-pity, until the experience of pain toggles and becomes something else. <S> After I was holding my posture for about 15 minutes, and had all my body shaking with pain, the sensation toggled, and instead of pain <S> I felt heat and lightness. <S> I could effortlessly maintain the posture and was surprised it felt difficult to me in the beginning. <S> This only happened once, and now the teacher moved on to a more difficult posture, "sleeping tiger", with which I was not able to switch yet. <S> Needless to say, if I were you I would not try this at home without a guidance from qualified teacher, otherwise you may hurt yourself. <A> I am not referencing any suttas for this answer, it comes from my own experiences (I am not an arahat). <S> One who has obtained nirvana can choose whether or not to experience pain and can choose the level of suffering that is associated with that pleasure or pain. <S> Having obtained nirvana an individual has the ability to reside beyond pleasure and pain and it also gives them complete understanding of pleasure and pain and things can not be understood without being experienced. <S> After some research, Sakalika Sutta: <S> The Stone Sliver talks about how buddha cut his foot and endured the physical pain. <S> Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed. <A> Although an Arahat would not have any mental pain arising with physical pain, that doesn't mean that everything would be just fine. <S> Arahats could still find it burdensome, for example, in that it is constantly pulling on their attention and they wouldn't be able to do much as a result, so pain could still be quite debilitating in that the Arahat wouldn't be able to function by teaching, traveling, or other such things. <A> Of course enlightened people experience pain! <S> Even the Buddha did. <S> For example, in the Maha-parinibbbana Sutta, it is said of the Buddha: <S> When he had eaten Cunda's food, I heard, With fortitude the deadly pains he bore. <S> From the sukara-maddava <S> a sore <S> And dreadful sickness came upon the Lord. <S> But nature's pangs he endured. <S> "Come, let us go To Kusinara," was his dauntless word. <S> There is some evidence (and the exact source is escaping me now) that he was only free of physical discomfort when he entered into the base of cessation (i.e. nirodhasamāpatti). <S> The Buddha even had to deal with a bad back on occasion (as in MN 53). <S> Of course, the experience of physical pain in not equal to the suffering of physical pain.
|
While techniques do exist to deal with physical discomfort, only enlightenment liberates you from the anguish it causes.
|
What is taught about Buddha nature in Theravada Buddhism? Reference: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm The very last row talks about Buddha Nature. According to this page, Buddha Nature is not taught in Theravada Buddhism, and to my understanding, Buddha Nature is the potential for a being to become Enlightened. Is there any reason why the potential to become Enlightened isn't taught? It seems - to me - to be common sense that anyone can find their way to become Enlightened. After all, the Buddha is an example of what all beings could become. Is my understanding of Buddha Nature wrong or is there more to this than I'm seeing regarding how Theravada Buddhism incorporates this in their teachings? <Q> Consider this: Theravada posits Nirvana as a remote goal, while Mahayana posits Buddha-Nature as self-existing state of affairs. <S> This is the key. <S> The reason Gautama Buddha declared Nirvana, is because he was modeling the Path after his own quest. <S> Because he achieved his Enlightenment after having gone through numerous trainings and realizing Three Marks of Existence, Twelve Nidanas and Four Noble Truths, he saw that all students must go through similar experiences in order to achieve the same Liberation. <S> Indeed, for someone without basic discipline, critical thinking skills, and capacity for self-reflection, attaining Buddha-Eye is outright impossible. <S> By the time of Mahayana though, because Buddhism became very popular and the essence of Teaching was somewhat lost in the noise of speculative philosophy and esoteric speculation, many new students would become obsessed with the idea of Nirvana, and instead of training the skilfull qualities of mind required for Enlightenment, would engage in fruitless search of Transcendental Realization. <S> Out of compassion for future seekers, Bodhisattvas established the notion of Buddha Nature, openly declaring that Enlightenment is not something remote you have to attain, but rather one's innate nature to be recovered. <S> So Buddha-Nature is basically Nirvana or Enlightenment, except now you know you already have it, and only need to open your eyes, instead of running around the world seeking it. <S> That said, you still have to work on dropping all attachments, deconstructing the ego, and becoming the master of your mind/emotions before you can take legal ownership of your rightful possession :) <A> That is because the main goal of Theravada practice is the state of Liberation (Arhathood), being free from first of the two veils (the veil of disturbing emotions). <S> But reaching full Enlightenment (realizing Buddha-nature), when both veils are removed (the second veil is stiff ideas), becomes a topic only in Mahayana. <A> Theravada couldn't have all the possible teachings, so it has only some of them. <S> The teaching about the Buddha nature probably didn't seem necessary at the time of Buddha. <S> It was rather obvious that practitioners could follow the eightfold path and come to awakening (Arahantship & Buddhahood). <S> It was mentioned in Pali suttas, e.g. in Maha-parinibbana sutta (see the last talk of Buddha, with Subhadda the Hermit). <S> So the need to introduce "Buddha nature" developed later. <S> As dialog develops, it often happens that more ideas need to be articulated to help people understand well. <S> That's why Mahayana teachings developed, and they continue to develop nowadays. <S> For example, when I explain Dharma, I often use language, ideas and pictures which didn't exist in Buddha's times. <S> I speak about objects compared to their photographs, and it makes easier to understand, for example, Diamond sutra , Two truths and the like. <S> Thus the concept of Buddha nature developed with time, maybe as a pinnacle of explanation of why everything . <S> Indeed, limited people have limited views and goals. <S> We do something because we want something, we are attached or repulsed, and so on. <S> But why would Buddha act? <S> If he isn't limited, free from wishes, from attachments and repulsions? <S> If you say Buddha acts for the sake of other beings, then please recall that beings are illusory, and suffering is illusory... <S> It's not easy to understand: why do anything, what could be the goal <S> , if there is no attachment, no limits... <S> So as understanding of illusory nature of delusions developed - helping people to practise efficiently - the need to understand what is natural developed too. <S> If you are interested to understand Buddha nature in the context of the three main philosophical schools of Mahayana, and their application to Zen practice, see: Master Chi Chern. <S> Immaculate Self-Nature
|
That is because Bodhichitta, the great motivation for the sake of all beings, is an integral part of Buddha-nature and it is not stressed in Theravada tradition.
|
Is there an English translation of the Abhidhamma? I wonder if there is an English version of the Abhidhamma, in its entirety? <Q> You can find an index of these translations in ATI's Abhidhamma Page . <S> Note that, although no English translation of the "The Book of Pairs" ( Yamaka ) is mentioned in the above link, there is one. <S> You can find Vol.1 here . <S> Abhidhamma.com also has useful material available for download, including "The Book of Pairs Vol.2". <A> There is a global non-profit initiative aiming at translating the whole Kangyur and Tengyur (Abhidhamma is a part of Tengyur) into modern languages - 84000 . <S> You can browse their website to see how they work, what is their vision and which texts has been already translated into English. <S> Overall, there is not much translated at the moment <S> but they hope that within 10 years a substantial amount of texts will become publicly available in English. <A> Most of the abhidhamma pitaka has been translated by the PTS: http://www.palitext.com/palitext/tipitaka.htm <S> Translations are as follows: Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics - Dhammasaṅgaṇī <S> The Book of Analysis - Vibhaṅga Discourse on Elements - Dhātukathā Points of Controversy - Kathāvatthu Designation of Human Types - Puggalapaññatti Conditional Relations - Paṭṭhāna <S> The only one that is missing is the Yamaka, for which I see there are a couple of partial translations as mentioned in another answer.
|
As far as I know, there is no single compiled translation of all the volumes of the Abhidhamma but they are separately translated by several people.
|
Sense of calmness in meditation, what is it? In a first 10 day vipassana meditation course I did almost continuous intensive meditation for 7 days ,I felt a strange calmness such that I could almost not feel the weight of my body , this feeling lasted till 2-3 days and then I stopped doing it, So what is that feeling called and is it common after meditation? Also after I resumed the meditation then I could not get back the same feeling (nor was I seeking for it). <Q> The sensation of the body 'feeling heavy', very relaxed, 'numb' or almost as if it's disappearing is quite normal. <S> When there is nothing new happening, sort of, when bodily sensations don't change, the mind 'loses interest' and kind of deactivates those sense inputs. <S> This can be beneficial for focusing on the mind experience, since there are no longer as many body sensations impinging on the attention. <S> Going looking for the same sensations again can get you stuck instead of moving forward, so it sounds like a good idea not to seek it, as you mention. <S> The calmness you are referring to, sounds like samadhi - a deep calmness brought about by "single pointedness of mind". <S> In deepest samadhi, absorption is so complete that all sense of "self" disappears, and subject and object are completely absorbed into each other. <S> However, there are many kinds and levels of samadhi. <S> Wikipedia: Samadhi <A> (Disclaimer: Take this answer as a - means - to explore further and - not - as a definitive answer since the range of descriptions of meditative experiences varies quite a bit from person to person.) <S> 1. <S> What is that feeling called? <S> From what you are describing, I would say it is the ease ( Sukha ) that comes from a rapturous ( Pīti ) meditative experience. <S> 2. <S> Is it common after meditation? <S> Yes, I would say it is common and advised by the Buddha to keep developing it. <S> (You may want to see Jhāna for more information.) <A> If it is accompanied by tingling limbs, tingling lips or minor headache it can be a sign of hyperventilation. <S> It can also be a feeling associated with detachment and depersonalization. <S> Here is a scientific study, albeit with only 6 participants <S> , that confirms meditation can induce depersonalization. <S> It talks about treatment for depersonalization but personally I do not consider it a bad thing and instead part of the meditation experience. <S> Here is a .pdf <S> that is more in depth: <S> The Circumplex Structure of Depersonalization/Derealization
|
More likely, you may experience different types of calmness and other experiences, when you let go and are not chasing an experience you've had, previously.
|
Do all Buddhist schools give dharma names upon ordination? I was glad to read in MatthewMartin's answer to another question that he'd be interested to know if dharma names are common to all Buddhist groups/schools/sects, or if there are any that don't give monks new names on ordination. This is something I've also been curious about. In addition, I believe the usual practice is for the teacher to select the name for his newly ordained pupil, which might represent a lesson to learn, or an encouragment, or a trait to focus on during the new monk's future growth. So my question is whether this practice is universal amongst Buddhists, or if there are any schools that follow a different tradition or refrain from dharma names completely, <Q> An interesting twist is that at least one school of Buddhism does not have monastics but does give Dharma names to lay followers at a ceremony called Affirmation . <S> For example, from: http://bffct.org/bff/resources/shin-buddhism-in-a-nutshell/ <S> In the Shin religion, there are no monastics, monks or nuns, but there are teachers both ordained clergy and certified lay instructors. <S> They are not seen as above everyone else or holding the secret keys to spiritual liberation, but are ordinary people, both men and women, who are just more learned or experienced spiritual seekers. <S> In the particular American group referenced above, lay followers are invited to participate in an Affirmation ceremony upon completion of a number of requirements including general Buddhist studies and participation in a retreat. <S> The lay follower selects their own Dharma name from a Zen tradition list such as: http://www.ciolek.com/wwwvlpages/zenpages/ZenNames.html#H <S> The names range from lovely to self deprecating, which might be desirable for someone who wanted to keep the idea of humility close to heart. <S> In Japan, other than the standard usage of dharma names for monastics and laity, it is also tradition for the deceased to receive a dharma name (戒名, kaimyō; lit. " <S> precept name") written in Kanji from the priest. <S> This name supposedly prevents the return of the deceased if his name is called. <S> source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name#cite_note-3 <A> Although Theravada monks take a Pali name when they ordain, I don't think it's given any spiritual significance in the way that it is in other schools. <A> Just copying through my response at the bottom of MatthewMartins question where I give a response <S> Though it isn't a Buddhist order as such - the Insight Meditation Society doesn't rename as far as I'm aware. <S> Jack Kornfield is still Jack Kornfield irrespective of his commitment and progress on the path ( <S> both formidable <S> I'm sure)
|
I saw some scattered informal references to laity in Zen traditions receiving Dharma names (not sure of the extent of this practice) and even a mention of the deceased receiving a Dharma name in Japan:
|
What are the Pali translations for mindfulness? I know that the Pali word for mindfulness is sati as in the Satipatthana Sutta but I've also heard that there is more than one word for mindfulness that is used throughout the Pali Canon . Can anyone give a list of the different words used and perhaps point out the differences in emphasis or exact meaning? For instance, do all the words mean exactly the same or do particular ones emphasise a different quality of mindfulness? <Q> Actually, the only good translation I can think of for the English "mindfulness" is Sampajañña . <S> sam = full, pa = <S> full, jañña = knowledge (or awareness). <S> Another potential candidate is yoniso (to the source) <S> manasikara <S> (minding). <S> What is pretty clear is that sati does not translate to mindfulness. <S> It doesn't mean to be mindful; translations like "mindfulness of the Buddha" show this to be a silly choice. " <S> remembrance" is probably a better one. <S> As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes: <S> Even the word sati, rendered mindfulness, isn’t unproblematic. <S> The word derives from a verb, sarati, meaning “to remember,” and occasionally in Pali sati is still explained in a way that connects it with the idea of memory. <S> But when it is used in relation to meditation practice, we have no word in English that precisely captures what it refers to. <S> An early translator cleverly drew upon the word mindfulness, which is not even in my dictionary. <S> This has served its role admirably, but it does not preserve the connection with memory, sometimes needed to make sense of a passage. <S> http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html <S> And there is a good article on Theravadin that I think agrees with the above both on sati and sampajañña: <S> By now you will wonder how the term sati became so established as “mindfulness”. <S> Well, mindfulness will be a result of ones practice of noting, especially during the noting…during the seeing. <S> However, the best term translated as mindfulness is in fact a separate pali word called “sam-pajanna“, lit. ‘to know together with’ http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/ <A> The Pali word is Sati, which derives from the verb Sarati, which literally means to remember. <S> If you look at how the word is actually used in the texts, there seems to be three distinct senses of the term. <S> The first sense is the most general, and it just means memory, or the ability to recall events and information. <S> This isn't a major meaning of the term Sati in the Buddhist texts, but it does show up occasionally. <S> In a second sense, Sati has a more specific meaning of focusing the mind on an object. <S> This is more commonly used in the form of a suffix, so for example Ānāpānasati means setting the mind on the Ānā and pāna, the in-breath and the out-breath. <S> In the last sense, it has a much more specific meaning. <S> It means the setting of the mind on an object of ultimate reality, meaning setting the mind on direct experience itself, which can be divided up into four categories of body,feeling, mind, and dhammas, meaning physical sensation, the experience of something as pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, awareness, and various mental qualities that occur in the mind such as emotions. <S> This list is called the four Satipatthana, and the correct setting of the mind on them is called Samma-Sati, or right mindfulness, which is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. <S> The standard definition found in many places in the Suttas is as follows: <S> And what is right mindfulness? <S> There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. <S> He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... <S> the mind in & of itself... <S> mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. <S> This is called right mindfulness. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html <S> There are other aspects of the definition which the Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo has already mentioned in his answer as well <A> According to TamilCube: appamāda, paṭisaṅkhāna( http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx ) <A> Just to answer my own question appamāda as @Medhini says. <S> This having the quality of heedfulness atappa giving the sense of ardency <S> Both these I've got from wikipedia to be honest <S> but I just wanted to complete all the possible translations that I could recall to complete the question <A> as they recollect and think about that teaching. <S> So tathā vūpakaṭṭho viharanto taṃ dhammaṃ anussarati anuvitakketi. <S> At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of mindfulness; Yasmiṃ <S> samaye satisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti; SN 46.3 <S> Mindfully they take up & dwell in right view: that’s their right mindfulness. <S> So sato sammādiṭṭhiṃ upasampajja viharati, sāssa hoti sammāsati MN 117
|
sati comes from the root /sar, which means to remember or recollect.
|
Purpose of touching tongue to roof of mouth during meditation While researching forms of meditation involving concentration specific to the Tibetan school of Buddhism, the meditation instruction tells one to touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth when meditating. Recently, I have been reading a book on Taoism and energy flow, which also instructs the same thing yet for the purpose of completing an energy pathway. My question: What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating (in concentrated meditation in Tibetan Buddhism)? I would also welcome some answers/comments about other schools of Buddhism related to this. <Q> During some kinds of meditation, esp. <S> when one penetrates lower chakras, there is lots of saliva generated, swallowing which can be quite a distraction and interfere with abdominal breathing. <S> Raising the tongue makes most of saliva flow back into the throat instead of filling the mouth. <S> P.S. in a commentary to ancient Chan text "Lung Chung" (The Brief Precepts) <S> it says that pressing the tongue to the roof of the mouth eliminates the objects of discursive (speech-type) thought. <A> What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back, and crush the mind with mind.’ <S> So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate <S> , I beat down, held back, crushed the mind with mind. <S> While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits. <S> It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain, subdue, and attack him; even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate <S> , I beat down, held back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits. <S> But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving. <S> But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. <S> Mahā Saccaka Sutta . <S> If, bhikshus, while the monk is attending to the stilling of the thought-formation, there still arises in him bad unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, or with delusion, then with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate, he should subdue, restrain, attack the (bad) mind with the (good) mind. <S> With clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate, those bad unwholesome thoughts are eliminated and disappear. <S> By their elimination, the mind thus stands firm internally, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated. <S> Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta <S> Teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against thepalate used to gain unremitting mindfulness in the 1st case during the Bodhisattva's self mortification. <S> He finds himself only being exhausted by this, but in the latter case it is recommended as the last resort action drive out unwholesome thoughts. <A> The technique is not peculiar to Tibetian Buddhism, it's also used in Zen practice -- How To Practice Zen Meditation? <S> says, Head And Neck <S> Whatever the position you choose to adopt, make sure that your back and neck stay as straight as possible. <S> Pull your chin in a little to erect the neck and try to “push the sky” with the top of your head. <S> Do not be too tensed or too relaxed while you do this; try to find balance in your posture. <S> Keep your mouth closed during zazen; your teeth should be together, and your tongue should be against the roof of your mouth just behind your teeth. <S> (The above is just an extract, see the link for other detail). <A> Many meditation techniques work by over riding the autonomic nervous system. <S> I find this technique effective at 'thought stopping'. <S> Like many meditation practices you must practice the technique to benefit.
|
As it was explained to me, the purpose is rather mundane.
|
Can a being be reborn into more that one body in Tibetan Buddhism? I was reading that both the Dalai Lama and Karmapa are both rebirths (emanations) of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara . Also there are other lamas who are also emanations of Avalokiteśvara. So is Avalokiteśvara reborn into more than one body and if so is every being that is Avalokiteśvara the same in some way? Or is that just different Tibetan traditions? Generally is rebirth restricted to one body or can it be split across more than one? I appreciate that this will be different across branches of Buddhism so can I restrict my question to Tibetan Buddhism. <Q> Because Buddhism denies independent existence of substantial "self", it does not posit literal reincarnation, as in someone literally being a come back of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student). <S> Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. <S> Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. <S> This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work. <S> Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one. <S> In this sense, multiple people could embody the same predecessor. <S> In fact, it is more often than not a case with Great teachers, that they have multiple "emanations" (usually, of mind, of speech, and of enlightened activity) -- because a regular limited person can't give justice to all of that greatness, so declaring one Tulku would not be appropriate. <A> Tibetan Buddhism is invoking the trikaya . <S> These special rebirths are nirmanakayas willed into being by enlightened beings or they are the chosen rebirth of an accomplished yogi. <S> It's closer to the Hindu idea of an avatar. <S> For the majority of people, not particularly accomplished, rebirth functions as normal. <S> Those others aren't being "reborn" because the source of their form-body hasn't died. <A> As Andrei has said the Tulku system can give rise to multiple rebirths. <S> mind <S> karma <S> guna (quality) <S> However even in the event of a multiple rebirth, one of the manifestations will be seen as the primary one. <S> In Bernardo Bertolucci film the Little Buddha <S> a Tibetan lama is reborn into 3 Western children. <S> The rebirths are separate manifestations of his body, speech and mind. <S> In the interest of correct referencing, this information comes from the book Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya. <A> HH <S> the Dalai Lama may have the emanation qualities of the Buddhist Avaloketeshvara, who was one of the disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha, but he is a direct reincarnation of all the prior Dalai Lamas. <S> So are the Karmapa Rinpoche's, the Tai Situ Rinpoches, and Namkhai Nyingpo Rinpoche's. <S> Most of what are identified as Tulkus in Tibetan Buddhism are emanations of a human being that attained enlightenment, and then emanated specific Buddha Family Qualities (body, speech, mind, activity, qualities) into an accomplished disciple, or other <S> being very accomplished yet not enlightened, that the Enlightened Khandro or Lama believed could carry out the Buddha Activities of the particular emanation of the Enlightened Mind <S> bestowed upon them (the emanation) by the gone beyond Enlightened Being/Lama/Khandro. <A> The five qualities are not rebirth or reincarnation qualities; they are qualities of the emanation rebirth. <S> It is not a reincarnation rebirth. <S> There are five Khyentse emanations of Jamyang Kyentse Wangp. <S> There are five emanation rebirths of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro <S> (Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is only one emanation of Jyamgyan Khyentse Chokye Lodro <S> , He is Not, I repeat, Not, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyo Lodro, but is the reincarnation of some other (to me) unidentified person who was blessed with one of the 5 emanation qualities of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro. <S> There is no "maximum number of rebirths", nor is there a maximum number of emanations, although the five qualities listed previously by me are a more typical type of emanation activity by an Enlightened Being. <S> However, the latter can emanate endlessly, as they are truly enlightened. <S> Is there a Buddhist Studies Program at a college near where you are living? <S> Or can the participants of this blog obtain access to the library of such a program, or visit one? <S> Seems there is a lot of confusion out there, and spreading via the internet is not such a good idea. <S> There is a wonderful resource online: treasuryoflives.org. <S> Also, it is necessary to study with a living Buddhist Master, to clarify questions such as the ones raised by this blog. <S> I challenge you all to question my response by responsibly engaging in intelligent productive research, via legitimate libraries of Buddhist Studies Programs at the graduate university level, and via qualified Tibetan Buddhist Teachers. <S> Good luck!
|
There most definitely are reincarnations of specific beings in Buddhism. The maximum number of rebirths is five which correspond to the following manifestations body speech
|
Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in? Does one take refuge into the concept of Buddhahood or refuge into Gautama Buddha? What about Vairocana Buddha or Amitābha Buddha for that matter? I've heard various things from taking refuge in a cosmic Buddha principal to the actual Gautama Buddha over the years from various Buddhist teachers. Perhaps taking refuge into the Buddha is a relative subjective experience. Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in? <Q> I think both interpretations should be somewhat intertwined and doesn't need to be clearly distinguished. <S> See, you'll not say 'I only take refuge in Gautama Buddha, but not Buddhahood', or 'I will take refuge only in Buddhahood, but not Gautama Buddha', both of these sounds weird. <S> Buddha Gautama represents Buddhahood, so we can not separate Him from Buddhahood. <S> Abhidharmakosa-bhasya of Vasubandhu explains taking refuge in Buddha like this: <S> These factors are (1) the cognition of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), (2) the cognition of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and (4) right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) (vi. 50, 67), (4) with the factors that accompany (parivāra) <S> these cognitions (jñāna), i.e., with the five pure aggregates (skandha). <S> As for the material body (rūpakāya) of the Buddha, it is not subject to modification through the acquisition of the status of Buddha. <S> Thus, one does not take refuge in the material body of the Buddha, which is, in fact, the material body of the Bodhisattva. <S> [Question:] – <S> Does one take refuge in all the Buddhas or in one Buddha? <S> [Answer:] – <S> According to the nature of entities [lakṣaṇatas], and in the absence of an explicit declaration (kaṇṭhokti), [one takes refuge] in all the Buddhas, for the Buddhas have always followed the same path, (1) a mundane (laukika) path and (2) <S> a supramundane (lokottara) path (vii. <S> 34). <S> [ Lodrö Sangpo translation. ] <A> Now we are spending the era of Gauthama Buddha. <S> So we should take refuge on him. <S> Vairocana and Amithabha are Bodhisattas(to be Buddhas). <S> They haven't attain Buddhahood yet. <S> So the Buddha we should take refuge on is The Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha. <A> When you take refuge you take refuge in the qualities of the Buddha . <S> In more detail . <S> You have to take inspiration in the Buddha to to develop the qualities of the Buddha and the Triple Gem . <S> This interpretation may change from tradition to tradition. <A> It means literally accepting the Buddha as your refuge. <S> Like how a child feels about his loving parents. <S> When he gets into trouble, he will go to his parents. <S> When he needs advice, he will look for his parents. <S> He never doubts his parents or try to do DNA tests to verify if they are his true parents. <S> :) <S> Just like that, one should put his full faith in the Buddha in person and in his enlightenment to accept him as the only teacher who can show you the way to everlasting peace. <A> According to my teacher, which I feel is very much correct, we are taking refuge in the ideals of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha . <S> So whoever fulfills these ideals, we take refuge in them. <S> Remember, that there were many Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautama. <S> So what are these ideals? <S> It is easy to come across these ideals in the Buddha Vandana . <S> It says that the Buddha is - 1. <S> the one who is Arahant which is portmanteau of Ari (evils) and Hant (destroy) which means destructions of all evils. <S> 2. <S> the one who is Samma Sam Buddha - one who has become fully enlightened. <S> 3. <S> the one who is Vijja Charan Sampanno which means who is perfect in wisdom and moral conduct. <S> 4. <S> the one who is Sugato - the one who has travelled a great path 5. <S> the one who is Lokvidu <S> which is again a combination of Lok(in ancient India, it was not only the world which was called Lok but this body of ours was also known as Lok) and Vidu(intelligent, knower); thus a knower of the world and the body 6. <S> the one who is Anuttaro who is incomparable 7. <S> the one who is Puris Dhamma Sarthi - Puris means men/women and Sarthi means the one who drives - thus he is the one who has turned the wheel of Dhamma 8. <S> the one who is Satta Dev Manussana - the teacher of Gods and Humans 9. <S> the one who is Bhagavati - the one who is enlightened and blessed Every Buddha who was ever born had these qualities and when we take refuge in Buddha, we take refuge in all of these qualities reminding ourselves of these virtues to be cultivated in ourselves.
|
They who take refuge in the Buddha, take refuge in the factors (dharma) of the perfected being (arhat) that constitute a Buddha (buddhakāraka), the factors that are the causes of the designation “Buddha” [buddhaprajñaptihetūn], i.e., the factors due to which, as a principal cause, a certain person is called Buddha; or else the factors through the acquisition of which a certain person, understanding all entities, is called Buddha.
|
Problem concentrating during Vipassana meditation I am having trouble maintaining concentration for long periods of time. I make my breath slightly hard and then pull my mind back to it and then carry on as normal. But it's quite hard to have a long sustained period of breath observation. Once maintained I try to move from head to feet taking large body parts such as head, abdomen, arms and legs. Do this for a while and then the mind wanders away again and come back to breath. At times the mind wanders for long periods of time until I realise it's wandered away. I haven't been able to penetrate and observe smaller, subtler sensations since a year now. I know it's harder to do this at home than at a retreat but I am wondering if this has something to do with my Silas. Although they are not the most perfect I do try my best to maintain them. Anyone stuck in similar phases and overcame it? Suggestions are welcome. Ps. I am a Goenka student and very faithful towards it and have never tried anything else and don't intend to as I am very happy with the results this technique has brought me. <Q> When you breath be mindful of the start to end of the in and out breath. <S> For each breath in and out breath be mindful of whether your mind wandered away during this time. <S> When scanning the body keep your concentration anchored on the breath and sensation on the base of the nose as well. <S> If your mind wanders away bring it back to Anapana and then continue the scanning. <S> For each in and out breath see if your mind has wondered away for that period. <S> Also note the sensations that arise when your mind wanders to an alternative object and the sensation when it is with the chosen object. <S> In some parts stay for a while (but not too long) also focusing on the breath. <A> Firstly to my understanding Sila is very important part of a meditation practice. <S> It purify the morality and ready your for the meditation. <S> If you have troubles with the meditation, I think the fist step is to start with Sila. <S> Try to keep five precepts or the ten precepts. <S> Without Sila, you cannot success with your meditation practice as it is the first step of the threefold training. <S> Secondly <S> if you try this you will find that over and over again the mind will wander. <S> Be kind to the mind and let it to settle down. <S> When you found it is wondered, just notice it accept it and bring it back to the meditation object. <S> Hope this helps. <A> Read Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind". <S> For short, practice shamata . <S> Practice to focus your attention on the breath, and practice to keep your focus on it as long as you can. <S> Even if you can't sustain it for more than a few seconds, keep practicing. <S> If you can sustain your focus on the breath, you can sustain it in any other meditations. <S> If you want a more didactic explanation from someone trustworthy, read Wallace's book.
