source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
What is the significance of Commentaries (Atthakatha) to the Suttas? In some traditions commentaries are inherent in the daily sermons and books written by monks. But I've noticed that most of the commentaries are not available digitally in English compared to the Suttas and most people don't use commentaries as reference. Are they not so important or what is the view on commentaries? <Q> In Theravada Buddhism, much of the commentarial literature is merely providing definitions and etymologies of words, so it only makes sense in the original pali. <S> Besides this, it is so voluminous that any attempt at translating it would be a daunting task. <S> That being said, some of the more accessible and interesting commentaries have indeed been translated into English: <S> The Dhammapada commentaries (stories only, not verse explanations) The Jataka commentaries (and the introduction ) <S> The Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta <S> The Commentary to Sammaditthi Sutta <S> The Patisambhidamagga and Visuddhimagga <S> The Therigatha Commentary <S> I'm sure there are others, but this is a sample. <S> As to their significance, in Theravada Buddhism, they are what defines the orthodoxy; any interpretation of the canonical texts that deviates significantly from the commentaries is considered to be outside of the fold of Theravada Buddhism. <S> In a word, they are the agreed upon correct interpretation or explanation of the texts. <S> And they have some funny stories. <A> Each explanation is subdivided into more details. <S> E.g. <S> If I ask you to come here. <S> This can be the instruction in the Sutta. <S> The commentaries will go on saying if you are facing another direction to 1st turn towards me, then start taking steps towards me, then when you are at a reasonable distance stop. <S> The reason I might have called you and in which situation I would have called out. <S> If you can understand and follow the Suttas you need not rely in the commentaries. <S> May find it difficult though. <S> Sometimes certain aspects are explained elsewhere in other Suttas. <S> So doing so might require a scholarly understanding of all related material. <S> You should take commentaries with a pinch of salt as there can be errors, omissions and miss interpretations like with any other publication / book. <S> Also they consolidate from other areas in the Tripitaka too in some cases which can be useful. <S> When practicing something the final litmus test is to compare with the insight you get at the experiential level. <S> This would help find any inconsistencies. <S> Also some of the later commentaries have correction mentioned about the previous ones. <S> This can be also put to the same test. <S> The errors are very minor though they can be a stumbling block, if you hold on to the belief too strongly. <S> Hence they should be used for additional guidance and information but again being diligent about what you pickup from the source. <A> Commentaries are very useful when interpreting the Suttas in the Tipitaka. <S> They provide background stories and additional details. <S> It is wrong to assume that when they wrote down the Tipitaka, they included everything the Buddha had preached. <S> The major commentaries were based on earlier ones, which were written down at the same time as the Tipitaka. <S> But even the ones written later shouldn't be treated lightly purely on that basis. <S> It's a bad practice to degrade the commentaries on a whim without solid evidence. <S> But if you have a different opinion on a topic, it is ok to say "this is what the commentary says, but this is what I think". <S> Then it becomes your own commentary. :)
|
Commentaries are just further explanation of meaning and details of the Suttas. Otherwise they can be useful to get and idea of the social customs, background or event leading to the preaching.
|
Mindfulness in Everyday Activity I have been practicing meditation, reading and listening to Buddhist teachings and I undertake the five precepts for about year now. This is the first time that I actually ask a question about my practice. I meditate every morning and then during my daily activities I try to be mindful watching the physical and mental phenomena. I can be mindful quite well but as soon as I experience an unpleasant mental state such embarrassment or awkwardness fear and aversion come up and I feel kind of lost. It is like I forget what to do and I am not able to be mindful anymore. This happens even if I am well prepared to experience an unpleasant mental state. It happens when people are around and very fast too and even if I am not scared to experiencing them when they come up, it seems that I lose track and I forget everything. So what can I do in these situations? Sorry for my English. I hope that this make sense.Thanks for your time, may all beings be happy and free from suffering. <Q> First, congratulations on your year of practice. <S> Sometimes we overlook the most basic principles of our practice, as such I am referring to the first noble truth: there is suffering. <S> Note that it is not stated, "I suffer". <S> By being stated this way it can be understood that suffering is not, "yours" or "mine". <S> As opposed to viewing these experiences as, "I am embarrassed" or "I am feeling awkward" reflect upon these moments as, "there is embarrassment" or "there is fear". <S> Know they are not yours but emotions that result from a particular experience. <S> Also, bear in mind that as you reflect upon this experience you are being mindful and in the moment (meditating). <S> Being mindful does not in itself guarantee happiness. <S> Mindfulness combined with skillfulness will move you toward your goal. <S> These principles are found in the Eightfold Noble path. <S> Try noting your experience. <S> Saying to yourself for example, "fear" or "embarrassed" as you would during formal or seated meditation, allowing for the physical response to dissipate. <S> "To let go of suffering, we have to admit it into consciousness. <S> But the admission in Buddhist meditation is not from a position of: "I am suffering" but rather, "There is the presence of suffering" because we are not trying to identify with the problem but simply acknowledge that there is one." - Ajahn Sumedho <A> What you are experiencing is normal. <S> It's scary, but very much expected. <S> Until we overcome a particular delusion it will keep harming us, so keep going! <S> Practising mindfulness means trying to keep your mind on the object you want to keep your mind on. <S> If we never practised mindfulness, forgetfulness would continue to wreak havoc on our mind without end. <S> When we're practising we can experience a strong wave of the delusion we're trying to oppose and feel like we've failed, but actually it's just the delusion doing what it does. <S> That's how harmful they are. <S> So yes, sometimes it might feel like you've lost your mindfulness without choice, and this forgetfulness may be too strong to overcome at that time. <S> This doesn't matter because you are training in mindfulness so will eventually be able to remain mindful all the time. <S> In the meantime, you can simply observe the negative effect of forgetfulness and increase your wish to overcome it. <A> Your English is fine. <S> 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. <A> (below the nose and above the upper lip - also see this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3362/295 ). <S> This helps maintaining your mindfulness in daily life. <S> Also see some related answers: <S> How do I integrate Vipassana practice into daily life? <S> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3328/295 <S> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3398/295 <S> What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?
|
The reason to practice mindfulness is to overcome the opposite mind of forgetfulness. To add to the other answers, best is to be always be mindful of the sensations in your body and perhaps if possible the length of your breathing and the sensations around the mouth
|
Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it? I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body. Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months. So, can one feel it without attachments?! <Q> Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. <S> Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true. <S> In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation. <S> Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late (the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself). <S> Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment. <S> Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one. <S> One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart. <A> I have experienced ejaculation without it feeling "pleasant". <S> When ejaculation does not feel pleasant, it feels more like semi-painful spasms. <S> There is no attachment to this experience. <S> It is not that ejaculation has changed, or even that the experience changed. <S> It is my perspective that has changed. <S> If you look at pleasant sensation very very very carefully, then you will see it as is -- and it will loose it's luster. <S> The same with pain, if you look at it really close, you will see it as information . <S> No pain, just information. <S> As Buddha taught, we must learn to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant. <S> When we can arbitrarily control our evaluation of sensory experience, then we are free from it. <A> Does the Buddhist breathe?Does the Buddhist drink water?Does <S> the Buddhist eat food?Does the Buddhist exercise? <S> If all of these needs can be met without attachment, why should sex be any different? <S> Sex can be entirely to meet one's biological urges, the way we eat and drink and exercise. <S> I'm not saying it is easy to do so, but it seems to me that clearly the possibility exists. <A> No. <S> All healthy humans are biologically addicted to dopamine. <S> "The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. <S> Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity. <S> " <S> Dopamine is the hormone that makes you feel good. <S> You can never feel anything good without attachment. <S> Humans are hardwired to like dope just as they do sugar and for the same reason; need. <S> The need to procreate the species and the need to consume calories. <A> To experience an orgasm you need some form of active arousal. <S> If arousal is involved you are attached and goes against the precept. <S> If it is from other causes like bed wetting then it may be OK as long as you don't fantasise. <S> If there is fantasy then again there is attachment. <S> Main thing to remember is sensation is involuntary sometimes but seeking sensations is not without attachments, and seeking sensations can be very subtle. <A> Here is the thing about Sexual activities.... <S> We do not admire it like the western culture,But the eight fold path is not a hammer on your marriage life. <S> You can still have sex but with her only. <S> And if you are single there is a set of guidelines established din Buddhism in finding the correct type for sex (Please refer a good source about Five precepts). <S> How do i know it? <S> well arahants still felt the heat,coldness,soft touch of clothes,the comfort of a breezing wind,the beauty of a jungle. <S> But still they had no disturbance from it <S> they even admired the beauty of nature. <S> But in the examples you are presenting in your question <S> we can't agree that it can be felt without the addiction to it. <S> Basically the main reason for sex is the attachment that you have for it. <S> Sex is not a huge deal for a beginner but alcohol is an addiction with no virtual benefit,it is that simple and under n o circumstances can be justified as something a Buddhist would do. <S> You can have some help from meditation to fight the urge to drink and some therapy or rehab would also help.that is something you will have to fight on your own. <S> Remember what Lord Buddha said <S> This is an individual's fight against himself,in it he will need good friends,Knowledge of dharma and courage. <S> But he must fight alone. <S> Well we are here to help so start with one day without alcohol and let's see what happens from there. <A> According to Alagaddupama Sutta , it isn't possible: For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible. <S> The commentary makes it more precise: <S> According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.
|
If you can orgasm without it feeling good then, yes. You can very well feel anything without getting attached to it,
|
Was the London Buddhist Society the first Western Sangha? Christmas Humphreys founded the London Buddhist society in 1924. Would this have been the first sangha in the West? Wikipedia says of it The Buddhist Society of London is one of the oldest Buddhist organisations outside Asia So were there other groups of western born Buddhists practicing together even earlier than this or would this truly have been the first such grouping? For the sake of this question I am taking sangha to mean any sort of Buddhist community. I appreciate it often refers specifically to a monastic community however I want to use a broader definition here. <Q> I am not sure if this fits your definition but the Pali Text Society was older. <A> But only to study Buddhist philosophy was for some Germans not enough. <S> They wanted to organize themselves in Buddhist communities in order to practice Buddhism and to promote Buddhist teaching. <S> In 1903 Karl Seidenstucker (1876-1936) founded the first German Buddhist organisation in Leipzig, called "The Buddhist Mission in Germany" and published in magazine, ‘The Buddhist’. <S> The paragraph before that mentions various Germans who at least studied it in the 19th century. <A> One of the problems in answering is in deciding what would qualify as a Buddhist community, specifically because the word "Buddhist": Is a relatively modern and Western invention <S> May not mean today what it meant 100 or so years ago (i.e. around the time of thesuspected first Western sangha), and Still doesn't have a universallyagreed definition (even taking refuge in the three jewels <S> doesn'tcut it in this context) <S> With that in mind, you could (given your apparent scholarly bent) bring the Theosophical Society -- 1875 -- into your considerations, as at least being a sangha "precursor", especially given Evan-Wentz's involvement. <S> Clearly it was, by no stretch of the definition, what we'd call "Buddhist" today, but would even the first Buddha and his companions have thought of themselves as "Buddhist" by our contemporary definition? <S> More likely they'd have considered themselves Hindu (although even Hindu is a term which was adopted by late 18th century Europeans to refer to the followers of Indian religions ).
|
There was an organization founded in 1903 in Germany :
|
Is curiosity, for non Dhamma subjects, a bad thing? Curiosity can lead to desire (for knowing something), attachment and therefore suffering. Also, questions based on pure curiosity were left unaswered by the Buddha On the other hand, curiosity is what makes us evolve, so is it good or bad? How should one sees it? <Q> Asking questions / being inquisitive can lead to intelligence. <S> Having said this the quest for knowledge can lead to: attachments to per suits of no benefit to this life, after life or liberation hence wasting time and effort attachments to the quest of seeking answers leading to pure study / research or philosophising, this also may not always be time well spent. <S> If you are leading a householders life you cannot avoid these always. <S> But your per suits should be fruitful for either: <S> This life <S> Next life <S> Liberation Beneficial to either: oneself <S> others, or both <S> If your quest is not profitable best is to leave it a side. <A> Curiosity is alright, but ego is very tricky! <S> Ego can use anything to lead you away from true dharma. <S> Many things that are not very bad, but not dharma-related (and even some that are dharma-related!), are structured in such a way (made up from such concepts) that touching them reconfirms/reinforces the ego. <S> That's why Buddhist discipline must go first, and curiosity second. <S> Otherwise you think you are learning something useful -- and instead you are feeding your ego! <A> The Tibetan guru Padmasambhava alledgely said I do not know, <S> I do not have, I do not understand The Buddha refused to answer questions on the fate of the universe and what happens after death. <S> From this I would say that curosity about subjects unrelated to liberation isn't going to help you on the Buddhist path. <S> A total fascination with your own mental experiences and the nature of reality might, wondering about the history of Buddhism probably won't. <S> That said being a keen cyclist, building model planes and reading comics won't either. <S> But I think there is something pericious about excessive curosity about Buddhist related things . <S> Within Buddhism there is the concept of near enemies <S> that I find extremely useful. <S> It's something that seems like it's helpful <S> but really isn't. <S> Sorrow might seem helpful when faced with suffering but it isn't. <S> It's a near enemy of compassion. <S> Being emotionally shut down is the near enemy of equanimity. <S> I think that studying Buddhism can be the near enemy of practicing Buddhism. <S> It looks like it, you can be convince it is it for years <S> but it isn't it at all. <S> It's an easy thing for me to be sucked into but <S> it is really an obstacle to the path. <S> Not true for everyone I'm sure but can be true for me. <A> There are multiple meanings of curiosity. <S> Wanting to know the 100 versions of the Diamond Sutra could teach you more about it of it could get you weighed down in facts. <S> Looking at a worm crawling across the ground and seeing life as the worm sees it could be an awakening. <S> The second curiosity is imbued with innocence like a child. <S> I see only positive outcomes with that.
|
Both are a type of curiosity, but the first is intellectual curiosity that could be helpful or harmful.
|
What can go wrong in Mindfulness Therapy as used in Clinics? I just stumbled across the article Mindfulness therapy comes at a high price for some, say experts . Even when mindfulness is practiced correctly, side effects may occur, like feeling lost or disconnected from the world. What could be the cause of the side effects? Do these techniques deviate a lot from the Suttas or orthodox practice? Do the staff have the necessary training and awareness required to give meditation advice ( Kammaṭṭhāna )? Can something be wrong with how the clinic administers the training / teaching? <Q> This is a real phenomenon and it is discussed in the Visuddhimagga and the writings of the Mahasi Sayadaw. <S> Some of the stages of insight knowledge can potentially manifest themselves in this kind of way. <S> I think for most people these stages are relatively easy, but I suppose for some they could be much more difficult. <S> Just from my own practice I can say that these particular knowledges can be very mild <S> It really is just the result of seeing impermanence on a direct level. <S> When one has a lot of attachments this is not a fun experience because one is holding onto things while at the same time seeing the suffering involved in clinging. <S> The answer to this is that one needs to accept that this is part of the practice and a part of giving up attachment, and continue to practice. <S> Eventually one will let go and move on and progress. <S> This is actually one of the reasons why I personally have reservations about practicing mindfulness meditation in a purely secular context. <S> The teacher probably won't know about this and without understanding general Buddhist <S> doctrine it isn't possible to understand how to move on. <A> The article refers to side effects of the meditation practice on people with very deep mental illness. <S> Normal people could experience boredom and sleep at worse. <S> People with depression and anxiety have very sharp minds , and meditation ( not mindfulness ) could possibly worsen their state. <S> I think the problem they are trying to address is that on meditation you leave people to look and feel for themselves, and it is not safe to leave these mentally ill people "wander" on their thoughts and feelings by themselves. <A> My main concern about mindfulness, that some describe as meditation without the Buddhism, is that is construed to be a physical tool to make people happier. <S> Without the practice of compassion for others and dedication of one life to some degree to helping others, mindfulness can degenerate to a feel good thing. <S> But I do not condemn it. <S> It is a start that can lead those with real inner yearnings to a meditation practice. <S> It is baby steps, but there are so many babies in the world, it certainly has its place.
|
Mindfulness certainly is good for anyone, but meditation can be harming.
|
Signlessness seems to be contradictory to Buddhism Signlessness is a concept that I was taught about Buddhism in a college course on Buddhism. It was defined as "not taking omens to have meaning, whether the omen was good or bad does not matter." But in the same course I learned the mystical means by which the new Dali Lama was found. They see letters in sky telling them to go to Ando Province. Maybe this is right-mindfulness(?): we see things as they truly are in reality and do impose logic onto things were there should not be. Like if I see my lucky number right as I have that really good feeling when I know I am making the right decision. Must I regard seeing my lucky number as just a coincidence and not a sign? <Q> As I understand it, in Mahayana, signlessness ( animitta ) has nothing to do with omens. <S> Basically, signlessness means not getting caught into traps of abstractions. <S> This is based on clear understanding that real world is infinitely more nuanced and multifaceted than any concept, however precise, can ever dream to capture. <S> There is an infinite number of alternative ways of describing the world -- each valid in its own context. <A> The Kalama Sutta deals with some of the logical aspects mentioned in your question. <S> Much of your experience is governed by cause and effect . <S> Omens may have some significance but such significance is highly speculative unless you know the laws of cause and effect to its entirety, thus it is best to concentrate on more pragmatic things like understanding the laws of cause and effect, which intern might give you real insight into the nature of omens. <S> To understand the the laws of cause and effect you have to practice to Nobel 8 <S> Fold Path organised according to the 3 fold training . <S> One aspect of this is Right Mindfulness which also appears in many places in the factors of enlightenment . <S> As a 1st step you can do a course in meditation throug <S> https://www.dhamma.org/ or any other Vippasana Meditation Centure. <A> http://archives.dailynews.lk/2011/01/27/fea25.asp <S> I found some information of this matter as well. <S> "For bhikkhus, reading marks on the limbs (palmistry); reading omens and signs, interpreting celestial events, interpreting dreams, reading marks on the body (e.g. phenology), offering fire oblations (yaga), offering blood-sacrifices, practising astrology etc are wrong livelihood. <S> Path to Nibbana and the path to gains are different."
|
The notion of signlessness is related to aniketa-cārī (usually translated as "wandering without a home" but having a broader meaning in Mahayana) -- the practice of "non-abiding", or not settling on any single conceptual, metaphysical, or philosophical base. To quote Wikipedia , Signlessness refers to the fact that phenomena seem to possess their apparent qualities by way of their own nature, but when one examines this appearance one realizes that all qualities are merely mentally imputed and not a part of the nature of the objects they appear to characterize.
|
Is lying at a job interview breaking a precept? Since lying is not really directed at a person, can it still be harmful? I have had multiple jobs before when the companies I worked for had no issues lying to me(on a organizational level) I can see how lying(when done successfully) can make myself believe I am something I am not and hence inflate my ego but what if this is not the case and the lying is only done with a sense of wanting to get a position and work hard and achieve something? <Q> Causes of False Speech <S> The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion. <S> Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself. <S> Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss and bring harm and suffering to others. <S> Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc. <S> Lying to get a job falls under the 1st category. <S> So yes, it does break the fourth precept. <A> If you have intention to deceive, you know what you are going to say is false and then say it then it is lying. <S> In a job interview you might be asked questions you are not very sure about. <S> Making an intelligent guess in those instances in fine. <S> Not attempting may look negative or as a lack of confidence. <S> Also interviewer will not expect you to know everything but an attempt will be appreciated. <S> Much like in an exam. <S> Lying about your experience may not be fine. <S> Otherwise putting a positive spin is fine. <S> Facing an interview is an art in itself which you can master without breaking your ethics and morality. <A> In addition to the excellent answers already given, it's important to also keep in mind the effect of one's actions on oneself. <S> So even if the lie you told had no ill effect on the interviewer or company for which you were applying for a job; (say for example, they didn't hire you anyway), you still know you stated something untrue and that stays with you. <S> We work to keep our sila good (by following the 5 precepts) because of the good it does for our own minds. <A> Lying occurs when four elements are present. <S> a. <S> The speaker must not be mistaken about what he or she wants to say.b. <S> The speaker must have the intention to deceive.c. <S> The lie must be consciously pronounced.d. <S> The hearer must be deceived. <S> Associated with lying are all attempts to twist the truth by deceptive means and the concealment of the facts in order to cheat people. <S> source: Treasury of Precious Qualities , commentary by Kangyur Rinpoche <A> I listened to a talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo some days ago. <S> In here he talks about why the Buddha had put a great emphasiz on right speech . <S> Ajahn Punnadhammo says that by using the speech faculty we can directly input dhammas into other beings mind-stream. <S> So by misusing the speech faculty (by lying for example) we can directly input delusion into other beings mind-stream. <S> That is a heavy kammic thing to do since delusion is what binds us in Samsara. <S> When he said that i really understood the depth of the 4th precept. <A> is there ever a time to not look and think carefully about an actual situation? <S> suppose one were the sole provider for a large family and lost their job. <S> one looks and looks and finally an opportunity arises. <S> and the person can actually do the job. <S> and do it well. <S> but! <S> a degree is mandatory. <S> the person lacks that. <S> what to do? <S> see if they can be hired by demonstrating ability might be on choice. <S> if jobs are.scarce and the family has begun to starve tho? <S> me, I would accept that some negative karma would be incurred. <S> I would accept some delay on reaching enlightenment. <S> I would lie. <S> if hired, I would get the degree quietly, over time. <S> there is no absolute thing to do. <S> it depends on the situation. <S> to save the lives of others, especially others who are children or otherwise dependant on you, I don't see how I could make any choice that ignored that (but again, a situation could arise in which I acted differently). <S> to me <S> it seems the essence of Buddhism is awareness. <S> generalizing or adhering to preconcieved ideas of what to do and not do seems a bit robotic and not a way to further the habit of actually percieving. <S> it also gives no room to listen to ones inner voice, intuition or whatever you want to call it, which I've always understood to be also perception just not always at the level.of conscious intent.
|
Also spin doctering / white lies with a intention to deceive is not fine.
|
How does Buddhism explain the creation of everything (universe) How does Buddhism explain the creation of everything (universe). Did Buddhism faithfuls believe that universe had always been here and forever, and everything runs by cause-and-effect? Did Buddha have any power of any kind to influence the universe, or it's just teaching? and if so, who rules the universe before Buddha's birth? <Q> Buddhism says that the world has no discernible beginning. <S> That it runs by cause-and-effect. <S> That people are able to influence their own state, and have an effect on others. <S> And that you shouldn't spend too much attention on theoretical questions, such as "when did the universe begin?", because there are more important questions such as "how can we help to end suffering?" <A> But again as @ChrisW mentioned investigating this is not: profitable for oneself profitable for others <S> (Unless of course you do this for a living.) <S> When there are worst problems to worry about like emotional imbalances and stress we go through in daily life. <A> Buddha himself questions the existence and non-existence of everthing in space. <S> That everything is unborned. <S> Thus to him there is no creation in the first place. <A> I think it boils down to definition and our observation time based leads to subject and object in that sequence or simultaneously but is a measure from discussion subject to timely constrained observation our minds have. <S> Causality in our observation has sequence answer me this if there was no time how could causality lead to creation because action and it's reaction depend upon time <S> the only way creation could be from action is an immutable nature to time that allows the effect of causality.
|
Buddhism does have an aspect of cosmology , creation and evolution of life on earth .