|
Also note the length of the breath in and out breath. Sometimes this helps sharpen the mind to see clearly the sensation arising and passing away in the particular section of your body. I think it is not a good idea to force yourself to keep the mind from wandering,
|
Afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism Where does the ideology of afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism come from and why are they different? <Q> Hinduism teaches about a permanent soul that goes from life to life until it reunites with the universal soul called the Mahabrahma. <S> Buddhism says there's no soul going even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life. <S> Both mind and body are processes of causes and effects. <S> There's nothing permanent within you that can qualify as a soul. <S> Read about Paticca Samuppada . <S> Buddhism also rejects the belief of a universal soul. <A> Where does the ideology of afterlife in Buddhism and Hinduism come from... <S> In Hinduism it comes from Vedas and Upanishadas and belief in that. <S> Buddhism is way of life. <S> It is not much about 'what after life?' <S> It shows us better way to live. <S> Nothing in Buddhism comes from blind faith on scriptures. <S> ...why are they different? <S> They are different because both the religions are basically different. <S> Buddhism is not just different from Hinduism but is essentially against Caste based discrimination which is core of Hinduism. <S> It is Brahminical religion which believes not on deeds but on birth. <S> I think I have tried to answer the question. <S> Would like to know if I am wrong. <A> In Buddhism rebirth comes from the concept of mind. <S> The mind is a formless continuum. <S> Each moment of mind arises from the previous moment <S> then subsides to give rise to the next. <S> Mind has a connection to the body but is separate. <S> It does not arise from the body. <S> Death is when the mind and the body's connection is severed. <S> At that point the mind does not cease but rather gives rise to other appearances. <S> First the bardo, the intermediate state, and then rebirth in a new life. <S> This can be understood by analogy to dreams. <S> When we sleep the appearance of our waking life dissolves. <S> Latter in the night a dream world appears. <S> That lasts for some time then <S> dissolves and another dream world may arise. <S> Each appears real and we relate to them. <S> Then we wake and our waking life appears. <S> Going from life to life is much like going from dream to dream.
|
Rebirth and after life are the central concepts in Hinduism.
|
How was the Buddha Jayanti edition of the Tripitaka derived? I've read that the three Theravada countries Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar all three have their own version of the Tripitaka.I've also read that in 1956 they held the Sixth Buddhist convention with the goal of creating one standard edition of the Tripitaka, called the Buddha Jayanti-edition. The Dutch version of the Wikipedia page on the Pali canon claims that The Buddha Jayanti-Edition, however, was composed by the most distinguished monks of the three main Buddhist countries and is considered the most correct version (original wiki page here , English translation here ) I was wondering if this is true. How do they know that the Buddha Jayanti-edition is the most correct version? What exactly are the differences between the 3 Tipitaka versions and how did the monks resolve them? <Q> I have some experience comparing the BJT Pali with the Pali Text published by the Pali Text Society and the version found on the CSCD. <S> I have read and proofed the BJT of numerous suttas throughout the Sutta Pitaka, the complete Anguttara Nikaya, and the first two volumes and many other suttas from the Samyutta Nikaya. <S> On the whole the BJT and the PTS agree with some spelling differences and an occasional insignificant difference in text matter. <S> Both have errors. <S> The BJT has the advantage in that for the most part it has unabridged the text. <S> (Trying to figure out which previous phrase was intended by '...pe...' is no easy matter!) <S> The BJT has errors resulting from copy and paste where sections are repeated with a change but where the change was not made. <S> The Pali Text Society text is, as far as I am concerned, the most authoritative simply because the compilers consulted numerous manuscripts for its compilation. <S> The CSCD is also commendable for that reason, but it has not got the advantage of eliminating all the abridgments. <S> This does not cover the complete scope of your question, but hopefully it will chip away around the edges. <S> To best see what I have done with the Pali texts and the PTS translations visit the 'What's New?' <S> page at: http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/whats.new.htm <S> I cannot claim that this work is error free as it is being done with excessive haste, but it should provide a strong platform for a future completely unabridged pali and translation of the Sutta Pitaka. <S> It should also be helpful to beginning translators as the text is broken up at the original line breaks which helps to overcome the despair inspired by a huge block of Pali. <S> Translations are linked to the other available free translations. <S> obo <A> I have discussed this with Ven Dhirasekera Dhammavihari, one of the foremost Pali scholars of his generation, who was present at the 6th Council, as well as with Major Surathat Bunnag, founder of the Dhamma Society, whose mother was present, and who sponsored the Mahasangiti edition in her honor. <S> At the Council itself, the main proceedings were run by the Burmese monks, with Ven Vicittasarabhivamsa reciting in response to questions of Mahasi Sayadaw. <S> It seems that little was done in terms of debating and resolving the issues between the different versions. <S> No detailed records or methods appear to have survived, but according to Ven. <S> Dhammavihari the Burmese, Thais, and Sinhalese each did their own recensions. <S> Thus the 6th Council edition is largely a confirmation and update of the Burmese 5th Council edition, and as such, preserves the characteristic Burmese Pali spellings. <S> Also, certain additions to the text, such as adding the long section on the four noble truths to MN 10 Satipatthana, were retained from the 5th Council edition. <S> According to Major Surathat, this text was printed in the first edition of the 6th Council text in Myanmar. <S> However, he says that following the unrest in Burma in the early 60s, the second edition was by mistake a simple reprint of the old 5th Council edition. <S> Subsequent editions, including the VRI digital edition, were based on this. <S> I have not been able to confirm this independently. <S> The revision made by Major Surathat's Dhamma Society and published as the Mahasangiti edition was based on the VRI text. <S> However it used the first edition— <S> that is, the actual 6th Council text—as the mainline reading. <S> This has subsequently been digitized independent of the VRI/Mahasangiti text. <S> I am not sure if the Thai version was digitized. <A> Here is an introduction to the Tripitaka <S> This is an extensive work that deals with the evolution and different versions of the Tripitaka or as the text spells it Tipitaka http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/18_%20Three%20Baskets%20_Tipitaka_%20in%20Buddhism.pdf
|
I believe, although again I have not confirmed it independently, that the Buddha Jayanthi edition in Sinhalese script is descended from the text redacted by the Sri Lankan monks at the 6th Council.
|
How does conversion work in Buddhism? I am a Hindu, but I like Buddhism. How does that work? Does one need to convert to practice Buddhism? If so, how does one convert to Buddhism? Can anyone convert to Buddhism? Or can I just practice without converting? <Q> First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. <S> Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. <S> Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called " What Makes You Not a Buddhist ": <S> It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist ( ref ). <S> If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can ' take refuge '. <S> This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions. <S> More info also here <S> You do not need to give up Hinduism. <S> To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche: ... <S> it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. <S> .... <S> Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so. <S> ( ref ). <A> Ceremonially, you can take Refuge. <S> In many traditions, this is the entry or acknowledgement of being dedicated to being a better person. <S> Kagyu.org has this very nice talk from Kalu Rinpoche about what taking Refuge is and the Three Jewels: <S> http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/bec/bec04.php <S> It finishes with this wonderful thought: It should be understood that the taking of refuge is not a process whereby the Buddha takes those who appear to have devotion to him and leads them to his side. <S> Through taking refuge, one begins a process oneself which, going through various stages, will lead to one's own realization of the same state, the same experience as the Buddha. <S> And I believe Buddhism is open to all, with some gray areas around the insane and mentally handicapped. <S> If you are not in "your right mind", it is difficult to understand deeply what Buddhism is. <S> That is probably a different question though. <A> The “Triple Jewels” consist of three things: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. <S> This link on Buddhism Stackexchange explores the nuances of “taking refuge” into the “Triple Jewels” from various Buddhist perspectives. <S> In <S> Zen Buddhism, which includes the Mahayana Buddhist traditions of East Asia the following vows for taking refuge are used: I take refuge in the Buddha, wishing for all sentient beings to understand the great Way profoundly and make the greatest resolve. <S> I take refuge in the Dharma, wishing for all sentient beings to delve deeply into the Sutra Pitaka , causing their wisdom to be as broad as the sea. <S> I take refuge in the Sangha, wishing all sentient beings to lead the congregation in harmony, entirely without obstruction. <S> After the initial ceremony, the initiate follows the basic tenets of Buddhism by applying them to their circumstances along with various forms of meditation. <S> However, the Zen Buddhist tradition generally considers the terms: Buddhist, Buddhism, and Triple Jewels as methods to help the initiate along the path to enlightenment but are not an end in themselves. <S> 1 <S> So, converting to Buddhism from the Zen Buddhist tradition is more about starting a life long process rather than being a member of an in-group versus an out-group . <S> Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen <A> It depends. <S> I suggest you study the essential points of Buddhist teaching, especially the teaching on the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self, and the teaching on dependent origination. <S> These teachings are incompatible with some ideas in Hinduism <S> (Hinduism is very diverse, so I don't think there is always contradiction.) <S> The main ideas that are common in Hinduism which conflict with Buddhism is the teaching of Brahman, an absolute reality which all of the world derives from. <S> That doesn't fit, and it would also be problematic if you believe that the Gods are eternal beings who have always existed and always will exist. <S> However, if you just have love for the Gods and feel devotion towards them and preform Pujas to them, from a Buddhist perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. <S> In the time of the Buddha people venerated all sorts of beings, even including Yakshas and Nagas and the Buddha never spoke against it or forbade his followers from it, and in South East Asia today, some Hindu Gods (such as Brahma and Ganesh) are worshiped by faithful Buddhists and no one thinks there's a problem with it. <S> If you don't feel a contradiction, by all means, consider yourself to be both a Buddhist and a Hindu. <S> The Buddha himself had lay followers who where Brahmin priests and it wasn't a problem. <A> Buddhism is by practice. <S> There is no conversion. <S> When you take refuge in the Triple Gem you take refuge in the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga through this now has turned into a ceremonial outlook. <S> You can call your self a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. <S> but still practice Buddhism as at the core of the Buddhist practice <S> is Vipassana. <S> This can be done by any one. <A> For me personally, things really changed once I joined a sangha. <S> I view the joining of a sangha (Taking Refuge in the sangha) as the moment I became a Zen Buddhist. <A> You can practice Buddhism without converting. <S> You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts.
|
Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion. Conversion into Buddhism from a Zen Buddhist perspective, initially requires the initiate to take refuge into the “Triple Jewels” in a formal ceremony headed by a religious leader.
|
Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha who ever existed? According to tradition, there were 27 Buddhas before Gautama Buddha . Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha out of all the 28 Buddhas? <Q> No! <S> All Sammasambuddhas are equal in their attainment of Buddhahood. <S> They are all omniscient, equal in virtue, concentration and wisdom. <S> However the time they take to cultivate Paramitha might vary from Bodhisatva to Bodhisatva. <S> There are three classes of Bodhisattvas, namely; Intellectual Bodhisattvas (Pannadhika), Devotional Bodhisattvas (Saddhadhika) and Energetic Bodhisattas (Viriyadhika). <S> The minimum time it takes to become a Buddha after getting the confirmation from another Buddha is called "Sara Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". <S> Intellectual Bodhisattas take the minimum time. <S> Our Buddha was an intellectual Bodhisatta. <S> Saddhadhika Bodhisattas take double that time. <S> Viriyadhika Bodhisattas take 4 times the minimum time required. <S> Buddha Maitreya who will appear in the future is said to be a Viriyadhika Bodhisatta. <S> But after attaining Buddhahood they are all equal. <S> Apart from that, there are 30 similarities and 8 dissimilarities. <S> The dissimilarities are not directly related to Buddhahood. <S> Ex: <S> The tree under which they attain enlightenment, the life span, parents, wife, chief disciples, whether there's a Vinaya pitaka etc. <S> Read the Buddhawamsa for more details. <A> There is also the concept of Pratyekabuddhas or a private Buddha. <S> This is a being who achieves enlightenment on their own and then does not go on to spread the Dharma as Gautama Buddha did during his 50 year ministry in Northern India. <S> So in the sense of spreading the Dharma, this being would be seen as less great than the Buddha's proper. <S> Certainly in texts such as the White Lotus Sutra , the Pratyekabuddhas is spoken about in lesser terms than the vast array of Buddhas and Bodhsattvas that populate that text. <A> There are infinite Buddha's. <S> The 27 referenced above are the ones our Buddha got definite prophecy of Buddhahood. <S> Though Buddhas are similar in their Morality, Mastery Over the Mind and Wisdom they do have differences arising from the length of Parami and and store of Karma. <S> The Buddha's who have longer Parami times generally are long lived and have loner Sasanas. <S> Also their teaching style and and frequency of teaching changes. <S> E.g. a Buddha who was Pannadhika during Paramis generally preach more often and while other Buddhas may through example and perhaps less frequently. <A> Being a Lord Buddha is reaching a certain level of understanding which is higher than any other being,so it is a status not a name for a person. <S> Unlike other religions being a Lord Buddha is not out of reach for the followers,So if you for example take the time for the task as a Bodhisattva and finally become a Lord Buddha you will be equal with Gautama Buddha and every Buddha before. <S> And the 27 you mentioned before is the number of Lord Buddhas who live in this era ( Kalpa ) not the amount who ever lived. <S> So in that point of view Buddhas will be born as long as Humans exist.
|
First of all no matter which version you learn as Buddhists we all believe that all of the Lord Buddhas are in the same level when it comes to understanding.there can be some differences in small things like how long they would live among humans.
|
How do Buddhists use mudras? This is a practice question. I know both Mahayana buddhists and Vajrayana buddhists use mudras. In the former they show up in inconography, and hand resting positions while meditating, in the later it's part of elaborate rituals. How are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Mahayana? Outside of being a step in larger rituals, how are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Vajrayana? <Q> In Vajrayana every practice is done on 3 levels - on the level of body, speech and mind. <S> We work with the mind through visualising the Buddha forms, the speech centre is exercised through mantra repetitions and the body - through keeping the posture, using prayer beads (mala) and through the use of mudras. <S> As a Vajrayana practitioner I can think of a few cases when I use mudras. <S> First case is while doing the practice of prostrations. <S> A person stands straight and brings their hands together in the 'lotus bud' mudra and places them in the crown of the head, then to the throat and then heart. <S> Then the person kneels down and slides their body on the floor with arms stretched out towards the front. <S> Then hands should meet to form lotus bud mudra again and then the person can stand up to perform another prostration. <S> Touching the head represents purifying the body, touching throat - the speech centre and touching heart - purifying the mind. <S> People also touch their head, throat and heart centre when standing in front of the Stupa or Buddha statue. <S> All these gestures signify opening up the mind, speech and body to receive the blessing. <S> Another example when I use mudras is while attending a recitation of Mandala Offering text. <S> It usually takes place before the teachings or empowerments given by high Lamas. <S> During rituals it is usually the teacher who does the recitation and mudra sequences, however during the Mandala Offering, all students use a special mudra shown on the picture below. <S> One beautiful addition to this mudra is placing rice and flower petals inside the palms and throwing them in the air as soon as the recitation is finished. <S> As for the the meaning of the mudra itself, the arrangement of fingers symbolizes the simplified depiction of the universe one mentally creates and then offers to the Buddha - upright fingers in the middle represent Mount Meru and the 4 pairs around - four continents (if you're interested in details, look here ). <S> Mandala Offering is a third part of so-called preliminary practices <S> Ngöndro <S> and it is done to purify attachment, generate merit and create lots of positive impressions in the mind. <A> Since this question has sat for 3 weeks without anyone attempting an answer, I will try to add something that may perhaps point the questioner in a good direction. <S> Mudras seem to be used mainly by the monastic and professional (dance, art, etc.) <S> communities to convey symbolic messages to the Buddhas and those participating in or viewing the ceremony (practice, puja, sadhana, initiation, etc). <S> ( http://www.tibetanbuddhistaltar.org/offering-mudra/ ) <S> (Pictures of the same mudras: http://chantamantra.com/index.php/prayers-a-rituals/64-mudra-for-8-outer-offerings ) <S> It is stated elsewhere that giving the whole of the physical universe, were it possible, would not be as great an offering to one's guru or the Buddhas as a few minutes of meditation. <S> It is helpful, I think, for questions like these to remember that the original monastic community was very poor. <S> Mental offerings given with a good heart and good motivation are no small thing. <S> Here also is the Wikipedia page on Mudras ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudra ). <S> (My opinions follow.) <S> Mudras seem to be like mantras for the body. <S> I think use of mantras is meant to overcome the tendencies of the gross mind, and give the practitioner some mental space for positive practice. <S> It seems to me mudras are meant to give the body a practice or physical focus that assists the mind in its meditation practice. <S> Hope that helps. <A> When meditating I was taught to hold my hands in the cosmic mudra as shown below. <S> It's used as a comfortable position to hold one's hands during meditation. <S> The thumbs should be touching but not pressing. <S> Also it's indicative of the mental states encountered during meditation. <S> If the thumbs have become pressed tightly together then the meditator is probably in an anxious or tense state. <S> On the other hand if the thumbs end up not pressing together at all and instead are waggling around in the air then the meditator is probably in a distracted state of mind. <S> I've lost track of the number of times <S> I've 'come round' during a meditation session and my thumbs are pointing in straight up in the air and are not touching at all.
|
Mudras can represent offerings to the Buddhas that are given mentally. When meeting a great teacher or receiving blessing from him people usually hold their hands together and place them on the heart centre.
|
Has Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance got anything to do with Zen? I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig a few years ago and really enjoyed it. However I'm not convinced it's got anything to do with Zen . From what I remember the protagonist spends a lot of time fixing his motorbike and contemplating the notion of quality. But does the text link into Buddhism generally and Zen specifically? If not, why has it got Zen in the title? <Q> The main idea is pretty Zen <S> yes. <S> The premise of the book is that Western philosophy made a wrong turn at Aristotle, who placed (conceptual) Truth at the top of the hierarchy of all knowable, thereby subsuming the Good (aka Quality aka Beauty) as a byproduct of Truth. <S> Through this sleight of hands the conceptual has falsely acquired status of universal, while the experiential from being the mother of conceptual became its slave and hostage. <S> Instead, argues the author, <S> the (preconceptual) Good exists in the sphere of direct experience, and can be known directly. <S> According to author, true understanding of Quality, Beauty and Ethics is possible only through such direct nonconceptual contact with the principle of Good. <S> At which point Good is reinstated to the throne of knowable and Truth becomes merely one of alternative ways of attaining Good. <S> This very much parallels Zen Buddhism's interpretation of Buddha-Dharma, according to which Self-Existing Enlightenment is not to be understood through analytical reasoning, but is awakened to through direct experience. <S> Meditation, koan work, interviews with Zen Master, calligraphy, tea ceremony etc. are all means of getting in touch with this direct experience, which in Zen Buddhism is emphasized over analytical study of texts. <S> In my opinion it would not be too much of a stretch to equate book author's direct insight into Good/Quality with Enlightenment as it is understood in Zen Buddhism. <S> Although technically, Zen Buddhism goes further in that it gets one into direct contact not just with Good, but also with the very Emptiness itself. <S> So strictly speaking the author falls short of full-scale Enlightenment, but still does a good job illuminating the trap of strict rationality and the primacy of direct experience. <A> I think the answer is not much. <S> Robert Pirsig states that it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. <S> It's not very factual on motorcycles, either. <S> However to say it isn't about Zen doesn't mean it's nothing to do with the enlightenment experience. <S> The guys over at Partially Examined life when discussing <S> don't talk about Zen but do talk about enlightenment. <S> In the pivotal point of the book the protagonist undergoes a physiological break. <S> Pirsig himself refused to say whether the experience was a physiological/psychotic break or a genuine enlightment experience <A> The word Zen is derived from Pali word Jhāna which means concentrated or absorbed state of mind. <S> So whenever I see the word Zen outside of Religious work <S> I assume it just refered to absorption . <S> Therefore I would assume in your case it would refer to absorption into art of motorcycle repairing :).
|
The title itself is apparently a play on the book Zen and the Art of Archery
|
Why is it hard to breathe naturally when meditating? For me it is rather hard to breathe naturally while doing Samatha meditation. It makes it harder to concentrate because I'm always controlling my breath. Do you have any suggestion how to overcome this problem? Is this a normal problem for a beginner in Samatha meditation? <Q> The moment we think about the breath we tend to take it over. <S> Even going as far as trying to even it out, make it pleasant, make it smooth. <S> Sticking with it <S> long enough one can realise that the breath is not completely controllable or always pleasant. <S> Realising this one can think that the meditation is not done right, as if the mediator is failing, however this is part of the practise. <S> Seeing your habit of clinging, of trying to control and seeing that it doesn't work, you slowly and momentarily let it go. <S> So my suggestion is to simply sticking with it <S> and you'll find yourself slowly letting the breath rise and fall, rather than trying to control. <A> Yes it is very normal, just try to remember that we meditate to let things go... let go of control, let go of stress, just be there concentrated in one single point <S> If you see yourself thinking too much on how you are breathing, remember to repeat to yourself "thinking, thinking, thinking...", you need to remind yourself not to follow thoughts, pain or control things, for tranquility meditation you need to let it go, your body knows how to do it! <S> Keep trying! :) <A> Try focusing on the breath that might help I think <S> but it's normal to want to control breathing at first <S> but if you try focusing on the breath then it becomes a concept. <S> It's always difficult in the beginning but it gets easier. <S> The mind is always jumping around so we have to give it something to focus on.
|
In the beginning one tends to control the breath out of habit.
|
Characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer) What are the characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer) . Can Sotàpanna person live at a home with a family (married life) without going to a monastery and stay without being a monk... <Q> Clinging to rites and rituals <S> (There are 10 fetters, all of which must be broken before enlightenment) <S> So quoting from the Alagaddupama Sutta Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned three fetters, are all stream-enterers, no more liable to downfall, assured, and headed for full Enlightenment. <S> Perhaps more helpfully it's been described to me as the point at which a someone cannot fall back on the path. <S> Forward is the only direction they will go. <S> It is like reaching escape velocity. <S> Until you get out of the gravity well of samsara there is always the possibly of falling back to Earth. <S> The stream entrant no longer feels that gravitational pull so will not fall back (apologies to Newton for the analogy). <S> More poetically reaching stream entry has been been described as the turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness. <S> Regarding family life and being a stream entrant - there is no obligation to join a monastery or be a bhikku or monk. <S> There are apparently 3000 lay stream entrants named in the Pali Canon. <S> Sangharakshita , the founder of the Buddhist group that I belong to says that stream entry is a realistic aim for anyone seriously engaged in the spiritual life irrespective of lifestyle. <S> Not to say that it wouldn't take a great deal of commitment of course. <A> To build upon Crab's answer, stream enterer is simply one that really gets the teaching of Buddha. <S> As in, clearly sees what Buddha meant and why: what Enlightenment is, what Nirvana is, how karma works, how suffering originates and ceases, sees how the three marks of existence are true, sees how pratitya-samutpada is true, etc. <S> (When I say "clearly sees" I mean the direct experience of how these things manifest in the world, in front of their eyes, not just as analytical understanding of structured explanations.) <S> Because they clearly see all this, they obviously don't have the self view anymore, have no doubts about Buddha's teaching, and clearly see to what extent the rites and rituals work, hence have no irrational clinging to them. <S> Now, they may not have perfectly <S> realized (=mastered in practice) what they see yet, and that's the main difference between stream enterer and an arahant. <S> They may still get caught up in emotions once in a while (although not in strong ones, and not for a long time), they may still have some confusions as to some subtleties of Buddha's teaching, most definitely they still have some clinging to "I" at the subconscious level, even though they don't subscribe to the self- view anymore. <S> But in any case, because they "got it", they are not nearly as confused as they used to be before stream entry. <A> i did watch a video that make a story about buddhism. <S> apparently someone can be a stream entrant without being a monk if it was show by a qualify monk. <S> however , to advance further stage , one need to be a monk. <S> this is a story about a wife who went to become a nun <S> and then the husband later on follow her course and be a monk. <S> so i think both of them are probably very very near during the buddha is still alive as the story said the wife actually display some sort of spiritual attainment and convince her husband to the point her husband become a monk. <S> And apparently this happened because both of them had pray to attain the arahat fruit in one their past life during another buddha time.
|
The Pali Canon definition of a stream entrant is one who have abandoned the first three fetters namely Self View Skeptical Doubt
|
How do Buddhists express condolences? Since converting to Buddhism, I've been unsure how to express condolences when people pass away. Everything familiar that I might say comes from a Christian perspective such as "being in a better place" or "with the Lord now". Simply letting the family know that I'm thinking of them works. But I'm wondering what is typical or traditional in Buddhist countries (or among experienced Buddhists in the west) where teachings of impermanence and rebirth may change the mindset regarding death. What is the typical way to express condolences among Buddhists? <Q> Here in Sri Lanka, we typically say " Anicca Vata Sankhara " or " Vaya-dhamma Sankhara " in the bereavement notices. <S> When you meet the family members, you put your hands together and greet without smiling. <S> You are not expected to say anything unless you are giving an eulogy. <S> When you talk to people, you are expected to talk quietly and not to gossip. <S> You can either inquire about funeral arrangements or engage in a Dhamma discussion. <S> I suppose in the West, it's customary to say something. <S> So you can probably say " <S> May <S> he/she attain Nibbana soon!" <A> Most buddhists knows the process of death and that understanding would be preceeded by their feelings of loss, so most do not mourn the way other cultures might. <S> Most buddhist would wear white clothing during this time to show mourning. <S> Just let them know you're there for them if you should need you. <S> This article from BuddhaNet deals directly with this, discussing funeral arrangements, ceremonies and rituals. <A> Given that, I don't think you need any particular line for expressing condolence. <S> A simple "I'm sorry for your loss" or letting them know you are available to talk <S> /listen should suffice as long as you mean it. <S> Remember that there is nothing you can say to end their grief. <S> Your condolence/compassion is (ideally) expressed through your behaviour and intent to act for their long term good. <A> With true understanding and sincerity we cannot be sorry for their loss, as they have not lost anything. <S> They never 'had' anyone to lose to begin with, yet we know we have always and always will have each other as we are never truly separate - of course a funeral is not an appropriate time for explaining such concepts. <S> For me, the only appropriate speech from my Buddhist perspective, would not to be sorry in the conventional sense, i see that as pity with false emotion, indeed it is better to say nothing. <S> We should focus more on remembering the great times spent and celebrating the life that touched everyone there. <A> My Muslim friend's family just had a member die. <S> On much reflection on what to say I re-edited <S> my christian upbringing so it was true to my buddhist beliefs but not condescending to hers. <S> "Our thoughts are with you and your family at your time of loss and reflection. <S> Please pass on our love". <S> The person has died but the living can know they are loved and we love everyone, don't we :) <A> As condolences are for the living, then best to speak from the heart: <S> "May your sadness soon be replaced with only happy memories." <A> May he be dwelling at a higher abode. <S> In Myanmar language, ျမင့္ျမတ္ေသာ ဘုံမွာ စံစားႏိုင္ပါေစ။
|
We can do no more honor than to pass on the love and compassion the deceased gave us in their lifetime. Buddhist philosophy teaches you to act with sincerity and not to speak for the sake of speaking. Speak truthfully and with correct understanding, you'll know what to say. As a Buddhist raised in a Christian culture, I know that using words such as nibbana, nirvana, enlightenment, would not be understood by most.
|
Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals? Animals are sentient beings and therefore are also bound to the cycle of rebirth. However, animals are far less intelligent than humans, and are certainly not smart enough to follow a particular code of conduct, or take decisions which are against their nature. Does Karma and rebirth work differently for animals? Or are animals pretty much doomed to remain animals (or worse) because their nature, for instance, causes them to kill? <Q> Karma is a universal law. <S> It works the same for all beings. <S> Whether you are a god, human or an animal, what matters is the strength of craving, aversion and ignorance. <S> Yes, if you sink below the level of humans, it's pretty difficult to come back. <S> That's why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara. <A> That is exactly why we call it the "precious human life", because we can learn the dhamma and create a lot of merit. <S> Animals don't have this opportunity. <S> It is very hard to create good kamma as an animal... <S> so use your precious human life wisely :) <A> Humans are smart hence they can have the Right View but in the case of an animal this is not the case. <S> Also an animal acts mainly by instinct which is Unprompted. <S> So the state of mind a hunting animat can have is: <S> One consciousness, unprompted (instinct), accompanied by pleasure (pleasure of a good meal), and connected with wrong view (lack of belief of repercussion and consequences of Karma or action) <S> One consciousness, unprompted (instinct), accompanied by indifference (pure instinctive reaction), and connected with wrong view (lack of belief of repercussion and consequences of Karma or action) <S> The above 2 mindd states generate more heavier Karma than the other. <S> Also animal will have following mental content which in humans have a choise to eliminate: Ahirika - not ashamed of doing evil Anottappa - no fear to do evil, i.e., fear of the consequences <S> Also in the animal kingdom fear, hunger, greed, territorial attachments, etc. <S> is predominant which gives arise to unwholesome states and opportunity and intellect to do +ve karma is less. <S> This all point to that <S> in the animal kingdom you are worse off and would end up accumulating more bad karma. <S> Also if you are a carnivore feeding and survival needs killing as you simply cannot become herbivore , hence the nature of your birth will mean you tend to accumulate more bad karma. <S> Ref: Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. <S> Narada, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma , Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill?
|
The law of Karma is universal, i.e., applicable to all equally and applicable the same manner across time.
|
Is there any significance to shaving the head? I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that? If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads? <Q> First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns. <S> In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun <S> (a.k.a. Bhikkhu) <S> you have to shave your head. <S> The hair of the head should not be worn long. <S> It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary. <S> The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well. <S> ( source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II ) <S> Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist: <S> One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. <S> Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same. <S> Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment ( source ) <S> Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day. <S> Hygienic reasons <S> By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims <S> , I'm not sure about the validity of this myself). <A> They also don't use cosmetics, perfumes and so on... <S> This is a very old practice, including the robes they wear, since the time of the Buddha Lay people don't have to do it, only monks. <A> One reason with hair is you can use it for beautification like having a hair style. <S> Monks are not allowed to use mirrors or look at once face unless it is for medical reasons or contemplating of aging and impermanence. <S> Long hair was the style many people had during Buddha's time some this prevents any styling and beautification. <A> It is an act of renunciation of the beauty or attractiveness of the human body or human appearance (Four Foundations of Mindfulness). <S> Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating. <S> It's a statement made by the individual. <S> that they no longer wish to be part of such worldly ignorance!!Metta. <A> (I can't comment on this "... <S> it is interesting to note that once you become enlightened you don't worry about such small things. <S> Although Siddhartha cut his hair, Buddha kept long hair himself. <S> – <S> TheDarkKnightRules <S> Nov 15 '14 at 9:48..." <S> because of some silly rules of this website. <S> But I would like to clear up a point that 'Buddha kept long hair himself.') <S> In vasala sutta (story heard) in the Tipitaka, a brahman said this to the Buddha "“tatreva, muṇḍaka; tatreva, samaṇaka; tatreva, vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī”ti. <S> (Stop right there shaven-head, stop right there monk, stop... <S> )The Pali word "muṇḍaka" means "a shaveling; shaven-headed". <S> There we have it. <S> The Buddha had his head shaven too. <S> No exception for Himself! <A> Another reason is the connection to the Divine. <S> Hair stop energy moving, and in meditation practices they need to connect the Sahasrara as best as possible with the Divine, thus shaving the head allows for better "connection". <S> There are also specific rituals and procedures for that part of the body that take place after death, but that's another story.
|
I believe they shave their heads because they don't want to have attachments to the body or self image. There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.
|
Is vipassana outside a ten day retreat possible? Traditionally Vipassana meditation is taught in a 10 day retreat. I have been trying to participate in one of those, but there is only one place where I live that offers this course, it is almost always fully booked, so it is very hard to match their availability with mine as I work pretty hard. I have been practicing meditation for some time (different types) and went to a retreat in Asia, but I never had the chance to practice Vipassana in a traditional course. I will keep trying to join the retreat, because this is important for me, but in the meantime is there anything one could try at home? Some glimpse of Vipassana perhaps? <Q> This is possible but anything less than 10 days for you 1st sitting may not give you visible results for an average novice. <S> Also anything shorter may not have the critical push to give results. <S> This is the reason the courses are organised in such away. <S> Just when you practice playing a game, more frequently you do it better you become. <A> I'm going to say that Vipassna or insight is possible outside of the 10 day retreat. <S> Dipa Ma was wonderfully inspiring when working with the enlightenment experience in everyday life. <S> One of her first students was a nursing mother. <S> The account goes that this student achieved the first level of realisation (i.e. stream entry) by mindfully noticing the sensations of her sulking infant. <S> No ten day Vispassna retreat for her - she never left the house. <S> However I'm going to guess that you aren't a nursing mother (you might be!) <S> so this isn't probably immediately and practically useful to you. <S> I'm with the Triratna Buddhist community and <S> my local centre has no problem discussing these techniques with people that have been around a while. <S> It is all based on personal relationships within that setting though. <S> I think there would be a lot more reluctance to go down that route with people who have just walked through the door. <S> I think the caution is that these techniques are strong and certainly within Triratna people are required to have a very good grounding in samatha practices before hand. <S> There are resources that you can look at yourself. <S> Daniel Ingram in his freely available book is very specific and I was also recommended this set of talks about Anapanasati practice as a route into insight practice. <A> Having personally sat three days and served one ten day and many more short courses. <S> I can vouch for the technique. <S> It really does have this no BS approach towards dealing with your impurities/ <S> negativities/ defilements whatever you want to call it. <S> YES. <S> There is a rigorous schedule to follow for and a first timer you'll feel a tinge of discomfort <S> but it's all worth it in the end if you don't let your discomforts overpower you. <S> I would recommend you to go to the centre on day 0 because in my experience there always are a few cancellations and they mostly never refuse a student. <S> Refusing Dhamma is like refusing water to the thirsty. <S> You might find the rules and regulations overwhelming but everything in place there is with a good purpose. <S> It will most certainly help your meditation if you follow them. <S> Going in with a clean slate would definately help you. <S> For the period of ten days please forget everything you have learnt about meditation or all other intellectual acrobatic exercises. <S> Although do have a nature of inquisitiveness within you about the technique. <S> Smart questions to the teacher will yield smart answers. <S> Talks about suttas and other traditions, not so much. <S> All this coming only from experience <S> so please do not mind this answer. <S> It's actually one of my first ones on here. <S> I really hope this helps and may you benefit on the path of liberation. <S> Metta. <S> Rohit
|
Also some continuity or length of practice takes you deeper and give better results. Depending on which sangha you are with (if any) they may be more or less willing to instruct you on Vipassna.
|
Question on the possibility of higher rebirth for animals In the questions Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth? and Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals? and others, it in part discusses how animals have a very difficult time to be reborn as humans, and stuck endlessly in a cycle as animals. As I understand it, because they are not capable of Meritorious Deeds on there own. However, it seems to be possible for humans to transfer some good Karma to them, which may improve their chances of a higher rebirth. If it is possible, how is this accomplished? Take this case: Let's say there is a housefly in my house. Of course I could just grab a fly swatter and kill it. However, I choose to take 15 minutes to wait for it to fly to the screen door and then let it out. If this provides some good Karma for me, can it be transferred to the fly which may be helpful upon its rebirth? Or am I the only beneficiary of saving it (or at least for not killing it)? <Q> You can only do that with a class of Petas(hungry ghosts) called the 'Paradattupa-jivi' . <S> Animals at best might hear some Dhamma, memorise it and as a result be born in a better place next life. <S> But that is extremely rare. <S> Animals don't get stuck endlessly in the animal realm. <S> They can easily sink lower and get into more extreme states of suffering. <S> Once their bad karma has been exhausted, a past good Karma may come forward to give them a better life. <S> There is a classification of Karma, according to the priority of effect: <S> WEIGHTY (GARUKA) KARMA. <S> PROXIMATE (ASANNA) <S> KARMA OR <S> DEATH-PROXIMATE KARMA <S> HABITUAL (ACCINA) <S> KARMA RESERVE OR <S> CUMULATIVE (KATATTA) <S> KARMA <S> Katatta Kamma are usually the Kamma done in past lives. <S> So if #1,#2,#3 are missing, Katatta Kamma will get a chance to result in the next birth. <S> But that is highly unlikely as animals mostly have habitual and proximate Kammas. <S> So the chances are that they will keep sinking lower. <S> But once you get into the Niraya , you probably won't be creating any new significant Kamma. <S> Because you will be in a constant state of agony throughout the lifespan. <A> Buddha said that you can transfer merits to hungry ghosts or give them food/clothes by burning it to then, a type of offering. <S> as Kulatha said, you cannot transfee merits to animals Just to add: There is a famous story <S> when the Buddha said: Imagine a turtle living inside the ocean, in this vast ocean there is a small piece of wood floating <S> , this turtle comes to the surface to brieth once in every 100 years, the chance of this turtle hits the wood when coming to the surface is higher than getting a human rebirth if you are in the low planes, animals cannot keep moral precepts, meditate or make donations, therefore they shall only return when they clear almost all negative kamma as Kulatha pointed out <A> Just like Wiki mentioned; Karma means action, work or deed. <S> You actually have to take good action to achieve good Karma. <S> Basically, you cannot transfer Karma. <S> Even Preta need to express sadhu (appreciation) to get good Karma after someone do good Karma and share it for them. <S> However, you can provide good environment for them (can be human/animal) to do good Karma. <S> For example; some children/animal, they do not really understand what are Dhamma talks/chanting. <S> If they listen and feel good somehow in it, at least they gain some good Karma.
|
No, you can't transfer merits to animals.
|
What's the origin of 108 being a sacred number? The number 108 is a sacred number in Buddhism, but in other religions as well (Hinduism, Jainism). What exactly is the origin of 108 being a sacred number in Buddhism? Is there anything about it in the ancient scriptures? Did the Buddha say anything about it? Or is it more likely that this was incorporated from other older beliefs? <Q> "Monks, I will teach you a one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is aDhamma exposition. <S> Listen & pay close attention. <S> I will speak." <S> "As you say, lord," the monks responded. <S> The Blessed One said: "And which one-hundred-and-eight exposition is aDhamma exposition? <S> There is the exposition whereby I have spoken oftwo feelings, the exposition whereby I have spoken of threefeelings... five... six... eighteen... <S> thirty-six... <S> one hundred andeight feelings. <S> "And which are the two feelings? <S> Physical & mental. <S> These are the twofeelings. <S> "And which are the three feelings? <S> A feeling of pleasure, a feeling ofpain, a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. <S> These are the threefeelings. <S> "And which are the five feelings? <S> The pleasure-faculty, thepain-faculty, the happiness-faculty, the distress-faculty, theequanimity-faculty. <S> These are the five feelings. <S> "And which are the six feelings? <S> A feeling born of eye-contact, afeeling born of ear-contact... nose-contact... tongue-contact...body-contact... intellect-contact. <S> These are the six feelings. <S> "And which are the eighteen feelings? <S> Six happiness-explorations, sixdistress-explorations, six equanimity-explorations. <S> These are theeighteen feelings. <S> "And which are the thirty-six feelings? <S> Six kinds of householdhappiness & six kinds of renunciation happiness; six kinds ofhousehold distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds ofhousehold equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity. <S> These arethe thirty-six feelings. <S> "And which are the one hundred and eight feelings? <S> Thirty-six pastfeelings, thirty-six future feelings, and thirty-six present feelings. <S> These are the one hundred and eight feelings. <S> "And this, monks, is the one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is aDhamma exposition." <S> - SN 36.22, Discourse on One-hundred-and-eight <S> (Aṭṭhasatasuttaṃ) <S> There is also a reference to 108 Craving-verbalizations in AN 4.199, Discourse on Craving (Taṇhā-suttaṃ) . <A> The number 108 comes from the Vedas - so it predates Buddhism by at least a millennium. <S> I did a lot of research on the topic last year, and found that there were two major numerological memes in Asia: 7/21 and 27/108. <S> The latter goes back to Vedas and the earlier seems to be of Chinese origins. <S> Interaction of two memes is reflected in design of Zen mala, which has 108 beads but positions marker beads at 7 and 21. <S> Looks like Zen mala was designed by people who already had 7 as their sacred number by the time Buddhism came to them. <S> For them reciting prayers 7 times, doing prostrations 7x3 times etc. felt very natural, so they thought that adding numbers 7 and 21 to the foreign 108-bead Buddhist mala was a great convenience feature. <S> For these people, number 108 remained somewhat alien and less important than their traditional number 7. <S> (The Japanese still celebrate 7th day after baby's birth, mourn the 7th day after death, recognize 7 spring herbs and 7 lucky gods. <S> The Chinese increment person's age on 7th day of the year, eat 7 good luck dishes, their version of Valentine's day is on 7th day of 7th lunar month etc.) <S> The two traditions must have existed independently in different parts of Asia, until Buddhism started spreading outside of India, carrying Hindu memes on its back (mantras, rituals etc) -- so in countries other than India number 108 became identified with Buddhism exclusively, while in India it remains a generic lucky number until this day. <A> I have heard from an Indian friend who is an ordained Buddhist why there are 108 beads on a Mala. <S> 108 signifies: <S> There are six incoming senses and sensations: eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell and what the mind takes hold of. <S> There are three types of sensation: pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. <S> (6 times 3 = 18) <S> There are three time zones in which we receive these incoming sensations: past, present and future. <S> (18 times 3 = 54) <S> There are two ways of dealing with these incoming sensations. <S> (2 times 54 = 108)
|
The origin of 108 in the ancient buddhist scriptures seems to be from the total number of feelings classified in different ways by the Buddha :
|
Strange feelings after meditation and mindfulness practice? I started to meditate half a year ago with my first Vipassana retreat in Bodhgaya. I'm trying to meditate every day since then. Around two months ago I started to practice mindfulness and try to bring meditation into my daily life and not to be mindful only on the cushion. Last week I was getting some strange results. I feel like almost all I do is automatic. I don't feel that it's me who is doing it. When I talk to people, going to work, riding on the bus. I feel like I'm watching the movie. Two days ago I was watching my breath on the bus and when the bus stopped I couldn't move for two minutes. It felt like my will was totally gone. Before, during my day I felt that I wasn't present. Now I feel present but detached, and not in a good way. Am I doing something wrong? Or it is only a stage of the practice that I must go through? Thank you for your answers. <Q> Susan Blakemore in her excellent book Zen and the Art of Consciousness describes almost this exact situation. <S> She paid attention in her everyday life just as you have done and found it very illuminating. <S> However after two weeks of this she reach a point when she couldn't cross the road. <S> She was paralysed as you were. <S> She abandoned this 'experiment' and went back to her meditation and retreats the results of which she details in the book. <S> I hesitate to give advice in your case as I am woefully unqualified to do it. <S> However it does seem you are having trouble integrating you experiences, you might even be have a kind of alienated awareness experience where you are very aware but not emotionally connected. <S> I think with all these practices wisdom and compassion need to be balanced. <S> I would be tempted to back off a little and engage with some metta type practices - kindly awareness towards yourself and others. <S> But please disregard this - it's only what I would try. <A> I guess the amount of change depends on where you were, you may feel a big impact if you used to be a very anxious or greed person for instance, very focused on work, money, career, selfimage etc.. <S> Just try not to mistake the feeling of "this is not so important" for "I'm now a robot", because you will realize that a few things are really not so important and this can shake you up a little bit, but as I said it doesn't mean you are a robot, it is just that your priorities are changing. <S> In addition to that, meditation calms the mind, so if you do a lot of meditation you can feel more relaxed. <S> Hope it helps. <A> Being mindful will help you in your day to day activities and to avoid mishaps. <S> Being mindful alone is not the right mindfulness. <S> If you practice right mindfulness much of the complications are avoided. <S> Mindfulness in a Buddhist meditation perspective is to be mightful of the 4 Satipatthana and Anapana <S> You should be observing: <S> Sensations Body posture through sensations Sensations arising due to mental states Sensations arising due to metal contents <S> Also see for the importance of sensation in practising: Importance of Vedana <S> The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna <S> The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness <S> (See introduction: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna ) <S> Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta <S> You should place special attention to sensations as it is due to sensation that craving arises and in dependent origination . <S> With regard to your in ability to move. <S> It is more likely some level of concentration. <S> This slows down your body and moving is not possible. <S> Also may be some level of Sloth - torpor (a hindrance ) arising. <A> I feel that there is nothing wrong with your practice, and I also got to a stage where I was completely detached - but in a good way .... <S> but I got this result after 11 years of practice .... <S> So, I guess you are doing pretty well <S> and you just need conceptual clarification from your assistant teachers - get in touch with your assistant teachers and talk to them. <S> And I am sure you will be soon progressing very well in this path ... <S> Metta
|
what meditation can do is realign your priorities, it makes you give up or at least not care as much for wordly concerns. I don't think you are alone in this.
|
What is the recommended time of day for meditation? Does Buddhism have any recommendation for particular time of day for meditation? Can I meditate before going to sleep at night if I don't feel drowsy before I go to bed? Is there any Sutra which talks about this? <Q> No such recommended time. <S> Especially if you are doing Vipassana meditation, you are advised to practice Samma Sati all the time. <S> But early morning(just before dawn) is said to be a good time for meditation since the world is still sleeping and the mind is very clear and less distracted. <S> So you can easily attain Samadhi. <S> You'll find that it's a very good time to study as well. <S> You can easily memorise things. <S> All the Buddhas have attained enlightenment just before dawn as I've heard. <S> Yes, you can do meditation before going to bed. <S> Some people with insomnia try meditation at nights to help them fall asleep. <A> Thought I total agree that there isn't a particular time of day for meditation I personally think it is important to have a time of day of your choosing that you aim to meditate. <S> So if that's morning then great or late of an evening then also great. <S> However the important thing is that there is a time and you make an attempt to stick to it (without beating yourself up if you miss it). <S> With a structure you will be more likely to have a regular meditation practice. <S> Without a structure my experience is that things will slip. <S> That said, I think there are times when it's going to be harder to meditate. <S> I've always found after lunch particularly difficult. <S> You are naturally more sleepy then, so sloth and torpor will be pronounced hindrances. <S> Still even an after lunch meditation is possible particularly something like a walking meditation. <A> I can answer based on the retreats I've done, this is not an universal rule or something. <S> We used to Meditate twice a day, first before dawn with empty stomach for 30 or 40 minutes and then after bedtime again 30 or 40 minutes. <S> It is important not to have a full stomach when meditating. <S> Of course, if you go to a retreat focused on meditation you will meditate much more than that. <S> At home I try to meditate at least 20 minutes per day, but I don't think this is enough, I'm trying to increase. <A> Any time that you actually will do it is the best time! <S> Enough said. <S> ... <S> Here's a list of conditions that make my meditation effortlessly take off into concentration/wisdom : <S> physical needs satiated (hunger, warmth, thirst, sex) no food in digestive tracts <S> no feces in bowels did physical exercise (or yoga or some sort of physical tonification) <S> drink some light tea <S> no recent emotional/social problems plaguing the mind evening-time or early morning : not too early, not too late, not too much thinking on mind at these times (during the day it is business time) after reading some motivating dharma stories, especially Taoist after reading proper practice instruction The last one is key and one should always at least mentally review how to practice before practicing. <A> 18 hours is the proper time for daily meditation :) <S> The essence of Lord Buddha's teachings is mindfulness which means focusing to the present moment objectively without puting any judgements to it whether its positive, negative or neutral experience. <S> A beginner meditator's mind would be deeply cloudy and would have intense physical and mental addictions. <S> Especially the modern technology age's "sweet" escaping tools is a real enemy for the meditator. <S> If a meditator does few minutes(or even hours) of meditation, he or she mustn't think that "I finished my job today <S> now I can go and entertain myself". <S> The real positive results comes when the meditator meditates all day long, which means he continues to practice mindfulness after finishing formal meditation session, whether he or she is walking, drinking water, sitting on a bus, or working on his/her job. <S> There is a hardcore path too, when the meditator starts practising intensive meditaton for long periods of time(If <S> he or she has time and place ofcourse). <S> But its not possible to start walking on that path unless the meditator really starts to become a master of living in the present moment. <S> "Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment." <S> BUDDHA
|
If it's Vipassana meditation, drowsiness won't be a problem as you can meditate on the drowsiness.
|
Was Buddha born of a Virgin? I was reading a work that claims Buddha "was born of the Virgin Maya" . What Buddhist works address the birth of Buddha? Do any support or conflict with a virgin birth for Buddha? <Q> This refers to a dream that Queen Maya had after trying for many years to have a baby with her husband. <S> The reality is, they wrote that he was born to a woman who had been married for twenty years, This Blog will help to clear your idea. <S> http://www.rightreason.org/2009/the-virgin-birth-of-buddha/ <A> The account of the Buddha's birth is derived from Acchariyabbhuta dhamma Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya <A> Was Buddha born of a Virgin? <S> No. <S> Tathagata Buddha was born as normal human being. <S> He was named "Siddhartha Gautama". <S> His birth is elaborated in some details over here About the reference which you have given, the source from where you "got" this information - in my opinion this source is dangerous and is against Buddhist vision itself. <S> It equates Krishna and Rama with Buddha! <S> This is blunder. <S> As I was Hindu (those who worship Krishna and Rama), I know that their message is nowhere close to Buddhist message. <S> The whole things is conspiracy and in the Indian context it is called Brahminical conspiracy. <A> Answer to the question " <S> Was Buddha born of a Virgin? <S> " <S> is No <S> Bodhisattva's who became Buddha in next immediate life are looking for 5 facts before they born into this world. <S> Suitable time <S> Suitable Land Suitable Country <S> Suitable Cast Suitable Mother <S> Here Mother should have various characteristics but here relevant factor is she should be biologically available <S> (That means connection of Mother and Father as all of us know). <S> Load Buddha is not half god- half human but he has accepted him as a Normal human in lot of places. <S> The Best location is "Dhrona Sutta" where Load Buddha has accepted he has born as a normal human. <S> As described in Dhrona Sutta, While Load Buddha was walking in between Udeni and Sawath towns, Load Buddha has met a Brahmin called Dhrona. <S> Dhrona had seen special foot prints with various unusual symbols and marks and decided the owner of the foot prints cannot be a human and followed them. <S> Finally he has met Load Buddha at the end of footprint line and asked, Are you a God? <S> Load Buddha said No. <S> then he asked following questions and got the same answer no. <S> Are you a Devil? <S> Are you a Gandharwa (half god- half human)? <S> Are you a human? <S> Then he has asked as everyone of us would ask, then who you are? <S> Then Load Buddha has answered "Drona, I was born as a normal human, lived as a normal human <S> but I have destroyed all the klesha (desires, lust and angry). <S> So I am a extreme human. <S> Most suitable name to identify me is "Buddha"". <S> And finally Sidhhartha Gauthaama became Load Buddha <S> not because of god has selected him to be a Buddha, Instead he has tried himself continually for very very long time to become a Buddha in his previous lives with fullfilling generally 10 facts (descriptivly 30) called Paramitha. <A> No, There is no truth of it <S> .Buddha's fathe was king Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan and his mother <S> was queen Maya Devi. <S> So why there will raise a question of virgin birth of buddha ? <S> He was born as all normal human born. <A> The Dona sutta does not say that Buddha was a human being. <S> It actually says the opposite, that he was not a human. <S> "No, brahman, I am not a human being. <S> " <S> The Pali canon does not explicitly say Maya was a 'virgin' but certainly implies that he was conceived without sexual intercourse. <S> At any rate the canon very clearly indicates that the the Bodhisattva's birth was due to the volitional choice of the Bodhisattva, not the result of a biological function.
|
As far as I know Queen Maya is not described as a virgin anywhere in the Pali canon, but she was believed to be sterile by most Burmese Buddhists. He was born as other normal humans are born into the world.
|
Is there a tradition or practice involving fasting in Buddhism or Buddhist countries? Many religions have period or specific practice including fasting. I'm aware of the eating prescriptions of monks, but are there traditions or practices involving fasting for Lay-people? If not in scripture, are there in culturally Buddhist countries? <Q> In Tibetan Buddhism there is a special practice called Nyungne . <S> Essentially it is a practice on Thousand-Armed Chenrezig who is the embodiment of loving kindness and active compassion (the active aspect is represented by his standing not sitting posture, see the picture below). <S> The practice is done in retreat settings usually for 2,5 - 3 days. <S> From the day one the practitioners refrain from talking and from the day two <S> they fast and do a number of meditation sessions per day, all focused on Chenrezig. <S> I've been told that it should done with someone who has a direct transmission on this practice and who can give fine details about it. <S> Overall, I know many Western practitioners who took part in such retreats so it is definitely not an old-forgotten, exotic ritual. <S> In general, Nyungne is a purifying practice on the level of body, speech and mind and helps to nurture compassion and loving kindness towards all the sentient beings. <A> As you said, the monks should not eat outside the morning hours, lay people should also not eat outside the morning hours when they are keeping the eight precepts. <S> I would say you should also meditate with empty stomach, a tea is fine. <S> I'm not aware of anything else for lay people. <A> This should not be taken as fasting. <S> One of two meals a day in enough to sustain the body with allowance to take any fluids like tea, herbal drinks and water but not milk. <S> Also you can take Chatu Madura out side morning hours. <A> Chatu Madura is referredin Buddhist scriptures as four delicacies. <S> The four items to make Chatu Madura are 1.Ghee 2.Bees honey 3.Sugar cane juggery. <S> Palmyra Jaggery too can be used 4. <S> Sesame oil. <S> They are taken of equal quantities and whipped well. <S> This can be used during fasting hours of the Buddhist Monks.
|
Buddha has advised to be moderate in eating.
|
Sankharas, once eliminated. Do they have a chance of coming back? When I talk of sankharas, I mean the pattern of the mind and the way in which the sanna recognizes an object. After prolonged Vipassana and remaining equanimous to the body sensations, Many of my thought patterns have changed and I can practically see a link there. But theoretically I am still unaware as to how remaining equanimous to body sensations has anything to do with the deepest habit patterns of the mind. Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again? <Q> There are ten fetters eliminated in Vipassana meditation. <S> Elimination does not occur before you reach the Sothapanna(stream enterer) state. <S> Until then, fetters are only subdued. <S> Once a fetter is eliminated, it's gone for good. <S> Refer to the table below to know the fetters eliminated at each stage of the path. <A> Buddhist practice usually eliminate causes , not consequences. <S> If you eliminated some sankhara , it will naturally re-appear when conditions of its appearance are meet. <S> Unless you destroyed bad sankhara <S> In a way arahants destroy tanha , but that's difference case, I suppose. <A> Unless you are fully liberated you create new Sankara. <S> The old Sankara you eliminated through practice Vipassana is Ahosi (or rendered in effective) <S> NB: This is answered in the context of interpretations of the Ledi Sayadaw lineages as I see the question seams to be from some one looking at it from this perspective.
|
Yes, if you stop doing vipassana short of attaining Sothapanna, your mind can fall back to an ordinary corrupted state again.
|
Who are the Buddhas on the Wheel of Life? In a lot of images of the wheel of life there are Buddha figures in each of the realms. You can see them in the image below of the full wheel of life and I've also put in a close up of the hell realm with the Buddha figure clearly visible. So a Buddha is in hell, animal, hungry ghosts, human, heaven and titan realms. Who are these Buddhas and what are they doing in each of the realms. What is their significance? Wheel of Life Hell Realm with Buddha on the right <Q> @konrad01 got it pretty close, the Buddhas symbolize various ways Dharma is presented in each of the six realms, expressed so as to match mental disposition of the realm's beings. <S> That is the key. <S> in Hell realm Buddha holds a cup of water, because for Hell beings the point of Dharma is to Escape from Suffering. <S> This is the only seed of positive thinking that exists in their otherwise 100% negative mind. <S> in Animal realm Buddha holds a book, because for Animals the point of Dharma is to acquire Wisdom (and through wisdom, control and power -- which is what they secretly crave despite their laziness and inertia). <S> in Preta realm Buddha holds treasury, because for Preta mind everything looks very desirable from a distance <S> but once they get it they realize that it is empty <S> , so Dharma for them is the best hope to finally get something of Real Value that won't turn out to be yet another lie. <S> in Human realm Buddha holds the begging bowl, which stands for compassion and generosity. <S> Because in Human realm the main feature of mind is obsession with quasi-valuable (such as the "I"), developing compassion/generosity is the best way to liberate mind from egoistic tendencies and obsessions, something required for Enlightenment. <S> in Asura realm Buddha holds vajra I think, or some kind of sharp weapon, symbolizing Perfection of Excellence. <S> Because Asuras are very sharp and competitive, they are incurable perfectionists, so Dharma is presented to them as a way to perfect their excellence, until they eventually realize that the highest perfection is to transcend their perfectionism and thus attain liberation. <S> in Heaven realm Buddha holds flower as symbol of impermanence. <S> Because life in Heaven is so perfect, the only potential problem Gods have is entropy finally kicking in. <S> Impermanence is presented to Gods to remind them of their vulnerability/susceptibility and Dharma is presented as ultimate Protection from Impermanence. <A> Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva is famous for being the Buddha who rescues those in hell. <S> The other important personage is King Yama (Yamadevaloka), who is sort of a judge of the dead. <S> These two are a big deal in East Asian Buddhism, I would suppose the Tibetans were aware of them as well. <S> Ksitigarbha Sutra . <S> I now determine to relieve the sufferings of the beings in the six realms of suffering and sorrow, skillfully leading them to salvation through innumerable kalpha, before I myself attain Buddhahood. <A> The wheel of life is full of symbolisms as you probably know, I believe the Buddhas are not actually Buddhas living in those realms, but just a way of showing that the Buddha could see all the realms and also go beyond them, like one who can visit the realms, know the realms and teach about them.
|
If you look carefully, on most depictions of Bhava-Chakra the Buddha in each realm holds a different object in his hands.
|
Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings? I know it is very common these days to associate Chakras with Buddhist meditation, but I couldn't find anything that supports that in the suttas. (I haven't read all suttas) Did the Buddha himself taught about Chakras or has it been incorporated later in some parts of the world? <Q> There is nothing supernatural about chakras. <S> They are psychosomatic phenomena; they exist only in the subjective world of a person. <S> That's why you can't photograph a chakra, or measure its "field intensity" with some kind of device. <S> If you inspect your subtle tactile perceptions, you will surely notice feelings in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. <S> Subjectively, these feelings are not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it. <S> They are not produced by a contact with an external object, and they are not as sharp as itching or pain. <S> What are they then? <S> Chakras are somatic projections of our emotional state onto the internal map of the body. <S> They are indicators of what goes on inside our brains, below the threshold of awareness. <S> Some of the emotions most often accompanied by chakra sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness. <S> In Chinese Mahayana, Buddhism is often taught in combination with Tai-Chi, Qi-Gong, and other forms of "energy management" exercises focused on developing one's psychosomatic skills. <S> The Chinese (also Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) recognize three main chakras: lower dantian (lower abdomen), middle dantian (chest) and upper dantian (head). <S> The Indians recognize more chakras, but if you think about it, these are just alternative ways to emphasize some of the most important locations in person's subjective space. <S> Specifically, kayagata-sati (mindfulness rooted in the body) involves paying constant attention to feelings around throat, chest, solar plexus, lower abdomen, and feet. <S> Similarly, anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) involves paying attention to the diaphragm, esp. <S> the sensations experienced around the moment when the breath reverses its direction. <S> But to answer your question directly, no, Buddha of Pali Canon did not speak about chakras, these and other practices (yoga, tantra) were incorporated later, as people realized their affinity with Buddhism's goal and methods. <A> As far a I know only the Vajrayana school of Buddhism includes chakras within it's teaching. <S> This being a school heavily influenced by Tantric/Yoga practises, so it's mostly practised in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Mongolia. <S> It's not a part of the other schools and doesn't feature in the suttas. <A> There are indirect references although this concept doesn't exist in Theravada Buddhism. <S> E.g. in Anapana many Theravada traditions teach to keep your attention around the mouth or base of the nose and upper lip (Ledi Sayadaw and student's interpretations). <S> This area is pretty sensitive when you start looking deeply into the touch sensations. <S> There is also some advice on other points like the chest, pallet, breast bone ( <S> Thai Forest tradition as taught by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo) or stomach (Mahaisi Sayadaw Linage, Thai Forest Tradition). <S> Thai Forest Tradition (as taught by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo) focuses different nerve centers, much more than any other Theravada traditions. <S> The interpretation here is not they are chakras put nerve centers which help anchor your concentration. <S> May of these point bear physical proximity to where chakras are. <A> Yes. <S> The Buddha mentions all these things as the "fire element." <S> He did not draw attention to these things because the kundalini phenomenon, which purifies your chakras is aggravated when the user's attention is drawn to it. <S> Also there is a tremendous amount of other cultivation and real-life concepts he had to discuss then go into these concepts all day. <S> Thus, the Buddha ignored the concept of chi channels because it is best for monks to do so. <S> Nowadays, you cannot ignore such a concept because our minds are more filled with information. <S> You will subconsciously think about it one way or another and affect your experience. <S> Which is why you now need the information to ignore the concept. <S> I refer you to Master Huai-Chin Nan's book Tao & Longevity for a longer, fuller explanation of chi channels, chakras, longevity, and immortality (and then he tells you to ignore all of it if you want to achieve it).