|
Mental note of thoughts during the day During daily activities it is ok to do a mental note when thoughts arise saying "thinking thinking" just in like the sitting meditation? I try to label every physical and mental phenomena during the day and nothing strange with that but with thinking it seems that sometimes I block it straight away when arise so I was just wondering if is too much and if I should stop noting. <Q> Every mental content, or state you experience, is linked to sensations in your body. <S> (After all, one the of the 5 aggregates is sensation.) <S> You should examine the sensation. <S> You should try to understand that the sensations you experience are what you like or dislike (with any thought, memories, <S> ideas - when you remember something you do not like, you get a bad feeling in your body) and react to, try to grasp or get rid of. <S> This is what keeps you in a conditioned existence. <S> So to start with, you should always try to notice the sensations when thoughts come and go. <S> Sharpen your mind to understand 3 marks of existence within sensation. <S> The 3 marks of existence in your corporeal body. <S> How perceptions are formed and their nature. <S> How the recognising part of your mind works. <S> These things grow progressively subtle. <S> The start should be the impact of any mental state or content upon the sensations of the body, and if not all 3 marks of existence, at least their impermanence. <A> Labeling one's thoughts was one of Chogyam Trungpa's main meditation techniques for beginners. <S> As I understand now, in context of Path at large, it is an entry-level practice for establishing basic reflexive awareness and reducing the grasping. <S> Labeling serves two purposes: 1) it encourages one to try and be aware of one's associative cycle and 2) it interrupts the train of thoughts that otherwise has a tendency to be engrossing. <S> There is nothing special or supernatural about this technique: the labeling itself is, again, thinking (6th consciousness). <S> If we took it to its logical conclusion, we would get into an endless loop. <S> So maxing out this labeling, especially in post-meditation, is kinda pointless. <S> It would be like treating poisoning with more poison. <S> No wonder <S> Susan Blackmore found herself at difficulty walking across the street! <S> Instead, the idea at this stage is to disidentify from our thoughts, to understand that our thoughts are not "me". <S> At this point, thoughts can come and go like fishes in the ocean. <S> Here you sit, watching the ocean, then you sense a thought's fuzzy contours, like a shadow moving deep down. <S> As fish comes closer, it gradually takes shape and clarity. <S> You can either dismiss it, or let it come. <S> It gets more and more concrete, until it jumps on you and takes you flying. <S> You can either get carried away, or you spend a second on the thought, tasting its flavour, tracing its roots that connect it to its underlying emotion and, further down, basic preconception -- before dismissing it. <S> Chogyam Trungpa called this "touch-and-go" practice. <S> The next level up (it's not like it really is a linear progression, but for simplicity we could say so) is to try and see where the thoughts come from and where they go. <S> This includes seeing where one's seeing (7th consciousness) comes from. <S> To explore that semidifferentiated sea of 8th consciousness, tasting its colors and energies and the overall weather -- is why we keep coming back to the breathing, a window onto the subconscious. <A> In her book Zen and the Art of Consciousness Susan Blackmore did exactly what you are doing and spent a couple of weeks being very mindful and noting during her everyday life. <S> Her question was 'am I conscious now?' <S> She found this very productive and interesting <S> but she said it was unsustainable for her. <S> She reached a point where she was so aware that she was unable to cross the road. <S> She found the speed of the traffic too overwhelming. <S> She had to stop the practice at this point. <S> I would hesitate to say don't do it because I'm really not any kind of expert <S> but I just wanted to share that second hand experience. <S> Certainly mindfulness in the everyday is an ideal <S> but I'm not sure if I could go full on for it. <S> Maybe little and often?
|
The point is not in mechanically identifying consecutive thoughts, but rather in 1) setting up your subconscious intent ("alarm clock"), so that the "noticing" after "the getting carried away" happens by itself, but also 2) learning to let go (of an "important" thought) and come back to breathing.
|
Is there any buddhist explanation for deja vu? I'm not sure we will find that in the pali canon (per haps in Abidhamma?), but is there any thera/senior bikkhu that wrote about it? Is it related to past lifes or any special power of the mind? <Q> The psychology of C. G. Jung who wrote a preface to Bardo Thodol <S> (The Tibetan Buddhist Book of the Dead) may explain the deja vu experience as restimulation of experiences of the collective unconscious in the bardo interval between death and the next rebirth, that he called "archetypes" or universal prototypes for ideas. <S> However before drawing such a conclusion, know that the Sabbasava Sutta <S> (Majjhima Nikaya 2) warns against questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. <S> They include: Did I exist in the past? <S> Did I not exist in the past? <S> What was I in the past? <S> How was I in the past? <A> If you have psychic abilities <S> then you might have foreseen or sensed the event before happening. <S> Also remember we are a bundle of feeling (one of the 5 aggregates) too. <S> Hence we tend to react to these feelings in different ways. <S> Sometimes this notion of deja vu can just be a conditioned response of your mind, than it having any significance. <S> Certain type of feeling trigger certain memories and which in tern trigger more feelings. <S> Your perception forming part of you mind <S> may identify some similarities and cooks up a concept. <S> (This cooking up is what is called delusion .) <A> In my experience, it seems to be caused by a precognitive experience--one has a precognitive experience at a previous time and when the event actually comes to pass in the present, the meeting of the two is experienced as deja vu. <S> Many times, I think that people have precognitions in dreams and forget them at the conscious level; in this case deja vu is experienced but without an understanding of its cause. <S> The idea that the future can be seen is present in the Buddhist tradition. <S> There is also discussion of seeing the future (incuding future births) through a vipassana power (which is distinct from psychic power) in Pa Auk Sayadaw's Knowing and Seeing (188-196).
|
As Suminda mentioned, there is probably a psychic power that allows one to see the future.
|
Difference between neutral Karma and no Karma I've read an article that mentioned something like neutral Karma, and it seems it is no more/less than no Karma. Does anything differentiate neutral Karma from no Karma? <Q> To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as neutral karma. <S> As you rightly surmise, it would be the same as non-karma. <S> This is because karma in Buddhism refers to ethical intention, not the act itself: cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. <S> cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti — kāyena vācāya manasā. <S> It is intention, bhikkhus, that I say is karma. <S> Having intended, one performs karma, by body, speech, or mind. (AN 6.63) <S> In Theravada Buddhism, consciousness without ethical intention is called "avyakata" or "indeterminate", and is "karmically neutral", which is not the same as being "neutral karma", a term that doesn't make much sense from a Buddhist point of view. <S> avyākata lit. ' <S> indeterminate' - i.e. neither determined as karmically 'wholesome' nor as 'unwholesome' - are the karmically neutral, i.e. amoral, states of consciousness and mental factors. <S> They are either mere karma-results (vipāka, q.v.), as e.g. all the sense perceptions and the mental factors associated therewith, or they are karmically independent functions (kiriya-citta, q.v.), i.e. neither karmic nor karma-resultant. <S> http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/avyaakata.htm <A> In Tibetan Buddhism, there is neutral, or indeterminate, action (=karma) which is defined as action the effects of which will never ripen as experience -- such as e.g. unintentional action that has no observable effect. <S> Does anything differentiate such neutral Karma from no Karma? <S> First, we need to remember that "karma" means "action", not its unmanifested effect. <S> Traditionally, experienced effect of an action is compared with "fruit". <S> We say that action "ripens" or "fruits". <S> The action whose results are yet to be experienced is called "unripened" action, or "action that is yet to fruit" etc. <S> When we substitute "action" for the special term "karma", we get "karma that is yet to fruit". <S> To use the word "karma" to refer to its unmanifested effect is technically incorrect. <S> To clarify, in the phrase "neutral karma" -- the word "karma" should be understood in its correct sense of "action". <S> Second, when we talk about "fruit" of action in context of Buddhism, we mean an experience of the effects of the action. <S> We should be very careful here and avoid any kind of materialistic bias. <S> We are not talking about so-called "objective" effects of an action, but only how these effects are to ripen as (subjective) experience. <S> So even though action has an effect, if this effect is not to be experienced at all, the concept of good or bad "fruit" does not apply. <S> When this is the case, we don't speak of "good karma" or "bad karma", even though karma (action!) has clearly been performed. <S> Armed with the above we can now understand, that when we say "neutral", or indeterminate, karma -- we mean an action <S> that is never to ripen as experience . <S> This means such action that neither has "external" effects that will ever ripen as experience, nor shapes <S> the mind of the performer in such way that will ever ripen as experience. <S> To tie this back to your question, your intuition was correct, indeterminate or neutral action is very similar to NO action, except technically an action has been performed . <S> It is just that this action is never to fruit as someone's experience. <A> In Abhidhamma there are 3 kinds of kamma. <S> To my limited understanding it goes like: mundane unwholesome karma, mundane wholesome karma, and supramundane wholesome karma. <S> It's supramundane <S> wholesome karma because it is the karma of arahants. <S> I think another word for "neutral" would also be "functional".
|
It's also called "neutral" because it has no karmic potency unlike mundane wholesome karma.
|
Can I meditate while lying on my back? Is lying flat on my back an acceptable meditation posture? Why or why not? <Q> You can, but it's not recommended. <S> Many people come to meditation with the notion that it is a relaxation exercise. <S> With that preconception, it's no surprise that so many wonder why we just don't meditate lying down or in an arm chair. <S> There may be some kind of benefit to this sort of mediation. <S> Whatever the benefits, however, they do detract from the kind of meditation taught by the Buddha. <S> There is a very strong connection between the body and the mind. <S> The condition of one really determines the state of the other. <S> When we lay down or sit in a comfortable chair, it is all too easy for our minds to go slack and lazy. <S> These sorts of positions effect our concentration and makes it all too easy to fall into sloth and torpor. <S> You don't want that. <S> To hold the body upright is to hold the mind upright. <S> What you want is a state where you are as awake (from a physiological standpoint) as you are going to get. <S> Discomfort, even a little pain (note - little! ), is very conducive to raising your attention and applying it on the meditation object. <A> Yes but it's easier to fall asleep that way. <S> The four official positions are: Sitting, walking, laying and standing <S> but really we can meditate no matter what position we are in. <S> When we set our bodies in one of these four positions, away from noise and distractions it is like we are making a little laboratory of our mind and bodies or a little retreat so to speak <S> but when we are off working, eating, playing, jogging or whatever, we don't have to stop and get into one of the official four positions when we remember to meditate, we only need to see things as they are. <A> Andrea Fella sometimes has to meditate lying down due to back pain while sitting; to keep from falling asleep, she holds one arm up in the air. <A> For the anaapanasathi bhawana "meditation that involves concentrating on inhaling and exhaling" requires sitting posture.
|
One can meditate in any posture, but meditating lying down can be challenging because it is easy to fall asleep. To meditate properly (from a Buddhist standpoint), it is very important for the body to be in an upright and invigorated position.
|
Do monks not have responsibility towards parents and family? In this age, getting enlightened is not sought after by many as in Buddhas era. So I assume it must be harder for parents to accept such a decision. But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents. How does that fit into ethics of Buddhas teachings? I understand giving Dhamma to parents is one of the greatest gift one can give to a parent. Can it not be done by living with them and still maintaining lay practice (like the potter who was an anagami and looked after his parents) Why ordain? NB: this is asked with due respect and do not wish to condone monks or people who desire to ordain. As Buddha would not have been a Buddha if he did not step out. I just want to understand ordaining in today's day and age. <Q> Responsibility in Theravada Buddhism falls into two categories - practical and absolute. <S> In an absolute sense, we only have two responsibilities: “bhante, imasmiṃ sāsane kati <S> dhurānī”ti? <S> "Bhante, in this religion, how many duties are there?" <S> “ganthadhuraṃ, vipassanādhuranti dveyeva dhurāni bhikkhū”ti. <S> "The duty of study and the duty of insight. <S> These are the only two duties, bhikkhu." -- <S> Dhp-A 1 <S> In a practical sense, a lay person has duties towards six groups of people: <S> "And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters? <S> "The following should be looked upon as the six quarters. <S> The parents should be looked upon as the East, teachers as the South, wife and children as the West, friends and associates as the North, servants and employees as the Nadir, ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith. <S> -- DN 31 (Narada, trans) <S> These are considered practical responsibilities, because obvious practical problems arise when a lay person fails to fulfil them. <S> That being said, a monk may at times find him or herself in a position of needing to fulfil practical responsibilities to one's parents; if they are sick, destitute, etc. <S> To this end, there are disciplinary exceptions across the board for taking care of one's parents, including in regards to giving medical treatment and food, visiting during the rains retreat, etc. <S> This would seem to suggest an obviously practical encouragement for monks to care for their parents as appropriate / necessary. <A> You stated the following as an unquestioned fact: <S> But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents. <S> You tagged this modern-world <S> so I'd like to add this to other answers <S> This attitude (the question of what if anything are children's responsibility towards their parents) varies from country to country and from one society to the next, and one family to the next. <S> This (that children aren't responsible) is an lesson which is taught to children, especially when the parents are or have a problem: If a parent is alcoholic If the parents divorce If there's child abuse, spousal abuse <S> If a parent tries to be too controlling or selfish <S> You can choose to help, perhaps want to help but, even if you want to, your ability to help might be limited. <S> Children might feel guilty for their parents' problems. <S> There are people in modern society who would tell those children that they should not feel themselves responsible for their parents' problems. <S> Some say you have a debt to your parents: "I bore you, I fed you, I changed your diapers, I educated you, etc." <S> Some say you have no debt to your parents: e.g. because your relationship with them is not a contract or because it's a contract which you couldn't choose . <S> This isn't a good answer because it's not specifically about monks or Buddhism, but perhaps it's worth mentioning. <A> As far as I know, only the first five years new monks are advised to stay away from the family as to not disturb their formative practice. <S> Becoming a monk does not stop one from meeting and taking care of your parents. <S> I've heard mentioned quite a few times that Ajahn Brahm used to visit his mother. <S> I'd listened to a talk by Ajahn Viradhammo where he mentioned how he had taken care of his sick mother for almost a decade in Canada until she passed away, which was a very touching and inspiring example. <S> Ajahn Suchart Abhijatto who is a student of Ajahn Maha Boowa mentioned moving to Wat Yansangwaram to be closer to his family. <S> But, there are obvious advantages in being a monastic. <S> If the right community is chosen, one is surrounded by a sangha of like minded and inspiring people whose aim is Nibanna and a more laid back, natural and peaceful environment compared to urban lifestyle. <S> Also, in your later years you can be a source of happiness for several people by giving Dhamma. <S> If this is not the case, it would be counter productive to join a Sangha and you are better off with lay practice. <S> Nothing worse than a temple where people's energies are diverted in gaining power and fame rather than practicing towards the ultimate goal. <S> So, it is very important to do your homework before ordaining. <S> Ultimately, this is a very personal decision to ordain or not. <S> The most important things is to practice until Stream Winning at least. <S> For example, Anathapindika had the same dilemma of whether to ordain or take care of his business. <S> The Buddha was able to understand his Kamma and answered to him (paraphrase) that it is perfectly fine to be a layperson and continue to make Punna (merit).
|
Generally speaking, a monk need concern him or herself with practical responsibilities towards fellow monastics (including teachers and preceptors) and lay disciples. : there's a modern view which says, Parents have a responsibility towards their children Children do not have a similar (parental) responsibility towards their parents. People are responsible for their own lives. Sure, you can practice and inspire your parents as a layperson.
|
Can a buddhist enjoy life - what are the limitations and restrictions I see many people telling that buddhism restricts the happiness of "gihi" (non clergy) life. What do you think? Does teaching in buddhism ask people to always think of uncertainty? <Q> Welcome to Buddhism. <S> SE! <S> Anyone who says that is misrepresenting Buddhism completely. <S> The primary goal in Buddhism is the attainment of true happiness. <S> The problem, of course, is that, according to Buddhism, no thing in the universe can bring such happiness. <S> This is what is meant by the concept of uncertainty; not that we should always think of it, but that it is a characteristic inherent in all arisen phenomena. <S> The good news is that by understanding this reality, we can find true and lasting happiness because we will no longer seek out happiness in that which cannot provide it. <S> We will no longer face disappointment when that which we think of as stable turns out to be unstable; when that which we think of as satisfying turns out to be unsatisfying; and when that which we think of as controllable turns out to be out of our control. <S> sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti, yadā paññāya passati. <S> atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā. <S> All formations are impermanent. <S> When one sees this with wisdom, thereupon becoming disenchanted with what is unsatisfying, this is the path of purification. <S> -- <S> Dhp. <S> 277 <A> Buddhism does not teach that one should abandon happiness. <S> Buddhism doesn't ban a lay person from sensual happiness, but teaches that people must avoid certain types of actions which are clearly harmful to ones self or others (for example, killing, stealing, adultery, lying, and taking intoxicants), and for lay people, sensuality that is not clearly destructive are permitted, although moderation is encouraged, and renouncing sensuality entirely is highly encouraged as a superior path towards the higher happiness of Nibbana. <A> Remember, in the sutra Samyutta Nikaya #35, the Buddha says: What ordinary folk call happiness, the enlightened ones call dukkha. <S> Note 'dukkha' means suffering. <S> All experience, happiness and sadness, is Dukkha. <S> Buddhist's identify with each other through their experience of 'moksha' (or 'liberation') within dukkha (which is also thought of as 'conditioned' existence itself). <S> As such the ordinary ones are 'deterred' from happiness (or more correctly, taught to think of it as something entriely negative), while the enlightened ones are encouraged to, strangely, also renounce it (depsite calling it 'moksha' or 'liberation'). <S> This may seem paradoxical, but it demonstrates a repeated step-like descending process where all experience is associated with dukkha until one entirely disconnects with conditioned reality and therefore suffering. <S> The goal is the cessation of suffering, not the occupation of the suffering mind with happiness. <S> This is not a moral activity, and one does not generate bad karma by seeking happiness-dukkha, though a movement away from viewing any experience at all as positive is always rewarded with 'meat' (as it is called). <S> Renouncing the meat as positive causes a chain-reaction, though one usually begins to crave the so called meat and the chain breaks. <A> The goal of Buddhist is to achieve true happiness. <S> The way to achieve this is changing your perspective and outlook of the world to be in line with reality. <S> All the Buddhist training is geared towards this goal. <S> Bring your outlook of the world inline with reality at the experiential level in order to be able to live happily. <S> The misery we create is a product of our untrained mind and us not knowing through <S> 1st hand experience the realities of nature. <S> So we have to: understand the realities at the experiential level change out outlook and thinking to be inline with the realities <S> so misery or unhappiness does not arise
|
Buddhism teaches that happiness can be divided into three categories: Sensual happiness which is the least happiness, happiness based on concentration which is better, and the happiness of Nibbana, which is the supreme happiness.
|
Is stream entry an unmistakeable experience? I've heard stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness. I've also read other accounts that make me think that there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. Is that true? If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt. Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else? <Q> Tibetan Buddhism recognizes two kinds of milestones: "experiences" and "realizations". <S> Experiences are all kinds of extraordinary moments one has along the way. <S> Like the experience of non-duality: "I am what they call God, the true goal of all religions and the real meaning of love". <S> Experiences come and go. <S> They leave memories, but they don't stay with you in all their might. <S> And that's probably a good thing. <S> I don't know how I would live walking around thinking I'm God ;)) <S> Realizations are (sudden or gradual) breakthroughs that change one's perspective in fundamental ways. <S> Needless to say, they stay with you, although not necessarily in an explicit form, because you tend to get used to them and stop noticing. <S> An interesting feature of realizations, they sometimes can be retrograde (like retrograde amnesia). <S> It slowly creeps on you or dawns on you, that you have known something or have been behaving differently for a while now. <S> It is almost like realization spreads backward in time. <S> By this classification, stream entry is a realization, not an experience. <S> Because of its nature, in most cases I suspect it is a retrograde realization. <S> yes -- <S> but I don't see why someone could not just take some arbitrary experience, or even some intermediate realization, like the realization of emptiness of so-called "objects", and imagine that to be stream-entry. <S> You have to exhaust all theories, all hypotheses, all alternative routes to enlightenment. <S> That's why you don't hesitate, because you clearly see that there is no way it could be something else. <S> What's funny is this nagging feeling I have, that you reading my description of it, reduces your chances of attaining it. <S> Enlightenment is freedom from clinging (among other things), so clinging to this notion of stream-entry must be very counterproductive. <S> This is why I'm a little leery of Theravada's sometimes excessive emphasis on bullet-point lists and precise definitions of the stages, as well as of Zen's obsession with the notion of satori. <S> The more your mind grasps these, the further you are from the goal. <A> When one attains stream entry, one should notice that one has no more identity view , doubt and ritual attachments . <S> Whether one knows that it is called the state of Sotapanna or Nibbana, depends on one's knowledge of the teaching. <S> Take a Pacceka Buddha for example. <S> He also attains stream entry before becoming a Buddha. <S> But he wouldn't know the state by name. <A> When it comes to Stream Entry the following should happen: <S> You should have seen the dependent origination first hand in both direction <S> The lower fetters would have dropped <S> You should know the 4 Noble Truths <S> 1st hand <S> You can see the Marks of Existence (necessary but not sufficient) <S> The most unmistakable of this is 1. <S> I think when you get in and out of Pala Samapathi you can always see this happen. <S> Even if not you would have seen the likes break with you enter your initial experience of stream entry and reconstitute themselves when you come out of it again. <S> This is most unmistakable. <S> 4 - you can see before stream entry at some level, 2 - if your defilements are temporarily suspended you might think you do not have the defilements, 3 - you can easily mistake theoretical knowledge with real experience. <S> Understanding 1 will lead you to: know <S> dependent origination 1st hand where you can see the links breaking when you get the Pala Samapatti and reforming when you come out of it know the 4 Noble Truths 1st hand though your understanding of dependent origination have unshakable faith in the Triple Gem since you have seen the the results of practicing the given path has given results which you experience 1st hand <S> you will let go of your ego as you see this is a main source of misery and stress as each time a ego centered though happens in your mind you see <S> the sensations are unpleasant leading to fabrications / conditioning since you have 1st had experience on what got you there <S> you know any other practice (rites, rituals, etc.) will not get you there <A> "stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness" <S> Yes, it is the turning point and never fall back. <S> "there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. <S> Is that true?" <S> True! <S> The experience marked is for layman (non-Arya: four noble truth if taught just like writing in the air, for cula-sotapanna just like writing on the water surface, for sotapanna just like inscribed on the large stone slab will persist more than hundred years i.e. until throughout afterlife.) <S> "If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt. <S> Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else?" <S> Yes! <S> If one achieve the Nibanna with your own Khanda, no doubt on Dhamma knowing four Noble Truths at the same time.
|
The true stream entry is unmistakable, What makes it unmistakable is the fact that in order to attain it, you have to run out of other options.
|
Taking care of perineum How can one take care of the perineum Does anyone have any knowledge about this part of the body being affected by excessive sitting in meditation. I have had medical help, removal of cysts, haemorrhoids and general stiffness over my course of meditative life. Is this a normal problem with meditators and if yes how can one take care of this? About me:I am male, late 20s(fairly young to be having problems in that region?), sit cross legged (no lotus or half lotus), use a simple block, have had a history of stomach ailments since 12 (appendicitis, liver repair, bad digestive system), currently simple wholesome diet with no meat, eggs, do not drink/smoke. <Q> If this is the case: you can use a stool / chair or stadium seat <S> you can use orthopaedic cushions to added comfort if sitting is a problem you can use another poster like lying down <S> (don't use a cosy or luxurious bed as you will soon fall asleep. <S> A hard surface may be best using a Yoga mat perhaps laying beaded seat cushion on top even if this causes you to fall asleep.) <S> Also when meditating try to keep your attention a bit longer in this region looking at the arising and passing away of sensation equanimously. <S> Don't think of any healing or removing discomfort. <S> Just keep your attention on the sensations. <S> If this is Karmic, reducing your mental reaction for sensation resulting from karma means you will not be adding fuel to the karma prolonging it's results. <S> If you react with any thing, like disappointment if any issue pops up, being happy when something does not pop up, etc. <S> You are adding fuel to prolonging the ailment. <A> It is also a great tool for building concentration before doing sitting meditation. <A> It'll give multiple benefits: increase blood circulation in the lower body, creates a naturally lean-forward posture that straighten the back without tensing the muscles, and relieve some pressure off your buttock and that perineal region. <S> Some images to illustrate here
|
I would very much consider adding walking meditation to your practice, both to potentially help your lower body issues and perhaps strengthen them at the same time. Make sure your cushion or wooden block is slightly slope downward.
|
What does a traditional Buddhist wedding look like? I have been to Christian weddings (American), Jewish weddings, and Hindu weddings, but I have no idea what a traditional Buddhist wedding looks like. I realize that there are probably differences between the different sects of Buddhism, but are there any common cultural threads? <Q> These are more inherent with the local culture and customs than to do with Buddhism. <S> So they might change from region to region and country to country. <S> The is no Buddhist wedding as such though some elements of Buddhism are incorporated like hymns (Jayamangala Gatha). <A> The festivities are mostly cultural. <S> But if you really want to do it the Buddhist way, don't serve liquor or kill animals for your wedding. <S> Also, don't get into debt just to make the ceremony grand. <A> A marriage is something that increases attachments to this world, and Buddhism encourages to go in the other direction on reducing attachments. <S> So, Buddhist monks or Buddhist monasteries do not play any role in marriages at least in Theravada. <S> Of course, the monks would give their blessing to the couple as in any other special occasion in their life when they visit the monastery before or after the marraige, as mentioned by Sankha. <S> Weddings are taken according to local customs of the people involved in it. <S> The closest that happens to a religious activity during a wedding is the chanting of paritta, Jayamangala Gatha as a blessing to the couple. <S> This is also performed by lay people. <S> Another influence of Buddhism in a marriage I would say is that the couple would bow to the parents as you would bow to a monk or a Buddha statue. <S> Recently in Sri Lanka there were some attempts to have weddings in a temple, and it got criticized by monks and the public (I don't know the current situation though).
|
Here in Sri Lanka, the couple go to a Buddhist temple to get the blessings before or after the marriage ceremony.