|
Even though Buddha did not mention chakras directly, his various mindfulness practices are essentially chakra exercises.
|
Buddhist Centres in Paris? I moved to France, Paris recently. I am seeking any meditation centres vipasana, zen, Insight etc., where I can also communicate in English, since I don't speak much French. Can anyone here who knows about any such places or websites please let me know? <Q> I had success with <S> http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ when looking for local communities. <S> In fact, this is how I found my last Zen Master. <S> Here is a direct link to Paris page, there are 13 centers registered: http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/province.php?province_id=761 <A> If you've gone through a 10-day Vipassana course ( available in France , but not in Paris), you can take a 1-day Vipassana course for old students in Paris . <S> They're both in French and English. <A> I had the best retreat experience of my life at plumvillage.org - near Bordeaux. <S> I don't want to sound like a proselytizer, but in my opinion, any serious practitioner must spend some time if possible with Thay. <S> Speaking English should not be a problem. <A> There's a Triratna centre in Paris . <S> The people that I know who are running it speak English, but their website is in French <S> and I'm not sure about what language is used in teachings etc. <S> (never been there myself unfortunately). <S> Regards, Kusalananda
|
I think there's more than one Paris sangha of the Plum Village order.
|
Is a Mahayana Buddhist *required* to take a Bodhisattva vow? Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a requirement (1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an option (or maybe at most a recommendation)? And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach? -- (1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents" (2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same. <Q> As per my understanding, formal taking of Bodhisattva vow (with ceremony and all) is not a hard requirement, as long as one eventually internalizes the core message of the vow: that one must surrender the hope of ever attaining Nirvana and get very comfortable with the idea of staying in Samsara for a long, long time. <S> Here is a version of the vow we chanted, after every meditation session: <S> Sentient beings are numberless; we vow to save them. <S> Desires are inexhaustible; we vow to end them. <S> The Dharmas are boundless; we vow to master them. <S> The Buddha's Way is incomparable; we vow to attain it. <S> See those adjectives -- numberless, inexhaustible and so on? <S> Reciting them again and again makes you question what you're really up to ;) <S> Of course this trick only works in conjunction with perfectly realizing the rest of six paramitas. <S> Staying in Samsara is an act of murdering the ego, not of easing into worldly pleasures. <S> Murdering the ego is the main prerequisite for Enlightenment, from Mahayana perspective. <A> Cultivating bodhicitta (both ultimate and relative) is absolutely indispensable on the Mahayana path; and one who has vowed to do so is called a bodhisattva. <S> From my understanding, this vow can be made with as little or as much pomp and circumstance as befits one's mind - <S> the key is to inspire confidence and commitment. <S> Check out Shantideva's 'Way of the Bodhisattva' for a truly awesome and beautiful way to undertake this path. <S> Also see Patrul Rinpoche's 'Words of My Perfect Teacher' and his discussion of the vow of bodicitta starting at p. 220. <S> He says: "True absolute bodhicitta is attained by the power of meditation and does not depend on rituals. <S> To generate relative bodhicitta, however, as beginners we need some procedure to follow, a ritual through which we can take the vow in the presence of a spiritual teacher. <S> We then need to constantly renew that vow, in the same way, over and over again, so that the bodhicitta we have aroused does not decline but becomes more and more powerful." <S> The "presence of a spiritual teacher" can be either physical or visualized, based on the various presentations I've encountered. <S> Based on commitment to bodhichitta, one trains in the precepts of aspiration and application. <S> The final fruit is perfect Buddhahood expressed in perfect wisdom and effortless compassion toward all sentient beings - nothing at all limited or 'private' about it! <A> One thing that is very particular in Buddhist, is its approach regarding what should one do. <S> In Buddhism, we don't say: You must do A, B or C, instead we say: If you do A the consequences will be X. <S> Take the preceps for example <S> , you should "refraing from killing", this is different from: You shall not kill. <S> The difference may be subtle, but is there. <S> if you wish to become a Buddha (most likely a private Buddha) in a future life, if you seek liberation, if you wish to become an arahant, there is no need for such vows. <A> Some traditions, schools, teachers, could incite you to take bodhisattva vow(s) as sort of basic thing. <S> But this is their particular teaching and not general Mahayana requirement. <S> Because Mahayana suppose diversity of teaching for different types of personalities. <S> Mahayana, I repeat, is not some unified school, but very very broad notion including any and all types of Buddha's teaching for any types of beings. <S> Some personality may not have courage to have bodhicitta intent and <S> of course she/he will not be pushed out from vehicle of maha-yana.
|
So, to answer your question I think you don't need to take any vows in order to practice the Dhamma, the bodhisattva vow is something that you do
|
Does (bad) karma have to be depleted to be able to attain enlightenment? This question came to me from over thinking the "Angulimala" story. He had to "repent" to some extent for the murders he committed, by being scolded an hit by stones. However, the effect of the karma seems to be quite mild for 999 murders and even the intention to kill the Buddha. So my question is this: Does your karma have to be neutral or positive to become enlightened?And if not, what happens to the negative karma after attaining enlightenment? <Q> While some of the past karma may fruit as obstacles to liberation, not all karma has to fruit before liberation , as even Buddha himself famously experienced results of his past karma after his enlightenment ( <S> e.g. when Devadatta wounded the Buddha's foot with a rock). <S> As I explained in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1672/43 Buddha rejected the theory of intentionally "burning" past karma through exertion and austerity. <S> Instead, liberation is achieved by "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now". <S> Basically, Buddha's advice to people of difficult backgrounds has usually been to leave the past in the past, and focus on the choices to be made and the state of mind to be maintained from now on. <A> No, you don't need to deplete all your good or bad kamma to become enlightened, it does happen with "remaining" kamma. <S> Regarding Angulimala, there is a beautiful simile the Buddha gave that might help you understand: <S> Imagine you take some salt with your hands and put it in a glass of water, the water will be salty, terrible to drink <S> Now imagine you take the same amount of salt and throw it in the river, the water in the river will not taste bad. <S> The salt is the bad kamma and the water the good kamma, so if you do a lot of good kamma, that will positively impact your future even if you have lots of bad kamma, Angulimala became a monk and did a lot of good kamma, neutralizing (at least partially) <S> the impacts of his terrible bad kamma. <A> You have to deplete all your Karma giving rebirth in the 4 lower realms to gain the 1st stage of sainthood. <S> To be a fully enlightened person you have to deplete all Karma leading to rebirth. <S> This does not mean you deplete all Karma. <S> The process of Vippassana is the process of un working of Karma / removing fabrications where by which you remove the effects of Karma. <S> The Karma surfaces as a sensation and passes away. <S> Also note there 5 grave offences which will always give result in the next life. <S> As Angulimala has not committed such Karma the others will pass away through the practice of Vippassana. <A> In vipassana meditation, the practitioner have to stop the arising of unwholesome consciousness by jhana meditation. <S> If unwholesome consciousness still arise between vipassana meditation, the practitioner can not enlighten. <S> Another the resultant of unwholesome consciousness will not arise anymore after arahanta die.
|
Some Karma are only effective after rebirth can remain as a residue but all Karma which would give a rebirth should be removed.
|
Has Buddha attained Nirvana after death? It is said that the Buddha attained Nirvana after his death. But how do we know that it is true? Are there any physical signs to recognize? <Q> There is no physical signs of that <S> and we can not verify it. <S> Btw, he also attained Nirvana before his death too. <S> So-called nirvana with remainder . <A> The "Nirvana with remainder" is an apparent loss of form. <S> While the absolute Nirvana is the eternal fact that the form has always been an imputation, and such nuisances as birth and death can in no way affect this global situation. <S> When we die, we lose the form in the literal sense, and for Buddhas this is called Maha-Pari-Nirvana (the great and final loss of form). <S> In other words, Maha-Pari-Nirvana is when the apparent Nirvana perfectly coincides with the absolute Nirvana. <S> "It is said that the Buddha attained Nirvana after his death. <S> But how do we know that it is true? <S> Are there any physical signs to recognize?" <S> Because Buddha attained "Nirvana with remainder" during his life, his death is parinirvana, by definition. <S> No signs necessary. <A> Lord Buddha attained Nibbana under the Bodhi tree at the age of 35. <S> He entered Parinibbana at the Mallas' Sala Grove, in Kusinara at the age of 80. <S> We don't use the word 'death' as Nibbana is deathless. <S> He fully experienced Nibbana from the day he attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. <S> Those are just technical terms used to identify whether there's a remnant of the five aggregates or not. <S> We use the term Sa-Upadisesa Nibbana to refer to the Buddha's Nibbana while he is still living and Anupadisesa Nibbana to refer to his Parinibbana. <A> This is not something that can be directly answered or rationalized through the way to find the answer is there. <S> This is by walking the 8 fold path and getting deep penetrating insights through Vipassana, where by attaining at least the 1st stage of sainthood which would result in this doubt is broken as you have verified for your self. <S> A loose analogy can be it is difficult to describe a hidden city / exotic treasure chest you have not being there perfectly to someone else <S> but you can be told the route to get there so you can get there and see for yourself. <S> If the route leads you to the particular city you know that the person has gone there.
|
Nirvana is a loss of form. Probably only enlightened beings (such as other buddhas) can verify this, so until we are enlightened we can't.
|
Should a Buddhist have Children? In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children? I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective. <Q> rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. <S> Not quite. <S> Birth has a requisite condition as well . <S> It's not the case that our birth was the ultimate origin of our suffering. <S> Doesn't it imply that buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. <S> There are plenty of other organisms to be reborn as on Earth and there are other realms like the Deva world as well. <S> what happens if all people in the world stop having children? <S> The entire population of humans could all die and be reborn as insects today <S> and it wouldn't appreciably increase their overall number: adding six billion to 10 quintillion <S> doesn't even amount to a tenth of a percent. <S> So removing the human path as a rebirth target does nothing in the way of removing suffering. <A> From the child standpoint: A human life is considered very precious in Buddhism as it provides a great opportunity for liberation, the human realm is the best of all realms to practice Dhamma, the Buddha attained enlightment in this realm. <S> Dukkha is found in all realms with different intensities. <S> From the Buddhist (parents) standpoint, there is a related question: Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons <A> Birth is not the cause of suffering. <S> Birth is a symptom of suffering. <S> One person preventing birth does not actually prevent birth or suffering. <S> It's like if you block a river, the water flows elsewhere and forms a new stream or river. <S> To end suffering, one has to end craving by following the Noble Eightfold Path. <A> There is also the Buddhist perspective that everything that will happen (physically) in your life has already been determined by your past actions. <S> Your question is not a simple question. <S> It indirectly invokes the questions of free-will, determinism, etc. <S> Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. <S> It preaches a middle doctrine, named pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit, which is often translated as: Inter-dependent arising Dependent Origination Analysis of Free Will versus Determinism (by Alex Berzin, one of my favorite teachers.) <S> So, "dependent arising" and "interdependent arising" mean the same thing. <S> Funny. <S> Hope that helps. <A> One misconception that I often encounter is that all Buddhists have a single mold that needs to be followed. <S> From this misconception, it's easy to form misleading questions in the form of "Should Buddhists do X?" <S> I disagree with this line of thought. <S> The Buddha recognised that while all individuals seek to liberate themselves from suffering, the immediate objective that they strive for can vary. <S> Just as you cannot teach the concept of impermanence to a devotee who has starving parents and children at home, you cannot expect one teaching to fit the needs of all beings. <S> This is also why you can never measure someone else with your own standards. <S> Buddhism is an introspective practice. <S> As such, asking "Why do I want to have children?" <S> instead of "Should a Buddhist have children?" would encourage more answers of practical value. <S> Or, if I am someone who likes to inspect further I might ask, "How long will this joy last? <S> What happens if things don't go as planned (illness, accident, conflict, etc.)? <S> " And even then, I might decide that the joy outweighs the risk and go ahead with it. <S> And nobody can fault me. <S> I have carried out my due diligence in weighing the pros and cons, and decided that this is the best path I can take given my present circumstance. <S> And that's okay too. <S> What I wanted to say is this: being a Buddhist isn't about subscribing to a set of "should-dos" and "should-not-dos". <S> It's about recognising where your present circumstance; where you spiritually want to be in the immediate and long-term; and deciding on the best way to achieve that. <S> Being a Buddhist means that you are accountable for your own actions. <S> There's no arguing with some deity when you get into trouble even when you followed instructions to a tee. <S> So... <S> Q: Should you have children? <S> A <S> : Are you sure you should let others tell you what you should do? ;-)
|
Not having children will not stop those beings from being reborn. If I want to have children because it will bring me and my family joy, then yes, it's something I can consider.
|
What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction? I've been practicing it and it seems to work well. It seems that I can explain this in terms of nash equilibrium. I tend to see it that all of us are already physically able to achieve much and paying attention to some topic will subconsciously allow us to manifest what we want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought) Buddhism teaches that there are laws that govern human nature. There are laws of living objects. There are laws of karma. Is the law of attraction one such law? By the way, I tend to see Buddhism as a way to understand life instead of as a religion. I am not Buddhist but I see that there is some truth in what Buddha taught. So that's my background. <Q> My understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is a way to affect what happens to you by thinking about what you want to have happen. <S> If you want to receive money; you think about receiving money. <S> In Buddhism, the goal is to understand reality as it is. <S> Understanding reality as it is, involves accepting reality as it is. <S> Manipulating circumstances to provide material benefits for oneself would not really be a part of this. <S> The teachings of the Buddha would guide one to giving up many desires rather than chasing after them; as I understand it. <S> One thing in Buddhism that might be similar is when some Buddhists take a vow to become a Boddhisatta/Boddhisatva. <S> This vow sets their mind and intentions upon becoming a future Buddha . <S> But my understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is more in the here and now while a vow to become a future Buddha might have to be kept for many, many lifetimes to come to fruition. <A> The Law of Attraction seems to take certain Buddhist teachings out of context in order to make worldly life more comfortable. <S> In Buddhism, especially in Mahayana and Vajrayana, there are teachings on illusory or dream-like nature of our everyday experiences. <S> Everything that happens to us takes place essentially in our mind as outside of the mind there are no appearances. <S> But it doesn't mean that once we master the mind we can create our reality as we wish. <S> Rather, we will understand the emptiness of all phenomena and thus will get rid of our attachments and aversions towards things around us. <S> The Law of Attraction seems to advocate that by the power of your mind (thoughts) one can attract things what will make you happy. <S> And this statement already goes against what Buddhism teaches. <S> Instead of learning that all things are essentially empty, one uses thoughts to attract one thing and repulse the other. <S> So in essence one creates even more desires, attachments and aversions which sadly, are seeds for future sufferings. <A> In Buddhism you learn that you don't put an end to a desire by having what you want, instead it will create an even stronger desire as everything is unsatisfactory (Dukkha), the way to liberation is by letting it go, seeing things as they really are, be grateful for what you have, for that you need to cultivate wisdom and work on the mind. <A> See the links dependent origination more particularly:With Contact as condition, Feeling arisesWith Feeling as condition, Craving arisesWith Craving as condition, Clinging arises <S> So attraction happens when you get a feeling to which you analyze and give an evaluation as good and bad followed by clinging to it. <S> At the sub conscious level this is happening millions and millions of times. <S> When a meditator develops the insight knowledge of Arising and Passing Away you get a glimpse of how fast this is happening through it may not be a clear or full understanding. <S> (At full understanding you have taken the a dip into one of the stages of sainthood.) <S> Based on the extent of clinging fabrication starts. <S> This is not perfect <S> but <S> but some of your expectations can materialize. <S> But most often not exactly as you expect it to be. <S> Also note only a few materialize. <S> Also this aspect is covered in Adhitthana and Chitta Niyama ( 5 Niyama on Wikipedia ). <S> Having a strong mental desire for an out come can influence the possible outcome through the process of conditioning / fabrication. <S> But it is not advised to have strong desire for a particular outcome as this might lead to covetousness which is a bad Karma. <S> See Kammapatha . <A> I think there is no conflict between law of attraction and buddhism. <S> But as per my understanding what buddha says is as long as you need something you will be born (and in the process you may get it). <S> So there you go law of attraction. <S> But in the process you will get lot more happenings (bad and good things) just being in the sansara. <S> Therefor buddhism says get away from the sansara and to stop that the way is go in the opposite direction of law of attraction. <S> Don't desire or reject anything <S> and then there is no need for another birth <S> and you are done.
|
Law of attraction seems to create and stimulate attachments, people crave for things and think about them constantly, concentrating the mind on different desires, in that sense I think it is hard to mix it with Buddhism, because in Buddhism we try to let go of attachments instead of trying to fulfill the desires. The idea is that if we master our mind, we master everything.
|
Meditation for higher concentration What kind of meditation can help one to have a higher concentration; maybe lasting for hours or days? I am a Buddhist, specifically Theravada, and I am trying to keep my mind on one thing. Buddha kept his meditation in the dushkara kriya (self mortification) period for more than 4 years. So is there any way we can apply that concentration technique in our lives? Thank you. <Q> I think the term for what you are describing is Samatha . <S> On the Wikipedia page, you can find the "Nine mental abidings", a description of the process. <S> There are also Zen teachings such as " The Ten Oxherding Pictures " that describe the process. <S> Most of these teachings follow the idea of meditating "with support", using a focus (such as the mental image of a Buddha). <S> There is also a practice of meditating "without support", as in the Essence Mahamudra of the Kagyu School . <S> I was also interested to see this in the above Samatha page: " ... <S> samatha is not a strictly Buddhist meditation. <S> Samatha in its single-pointed focus and concentration of mind is cognate with the sixth "limb" of aṣṭanga yoga', rāja yoga which is concentration (dhāraṇā). <S> For further discussion, see the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali." <S> Just a note: <S> Advaita (Hinduism) Meditation practice is very similar to the Buddhist Mahamudra practice. <S> Since this is a Buddhist Q&A site and the question does not seek similar practices in other religions, I won't post Advaita links here. <S> When one gets "stuck" in one's practice, I think it is sometimes a good idea to see how other practices approach similar problems. <A> Best is to take a course in meditation or seek guidance of a teacher. <S> Following site has many centers arround the world where you can take a course: http://www.dhamma.org/ . <S> There are other centers also. <S> The way to keep your mind on any object is sustained application to start with until a point where you mind stays without this effort. <S> E.g. when doing Anapana for each breath be mindful of the whole (start, middle and end) in and out breath and a small pause in between. <S> At each phase make sure your mind is with the breath. <S> At the end evaluate it if you mind wonders off at any point and also the nature of the breath. <S> Do this until you do not need to make an effort to keep your mind on the object. <S> There are other type of meditations you can do for concentration. <S> They also follow the same method of sustained attention to start with and when you mind stays with the object drop the extra effort. <S> There are centers which teach this also but you might have to go to a country which has a this type of center as there are only lesser number. <A>
|
Perhaps you are looking for tranquility meditation, Try reading Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification).
|
Meditation technique proposed by the Buddha What type of meditation is proposed by the Buddha for attaining self realization? Is it Vipassanna medition? Is Mindfulness meditation the same as Vipassanna? Which scripture mentions these techniques? <Q> If we take the Pali Canon as been the closest we have to the word of the Buddha <S> then there isn't a wealth of specific meditation advice in there when compared to other types of advice such as ethical. <S> However there are two sutras that do give specific advice these being <S> Anapanasati Sutra <S> (Mindfulness of breathing) <S> Satipatthana Sutra <S> (The Way of Mindfulness) <S> Both these sutras encapsulate samatha and vipassana practices. <S> For example the Anapansati Sutra begins with body contemplation but end up in the forth tetrad contemplating the very stuff of existence <S> Contemplating impermanence Contemplating fading of lust Contemplating cessation Contemplating relinquishment <S> The Satipatthana sutra also start with calming practices but ultimately the practioner is asked to comtemplate the four noble truths <S> Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands: 'This is suffering,' according to reality; he understands: ' <S> This is the origin of suffering,' according to reality; he understands: 'This is the cessation of suffering,' according to reality; and he understands: 'This is the road leading to the cessation of suffering,' according to realty. <S> You can't get much more vipassana than that! <S> If I can also take the opportunity to recommend the book Satipaṭṭhāna: <S> The Direct Path to Realization by Analayo . <S> This is a tremendous book for anyone interested in really drilling into the Satipaṭṭhāna sutra and getting to grips with meditation as the Buddha taught it. <S> It's heavy on the footnotes and is more of a heady read other Dharma books <S> but I've read it once <S> and it's certainly on my list to go through again. <A> There are several texts that refer to this, but there has been debate whether these references qualify as 'teaching' them or if the Buddha just mentioned that 'tranquility' and 'insight' can be beneficial (e.g. see this article or this discussion ) <S> The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... <S> joyous... rapid... <S> quick... penetrating discernment. <S> For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight[1] into mental qualities one after another. <S> Notes [1] "Clearly saw insight": In Pali, this is vipassanam vipassi, which could be translated literally as "clearly saw clear seeing" or "insighted insight." <S> source: Anupada Sutta and " <S> As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations. <S> source: <S> Samadhi Sutta and <S> "These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. <S> Which two? <S> Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana). <S> "When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? <S> The mind is developed. <S> And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? <S> Passion is abandoned. <S> "When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? <S> Discernment is developed. <S> And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? <S> Ignorance is abandoned. <S> "Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. <S> Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. <S> Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. <S> From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." <S> source: Vijja-bhagiya Sutta <S> A list of other references to vipassana in the scriptures can be found here , and to samatha here <A> Here is a simple answer. <S> There is only 2 Main Techniques. <S> Samatha Meditation Technique Vipassana Meditation Technique <S> Samatha Meditation Technique <S> This is the base to all meditation. <S> According to buddhas teaching this will make the path for vipassana Meditation Technique. <S> Vipassana Meditation Technique <S> This mainly include Anapanasathi. <S> For Enlightnment and Ultimate truth this is the way. <S> This is the simplest answer I can give. <S> If you have questions leave a Comment
|
Popular belief is that the Buddha taught two types of meditation; samatha and vipassana.
|
Theravada Buddhism and Art In Mahayana Buddhism we can see various artistic expressions: Thangka and Songs of Milarepa in Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese and Japanese art also were influenced heavily by Buddhism. Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks? Do you know of any monks who were painters or poets? <Q> These are pictures I took at the Laotian temple (in the US) <S> I've been attending. <S> I thought this was very interesting <S> so I looked it up and apparently these traditional artistic skills are passed down among the Theravada monks in Laos. <S> more information <A> The arts —be it painting, sculpture, architecture, calligraphy, etc.—have certainly flourished in the Theravada communities of the Southern Buddhist countries (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia). <S> See, for example, this section of the Wikipedia article on Buddhist art or <S> this chapter of the book Enlightened Ways: <S> The Many Streams of Buddhist Art in Thailand . <S> And here is a gallery of pictures that might be of interest. <S> With regard to poetry, be sure to check out the Theragata and the Therigata . <A> Householder, Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks? <S> Yes, the art of taming ones own mind. <S> What ever art aside of this will for the most cases not be conform to Vinaya, not to speak of Dhamma-practice, and is for the most not allowed, not to speak of teaching such, trade or make favors with such. <S> Monks may paint demons, corpse, things which increase samvega in their Uposatha Hall. <S> Nice looking things, if receiving, need to be "destroyed" of their shine and color. <S> Most decorations, if not simple done by lay people without involving of Bhikkhus, are actually not really allowed by the Buddha. <S> There might be cases where monks " teach by pictures ", being assisted by artists. <S> They may get engaged in erecting Chetis (relict buildings, graves of the Buddhas relics and those of his monks) to increase faith. <S> What ever else, even if broad usual to give favors for a live or trade..., one does well not to regard it as proper and allowed. <S> Also sightseen and attending galleries, parks, guiding for such... is not proper for monastics, even formulated as rule for nuns. <S> Additions and discussion on it can be found here: [Q&A] Buddha-images are allowed by the Buddha (at least by monks)? <S> (Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)
|
I'm told the monks make the decorative parts of the buildings and the statues.
|
What is the next meditation type after Mindfulness of Breathing meditation? I have been meditation using Mindfulness of Breathing mediation. I will continue for a while, while increasing the duration. When can I say that I "master" a type of meditation? Are there a natural next type of meditation after Mindfulness of Breathing? <Q> Meditation should be perceived as a tool to achieve some goal. <S> We don't meditate to be good at meditation, rather, we use it because we want some results. <S> Buddhist practice is based on three pillars - Right View, Meditation and Action. <S> We need to know some Buddha's teachings, we need to meditate and finally, we need to apply the results of the practice into our daily life. <S> What is the point of meditating for hours if straight after the session we harm our friends by our inconsiderate behaviour? <S> It is always good to ask or remind ourselves why we meditate. <S> If we want peace of mind, we keep checking whether we are able to remain calm in stressful situations. <S> If we want to get rid of our ego - we check how we react when people offend or criticize us. <S> Personally, I never did a regular breathing practice on its own. <S> I met Mahayana/Vajrayana masters and got attracted to the possibility of realising our Buddha Nature by applying certain methods. <S> So I use those methods to realise my full potential in order to help other beings (Bodhisattva vow). <S> In everyday life I keep checking (among others) whether I remain stable and joyful in difficult situations and whether I can feel compassion to all the beings no matter what they do. <S> However, before starting a new practice, you should very honestly check your motivation and goals - what exactly do you want to realise? <S> Also make sure the new practice can indeed bring you closer to your goals. <S> In general, keep checking whether your current meditation practice brings some positive changes into your everyday life and if you feel that there is something more you want <S> to realise - try to find a new practice that will help you achieve that. <A> I practice with the Triratna Buddhist Community . <S> Alongside Mindfulness of Breathing practice we also do a Metta Bhavana practice (kindly awareness practice). <S> In this we bring to mind ourselves, a good friend, a neutral person and a person we are finding difficult and wish them well. <S> It's not easy. <S> I have had periods of solely doing mindfulness of breathing meditation in order to become 'better' at it. <S> Honestly, for me, that was counterproductive and it the end my meditations become pretty arid. <S> I personally need a compassion based practice to run alongside whatever practice I'm doing just to keep me emotionally connected. <S> I don't find it obvious where compassion comes out of the mindfulness of breathing <S> (it's my own personal koan) <S> so an explicit compassion type visualisation fits well. <S> As far as vipassana goes then perhaps a just sitting style practice (zazen) might be useful. <S> Again it's what I do (if that is any recommendation at all). <S> However I really think the Mindfulness of Breathing and Metta Bhavana practices can be a rich field for insight. <S> Generally I wouldn't be too quick to declare any practice mastered. <S> I've alway been a believer of pick one (or a small number) of practices and stick to them. <S> If you get bored of them - great that probably shows that something is happening. <S> Stick with it and see what it is. <A> I agree with @Rabbit -- what to do next depends on what you are trying to achieve (and what you already have achieved). <S> For example, while doing mindfulness of breathing, how well developed has your concentration become? <S> Have you attained the state known as access concentration, or even the first of the four samatha jhanas? <S> Assuming you have attained at least access concentration, what do you want to happen next? <S> More tranquility, tighter focus, more one-pointedness? <S> Or something else? <S> If you're specifically pursuing a Buddhist approach then I'm guessing you're looking for something more than just tranquility/samadhi. <S> In that case, I'd suggest, if you haven't already done so, to at least have a look at the instructional writings of Mahasi Sayadaw for guidance on next steps. <S> For example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html <S> http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mahasit1.pdf <S> Also, look at Yuttadhammo's book (AFAIK he's from the Mahasi "lineage"): http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/how-to-meditate/ <S> Of course your answer to the "what do you want" question may be "I dunno yet", in which case I'd suggest you keep your meditation simple (e.g. just stick with breathing) for a bit longer, and while you're doing that broaden your reading <S> so you can see where Buddhist practice can take you and thereby what your options are. <A> According to the Anapanasati Sutta , mindfulness of breath alone leads to full liberation. <S> Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. <S> Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. <S> The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. <S> The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination. <A> It depends on individual temperament and circumstances. <S> If it is working for you then there is no need to look for another as this will take you to the final goal <S> but generally if you are a lay person with a lot of responsibilities or not reaching concentration through Anapana it is best to which to Satipatthana meditation. <S> A good read on who you use Breath Meditation to reach the final goal, go through: <S> Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Author), Santikaro Bhikkhu (Translator)
|
Some may say that the next stage after Breathing meditation is insight meditation (Vipassana).
|
a good definition of consciousness I was having a conversation with a non buddhist about consciousness I was struggling to define some key aspects and it kind of led into not self, but I was looking for a concise simple definition. <Q> Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy. <S> Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). <S> This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied by awareness. <S> Just as water has colour, temperature, etc., so too, consciousness has sensation and other mental concomitants. <S> Doctrinally, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy, which takes an experiential paradigm as the basis of reality (as opposed to the temporospatial paradigm of modern science). <S> Each conscious qualia constitutes an atomic entity in the complex matrix of multi-perceptional reality. <S> cittena nīyati loko, cittena parikassati. <S> cittassa ekadhammassa, sabbeva vasamanvagūti. <S> By the mind the world is led, by the mind is it carried away. <S> Of the mind, the one thing, all indeed go according to its power. <S> -- SN 1.62 <A> Consciousness in English has a different semantic range than it has in Pali. <S> Westerners have spent a lot of ink writing about consciousness , so I think there is a nontrivial risk of talking about biscuits (British cookies) and biscuits (American little round bread thingies). <S> Some of the relevant Pali jargon words are: viññāṇa- <S> awareness, especially the sort that is like a chain reaction starting with the physical senses of sight, touch, etc that leads to thoughts of other things. <S> Sometimes translated as consciousness. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na#Overlapping_Pali_terms_for_mind <A> The Buddhas teaching on the Five Aggregates will help you perfectly explain the consciousness! <S> Here is a passage from the link below: But physical elements by themselves are not enough to produce experience. <S> The simple contact between the eyes and visible objects, or between the ears and sound cannot result in experience without consciousness (Vijnana). <S> The eyes can be in conjunction with the visible object indefinitely without producing experience. <S> The ears too can be exposed to sound indefinitely without producing experience. <S> Only the co-presence of consciousness together with the sense organ and the object of the sense organ produces experience. <S> In other words, it is when the eyes, the visible object and consciousness come together that the experience of a visible object is produced. <S> Consciousness is therefore an indispensable element in the production of experience. <S> http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud14.htm <S> If you do practice formal sitting meditation, you will experientially see this. <S> When you focus on the rising and falling of the stomach, once the mind wanders to a different experience, you no longer are aware of the stomach, this is because you no longer have the physical and mental duality, so there is no experience of the stomach <S> , there is no existence, but.. <S> when the mind returns to the stomach, once again you have contact between the mental and physical, and once again the sensation of the stomach is realized! <S> (just a side note: The changing experience is "rebirth/birth) Metta. <A> The Pali scriptures define consciousness as 'sense cognition' or 'sense awareness'. <S> This is the most accurate single definition to use. <S> 'Consciousness, consciousness': <S> Thus is it said. <S> To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'? ' <S> It cognizes, it cognizes': <S> Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' <S> And what does it cognize? <S> It cognizes 'pleasant.' <S> It cognizes 'painful.' <S> It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' ' <S> It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.' <S> Mahavedalla Sutta <S> ~~ <S> And why do you call it 'consciousness'? <S> Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. <S> What does it cognize? <S> It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. <S> Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness. <S> Khajjaniya Sutta <S> ~~ <S> And what is consciousness? <S> There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. <S> Sammaditthi Sutta <S> ~~~ <S> The six classes of consciousness should be known.' <S> Thus was it said. <S> In reference to what was it said? <S> Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. <S> Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. <S> Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. <S> Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. <S> Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. <S> Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. <S> Chachakka Sutta <S> ~~ ' <S> Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' <S> Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. <S> Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. <S> Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. <S> Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. <S> Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. <S> Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta <A> Consciousness is simply ability to know or, more complicated, it's property to have object . <S> Pali commentaries define consciousness ( citta ) in three ways. <S> I nstrument definition - by means of which mental factors ( cetasika ) cognize the object. <S> A ctivity definition - nothing other than cognizing (or knowing) <S> the object. <S> Third definition is considered to be ultimate definition, while first two is provisional definitions, all of them are supposed to refute view that these functions are performed by Self. <S> Probably consciousness could be hard to define in mechanistic-materialistic view (or standpoint), it's because such view eliminate consciousness. <S> So, how to define thing that is fundamentally eliminated? <S> To correct this we should recognize that consciousness is of fundamental (phenomenal) nature and does not need to be reduced to matter or derived from matter. <S> For all of us consciousness is basic fact (phenomenon).
|
Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. A gent definition - citta is what cognizes an object ( arammanam cinteti ti cittam ).
|
Which Buddhist council included the conclusions that there is no creator-god and no day of judgment? After the Buddha is said to have achieved Nirvana, there were subsequent Buddhist Councils that were held. Some years ago I came across an article that said that it was in one of these Councils that it was made official for Buddhists that there is no creator-god and no Day of Judgment. Which council was that? I think it was the Fourth? But I just can't find that information again. <Q> It is incorrect that this is later development. <S> From the onset in the Buddhism teaching did not have the teaching of a Creator God or Judgement Day. <S> The Buddhist notion of a creator is the stained mind or conditioned mind or unliberated mind. <S> We keep creating our next moment due to Kleshas . <S> This is further explained in Dependent Origination and the Links of Dependent Origination . <S> This is evident from the Udana 'Anekajati samsaram sandhavissam' in which refers to the creator as Ignorance. <S> Aneka jati samsaram, Sandhavissam anibbisam; Gahakarakam gavesanto, Dukkha jati punappunam. <S> Gahakaraka ditthosi, Puna geham na kahasi; Sabba te phasuka bhagga, Gahakutam visankhitam; Visankharagatam cittam, Tanhanam khayamajjhaga. <S> -Udana <S> uttered by the Buddha after His enlightenment. <S> So many births I have taken in this world, seeking in vain the bui1der of this house; in my search over and over, I took new birth, new suffering. <S> Oh! house builder, now I have seen you, you cannot make a new house for me; all your beams are broken, the ridge pole is shattered; my mind is freed from all the conditionings of the past, and has no more craving for the future. <S> [ The 'house builder' referred to above is avijja (ignorance). ' <S> house' or 'new house' referred to above is nama-rupa (the mind-matter continuum) which is infact the 5 aggregates (pancakkhanda)-matter or body (rupa) and the 4 parts that constitute the mind, consciousness (vinnana) perception (sanna), sensation (vedana), reaction or conditioning (sankhara).] <S> This has been discussed in more depth later on under "cause-effect (paticca-Samuppada)". <S> Above extracted from http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk212a.htm <A> To state such judgement would be to intentionally contradict with Christianity. <S> I believe there is no internal (teaching needs) nor external (societal) need for such judgement. <S> Thus, it's highly doubtful that any big council would make such statement, and even more doubtful that it will be 'official for all Buddhists'. <S> No council can prescript official opinion obligatory for all Buddhists of Earth. <S> Because Buddhist community is not centralized/autocratic but pluralistic . <S> Any council that will try to enforce dogma will just split community on who accept it and who is not. <A> Points to take note: <S> It is TRUE that a number of Buddhist Councils were held after the mahaparinirvana (nirvana-after-death) of the Buddha. <S> Not during Buddha's life time nor just after Buddha attained nirvana. <S> In other words, Buddhist Councils were held just to preserve the entire Buddha's sayings and rules. <S> No changing or amending. <S> Since day one from Buddha's teaching, there is NO Creator, God or Judgement Day. <S> Therefore, Buddhist Councils never have to conclude or make official for such things.
|
It is NOT TRUE that any Buddhist Council concludes or makes official something that not part of Buddha's teaching for Buddhists.
|
How can a person be abstinent? How can a person be abstinent and overcome all sexual urges including self-gratification in accordance with the Buddhist tradition ? What prescription do the teachers give to get over such obstacles ? <Q> Any such urge gives rise to feelings. <S> What you should do is look at the feeling equanimously and objectively so that cravings for sensual pleasures do not arise. <S> This is in Dependent Origination . <S> Initially the success would be very limited with only a few seconds of success, but as you go on the duration would increase and at one point you would be able to continuously be equanimous. <S> You do not have to go to this extent, but this would become natural when you become <S> Anāgāmi which is one Stage of Enlightenment . <A> Patikulamanasikara is a special meditation recommended for lustful personalities. <S> Back in the day, in India, they used to wrap dead bodies in robes( Pansukula ) and throw to a designated land without burying or burning. <S> These places are ideal to do this kind of meditation as you can observe the rotting bodies. <S> Nowadays, it's pretty difficult to get access to a corpse, unless you work in the morgue. <S> Although you could google for pictures and videos of decomposing bodies. <S> Better to start it under the guidance of a teacher. <S> At some point, you will have to turn the meditation in to Vipassana, if you are looking for a lasting solution. <A> Check out the Third Mindfulness training listed here: <S> The Five Mindfulness Trainings <S> (Page 8). <S> These are the precepts written by Thich Nhat Hanh. <S> I am not going to summarize his commentary, but hopefully his writing can help shed light on what you are looking at. <S> May you be happy.
|
To be able to do this you have to do Vipassana Meditation. For a lay person the general recommendation is to abstain from sexual misconduct.
|
What is the relation between Astrology and Buddhism? Is there a relation between Buddhism and Astrology? Is Astrology present in all Buddhist traditions? Did the Buddha or his disciples make use of Astrology? <Q> In terms of horoscopes, it is definitely not a Buddhist practice to explain one's future or decisions based on some external forces (planets). <S> However, phases of the Moon have some importance in Buddhism. <S> Many significant events in Buddha's life coincided with the Full Moon - birth, giving first teachings or death, to name a few. <S> Full Moon is also considered to be the Amitabha Buddha Day (Buddha of Limitless Light and the principal Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism ). <S> One can find full lunar calendars where different Moon phases are associated with various Buddhas, practices etc. <S> One example of observance days based on the lunar calendar is Uposatha when practitioners intensify their practice and make conscious effort to keep the 5 precepts. <S> One may wonder why bother with the Moon. <S> In the simplest terms, the reasoning behind it is that our body is mostly composed of water and just like the oceans, the body (with its energy channels) <S> does react to the Moon phases. <S> The main point is that the Moon phases are not used to predict one's future but rather to mark favourable or auspicious days for specific practises. <S> One could coordinate one's practise with the Moon so that in different days one could focus on specific Buddha forms or teachings. <S> So the Moon should be considered as a support and not an oracle of some sort. <S> It might be helpful but it is not necessary to follow it. <A> In astrology, it is said that the planets and stars can affect on us and our future can be predicted according to that. <S> So they also provide some remedies to survive from disasters as well. <S> As for their explanation, astrology is an extended version of mathematics which uses the placements of planets to predict about people's behaviors. <S> But in Buddhism, it is said that everything that happens is based on what is being previously done/happened. <S> So the people make their own fate from the things they do and the choices they make. <S> It may be hardly depending on some planets and stars far far away. <S> But it never says that astrology is false. <S> Personally, I have seen incidents where astrological predictions became true. <S> And many cases where it haven't. <S> But Buddhism, it is true. <S> It's only a matter of fact how far you're gonna believe and understand it. <S> Hope this helped. <A> I come from a Japanese Zen background and currently practice in a Engaged Buddhist sangha under Thich <S> Nhat Hanh. <S> I have never heard of a connection with Zen Buddhism and astrology. <S> That is not to say there is none though. <S> And even if there is no historic connection between the two, if one is mindful they can see the dharma in all things. <S> I do not have knowledge in astrology, but I would bet that if one looked at astrology with mindfulness that you could find the dharma there as well. <S> May you be happy.
|
As far as I know, Buddhism doesn't have an overlap on Astrology.
|
How many Buddhas are there? If you believe in Shakyamuni Buddha the answer is No, because Buddha was clear about the previous Buddha Kassapa and the next Buddha Maytreia If that's the case, then buddha must be very few in numbers. Why so many want to be a buddha and reach nirvana if only very few would win the lotery? I've heard that there are many buddhas. Sidartha is buddha sankyamuni. That there are many buddha that are simply less famous. If that's the case, is there any living buddha in the world now? <Q> There had been infinite number of Buddhas before and there will be many more. <S> In this Kalpa , We already have four Buddhas and there will be one more Buddha. <S> That's why this Kalpa is called Bhadda-kappa. <S> Extracted it from here . <S> In the current kalpa, it is said we are fortunate to have experienced five Buddhas. <S> Kusanda Buddha, Konagamana Buddha, Kasyapsa Buddha and Buddha Shakyamuni. <S> The Buddha of the future is called Maitreya Buddha. <S> Read more about Bhadda-kappa from here . <S> At Page 12 <A> In fact a significant proportion of the text is spent emphasising just how many Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas) there are and just how many world systems they cover. <S> This is just from the introduction and the nun Yasodharâ, the mother of Râhula, along with her train; (further) with eighty thousand Bodhisattvas, all unable to slide back, endowed with the spells of supreme, perfect enlightenment, firmly standing in wisdom; who moved onward the never deviating wheel of the law; who had propitiated many hundred thousands of Buddhas; who under many hundred thousands of Buddhas had planted the roots of goodness, had been intimate with many hundred thousands of Buddhas, were in body and mind fully penetrated with the feeling of charity <S> The text goes on for another twenty eight chapters drilling that message home. <S> NOTE - even though it is highly repetitive I love this text. <S> If you want a flavour of the cosmic vastness of Mahayana Buddhism then I recommend. <S> It's a mind blowing read. <A> There are many people that are technically buddhas in this world right now (having removed the four veils, as described in "the luminous mind: the way of the buddha" by Kalu Rinpoche), however, according to the buddhist traditions, there are "founder" buddhas only from time to time. <S> Each "founder" buddha guides many beings to buddhahood, that in turn will guide many beings to buddhahood. <S> By many I don't mean millions, but I guess, without proof, that there are several thousand buddhas right now in this world. <A> In one Buddha Sasana period there can be only one Buddha. <S> Buddhas are indeed few if you look at the gap between Buddhas. <S> But time into the past is infinite hence there are infinite number of Buddhas. <S> Our Buddha got definite prophecy from 28 Buddhas Dipankara Buddha . <A> It will vary according from school to school, in Theravada tradition there are 6 Buddhas, 4 before Shakyamuni Buddha, Himself and Maytrea (Next Buddha). <S> This is what Buddha saw when he contemplate this world and past lifes while meditating. <S> In Tibetan Buddhism they talk about 35 Buddhas, Chinese Buddhism will probably give you a different number and so on, but answering strictly from a Suttas' perspective <S> I believe 6 is the answer <S> , at least that is what Shakyamuni was able to see we cannot know if Maytrea will look into the future and see more Buddhas. <S> Bear in mind <S> I am talking about full enlighted Buddhas that teach the Dhamma, not private Buddhas, most of Buddhas are private Buddhas and they can go on unnoticed by regular people. <A> Buddhas are born once in a Kalpa. <S> Altogether there are 28 buddhas . <S> Kalpa is a time period which is described as when deva(similar angel) flys among the skys once a hundred years when her clothe brush against himalayas a little of himalayas will fall. <S> like that one day it will come to the ground level. <S> That period is know as kalpa. <S> There is no famous in famous in Buddhism. <S> Every buddha's story is given as example in buddha's preaching. <S> Maybe you have heard of few. <S> Because Every bodhisatwa(one who travel's in the path of buddha) have to get niyatha wiwarana(prediction from buddha). <S> In that case on one got prediction from buddha to be Maytree in next kalpa. <S> No he is not living in this world now. <S> Maybe there are one bodhisatwa. <S> Once he got predictions he will live in thawsitha diwya(like a heaven) waiting for his time.
|
According to the Mahayana text the Lotus Sutra, the number of Buddhas are innumerable.
|
I have some people coming over who practice Buddhism, what should I know? My family is helping two people from Nepal to come to the United States to study, and their family will be visiting us temporarily. I was told that their family practices Buddhism, but I find myself somewhat lacking in knowledge on the religion/philosophy/culture that surrounds Buddhism. I don't wish to offend them or to put them into awkward situations, are there any significant things I should know? I've been reading online and I seem to get the impression that Buddhists do not eat beef. But do they eat meat at all? I have a little statuette of the Buddha that a friend gave to me as a gift once when I was going through a phase with eastern philosophy, due to an inside not quite joke that I share with this friend she had drawn a geometrical symbol on the belly of the statuette. Would this be something they would find offensive? To sum up my question: What do I need to know about Buddhism to interact with Buddhists from Nepal in a way that is respectful of their beliefs? <Q> I have been to Nepal on a retreat, it is a Hindu country, but there are many Buddhists. <S> The main Buddhism there is Mahayana by far, with a large influence from Tibet (monks who escaped after the situation with China). <S> Most of them do not eat meat (I spent days without eating meat there), but they used to eat eggs. <S> You should ask, they will not be offended. <S> Most Buddhists take seriously how we treat a Buddha statue, so do not put it on the ground, do not put it on the bathroom or too close to shoes, treat it and buddhist books with basic respect, as if it were a guest in your house. <S> Incenses are very common in Nepal, if you want to be extra nice you can put some together with the statue. <S> Most Nepalis <S> I met (not monks) <S> were very curious about technology and other cultures, internet there is very bad and slow <S> , also it is a very, very poor country, so most of them dont know much about America, they will probably appreciate a visit around the city with some background stories :) <A> As a Floridian Zen Buddhist, it is not the Buddhism that I would be concerned with. <S> I would be more mindful of Nepal culture and cultural and language differences. <S> Or in other words, Buddhism morphs and adapts to the culture and environment it is in. <A> You can erase the symbol and keep the statue in a high(respectable) place. <S> Don't use it as a decorative item. <S> Buddhist(Theravada) lay people are allowed to eat any type of meat. <S> But your friends might be vegetarian due to personal preferences. <S> They might also prefer spicy food since they are from South Asia. <S> Buddhists don't say grace at the dinner table. <S> So don't be surprised if they start having the meal immediately after sitting.
|
Buddhism is buddhism really wherever you go, but cultural practices and cultural identity varies. I do not know anything about Nepal, but perhaps googling Nepal culture or Nepal culture in America might be more beneficial than just Buddhism as a whole. Avoid swearing and telling religious jokes.
|
Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism? I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies? link to audio of Tao Te Ching <Q> There is common ground. <S> But there is common ground between Christianity and Buddhism, too. <S> So... <S> A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself <S> , I forget his name now (I can look it up) <S> once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. <S> One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. <S> The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite. <S> Your question is broad, and so it's hard to answer. <S> There are just too many sects... <S> some Chinese ones like Huayan were influenced by Taoist philosophy so there is more common grounds... <S> and then there are Taoist sects that were significantly influenced by Buddhism, like the Quanzhen School... <S> In the Pure Land tradition, the great patriarch Tan-Luan, was initially a Taoist teacher. <S> He wanted immortality but couldn't achieve it. <S> Then he met the Indian Bodhiruci who gave him the Infinite Life Sutra, and Tan-Luan was so delighted by this sutra that he burned all his Taoist texts and followed Buddhism alone. <S> If this story is true, then we can say at least one person didn't think the two were compatible. <S> Tan-Luan sought immortality, but it occurred to him that when Taoism speaks of immortality, it does so from a point of view of attachment to existence, while Buddhism's ultimate point is nirvana which is neither-existence-nor-nonexistence (suchness). <S> Something far removed from existence and non-existence. <A> I've read that one of the things that Taoism and Buddhism have in common is a sense of the ineffable. <S> The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching go <S> The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. <S> The name that can be named is not the eternal name meaning perhaps that the Tao is beyond words <S> so everything that you read about it ... <S> well that's not the real thing. <S> Contrast <S> that to the Flower sermon where the Buddha does talk and instead just holds up a flower. <S> When he did this ... <S> The disciples were greatly confused. <S> Buddha quietly displayed the lotus to each of them. <S> In turn, the disciples did their best to expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbollized, and how it fit into the body of Buddha’s teaching. <S> however Mahakasyapa understood and smiled. <S> The Buddha said <S> “What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to Mahakashyapa.” <S> So again beyond words. <S> I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see the Taoist influence within this Chineses Buddhism sutra. <S> Certainly if it isn't a direct influence then it is something that the two religions had in common. <A> Wuwei, as how I understand it, has these understandings, depending on the context: You do something because you are born for it and do it without wondering why you need to do or learn how to do it (e.g. trees produce oxygen not because oxygen is needed for animals, but because they need photosynthesis) <S> When you are doing it you are being present in the moment, and allow life to lead you to something unexpected, yet you do not get confused and unprepared when the unexpected occurs <S> Your action has been simplified to its most basic parts so it can be accomplished in the most efficient and effortless ways <S> You don't need to do anything because you see the order from the chaos, and you see the big picture from above <S> You do something impossible or insane with confidence and fearlessness, because you have the knowledge (e.g. sailing into a storm with a smile) <S> Therefore, I think while Buddhism is about avoiding attachments to not having sufferings, Daoism is about attaching and having no suffering at all. <A> In the Dao De Ching it is stated that: "Therefore it is said: He who desireless is foundThe spiritual of the world will sound. <S> But he who by desire is boundSees the mere shell of things around." <S> One whose mind is filled with desire only sees the surface of things as they really are. <S> A mind filled with desire sees the world as something to be controlled and used as tools or means for achieving one's will. <S> And so, the mind does not understand that nature, in its deep mystery, is beyond the scope of language and reason. <S> The world does not need to be controlled, but the mind to be tamed. <S> The wise one understand the changing and ever flowing rhythms of nature, and let's him/herself to go with it: that is Wu-Wei, or effortless action. <S> Have a wonderful day!
|
Early Buddhism and Daoism (as expressed in the DDC) point to desire/greed and instrumentalization of nature/the world (as defined in SN 35.116) as the causes for unbinding with the Tao/Samsara.
|
Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? Once in a Dhamma talk I heard a Theravada Monk saying he did not believe in such stories, because some of them contradict the Buddha's teachings (suttas), I don't know if that was his personal opinion or a general view in Theravada Buddhism. <Q> The Theravada accepts the Jataka stories as commentarial literature; they are not canonical, but are considered a reliable account by a learned Buddhist scholar. <S> What are canonical are the verses that accompany the stories, as that is how 547 of the latter were easily remembered. <S> Number of verses per varies; some have a single verse, others have over 100, I think. <S> It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical content. <S> Probably, though, it is more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should, again given their content. <A> No, it is not a general view. <S> Theravada tradition does accept the Jataka stories. <S> It is a part of Khuddaka Nikaya. <S> But it is not unnatural for someone to doubt any part of the Tipitaka at any given time. <S> Doubt can appear in the mind at any time. <S> Apart from that, some teachers might opt to leave the Jataka stories out when they preach to western audiences as it may not be appealing to them. <A> My understanding of Theravada is that it only accepts the Pali Canon as canonical and any other teaching that is in conflict with the Pali Canon is rejected. <A> The Jataka Tales appear in the Khuddaka Nikaya . <S> Some later compositions on the Jataka Tales expand upon the original stogies hence some parts in these works might be fictitious or exaggerated.
|
As the Jataka stories are actually part of the Pali canon, it can be said that Theravada Buddhism accepts the Jataka stories.
|
What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with eyes closed? I'm not normally distracted by noise, touch, smell or taste when I meditate. But I do keep looking and looking and looking. Sometimes I'll fixate on a crack between the spars of wood on the floor, sometimes something of more soteriological value like a statuette. What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with ones eyes open or ones eyes shut? <Q> Meditating with the eyes open allows more connection to the sensory experience, while meditating with the eyes closed provides more insulation from distraction. <S> There are advantages and disadvantages either way. <S> With less distraction, it's easier to stabilize the mind; this might be very helpful for some people. <S> On the other hand, with eyes open and more sensory input, it may be overwhelming and difficult to stabilize the mind at all. <S> Only a few people are probably capable of doing any kind of meditation while, say, staring at a busy street scene in Manhattan (but some are!) <S> But on the other hand, the meditation practice that does develop will be more ensured to maintain a connection with the senses and the outside world. <S> It is more likely to develop an equanimity and mental stability that is tolerant of the vicissitudes of the outside world, rather than an equanimity that compels one to "run away" to the forest, the mountains, the monasteries. <S> There is somewhat of a tendency that traditions emphasizing individual liberation from suffering teach meditation with the eyes closed; while traditions emphasizing first the development of compassion for others teach meditation with the eyes open. <S> (Because of the differences mentioned above.) <S> Nevertheless, in either case, there is some wiggle room for whatever works best for the individual at her/his current stage of development. <S> If you practice with a qualified teacher, someone who is good at deeply perceiving you rather than merely spouting lists of instructions, then they will be able to give you good advice. <S> Otherwise, feel free to experiment, keeping the opposing considerations in mind, and find a good balance for yourself. <A> For a beginner it is best to keep your eyes closed to be free from distractions. <S> When you can concentrate better it is advisable to slightly open your eyes to let some light in if you are feeling drowsy or if it is in the early in the morning or late in the night. <S> When you have your eyes open you can get distracted but sometimes having them slightly open to get some light in it might help fight drowsiness. <S> And vise versa if your eyes are closed. <A> One of the practices I do is a just sitting practice . <S> I think it is the same as a zazen practice <S> but we (Triratna Buddhists) don't use that terminology. <S> For this practice we are encourage to keep our eyes open as the practice is just being with whatever is. <S> This includes all 6 senses so our sight is part of that and should be brought into the meditation practice. <S> That said I rarely do this. <S> I find the sight sense overwhelming <S> and I find it much easier to do this with just hearing, touch and bodily sensations. <S> I think sight is our dominant sense so it's not surprising to me that it's hard to experience to world as it is when you are looking at it. <S> I find sight and the sense of self is so close that it's difficult to untangle it. <S> We are often told that it's impossible to do 'just sitting' wrongly. <S> However if it were possible to do it wrong <S> I'm sure I would be. <S> As other answerers have said eyes open is a good technique to guard against the sloth and torpor hindrance. <S> I've actually have been recommended the Padmasambhava stare as an antidote (the great man himself is shown below doing it). <S> Open you eyes as wide as you can and go for the full stare. <S> It actually works - you feel less tired. <S> The downside is that you look ludicrous. <S> However that shouldn't matter as hopefully everyone else is meditating with their eyes shut!! <A> When I read your question I felt one point where I would break your sentence: <S> I'm not normally distracted by noise, touch, smell or taste when I meditate. <S> But I do keep looking and looking and looking. <S> Sometimes I'll fixate on a crack between the spars of wood on the floor, Instead of stepping further. <S> What I did in your case were: observe myself, what is happening with me when I fixate on the crack? <S> I'd give myself time to explore this myself. <S> Observe it next time when it happens again... <S> Just let it happen and look at that process and the change which it does on me, my mental status and my feelings... <S> also I'd observe that emotion that I'm beginning to fear that this is not good or allowed... <S> ;-) <S> Another type of question is this: What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with ones eyes open or ones eyes shut? <S> I myself like it more to close my eyes for focusing more on my insight. <S> But also having eyes open is sometimes good, sometimes I even challenge myself to see what is different then if they're open for longer interval in my meditation... <A> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH2sEqrCza4 here <S> Bhante <S> explaines really well the best way and <S> why hope it helpsclaudia
|
On the other hand, with less sensory input, it's easier to get lost in your own little world, lost in wandering thoughts, lost in experiences of bliss that might arise from strong states of concentration. In addition with long-term practice it's somewhat easier to develop a sense of separation from the world, which is different from "non attachment" and can lead to people acting like they're better than everyone else, etc.
|
Is Mara a real being or something internal, produced by our own minds? I have heard both interpretations, for me it would make more sense to be something from the mind as there is no creator God or its opposite in Buddhism, the image of a "temptator creature" like Satan sounds strange when we think about impermanence, on the other hand, some suttas that mention Mara may fit better with the concept of an external creature, I know this interpretation is questionable, so I'm making the question! <Q> Two snippets from suttas refering to Mara as an entity/position: MN 115: <S> "But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in what is possible and what is impossible?" <S> "Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu undersands [...]: "It is possible that a man might occupy the position of Māra [...]" MN 50: <S> The venerable Maha Moggallana saw him [Māra] standing there and said: "I see you there too, Evil One. <S> Do not think 'He does not see me.' <S> You are standing against the door bar, Evil One. <S> "It happened once, Evil One, that I was a Māra named Dusi [...] <S> A sutta where a disciple directly asks what is Māra (SN 23.1): <S> "Venerable sir, it is said, 'Māra, Māra.' <S> In what way, venerable sir, might Māra be?" <S> "When there is form, Radha, there might be Māra, or the killer, or the one who is killed." <S> The above are from Nanamoli/Bodhi translations. <S> Bhikkhu Bodhi also writes in a note of the Majjhima Nikaya: <S> The name means "the Corrupter" or "the Corrupted One". <A> There are multiple Maras in Buddhism. <S> One of them is a Deva. <S> Other others being death, conditioned existence, and unskillful emotions. <A> Using the Three Universal Characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self, you can see that "mara" is a creation of the mind, this is why "mara" is in or attached to everything!! <S> It is only a cultivation of wisdom ( The Noble Eightfold Path) which can defeat mara, but also one needs mindfulness in each and every moment, as the experience changes from rebirth to rebirth via one of our six senses!! <S> Metta.
|
In the Buddhist conception of the universe, the position of Mara, like that of Maha Brahma, is a fixed one that is assumed by different individuals in accordance with their kamma.