|
Amisa pooja for Buddha I know that we can make great Karma by offering Flowers,candles,incense,food,robes and other things for the Buddha statue thinking as if the Buddha is alive. But whenever I do offer these things my mind says "The Buddha is not there to receive this.And this is not the proper way to pay respect for the Buddha. The proper way is to try to be mindful and try to be free from the defilement in the mind." Am I cultivating bad thoughts by thinking this way? What is the proper way to think when we offer these things to the Buddha statue? <Q> Both are ways to show respect for the Buddha. <S> Offerings are a lesser way compared with the practice of Sila, Samadhi, and Panna, but you do not have to choose between the two. <S> You can develop the path and also make offerings. <S> The best way to make offerings is to make your offering be endowed with the three factors you have control over. <S> The Buddha once taught that there are six factors that affect the merit of an offering, three of which are determined by the giver's mind: <S> "Monks, the lay woman Velukandaki, Nanda's mother, has established a donation endowed with six factors for the community of monks headed by Sariputta & Moggallana. <S> "And how is a donation endowed with six factors? <S> There is the case where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the recipients. <S> "And which are the three factors of the donor? <S> There is the case where the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. <S> These are the three factors of the donor. <S> "And which are the three factors of the recipients? <S> There is the case where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of delusion. <S> These are the three factors of the recipients. <S> "Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the recipients. <S> And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors." <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html <S> This is the best way to make offerings. <A> The Buddha spent many life times doing paramis to teach us the Dhamma. <S> So the best Puja is for us to practice it. <S> 1st we should learn the dhamma. <S> When you listen to a Sutta if you get any stage of sainthood, congratulation, as these only a few of such people with little dust in their eyes. <S> Many of us do not. <S> This is because have have not fully understood that the Buddha ment through these words. <S> With out understanding the intended meaning we have imposed our own meaning or our imperfect view on what this is. <S> (What ever we see at the experiential level is what the Buddha intended to teach us.) <S> All is not lost as that is how many of us start. <S> It is through practice that you can understand the true meaning of the words. <S> As I said before the Buddha had gone through much suffering over many lives to deliver us his message. <S> We should strive hard to understand this at the experiential level. <S> This is the best Puja we can do. <S> I am not condemning Amisha Puja. <S> This serves a purpose. <S> This is like the bark of a tree. <S> Without it the Sasana will not survive. <S> For a person this is what initially draws one to the temple to learn and the practice. <S> But practice should always follow, i.e., start with Amisha Puja and progress to Prathipati Puja. <A> To honor the Buddha one should be mindful, be aware of body & mind. <S> One shouldn't try to think or try not to think but be aware of the thinking itself and then be aware of whatever experience that is appropriate after that. <S> Practice is the best pooja.
|
In brief, before giving have a joyous mind, have a mind that is bright and clear during the offering, and be pleased with the offering once you have made it. The proper way is to try to be mindful and try to be free from the defilement in the mind. The best way is to do do Puja to the triple get is through the practice of Dhamma.
|
Do lay Buddhists ever wear distinguishing clothing or jewellery? I'm aware that Buddhist monastic communities often wear robes that distinguish them and visibly mark them out as Buddhists. Do lay Buddhist ever do the same thing? Is there any jewellery or clothing that lay Buddhists wear to mark them out as Buddhists - a visible marker of their religion. This is obviously common in other religions e.g. crucifixes for Christians - but do Buddhists of any tradition have an equivalent? <Q> At least in the Theravada tradition people do not were distinguishing clothes or jewelry. <S> Though not used as a distinctive form, but as more of protection and a good luck charm, some wear a Pirith thread. <A> While I believe your question was intended for everyday wear in Vietnam and only in the temples most lay practitioners wear a blue/grey uniform a bit similar to the monastic's robes. <S> A practice followed in Vietnamese temples around the world. <S> See an example: http://afamily.vn/doi-song/le-vu-lan-chu-hieu-tron-day-20120827125422575.chn <S> (Hungry Ghost Festival) <S> Nam Mô A Di Đà Phật. <A> Buddha laid total emphasis on practice and this can be inferred from many stories of his lifetime. <S> Though, when you go on a meditation retreat, as said by @Robin111, it is suggested that you wear clothing which fully covers your body and white coloured clothing is preferred. <S> This is due to practical reasons and to aid yourself in the practice. <S> But in day to day life, there is no prescription of any type of clothing or any other symbolism <A> I'm in the US, with <1% self identified Buddhists in most counties. <S> So there isn't a lot of established customs as there are abroad, <S> where wearing say a white band in Theravada countries, or a pilgrims hat in Japan <S> (worn by hikers as they hike from temple to temple). <S> I organized a Buddhist book club and generally don't use a table tent, I forget them and lose them. <S> So the American thing to do for group identity is to get a T-Shirt. <S> I'm thinking of one like this: http://www.spreadshirt.com/gautama-buddha-fade-t-shirts-C3376A16488554#/detail/16488554T175A135PC1002313903PA296 <A> Perhaps wearing mala's would be an indicator?
|
Lay buddhists in their everyday life are not prescribed any distinguishing clothing etc.
|
Can Buddhism help me escape the difficulties in my life? I am tired of the rat race, working a job I hate to buy things that I don't need. I am tired of technology and the grasp it has on everybody in the western world. Is there a feasible way, within Buddhist practice, for the average westerner to escape it all in exchange for a simple and pure life? <Q> Of course. <S> Realizing that you don't need things or that those things aren't going to make you happy is the beginning of awareness that the worldly world is not as great as you thought it was! <S> Fortunately, the Buddha laid the grounds for understanding exactly this sort of suffering and how to remedy it with the Four Noble Truths. <S> No need to be like everyone else in your society/community. <S> Change your lifestyle in any way you see fit to give you time to study, practice, and explore that which leads to true happiness. <S> No need to live in a cave to do this either; unless you want to. <S> But people can live incredibly simple lifestyles anywhere as long as they aren't trying to fit in with those around them. <S> Best wishes in your journey to true happiness. :) <A> Ordaining seems like an obvious (albeit challenging) answer to your question- <S> if you truly want to escape it ALL, becoming a monk is the exact solution you're looking for. <S> However, if that isn't realistic for you right now and, like me, you are looking to experience a most peaceful existence, there are definitely aspects of Buddhism that will allow you to have a go at this. <S> I don't claim to know much, but some tips on how to have more ease in daily life include: <S> See obstacles as opportunities for spiritual development- <S> if you feel that you hate your job, this is a great chance for you to practice some mindfulness, and really observe your thought process revolving around your aversion to certain things. <S> If you can study, and thus come to understand your hatred, maybe you will find some peace in that way. <S> And you can apply this so any reaction you have to an experience, be it good, bad or neutral. <S> Meditation- many types of meditation, if practiced regularly, can produce peaceful and equanimous mental and physical states. <S> Adding to this, you can derive a little bit of satisfaction/happiness just from the knowledge that you are practicing meditation. <S> If you meditate in the morning, you can go through the rest of the day with a bit of added confidence- <S> you are a practicing buddhist, yay. <S> Anyway, as I said I don't know <S> much- <S> I am trying to deal with the same issues as you! <S> Hope my little bit of advice helps. <S> Ian <A> There will be other things besides technology which will drive you nuts, anywhere. <S> It might be good to change environment, for the sake of your sanity, if there will be less of them, but that is in itself not about Buddhism, it is just a very natural and laudable care about your well-being. <S> I find nonetheless the following very useful (Daniel M. Ingram, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha ( http://integrateddaniel.info/book ). <S> When I think about what it would take to achieve freedom from all psychological stuff, the response that comes is this: life is about stuff. <S> Stuff is part of being alive. <S> There is no way out of this while you are still living. <S> There will be confusion, pain, miscommunication, misinterpretation, maladaptive patterns of behavior, unhelpful emotional reactions, weird personality traits, neurosis and possibly much worse. <S> There will be power plays, twisted psychological games, people with major personality disorders (which may include you), and craziness. <S> The injuries continue right along with the healing and eventually the injuries win <S> and we die. <S> This is a fundamental teaching of the Buddha. <S> I wish the whole Western Buddhist World would just get over this notion that these practices are all about getting to our Happy Place where nothing can ever hurt us or make us neurotic and move on to actually mastering real Buddhist practice rather than chasing some ideal that will never appear.
|
If you meditate for a decent amount of time in the morning before work, maybe you will find some peace before going in.
|
What is the symbol sometimes depicted on images of the Buddha which looks like a swastika? I often look up images of the Buddha online to use as desktop backgrounds for pc or phone. I've seen quite a few images that show a symbol that looks like a swastika on the Buddha's chest. What is the meaning of this symbol? <Q> Swastica is an ancient symbol of sun, rotation, wheel, cyclic activity esp. <S> in nature, and by extension -- eternity. <S> When German Nazis adopted a then-emerging theory of racial superiority of Germans, finding it well suiting their political goals, they took swastika as a symbol of their supposed identity with the Aryan race, and, more generally, inherent superiority . <S> Buddha, too, used the symbolism of Aryan superiority as a way to point to the holistic multi-dimensional excellence of Sat-Dharma and how it manifests outwardly in behavior of its practitioners. <S> Such true excellence is beyond the concept of superiority, beyond any trace of conceit. <S> In Mahayana we call this "unity of wisdom and compassion". <S> To weave in the solar symbolism, Buddha (and incidentally, Chogyam Trungpa) called himself a kinsman of sun. <S> In Chogyam Trungpa's explanation, the philosophy of Raising Sun is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Setting Sun, because the latter relies on solving the problems through external means (feeling hot -- turn on the AC; feeling pain -- drop a pill of painkiller; feeling depressed -- watch a movie or smoke a joint), which too easily ends up encouraging weakness of character, while in the philosophy of Raising Sun, the problems are solved at a deeper, more holistic level. <S> So if I were to summarize the meaning of swastika as used in Buddhism I would say it is a symbol of true excellence transcending even the highest ideals, including the ideal of transcendental excellence itself; taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning in the most fundamental sense. <S> It is the attitude of facing your darkest shadows; becoming a heir to Sat-Dharma and then coming back to the marketplace to share with people; embodying the eternal cycle of teachers and students, the Unconditional Buddha Nature. <S> In one word, it is a symbol of perfection . <A> Buddha is said to have had 32 major physical characteristics , and the second feature among them is named, heṭṭhāpādatalesu cakkāni jātāni honti DN30 <S> This means, on the soles of Buddha's feet there's a wheel sign with thousand spokes. <S> According to commentaries, this wheel sign is said to have accompanied by 108 sub features, and Swastika is the first of those 108 sub features. <S> It symbolizes auspiciousness and prosperity for Buddhists. <S> This is the traditional Swastika, it is flat and counterclockwise while the Nazi swastika is tilted and clockwise. <A> Actually I think this symbol is associated with Jainism and not Buddhism. <S> At least that is what one sees in India. <S> The enlightened beings in Jainism are often depicted in similar postures as the Buddha and it is easy to mix them up. <S> In India usually the Jain images are depicted naked. <S> In the case of the picture above it could be a case of just mixing things up. <S> As far as I can recall in the traditional Theravada countries that symbol is not used at all. <S> In India, more specifically at Sanchi, which was built at a time when the Buddha was represented with symbols instead of a human image, one mostly sees the Bodhi Tree, the Dhammacakka, and Footprints to represent the Buddha.
|
In my understanding, this is a reference to the message of positive constructive attitude inherent in Buddhist philosophy: taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning (remember Buddha is often referred to as "Victor" in texts).
|
Meditation and Mouth breathing Some meditation techniques use the nostrils as a point of concentration, others only mention that we should breathe via the nose. Many people have problems with that and can only breath through their mouths. Is this a problem for meditation? How serious is it? <Q> Here are some of the reasons that focusing on the breath is beneficial in meditation. <S> http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm <S> Using the breath <S> : Why? <S> Assuming you see the value in taking up a specific object for developing concentration, the breath has many things to recommend itself as the object of choice. <S> 1 - it is portable. <S> Every where you go you have it with you. <S> No need to worry about forgetting your worry beads. <S> 2 - it comes free with every body. <S> No need to buy any special equipment. <S> 3 - it is complete in and of itself. <S> No need for any upgrades or add-ons. <S> 4 - it is 100% natural - they don't come more organic than this. <S> 5 - it is effortless. <S> The body knows how to breathe without you needing to do anything, You just sit back and let it do all the work - while you just watch. <S> 6 - it is a connection with a vital life force. <S> 7- it is calming. <S> There is a simple, natural rhythm the breath follows and following that leads one to peace. <S> All of these reasons but especially 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate that breathing should be natural and unforced, effortless and done in a relaxed way. <S> So the emphasis is not on trying to make breathing to happen in a certain way, but allowing it to happen natural. <S> If the nose is blocked from mucous then the mouth is the only option. <S> But on the same page are many variations of how breath can be integrated in meditation: <S> http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm examples are counting, following, listening to noise. <S> Observing and turning away. <S> Walking meditation can also use breathing in it. <A> The Visuddhimagga ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf ) page 274 gives some very good similes to demonstrate the importance of this kind of mindfulness.. <A> I had a similar issue. <S> When meditating without support, I would often experience intense back pain. <S> I practiced meditating lying down but had doubts whether I would reap any benefits. <S> I was comforted when I found out that there are statues of the Buddha meditating while in a prone position. <S> While breating through your nose may not be the same as back pain, I feel the important thing to remember is to get into a regular routine. <S> If you must breathe through your mouth while meditating, then practice that way. <S> Regularly. <S> My first yoga book mentioned that if you can breathe, then you can do yoga. <S> I'd like to offer a similar argument with regard to meditation. <A> If you are doing breath meditation this can be an issue as the best place to have your attention is at the base of the nose and upper lip. <S> If you can't breathe through your nose all is not lost as you can put your attention to your stomach or chest in addition to the around the mouth. <S> If you do breath meditation your nose will clear up. <S> I have been having stuffed nose before I started on meditation but it went away later on. <S> So even on a stuffed nose it is best to breathe through your nose.
|
If one gets stuffy nose, it should be ok to breathe thru the mouth for a while because the "location" is not as important as the awareness/mindfulness of the in-out breaths "brushing" the point of contact.
|
Living worried about the future and reaching mindfulness I'm going through a lot. It's very easy to be lost in thoughts and worries about the near future, and that leads me to a life of unhappiness. I also feel guilty when I fell happy, because I feel I should be worried. For me it's very hard to accept the idea that the universe is impermanent and hence I should live the present moment when I'm responsible for things to go wrong or right. How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities? If I need to think about the future, there's no way to not be anxious. <Q> How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities? <S> In a sense, the answer is because being immersed in the future is a large part of the problem. <S> Buddhism doesn't recognize the things you call problems as real problems. <S> They are conventional problems that only obtain the designation because of your own views and beliefs; in reality, whether you solve them or not is mostly meaningless. <S> This is because Buddhism recognizes the impermanence of life, the inevitability of death, and the cyclic nature of the universe. <S> 286. <S> “Here shall I live during the rains, here in winter and summer” – thus thinks the fool. <S> He does not realize the danger (that death might intervene). <S> 287. <S> As a great flood carries away a sleeping village, so death seizes and carries away the man with a clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle. <S> -- <S> Dhp (Buddharakkhita, trans) <S> A good advice is to accept that reality inevitably boils down to the six senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking. <S> No matter what comes in the future, good or bad, it will only be some combination of these six categories of experience. <S> This is how one settles ones concern about the future and the past. <S> Even if you are homeless, living or dying on the street, it will only be an experience, not categorically different from living in a mansion. <S> The closer you come to realizing this, the better, not worse, your life will become (according to Buddhism). <A> The mind's nature is to roll in the future or past. <S> Nothing to get too upset about. <S> What you have to train it is to live in the present moment. <S> Only way you can overcome this is: repeated application sustained application ... bringing your mind to the present moment. <S> When ever your mind wonders away: <S> realise that it has wondered away. <S> bring it back to the chosen object with no aggregation, disappointment. <S> If any such tension does arises realize it too. <S> Keep doing it until this becomes second nature and effortless. <S> Then you will be in the present moment and many of your worries will go away. <S> Also the concept of impermanence is that the world / universe is in a flux of change. <S> Weather, people, neighborhoods, etc. <S> all keep changing. <S> It is not that the world or universe will come to an abrupt end. <S> Nothing to be too worried over. <S> If you want something that changes not to change then you will be disappointed. <A> It's very easy to be lost in thoughts and worries about the near future, and that leads me to a life of unhappiness. <S> It's not thinking-about-the-future itself <S> that makes us unhappy, it is attachment to a certain way we want the future to be, and fear of another way the future could end up being. <S> The unhappiness is caused by our attachment to e.g. stability, comfort etc. <S> First thing we learn in Buddhism is to give up our attachments to our preconceived notions of how things are "supposed to be". <S> For me it's very hard to accept the idea that the universe is impermanent and hence I should live the present moment when I'm responsible for things to go wrong or right. <S> We don't have to live in the present moment, we can do our best taking care of things, planning etc. <S> -- as long as we are not too attached to the narrow concepts of "right" and "wrong". <S> When you look at things globally, the right and wrong are not as simple as they seem. <S> not like you wanted it. <S> I also feel guilty when I fell happy, because I feel I should be worried. <S> This probably comes from a deep-rooted preconception that you don't see looming danger, that if everything is good it means you are missing something important. <S> This is probably just a habit you developed over years. <S> In this case, feeling happy requires letting go of the urge to be in control, to see everything in advance. <S> Another component of this is probably a fear of confidently taking responsibility for the decision you will have to make. <S> Even though it is often impossible to guarantee that our steps are perfect, we have to lean firmly on each step, so we can make the next step. <S> This is part of what we must learn in initial ("hinayana") training, to behave like a <S> (spiritual) warrior calmly taking charge of things.
|
You can have a goal in the future, as long as you fully accept 1) where you are now, what you have now, exactly and completely, and 2) that despite your efforts the future may still end up Buddhism doesn't advocate the acceptance of impermanence, so much as the realization that it is the truth; once you realize it for yourself, you will give up attachment to the future and the past, since you will understand that their importance is merely circumstantial.
|
How to use meditation to boost logical thinking (or avoiding suffering with unrational scenario) Sometimes I catch my mind wandering and mixing up all the worst case scenarios for the future. Currently I have a problem that will, most likely, have a small or medium impact on my life, however my mind has proven to have this hability of finding the worst of the worst possible scenarios, a real chaos, and when I think about this remote scenario I suffer really bad, eventhough the odds are very small, the feeling is terrible. I try to use reason and use logic to show myself this scenario is highly unlikely, but it doesn't work very well, even the smallest possibility is a cause for strong suffering, so the question is: Is there anyway we can use meditation as a tool to calm ourselves AND show to us in a very effective way that this fear is unrational and this terrible scenario is highly unlikely? Can meditation enable logical thinking? <Q> Seated mediation, as I've been taught to practice, is not about logical analysis. <S> That said, when it comes to 'thinking the worst', the practice of attention recognizes that these are just thoughts. <S> In a sense, it doesn't matter whether the events are likely or unlikely, because the thoughts are just thoughts. <S> There can be value in rationally analyzing fears, but meditative practice starts with just observing the fears as they are, regardless of whether they are rational. <S> When the whirlwind of doubt starts up again, just return to the object of meditation (often, the breath) and let things settle. <S> This isn't easy, but that's why we practice. <S> A bit of an aside, but here is a passage from the Dhammapada, Mind (translation by Ananda Maitreya), that I think relates to this: Just as an arrowsmith shapes an arrow to perfection with fire,So does the wise man shape his mind,Which is fickle, unsteady, vulnerable, and erratic. <S> Like a fish taken from the safety of its watery homeAnd cast upon the dry landSo does this mind flutter, due to the lure of the tempter. <S> Therefore one should leave the dominion of Mara. <S> How good it is to rein the mind,which is unruly, capricious, rushing wherever it pleases. <S> The mind so harnessed will bring one happiness. <S> A wise man should pay attention to his mind,Which is very difficult to perceive. <S> It is extremely subtle and wanders wherever it pleases. <S> The mind, well-guarded and controlled,Will bring him happiness. <S> One who keeps a rein on the wandering mind,Which strays far and wide, alone, bodiless,Will be freed from the tyranny of the tempter. <S> A man of fickle mindWill never attain wisdom to its fullest,Since he is ignorant of the DhammaAnd has wavering faith. <S> The heart of the fully conscious man is fearless--He has freed his mind of lust and anger,He has transcended both good and evil. <S> Observe this body, as fragile as an earthen vase. <S> Build a mind as solid as a fortified city <S> ,Then confront Mara with the weapon of insightAnd (proceeding without attachment)Guard what you have already conquered. <S> Certainly before long this body will lie on the ground,Lifeless and unconscious,Cast aside like a useless log. <S> A mind out of control will do more harmThan two angry men engaged in combat. <S> A well-directed mind creates more well-beingThan the wholesome actions of parentsToward their children. <A> I think that the point of meditation isn't to enable logical thinking. <S> If you let yourself be carried away by the trains of thoughts, it doesn't matter if it makes you feel bad or good. <S> Meditation is to be present and aware. <S> Is there anyway <S> we can use meditation as a tool to calm ourselves AND show to us in a very effective way that this fear is unrational and this terrible scenario is highly unlikely? <S> I'm not saying that thinking is bad, but be more pragmatic . <S> Try something like "ok, this scenario don't look very good <S> , what is the simplest thing I can do now to reduce the possibility of it?" <S> Meditation, I think, is very related to pragmatism. <S> When you meditate, you just meditate and nothing more. <S> And bringing it to life, instead of becoming overwhelmed by the possibilities, try to find what you can do right here and right now that can contribute to avoid the bad cases. <S> It is a change of focus. <S> Instead of feeding the image of some possible future, come up with something that can be done immediately. <S> And if you can't do anything about it, let it be. <S> Again, instead of improving your thinking or changing the feelings that thought produces, meditate to be more pragmatic, more present and more aware. <S> And lastly, a book recommendation. <S> I think that being pragmatic is one important point in Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind". <A> To an extent, yes. <S> Meditation stills the intellect, and expands wisdom. <S> As your wisdom expands and your intellect stills, you will end up closer to experience. <S> This closeness facilitates a sharpness and mental clarity that can make problem solving more natural.
|
Meditation is more about perceiving that there is no sense to imagine too far, or to get excessively concerned with thoughts. Instead of thinking too far away and producing suffering, try to do something practical.
|
A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness I have had bad posture for most of my life. I find that if I do not sit quite straight during sitting meditation, my body leans forward putting weight on my legs which becomes quite painful. However, when I sit straight, my "sitting bones" become painful. So, I tend to rock from side to side while sitting. It may or may not be visible to others, but I am aware of it. Perhaps "shifting my weight" might be a better way to describe it. My question is regarding mindfulness meditation. Do you think it is OK to rock side to side? Should I just note something like "rocking, rocking"? Should I wait until the pain is nearly "unbearable", and note "pain, pain", "disliking, disliking" before shifting my weight, or is it OK to do so pre-emptively? <Q> First of all I think it is important to remember that in the Mahasi Sayadaw system of meditation, you don't necessarily have to note distractions. <S> When distractions arise you have a choice between staying with the primary object (e.g. the movement of the abdomen) or you can take up the distraction itself as an object. <S> Both of these are equally valid. <S> If the rocking motion is coming up a lot, you might decide to ignore it and stay with the abdomen. <S> If it only happens sometimes it might make more sense to note it, but it makes less sense if it is happening continuously. <S> As long as your position is relatively stable and able to be maintained, there is no problem, and sitting in a chair fulfills these principles, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in a chair to meditate. <A> Unfortunately, it will therefore be a cause for increased aversion to the stimuli in question; you'll become more and more averse to pain as a result of your practice, which is really the opposite of the goal of meditation. <S> Most likely your best course of action is to: <S> Begin to let go of your aversion to the pain, by noting it as "pain, pain" If there is disliking, note it as "disliking, disliking" If you the pain is overwhelming and you want to move, you should acknowledge "wanting, wanting" and then "moving, moving", etc. <S> and move your legs, back, etc. <S> In some cases, this sort of aversion can transform into rapture (pīti), where it becomes a looped, unconscious behaviour that can actually feel quite pleasant, in which case it is likely to become addictive or at least distracting. <S> In this case: Acknowledge the rocking as "rocking, rocking" If there is pleasure or liking, acknowledge it as well, as "happy" or "feeling" and "liking" If the rocking doesn't stop, tell it to stop, by saying to yourself "stop!". <A> There can be two explanations for the rocking: Reaction to pain Conditioning / fabrications <S> Both of these create sensation in your body. <S> By looking and the sensations without reaction and objectively (equanimous with the understanding of it's impermanence) this will stop if the is reaction based. <S> Also keep in mind you might not be able to stop all reactions at once due to the conditioning your mind. <S> But this will gradually dampen and die off. <S> If it is conditioning based then but not putting new fuel to the process (reaction to sensation creating new fabrications / conditioning as per dependent origination) by reacting it again will die off.
|
This sort of rocking is most likely a defence mechanism; if you are consciously instigating it, then it is simply a reaction to the unpleasant stimuli. Also, if it is painful for your body to sit on the floor or on a cushion, I would recommend that you try meditating while seated in a chair and see if that is less painful.