|
Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted? <Q> Seeing his own original nature, he discovers that the ground of this nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is originally endowed with the non‐outflow wisdom‐nature which is not a hair's breadth different from that of all the Buddhas. <S> From this moment on, one's practice stops being guesswork or imitation and becomes informed by real understanding. <S> In Zen this is known as "sudden awakening, gradual cultivation": <S> Although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no different from that of the Buddhas, the beginningless habit‐energies are extremely difficult to remove suddenly <S> and so he must continue to cultivate while relying on this awakening. <S> Through this gradual permeation, his endeavors reach completion. <S> He constantly nurtures the sacred embryo, and after a long time he becomes a saint. <S> Hence it is called gradual cultivation. <S> This process can be compared to the maturation of a child. <S> From the day of its birth, a baby is endowed with all the sense organs just like everyone else, but its strength is not yet fully developed. <S> It is only after many months and years that it will finally become an adult. <S> (from Secrets on Cultivating the Mind by Bojo Jinul) <S> Chogyam Trungpa also speaks about it: Having received transmission and having had some kind of realization, you have to follow it up; you have to become liberated. <S> Some people think realization is liberation, but in our case, it is not. <S> When you realize something, you have to practice that realization, and then you are liberated. <S> So realization does not mean you are liberated; it means that you have just touched on the possibility of liberation. <S> Realization is like seeing the first rays of sunshine on the horizon -- you know that the sun is in the sky. <A> Mahayana Teachers speak of awakening or enlightenment in two meanings: <S> Awakening as liberation from delusions. <S> Complete awakening. <S> The first one is the experience of "seeing the true nature". <S> I think it can be called "liberation" because the illusory nature of delusions is revealed. <S> They still can appear in the mental continuum, but they do not enslave in that absolute way as it was before. <S> That experience of seeing may be impermanent, because of our deeply rooted habits. <S> It depends. <S> Therefore some people think it's a permanent change (sometimes it happens so), some people think it's a transitory experience that comes and goes. <S> (Usually it is so). <S> It is the first of Ten Bhumis of Bodhisattva. <S> Probably it's the same as the Stream Entry. <S> Mahayana Teachers say that though it's liberation from delusions, imprints of delusions remain (obstacles to omniscience). <S> They are eliminated in the course of Ten Bhumis, and then there is the complete enlightenment. <S> PS. <S> So in general "satori" and "kensho" is awakening (in the first sense). <S> However among Buddhist teachers, Zen in particular, there are many people without real understanding of awakening. <S> They read some books or listen to low quality teachers and form various misconceptions. <S> That's why in fact they use terms "satori" and "kensho" where there's no awakening at all. <A> It seems it is the Japanese translation of the Sanskrit & Pali word "bodhi" meaning awakening or understanding : <S> It is derived from the verb satoru . <S> In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō , "seeing into one's true nature". <S> Ken means "seeing," shō means "nature" or "essence." <S> Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajna and buddhahood. <S> - Satori (Wikipedia) Satoru (さとる, サトル) is a Japanese verb meaning "to know" or "understand". <S> It is a common masculine Japanese given name. <S> In Zen, Satoru is the root to the Zen Buddhist word, Satori (悟り enlightenment). <S> - Satoru (Wikipedia) <S> I'm not too familiar with Zen literature <S> so I do not know if the term has any additional nuances (Hence the Wikipedia answer. <S> Maybe someone else can jump-in if the term has further subtleties). <S> Thank you for the question though. <S> I didn't know this. <A> Satori is the realization of self for the first time. <S> It is always a sudden phenomena. <S> When satori happens an individual realizes that he is not just mind or body, but more than that. <S> However due to long rooted habits he tends to loose his consciousness again and again and remains awakened only for a short period of time. <S> To make this consciousness permanent one has to continuously keep doing meditation. <S> When this consciousness crystallises permanently the person is called enlightened. <A> I speak more from personal experience rather than academic or historical study. <S> I see Nirvana as a plain of existence... of joy, creativity, eternal and infinite. <S> and from this Plain come lightning bolts that sometimes connect with us. <S> this point of contact can be a satori where one gets a glimpse of nirvana.
|
Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding". No, satori is not complete enlightenment, it is an a-ha moment when the practitioner finally realizes "how things are":
|
Can a person reach enlightment living an average life, married with children? As the Bodhisattva had to leave his wife and son behind to become the Buddha and as the monks do a similar thing (avoiding marriage etc), I would like to know if this is some kind of precondition to enlightment, if a being needs to stay away from his family for a while and avoid new karmic bonds (marriage/children) in his way to enlightment. <Q> The short answer is Yes. <S> Because enlightenment depends on neither external physical attributes, actions and circumstances nor knowledge and skills and even siddhi, but inner peace that one brings into the world. <S> One's ability to be happy in every little moment and in every new things happening around and personally in one's life is important. <S> Being in the very centre, in the heart of life, doing everything, whether it is work, family or spiritual service; it's needed to keep staying not involved at the same time. <S> Not involved, in terms of not to be completely self-identified with these circumstances in order to keep clean mind, soft heart and good mood always. <S> It's easier to do this when one is sitting in the cave alone, and it's harder and challenging, and that's why is more valuable, living in the big city. <S> We're born as humans, and humans live in society. <A> According to my understanding there are four stages of enlightenment . <S> Sotapatti Sakadagami <S> Anagami Arahant <S> So It is quite possible that a normal person can attend the Sotapatti state with the normal life style. <S> In fact there were lot of lay people who attended these stages. <S> Found this wiki page with lot of information about enlightened lay people according to various Suttas. <A> some kind of precondition to enlightenment? <S> The only thing I think of is as lay Buddhist; Pāramitā <S> In Buddhism, these virtues are cultivated as a way of purification, purifying karma and helping the aspirant to live an unobstructed life, while reaching the goal of enlightenment. <S> The only story I can find for Pāramitā related Jātaka tales is Vessantara Jataka <S> Additional info: From my Theravada understanding: For Sotāpanna and Sakadagami <S> , they may or may not stay with family. <S> Most Sotāpanna that I heard from the text lived with their family. <S> For example; Anathapindika and King Bimbisara <S> Another example is Visakha known to have a lot of great grandchildren. <S> From page 981 of The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism For Anāgāmi, they will never live as husband/wife For Arahant, they will never stay with family. <S> Why? <S> Anāgāmi - already overcome sensual desire (kāmacchando) fetter Arahant - who has eliminated all the unwholesome roots which underlie the fetters.
|
In Jātaka tale (whether you want to believe it or not), there are many example of Buddha past life as normal human living with family and still fulfilling Pāramitā to attain enlightenment, and which is also true for many Buddha's disciples.
|
Has anyone claimed to have reborn in Pure Land, and later returned to earth to help other beings? It is said that a person can choose to return to samsara to help others after being reborn in Pure Land. But has anyone claimed to be that particular kind of person? I am not talking about those who claimed to have visited Pure Land in meditation or dreams. But those who was a human, rebirthed in a Pure Land, instructed by Buddhas and bodhisattvas in that Pure Land, then chose to rebirth back as human on earth to help other beings. <Q> Usually the Bodhisattvas who vows to be born back to Earth to guild others will do so with the means appropriate to the culture, time and age. <S> In this age of Dharma descend, they would not display enlightenment or supernatural powers, but instead would display mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and recitation of His name. <S> They would show signs that they obtain rebirth to Pureland. <S> And they will never reveal their true identity. <S> Master Chin King often said if the Buddha or Bodhisattva identity is revealed they would immediately depart from this world. <S> Namo Amita Buddha. <A> I guess technically the Dalai Lama be one such person. <S> He is reputedly the manifestations of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara . <S> Amitabha is himself the primary focus of Pure Land Buddhism. <S> I'm not sure if the Dalai Lama would stand up in from of an audience and make that claim but he is an emanation of a bodhisattva who is associated with a pure land. <A> I am not aware of anybody who has chosen to reenter samsara after having died in a previous life and being reborn in Sukhavati. <S> Perhaps it is a rare event that has not happened yet since the death of Sakyamuni. <S> Or perhaps it simply means that the appearance of buddhas from the Pureland is not a matter of incarnation, but a matter of influence. <S> Personally, I am more interested in the bodhisattva that can reach into samsara to save sentient beings while remaining in sukhavati.
|
Avalokiteśvara is the the earthly manifestation of Amitabha who has the Pureland of sukhavati.
|
Are there any specific stories or talks where Buddha discussed using mind altering substances other than alcohol? It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals. My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect. Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad. I'm asking for the story or stories. <Q> No. <S> The dharma is about returning to your buddha mind or original mind unaltered. <S> The use of mind altering drugs goes directly against the return to the unaltered mind literally by definition. <S> I would venture to say that Mind Altering things (ie. <S> TV/EGO/DRUGS/External Attachments) are what the middle way and the dharma are trying to be free from. <A> Question closed... <S> i noticed Soma was a link in Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo's comment. <S> Apparently soma is ancient slang for something widely speculated on being either an amphetamine or entheogen. <S> Its probably both. <S> The link Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo shared had an excerpt; "The Graeco-Russian archeologist Viktor Sarianidi claims to have discovered vessels and mortars used to prepare Soma in 'Zoroastrian temples' in Bactria. <S> He claims that the vessels have revealed residues and seed impressions left behind during the preparation of Soma. <S> This has not been sustained by subsequent investigations[19] <S> Besides the residue of ephedra, the archeologists discovered the residues of Poppy seeds and Cannabis. <S> The vessels also had impressions created by Cannabis seeds. <S> Cannabis is well known in India as Bhang and sometimes Poppy seeds are used with Bhang to make the ritual drink Bhang Ki Thandai." <S> So i would imagine it was much like today, different strokes for different folks... or mix and match. <S> So, since it was obviously (which i already basically knew) available... and mentioned... the question is answered. <S> Thank you Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo Sadhu Bhante <A> The 5th precept deals with more than just alcohol. <S> This is well explained in " THE FIVE PRECEPTS " which is a very good read on the 5 precepts. <S> The fifth precept reads: <S> Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” <S> The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. <S> The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by sura,meraya or as additional to them. <S> In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. <S> If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. <S> But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances.
|
Taking anything leading to heedlessness is not acceptable.
|
What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities? What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities to the point of almost being super powers or super human? Not necessarily "super-mundane" as ESP but something along those lines. There is a lot of controversy in searches but I can not find any specific references. I could read the suttas myself but I am looking for direct tipitika, Buddha involvement. <Q> In ancient India (mostly in southern parts of India) there are people called "Sittars". <S> They possess many super-human powers like foreseeing the future (not just predicting it), alchemism (like converting any metal to gold), super-healing abilities. <S> There are many written manuscripts which are still available but many of them of in Ancient Tamil. <S> They have also written about many techniques which if practiced properly will give us super-human abilities. <S> Do not think of "Wolverine"-like abilities, but the sort of abilities that normal people cannot think of. <S> It is rumored that they still exist in the western ghats of southern India and that they are in a form of light. <S> I do not know how it is linked to Buddha <S> but I firmly believe Buddhism has its core roots and values derived from Hinduism. <A> Our inner accuracy improves once we learn to identify what is biased and what is not, and this could be called 'clairvoyance' by most, though this doesn't necessarily mean you are seeing what is there. <S> It is also said that siddhi meditations develop human superpowers, as well. <S> But in the case of siddhi, there is a lot of esoteric learning that has to happen first, some of which is lost to time. <A> Most Masters won't speak or initiate student directly. <S> This kind of abilities come naturally along the way, as fruits. <S> The Master will only help the dedicated student growing up, and once some vibratory path are achieved, the Master might on a subtile way guide his student with this kind of new abilities. <S> So, in the tradition, this happen naturally behind the scene and there probably no practice nor techniques that exist. <S> Further more, focusing on this kind of goal might be a tricky path, since the only aim is to recognize the Absolute True Nature within yourself and everything around.
|
One of the teachings of my own tradition is the use of inner imagery after overcoming bias.
|
If a substance enhanced the ability to stay mindful, and didnt cause intoxication or carelessness, would it still violate the fifth precept? this subject is so controversial i cant get a solid explanation.i am retrying an attempt to find better advice on the subject of continuing unorthodox methods that are controversial if they are truly of benefit to the individuals practice. (even if they may commonly be detrimental to others.) <Q> 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. <A> Food substances like Water, Carbohydrates, Fats, Sugar, Protein, Minerals, Vitamins etc. <S> don't violate the 5th precept. <S> They actually nourish the body, if taken in appropriate quantities. <S> That is helpful for the development of the mind as well. <S> Is there anything specific you are referring to? <A> Such a substance already does exist, it is called Camellia sinensis also known as ... regular tea! <S> The biographical tradition is littered with apocryphal tales about Bodhidharma's life and circumstances. <S> In one version of the story, he is said to have fallen asleep seven years into his nine years of wall-gazing. <S> Becoming angry with himself, he cut off his eyelids to prevent it from happening again. <S> According to the legend, as his eyelids hit the floor the first tea plants sprang up; and thereafter tea would provide a stimulant to help keep students of Chán awake during meditation. <S> ( Wikipedia )
|
This traditional drink of Zen-Buddhist monks stimulates the mind and enhances one's ability to stay mindful, without causing intoxication or carelessness.
|
Which canon and traditions does the Flower Sermon text belong to? I've heard of a Buddhist story in which the Buddha just holds up a flower and one monk in the audience understands then becomes instantly enlightened. I believe it is a foundational text for Zen Buddhism. Where does this text originate from? What canon or collection of texts is it from? When was it wrote and which tradition(s) does it derive from? Generally I would just like to know a bit of background to the history, authoring and authority of the text. I have only ever hear to it referred to in secondary sources and never giving a primary reference. <Q> Here is some information about it: <S> The origin of the Zen school is traditionally traced to Mahakassapa, who was said to have received a direct transmission outside the scriptures. <S> This transmission is illustrated with the evocative story of the Buddha holding a flower silently before the assembled Sangha: only Mahakassapa understood, and smiled. <S> The story is gains special resonance since Mahakassapa is renowned as a curmudgeonly old monk – although his authentic verses in the Theragatha do indeed show a delightful love of nature. <S> Despite the fame and importance of the story, it is not attested in any Indic scripture, and is a Chinese Chan invention. <S> The development of the notion of lineages is discussed by Dumoulin . <S> - The Date of the Flower Sermon, Sujato Bhikkhu <S> The text is found, as mentioned above, in " The Gateless Gate " under the heading " Buddha Twirls a Flower ". <A> In Dhammapada of Kuddaka Nikaya, there is one instance where Buddha helped a disciple of Sariputta to attain arahanthood within one day by creating a lotus flower and meditate on it. <S> The link to that story can be found here . <S> This is in Theravada tradition <S> and I don't know if this is what you are looking for. <A> However, this sutra does not appear in any of the K'ai-yuan or the Chen-yuan era catalogs of Shakyamuni Buddha's sutras and has been regarded by many as a Chinese invention.
|
From my understanding the story of the transmission of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment to Mahākāshyapa appeared in the "Daibontenno-Mombutsu-Ketsugi Sutra." It’s first appearance is apparently in the compilation of koans, the 無門關 (Wúménguān, often rendered in English as The Gateless Gate ), compiled by the Chinese Zen master Wumen Hui-k’ai (無門慧開) and first published in 1228.
|
Is assault against the first precept? The first precept states I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing. So does this mean that punching someone in the nose isn't actually against the first precept and the five precepts generally. It really feels like it should be. <Q> The following five conditions must be satisfied to break the first precept. <S> The being must be alive. <S> There must be knowledge that it is a living being <S> There must be intention to cause its death <S> Action must be taken to cause its death <S> Death must result from such action <S> So punching someone in the nose does not break the 1st precept. <S> But it weakens it. <S> Since the question is if it's against(not if it breaks) <S> the precept, the answer is yes. <S> Weakening here means the merits you acquire by keeping to first precept are reduced or weakened. <S> Also, when it comes to the consequences of Kamma, Killing results in one having a short life span if born as a human again. <S> Just injuring or torturing results in having bad health if born as a human again. <S> killing usually involves inflicting pain or torturing as well. <S> So it can result in bad health too. <A> The Pāḷi word for "killing living beings" is usually pāṇātipātā . <S> It is composed by pāṇa + atipātā : <S> pāṇa , in this context, is normally translated as "living being". <S> atipātā is the useful word for answering the question. <S> It can mean "killing, destroying, injuring or attacking". <S> Technically, it will depend on how one translates it. <S> Either as killing\destroying or injuring\attacking. <S> However, if one takes into account the entire Buddha's teaching it is evident, at least for me, that it means injuring\attacking, not only killing\destroying. <S> So I would say, yes, assault is against the first precept. <S> However, one should always keep in mind that intention is key. <S> One can injure a baby, for example, by extracting from his throat a swallowed toy. <S> In such cases, I wouldn't consider it as against the first precept. <A> The precepts are usually expressed in purely negative terms, but they are intended to express much broader positive principles. <S> In other words, keeping the precepts is just as much about keeping the spirit of the law as it is the letter. <S> For example, in the case of the first precept, the Buddha gives this description: <S> "And how is a monk consummate in virtue? <S> Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. <S> He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. <S> This is part of his virtue." <S> (Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html ) <S> Hitting someone might not be classified as pāṇātipātā <S> but it certainly is incompatible with having mercy and compassion. <A> Not all harmful actions fall under the five precepts. <S> The Five Noble Precepts are the minimum conduct guidelines for a practicing Buddhist. <S> This does not mean that violence that falls short of killing is therefore in accordance with the Buddha's teachings! <S> Fortunately, the Buddha's teachings are not affected by what people feel they should be. <S> :)
|
Assault is clearly against the positive principle in the first precept regardless of whether or not it fits within the strict wording of the precept.
|
Is it wrong to watch fight events like boxing, MMA, judo etc.? From a Buddhist's perspective, is it wrong to watch such sports on television for example? Of course, I'm talking as a lay person. Monks have a completely different approach regarding entertainment. Does watching it create any bad Kamma? <Q> In one instance a head of a group of actors asked from Buddha if his profession is a good one and whether he could go to heaven because he provides entertainment. <S> Buddha refused to answer this question three times. <S> But when he insisted on, Buddha's answer was, Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. <S> Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. <S> Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. <S> Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. <S> But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. <S> Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb. <S> So I think this applies to such sports as well because they are not devoid of passion, aversion and delusion. <S> So technically, any action or intention with desire, anger and delusion should create bad karma. <A> Does it create bad Kamma? <S> It can!Watching the news, dramas, commercials, musical shows etc. can create bad Kamma. <S> Seeing the no signal screen can create bad Kamma. <S> Doing school work can create bad Kamma. <S> Eating an ice-cream can create bad Kamma. <S> Drinking water can create bad Kamma. <S> Smelling a flower can create bad Karma. <S> Scratching your head can create bad Kamma. <S> Stretching your arms can create bad Kamma. <S> Even if you sit in the dark and do nothing, you can still be creating bad Kamma. <S> It depends on whether you have Samma Sati or not. <S> Is it wrong to watch sports entertainment? <S> Only if you take the eight precepts . <S> MMA, Judo, Boxing etc. <S> fall under the 7th precept. <S> Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani <S> sikkhapadam samadiyami - I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics. <S> So it will be wrong to watch them on Poya days when you take the eight precepts. <S> Can it still create Karma even if you don't take the precepts? <S> Yes. <A> "Wrong" is highly subjective. <S> I dont see how simply seeing something going on in front of you is inherently "wrong"... <S> It would be detrimental to an attempt to practice the 8 precepts strictly if it is viewed as entertainment and is certainly not necessary for practice. <S> Kammicly it could attach your mind (if you are entertained) to aspects of reality giving them a propensity to bring about a possible good or bad situation really. <S> speculation on that is dubious at best.
|
Whatever you do can create bad Karma as long as your thoughts are defiled with craving, aversion and ignorance.
|
Why not force awareness of things during vipassana? I have heard a lot about vipassana just being mindful of what happens to come up, not looking for more things to notice. However, if we compare meditation with e.g. lifting weights, when you start, you lift (say) 50, so even though its harder, you add 20 more... Then when you normally just need to lift 50, its way easier because you've been working out with 70. My question is, why not do that with meditation? I'm curious why some people don't think it's the thing to do. As in speed noting, if I can be aware of everything all at one time constantly isn't that being fully aware? If I can see even the most minute details of the current reality effortlessly through pushing my mental ability during meditation, looking further into things to note more things and staying aware of them all at one time moment by moment till they pass away. Until you lose track but then try to remember to be attentive to those that remain and notice the new. What is said about mental "exercise" as a developmental practice? <Q> The mental exercise the be able to note everything is developing Concentration and Wisdom. <S> These are tenets covered in the Anapanasati Sutta and (Maha) Satipatthana Sutta according to the Theravada Tradition. <A> Forcing awareness is a tricky concept. <S> I would not be surprised if every practitioner of meditation has done it on occasion. <S> However, the act of doing so admits the "desire for insight and awareness." <S> By meditating in this fashion, it is not possible to simply let that desire pass through you. <S> It is held on to. <S> At the very least, this is a desire which will not pass. <S> It can obscure that which you are looking for. <S> At its worst, it can lead you down a false target leading you along a less ideal path. <S> I have found that forcing awareness in meditation can be effective for identifying illusions and assumptions, but it is less effective at actually encouraging awareness. <S> Accordingly, in this complicated world with its many illusions and assumptions, I feel it has its place. <S> However, the traditional approaches as advised by the other answers are more effective as these things they do best. <S> A focus on them is wise. <A> Vipassana meditation isn't about being mindful of as much as possible, but about developing mindfulness to the point where we can clearly see the nature of reality in the three characteristics. <S> It doesn't matter how many or how few things you see, as long as you discern it. <S> If you are able to discern them and maintain it, you can attain enlightenment with even a single object.
|
The best analysis I have found for the issue is that forcing awareness can, in theory , allow one to become more insightful and aware.
|
Does the "nature" of a person move with her to the next life? Imagine a person that is very calm, generous, doesn't like to harm others etc. If this person gets a rebirth in the human realm will he/she develop the same characteristcs? The point is that Kamma and the last mental state can go on, but according to Anatta I'm not sure about the rest. <Q> kamma doesn't actually go on. <S> kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed. <S> Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future. <S> It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life; a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality. <S> "Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind." <S> MN 19 (Bodhi, trans) <A> I've heard this issue described as one of the major philosophical problems for Buddhism. <S> How does rebirth make sense in the absence of a fixed self? <S> The problem is akin to the problem of evil for Christians - how does a good God allow bad things to happen. <S> And as fitting this kind of problem there's been a lot of historic opinion and arguably no definitive answer. <S> The thoughts and analogies that I have found useful have been <S> One position is that there is rebirth but <S> no-one is reborn. <S> I fit this satisfying mystical to be honest. <S> The analogy of the candle. <S> A new candle is lit from an old one and the flame passes from candle to candle. <S> We can't say it's the same flame <S> but then we can't say that the flames in the candles are unrelated. <S> The contention is that this is an instructive way to think about rebirth. <S> Another analogy of a pile of coins versus a string of beads. <S> Reincarnation (with a soul) can be viewed as a string of beads. <S> There is something (the thread/a soul) that runs through all beads. <S> A pile of coins is like rebirth (no soul). <S> There is nothing running in the pile of coins that gives them their location in the pile. <S> However it is the positions of all the previous coins that gives the uppermost coin <S> it's elevated position. <S> If none of these work then there is always the Buddha's advice about n ot worrying about such metaphysical mechanics . <S> Knowing this stuff won't help you get liberated. <S> I am aware that Tibetan Buddhists will have a far more definite idea about how these things happen. <S> The perspective of this answer is probably more Theravadan but <S> the book that I've sourced this from is more eclectic and even secular ( Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya ). <A> Looking at it from another angle, what would it mean to be reborn without your nature? <S> In what sense would the reborn being still be you? <S> Rebirth without persistence of nature is indistinguishable from no rebirth at all. <A> Everything is impermanent, even one's nature. <A> Agree with @Christopher Lee on this but with a small addition. <S> Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away. <A> Nature doesn't move. <S> Your thinking is moving. <S> We need to perceive our nature to understand it. <S> Not to think about it. <S> It's like to think about meals instead to eat. <S> Your nature appears when you stop the mess in your head. <S> Right now! <S> Enlightenment <S> Helping others Congratulations! :-)
|
You cannot think about your nature, you cannot speak about it, because your thinking is a "product" made from the nature by your tendencies which again raise from your habits. If you look at the span of your life, your year, your month, or even a single day in your life you will see that your nature is in a constant state of change.
|
Is austerity necessary in Buddhism? I have been watching Buddhist followers for sometime now in India and it made me wonder if austerity is necessary in Buddhism ? Like if I wish to become a Buddhist do I need to give up on listening to music, watching tv, using social networking sites, making a livelihood by working in a firm, self- pleasure (read masturbation), have to sleep on floor and beg for a living? I don't mean any of this questions in an offense way. But most of the people here, at least the common opinion as most of my friends/family have told me is that if you believe in Buddhism you have to live like a "Monk". <Q> Is austerity [as defined above] necessary in Buddhism? <S> The answer depends as follows: <S> As a householder, austerity, as you defined above, is not required since it's not part of the five essential precepts prescribed for him. <S> 1 <S> However, this austerity, also know as the 8 precepts , is usually applied during retreats and Uposatha days. <S> 2 <S> As a monastic, it is required consistently since it will help to develop the meditation practice more effectively by diminishing unwholesome obsessions & available distractions. <S> This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to follow this kind of austerity more consistently if they can and feel inclined to do so. <A> According to Triyana framework as presented by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, the first stage of Buddhist training, known as "Hinayana", involves special emphasis on discipline and simplicity , in essence very similar to what you call "austerity" above. <S> The idea is to reduce the coarse defilements by restricting activities that lead to experiences that sustain the defilements. <S> Metaphorically, in order to sober up you have to stop drinking. <S> Basically, this means saying "no" to indulging, in all its shapes and forms. <A> I honestly am not sure why people are ascribing these qualities to 'Buddhism' without qualifying what type of Buddhism they are talking about. <S> Hina/Maya/Vajrayana isn't enough either, as ideology in these schools varies widely. <S> Thanks very much to the poster who mentioned Trungpa as a source! <S> There are adherents that believe that the eight fold path is antiquated, and should be modernized. <S> Especially with cheap and accessible birth control, we can eliminate the sexual abstinence part of this (for example). <S> Other parts of it could be revisited, in the light of 2.4 centuries of progress, and since we are not India. <S> The ONLY reason the eight fold path was designed this way. <S> in 600+ BC, was as a teaching tool, and to give people a simple path that could work for uneducated people... <S> we know this.. however, some schools of Buddhism insist on thinking it is the ONLY way to practice, and fossilize the teachings in amber. <S> To each his own. <S> I don't like that approach. <S> We have the advantage now of education and science that is totally beyond the capabilities of a 6th century BC human to understand, Buddha or not, and in looking at the eightfold path and the four noble truths, we really need to understand that they were designed as a shorthand for the real story.. which is much more complex than these simple ideas. <S> Remember, it was also said that there are many paths.. and it was implied the eight fold path was but one. <S> The whole point of it was to eliminate suffering by bringing people to a point where they could rid themselves of the strong boundaries they make in their minds about the world, and learn to see the world directly. <S> That's all, really. <S> It's not anything special, and so it might mean that YOU, in particular, should practice austerity as YOUR path, if you have problems with excess and impulse control, for example. <S> It can't be answered for all Buddhist ideologies, nor for all Buddhists. <A> so yes, it is a necessary condition to a varying degree. <A> Even gautam buddha left the five ascetics 'Kondana, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama, Assaji' when he realised that even after going through severe austerities until his body was almost emaciated, that austerities could not lead to realisation, he abandoned them... <S> they <S> how could you say that we have to sacrifice all. <S> gautama buddha until the age of 29 was living a life envied by all, so in his case he had to sacrifice all that he have or want to the way to nirvana making it a mile long than any common man would have to go through as we were not living a life like him. <S> we are already not bestowed with an early life like him. <S> so in our case the meaning or amount of sacrifice is comparatively less.
|
"Practicing" Buddhism typically involves study, meditation, and effort... without, at the very least, some sort of effort you are not practicing anything, and to practice Buddhism is to meditate...making "practicing buddhism" an austere act in and of itself. Essentially, I believe the answer to your question is "No", "yes" and 'It Depends" :-) Your question has no general answer!
|
What is observing the precepts in a Hinayana way or a Mahayana way? In Zen Mind, Beginners Mind Shunryu Suzuki says observing the precepts in a Hinayana way is violating the precepts in a Mahayana way Can an one give an explanation of way he is getting at here and perhaps a concrete instance of when that might occur. <Q> To avoid confusion - I base my understanding of the term 'Hinayana' on Andrei's answers to two different questions - this and that . <S> Hinayana way (or as Andrei puts it - level) refers to basic/elementary/foundational aspects of Buddhism. <S> On this level precepts are central and students learn to follow basic discipline. <S> The main idea is to work with one's own Karma - having a simple life protects one from difficult situations and clear-cut rules help in achieving that. <S> However, this is not all that Buddhism offers. <S> Once the foundations are understood, one can move on to more advanced teachings which can be called Mahayana-based (as Andrei pointed out, this can also happen in Theravada). <S> The main difference, as I understand it, is that it is the Bodhisattva Vow that is central in Mahayana level. <S> Here, one is no longer worried about one's own Karma (like on the Hinayana level), but recognizes that there are countless beings who suffer and one wants to benefit them in the first place. <S> One does not need a precept to know that killing or lying is bad. <S> In every situation one has to be mindful and decide which action will bring more happiness or suffering to other beings. <S> Sometimes lying is the right way to protect someone's life, sometimes eating enormous amounts of roast beef is the best way to make our auntie happy after she spent the whole day preparing this dish for her beloved family. <S> No clear rules, rather guidelines and constant wish to benefit others. <S> I believe it all boils down to motivation - if you observe the precepts in fear of spoiling your own Karma - it is Hinayana level. <S> If you are mostly interested in benefiting others - it is Mahayana. <S> One view violates the other one. <A> (To add to Rabbit's answer, which is almost perfect as far as I can see...) <S> This refers to good old Spiritual Materialism. <S> In Mahayana, attitude is of utmost importance. <S> Hinayana's attitude of purity is subsumed into Mahayana's attitude of altruism, and then again into Zen's attitude of non-duality. <S> Check out " <S> Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa. <S> Pages 294-316 cover this topic ("Transmutation of vows") in great details. <A> "I've a feeling that the way we are asking about precepts in these questions might not be from a Mahayana perspective <S> " I am a Zen practitioner and I agree that i find many of the other questions you mentioned to be meaningless. <S> To me as a Zen practitioner those questions are all about labels and the dharma is more about letting go and freeing oneself from these labels. <S> I have actually started frequenting these boards less because in my perspective I feel that many of the questions asked skirt around the dharma or at least focus in on the labels and names that have attached itself to the dharma over the years. <S> I do know however that this is merely my perspective as a Zen practitioner and many people might disagree with me.
|
"Observing the precepts in a Hinayana way" while "violating the precepts in a Mahayana way" is refraining from negative action with the egoistic intent of becoming a more spiritually advanced person.
|
Should Buddhists avoid Amazon and Starbucks out of concerns about tax avoidance? Recently companies such as Starbucks and Amazon were accused of avoiding paying UK tax. Many people were quite upset about this and people began to boycott those companies involved. From a Buddhist perspective is there any problem with this? The companies are not stealing nor are they breaking any laws - tax avoidance is perfectly legal as opposed to evasion which is not. I appreciate there are many arguments that could be made against this practice around fairness, justice, social responsibly etc... However I'm interested in the Buddhist angle - perhaps thinking about the precepts or maybe broader concepts such as karma and dependent origination or another aspect of Buddhist thought that I'm not aware of. <Q> I think the answer is No. <S> from a Buddhist's perspective you should take care of your actions, they will receive the results of their kamma (if any). <S> Focus on what you do and left undone as the Buddha taught. <S> Another thing is that these days almost 99% of the companies do some kind of tax planning that involves similar practices, you just don't know it. <S> In an extreme example imagine if someone says: I will not pay taxes because the government is corrupt, that is wrong, as a citizen you should pay taxes and the politicians will face, sooner or later, the consequences of their actions. <A> Buddhism exists because it gained government patronage. <S> It isn't a system for liberation from the government <S> and it's taxes. <S> Thats relatively recent ideology. <S> Actions of a Bodhisattva in High Places <S> "Good man, if a Bodhisattva has achieved command, becoming the ruler of a great nation, he should treat every one of his subjects like an only son. <S> He should teach them to discard evils and do good dharmas. <S> He may have an evildoer rebuked and beaten, but will not take his life. <S> He levies one sixth of people’s wealth as taxes." <S> And in the minor precepts: (21) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept fails to pay taxes for his business and runs away, he has committed the sin of negligence. <S> Without rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his cyclic existence, [after death] he cannot avoid going down an evil life-path. <S> Both quotes from the Upāsaka's Precepts, which is sort of precepts for non-renunciates. <S> So not only does Chinese Buddhism support the of paying taxes, it supports a tax rate of 16% <S> The precepts are written at a pretty high level, so I'm going to say that they are written to be read as rules to be followed in principle, not as rules that you can carefully nitpick. <S> http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html <A> I do not see why a company should not do proper tax planning. <S> Any sensible person / entity should do it as you should protect your earnings from various elements including the King (Government). <S> As you said tax evasion is the issue as it is not legal. <S> Buddha mentioned you have pay your taxes (Raja Bali) also. <S> This should be within the bounds of the law hence as tax planning is not illegal hence it is acceptable to protect one's hard earned money. <S> In case of a corporation, the shareholder's wealth. <S> Following on Right Livelihood touch based on some of these issues. <A> From a Buddhist perspective is there any problem with this? <S> The companies are not stealing nor are they breaking any laws - tax avoidance is perfectly legal as opposed to evasion which is not. <S> It's difficult to say why they avoid paying taxes. <S> We cannot know the exact reason so this is based purely on theory. <S> The most obvious reason for why they are avoiding taxes would be because they want to maximize profit. <S> If that is the case one could argue that their actions are based on the unwholesome root of Greed . <S> In this case they are creating unwholesome kamma for themselves. <S> It could also be that they want to earn as much money as possible so that they can give as much money as possible to charity. <S> Should Buddhists avoid Amazon and Starbucks out of concerns about tax avoidance? <S> If one's intention simply is to buy a cop of coffee then no problem. <S> One can also view it from the perspective of the company, i.e. from the perspective of the people who are doing the tax avoiding and thereby creating unwholesome kamma for themselves. <S> One could minimize their ability to create unwholesome kamma for themselves by choosing to not buy from these companies. <S> If more people choose not to support them it might end up in them choosing more carefully how they conduct their business. <S> There are probably many more perspectives than i mention here. <S> These are just the ones that were most important for me to mention. <S> Again this is purely theory since we do not know the reason behind tax avoiding. <S> It could simply be that they need the money to open up another office building so that more people will be able to get a job. <A> If you want to do so as an act of protest against their practices <S> that's a good thing in my view <S> but I don't think you can make it mandatory. <S> It seems to be a general principle in Buddhism (at least in the Theravada school) that an act isn't intrinsically evil unless it involves harm in terms of clearly evident causation rather than in terms of indirect contribution.
|
If one's intention is to contribute to he upkeeping of tax avoiding companies so that they can earn more money then one should probably avoid buying at those companies since it will create unwholesome kamma for oneself. You can, but due to your personal views and believes, it has nothing to do with Buddhism, It depends on one's intention.
|
Does practice build good kamma despite wrong action? I ask this question in the context of one who does wrong action and gets right results anyways, which happens a lot. Someone with a pretty good understanding of Kamma but to my knowledge it doesn't usually work like that. So, wrong action produces right results regularly, a lot of times ends up on top and in a better situation even through challenging circumstances... practices diligently. What is known about this phenomenon? <Q> Let me put it this way. <S> 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. <S> This would means you are worse off than before on average for thieves. <S> Like wise this extends to many other situation where you can temporarily get ahead in life to fall back to worst situations later on. <S> Also some may get away <S> but if you look at the average over a majority you take one step forward <S> and then two steps back in many of these situations. <A> There is no such thing as instant Karma. <S> We sometimes might have an impression that one action directly led to some result <S> but we really cannot know it for sure. <S> The world we experience now is a result of karmic seeds we planted during countless of lifetimes. <S> Results of some actions ripen for centuries, some ripen for weeks. <S> Imagine you have a Karma to win the lottery - you never played it <S> so there were no conditions for the karmic seed to ripen. <S> You did lots of bad deeds in your current life and one day you decide to play the lottery for the first time. <S> The seed finally ripens and you win the lottery. <S> Then you think that your immoral deeds have some connection with the winning and conclude that you can still be immoral if good things happen to you anyways. <S> The truth is that these things are not connected at all. <S> Every bad deed will plant a seed which will give you suffering in the future. <S> Every good deed will bring something positive. <S> The trick is that we don't know when exactly. <A> We engage in various thoughts, speech and physical actions. <S> We are aware of some things happening to us. <S> It is quite difficult to see the relation between all of them. <S> I disagree with your statement " wrong action produces right results regularly ". <S> If by " right results " you mean positive events occurring, this is the result of positive actions you have taken in the past. <S> In the Sutra of Instructions to the King <S> it says: When the moment comes to leave, 0 King,Neither possessions, friends nor family can follow. <S> But wherever beings come from, wherever they go,Their actions follow them like their own shadow. <S> as mentioned by Patrul Rinpoche in Words of my Perfect Teacher . <A> In short: No, because wrong action cannot, and does not EVER, yield "right" results. <S> A wrong action taints the outcome of that action; the quality of an action is born in the intention that led to that action.
|
The difficulty in practicing right action comes from our misperception of the results of wrong action as being desireable , which is not the same as right .
|
What kind of mistakes can a new meditator in his/her early 20's avoid? I am currently in my late twenties and I began meditation in my early twenties. I often think that the path that I am on being correct as it is and it has provided it's justification through practice- I am unsure what I will think of me in my thirties or forties I am pretty certain I am making some mistakes that I am not aware now and will be with the passage of time. This question stems from the fact that I personally know how my meditation journey began as a yuppie and how I thought more an did less. Also following books and authors without knowing that it's not really my own wisdom but someone else's. Trying to be someone else unconsciously without thinking what I want from my life. Intellectual discussions and tryin to prove a point without having metta for the other person. Learning to accept family as they are without doubting or questioning their motives (still beats me). The list goes on. Well I am sure there are many more experienced and mature meditators who can probably provide a glimpse on their twenties. All this only for a healthy comparison as I don't have any friends my age who take meditation seriously. Metta <Q> Choose the middle between all extreme contrasts. <S> If you are going too fast, go slower. <S> In your meditation you might choose a kind of meditation. <S> Then you would try to keep yourself on doing only that one thing you have choosen. <S> This is OK. <S> This is meditation: if you come back from things which disturb you, back to point you have choosen. <S> - Many people might think they do not meditate if they can not keep themself on one point - that is wrong. <S> I think you allready <S> know you need patience, but also there might be a time where a change can help. <A> When you meditate you get either positive, negative or neutral experiences. <S> Early on in can be very negative and bizarre experiences to a novice meditator. <S> Whatever the case the main and most grave mistake any meditator can make is to loose awareness and equanimity in facing the experiences. <S> If you maintain awareness and equanimity in facing all experiences then nothing can go wrong in your meditation. <S> Initially you get mainly painful sensations, then it becomes mostly blissful sensations <S> and then it starts turning to neutral sensations . <S> In the latter case sometimes it might be difficult to keep your Equanimity . <S> In which case you have to try to balance this with Concentration as this <S> it one of the Hindrances (Restlessness) which has come about. <S> The factors to balance the Hindrances are the 5 Powers . <A> You are doing as you should. <S> However, you must avoid negative acts (whatever they may be), at all costs, to all living things. <S> Make peace with your enemies and allow karma to take it's course. <S> Practice, meditate, and always remain positive. <S> The universe will unfold in your favor as it should. <S> And you shall know when you have achieved enlightenment. <S> But not without great sacrifice and faith... <A> I would say that a good thing is to read up on the basic method of whatever meditation practice one wants to learn and practice. <S> By doing this one is making sure that one is really practicising e.g. Samatha Meditation and not Vipassana Meditation. <S> One could find a teacher in real life or tune into the enormous amount of meditation videos that are available on the internet. <S> One could preferable find a small number of teachers/monks that teach the meditation method one wish to practice. <S> In retreats such as the Goenka 10-day retreat there are also teachers that one can have interviews with if one needs help or assesment of one's practice. <S> Next there is the practice. <S> Experience is ones friend. <S> Errors will be made. <S> Thats just how it is since its a learning experience and one will become better and better with time. <S> Especially Samatha Meditation is an ability/skill that will improve over time with consistent practice. <S> I already mentioned it - <S> > <S> One does not have to meditate for hours everyday <S> even 5-10 minutes is enough if done consistently. <S> Then one can gradually extend ones sitting time and more importantly begin to carry the meditation over into daily life, i.e. mindfulness in daily activities such as walking, brushing teeth, taking shower etc. <S> Lastly i want to mention The Five Hindrances which are obstacles to meditative progress. <S> One can read more about the hindrances here and how to overcome them. <S> It helps a lot to know what obstacles one will be dealing with in meditation, especially in Samatha Meditation where concentration is the key point one is developing. <S> When one knows how to deal with e.g. sensual desires, ill-will or worries <S> then one will be much better equipped to practice. <S> Its similar to a soldier receiving combat training before going to war.
|
One could also sign up for a retreat and learn about the meditation-technique in this way. You would be disturbed by thoughts or feelings and might not keep yourself on one point. Consistency in practice is a key point in ones practice - especially in the beginning where the terratory is new.
|
Are non-Theravada monks allowed to eat after noon, and to use money? What's the history behind this? I am assuming non-Theravada monks eat after noon, and use money. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, why do the sects differ in this manner? <Q> They differ for any number of reasons. <S> For one, there are at least five different 'official' versions of the vinaya - each of which is prominent in different countries. <S> The rules in each vary slightly - some have more rules, some have less, some place greater emphasis on different things, etc. <S> A lot of it also has to do with tradition and the culture where Buddhism is practiced. <S> If there is one thing you say about Buddhism <S> it's that it very much malleable to local custom. <S> A very good example of this is Japan. <S> Some monks there will accept money such as for funeral services. <S> My own teacher's teacher really loved his sake despite that being a fairly clear violation of the fifth precept. <S> Some Japanese monks, believe or not, even get married. <S> I think it's helpful not to view Buddhism as a monolithic entity. <S> It really is as complex as the people practicing it. <A> Bhikkshu PratimokshaAs far as I know (and I verified this with a Chinese Malaysian monk), the pratimoksha is what non-Theravada monks follow. <S> It is more or less the same but has 250 rules over the Theravada 227. <S> The extra rules however, can be found more or less in the Theravada Culavagga or Mahavagga. <S> (Generally known, but I did not verify) <S> The rule on money is very basic and part of the 10 precepts. <S> The same with eating after 12 Noon. <S> The rule however mentions "gold or silver" as the wording and is defined in the vibhanga as anything dealing with money or trade. <S> I remember once hearing that Mahayana follows a different interpretation of their rules. <S> This may be where it might be "allowable." <S> A long time ago, in Myanmar, I once traveled with a "vinaya" Mahayana monk from Malaysia. <S> He did not use money. <S> They had two monks in his monastery including himself. <S> It was the only one in Malaysia as far as I could remember <S> (I think I asked him). <S> When we stopped the car to urinate in the forest, he did his business while standing up, which is against the rules. <S> We must squat. <S> I remember asking him about this, and that was where I was told that they follow a different commentary. <S> This commentary seemed to render many of the 250 rules as obsolete. <S> However, this monk did not use money, so I presume that rule was left intact. <S> I welcome a Mahayana monks to edit this post. <A> One has to distinguish between monks/nuns that follow a Vinaya and those that do not follow. <S> You may have monks that use such title but cannot be regarded as true monks because they have not been ordained in accordance with, and follow the Vinaya rules. <S> In the pali suttas the Buddha says that he teaches the Dhamma and Vinaya, i.e. the Doctrine and Discipline. <S> So, it is fair to say that a monk or nun who does not follow the Vinaya rules cannot be regarded as a true Buddhist monk or nun. <S> A monk/nun which follows the Vinaya is not allowed to eat after midday and to handle money. <S> There are some food items allowed after midday but those are specified in the rules. <A> Many Chinese Buddhists mistakenly think that Mahayana Buddhism teaches the practice of vegetarianism, and confuse ‘Chi Su’ (vegetarianism) with ‘Chi Zhai’ (not eating after noon until the next dawn). <S> In the early Suttas, ‘Chi Su’ is said to be the unbeneficial ascetic practice of external sects. <S> ‘Chi Su’ is practiced by Han Chuan (Chinese Buddhism), not Bei Chuan (Mahayana Buddhism), since Tibetan and Japanese Buddhists are not vegetarians. <S> Chinese emperor Liang Wu Di commanded Buddhist monks and nuns to eat vegetarian food. <S> The word ‘Zhai’ means not eating at certain hours, i.e. fasting. <S> Thus the Muslim fasting month of Puasa is called ‘Kai Zhai’. <S> The Buddha taught his disciples to ‘Chi Zhai’, i.e. not to eat (with exception of medical allowances) from noon until the next dawn (1 p.m. till 7 a.m. in Malaysia). <S> In Han Chuan <S> this ‘Chi Zhai’ became synonymous with ‘Chi Su’.
|
Many will eat after noon, despite the injunction not to - it's just called "medicine" instead of a meal!
|
How do I become a Buddha, the stages of the path? I'm interested to see the process broken down into steps preferably using Theravada theory, all in the context of a summarized "how to". This would range from trying meditation, through all the stages of insight, enlightenment, into and through any other stages, and into Buddhahood, assumably hundreds or more lifetimes from now. What are the stages? <Q> The Buddhist path is the Noble 8 <S> Fold Path which is divided into Morality Mastery over the mind <S> Wisdom <S> ( Three fold training .) <S> This intern helps you strengthen you morality and so on and so forth. <S> In addition you have to practice the Perfections to become Enlightened. <S> Practicing the Perfections and walk on the Noble 8 Fold Path you will slowly but surely progress towards enlightenment. <S> If you want to be a Buddha the Perfections you have to full fill are greater. <S> Also in practicing Wisdom you have to stop before you reach the 1st stage of sainthood. <S> In addition you have to be ware of the Dependent Origination , <S> Three Marks of Existence , 4 Noble Truths , Factors of Awakening , in order to make you pratice of developing wisdom fruitful and well directed. <S> The following book might be also useful as further reading: A Manual of the Excellent Man Requisites for Enlightenment also book by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the Subject: <S> Wings to Awakening <A> Instead of taking second hand opinions I suggest you got directly to the source, to the instructions given by the Buddha himself. <S> The Dantabhumi Sutta is a discourse with a great narrative and fully outlines the training taught by the Buddha to reach enlightenment. <S> Here it is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.125.horn.html <A> You don't follow someone else's instructions to become a Buddha. <S> That even goes against the definition. <S> :) <S> Buddhavamsa contains a nice description about Paramitas. <S> You can cultivate the mind according to that, but there's no guarantee that you will reach the goal until your aspiration is verified by another Buddha. <S> Maithriya Buddha is the last Buddha to appear before the world ends. <S> Then many eons will pass by where there will only be Pacceka Buddhas. <S> So you would have to wait for an indefinite long period, if you want to become a Buddha. <A> You become a buddha eventually by being yourself, your joyful self. <S> A self that does not tilt between joy and sorrow and that is even. <S> That looks on events passing by, as a bystander stands on the river bank impassively looking at the flow of the river but not flowing with the river. <S> Practice, practice and practice till you become the enlightened one even when being in Samsara. <A> While enjoying ever increasing space between thoughts, experience an unspeakable truth that pervades all that exists. <S> The undivided dimension of reality. <S> Practice a good nights sleep. <S> Show up. <A> Buddhahood can be viewed as what is left when you purify/rip the veils covering the mind since time immemorial. <S> The term path doesn't mean that a distance is there to be crossed, but describes a purification process. <S> "The first obscures the aspect of the purity of the dharmakaya. <S> The second obscures the aspect of its being true self. <S> The third obscures the aspect of its being true happiness, and the fourth obscures the aspect that the dharmakaya is of true permanence. <S> The cause that purifies these veils consists of the four qualities of the path, which are outstanding devotion towards the sacred Dharma and so on, that is, the perfection of discriminative wisdom, immeasurable samadhi, and great compassion." <S> From The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra by Arya Maitreya/Jamgon Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé/Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche <S> The term Dharma, how I understand it, means "what truly is, inside you and outside you"
|
You should start by leading a moral life, develop mastery over out mind without being a slave to it, then practice Vipassana gain Wisdom.
|
The Buddha-nature of a dog I keep seeing the following koan: A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Wú". What does this mean and why is it important? More specifically: Does "Wú" mean "no" in this context, or does it mean "the question doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered"? I've seen both interpretations, which one is correct? <Q> We should really have a rule on here not to provide koan answers! <S> It's so important that you figure them out for yourself! <S> Written out, the answers become hollow and never approach their true 'meaning'. <S> That said (and no spoilers follow!)... <S> Mu does mean no, but it also can translate as blankness, voidness, or absence. <S> That should ring a bell regarding the concept of emptiness or shunyata. <S> The koan really doesn't have anything to do with dogs or whether or not they have a Buddha nature. <S> It has more to do with this idea of emptiness - what it is and the initial experience of it. <S> The monk in this koan is all caught up in scholasticism and conceptualism. <S> He's using his small mind to try and understand a concept that it's just not capable of of apprehending. <A> People often report this koan with out explaining the surface meaning. <S> Chinese at the time considered dogs nasty dirty animals, that hold the same position as pigs in the western mind. <S> Pigs or cockroaches or those parasites that burrow into your eyes. <S> So the surface question is can the most contemptible being become enlightened. <S> The surface meaning of the most common answer, Mu is Buddhist jargon, meaning emptiness, sunyata. <S> In the Mahayana system, you are enlightened when you realize the truth of sunyata, i.e. that you have no self (no atman), everything changes over time and various other things that I don't have space for here . <S> In my opinion, koan practice is a practice. <S> You think about a question and always are told that your answer is wrong. <S> During this process, many people report flashes of insight where they subjectively feel that they have grasped the answer, i.e. satori or sudden enlightenment. <S> Reasoning takes time, so sudden enlightenment can't be done in step by step reasoning. <S> In China, there was a huge multiyear (multi decade?) <S> discussion on if enlightenment was a matter of following steps or if it was something that happened to you in a flash. <S> In China and Japan, the sudden enlightenment proponents won. <S> Some modern critics say that especially in Japan with a new funerary and post mortem outlook, have moved onto a form of Zen where sunyata is a sudden realization that you do have an immortal self, which contradicts early Buddhist thought. <A> I have always found koans to be useful tools for thought. <S> Through study of the dharma, interaction with the sangha and a variety of other means we reach new insights that are much like dull tools. <S> Through their use applied against the situations in various koan we find their true worth. <S> There is no right answer to a grinding wheel.
|
Zhaozhou's answer is an attempt to shake that monk out of his smaller way of thinking and point him instead to mu - the true essence of Zen.
|
Homeless but not a monk Is it frowned upon in Buddhism to undertake homelessness without ordination? Let us presume that part of this homelessness also includes a focus on meditation, with mind and body able to work for oneself. <Q> No there are many people who do it. <S> It is accepted by Buddhists with respect. <S> This is called Anagarika . <S> There are much respected and famous Anagarika people . <A> Homelessness is simply freedom from home-boundedness. <S> Homelessness is too negative a term. <S> Those who wander free of homes do have their concerns, such as deciding in which beautiful place to sleep tonight, but this is minor compared to the distractions of 30-year mortgages, ever-growing utility bills, the complexities of adequate property insurance, too many neighbors, the hope of an adequate retirement many, many years from now... <S> One path is not better than the other, and haughty frowns of judgement may be thrown in either direction. <S> One thing is certain: Do not choose your path based on who may or may not frown at you! <S> A time of homelessness (as the home-bound like to call it) has been an essential period in the lives of many great seekers, the Buddha, Lau Tzu and Jesus being only a few obvious examples. <S> The key is to be homeless with awareness, but this is equally true for the home-bound. <A> Yes. <S> Dogen (the Zen founder) stressed the importance of finding and studying with a teacher, so did Ajahn Chah (a teacher in the Theravadan tradition): <S> However, if one only has knowledge of books and scriptures, sermons and suttas, that is, only knowledge of the map or plans for the journey, even in hundreds of lives one will never know purity, radiance and peacefulness of mind. <S> Instead one will just waste time and never get to the real benefits of practice. <S> Teachers are those who only point out the direction of the path. <S> After listening to the teachers, whether or not we walk the path by practicing ourselves, and thereby reap the fruits of practice, is strictly up to each one of us. <S> http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Fragments_Teaching1.php <A> The lesser knowing and understandig the teachings of the Buddha and the more people are into "Buddhist" and "Buddhism" <S> they lesser they accept homeless ascetics, even if having taken refuge into the three gems. <S> The therm Anagarika seems to be a special Sinhalese rendering and is merely unknow in other Buddist countries. <S> A person still taking money, using money, can not really be called a homeless, recluse or Samana. <S> For the Sangha, other recluses should be no problem, and either they speak Dhamma or not, <S> would lead them in regard of respect. <S> There are serial rules dealing how Bikkhus have to handle with not ordained beggars. <S> One thing one should be aware, one does neither have a/the community of monks as support or refuge nor sociaty, so one needs a lot of confiction and resolution to walk such a way. <S> One should be also aware, that if thinking in ways "I don't like to work, I have no support, <S> what if I wear the Robs of the Bhikkhus and mingle my self under the Bhikkhus, since they are well supported". <S> In such case, out of such an intention, Bhikkhus would not be allowed to ordain someone having cheated being a full ordained Bhikkhu before while not. <S> Very practical it's of course good to have a community somehow behind <S> , on the other hand such also has its limits of benefit an disadvantages. <S> Its not easy today and was also not easy in times of the Buddha, incl. <S> the Buddha him self, living as real homelessness without a communal support and big reputation and adverticing behind. <S> So it's really not a "let's see what comes along" life for certain periode of time. <S> How ever, there are less wise and knowledgeable people, whether members of the Sangha nor housholder, becoming aware of an recluse, who do not highly respect really homeless beggars on a/the path for liberation.
|
If you just want to do intensive meditation I think you would quickly find homelessness (especially homelessness without the support of a sangha) was more of a hindrance than a help. It's frowned upon generally in Buddhism to practice on your own if suitable teachers are available.
|
What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? Are they the same? What are the distinctions between them? <Q> In this attainment there is a special kind of consciousness present called Lokuttara-citta. <S> In contrast to this, in Nirodhasamapatti there is no consciousness at all. <S> In Chapter 8 section 42 of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha <S> it describes it like this: Having proceeded, thus, up to the base of nothingness, one then attends to the preliminary duties such as the resolution, etc., and enters the base of neither-perception- nor-nonperception. <S> After two occasions of javana in absorption, the continuum of consciousness is suspended. <S> Then, one is said to have attained cessation (nirodha- samāpatti). <S> Another difference is in who can attain them. <S> Phalasamapatti is attained by each of the four kinds of noble beings just after attaining the knowledge of the path, and it can be cultivated and extended by them as well. <S> Nirodhasamapatti however, can only be entered by non-returners and arahats. <A> Here is what the Nirodha Samapatti is defined as http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm <S> Here is the Phala Samapatti progessions http://www.palikanon.com/english/practice_insight/characteristics_of_forgetting.htm <S> Here is a discussion of if this kind of discussion is fruitful http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18101 <S> I am not a strong supporter of discussion as a fruitful path to cessation as much as practice <S> but I respect the right of all to choose for everyone may have a different path. <S> It is not for me to say. <A> The 8 Jhanas(absorption's) are required for such attainment; the three mentioned in another post, co-inside with: stream entry, once returner, non-returner/arahant. <S> The five physical aggregates and mental aggregates are not self, the attachment to them are signs of attainment on the path from gross to subtle forms of clinging through desire/craving. <S> Nirodha samapatti is the extinction of the three poisons; greed, hate, and delusion; the 8th jhana absorption of total emptiness or extinction without remainder, kamma is what forms the gross or subtle body that others experience as form; through their attachment, albeit that attachment is one of ignorance and not one of loving kindness, compassion, or equanimity. <S> Since that attachment others have is not thus? <S> Then that is what then becomes one's path having attained nibbana, and is the difference between a corpse and a monk... <S> such attachments others have, are then the only cause for further becoming, for them their cause if not fully liberated; is further birth in the cycle of samsara. <S> One cannot walk the path nor liberate another; it is the duty of oneself to walk the path of the rightly self awakened one. <S> With Metta;Jim <A> Nirodha-Sanna-sampatti is highly meditative steps where the practitioner first aware of neighther perception-nor non perception. <S> It's a base for Nirodha. <S> This state was attained by Udraka muni as said he never leaves place instead silent inside without uttering any word or movement. <S> So, even he has attain this state he is still not succeed in eliminating perception altogether. <S> Why? <S> Because he had not then the Samma Ditthi. <S> The ditthi is where even the perception is not there and also there is no one who actually ceased. <S> Buddha then realised that what stopped udraka ramputta from cessation of perception that he attached to it. <S> Buddha succeeded when he also got detached from this neither perception-nor non perception. <S> And when done he realised 4th noble truth, the vision of Absolute and then back to perception. <S> He realised, there is nothing in individual we can call own. <S> Not body, feeling, perception, sensation nor counciousness. <S> One who attach to it is seed for becoming and who have vision of 4th noblest truth, five khanda ceased to be. <S> He do action but doer remain absent. <S> He lives on until end <S> but there is no one who is living. <S> The conclusion can be put in example as: <S> When a boy who is sweet but people call him ugly, with sadness in his heart by their treatment, goes to lake with distress, see his own face in clearer water and see his face. <S> But after a while he jumped in joy that, I am not ugly, I am bright and sweet. <S> This is like nirodha-sanna-sampatti. <S> The face of boy in water can be termed as state of neither perception -nor <S> non perception and the face of actual boy is that of nirodha sampatti or 4th noble truth or vision of absolute. <S> So phala sampatti is attaining the fruit and niridha sampatti is frution. <S> In 2nd example is like this": A student cried "master, master, open the door!" <S> then Master says "The door is already opened, you are the one who is holding that!". <S> The boy at the door is neither perception nor non perception. <S> It's also called Maya or covering veil in Vedanta. <S> A real fruit immortal is not sectarian and unfathomed <S> is <S> it's depth. <S> So, wise accept any teaching or thought that is contain the fruit Immortal! <S> Be transcendentalist. <S> May all being attain it.
|
Phalasamapatti is a meditative state in which a person is absorbed in Nibbana itself.