|
Is going for refuge central to all Buddhist traditions? In the Triratna community, who I practice with, we see going for refuge to the three jewels as our central practice - the three jewels being the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. In fact the name Triratna means the three jewels . However the founder of the movement (Sangharakshita) makes the stronger claim that this is the central act of all Buddhist traditions. The Triratna movement is an explicit attempt to return to that core teaching. However I'd really be interested in the perspectives of the different Buddhist traditions on that. Does that ring true to people in their own practices. Is going for refuge the central act of Buddhist practice? <Q> The Theravada school holds to this position, every form of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism I've read about holds this position, and Tibetan Buddhism also puts great stress on going for refuge to the point where reciting the refuge formula with Bodhichitta 100,000 times (usually combined with prostration and visualizing the refuge tree) is a central part of Tibetan Ngöndro, or foundational practice. <S> I think that Sangharakshita really was correct in identifying the central role of refuge in all Buddhist traditions. <A> The Buddha and the Dharma are not very controversial, although there is some disagreement among the sects about how awesome the Buddha was (was he god-like or just a really great guy) <S> SGI has dispensed with the ordained, monastic sangha. <S> This probably was a result of history-- <S> the split between the SGI organization and the Nichiren Shu sangha, probably not so much because SGI didn't like the sangha. <S> For a secular Buddhist, there isn't anything special about ordaining-- <S> it's another institution to be judged on its own merits and results. <S> As for joining, it depends on if you see any particular benefit to that particular institution. <S> As for supporting the sangha, it depends on if you see any particular benefit in supporting it. <S> As far as institutional Buddhism goes, I think Japan got the closes to laicizing the sangha with the Meiji reformations. <S> Once, or if you dispense with the institutionalized monastic order, then the sangha is just the "congregation", the community of other Buddhists. <S> Finding refuge in just the community of Buddhist though seems a little insular. <S> I'd rather feel responsible for all humanity and expect all humanity to be responsible for me in return. <S> (As an ideal, in practice it's dog eat dog and few people give a hoot) <A> I think going for refuge works like a commitment and also as a devotion act, it is a way to reinforce what you believe in and what you are going to pursuit, but it is not like the Christian Baptism where you do it and the gates of heaven will open up for you. <S> Karma works in the same way <S> either you took refuge or not, so it is pointless to go for refuge and keep your old bad habits, following this logic <S> I think it is more important to keep the precepts, meditate and live a positive life than going for refuge, I'm not suggesting refuge isnt important, I'm only emphasizing that your practice is more important than anything. <S> Of course, listen to your teacher or guru and analyze his points, in the SE you will probably get lots of different point of views!
|
In every single branch of Buddhism I have looked into, going for refuge is seen as the defining feature of what makes you a Buddhist.
|
How to keep balance in the thin line between non attachment to reputation and "not caring about anything" One of the main problems I had to deal with, when I started to meditate and study the Dhamma, was the consequence of giving up attachment to reputation and pride. Of course this is an extremelly positive thing to do, you simply become stronger when you stop caring about how other people see you, you just care about your actions, about karma, about your thoughts. The problem is that people think you just don't care about anything else, they think you are not commited to your job anymore, to your appearance, to other people feelings... for instance: If they give you a bad feedback and you don't suffer and don't react to it, they think you are ignoring them. It looks like we need small portions of drama to live in this society, non attachment to reputation makes you look like an alien or a brain washed person. I don't know how to balance that sometimes, any advise? <Q> I don't exactly have an answer or advice to this, as I have a similar experience to a certain extent, but I understand that even though others might see the external us and base an opinion on it, the mind development that's going on for Buddhists may always be misunderstood by those not familiar with it and thus, dukkha arises for the one making the judgement. <S> Maybe it also arises in us too, if we react to it even just a little bit. <S> It's hard to be unaffected, I find. <S> I guess that depends on where each one of is in the practice. <S> As the Buddha describes, it is 'Patisothagami' or "it is a path that goes against the stream", so we're bound to hit resistance both from the stream and the other fish... <S> to use a popular analogy. <S> Maybe here equanimity is needed with compassion in order to keep us within the sphere of 'normal' worldliness whilst striving for something beyond it. <S> I hope the reflection is useful and thank you for bringing it up. <S> Best wishes Paul <A> I too have felt some resistance, although it did eventually resolve. <S> For one, try being more compassionate. <S> For a long while I simply desired wisdom, and did so in a way that was neither mindful of the consequences of my actions(and how people felt about them) and had a sense of pride. <S> Now I am practising more compassion, and its harder for negativity to phase me. <S> Consequently, I am not trying to shield my ego from the negativity, instead I embrace it. <S> Through companions sharing this, they provide insight into how I could help them better. <S> It was only through realising how my actions were harmful(atleast from the perspective of my friends) to the relationships, that I was able to eliminate the misunderstanding. <S> If you confront the ignorance, rather than purely ignore it, and practise compassion, you may find a more harmoneuous relationship. <S> Of course there are people who will resist changing their attitude, such as someone who may be biased against Buddhism or any religious practise! <S> In this case, try and see it from their perspective, and act in such a way to minimise their suffering. <S> If they have no reason to suffer, your suffering should too reduce. <S> I used to try and impose my attitude towards vulgar language upon others, but only through accepting the present nature of some people, and their use of such language, was I able to eliminate my suffering. <S> I let go of my attitude, and it no longer bothers me. <S> Good luck <S> , hope you manage to find the trickly balance between practising yourself and being understood by others. <A> In buddhism, what is referred as attachment is the type of attachment which keeps wheel of dependent origination. <S> In each case when a through arrives in your mind you get a sensation. <S> When you react to this sensation with liking then it is attachement. <S> If you do it with dislike it is aversion. <S> All this because you do not understand the true nature of things. <S> If you experience any sensation with respect to thoughts of responsibility to which you react then there is attachment to reputation. <S> If you do not react to the self awareness and reputation then there is no attachment. <S> You can have applied through without attachment. <S> This is more emotionally balanced than you doing things for stimulus from thoughts on reputation. <S> This is more like a carrot and stick approach at a subtler level. <A> Maybe don't try to balance anything, just experience. <S> Wanting things to be a certain way is always dukkha. <S> Ideally, we should do what is appropriate to the situation(this is easy for Arahants, hard for beginners). <S> So if they think they are being ignored, maybe use the misunderstanding as an opportunity to tell them about what your practicing. <S> Say something like: "I'm not ignoring you, I'm practicing the Dharma and to stay in line with the Dharma I keep my words few but just right, it's called Right Speech. <S> All Dharma practices aim at making the practitioner quit ignoring what makes themselves and everyone suffer, in order to transcend suffering and be happy. <S> So, now can you start to see that I'm very far from ignoring you?" <A> Try to see what it is about your reaction that gets on these people's nerves. <S> It's not the case that you have to suffer when making use of social norms and conventions in order to maintain a dignified conversation. <S> Try to see if you can find a way to appear right and normal to these people, without sacrificing your stability. <S> May I also suggest that, so long as you're not a monk, you don't want to sacrifice your job and relationships for the sake of not wanting to engage in things you don't like just right now. <S> It's the long term well <S> being that you're better off working on - and getting fired or thought lowly of by your friends & relatives isn't going to be part of that. <S> Surely you can find a way to balance things out rightly. <S> Best of luck.
|
The right fix, in my personal opinion, would be to respond as best as you can when people tell you such things.
|
How to Know the Knowing of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta Anicca , dukkha , anatta . I've listened to plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis talk about these characteristics at length. Take for example anicca. I am asking the same thing about dukkha and anatta. Suppose one has not yet seen for oneself how all phenomena are impermanent, but has an intellectual understanding of it from listening to the Dhamma. Is it possible that such a person could, for instance, recognize anicca, but not understand that they have recognized it, thinking, "Anicca is yet to be grasped", when in fact anicca has already been grasped? To clarify, the person might even reap the benefits of understanding anicca. They don't fret about illness, nor about building a career, nor about global warming, for instance. (I have picked a few things from my own life that I am still learning to deal with). Yet the person still thinks, "Anicca is yet to be grasped." If it is possible, how is it possible and what should one do about it? If it is not possible, why not? As a guess, does the answer lie in the person's actions? As another guess, is this a more specific case of asking how to know one's own mind? <Q> There is knowing of Anicca, knowing of Dukkha, and knowing of Anatta, separate from each other. <S> And then there is knowing of all three together, or rather the knowing of vision behind these three designations, in all its implications . <S> I had intellectual understanding of the three marks for years. <S> I even understood shunyata, or thought I did. <S> I even knew that Enlightenment can't be a state. <S> And I still missed the point. <S> It's all about implications, of all three, together. <S> When you know reality behind the three, and all implications of this reality, then you can be sure you know what is there to be known. <S> Until then, to think "anicca (etc.) is yet to be grasped" would be a valid thought. <S> Why? <S> Because if you don't see how it fits together, or do see how it all fits together but not its implications -- then your knowledge of individual components is obviously not 100% complete yet. <A> Bit late, but I would like to contribute. <S> According to the tiny fraction I know of Buddhism, any material phenomena of this world, shows the four fundamental characteristics (Maha Bhuta) of Patavi (Hardness, Solidity), Apo (Liquidity, Binding or flowing nature), Thejo (Heat) and Vayo (Movement, Air). <S> These characteristics appear, live and disappear. <S> Billions of these sets of Bhutas appear live and disappear in a fraction of a time. <S> This applies to all materials including our body. <S> Bhuthas are not permanent (they disappear), so it is Anicca. <S> Bhuthas getting aged and fade away during it's life time. <S> So it is Dukkha. <S> No one or no power in this universe can penetrate or force on the behaviour of these Bhuthas. <S> So it is Anatta. <A> Right view is the "Four Noble Truths": the only line of thought compatible with the most refined states of phenomenal cognition. <S> Aj Thanissaro's rendering of 'Stress' is useful in this third definition. <S> With the successive development of Right View, the path successively unfolds: to attain it's successive development, the path has to develop as support. <S> In one instance either one is the result of the other, in another instance it is the cause of the other. <S> Hence clarity and skillfulness go hand in hand, ie. <S> samadhi and punna need to develop as occasions present: <S> either one sharpening-up the other. <S> Trying to see no-self begs the question of who or what is looking. <S> In the perception of endless transience and stress, the complete absence of any unchanging eternal identity may be noted: simply a fresh identity corresponding to each successive observation. <S> In D.O., contact with, or cognition of, an object results in the arising of a feeling. <S> If attention turns to this feeling, it is understood to be a bodily sensation. <S> Thus identity with the initial object won't arise, though identity with the body may well do so: in which case Stress continues, and the whole tangle of Samsara ensues. <S> Since this happens unknowingly, the 'unbinding' is simply making this very unknowing fully knowable.
|
In my experience, it is seeing all implications , top to bottom, is what makes all the difference in the world.
|
Which buddhist traditions are typically viewed as most liberal? Yes it is asking for opinions, which i will investigate further on my own. opinions would be helpful in this particular circumstance. <Q> For some (unspecified) definitions of "liberal", might Soka Gakkai International (SGI) be among the "most liberal"?For example, this page says , In their Study of SGI, Phillip Hammond and David Machacek suggest that the religion is " characterized by an almost libertarian perspective on individual behaviour ." <S> I visited some SGI meetings many years ago, and those I met seemed like nice enough people, OTOH I didn't understand (didn't get much of) their doctrine. <S> They call themselves Buddhist, e.g. here is the meta description from their web site, <meta name="description" content="Worldwide <S> Buddhist network which promotes peace,culture and education through personal transformation and social contribution. <S> Buddhist concepts, news, links with SGI organizations around the world and more." / <S> > <S> Wikipedia's introductory paragraph says , Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese new religious movement based on the writings of Nichiren and the teachings of the organization’s presidents Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, Jōsei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. <S> It is one of the larger Japanese new religions. <S> Originally a lay group within the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist sect, the Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and places the chanting of the name of the Sutra at the center of devotional practice. <S> The movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics. <S> It has also been at the center of controversies. <S> I'm not sure whether to say it is a Buddhist tradition or whether it's from a Buddhist tradition. <S> Here's what they write about their organization: <S> What is SGI? <S> Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a lay Buddhist movement linking more than 12 million people around the world. <S> SGI members integrate their Buddhist practice into their daily lives, following the Lotus Sutra based teachings of Nichiren, a 13th-century Japanese Buddhist priest. <S> Just as the lotus blooms in a muddy pond, all people can manifest the Buddha nature--inner resources of courage, wisdom and compassion that can equip them to overcome life's challenges and lead happy and fulfilling lives. <S> As "engaged Buddhists," SGI members aim to create value in any circumstances and contribute to the well-being of others. <S> Their practice sparks a process of ongoing inner transformation and empowerment known as "human revolution. <S> " <S> The promotion of peace, culture and education is central to SGI's activities. <A> I have been to 3 Buddhist centres/traditions: <S> Theravada, Tibetan Buddhist and New Kadampa Tradition. <S> , I recommend you to investigate and do not choose a tradition based on who is more liberal, remember the Buddha's teachings were not about being liberal, but refraining from many things. <S> It is important to mention that Zen Buddhism is also known for being liberal when compared to other traditions, but I cannot confirm it as I have never checked it for myself. <A> If you mean liberal in the sense of non-traditional or neo-traditional the most accommodating of the modern way of life, I would look to outgrowths in the US because I am most familiar with that. <S> Some sects practice freely to many degrees with women and men together such as Trungpa. <S> For instance Roshi Suzuki wrote the following: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf <S> It is a very mild manner zen book. <S> It has guidelines but not ones made of concrete, but ones that are flexible. <S> There are a number of liberal teachers that may be of interest. <S> Each person must examine their own beliefs and find a path that works for them. <S> Someones tame philosophy could be another's abomination. <S> This list is recommended reading. <S> You may choose freely from this list and make up your own mind how you define liberal. <S> http://zmm.mro.org/training/recommended-reading/
|
Based on what I have seen I would say New Kadampa was the most liberal as they claim to have "a modern Buddhism for a modern world", however I choosed to go with Theravada for many reasons
|
Sleep, references to the buddha and other arhats I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was wondering if there is any theory out there that explains this. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this. My question doesn't refer specifically to the buddha, it could refer to any trained person. Thanks. <Q> I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. <S> I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this. <S> One of the most common references in the early texts is the wakefulness ( jāgariya ) <S> pericope: <S> "And how is the disciple of the noble ones devoted to wakefulness? <S> There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, sitting & pacing back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. <S> During the first watch of the night [dusk to 10 p.m.], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. <S> During the second watch of the night [10 p.m. to 2 a.m.], reclining on his right side, he takes up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with his mind set on getting up . <S> During the last watch of the night [2 a.m. to dawn], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. <S> This is how the monk is devoted to wakefulness." <S> - MN 53, Trainee Practice <S> Notice that, in the second watch, sleep ( niddā ) is not mentioned. <S> It mentions only lying down on the right side in the lion's posture ( dakkhiṇena passena sīha seyyaṃ kappeti ). <S> This could be an indication of not sleeping at all and continuing to practice mindfulness while, at the same time, resting the body. <S> On the other hand, the absence of the line "he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check" , which is included in the first and last watch, may indicate a less active practice or even sleeping. <S> I'm sure there are more references regarding this theme <S> but I don't recall any additional ones at the moment. <A> The texts often mention of how the Buddha and many of the Arahants only slept around 4 hours a night. <S> That may sound quite drastic, but they spent most of the rest of the night in meditation, and in my experience personally practicing a significant amount of meditation before bed can reduce the need for sleep down to 4 hours quite easily. <S> Here are some studies I found on the subject: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919439/ <S> http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/6/1/47 <A> An Arahat does not sleep like a normal person. <S> He may give rest to the body but in doing so is fully aware hence not asleep. <S> This is a natural consequence of reducing impurities of the mind, more particularly the Hindrance <S> Sloth and Torpor . <S> Pacalā Sutta discusses the Hindrance of Sloth and Torpor and methods to overcome it. <S> Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. <S> All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. <S> You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. <S> Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again. <S> ... <S> Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. <S> If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. <S> Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. <S> This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. <S> The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. <S> However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. <S> Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. <S> If sleep comes, very good; sleep. <S> If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous. <S> Source: <S> The Discourse Summaries by S.N. Goenka Also see: Suppati Sutta
|
This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating.
|
Is turning off a patient's life support system encouraging to kill? If a person is on a life support system due to the failure of one or more organs and not able to return to normal life without them again, if the family consents to the doctors' recommendation to turn off the artificial life support, can this be considered encouraging to kill, violating the first precept? <Q> No it is not killing. <S> Because there's no intention of killing. <S> You just stopped doing things to sustain his life. <S> It doesn't even have to be a relative. <S> So many people die due to famine all over the world. <S> So many animals are being slaughtered every day. <S> You could stop everything you are doing right now and go and try to save them with all your time and money. <S> But by not doing that, are you killing those whom you might have saved? <S> No! <S> Not doing a good deed isn't necessarily doing a bad deed. <S> But if there's the intention of killing, turning off the switch breaks the 1st precept. <A> Here's an article (found using Google) about that, Letting-Go or Killing: Thai Buddhist Perspectives on Euthanasia which (being Thai) <S> I presume is Theravada. <S> It mentions several real considerations, including, [...] <S> They also recognize that sometimes in real life human choices are only between two evils. <S> Yet even in this tragic life situation one still has responsibility to choose the lesser evil. <S> But for such agonizing decisions there has been little guidance culled so far from Buddhist sources to help Buddhists and to ease their conscience. <S> As generally known, Buddhism encourages each person to face the troubles by relying on oneself alone, without expecting any divine power to intercede and help. <S> [...] It warns that, To these lay Buddhists, questions are raised if when asked whether economic factor, the age of the patient and the quality of life would make any important difference in their decisions regarding the use of life-support systems, none could give a definite Buddhist answer. <S> Some say yes and some no, but they could not find grounds in Buddhism to support their answers. <S> The reality is that some forms of euthanasia are currently being practiced in some hospitals by doctors who make life and death and decisions alone without any directives whether these be ethical, religious, moral or legal. <S> It suggests, Perhaps the Buddhist concept of mutual dependency and interrelatedness (paticcasamuppada) should be applied to the field of medicine. <S> This concept affirms the interdependence of all beings. <S> Apart from this, while keeping their primary image as healers, dedicated to preserving and prolonging the life of all patients under their care, they have to develop a new approach to death and dying, so that when death becomes imminent they would become graceful acceptors of the inevitable, without considering the hopeless condition of the dying patient as representing the failure of their skills and knowledge. <S> They should instead turn their full attention now to the compassionate care of the dying. <S> Their main concern of course is to relieve the suffering of patients and families and ensure a "good death". <S> FWIW, in the cases where my family has died (or been allowed to die) in hospital, I viewed that as their being killed by the disease/illness, and not as their being killed by their doctors. <S> It can also be helpful if they, who were dying, let you know in advance <S> what/how much medical intervention they want. <A> First of all Buddhism is against killing and that includes so called "Mercy killing". <S> As lord Buddha once said every being at any condition likes only to live. <S> Please refer "Meththanisansa sutra"
|
No matter whether it's killing, ordering to kill, approving killing, or advising killing, it is not approved in Buddhism, even when we are talking about a person in extreme pain or a bad condition/Coma.
|
Conflict between Brahmajala Sutta and current Buddhist practices I'm very confused about this sutta ( http://suttacentral.net/en/dn1 ) specially in the part "Mahāsīla" Many of what the Buddha stated as wrong livelihood is very common in some Buddhist centres these days, things like: Astrology, selling lucky gems, offerings to deities etc... if you read the list in the sutta you will see it. Is this sutta not part of some Buddhist cultures? Am I interpreting it in the wrong way? Or is it simply being ignored?? <Q> You are correct. <S> The Buddha spoke out against such things because it corrupts the right livelihood of Monks because people will support Monks to get them to preform fortune telling for them or other such things instead of supporting Monks for their virtue and practice. <S> Most laypeople in Theravada countries don't engage in study of the canonical texts to any significant degree and they simply don't know better, and perhaps the Monks involved don't know it either. <S> If they do and continue to do such things, I think it is very unfortunate. <A> If you read on the rest of sutra, you will see other "wrong means of livelihood and debased arts" such as astronomy (forecasting of eclipses and meteor showers) <S> weather forecasting forecasting of earthquakes political analysis and forecasting surgery on body, as well as on eyes and ears application of medicinal roots <S> Siddhartha Shakya was obviously a product of his times, and his understanding of natural and social phenomena was limited to the general knowledge available back at the time. <S> As far as offerings to deities, clearly he did not see much value in religious rituals, something modern Symbolic Anthropology would disagree with. <S> That said, I'm not a big fan of Digha Nikaya, as of the entire Pali Canon it seems to be the furthest from actual Buddha words, and more like a later compilation. <A> It was the foot print of Gautama Buddha's wisdom. <S> Any possible mis-believes covered in this sutta. <S> It is almost impossible another living being that can articulate this kind of Suttas. <S> The section "Mahāsīla" was intended for the Buddhist monks who are trying to attain Nirvana and <S> the part you are referring in section is concordant with Right Livelihood in Noble Eightfold Path. <S> So it should be part of Buddhist cultures, it should be the Buddha's teaching that monks need to follow , it should be the Buddhists need to cherish the monks who follow this path. <S> Sanga with Right Livelihood is more respectable and fruitful. <S> You are interpreting it in the right way by agreeing "Mahasila" section in Brahmajala Sutta. <S> Currently, in most countries Buddhists and Buddhist monks are taking Vinaya (the guidances/teachings of Buddha) loosely in general. <S> Buddha said Dhamma will be loosely followed/practiced later and there will be no one like to followed/practiced Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya eventually. <S> So ignorance to Buddha's Dhamma (Suttas, teachings, practices) is expected. <S> There will be time that the sunset/end of Buddhism in future. <S> For normal people who are not trying to attain Nirvana, five percepts and not harming to other living being (does not trade in weapons, living beings, meat, alcoholic drink or poison)seems enough for that person not to rebirth as an inferior life (other than human). <S> So it is not appropriate to apply "Mahasila" to normal people and Buddha <S> said "Mahasila" intended to apply Sanga (and person who joins Sanga) many times in Silakkhandha Vagga. <S> Nowadays, with the people of varieties of desires, greeds, thirsts, angers and offenses, it is impractical to apply "Mahasila" in public but instead Buddhist monks should follow since they are maintaining Buddha's teachings.
|
It is clearly seen that Right Livelihood make Sanga less tasks and errands where the tasks and errands are adverse to practicing Dhamma to attain the Nirvana. First, the Brahmajala Sutta is one of the greatest Suttas in Pali Canon. The perspective of Right Livelihood for normal people is quite different from the Buddhist monks who are trying to attain Nirvana.
|
How would one begin practising Buddhism? It is very easy to find lots of information on the internet about Buddhism and the concepts.However I struggle to know where or how to start becoming a Buddhist, if that is the correct way to state it. <Q> Find and join a sangha (buddhist community) that you are comfortable with. <S> Accustom the practices based on what you can comfortably do for the moment. <S> Never forcing yourself to the extreme, e.g. immediately become a vegetarian, practice 1 hour sitting meditation daily, spend the whole day just talking about buddhism etc. <S> Buddhism practice is basically a continuous process of improving one's sila (morality/precepts), samadhi (concentration/stillness) and prajna (wisdom), until one attains the buddhahood (nibbana / nirvana). <S> As a start you can view Buddhism essentially is a lifestyle which would lead the practitioners to a better tomorrow. <S> Here is a short and nice article about Buddhist path: The Buddhist Path in 3 words <A> I would start with taking a good look at your life and creating an inventory of pathological patterns -- typical situations when you get yourself in trouble, usually accompanied by strong emotions. <S> Then try to identify corresponding attachments (preconceptions, biases, extra importance you assign to stuff) - and spend some serious time watching yourself act in real situations. <S> See how letting go of these attachments during the act itself immediately reduces or completely eliminates the emotion. <S> Practise this act-watch-admit-identify-let-go-act-watch-etc cycle for several years, until you get both good at watching yourself objectively as well as capable of letting go of pretty much anything. <A> 1) Familiarize yourself with what sorts of Buddhism exist and which one speaks to you. <S> There are 80,000 doors to the dharma and the teachings vary because they are specific to the audience they were taught to. <S> The books aimed at university students do the best overviews of all traditions, but can feel "heartless", the books by accomplished practitioners of a particular sect have the most heart, but may or may not speak to you. <S> 2) Find out what real world groups exist and visit them. <S> If you're in the West, you may want to check to see if services or classes are in English before you attend. <S> If no groups exist, consider trying out online video meditation classes or create a meetup. <S> 3) <S> As you study the various schools of Buddhism, look for both ideas and practices-- <S> the ideas color all your actions <S> , the practices are specific things you do, from chanting, to meditation, to following precepts and so on. <A> I suppose you've seen How does one become a lay Buddhist? <S> which mentions ideas like 'Taking Refuge', the 'Three Jewels', and the 'Five Precepts'; and that you're asking a more personal question. <S> I struggle to know where or how to start becoming a Buddhist <S> If you're struggling then presumably you feel a need. <S> Perhaps that's the first step. <S> I think that Siddhartha felt a need: in his case, it was his discovering that poverty, illness, old age, and death exist, that made him decide that there was some problem, to which he wanted to discover some solution. <S> It was that which caused him to invent (or discover) Buddhism. <S> Similarly I suppose for other people, "becoming a Buddhist" or "practising Buddhism" means: Having, being aware of, a need or problem (or several) Trying to resolve that problem using Buddhist theory-and-practice <S> I think that if or when you start step 2 then you are "becoming a Buddhist" or "practising Buddhism".
|
Talking to the community to understand what and how they practice buddhism.
|
How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"? I actually had a lot of respect for Buddhism, and studied it a few years ago. But it made me feel that it might be too extreme (and it could be that most religions are too extreme, because they tend to think what they believe is right, and the other beliefs are wrong). I say that because, for example, it tend to teach self-sacrifice and letting go, and that do not hold onto anything, and to the point that do not marry and do not have any children -- what the deep believers -- monks -- do. Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other animals remain on earth. Could somebody present a calm and rational argument to suggest otherwise? I am open to any idea, as I am, like many of us, always learning new things along our life time. <Q> It's kinda funny to see how we westerners stereotypically misunderstand Dharma as postulating some kind of globally applicable set of absolute unconditional prescriptions. <S> Is this not taking it to the extreme? <S> :) <S> Did Buddha say lay people should "not marry and do not have any children"? <S> No, he said they should avoid sexual misconduct . <S> Did Buddha say all lay people should become monks? <S> No, in fact he suggested that monks should not work and are instead to live in dependence on lay community (begging, accepting donations). <S> Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? <S> No, he taught middle-way: <S> by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves. <S> Did Buddha teach radical ascetic rejection of everything? <S> No, what he taught was letting go of obsessions, preconceptions, biases, overgeneralizations, irrational expectations; he taught not to assign too much importance to petty stuff that does not deserve it; he taught to be analytical; he taught to be practical and flexible and wise. <S> Buddha said, tanha (thirst, craving) is the source of dukkha (troubled mind, emotional suffering). <S> This means, whenever you crave for things to be different than they are, right now, you suffer. <S> This does not mean you should not participate in life, this means if we fully accept what we have, and work with it, instead of wishing it were otherwise, we will not generate emotional suffering. <S> Is this not the most rational doctrine ever? <A> There are many different forms/sects of Buddhism. <S> Some are more "monkish" than others. <S> I've been following the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, which advocates using our desires and attachments to fuel our enlightenment rather than eradicating them. <S> My view is that the whole priesthood/monk phenomenon was an aspect of history. <S> Cultural and historical, not core to the Buddhist belief system. <S> You need a group who takes on responsibility to help lead, but they don't need to be monks. <S> This is the kind of organization that is emerging in the Soka Gakkai, where I practice (sgi-usa.org). <S> Hope this helps! <A> If you find a branch of Buddhism without ceremonies and beliefs, you could easily avoid the type of imposed belief you are talking about. <S> Or if you are a brave soul, you could take the writings of as many true teachers as you have need of and put it into practice with no belief. <S> I would start with Roshi Suzuki that does not advocate for much beyond sitting with the beginner's mindwww.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf <S> If you do not find that to your liking you could try Dogen who is quite verbose about his path. <S> If you want open minded, the Dalai Lama though thoroughly a Tibetan Buddhist embraces science, psychology, other religions and other people choosing a different way <S> This ceremony is the door to compassion. <S> It is unlocking beginner's mind in an applied way. <S> http://www.dalailama.com/teachings/training-the-mind/generating-the-mind-for-enlightenment <S> Look at the flower sermon for the ultimate simplicity in Buddhism: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon <S> There is no belief in that, just the experience of what is.
|
Buddha's teaching should not be taken out of context and unwittingly extrapolated.
|
What does "heard" mean in "I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected..." In Vinaya, there is this rule (copied from Buddhist Monastic Code II ): "One should not knowingly consume meat killed on purpose (for a bhikkhu). Whoever should consume it: an offense of wrong doing. I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected (that it was killed on purpose for a bhikkhu)." — Mv.VI.31.14 How should we interpret "heard"? I can think of some possibilities: Heard from someone that it was killed for me, i.e., someone told me that it was killed for me. Heard the sound of killing, e.g. sound of the animal or action of killing Both of the above. <Q> This translation says, If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it. <S> This commentary says, <S> Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus. <S> Both of these imply only the first of your two possibilities. <A> This is based on the interpretation of Dhammavvuddho Thero, he has written a book that contains this subject and also he has given many Dhamma Talks about meat eating. <S> You can google it <S> maybe you will find more details. <S> He says you should not eat if you see the animal being killed, hear it or suspect it was killed intentionally killed for you, of course you cannot kill or ask someone to do it as well. <S> There's also another detail: Not all types of meats are allowed, some animals and human flesh should not be consumed for many reasons. <S> More details here (from Theravada monk Dhammavvuddho Thero): http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/07/the-buddha ’s-real-views-on-meat-eating/ <A> He is saying that you can only eat meat if someone happens to just put it in your alms bowl randomly from their own food and you have no reason to suspect that the animal was killed specifically for you or monks in general. <S> Remember that these rules were for mendicant monks. <S> They should not be used to justify modern day lay person behaviours. <S> He did not want the monks to encourage or condone the killing of sentient beings <S> but he also did not want to jeopardise the opportunities for giving the teachings by alienating donors by rejecting their food outright. <S> To bring it up to date and current - if you buy meat or fish in a shop as a customer you can be sure that those animals were killed in order to be sold to customers, therefore you should not buy and eat the meat as this encourages more killing of animals. <S> Nobody cares about alienating butchers and fishmongers by refusing to buy their wares - if anything, say enough people refused to buy their wares then that would be a good teaching for them and they might find a more "right livelihood" and improve their karma.
|
I would say hear = hear the sound of the animal being killed/ screaming (not for fish or course)
|
According to Buddha's characteristics and teaching in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana (and Karmamudra)? One of the characteristics of Vajrayana is its secret transmission (esoteric tranmission) of certain teachings. The other one is the controversial karmamudra (sexual practice to reach spiritual attainment). So the question is, according to the characteristics and teaching of Buddha in Pali Canon, could he have taught Vajrayana and karmamudra? <Q> Somewhere in the Digha Nikaya (I think it's in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, but it's a very long Sutta <S> and I can't quite locate it) <S> the Buddha said: "I do not have the closed fist of the teacher who holds anything back" and in AN 1.283 the Buddha said: "Three things shine openly, not in secret. <S> What three? <S> The orb of the moon, the orb of the sun and the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathàgata" One thing to note though is that the Tantras mostly don't claim to have been spoken by the historical Buddha Sidhartha Gautama, or Shakyamuni Buddha, but by Vajradhara, a different Buddha that is often understood to be Shakyamuni appearing in Tantric form. <S> They say that Vajradhara appeared to the various Mahasiddhas in visions and revealed to them the various Tantras that became the basis of the tantric teachings. <S> Also, just to clarify for readers who may not be aware, Karmamudra is a high level tantric practice in which one engages in sexual intercourse with a special consort in order to destroy the knots around the Heart Chakra and thus allow the attainment of enlightenment. <S> It is a very high level practice and isn't done lightly. <S> Monks are not allowed to do it (at least in the Gelugpa school) because of their vows of celibacy. <S> It's a very rare practice. <A> No, the canon doesn't approve of that at all. <S> Then Ven. <S> Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. <S> As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. <S> And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned. <S> "This body comes into being through craving. <S> And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. <S> "This body comes into being through conceit. <S> And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. <S> "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. <S> Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. <S> With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. <S> -- <S> AN 4.159 <A> The Buddha didn't teach karmamudra. <S> Read the Pali canon, in which the whole doctrine is laid out. <A> While Buddha did say "I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no inner and outer", he was known to adapt his message to the audience. <S> It is rather apparent from the suttas that Buddha did not teach <S> lay people his more advanced doctrines e.g. Pratityasamutpada. <S> Similarly in Vajrayana, the elements of Dharma are introduced in a progression, not skipping to advanced teaching until student gets a firm grasp of the basics. <S> Just as Buddha rightly considered Pratityasamutpada too advanced for untrained lay people, in Vajrayana advanced teaching such as Madhyamaka, Lower Tantra, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen is rightly considered too much for most beginners. <S> In fact, advanced levels of Vajrayana (esp. <S> Dzogchen) are often characterized as "self-secret" because they are simply incomprehensible to an unprepared student. <S> The way Vajrayana sees itself <S> (if I can be as arrogant as to speak on its behalf) is as a natural elaboration of principles implicit in Buddha's teaching, similarly to how Theravada's Visuddhimagga introduces hundreds of concepts Buddha never spoke about in suttas. <S> Think modern mathematics, which can be seen as development of principles laid down by Pythagoras, or modern western scientific method as an extension of Aristotle's work. <S> The fact that Pythagoras did not teach calculus does not mean it's not real mathematics. <S> As I said in How do taboo acts work in tantra if people don't see the acts as taboo? <S> , Kamamudra is a very small part of Vajrayana and much of it is about solving emotional issues that are unique to the current society dominated by abstract concepts rather than by natural relationships as was back in Buddha's times.
|
According to the early texts the Buddha didn't have any secret teachings.
|
How does one become victim of one's own Karma? I understand Karma as describing habitual mind patterns which cause one to behave impulsively according to certain mental predispositions conditioned by previous actions and intentions. My question is how does Karma work in situations of violence/abuse. I understand how a perpetrator of violence or abuser is more likely to commit violence or abuse towards another person later in this life or in the next life. However, I do not understand how the abuser would through this violent behavior be more vulnerable to become a victim of this type of violence. In short, how does the Karma (habit energy) one builds up as a perpetrator cause one to fall on the other side of the equation (to become a victim)? <Q> Karma is facilitated by emptiness. <S> Because we are empty of essence, each choice and action you make leaves an imprint on your mind that, like all things, decays over time. <S> So, if you make a negative action, you leave a negative imprint on your mind. <S> Now, since we are empty of essence, you are more likely to perform actions with similar characteristics to the ones you have performed before. <S> The more negative actions you choose to make, the more negative and troubled you become. <S> This is why mindfulness and all the right stuff (view, speech, etc) is crucial. <S> You have no nature other than what you choose and what you surround yourself with. <S> If you let all that negativity build up by not being mindful of your actions and choosing rightly, you're going to have a lot of work to do towards purification. <S> Now, how does that relate to others in the way you're asking? <S> Well it turns out that everything is empty of essence. <S> Therefore beyond your mind, you leave an imprint on the world with similar characteristics as your actions, thus encouraging others to act in a similar way. <S> And since you're inseparable from this gloriously intertwined existence, you are likely to reap what you've sewn. <A> Karma literally means action or causality. <S> The Buddha's doctrine of karma is that your own intentional actions determine your own results, and thus when you look for refuge you should look at your own intentional actions right here & now. <S> It is said that the outcome of your actions do not necessarily entail the same exact thing happening to you, but that skillful karma leads to pleasant results while unskillful karma leads to unpleasant results, down the line. <A> I hope you read this answer first <S> How Karma is get paid <S> When person is doing a Karma it is done among 17 Naama (karma Ruupa). <S> Energy to transmit to next Ruupa is generated by 7 Jawan Naamas created in karma Ruupa(Ruupa that consist of Karma). <S> Then when appropriate environment is there for get punished (Punishment can be good or bad due to the chethana(Intention) chithasika(Aspect, attribute of Nama) in the Karma Ruupa). <S> It will generate Karma wipaka(Result) <S> Ruupa <S> according to the chethana chithasika that consist of feelings to the creature appropriate to chethana. <S> So it matters only time to generate Karma wipaka when Karma is done. <A> Karma is a concept older than Buddhism, however Buddha changed it a little bit. <S> In Hinduism for example, Karma is the action and you will suffer the consequences of your actions, <S> the change Buddha did is that he said Karma is created by the mind, so thoughts can create bad Karma and bad actions (without intention) do not create bad Karma, so the focus changed from the real action to the mind/intentions. <S> The Vipaka (consequences) have nothing to do with habits, the more you do the more you will face consequences, however Karma is not created only because of repetition. <S> In your example, who does the bad action you suffer the bad consequences, not the victim that is probably paying/purifying a past Karma. <A> The answer to your question boils down to the answer to the following question: Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins? <S> Essentially, individual karma is a simplified model, useful to beginners but somewhat misleading. <S> Karma is simply action and its resulting circles on the water of experience, with not-yet-manifested result "stored" in the form of intermediate already-manifested result. <S> Some of that is "stored" as effect on the so-called "mind", and some as effect on the so-called "objective" world. <S> If we discount the delineation of independent agents (which too is a simplified model), what remains is action and its experienced result, both the action and the experience usually appropriated as "mine". <S> To ask whether it is the same "me" or a different "me" is meaningless because this "me" does not exist in the first place. <S> Because karma and its circumstances are two sides of the same coin, one produces the other. <S> For example, by making violence part of one's life one shapes circumstances in which violence is more likely to occur, which increases the chances of one becoming its victim.
|
More practically, one becomes victim of one's own karma (e.g. violence) by shaping the circumstances that tend to be conducive to the same karma being repeated.
|
Theravada using mostly Vinaya and 4 Nikayas There is a Buddhist monk from Theravada tradition that only follows Vinaya and the 4 Nikayas, he avoids talking about Abidhamma or other sources like Jakata Tales, he said some later stories contradicts the Buddha's teachings and gave some interesting examples, he also avoids the commentaries. He claimed the true Dhamma the Buddha spoke of before dying (to be the teacher) were the Vinaya and suttas in the 4 Nikayas. I would like to know, is there a tradition inside theravada that follows this logic? I couldn't ask if he was following a particular tradition/school or if it was just his personal view. I would like to understand and explore it. <Q> Bhante Punnaji and Bhante Vimalaramsi (following Bhante Punnaji) and Bhikkhu Nanavira also teach this approach to Dhamma study. <S> I also believe this is a good approach from the point of view of investigating an unknown doctrine. <S> Go to the original sources as much as possible. <S> In really attemtpting to understand Psychology would it not make more sense to go to Freud first, then read those who came after with their modifications and perhaps misunderstandings? <S> I'd rather generate my misunderstandings first hand. <S> The reply is how can one be certain that the 'clarification' isn't mystification? <S> You can only know by going to the original sources. <S> Why waste the time going in circles like that? <S> Trust in the mind! <S> To the clear, calm mind the solution to every problem will be seen. <S> One needs to remember that what Buddhism is talking about is salvation from the eternal round of pain and misery. <S> Are you going to trust your salvation to secondary sources? <S> The Buddha says over and over again that he has taught Dhamma in the best way to teach Dhamma. <S> see <S> http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/03_threes/an03.123.olds.bd.htm <S> At least until one knows for certain otherwise it seems wise to take the man's word for it. <S> It is, after all, his wisdom one is studying. <A> I tend to side with this approach. <S> In many ways a good working example of its beauty is the Thai Forest Tradition . <S> You can read more about it on the DhammaTalks website . <S> Noted teachers are: <S> Ajaan Mun , Ajaan Lee , Ajaan Fuang Jotiko , Ajaan Chah , and Ajaan Suwat . <S> Also, an American monk who had trained there for over 10 years: Thanissaro Bhikkhu . <S> There are many things in later texts (e.g. Abdhidhamma) which directly contradict instructions given in the canon - instructions which, though hard to follow, seem to have razor-sharp reasoning and efficiency if adhered to. <S> The Thai Forest Tradition shows that you don't need a PhD. in Buddhist Studies in order to penetrate the message. <S> As Ajaan Chah once put it, If a mango is five meters off the ground and we want it, we can’t use a tenmeter picking pole to pick it, because it’s too long. <S> We can’t use a two-meter picking pole either, because it’s too short. <S> Don’t go thinking that a person with a PhD. has an easy time practicing the Dhamma because he knows so much. <S> Don’t go thinking that way. <S> Sometimes people with a PhD. are too long. <A> Not sure if that venerable's position represents the typical approach. <S> They didn't call it "Tipitaka" (Three Baskets) for no reason.. <S> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka )
|
There are those who say that reading the commentaries is helpful for understanding difficult positions.
|
What really Sekha means? i'm still a bit confused, i know that "sekha" means literally "a learner; in course of perfection"but in some article "sekha" means "a pupil or one under training in a religious doctrine." what i really want to know is if whether the word "sekha" is used for religious terms only, or it can be used in many terms, for ex. student at school or disciple from someone else to reach knowledge or something like that? <Q> In Saṅgītisutta three types of persons in the world are mentioned: sekkha (learner), asekkha (adept) and nevasekkha nāsekkha (ordinary person or puthujjana) Tayo puggalā— sekkho <S> puggalo, <S> asekkho puggalo, nevasekkho nāsekkho puggalo <S> Saṅgītisutta <S> Three kinds of persons, to wit, the learner , the adept , he who is neither . <S> Saṅgītisutta [en] <S> There are 7 types of sekhas (1) the path to stream-entry; (2) the fruition of stream-entry;(3) <S> the path to once-returning; (4) the fruition of once-returning;(5) <S> the path to non-returning; (6) the fruition of non-returning;(7) <S> the path to arahantship <S> Sekho, sekho’ti , bhante, vuccati. <S> Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sekho <S> hotī”ti? <S> “Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti vuccati. <S> Kiñca sikkhati? <S> Adhisīlampi sikkhati, adhicittampi sikkhati, adhipaññampi sikkhati. <S> Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti vuccatīti. <S> Sekkhasutta <S> Venerable sir, it is said a trainee . <S> How is one a trainee ? <S> Bhikkhu, one trains, therefore he is called a trainee . <S> In what does he train? <S> He trains in higher virtues, training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom. <S> Sekkhasutta [en] <S> An asekha is someone who's gone beyond the training or basically an arahant. <S> Asekho asekho’ti , bhante, vuccati. <S> Kittāvatā bhante, bhikkhu asekho hotī”ti? <S> “Idha, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekhāya sammādiṭṭhiyā samannāgato hoti, asekhena sammāsaṅkappena samannāgato hoti, ... Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekho <S> hotī”ti <S> Paṭhamaasekhasutta <S> Venerable sir, it is said, ` gone beyond the training ' <S> How is the bhikkhu gone beyond the training ? <S> Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu is endowed with perfect right view, perfect right thoughts, perfect right speech, perfect right activity, perfect right livelihood, perfect right endeavour, perfect right mindfulness, perfect right concentration perfect right knowledge and perfect right release gone beyond the training. <S> Such a one is gone beyond the training. <S> Paṭhamaasekhasutta [en] <A> According to my dictionaries, sekha means student, beginner, aspirant sikkhā (as in sikkhāpada of the five precepts) means training, instruction, education -- including both the learning and the teaching sides <S> In general, sekha/sekkha seems to mean someone who is still striving, still looking up to a higher level of mastery. <S> The meaning seems to be broad and not confined to the religious domain. <A> Most of the dictionaries I found online, which mention that word, are Buddhist dictionaries: which give the definition which is specific to Buddhism. <S> I found one dictionary which defines the Sanskrit version of the word, which defines it as learning something slightly different from religion: i.e. learning the "science of pronunciation" when learning the vedas. <S> Definitions of śaikṣa m. <S> a young Brahman pupil studying with his preceptor, one who has recently begun to repeat the veda - View this entry on the original dictionary page scan. <S> mf(ī - )n. <S> (fr. <S> śikṣā - ) <S> in accordance with right teaching or with rule, correct शैक्षः [शिक्षां वेत्त्यधीते वा अण्] <S> 1 <S> A student who studies Śikṣā or the science of pronunciation, one who has just entered upon the study of the Vedas. <S> -2 <S> (Hence) <S> A novice, tyro. <S> -a. <S> Well familiar with the studies or sciences; expert; Mb.6.97.28 (com <S> . शैक्षं शस्त्रादिशिक्षा- संपन्नम्) <S> And (from Śikṣā) in accordance with right teaching or with rule, correct <S> You might argue that's a "religious" learner too. <S> I guess that perhaps all education of that time (including science, mathematics, etc.) might have been connected with religion or taught by religious leaders, but I don't know. <S> The definition from the Pali Text Society says, Sekha (& sekkha) [cp. <S> Sk. śaikṣa; fr. <S> siks, sikkhati] <S> belonging to training, in want of training, imperfect Vin i.17, 248; iii.24; <S> Dhs 1016; one who has still to learn, denotes one who has not yet attained Arahantship D <S> Also <S> the The Sikh Encyclopedia says, SIKH. <S> The word sikh goes back to Sanskrit sisya, meaning a learner or disciple. <S> In Pali, sisya became sissa. <S> The Pali word sekha (also sekkha) means a pupil or one under training in a religious doctrine (sikkha, siksa).
|
A sekha is someone who trains himself in higher virtues , training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom or basically someone who's training himself in the eightfold path.
|
Fate and karma same or different? I do not understand the difference between karma and fate; are they the same or different? <Q> All the things happen is not a result of Karma. <S> Actually in Buddhism there are Fivefold Niyama where as Karma Niyama is a just one of them. <S> The Fivefold Niyama is as follows uthu-niyama: <S> the caloric order, the climate of the geographical location. <S> bija-niyama: <S> the germinal order, things you inherited from the genes. <S> kamma-niyama: <S> the moral order, is the one you are talking about. <S> chitta-niyama: <S> the psychical order. <S> Dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence. <S> we all get old and we all die its a natural thing for all of us more details: http://www.buddhivihara.org/niyama.htm <A> I don't know what tradition your word for 'fate' comes from, but I'll try to answer anyway. <S> Fate usually means something which happens that is decided in advance, perhaps something that's decided before you were born, perhaps decided by God. <S> Whereas Karma is what happens as a result of your actions or your choices. <S> In summary: The gods (for example this or this ) decide what your 'fate' is <A> I simply say it is the same, But buddha has taught it in the name of Karma. <S> Simply there is one rule in the world. <S> If you do something you will get the return. <S> (This is simply known asthe rule of Nature) <S> This has been there for all of the buddha sasanafor millions of years. <S> ex: If you hit somebody he will get a chance to hit you, may be in the next life that doesn't matter <S> The Fivefold Niyama says the same principle. <S> That is why buddha has told to do good deads, So the next one will help you.
|
You (the choices you make) decide what your karma is
|
Is it too much focus on awareness in regular daily life a bad thing when beginning mindfulness? Does the attempt to bring awareness into all aspects of life as a beginner have a greater potential of producing negative affects when starting. I'm wondering if too much practice can come as a shock to the mind if awareness fades. Or is it the case that mindfulness always produces positive results as long as it doesn't battle the mind and ones practice continues with a calm nonjudgmental refocusing of the mind when it wanders? <Q> When you are mindful you should be be mindful of the 4 Frame of Mindfulness . <S> These are all tied with sensation. <S> If you are looking at bodily posture or movement you sense this through your sense faculties . <S> In once if comes in contact with the sense faculties you get a sensation as per dependent origination . <S> Similarly for other frames of Mindfulness . <S> You have to be mindful of the arising and passing away of sensations being equanimous. <S> This has a very soothing effect. <S> Even a circus girl has to be mindful in order not to hurt or kill your self. <S> This type of mindfulness does not reduce stress but creates more stress. <S> So you should practice the right type of mindfulness which takes you out of misery than create more misery. <A> Mindfulness, mindfulness -- what is this mindfulness? <S> There seems to be a big and unfortunate misunderstanding about this. <S> For some reason many people think mindfulness means to intensely stare at whatever we are doing until our eyes pop out. <S> "I must be aware! <S> What am I doing now? <S> I'm driving, I'm driving... <S> I'm coding, I'm coding... <S> I'm pooping, I'm pooping..." -- <S> but this is not mindfulness, this is generation of anxiety. <S> The right mindfulness is mindfulness of the subconscious. <S> Mindfulness of our "guts", mindfulness of our feelings, mindfulness of our mind "weather", mindfulness of our non-verbal intellect. <S> When we always maintain such deeper connection with ourselves we can learn to heal our mental and emotional neuroses and recover our Buddha-nature -- our inborn power and sanity. <S> And in 21st century this means first and foremost recovering awareness of our body, because body is not just the window on the subconscious -- body <S> is the subconscious. <S> I recommend you to read the book "Touching Enlightenment. <S> Finding Realization in the body" by Reginald A. Ray, Ph.D. a favorite student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. <A> Some of these may be unpleasant but they must be faced or they remain as unfinished business. <S> If mindfulness is practiced to the point where you can't do your job, relate to your friends and family, take care of your body, and lose the joy of living, then this is overdoing whatever you are practicing.