|
Are there Buddhist traditions without monks? Are there any traditions without an associated monastic community or even where the monastic element is significantly minimised. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and the blurring of the monastic and lay elements is a particular feature. I was wondering if we are very peculiar in that or if there are other traditions, modern or historic, where that also would be the case. <Q> SGI, for example, describes itself as a "lay Buddhist organization" . <S> I'm not sure I'd want to call it orthodox Buddhist, though. <S> Traditionally there might have been a split in lifestyle between monastery (and a literate life) and fields (and manual labour). <S> I think I remember seeing a TV documentary with teenagers, monk-candidates, studying texts in a monastery: one said that the (academic) study is difficult/onerous, nervertheless easier (therefore a better career choice) than spending life working in a (agricultural) field. <A> Yes, Jōdo Shinshū (Shin Buddhism) has been a lay movement since it was founded in 12th century Japan. <S> The following is from the description on the Facebook page of the North American Shin Buddhist Association. <S> Total Lay Control <S> NASBA follows the early Shin Buddhist ideal of total lay control of the sanghas with an egalitarian, non-elitist and democratic format. <S> Originally, Shin Buddhism did not have or need religious professionals like monastics or clergy. <S> Spiritual transmission was not passed down from teacher to student but as Shinran Shonin taught, it unfolds as shinjin (true entrusting mind), which manifests directly from the Primal Vow of Buddha Amida. <S> Inspired by the original intent and teachings of Shin Buddhism, this North American association does not follow any spiritual hierarchical or vertical (top-down) organizational format but adheres to a flat or horizontal design. <S> It does not ordain clergy or have any rituals of guru to student transmission. <S> It believes that all spiritual endowments come directly from the inconceivable Great Compassion, symbolized by the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha. <S> Lay people can become lay ministers in Shin Buddhism and use the title Reverend. <A> Another tradition without monks is Aro : <S> The Aro teachers are not monks or nuns. <S> They are ordained Tantrikas – whose lives are, in many ways, quite ordinary. <S> They may have conventional jobs, or raise children. <S> Many teach as married couples. <S> Their wisdom is embodied in the ways they live everyday life. <S> Facing the same life challenges as their students, they are able to offer advice that is grounded in personal experience as well as profound religious understanding. <S> It seems that, like the ones already mentioned, it isn't too orthodox. <A> There is a reason that the traditional Buddhist (at least Theravada) orders have Monks and Householders. <S> The monks take the opportunity to practice more intensely and with a fewer distraction than lay people. <S> Also it is regarded a duty of the householder to support the monks. <S> Also for the survival of the Dhamma and Practice you need an institution which is the order of monks. <S> Also in the Theravada perspective <S> when you are enlightened you have to enter the order as a monk hence the order needs to be there. <S> As a householder you cannot survive. <S> E.g. Pukkusati, Bahiya Daruciriya, etc.
|
Within the bound of Theravada line of thought you cannot have a Buddhist order with no monks.
|
Has anybody tried meditating forehead to forehead? Or communicated with others via meditation? I have been trying to hunt far and wide to see if anyone in the internet world has attempted meditating with someone else by connecting your foreheads together? As discussed in a previous thread about the significance of touching foreheads, the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra, etc is a hugely powerful aspect of the body and referred to during prostrations and greetings. I have only meditated with someone else like this once, in a temple and was certainly aware of the intense connection it could hold before I did it. However, I wasn't sure if anyone else has tried to do this, or does this often, and if so, why? What is your experience? I have also experienced this in dreams, as well as visualised doing this in meditation with someone else who has received it during their own meditation practice too (which I find pretty incredible!). I'd love to hear of any experiences where you have managed to connect with others in meditation too? <Q> To be quite frank, I don't really see much point in this from a Buddhist perspective. <S> What is the purpose in doing this? <S> Maybe you can have some interesting experiences with different sensations, and for all I know, visions or psychic powers, but in the end these things don't lead towards awakening. <S> At most, these things could lead to a kind of concentration being developed, but there are other ways of developing concentration that can be used as part of the path. <S> For example, one could develop the jhanas and then use them as a basis for examination. <S> Practicing in that way would probably lead to a lot more pleasure than meditating on the chakras with your foreheads together, and it can be used to gain awakening. <A> There may be other techniques outside Buddhism (at least Theravada) where you may have pratices like this, but this practice does not conform to orthodox way meditation is done. <S> There is the practice of group meditation in certain Centres and Traditions but <S> an healthy distance is maintained between the participants. <S> This can sometimes be beneficial if you are experiencing agitation as near by meditators can influence your peace. <A> Those things like the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra have more to with Qigong/Yoga than Buddhism if i'm not mistaken. <S> Too be honest <S> I've never seen/heard such a thing, and it's <S> i'm not really sure it's connected with the Buddhist teachings in any way. <S> It is practiced among cats however. <A> Yes, I experienced something I can only call some sort of dual or shared meditation with my now ex wife. <S> We would sit for head to forehead and breath as we would in normal meditation and fall into these extremely long sessions of meditation where sense of time and surroundings disappeared. <S> There was also a sensation we both described as being able see/feel the body of the other through our closed eyelids, almost like a outline or lines of faint light. <S> There were also odd sensations where our hands or legs touched. <S> As we grew apart for a multitude of reasons, the occurrence faded and though we tried to reach the same state it became harder and harder. <S> We did eventually separate, but we are still friends and close in a way, but neither of us has ever experienced something like this with another person. <S> Both of us seem to agree on having the fear we may never experience that with another. <S> I am hoping that is not the case.
|
In Buddhist meditation you have to do it more in seclusion (Sunyagara, under a tree, etc).
|
Is the force of Kamma like a God for Buddhists? We know Buddhism doesn't have a creator God like most religions, however there is the law of Kamma, a law we cannot see and also we cannot prove, in other words, a law that requires faith and cannot be measured like gravity or electromagnetism. Once a Theravada senior monk said that: "Buddhists should not say they don't believe in God, because they believe in the laws of nature and Kamma, it works like a God, a higher force, only not a creator God, not a being we pray to" So, Is kamma "like" a god? <Q> Sure, there is a way that karma could be understood as being "like" a god. <S> It is one of the forces that controls the whole of the universe; it has the world in its power: kammunā vattati loko <S> The world goes according to karma -- MN 98 <S> In that sense, it could be understood as sharing a similarity with the concept of god. <S> That's about as far as the similarity goes, though. <S> The law of karma isn't an entity, it is a regularity of interaction between moments of experience, that certain types of experience (ethically intentional ones) have a creative force, for either good or bad. <S> It is important to remember that the word " karma " just means "action". <S> So, in a way you are asking " Are actions like gods? " which of course is silly. <S> Nonetheless, the law of karma does act a bit like a god would, only a lot more logically. <A> Such a highly dualistic analogy is completely wrong, from non-theistic Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective. <S> His points seem to be that: Buddhists <S> believe in karma, and this belief is similar to belief in God. <S> Karma, like God, is a mysterious force that evaluates our actions and gives us our due. <S> Person is separate from God; Person is separate from karma. <S> However, in reality: Buddhists do not take karma on blind faith. <S> Instead, they know that karma is real, even if somewhat abstract, phenomena that (unlike God!) can be observed, studied, predicted -- and therefore controlled. <S> It is a natural tendency of regular action to lead to certain results. <S> Karma does not evaluate our actions against some book of moral rules. <S> Instead, our actions themselves lead to certain results. <S> Our actions IS karma. <S> It is not like <S> the acting person is one thing, the world is another thing, and karma is third thing. <S> Person is a result of past karma, manifestation of past karma. <S> Karma is just how the world works, so karma is the world. <S> The world and the person are two sides of the same stick. <S> So no, not at all. <S> Karma is not like God, is not "higher force". <S> Karma is us and we are karma. <A> Karma is to Buddhism as gravity is to physics: fundamental, inevitable, basic, impartial, all-pervading and so basic <S> it's quite hard to explain. <S> The function of gods in religion centres around intention. <S> Karma, like gravity, is a principle of interaction that is utterly without intent. <S> Nor is it the subject of veneration. <S> Given that many gods are not all-pervasive, I don't think that karma has any qualities that are quintessentially godly. <A> Often intention plays a role in deciding if something is ethical/unethical, has good karmic results, or bad. <S> For example, accidentally killing versus intentionally killing. <S> Outwardly the may look the same. <S> If intention matters, then karma would need to be able to reason and know our thoughts. <S> These are exactly the sort of things we attribute to god(s). <S> I think this is in part why karma was eventually personified by King Yama, the judge of the dead. <S> As other answers have already mentioned, there is an entirely naturalistic way to look at karma. <S> In a way, naturalistic karma is a harsher judge-- killing is killing and has consequences, regardless to intentions. <A> I think it's a very common misunderstanding that karma is <S> something that happens to (other) people as a result of actions (they) did, like some sort of embodying force of justice. <S> Alternately, I might think that things are happening to (me) because of what (I) did and now ( <S> I) am being somehow punished. <S> This is a false conception though. <S> Nobody deserves to suffer for what they have done and I am not being punished for past wrongs. <S> There is no judgement, any more than gravity judges the car <S> the drives off the edge of a cliff. <S> It's not that karma is unobservable, it's just that this mind is easily distracted and I have an ongoing habit of missing the obvious. <S> Meditative practices are one means of working through the distractions and learning how to pay attention. <S> When I'm paying attention, nothing is especially mysterious. <S> When I'm not paying attention, I stub my toe and curse the man who built the table. <A> My work (karma or kamma) or my action is my God for self-realization.i.e. <S> , only through my action can I see my God. <S> This Buddhist philosophy is stated somewhat differently in Hindu philosophy : <S> You have the duty and right only to Karma, no special rights for the fruits of action, not even for the privileges.
|
Karma is not some kind of transcendental (otherwordly) force.
|
Ordination and support from parents If one intends to ordain, say in Thailand, and one lives in India - would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents (since one is not yet ready/able to support oneself)? <Q> You should ask for support according to their faith and ability. <S> Normally supporters and family are the same words in pali. <S> It is listed in the Metta sutta as family "kulesu", often translated as donors. <S> However, one should live a modest life and ask for only what one needs. <S> Asking for sangha needs is much better. <S> It depends on your family's desire. <S> I am not sure of the exact details. <S> While I do not know the exact rule for this, I do remember asking about this with a monk who gave his parents money and then asked for a computer specifically saying, "Use the money I gave you.". <S> The teacher (Sayadaw U Kovida, paauk) said this would be unallowable. <S> (This transaction never went through, by the way) <S> To avoid a situation like this, if you do give your parents your money, you should say, "This is yours, use as you wish. <S> "Or <S> "Do not use this for me or to monks. <S> "Then when you ask them for things, whatever they do, it is their money and donations are from their own doings. <S> It is actually legal for them or even a bank to have money for you as long as you do not use it. <S> This is how one ordains temporary in a vinaya tradition. <S> If you decide to stay full time, things can get complicated with bank accounts (if you are one who cares about vinaya). <S> Some need to temporarily disrobe to handle their affairs. <S> According to ratapala sutta, he told his parents to throw the money in the river. <A> Yeah, It's not an immoral act to ask for help, especially your parents. <S> You shouldn't become dependent though, but as long as you really need it, there shouldn't be any problem. <A> Aside of being not allowed to ask lay people for nearly all of the requisites, a monk (Bhikkhu) would be allowed to ask his "near" family (blood relatives) members without violating the rules. <S> Some Sanghas and sects expand near family to the seven generations, which in Asia then mostly includes the whole paticular village one lives. <S> If one actually does (ask) or not, is another matter, since from a kammic view (e.g. accumulating certain debts) it has it's impact as well. <S> Especially if not really familar with Dhamma it can cause lot of troubles. <S> It's maybe worthy to note that monks for the most, especially from a modern or western backround, asked or not usually can not aspect much support or help from family. <S> One leaving home therfore should be clear that he will be most dependent on the "new" family, the ideal Sangha and those following them (sometimes "only" cultural). <S> Generally one is good advices not to hope or count on support one was used to gain once having left home. <S> The other extreme is merely reality in SEAsia, where sure 80% and more monks maintain their lifes mainly on the family. <S> A normal situation that as side effect let people mostly think "if he needs really something, he will ask his family", especial "problematic" in regard of medicine, if being someone have left home actually. <S> There is also a kind of new wave (certain western monks are included): children of rich people, with full support and living like such... they are really annoying when going begging if like or call mommy. <S> So all in all, a matter one should think very carefully about. <S> would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents <S> In short: "Right is given to do so, yes. <S> From a moral point of view: really if even better do only in cases of real emergency." <S> (Neither is it good for once conscious nor does it shine bright in regard of the Sanghas-members. <S> And althought generally allowed one is actually easy and fast in transgressing a heavy falt: corruption of families, Sanghadisesa 13. <S> Something actually very common sadly.) <S> Nevertheless, one support one would need from ones parents anyhow: the acceptance that one may leave home. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]
|
If they support you then it is OK. There could be a problem with receiving donations from your parents if you gave them money beforehand.
|
What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture? <Q> UPDATE : <S> These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693: <S> THE LIFE OF THEVETAT , Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli) An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac <S> More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4: Simon de La Loubère [...] <S> in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy ofthe king of France <S> (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about theKingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691. <S> Two years later anEnglish translation was published in England. <S> La Loubère gave a fascinatingaccount of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included anaccount of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of theSiamese. <S> He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between theformer and Sanskrit. <S> He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts. <S> Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts: <S> A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: <S> Printed by F.L for Tho. <S> Horne ... <S> Francis Saunders ... and Tho. <S> Bennet ..., 1693. <S> Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include: <S> The History and Doctrine of Budhism : <S> Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas <S> The Catechism of the Shamans <S> Neumann : contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844 (Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text) <S> None of these publications seem to have made a big impact. <S> In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...]. <S> The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844. <A> Beside Dhammapada, the series included important suttas such as Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, Mahaparinibbana, and others, all of Sutta-Nipata, most of Vinaya, one of the earliest post-canonical texts Milinda-panha, a Chinese version of the Life of Buddha by Asvaghosa, and some of the most important Mahayana texts such as Heart Sutra and Lotus Sutra. <S> Arguably this was the most notable early publication of Buddhist texts into English. <A> It depends somewhat on what you mean by a Buddhist text. <S> The book of “Barlaam and Josephat” is a famous Christian reworking of the life of the Buddha. <A> Sándor Csoma de Kőrös <S> (Hungarian: Kőrösi Csoma Sándor) was a Hungarian-Szekler orientalist who went to Asia around 1820 looking for the ancestors of Hungarians, but ended up in Tibet instead. <S> He is well known among Hungarians for his journey and for compiling the first Tibetan-English dictionary and grammar . <S> He spent considerable time in Tibet studying Tibetan and Buddhist philosophy between 1827-30. <S> He was declared Boddhisatva in 1933 in Japan. <S> While I do not know if he translated Buddhist texts into English, it is plausible that he may have, as he immersed himself in Buddhism. <S> Unfortunately it is unlikely that this will be easy to research on the internet, you may need to go to dusty old libraries to get definitive information ;-) <S> Nevertheless, I thought that this was a good lead which is worth mentioning (since the dates are similar but a bit earlier than in the other answers). <A> Some of the earliest translations are covered in the Sacred Books of the East <S> based on a Latin translation by Viggo Fausböll and Sutta-Nipata by Viggo Fausböll ) series by Max Müller in which some of the books are Buddhist books as per the Theravada tradition . <S> More notable translation work (in the Theravada tradition ) has been done by Thomas William Rhys Davids who founded the Pali Text Society .
|
As to the first notable translation, I would give this honorary title to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada , first published in 1869 , later included in Muller's Sacred Books of the East series published around 1880s . (London, 1831) by Charles Fried. It was translated from Latin to Middle English in the 15th century. ( Dhammapada by Max Müller
|
Mixing Buddhism with other religions The predominant opinion of people with a lot of experience with practising Buddhism seems to be that there are irreconcilable gaps between Buddhism and Christianity and that it makes no sense to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. On the other hand, they don't seem to have a problem with mixing Buddhism with Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion. Are there objective differences between these all these religions on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism? EDIT: It seems that many answerers didn't understand my question. Let me say it again. I'm not asking: "Is it possible to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?". This is what I am asking: Are there objective differences between Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism? <Q> Within my own experience of this, I think it is entirely down to personal opinion. <S> Throughout my upbringing, I was very lucky to be brought up in a country with so many temples and religions that there was hardly any discrimination and a huge encouragement to take part in celebrations. <S> I have always been taught that each religion is equal, and that they mostly aim to reach the same goal: Love and Compassion to alleviate suffering. <S> I think due to modernisation and differing ideologies — e.g. a Westerner's take on Buddhism is rather different to an Asian's take on Buddhism simply due to social and cultural differences — texts have been interpreted in a whole multitude of ways, which therefore causes a whole host of problems. <S> Some will say all religions are very different, others will say they all wish for peace, etc. <S> My mother was brought up Taoist and Buddhist, she does prayer, and goes to the temple every time we are back in our native country. <S> However, she calls herself a Christian. <S> She believes in God, and at no point do I feel I have the right to question any of her beliefs. <S> I also feel it is easy for her to believe in differing religions because our home town embodies the churches, mosques and temples. <S> She happily practices what she believes in, regardless of its religion. <S> If my mother is happy, let her be happy, as long as she feels she is living a good life. <A> If you want to reconcile the Buddha's teachings with the Bible, it will be impossible as the key pillar in Christianity is the creator almight God and <S> He is just not present in Buddhism. <S> So, even if you are a Christian you can use Buddhism in your favour, put aside the philosophical differences and focus on the daily practice! <S> Don't bend to the Buddha if you are not comfortable in doing so, but read the books, walk the path, meditate and do good deeds! :) <A> Buddhism revolves around the 3 Fold Training . <S> A person of any religion, cast, background, etc. can practice them to start with. <S> Any religion worth the name cannot have anything against Virtue, control over the mind and wisdom. <S> Once you see things for your self you can then strain your views in line with your experience. <S> Also the Buddhist teaching center around stress (psychological misery or unsatisfactoriness) <S> people experience in life and the way out of stress. <S> Where as in Christianity the central teaching revolves around God. <S> See Buddhism and psychology , Buddhism and Modern Psychology and Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World . <S> Trying to reconcile the differences at a philosophical level may not be the most productive way. <S> Best is to realise your self and do the reconciliation keeping in mind there is nothing in Buddhism which a person from any other religion cannot practice.
|
Buddhism in itself is a philosophy, like the Tao, and it is wholly accepting of all religions. For me, the most important point is this: Buddhism can make you a better human being, the practice of the Buddha's teachings (Dhamma) can give you valuable tools to improve your life and the life of people around you, meditation is a great example.
|
How can one overcome agitation developed by not sitting regularly? This one is for the lay meditators. Although i think there is a component of sloth and torpor involved in the situation. There are other factors too. At times for me breakage of a sila makes it hard for me to sit. And if this cycle is not broken it can take days to come to mindset to start sitting again and to convince myself it's ok to start from scratch. Does anyone else encounter this problem and how do you deal with it? <Q> The effects of meditation are similar to the effects of brushing your teeth: If you don't brush your teeth for one day nothing will happen but if you do for one week... you will suffer the consequences in the dentist, so what I'm saying is that what you lose for not meditating will have a price in the future specially when you face a bad situation, stress and aversion will come stronger, you are losing a precious opportunity of improving awareness and becoming a better and stronger human being. <S> Make it a priority, meditate for 10 minutes if you don't have much time, but do not let lazyness wins this battle, do it for yourself and your own well being! <A> This is a common problem. <S> When you are week in Sila you get "Storms" in your meditation due to the bad Karma generated from breaking your Sila surfacing. <S> Also when meditating you have to keep your balance through the 5 faculties and 5 Strengths . <A> At this time, I suggest you to approach your problem two ways: from physical perspective and from psychological perspective. <S> Physically, you need to train your body by learning deep breathing through the following exercise. <S> Walk very-very slowly, making one inbreath for about 4 steps / 10 seconds, and one outbreath for the next 4 steps / another 10 seconds. <S> Psychologically, forcing yourself to sit is not a good idea. <S> Instead, try to develop a habit to sit every day, but not for a long time. <S> Start sitting for only 20 seconds, and slowly add a few seconds every day, so you only sit as long as you really can. <S> Again, the most important is to do this regularly. <S> You must be determined to give up any other activity in favor of your daily sitting. <S> You know what? <S> Habits, habits, it's all about forming a habit. <S> Whatever requires conscious control in the beginning, becomes natural and effortless once the habit has formed. <S> Eventually, you will be able to set your mind in a natural state -- and you become a Buddha!
|
Start small, exercise for six months until it becomes a habit, then practice for 10 years, one life, next life -- and you will have a different temperament. Your problems with sitting are due to your body-and-mind not being stable enough; irritability makes even regular activities difficult, let alone sitting meditation.
|
What language did the Buddha speak? Do we know, or have a good idea, what language the historical Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama) spoke. I've just assumed it is Pali but a moment's thought tells me this is probably wrong since the Pali canon was written hundreds of years after the Buddha died. If we know what language he spoke do we know if this language had a wide geographical area and if it is likely that he would have preached in this language or would he have used one more associated with religious practice. <Q> The Buddha is believed to have spoken Magahi . <S> The relationship to Pali is discussed articles relating to Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit . <A> The Pali Canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha, but we know from comparative studies that the bulk of the material contained in it (and for that matter, the Suttas of the other schools) does go back quite a ways. <S> As for the language, that's a hard thing to answer. <S> From a linguistic standpoint, Pali seems to be a blend of several eastern and western dialects together with some Sanskrit. <S> Some have hypothesized that it is some form of an old trade language, something that people in different parts of northern India would have known how to speak in order to talk with people from other regions, and others think that this mixture of dialects was done later to harmonize the texts. <S> In any case, it's a rather tricky question and rather unclear if it would have really been commonly spoken in that region of India in the time of the Buddha due to the presence of western features in Pali. <S> Whatever the Buddha spoke it was probably closely related either to the language of Kosala or something related to Magadhi. <A> The answer for this seems debatable, this is what I found in Vinaya, The Khandaka rules translated by Thanissaro Bhikku page 89, <S> Cv. <S> V.33.1 reports the efforts of two brahman bhikkhus who set the Buddha’s teachings to meter after objecting to the fact that bhikkhus who had gone forth from different clans, different nationalities, different families were spoiling the Buddha’s words by putting it in “own dialect.” <S> The Buddha however forbade that his teachings be set to meter, and allowed that they be learned by each in “own dialect.” <S> There are two controversies surrounding these two rules. <S> The first is over the meaning of own dialect. <S> The Commentary insists that it means the Buddha’s own dialect, and that therefore the Dhamma must be memorized in Pali. <S> But Thanissaro Bhikku argues that epigraphic evidence suggests Pali is not Buddha's dialect. <S> It is said to be the dialect of Ven. <S> Mahinda, king Asoka's son, who came to Sri Lanka. <S> So it must be either Magadhi or Pali which are said to have many similarities. <A> The short answer is we don't know <S> and there is debate on the topic. <S> However, it is likely that, as the Buddha taught in various locations to various audiences, he spoke in local dialects or languages (or perhaps had interpreters). <S> Also, the Buddha clearly had different audiences, some more literate or educated than others. <S> Languages used by the educated might have been used for some audiences, but not for others. <S> In reality, it doesn't matter as what we do have is Pali language written in Sinhala script some 500 years after the Buddha died.
|
According to the commentary it seems Buddha's dialect is Pali. Some believe that there was mutual intelligibility to some of the dialects or languages.
|
What is the difference between Karma and Sanskara Karma and Sanskara seam to be very much related. How are they related and how are they different. <Q> It seems that sanskaras are the precursors that lead to karma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskara <S> "In Hinduism sanskaras or samskaras (Sanskrit संस्कार meaning impression; under the impulse of previous impressions) are the imprints left on the subconscious mind by experience in this or previous lives, which then color all of life, one's nature, responses, states of mind, etc.[1] <S> The Dictionary of Common Sanskrit Spiritual Words says, "Whenever an action is performed with the desire for a specific result (whether for oneself or another), sanskara is created for that person. <S> These accumulate and determine the situations with which we will be presented in the future and will influence the scope of future actions. <S> "[2] <S> " <S> Sanskaras are impressions derived from past experiences that form desires and fears that influence future responses and behavior (karma). <S> So it seems by being attached to the outcome of an action that karma results. <S> Is that not something we can all agree on? <A> Saṅkhāra refer to all conditioned phenomena. <S> That means everything else apart from Nibbana. <S> All Saṅkhāras come under the first noble truth, i.e. Dukkha. <S> All Saṅkhāras are impermanent. <S> All Saṅkhāras are non-self. <A> I have translated (awk-word-ly) sankhara as 'own-making'. <S> SAN = one, once, with, own, <S> con, com; khara = make. <S> This is not without precedence in that 'I-making' and <S> 'my-making' are also found in the Pali, but it is not well accepted as of yet. <S> It is kamma from the point of view of personalization. <S> The making of one's own world. <S> The definition is helpful: Sankhara is identification with the intent to create personal experience through acts of thought, word and deed, and the identified with consequence. <S> By pushing out the deed a marker of sorts is attached to the consequences which results in the experience "my---". <S> Like kamma, it is two sided: the doing and the result. <S> In translations the danger for the reader is that it is almost always translated one-sidedly. ' <S> Activities' or 'Fabrications' or 'Volitional activities' <S> and then when dealing with the consequences an unrelated word is used: 'constructed', 'conditioned'. <S> You might find this discussion interesting: http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_009.conditioned.vs.own-made.htm <A> Saṇkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda <S> ( kamma -bhava, karma) means it causes , conditions, becoming ( jāti , upatti -bhava, 5 khandha). <S> Saṇkhata (5 aggregate- effects ) means it is caused , is conditioned, by 5 aggregate- causes . <S> Saṇkhāra <S> (5 aggregate- causes ) means it causes , conditions, 5 aggregate- effects . <S> Asaṇkhata (nibbāna) means it is unconditioned by any saṇkhāra. <S> So, paṭiccasamuppāda is called vaṭṭa, never ending cycle, because it is a loop of aggregates causes and effects. <S> For explanation: ignored, attached, and clinged aggregates had done the past kamma, saṇkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda, to get the present effected aggregates, then ignoring, attaching, and clinging aggregates do the present kamma, kammabhava-paṭiccasamuppāda, again, to get the future effected aggregates, jāti of Ignored, attached, and clinged aggregates, suffering. <S> Therefore, paṭiccasamuppāda is never ending loop cycle of aggregates, suffering. <S> When the practitioner contemplating paṭiccasamuppāda, 3 characters will gradually clearly appear to him. <S> Then he can do high level insight meditation, 3 characterizes contemplating. <S> You can see these pali-words everywhere in canon. <S> This is the reason that why I often told everyone to recite and memorize pali canon.
|
Karma refers to volitional acts which is only a subset of Saṅkhāra.
|
Meditation techniques for beginners? As a beginning meditator, the techniques I typically use are: Counting breaths, restarting at 10 (learned in Japan). Envisioning, with warm feelings, all of my friends and family around me in a large circle (learned in Florida). Attempting to feel the minute sensations from each different part of my body (learned in Florida). Focusing on identifying as many distinct sounds as possible, particularly when in nature (my own). Are there any other techniques recommended for beginning meditators? <Q> Counting breaths on phalanges (with thumb) - up to 12 <S> *12=144. <S> "Tonglen": breathing in all the suffering of the world, breathing out happiness. <S> Gladdening one's mind through "noble" posture and facial expression. <S> Zen-style. <S> Just sitting, no matter what happens. " <S> Don't go with the thoughts, don't go against the thoughts". <S> Energy. <S> Identify blobs of emotional energy on and around body and dismiss. <S> Minimizing the amplitude. <S> Watch the diaphragm when breath reverses direction and keep reducing the tension/effort. <S> Bowing meditation (aka half-prostration). <S> Bamboo meditation. <S> Dahnmu (energy dance). <S> Stand up with eyes closed and move freely as your body wants expressing yourself. <A> Simple breathing is recommended by Thich Nhat Hanh. <S> I am inhaling, one,I am exhaling one, <S> Repeat for each number up to ten. <S> If get off count go to one. <S> There is a simplicity to that that does not invoke mental activity and allows one to go to the counting and breathing when thoughts are faced. <S> Picturing being in the presence of the Buddha and your teacher and all sentient beings can help dedicate your meditation to benefiting all sentient beings and expand beyond the self-centered aspiration for awakening for eliminating one's own suffering. <A> I personally will not recommend any in the list other than number 3. <S> You can use 4 also as long as you don't try to identify the sound. <S> The sound should just make contact and produce a sensation and pass away with equanimity in the mind (no liking, disliking or developing self awareness). <S> This is generally very difficult for a novice. <S> At a later stage you will start seeing sound as just quantums of vibrations. <S> But having said this the best way to bring your mind to the present moment, if it has wondered away, is to listen to sound or look at the touch sensation as these are always in the present. <S> In the case of sound, this should be done for a short duration due to reasons above. <S> What I would recommend is: Before you start and end a session just look at the sensation of the touch of your clothes, wind and the ground and what your posture is. <S> Then start with breath meditation. <S> Then the start to finish of the breath. <S> Then note the length of each in out breath from start to finish. <S> Once you can do that progress to other stages in the Anapanasati Sutta and Maha Sattipattana Sutta.
|
To start with just try to see the in out breath. You should be very careful as not to have after thoughts or form perceptions which slip past your attention. Stand up with eyes closed and slowly rock back and forth while focusing on the centers of the feet.
|
Did Buddhism ever go through a period of relatively high violence? Catholicism/Christianity had the dark ages and the inquisition in which 'heretics' were prosecuted with violence. One could claim that Islam is currently in a period of high violence. Did Buddhism ever go through such a period? <Q> Well, Buddhists countries have had violent periods just as everyone else has, but I can't really think of any major violence committed by Buddhists with a religious motivation, at least not on a large scale. <S> In China there was a rebellion called the Red Turban Rebellion that was caused by a strange breakaway Buddhist group called the White Lotus sect and they managed to overthrow the Yuan dynasty, and one of their military leaders took the throne as the Hongwu emperor. <S> I don't know whether or not their rebellion was motivated by religion or just opportunism though. <A> Buddhism experience some very harsh periods. <S> E.g. <S> The destruction of Nalanda Decline of Buddhism in India due to many factors Kalinga Magha's invasion Persecution of Buddhists <S> Following may also be interesting: <S> Decline of Buddhism in Thailand Buddhism in the World <S> Today <A> When Buddhist tried to spread their religion into Japan, there were countless number of battles throughout Japan between Shinto and Buddhism. <S> Today, Buddhism is regarded as a peaceful religion but it was introduced into Japan in a violent way <S> and today it is integrated into Japanese people's faith as if that is their belief(when foreigners tries to identify their faith) when their original faith and still is Shintoism.
|
Buddhism would have gone through some violent times in the Malay Peninsula also as it was predominantly Buddhist before.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.