|
If you use mindfulness to become aware, it is a likely occurrence that eventually things or events that have been buried will emerge.
|
Are there different types of craving? According to Buddhist tradition are there different types of craving? It occurs to me that the following could all be described using the English word craving Being thirsty (for water) Really wanting a new car Wistfully missing a loved one when they are temporarily absent fromyour life However they do feel like they are very different things. So are there categorisations of craving within Buddhist philosophy and if so how would my examples fit into those categories. I'm interested in answers from any tradition but I suspect that there might be some kind of list of craving within something like the Abidharma EDIT These are great answers so far but I wonder does anyone have anything to add on a more experiential basis perhaps referencing meditation practice. <Q> Indeed, there are four levels of craving. <S> Craving for one's life - Highest level <S> Craving for one's organs Craving for loved ones <S> Craving for external objects <S> - Lowest level Chathurarya Sathya (Four Noble truths) by Rerukane Chandawimala Thero <S> Craving for life arises as perceiving the five aggregates as self and <S> this is the highest level of craving. <S> As an example, during a natural disaster someone would first try to save his own life at any cost, then the lives of his loved ones and finally when everyone is safe, he would try to save his possessions. <S> From the given example, satisfying thirst may fall under first type, wanting a car falls under fourth and missing a loved one falls under the third level. <S> Note- <S> The author of the book hasn't referred to any text in Pali <S> canon whether this is a categorization of Buddha or if it appears in Abhidhamma. <A> You analyze the feeling and classify it as something desirable or undesirable or neither desirable or undesirable. <S> These cravings can be: sense-craving craving to be craving not to be <S> The above can be one classification of the types of cravings along with what @dmsp mentioned. <A> There's an analysis on Wikipedia : The Buddha identified three types of taṇhā:[1][4][5][6][7][a] <S> Kama-tanha (sense-craving): craving for sense objects which provide pleasant feeling, or craving for sensory pleasures. <S> This includes craving to be solid and ongoing, to be a being that has a past and a future,[8] and craving to prevail and dominate over others. <S> Vibhava-tanha (craving not to be): craving to not experience the world, and to be nothing; a wish to be separated from painful feelings. <S> IIRC <S> I first met these in an English-language paraphrase of the four noble truths at the Sermon at Benares: ... <S> the craving to have what you don't have, the craving to keep what you can't keep, the craving to live, even the craving to die ... <S> Looking at your example I suppose that "being thirsty" might be a craving to live, "wanting a new car" might be craving a sense-object, and "wanting your loved one" might be craving to be separated from a painful feeling of not being with them. <A> One way to look at it is in terms of needs versus wants. <S> Clearly, your body needs water. <S> I don't know of anyone who overdoes the desire for water, so I would not call this a craving <S> / want at all: it is just a signal from your body like the "low oil" lamp in your car. <S> A new car versus simple transportation is a want, so this is a classic desire scenario. <S> Look in to what the want is trying to address? <S> You will learn a lot about yourself from this, so the evidence of the "craving" is highly beneficial. <S> Examine, do not suppress. <S> Wistfully thinking of others is on the line, it could be both. <S> We do need to care for and support each other. <S> We could want something positive-feeling from someone. <S> This is what I found to be the very hardest thing on my path: How to get valid needs met when so many "formations" are in the way? <S> No fun at all. <S> Another way to look at what you said, which is that the English word "craving" is used in many ways: I love drinking water. <S> I love my new car (25 years ago when I got one). <S> I love my loved-ones. <S> This is why words are not useful for everything. <S> They are not used in perfect ways like mathematical symbols (which also provoke many misunderstandings.)
|
Bhava-tanha (craving to be): craving to be something, to unite with an experience. If you look at dependent origination and the Nidānas closely, craving arises due to feeling.
|
Vibrating Sensation in Middle of forehead during meditation? Recently during my meditation sessions I have been getting a vibrating sensation between the eyebrows sometimes it can be quite intense. I have looked online and from what I can find it suggests this sensation refers to the "third eye". Just wondering if this is mentioned in any buddhists texts and is sensation normal? <Q> Yes the sensation is a normal condition. <S> It is just muscle/nerve spasms. <S> They may be happening throughout the day but go largely unnoticed. <S> They are also at level of neuron firings so you typically will not be able to see them physically. <S> During meditation you are probably more aware of the tiny changes in your body. <S> One thing I notice during meditation is how loud my stomach has been this last week. <S> The more you become aware of them the more intense they will probably appear to manifest. <S> Unless it is a medical condition such as a hemifacial spasm they will typically go away on their own. <A> This is your 1st glimpse of arising and passing away. <S> When you practice more you will see there is no solidity any where and <S> your body is completely a mass of arraigning and passing sensations which manifests them self are vibrations. <S> If you not be attached or averse to them as this creates negativity. <A> Never think 3rd eye activation or Kundolini bla bla. <S> If you think so, your ego is growing up with meditation. <S> Before everything, you kill ego first then try to become no mind state. <S> Then ---- <A> What kind of meditation are you practicing right now? <S> I believe you are practicing Anapana and have not yet ventured into Vipassana. <S> When you will start doing Vipassana, you will realise that there are vibrations constantly happening all over the body. <S> We use these vibrations, this arising and falling of sensations to ascertain the reality of impermanence and anatta. <S> So basically your mindfulness has increased making you aware of these sensations. <A> In statues of buddhas it's placed on the forehead as a most previous jewel. <S> In Tibetan buddhism, this chakra is at the end of the central channel, which runs up the body to the top of the head, and then over and down, terminating at the forehead. <S> The two side channels continue onwards towards the two nostrils and end there. <S> [Source: wiki] From a spiritual point of view, we could compare the third eye to the temple's portal to the sacred places or the bridge allowing mind communication. <S> The purpose of meditation is to reveal this natural subtle perception (vibrating sensation). <S> The best results are achieved when you don't use your imagination/visualisation, so things will come to you naturally (just flow with what comes). <S> So if you feel vibration (or pressure, density) between the eyebrows, don't pay attention to it, just focus on the vibration and try to connect this energy with your throat chakra ( Vishuddha ) in order to create the circulation of the life force ( Lung / Qi / Vijñāna ), so you can sense your light/astral/etheric body. <S> See also: “Electric Feel” body sensation during meditation at Buddhism SE (book) Geshe Kelsang Gyatso . <S> Tantric Grounds and Paths (book) Awakening the Third Eye by Samuel Segan ( PDF )
|
This sensation is normal during meditation and the place is called Ajna (or third-eye chakra - the mind's eye). A word of caution will be not to get attached to these sensations...sometimes you may not feel them and sometimes these sensations may be painful...remaining equanimous all the time is the key.
|
How to deal with loved ones who don't support you? I am very close to someone in my family. I have supported her through rough times and offered my advice. However, she does not support me for the one thing I want in life. I am working hard to achieve my goal (career related), but she is completely against it. I have to live with her, and interact with her everyday and I feel her negative vibes around me. It really hurts my feelings. How can I deal with this issue and maintain peace in my mind? Thank you, I appreciate it. <Q> Try to understand her perspective. <S> Why does she not support your choices? <S> What is her intentions? <S> Perhaps she just loves and cares for you and her thinking/rational <S> is how she is trying to care for you. <S> If you can better understand her it will help her to better understand you. <S> Practice metta (loving kindness) meditation with her as your focus. <S> Perhaps even practice loving-kindness meditation together. <A> This universe is kind of a continuous message thrown to every and each of us. <S> Maybe you could try to understand the message the reality is trying to send you by this relationship, and with more emphasis when she is so near to you. <S> What you understand must be separated from judge, even separated a bit of "love", maybe, in order to " clean" or maybe to get nearer of the neighbours perspective. <S> With a better understanding of this message, only you can choose what to do about it. <S> I am talking, but I have the same problem almost every day. <S> Every mind is a little universe, and time and experience make them the way they are now. <A> I never expected this kind of a question in here! :D <S> But let's see if we can help out a bit. <S> The peace you lack is because you can't accept that she disagrees. <S> You are struggling to be right, and so is she. <S> Perhaps some clarity would help: she's the only one who can clearly tell you her feelings on this, so she's the one you have to talk to in order to resolve this. <S> The pain is because you are trying to have control over the situation (based on your explanation of things). <S> And so I would recommend meditation on why you feel the need to control and dominate this decision. <S> It's not hers; it's yours. <S> You are the one who has to live with the consequences of making it in either case. <S> Except that she believes it also impacts her (and she wouldn't oppose it if she thought it would turn out well). <S> But if she isn't convincing to you, consider what it is that she's seeing, and try to come up with a way that it won't be an issue for her. <S> Generally, there is no way to avoid conflict, but if you take it from a position of having her explain her reasons to you so that you can understand why she's so opposed to it, you may find a solution you're looking for and avoid further issue. <A> In the end, you can't control someone's feelings, but you can control your reaction. <S> Perhaps, you are expecting her to approve. <S> Our expectations can cause suffering. <S> When you sit down to meditate, imagine three people: Someone you care a great deal about and reciprocates, someone who is neutral, and someone who feels animosity towards you and/or vice versa. <S> You wish each of them less suffering and that they will be happy. <S> I can't remember what order you go in though. <S> The idea is be positive even towards those who may not approve.
|
Consider her input, find out if she's willing to help you understand, and by all means listen! Metta and loving kindness meditation I suspect would be helpful.
|
On Suffering and Happiness Is happiness something we should seek? I feel discontent seeking the state of happiness or creating this state of mind when I know that other beings are suffering. For example, if one knows that animals are being slaughtered inhumanely to satisfy the desire of greed and glutony, then how can one conciously feel happy with this in one's mind? I cannot simply ignore this. There are many examples of these bad acts in many forms. What is the right mindfullness and how should I perceive these bad acts as a buddhist? <Q> Feeling bad is a self-indulgent activity done to justify inaction. <S> There is nothing selfish about being happy in the face of suffering, provided you are doing something to help address this suffering. <S> For instance, you mention the suffering of animals. <S> Very well, what are you doing about it? <S> Are you a Vegan? <S> Are you encouraging Veganism? <S> Do you contribute or volunteer at any related causes? <S> If you aren't doing something to address the issue, then ask why. <S> Why do nothing to materially fix the world (which benefits the suffering), yet go to such great lengths to make yourself unhappy (which benefits no one and adds to the suffering of the world -- you). <S> Could it be that this "feeling bad" is a way of feeling better about not helping? <S> The mind often throws barriers to the path, and sometimes the best thing you can do is see through these barriers by asking what is REALLY going on. <S> So the Buddhist path is to seek your happiness while working towards the benefit of others. <S> The right mindfulness component of this is to scrutinize your thoughts in this regard, in particular the thoughts propping up this "guilt". <A> You have to train your mind to to be immune to external stimuli through Vipassana. <S> This means that what every decision you take is not clouded by emotions. <S> Keeping you mind in balance and judgement un clouded you can take action about things you can influence. <S> E.g. if you see an injustice which you can correct you can take a action. <S> This is not based on anger towards the party doing the injustice which would be the normal case. <S> Also happiness is something you should actively seek, but this you cannot do unless in a very high stage of meditation. <S> That is you should calm your metal and bodily fabrications. <S> The natural outcome of this is you become happy. <S> Also see: Matt Killingsworth: <S> Want to be happier? <S> Stay in the moment <A> If it's any consolation to you, I imagine that other animals eat each alive without any help from humans. <S> "Slaughtered (1) inhumanely (2) in third world countries (3) to satisfy the desire of greed and glutony (4) by humans (5)" is a specific example of a more general situation. <S> I'm not sure that you can control the world, to make it to your liking. <S> You can perhaps control yourself: you yourself can abstain from killing, for example. <S> While you do what you can, perhaps the Middle Way suggests that you extend to yourself the same compassion which you would extend to others: if you want others to be happy, if you think "may they be happy" then perhaps you should be willing to extend that same compassion to yourself: <S> "may I be happy". <S> Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. <S> By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. <S> This is a law eternal. <S> ( Dhp 5 ) <S> I think that Buddhist are supposed to be "motivated" by compassion ... <S> but may also feel equanimity . <S> Some Buddhists work with (or found) an animal shelter.
|
As a Buddhist you should seek your happiness while working towards the happiness of others. You should look an any unconformable sensations in body and mind and dissolve them a way by bringing strong attention to these sensations.
|
How should I view others sufferings I cannot affect? Through Vipassan meditation one can learn how to guard ones mind against externalities and not be affected by emotions. I believe that trying to follow this meditation to view the world from an unemotional state with actions not guided by emotion would definitely help me to be more aware and more awake, as well as have a happier and calmer mind. However, my concern is the following: Does not letting externalities affect you mean ignoring externalities? I know that this meditation will help me feel better, however is it morally right to ignore the suffering of the world so that I could feel better? <Q> Firstly, meditation isn't about becoming an unemotional robot, it is about living a life not being control by your emotions, it's completely different! <S> You can either be the master of your mind or the slave. <S> There is a big difference in ignoring the worlds suffering, compared to understanding the root cause of all suffering. <S> As for the suffering of the external world, i would recommend studying and contemplating the 4 Noble Truths. <S> Once you realize that ignorance is the root to all suffering, then you will view the world completely different. <S> I hope i have been of some help. <S> Metta. <A> To compliment @Lee-Hebditch's answer I like to add the following. <S> When you are emotional you loose the balance of your mind. <S> So nor reacting does not mean shutting off from any contact with the out side world. <S> When you make contact you will experience a sensation which you evaluate and react with craving or aversion. <S> This reaction is what needs to stop. <S> When this is the case you do not loose the balance of the mind. <S> Then you can choose a better course of action to help your self and others. <A> Don't ignore it just yet. <S> First see if there's something you can do, without sacrificing right moral principles, to alleviate another's problems. <S> To do this, you must often be strong enough to endure any internal reactions from within, from hearing things you don't like, an intonation which offends you, seeing another person angry and self-righteous, not attending to your own wishes when you find out it takes up a lot of your time... <S> In order to respond properly, you can't let yourself be swayed by such things. <S> It's quite a difficult task, to be honest. <S> The words don't do justice. <S> Now, I've found that when you take up such a task, you find yourself in such challenging situations that your natural reaction becomes "I have to think how to get out of this. <S> " This is where, for me, the suttas have really started to penetrate and teach something that's beyond mere words.
|
Also if you want to help the suffering of the external world, i would suggest not increasing the suffering of others, that would be a good start, and to achieve that, it would be for you to continue your practice into freedom, then you can be an example for others!!
|
Intense pins and needles I tried meditation literally just now...Monday 24 November 21:00 UK time. This is the second time I have ever tried it... literally twice this evening. I have tried before lying down in bed etc to see if I could get out of body experiences but no luck. So tonight I had nothing to do and tried sitting up (the classic meditation look.) I sat in a dark room with low level background sounds. My mind went blank and concentrated on my breathing which went super super slow. Then my airways opened up...i heard my air passages "click." Then i felt slight tingling. Then the tingling seemed to travel over my whole body then it was REALLY REALLY itchy tingling or "pins and needles" darting over my whole body...I had to stop as it was starting to hurt a little!!!!! After I started itching...mainly my back area and got a bit blotchy. I have just had a hot shower to help with the itching. As I know NOTHING about what Im doing, Is it normal to have that experience? I literally could not carry on. What would happen if you forced yourself to carry on? What should I be looking for when trying to meditate? Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. This isn't my scene really but Im interested in learning more. Thanks for your time. T <Q> Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practiceby Shunryu Suzuki is a very good way to start. <S> Read as many books as you can on all the wonderful schools of meditation. <S> From my experince the sensation of pins and needles has to do with poor blood circulation resulting from blockages of different parts of your meridian system. <S> Tai Chi or Yoga can help prepare you physically and mentally for sitting meditation. <S> You may want to consider standing or walking meditation as an alternative. <S> i commend your spirit your practice is well on <S> it's way. <S> i applaud your questions you show real insight. <S> Our teachers first question after sitting was.. <S> Please share with us what you felt? <S> Your question was one of the most common physical sensations shared among beginners. <S> May i suggest that you look for a teacher.... <S> that in it's self can be a fun journey. <S> OVER&OUT <A> This is normal. <S> Every one gets a different type of experience, so based on your accumulation of fabrications <S> this is the experience you get. <S> Do not like it or be averse towards it. <S> Just accept it as this is what you are experiencing now. <A> pins & needles, the feeling of ants crawling over your face, or all over your body, body shaking, bodily pleasureful sensations, bodily painful sensations in localized spots only during meditation, those are all normal byproducts of correct meditation, nothing to worry about. <S> Wherever there are blockages that the force runs up against, you'll feel it as itchy, painful, tight, uncomfortable. <S> If you persist long enough in meditation (days, weeks, months, years), once the blockage starts to melt and clear out, then pain and discomfort fade, the brain pleasure chemicals start to fire, and you feel it as physical pleasure, bliss.
|
In correct meditation, when we break out of the normal habits of mental and physical tension and instead relax deeply, a force permeates the entire body, and massively increases circulation of blood, lymph, qi. Normally, people are tense and thinking too much, it constricts the energy flow (not just blood) in the body.
|
Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Are all persons' realities joined in a seamless whole, or is each person a window onto nothingness that can never be seen by anyone else? I am not finding easy words for my question which seems clear to me... I see two real things (only), that are one: the Void, and Experience. So for me, everything in Experience is one thing, whether I perceive that or not. Yet each is also unique. Are we all connected like fingers on one hand, or more like ants in a colony: each distinct and un-mergeable with the others? Please provide a reference that I can read. Thank you! EDIT: I have this well-known quote attributed to the Buddha: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the World." So, my question is: The word "We" - does it mean collectively, as a plenary (not by assent but in fact), or does it mean each of us individually? The word "The" World - does it mean the common reality, or each of our individual "realities"? Simple, yet subtle. <Q> From Buddhist perspective, phenomenal (experiential) reality is dependently co-arisen phenomena. <S> In other words, experience depends on convergence of a number of factors. <S> Some of those factors are common across multiple cases of perception, and some are specific to an individual case of perception. <S> To the extent that some factors are shared, realities are similar. <S> To the extent that some factors are unique, realities are dissimilar. <S> This topic is discussed in depth in a very advanced work of 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham, called Beacon of Certainty (topic #6). <S> For a more casual read, check out The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo . <S> Also see Lamp of Mahamudra section one, "Ground Mahamudra". <S> P.S. <S> The objects (and subjects!) <S> appearing in each of the realities are not truly existing. <S> But there is only one ground underlying them all. <S> To realize the true meaning of this ground is to be Buddha. <S> There is an infinite number of valid, internally not inconsistent, but not necessarily compatible with each other, ways to cognize this ground. <S> Although all cognitions (including cognition of the true meaning of the ground!) are construed on the basis of temporarily combined elements (so in this sense no one cognition is fundamentally better than any other), however, since there's a case of being aware (vs. being unaware) of dependently-coarisen nature of objects (and subjects!) <S> of perception, there's a sense in which we can speak of an awakened cognition. <S> Or as Master Dogen said in Genjo-Koan: <S> When all dharmas are [seen as] the Buddha-Dharma, then there is delusion and realization, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings. <S> When the myriad dharmas are each not of the self, there is no delusion and no realization, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death. <A> Reality is neither consensual or an individual perception. <S> Of course when one practices Vipassana and realize what reality actually is, then your individual perception of reality coincides with the actual reality. <S> Until then there is a divergence. <S> Practice of Vipassana is to close this divergence where you move from gross reality to the subtlest realities until you have realized the ultimate reality. <S> Also if we see reality as it is then your would be enlightened or as an individual an Arahath , which is achieved through Vipassana. <S> As many individuals are not enlightened their perception of reality in different from the actual. <S> Also note, consensus view on any things is cultural and time wearying and definitely will not coincide with reality. <S> Even science is in a flux of change with new theories and old being dispelled. <S> So scientific understanding is not reality per say through it is and approximation of reality. <S> E.g. <S> When you play doctor in kindergarten then you are not a doctor <S> but when you actually become one then this is the reality. <S> Many are in the kindergarten stage of understanding of reality but have not progressed. <S> Similar to a person not going to school. <S> Once you learn and then go to medical school then you only become a proper doctor. <S> Similarly when you practice Vipassana only you progress to higher stages of understanding of reality. <S> Also see: Reality in Buddhism <A> What is the "reality" in your question? <S> Are you asking about Sacca , Sacca (Pāli; Sanskrit Satya) word meaning " real " or " true ".[1] <S> In early Buddhist literature, sacca is often found in the context of the "Four Noble Truths", a crystallization of Buddhist wisdom. <S> In addition, sacca is one of the ten pāramitās or "perfections" a bodhisatta must develop in order to become a Buddha. <S> In the context of the "four noble truths" I guess Buddhists see (that kind of description of) "reality" as "applicable to everyone" or " general ". <S> Pāramitā suggests that insight (into reality) and ability to speak truth (about reality) is Buddhist: <S> i.e. it is something which the Buddha can do. <S> This may be another question-and-answer about that topic (i.e. "sacca" or "satya") here: <S> What is Sat-Dharma? <S> If you're asking about conscious or experiential realities then, well, I won't try to answer that. <S> Maybe that's getting into material in the Abhidhamma. <A> In the early suttas, this sort of question is deemed irrelevant for the practice; that is, as long as there's a problem, and you can do something about it, then any time wasted on wondering whose problem is it, what constitutes a problem, does it have an inherent existence shared by all beings, etc, is categorized as falling victim to Mara. <S> [ 1 ] That being said, here are a few things to consider: <S> The Buddha said that each being is the heir of their own actions - not others' actions. <S> And that we experience rebirth from life to life, i.e. death isn't the end of our heritage. <S> [ 2 ] He suggested developing equanimity for people who are hopeless, so that implies that there isn't any inherent dependency on others' states of mind. <S> [ 3 ] When the Buddha and his noble disciples gained awakening, nobody but them was awakened. <S> It's an individual accomplishment. <S> There are documented cases in the canon of arahants synchronously experiencing things which ordinary people don't. <S> [ 4 ]
|
If you're asking about "physical reality" then I don't think so -- I think that Buddhism describes a reality that's more complicated than merely 'physical' reality.
|
What exactly is happiness, moods and states of the mind? Buddha mentioned that happiness is the greatest wealth. When going through the TED Happiness Topic , The habits of happiness , Depression, the secret we share , The struggle of mental health , All kinds of minds , How does my brain work? , What makes you happy? , etc. this left me wondering what exactly is happiness, moods and metal states in a Buddhists perspective. So what exactly is happiness? How is it the greatest wealth? How can happiness analysed using the Suttas and the Abhidhamma? How can this be extended to analyzing all moods and states of the mind? <Q> I was always under the impression that happiness was our default setting, our buddha nature. <S> If we remove "blow away or extinguish" all the labels, bindings, and habit energies that collect what is left is happiness. <S> True Happiness is the default state <S> we experience when we extinguish the fires that cause suffering. <S> This cessation of suffering can also be described as complete peace. <S> It is a great wealth because it is the only thing that can bring us true liberation. <A> Happiness could be the state when we're not being self-reflective, especially about happiness. <S> This idea is similar to "The Game" . <S> (Which you just lost) <S> The Game is one of the simplest distortions of game logic ever invented; by which simply thinking about The Game causes one to lose. <S> When I think of the word happiness, I often associate it with these zen pencils comics. <S> 80. <S> HENRY DAVID THOREAU: <S> On happiness 69. <S> BUDDHA: <S> Less is more <A> Some teachers identify two types of happiness: one associated with immediate comforts such as food, sense pleasures, etc; the second associated with inner peace and contentment. <S> One can observe the first comes primarily from external sources, and is not under our immediate control. <S> Inner peace and contentment is something we can develop. <S> To answer your question, one can come to know one's mind and gradually tame/transform one's mind through study and practice of the teaching of the Buddha.
|
Happiness might be any moment we're not analyzing what happiness is in the universal sense, and not analyzing our own personal happiness at any given moment.
|
Refuge in the modern vipassanā movement (the concept/practice, not the ceremony/commitment) How much discussion of refuge is there in the modern vipassanā movement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement )? If there is significant emphasis, what is its character? I am particularly interested in Western vipassanā circles such as IMS and Spirit Rock, but also their Eastern progenitors. I am not speaking here of the formal ceremony or commitment of taking refuge as much as the concept and ongoing practice of refuge. <Q> By taking refuge you are aspiring to build the qualities of the Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha in your self than any ceremonial right or ritual. <S> There are virtues can also be further used as a form of recollection meditation to gain inspiration from the qualities and develop them within oneself: <S> Buddhanusssathi <S> Dhammanussathi Sanghanussathi <A> Check out temples within the Mahasi lineage of Vipassana, or from Sri Lanka or Burma (where Vipassana has a stronger presence). <S> Ven. <S> Sayadaw U Pandita (Mahasi lineage) was among the main teachers of those who founded IMS. <S> There you will find Vipassana practiced with traditional refuge in the triple gem, monastics, meditation taught along with moral virtue, etc. <S> Whenever on retreat in these traditions, we take refuge, pay respect, give Dana, etc. <S> I can't speak for the retreats at IMS though, but they do have monastic teachers there sometimes. <A> Householder David Lewis, interested, be clear that you ask that here in a community that has spring from such movement here, void of those who follow the Buddha straight in all aspects. <S> Modern Vipassanā Movement came up with the decay of traditions and got inspirations for "positive" Marxist tendencies arriving at the same time those western or European modern ideal had destructed all traditional countries at their substance, leading them toward socialism, communism and democracy of which both are based on denying superiors and higher but seek refuge in cutting things down to the lowest equal. <S> Modern Vipassanā Movement lack not only respect as one of the main bases, but also generosity <S> and so is at large just a huge Dhamma-industry with less success in leading people on the Buddhas Path but simply back in their homes. <S> As third basic lack it misses the need of virtue in patient since it is something traded similar as booking holidays or give into quick treatment. <S> All of that is a sign of the main basic quality of which is confidence which of cause is also a matter of lacking of touch. <S> After the big wars on this earth some thought that they are compassionate by turning away for the Buddhas religion and started to give into alternative movements, but those movements have no, out of reason, real blessing by the founder of the original movement which is designed to escape world and suffering. <S> To understand the different between accessing the Noble Domain or just another household and alternative trade, the essay Respect, Confidence and Patient and Better to Give than to Consume might be of help for those with lasting Upanissaya toward the Noble Domain. <S> It's very very seldom that even after many years and retreats people of this movement actually turn to refuge, perceiving the Tripple Gems <S> right and hardly ever would someone having found refuge turn toward such outwardly movements. <S> (Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)
|
The modern Vipassanā Movement has actually less to do with the Buddhas heritage as it has actually mostly no refuge in what is headed toward Nibbana as object but merely how to avoid suffering while still desire wandering on in the world.
|
Vipassana texts and books references request I just read Allan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" book. He cites vipashyana (or vipassana, vipassanā, vipaśyanā, lha-thong) but he doesn't deepen much on it. Can you refer to some texts and books regarding this meditation? <Q> Buddhanet contain a lot of meditation related ebooks on the topic which you can read. <S> Right Mindfulness: <S> Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path Also following questions on the site might be of interest also: <S> Introductory books to Buddhism Beginner <S> academic text recommendation <S> Learning materials for Dependent Origination ( <S> Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism <S> English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon <A> Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" is a superb reference for this. <S> It also explains the differences between different forms of practice, which is useful for deciding when and if to do what. <S> See this answer for more details. <S> And the book itself is freely available from Daniel's site . <A> I have written an answer here which provides free books on the practice of Vipassana medition . <S> All the books are written by the late Ven. <S> Mahasi Sayadaw. <S> You will find information about the practice of insight meditation, the fundamentals, the technique, development of insight etc. <S> This might be of some help. <S> Lanka
|
A good introductory book would be: Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice MINDFULNESS IN PLAIN ENGLISH
|
Can one lose jhana? Once one has learned how to obtain and maintain jhana can the ability be lost (i.e., forgotten), due to lack of use. <Q> This is a possibility with regard to mundane <S> Dhyāna / Jhana . <S> One such instance is Devadatta <S> One good example from the Buddha’s time was Devadatta, who was a brother of princess Yasodhara. <S> Devadatta became a monk and developed the mundane jhanas and attained those direct knowledges described above. <S> He could perform many “miracles”, and one time he appeared in the bedroom of Prince Ajasattu to impress him. <S> But when Devadatta went against the Buddha and at one time injured the Buddha, he lost all his mundane powers and ended up in the lowest realm (avici niraya) because of those offenses. <S> Also <S> There is this story about a yogi who was travelling by air with abhinna powers and saw a flower in the shape of a woman (called “närilathä”) and lost the jhanic state and came down; there is another such story where the yogi heard the singing of a woman and had to face the same fate. <S> Source: Power of the Human Mind – Anariya or Mundane Jhanas <A> Yes you can. <S> Forgetfulness is very common. <S> Everyday I lose/forget jhana throughout the day and everyday <S> I have to wake up and remember again. <S> It is a daily, moment to moment practice to remember the jhana. <S> Here is a story from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones. <S> Zen students are with their masters at least two years before they presume to teach others. <S> Nan-in was visited by Tenno, who, having passed his apprenticeship, had become a teacher. <S> The day happened to be rainy, so Tenno wore wooden clogs and carried an umbrella. <S> After greeting him Nan-in remarked: “I suppose you left your wooden clogs in the vestibule. <S> I want to know if your umbrella is on the right or left side of the clogs.” <S> Tenno, confused, had no instant answer. <S> He realized that he was unable to carry his Zen every minute. <S> He became Nan-in’s pupil, and he studied six more years to accomplish his every-minute Zen. <A> First of all, You can switch the Jhana to turn on and off. <S> Sexual intercourse and Alcohol might reduce the concentration for a while tho. <S> Breaking the Precepts will help you lose your ability tho because a lot of hindrances will popup and hinder your concentration.
|
Once you become a stream-enterer, it's not possible to lose your Ability to get into Jhana.
|
Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion? There are differences of opinion on the question of whether or not Buddhism should be considered a religion. Many sources commonly refer to Buddhism as a religion. If yes then in which region? Can I call myself Buddhist? If I believe in Buddha and his philosophy? But it is still confusing! Need precise answer if possible! <Q> Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels : Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. <S> You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" <S> so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma. <S> There are parts <S> e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool: <S> If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone. <S> But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship . <S> For example, the Upaddha Sutta says, I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. <S> Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. <S> There Ven. <S> Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. <S> As he was sitting there, Ven. <S> Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie. <S> "[1] <S> "Don't say that, Ananda. <S> Don't say that. <S> Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. <S> When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. <S> "And how does etc. <S> Note: As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities. <A> As a zen buddhist in Florida of the United States, taking refuge in the three jewels is the ceremony in which one will often consider themselves becoming buddhist. <S> Taking on the precepts can be seen as the threshold one makes to become a Buddhist. <S> Afterwards one often gets a "Dharma name" and formally calls themselves a Buddhist Practitioner. <S> Of course this is all merely ceremonial but the point of taking on a title is very tied to ceremonies. <S> I graduated college with a ceremony. <S> I grew another year with a ceremony. <S> I became a man with a ceremony. <S> Ceromonies help define ourselves to ourselves and to others. <S> However in my personal experience one becomes a Buddhist when they join a sangha. <S> It is in a sangha where I feel the practice really comes alive in my life. <A> I doubt you'll find a good answer as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a way of life, simply because there's a ton of stuff that's called Buddhism and not everyone agrees as to what constitutes a religion anyway. <S> Many Buddhists consider taking the vows to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist, so if you want to make it "official", you can take the vows at your friendly neighborhood Buddhist Temple. <S> Outside of that, I imagine you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in the Buddha and his message. <S> Do keep in mind that Buddhism is just a label; it's really about how you live. <S> You need not identify yourself as a Buddhist to live a Buddhist life and many people who identify as Buddhists do not live a Buddhist life. <A> Can I call myself Buddhist? <S> I'm going to quote parts of <S> my answer on this question : <S> 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 and/or have ' taken refuge ' (which is a formal or informal ceremony which marks your decision to become a Buddhist). <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> So yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist. <S> Whether other Buddhists agree with you may depend on the tradition they follow. <S> Is Buddhism a religion? <S> Most Buddhists <S> I know regard Buddhism as a lifestyle rather than a religion. <S> However, most non-Buddhists see it as a religion, probably because it shares many aspects commonly found in a religion. <S> BTW, you may find that the answers on this question 'Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?' <S> give more insight in this matter. <A> Other people can call you a Buddhist. <S> But it is only words. <S> Buddha is real, Buddhism is only idea. <S> Some respectful people can say that Buddhism is a religion, but again it is only words and ideas. <S> If you want to go this way, go without unnecessary words. <A> You can call yourself a Buddhist if you give fair trial to the Buddhist teaching. <S> You should have some faith the the Buddha, the Community and the Teaching unless you will not try the Dhamma. <S> Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that a religion accepts a higher power. <A> You can call yourself a Buddhist if you like, but that is just a name, much like your own. <S> Does changing your name change who you are? <S> Don't worry so much about what you should call yourself, just focus on studying and practicing Buddhism. <S> If you are not into the academic of philosophy studies, I don't think this is an important question you need answer to. <S> But if you need to classify what Buddhism is for now,just take Buddhism as a way to help you understand yourself and the world around you.
|
You can call yourself a Buddhist.
|
Where to get the Pali Canon in Pali? Does anyone know of a place on the Internet, where one can find the entire Pali Canon written in Pali ? I did a basic search but could not find any such resource. Also, where can one buy a hard-copy of the entire Pali Canon(written in Pali) ? It would be helpful even if someone can point me to hard-copies of at least the Sutta-Pitaka in Pali ? <Q> You can get a hard copy text of the Pali Text Society edition from: The Pali Text Society: http://palitext.com (they also have sets of the translations) <S> Become a member and receive a nice discount. <S> You can find an on-line version of the BJT text at:Metta Net Lanka: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html <S> You can get a searchable CD from the Vipassana Research Institute: <S> http://www.vridhamma.org/Chattha-Sangayana-CD-ROM-Update Access to insight http://accesstoinsight.org has the pali text linked to the suttas they have posted. <S> This is the BJT text <S> and I believe has the entire Pali, not just the ATI-linked suttas. <S> I have a different version, linked to the suttas I have posted. <S> It is based on the BJT version, proofed against the PTS version. <S> Incomplete, but formatted in a way that is very readable. <S> Working towards completion. <S> Not likly for a good time yet. <S> http://obo.genaud.net see the What's New Page for new listings, the Sutta Index for what is now available. <A> Also check out suttacentral.net , really good sources in Pali, Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan and various different language translations.. <A> Digital Pāli Reader provides two editions of the Pāli Canon: one from Myanmar and one from Thailand. <S> This is the best Pāli reader that I've come across. <S> It can recognise inflected words and analyse compounds, and it uses some of the best Pāli dictionaries: the Pāli-English Dictionary (PED) from the Pāli Text Society and the Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names (DPPN) by G. P. Malalasekera. <S> The site also contains links to translations of the suttas from accesstoinsight.org , dhammatalks.org and palicanon.org . <S> SuttaCentral provides Pāli suttas from the Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500 edition of the Pāli Canon (from Thailand, which was in turn based on the VRI edition from Myanmar). <S> It looks like the Pāli texts have better formatting and punctuation here than in most other editions. <S> SuttaCentral also has root texts in other canonical languages (Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.) <S> , as well as modern translations. <S> GRETIL <S> (the Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages) has a section about Pāli , providing the Pāli Canon in the text format (without an online Pāli reader). <S> It also includes paracanonical texts, chronicles, commentaries (Visuddhimagga), etc. <S> The formatting and punctuation of the PTS edition is not great, but it does have one advantage: proper nouns are capitalised, which makes them easier to recognise. <S> BJT <S> Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka Series Access to Insight has the Pāli Canon from the SLTP <S> (Sri Lanka Tripiṭaka Project) , the same as or very similar to BJT. <S> On this website, the Tipiṭaka is organised according to PTS books and page numbers.
|
There are two editions of the Canon: BJT Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka Series and PTS from the Pāli Text Society.
|
Is 'be thankful to your parents, for they brought you life' incongruent with Buddhist thought? It appears to me that this is incompatible with Buddhist teachings. Life will bring suffering, and it'll not be a kind and easy journey. So why be thankful? On the other hand, if you weren't an arhat then you were going to be reborn in some way. If you were born in some type of affluent family with good values etc., then I guess you could be thankful. <Q> From the Anguttara Nikaya 2.32 <S> "I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. <S> Which two? <S> Your mother & father. <S> Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. <S> If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. <S> Why is that? <S> Mother & father do much for their children. <S> They care for them <S> , they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. <S> "But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: <S> To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." <S> Gratitude is a Buddhist concept. <S> Below is an essay on Gratitude in Buddhism by Thanissaro Bhikkhu <S> Anguttara Nikaya <S> The Further-factored Discourses <A> As a Western Buddhist, I'd say the advice is incongruent on the grounds of the First Noble Truth, and incongruent because child neglect and child abandonment exist in the world; but on the other hand the advice is congruent because mother and farther generally teach a lot of virtue and useful skills. <S> Ultimately though it's a worldly matter where morality (sīla) is called for. <S> Treat others as you would like to be treated. <A> , I wish I'd never been born" is unhappy. <S> Gratitude can help be an antidote for those feelings: in the same way that compassion is recommended . <S> There are some limits to this gratitude, or minor limits to the obligation that might be implied by gratitude. <S> For example there are stories of people (starting with Gautama himself) who went against their parent's wishes, by choosing "the holy life" instead of becoming a householder as their parents wanted them to. <S> There's something about this story for example, which makes me think that she's able to feel "debt free" partially because she is willing to 'give her gratitude' to the supporter who gave her the robe. <S> Perhaps "gift" and "gratitude" are supposed to arise together (co-originate), that's the natural (free) way of things. <A> I have to part company here and say that expressing gratitude for being brought into the world (or for breeding) contradicts the 1st Noble Truth. <S> Sutras should be taken with a grain of salt. <S> Test them, apply what works, and dispense with the rest. <S> Don't hold anything as being worthy of veneration just because it's a Sutra. <S> While many Sutras are profound, many are contradictory, incoherent or just plain nonsense. <S> So work it out for yourself. <S> If life is Dukkha, then why be happy (and express gratitude) that you were brought into it? <S> If (as some Buddhists claim) <S> it's <S> because it's an opportunity to practice, then ask if you'd feel similarly grateful to someone who broke your legs and thus gave you an opportunity to heal. <S> This isn't to say that we should harbor ill will because of this; it is what it is, and our energy is best spent making the most of where we are. <S> But acting like we were done a favor by being thrown face first into Dukkha <S> strikes me as disingenuous. <S> I believe this is the result of politics. <S> At some point Buddhism needed to appeal to laypeople who had families, or to the politico/social order, and the result are teachings like this. <S> None of this is to say that laypeople can't benefit greatly from Buddhism. <S> Conclusion: Don't take anything seriously just because it's a Sutra.
|
One reason why it is congruent with Buddhist thought is that it's better than some alternatives: for example, thinking, "I hate my stupid parents, they wronged me, they never gave me enough
|
How do I make non-buddhists help understand I operate with a different view? I have started on my path not very long ago and because I'm very unsure where it will take me, I am hesitant to label myself as a Buddhist or even a meditator or such. Also where I live, eastern schools of thought are not well known anyway. In certain social situations (most recently at the office Christmas party) I am usually nagged to relax more or to enjoy myself more. I understand that these are good intentioned tries to make me have a similar experience to what these people deem as joyous. However I don't feel anxiety or loss of comfort just because for example I don't get drunk and dance in a very animated way. In fact I'm usually quite content to just lean on the bar and observe people and be mindful of what's happening. I have yet to meet a party goer who will believe this. Do you have any advice on how to try and help these people understand that I don't partake in their experiences because I don't find them wholesome and ultimately fulfilling without having them brand me as a weirdo or a liar? Specifically without mentioning Buddhism, meditation, mindfulness and similar terms? I'd like to convey believably that there are other ways to enjoy yourself, not just drinking and hitting up attractive people. Thanks! <Q> Main point is by doing this you should not accumulate more fabrication. <S> One way is to reduce contact through it <S> is not very effective, which you are trying now. <S> The more effective way is to go along with the crowed but what every you do be mind full of the sensation and its impermanence. <S> It is reaction of clinging or aversion to the sensation created when you come in contact with something which causes fabrications. <S> This is what you should actively avoid. <S> Though you might not chase sense pleases you have to go with the flow in social contexts if you want to be a householder. <A> Most Buddhists I know exude happiness. <S> Seeing a monk or a nun just standing and silently smiling brings much joy and happiness. <S> True happiness is infectious. <S> I have never found that my happiness goes unnoticed. <S> In fact many people become happy and calm themselves when around practitioners. <S> However, peer pressure to drink is a different story. <S> If someone presses you to drink after you have said no, that should be examined separately. <A> "I appreciate you wanting to be sure that I am enjoying myself, and I understand that you do not perceive me as doing so, but I assure you, I very much am!" <A> just BE WHO YOU ARE,Have you ever noticed that even when you were a party animal before people had stuff to complain?You are right to be mindful and you should do it every second you are awake,this might look a bit extreme but trust me it always help.as for having fun don't be immoral live your life but remember you are not a puppet of anybody friends respect who their friends really are,if they do not you might want to rethink about your entourage. <S> If they ever ask about your sudden change don't mention meditation or your path simply say that people change with time and you are going through such a pace too. <S> This should get you out of any awkward situation with your friends or family!
|
As long as what you are doing is not immoral in my case I would go along with what the others are doing.
|
Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures? Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures? Clearly the modern mindfulness movement has been very successful, but I'm wondering if that's at the expense of losing its spiritual core. And it concerns me that what we are left with is just another kind of narcissistic solipsistic selfishness. Is there any validity in my concerns, or am I worrying about nothing? <Q> The Mindfulness practice that is taught in a secular fashion in the West is based on the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna-vipassanā practices, but it is a bit different. <S> For one, in Buddhism, vipassnā is meant to be practiced within a certain framework of Buddhist thought and forms only a small part of the overall practice. <S> Second, the "nonjudgemental awareness" you find in secular Mindfulness is something you won't find in the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna practice. <S> In the discourses the practitioner is instructed direct the mind away from unskillful states and direct the mind towards skillful mental states, so there's definitely an evaluation going on. <S> See Bhikkhu Analayo's "Satipaṭṭāna: <S> The Direct Path to Liberation" text for an in-depth discussion on this. <S> As a result of the above, the experiences of Mindfulness practitioners can only be loosely connected to what we find in the Buddhist texts. <S> In the discourses, the awareness of impermanence is said to lead to this: “Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, it eliminates all sensual lust, it eliminates all lust for existence, it eliminates all ignorance, it uproots all conceit ‘I am.’" - SN22.102 <S> Buddhist meditators who practice is within the traditional framework certainly experiences these things (it takes a good deal of concentration - i.e. calming of the mind - to get to this point), but do Mindfulness practitioners do as well? <S> And if they do, is that really what they hoped to get out of it? <S> Most practitioners of Mindfulness do it with the expectation of receiving benefits for their everyday lives. <S> But in Buddhism Satipaṭṭāna practice has usually been the domain of monks and nuns living an ascetic lifestyle. <S> The texts never claim, to my knowledge, that it would make a person more ready to go through the hustle and bustle of a daily layperson's life. <S> According to Guy Armstrong, a meditation teacher at Spirit Rock, for a while he found that could not relate at all to the Buddhist texts with regard to this meditation practice. <S> But later after his practice deepened and his emotions stabilized, he realized that he was practicing for "emotional healing" but the Buddhist texts were not aimed at that purpose. <S> So in summary, the secular Mindfulness practice taught in the West today, while having origins in Buddhism, is a 1)slightly different practice and 2)aimed at a different purpose. <A> I have been thinking a bit about this question and have come to the conclusion that practicing mindfulness in this way may lead to suffering. <S> Why? <S> Because it seems to me that in the western way of practicing mindfulness one is doing it for a specific purpose, meaning that one has expectations to the practice. <S> One expects a result. <S> One thereby has craving. <S> In the buddhist way of practicing mindfulness one learns about the 3 signs of existence and the 5 aggregates. <S> With proper practice that leads one to understand that there is no such thing as an eternal, permanent Self . <S> If one practice mindfulness with another purpose than the aforementioned one then one will not reach the understanding of the false idea of Self . <S> One will instead reinforce the belief in a Self which in turn leads to further suffering and attachment. <S> The buddhist practice of mindfulness is all about training to see phenomena clearly, as they really are and in that way it leads to the giving up of craving. <S> It seems to me that the western way is the opposite and thereby it might lead to further suffering and attachment. <S> One cannot just take such a profound teaching and turn it into something else. <S> Its like having a puzzle with 1000 bricks and then taking out 5-10 bricks and trying to complete the puzzle with only them or like trying to drive a car without having a license. <S> I want to state that i have not tried the western way of mindfulness <S> and i know noone who do it <S> so i might be completely wrong about it. <A> (I think it's likely this question will be seen as prone to opinion-based answers, but I'm going to offer some thoughts anyway, since I want to balance my comments critiquing your question :-) ) <S> I'd say the basic answer is "yes", mindfulness when approached in the way you describe could indeed cause harm. <S> I see at least three forms that harm could take: The "opportunity cost" incurred by a practitioner who spends a lot of time on the kind of denuded mindfulness you describe, thinking it's the Real McCoy, and as a result fails to ever find a truly fruitful complete practice. <S> Actual harm in the form of an increased narcissism in the practitioner <S> The kinds of mental trauma described by people like Daniel Ingram and Willoughby Britton (the so-called "Dark Night") which I think are arguably caused by people plunging too quickly and deeply into intensive (and unguided) vipassana-focused practice without a balancing practice in morality <S> All that said, <S> I'd find it hard to impossible to say just how much of the above theoretically possible harm is experienced in practice. <S> I'd guess (but based on my reading of Ingram, Britton, and also Shinzen Young and others) that the third point is rare.
|
Another point i want to make is that i think the practice of mindfulness becomes more ineffective when taken out of the true context which is the buddhist way as described by the Buddha.
|
Can Buddhist marry non Buddhist? I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I marry him? <Q> What a Buddhist should do is: <S> Lead a moral life which is beneficial to others and to oneself. <S> Try to develop control over your mind rather than be a slave to it. <S> Try to develop an understanding of the true nature of phenomena and reality (cause and effect) with relation to the psychological impact which cause misery and use this understanding as a leverage to come out of misery. <S> So this question boils down to if a physiologist can marry a surgeon or engineer or some one who subscribes to a non-scientific dogma. <S> There is no issue. <S> But again marriage comes with other responsibilities and issues afterwards. <S> You have to think through how you can handle these before hand. <S> Also evaluate the impact it might have on your personal development and meditation, and see if there are any personal "costs" involved, but again this is up to you. <A> Yes. <S> There are no restrictions in marrying people of other belief systems. <A> Can a non-Buddhist marry a Buddhist? <S> In the eyes of a non-Buddhist, yes or no, or maybe. <S> Can a Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist or would he <S> / <S> she refrain from marrying a non-Buddhist? <S> He / she would leave the decision to the non-Buddhist. <S> The end decision to him / her would be the same - sun rises from the east, settles at the west. <S> Water flows, birds sing, etc. <S> All the same. <S> Remains the same. <A> Marriage demands mutual understanding not only between the marrying couple but between the two families. <S> If you and your future husband are going to live by yourself without his family, then atleast he should know about your practice. <S> If you are going to live with his family then its better that the whole family knows about your practice and that you would like to continue it. <S> The story of Vishakha - chief laywoman disciple of Buddha would likely provide inspiration and guidance. <S> http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/personalities/visakha_migaramata.htm
|
One of the most important thing you should consider before marrying a non Buddhist is if you would be able to continue your practice even after marriage.
|
Does samatha practice always come before vipassana practice? In my tradition ( Triratna ) there is a big emphasis of a lot of samatha practice before any vipassana practice. This has always made sense to me. However is this universal in all Buddhist schools? Are there any Buddhist schools that do minimal or even no samatha practice? Does anyone jump straight into vipassana? <Q> While different traditions might emphasize one over the other, they all need a certain level of development for both: <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> AN 2.30 About the order of development, it could be in any order: <S> "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity... <S> Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight... <S> Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight" AN 4.170 <A> Often mediators will get stuck in Samatha thinking that they have become permanently enlightened. <S> Samatha takes away all the defilments <S> but it's only temporary. <S> Also mediators could get addicted to the bliss and calm that samatha brings. <S> So, yes there is vipassana only approaches called "dry insight meditation" like in the Mahasi tradition that is perfect for laypeople and monastics. <A> You should not have an emphasis on which should develop fist but let it take its natural course. <S> Both are important as wisdoms has concentration as the base and concentration has morality as the base. <S> Like a roof over your head cannot exist without walls and a foundation. <A> Without getting into Jhana, it would be hard to grab the true meaning of dhamma. <S> As you get deeper in Jhana, your level of understanding will help you to understand the true meaning of dhamma. <S> As for AN 4.170 Yuganaddha Sutta, You need to read from AN 4.162-169 to understand more about the differences between each methods. <S> The best way for the human in this era is Samatha-Vipassana. <A> Without any previous concentration exercises or Samatha training, no Insight is possible. <S> How can you register the different sensations which arise and pass away so fast without a sharpened concentration? <S> Anapanasati as a concentration exercise is just one of many. <S> Walking, being aware of the movements of the feet is concentration. <S> The Mahasi method of labeling the stretching of an arm is concentration. <S> If you enter for a while into a deep jhana, nothing wrong. <S> Enjoy it. <S> Later it turns into a sober concentration and becomes normal. <S> Very naturally one slips into Insight meditation.
|
Well, according to AN 9.44 PannaVimutta Sutta Doing Samatha-Vipassana at the same time is the best way to Obtain and realizing Wisdom.
|
Should I avoid using Mindfulness to fall asleep? Is the use of Mindfulness of breath for falling asleep a "bad" practice? Might such a practice invite torpor during sitting meditation? <Q> If you are using meditation to go to sleep: You are inducing a hindrance. <S> If this becomes habitual it will block your progress. <S> Also when meditating you should be alert and hence reduce the hindrances and sleepiness. <S> If you are not falling asleep it not an issue if you are meditating. <S> It is said a Yogi never sleeps. <A> As Suminda commented, the risk is that you build a habit of becoming sleepy while meditating. <S> However, if you are having trouble falling asleep because your thoughts are racing, I would think that it's entirely appropriate and beneficial to use something like breath meditation to bring calm and focus to your mind. <S> Once this is accomplished, it's probably worthwhile to intentionally stop this practice, and allow yourself to fall asleep naturally. <S> If your thoughts begin to race again, then repeat the process. <S> I do this often and don't find it problematic. <S> I do the same thing to bring focus and calm before athletic events, public speaking, etc. <A> If you're feeling excessively "meditate-y" while sleeping, get out of bed and meditate! <S> It might be a chance to level up! <S> In general , when sleeping, don't try to meditate or vice versa because sleep itself is a Hindrance and conflicts with meditation and vice versa (meditation is <S> Awakening and is the opposite of torporous sleep).By default <S> try to avoid a Hindrance when you can unless necessary because sleep is actually a fault, a flaw, of untransformed consciousness and one day, when you are fully enlightened, you will not need it at all. <S> This is actually a valuable rule for the other Hindrances as well. <S> Anyway, back to the topic of sleep. <S> This being said, there is an entire awesome world of dream cultivation and lucid dreams where "your cultivation power increases tenfold" according to Tibetan Buddhism and from my own personal occasional experiences with meditation within lucid dreams and also causing the lucid dream themselves. <S> And how does this happen? <S> By breaking that general rule... mixing sleep with mindfulness. <S> Now this is a complex topic with lots of differing perspectives <S> but I'd suggest trying things out because lucid dreams are worth it. <S> You can emerge from them feeling, super-conscious, awesomely self-aware, extremely blissful and joyful and self-integrated... <S> basically if you are not able to get samadhi in your normal consciousness, if you experiment with mindful sleep you can BUMP INTO samadhi states with the multiplicative power of lucid dreaming. <S> My suggestions, after over 15 years of experimenting with meditation and lucid sleeping, is this: the first half of your sleep (3-4 hours, "core sleep") focus on the torpor and just fall asleep the second half, practice any meditation technique AS you fall asleep and decide to be aware through the process! <S> Declare your intention and be aware as you fall back to sleep. <S> ("WILD technique") <S> If you want to learn more (there is a treasure trove on forums and the internet) <S> look up the above terms in quotes.
|
If you're feeling excessively sleepy while meditating, sleep and then come back to meditation.
|
The emptiness of nirvana Maybe a strange question, but I wonder if emptiness (sunyatta) is also a characteristic of the state of nirvana? <Q> Actually, Nirvana... is something beyond emptiness. <S> Emptiness (sunyata) is the stopping phase of cultivation. <S> Nirvana is the "seeing" phase, where you transcend even that stopping, which is a type of total non-existence, still dual. <S> Nirvana is beyond all dualism. <S> It is not existence nor non-existence. <S> Heart sutra is reccommended. <S> Nirvana is a synonym for the enlightened state. <S> The Enlightened state is beyond non-existence ("emptiness") and existence (experiencing the skandhas) and is capable of existing and exercising its function anywhere, no matter what, be it in hell or heaven. <S> N onetheless, we must experience both sides fully, existence and non-existence before we can enter into the non-dual, indescribeable, open awareness of Nirvana. <S> Note: despite this, emptiness is still the first step, especially in this age where everyone is obsessed with materialism and existence. <S> Finding emptiness IS the first step. <S> You must make your mind empty and clear and must discover and BECOME emptiness, particularly through attainment of samadhi before you can truly succeed on the vipassana path. <S> Of course, others have differing perspectives saying that "dry insight" is enough to get to Nirvana <S> but I don't think it's that easy or even reliable as a path. <S> Calm your mind (emptiness, samatha practice, focus your mind on clarity), and see (Nirvana, vipassana, let go of everything and just witness). <A> Yes. <S> Have you read the Heart Sutra? <S> I highly recommend that for an example of the all-permeating nature of emptiness. <A> Yes, but if you look around nirvana is right here, right now. <S> Nirvana is simply heaven on earth. <S> You might read The Heart Sutra Explained by Donald S. Lopez. <S> It explains the fullness and emptiness of shunyata. <A> I think not: because "empty" is a characteristic of 'conditioned' phenomena, but nirvana is unconditioned.
|
Emptiness characterizes everything, including Nirvana and even emptiness itself.
|
What is dry insight? Following up from this answer - What is 'dry insight' exactly and how does it work. Is it a practice that someone will activity engage in or is it something that just happens to someone - a flash of inspiration out of the blue? I'm confused about how one could practice insight independent of any samatha practice if that is the meaning of it. <Q> (Pali: <S> ekayano maggo) to insight (nibbana), without jhana meditation practice (i.e. without 'upacara samadhi ' or 'appana samadhi' ). <S> This direct 'momentary concentration' is called in Pali parikamma samadhi . <S> This is the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw; U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka and others. <S> The practitioners are called 'bare insighters' or 'dry' insighters. <S> You can find more information in 'The Progress of Insight (Visuddhinana-katha)' by Mahasi Sayadaw (1994): 'This approach to the ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation is called ‘bare insight’ because insight into the three characteristics of existence is made use of exclusively here, dispensing with the prior development of full concentrative absorption (jhana).’ <A> "Dry insight", is not practicing without concentration but it is practicing without cultivating much jhana. <A> This is the practice aimed at developing insight before wisdom. <S> Ideally you should aim a system of practice which both can develop but taking a natural course in which develops first as both are needed. <S> E.g. practice of Anapana.
|
Dry insight or bare insight (suddha-vipassana) is the 'direct' way
|
Was meditation not practiced for most of the history of Buddhism? In a recent Buddhist Geeks podcast the presenter Bodhipaksa stated that by the time the Buddhagosa wrote the commentary Visuddhimagga in the 5th Century CE, meditation had been largely abandoned. He goes on to state that there is good evidence that 500 years previously Buddhist monks had given up meditation and felt the best they could do was to pass down the Buddhist texts to further generations. To what extent is this analysis of Buddhism true? Was meditation really not practiced for a large proportion of Buddhist history? If this is the case then when was meditation 'rediscovered' or at least reinvigorated? <Q> It is quite safe to say that the Buddhist interest in meditation is much higher than a few hundred years ago. <S> David Chapman argues that vipassana was basically reinvented around 1900 . <S> His post is certainly controversial, but he provides sources, so it is a good starting point for researching the subject. <S> It is rather certain that some of the vipassana techniques originated in the 19th century <S> , e.g. the "New Burmese" method was created by The-lon Sayadaw: <S> According to Strong Roots, cited below, “The-Lon Sayadaw… put this textual guidance [the Visuddhimagga] into practice without a personal teacher to guide [him] in mindfulness practice” (p. 110). <S> Origins of some techniques are less certain. <S> For instance, Chapman argues that Ledi Sayadaw invented his own technique. <S> However, an answer to a related question provides sources that say that he only learnt a technique that had been practiced in the caves of Sagaing Hills: <S> Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills, which was honeycombed with meditation caves and dotted with forest monasteries <S> In any case, even if is the case, the meditation wasn't widespread at that time. <S> In The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw , Erik Braun writes: <S> This is not to say that no one meditated prior to the colonial period, but [...] <S> such practice was limited, especially among the laity. <A> It's very untrue to say that meditation wasn't practiced in Sri Lanka at that time. <S> What actually happened is that the community of monks specialized itself in two divisions. <S> The city monks who lived in monasteries within cities and villages and they specialized in memorizing and studying texts, and the forest monks specialized in meditation. <S> It's not that meditation died out, but rather it wasn't done on large scales in the city and village monasteries that most people went to. <S> And even then it's a bit of an oversimplification. <S> Of course at different times in history meditation has been more common or less common, but I don't think you could ever say it died out. <A> There were periods in which the practice declined. <S> E.g. In Sri Lanka the Sangha also declined and was later restored by Weliwita Sri Saranankara Thero . <S> Also Ven. <S> Nanamoli's translation of Path to Purification has in its introduction about the decline in early periods.
|
Some city monks devoted themselves to meditation, and some forest monks also spent a good deal of time studying.
|
Buddhism vs. Nature and Real World I'm not very experienced in Buddhism but while reading some articles and few books about it I wonder about one key thing.. If I am not mistaken, the compassion with other species is one of the key pillar of Buddhism. It teaches us that everything is relative and feeling the compassion with others can help us from the anger and so on (perhaps it's very vague claim and I know there's much more to add but to keep this question brief..) I really do like the idea however I'm "lost" when it comes to confrontation with laws of nature . Biologically, the human is just an animal. Everyone is trying to survive. The stronger eats weaker (we see it in nature every day and every second - tigers, sharks..everyone just hunts for weaker in order to feed itself and survive). I mean - where is the compassion here? When I look around and think of the nature I can't help my self but - it's brutal. For example, what about an elephant stepping over the mouse without even realizing it just killed the poor mouse? Or bird mommy flying out of the nest to find some food for the young ones and getting caught by cat? The young birds will die brutally by hunger..and nature has millions such examples every day. Technically, the mouse will die because it wasn't strong/fast enough to escape. The same for those birds. That's how nature gets rid of the weaker ones. It's brutal. The morality and ethics teaches us to value the life while in fact the nature seems to possess no value for life. These days, we, the humans can simply call a pizza service and feed ourself. It is the science and technology allowing us to survive the harsh conditions. The development of our civilization. But the core is the same - the struggle for survival where the compassion doesn't really help much. How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this question doesn't have any sense. But still - I'd like to ask you - does the Buddhism say anything on this topic? <Q> Samsara can be quite brutal and there is suffering. <S> The Buddha acknowledged this in the First Noble Truth. <S> And his last words urged his disciples to strive on with diligence toward their enlightenment. <S> Only through Nibbanna will one escape the suffering of Samsara. <S> Nature is full of examples of suffering such as you detailed. <S> The animals involved have no evil intentions. <S> They simply eat to stay alive. <S> This is why humans are so very fortunate. <S> We generally don't have to live such a brutal life <S> and we can think things through and form intentions and take actions with as much wisdom and compassion as we possess. <S> This is a blessing. <S> Treating all beings with metta (loving kindness) creates peace in one's mind. <S> Treating other beings with cruelty creates conflict and discord in one's mind. <S> One is clearly better than the other for living a peaceful life and for creating better conditions for one's meditation and eventual enlightenment. <S> A sutta which explains this idea of taking care of others by taking care of yourself is the Sedaka Sutta . <S> SN47 <A> Human belongs to a separate realm other than animal's according to Buddhism's realm classification (the 6 realms are: hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings). <S> It doesn't mean we're inherently more compassionate than the animals. <S> It just means we possess much greater potential to either do a lot of evil or a lot of good. <S> You won't find anything in the animal realm like Hitler, PolPot, GenghisKhan, nor you'll find the Buddha, mother Teresa, or Jesus Christ. <S> So, the question is which direction we want to go given our enormous potential? <S> This is where the teaching of the Buddha comes in to play to help us and guide us.. <A> If you step back from this one life and look at the totality of Samsara then no being is better or worse than any other being. <S> Samsara is so vast that any being that kills you in this life, is sure to have died for you in another life. <S> A soldier kills his enemy but he most likely killed a enemy that was at one time his brother. <S> If a being steps on another being without the intention in mind to kill, then it is not a violation of the first precept. <S> On the other hand if one intends to kill but doesn't go through with it for some reason then that is a violation of the first precept. <S> Hope this helps. <A> In a nutshell, Buddhism is the art of living in harmony with the laws of nature and our own psychology. <S> When this is achieved you will be unperturbed by all the worldly scenarios you have mentioned. <S> If we do not understand the universal characteristics of existence and expect something else or do not understand the true nature of our cognitive process and do something which is non-conducive, misery follows. <S> Buddhism aims at understanding this at the experiential level. <S> Being over-attached to companion also generates negativity <S> this is one of the contemporary view which was rejected by the Buddha.
|
Being compassionate is a cornerstone of Buddhism but in so far as to maintain a healthy mind as when one becomes uncompassionate you generate negativity.
|
Jhana practice and Dry insight practice together Is it possible that a meditator uses jhana practice and dry insight together? I mean: not combined in the same meditation session, but clearly in separate, distinct meditation sessions. Both meditation practices have their own benefits (and disadvantages), so I wonder if it wouldn't be favorable to use the strengths of both. <Q> It could be in any order: <S> "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity... <S> Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight... <S> Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight..." <S> ~ <S> AN <S> 4.170 <S> ~ <A> Btw, let's use proper terminology: jhana = samatha practice <S> , dry insight = vipassana. <S> To use even simpler terms, the former is called "calming meditation" the latter "awareness meditation" <S> They are complementary not supplementary to one another and actually really one practice... <S> "Really <S> one <S> practice"That is an advanced subject that will not be given full justice on a mere Q&A here. <S> Thus, I suggest reading the chapter about the two in the book "A Short Walk on an Ancient Path" by Brian Ruhe. <S> Basically, vipassana and jhana cultivation are not two totally separate routes. <S> You cannot just tranquilize yourself into jhana but will still exercise STRONG observing faculties in order to concentrate on the meditation object. <S> The better you are at vipassana, the better you should be at calming yourself and vice versa. <S> Vipassana, which is pure awareness, instead of having any material meditation object, uses your innate formless awareness as a meditation object. <S> Basically its a meditation object of no-object. <S> What is the object when doing "jhana cultivation"? <S> A material object such as your breath. <S> Perhaps when you meditate you will notice this:"OK. <S> I am going to focus on my breathhing... <S> Breathing in, breathing out, breathing in <S> oh! <S> Noting <S> I just thought about my mom, coming back to breath, breathing in, breathing out"Makes sense?Jhana would not be possible without vipassana. <S> Thus, there is only one practice: jhana. <S> That's why the buddha doesn't talk about vipassana in the original texts, just jhana and his reccommended route: breathing meditation. <S> It's also why Thich Nhat Hanh does the same. <S> The answer to your question: <S> yes! <S> They are one and the same but can be focused on separately to help you perfect Right Meditation and lead you to jhana. <A> Yes. <S> In the Pali suttas Samatha and Vipassana were not clearly two seperate practices as they seem to be today. <S> We argue over this all the time. <S> The argument of those who practice "insight only" or "dry insight" is usually that it's a matter of interpretation and that the critique that it's incorrect to separate Vipassana and Samatha comes from rigid minds that think there is little room for interpretation of the often profound and hard to comprehend words of the Buddha, even for Pali scholars. <S> They would say they must be interpreted and to try to follow the teachings so literally would be incorrect. <A> What every order both develop Jhana is important to strengthening of wisdom and ultimately both should be developed. <S> (Having concentration can lead to wisdom and wisdom lead to concentration through the practice is geared to the other.) <S> If you have concentration wisdom is easy but you need some active effort (through not very much) to develop it though. <A> The statement that Jhana is difficult for you reveals that you are TRYING to do it. <S> You do not make an effort to reach it. <S> This is an error. <S> You relax the body to calm the mind. <S> You have to be able to understand the elements present in the first Jhana before you will know you are experiencing them. <S> This is the vittaka vicara where you ask and answer questions in your mind while at the same time experiencing the comfort of a calm mind(no hindrances present). <S> Then also you experience the comfort of the body in this totally relaxed state. <S> And lastly in the first Jhana you will experience Ekkagata, which is the settling of the mind into a balanced state where the emotions no longer rule the mind. <S> When you experience ALL of these, THAT is the First Jhana. <S> It happens TO you; you do not MAKE it happen by concentration. <S> AND you will never experience these states without first establishing Sila in your life by LIVING the Five Precepts, not just reciting them. <S> Sila(living a moral life) leads you into Samadhi(calmness of mind, which is the Samatha or Jhanas. <S> Until you reach that level of practice you cannot begin to acquire the wisdom of Panna. <S> Simple really. <S> But far from easy.
|
So when practising meditation, it is not the best to take the stance that you aim to develop exclusively on or the other, though different techniques maybe conducive for one or the other, but at time when you reap better results in areas which were not intended this also should be accepted. Of course!You are supposed to practice the two together!
|
Best books & articles for practicing jhanas Which are the best books and/or articles for practicing the jhanas? <Q> Have a look at: <S> Bhante Vimalaramsi Thanissaro Bhikkhu Forest Dhamma Forest Sangha Publications Buddhist eLibrary Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing <A> I have this book by Ajahn Brahm (Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond) which has probably the best description and methods of the topic of Jhana but even better meditation techniques to achieve Jhana. <S> Link below. <S> Hope this helps. <S> http://www.bookdepository.com/Mindfulness-Bliss-Beyond-Ajahn-Brahm/9780861712755 Metta <A> I found the following to be very useful: Books Focused and Fearless: A Meditator's Guide to States of Deep Joy, Calm, and Clarity <S> Shaila Catherine writes with a precision and clarity that is missing from most texts on the subject. <S> Shaila and Ayya Khema mentioned below seem to write from deep personal experience and this is backed up by their personal histories of practice. <S> Who Is My Self? <S> : <S> A Guide to Buddhist Meditation <S> Ayya Khema combines clear and concise instructions that are, for the most part, are a commentary on sections of the Potthapada Sutta that expound on the Jhanas. <S> Articles <S> A General, All Purpose Jhana Thread Jhana Not by the Numbers by Thanissaro Bhikkhu <S> THE JHANAS IN THERAVADAN BUDDHIST MEDITATION by LEIGH BRASINGTON <A> I would recommend the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder. <S> They were both students of Pa Auk Sayadaw and undertook a Samatha Meditation Course under his guidance. <S> Here they achieved the 4 material jhanas and the 4 immaterial jhanas. <S> The book is streamlined and direct. <S> Not much beating around the bush. <S> They often refer to their own practice and how they trained under Pa Auk Sayadaw. <S> This functions well. <S> They give lots of useful information and guidance regarding the practice of the Jhanas. <S> I have taken a screenshot of the table of contents <S> so you can see what the book contains.
|
Great meditation manual as well as guide to the Jhanas.
|
How do you handle loud, meaningful family noises while trying to focus? THe most successful cultivators and Buddhists cultivated in the forest or mountains where there are few people. In our day and age, this is less easy due to polluted rivers, overharvesting of resources, financial necessity, etc. and we all live in noisy metropolises. "Go to a quiet place without people , sit cross-legged, with correct body and correct attention, without any other thoughts, and fix the attention on the nose:.." For a beginner, this is not ideal, although advanced meditators who are enjoying the fruit of their efforts are fully absorbed with their meditation object, not hearing any noise. How do you handle loud , meaningful and ultimately alarming family noises while trying to focus on meditation object?What are trains of thoughts that lead you to the state where you do not even understand what they are saying because you are so absorbed in your object?I experience this frequently, where I don't hear or feel anything and I am singularly focused on my object and this oftentimes happens when I do any type of noting (vipassana) practice. Any tricks, contemplations, ideas any experienced cultivators can give me? loud = clearly audible through a door, 10 times louder than the sound of your own breathing (which I like to use as a concentration object)meaningful = language and emotion, which we as social mammals are instinctively wired to respond to when hearing off-handedly, particularly our mirror neurons Basically I have an annoying, unhealthy family who watches TV with all their free time and never cultivates or does anything despite the many instructions, books given to them. I feel that they often do this to spite me due to my choice to ignore them. Please give solutions other than blocking out the noise through noise-cancellation, earplugs, or binaural beats (all of which are excellent suggestions) which I have success with and will continue to use but I do not like unnecessary pressure on my ears. <Q> Understand what happens. <S> Sound comes in contact with the ear which re recognise as such and such or voice of so <S> and so. <S> This creates a reaction which creates sensations to which you react with craving or aversion. <S> In the above case you are reacting with aversion. <S> When sound in the dominant input focus on the ear area for sensations. <S> This has a mental reaction and thought proliferation. <S> This gives arise to sensations in the head area. <S> If you look closely you will see this creates vibration and sensation all over the body. <S> This should be your tertiary focus. <S> When you start you will not be able to even sense anything around the ear unless very intense <S> but as you go on you will be able to see the vibration through out the body. <S> This comes with practice. <S> What ever sensation you should not react to it. <S> Each time your mind gets distracted by the sound or any other sense input do the following: <S> Recognise the object of attention to which the mind has wandered away and note it without verbalisation or imagination <S> (i.e., without creating mental fabrications): Sense input or mental chartering, etc. <S> There is a sensation tided to this object being in focus: it can be intellectual stimulation if it is an thought, some other sensation if the body, etc. <S> Analysing, mental reaction and through proliferation may have created sensations around your head and rest of the body. <S> So note these sensations. <S> Bring back your mind to your chosen object of attention. <S> This can be extended even when doing normal tasks. <S> Each stage try to calm the fabrications. <S> Lesser fabrications more concentrated you get. <A> This happens to me all the time... <S> My mom has the habit of inviting over my aunty to the house and with her come her children and grandchildren and there goes a round of joy and laughter all day long... <S> Suminda has given a very nice advice of being mindful of the sound and not reacting... <S> This is the best but a long haul solution to the problem... <S> For the short term, I would advise you to check their schedule... <S> Now they must be sleeping at some point of time... <S> This is you Golden Chance... <S> Squeeze out 1 hour from that duration and carry on your practice. <S> Also since they have disapproved of your practice, I would advise that save your practice from undue negative attention of theirs and let your behaviour speak for you practice. <S> Also you could try Walking Meditation. <A> Might I suggest practicing metta. <S> When you feel annoyed towards your family, start cultivating the reverse, by thinking: "May my family be happy and well". <S> It will start small, but with repetition it will build up just like the skills learned in vipassana practice. <S> Of course this won't change your family's behaviour, but it's excellent medicine for you. <S> After all, who wants to be annoyed? <S> Those who haven't considered the 2nd noble truth <S> , that's who ;-) <S> Not that there is anything wrong with them observing you as you practice, but I have sabotaged myself many times while considering how others would regard my practice. <A> My mum's father was a writer (a playwright and novelist) who worked (wrote) at home. <S> Her mother wouldn't let the children play outside his office/study door because their noise would distract him. <S> Later in life, he (my grandfather) clarified that he didn't mind his children playing outside his door <S> : what he found too distracting was if they were fighting or crying outside his door. <S> I interpret that is meaning that he was OK to let his children live their lives (even noisily) while he worked, <S> provided that they didn't need him (to intervene in their fighting with each other). <S> In other words, some family noises might be loud and meaningful without being necessarily alarming. <S> Reaction to noise (dislike, anger) is more unpleasant than the noise itself. <S> I admit that I found constant loud radio problematic in the past. <S> Your paragraph <S> "Basically I have an annoying, unhealthy ... <S> my choice to ignore them" seems to me like it might be an unhealthy relationship. <S> I suppose I should recommend you talk with a family/relationship counsellor about that. <S> There's nothing on the " Buddhism meta " site about this, but I'd suggest that this site should adopt the same policy as the Christianity site: Pastoral Advice Questions <S> How do you handle loud, meaningful family noises while trying to focus? <S> My family are accustomed to giving each other quiet space/time in which to work (or to read, or meditate, etc.) <S> , so that's not a problem for me. <S> Please give solutions other than etc. <S> A family/relationship counsellor (or a wise family member or friend) might be able to help with that. <S> Other solutions (some of which may depend on having a cooperative family dynamic): Have scheduled (not constant) time for noise and time for quiet Turn the TV volume down even if you don't turn it off <S> Get them to wear the headphone if they're making noise <S> Close the door <S> , sound-proof the room you're in Use some white noise generator in your room (e.g. the sound of rain) <S> Practice elsewhere (in a safe public area)
|
If the sound is very loud it might hurt the ear also but even in other cases when you practice you get some sensation. Maybe another note would be to make your practice unnoticeable to your family. I am trying it and it is giving results. One solution would be to (try to) improve your family dynamic. This should be your secondary focus.
|
Is it okay to leave your suffering family behind when you have an instinct to attain Nirvana? I see my society cherishing and nourishing their respected beloved ones and living at their best. I've tried to do that but I have many unanswered questions. How can I help myself to attain Nirvana when I have doubts about leaving my suffering family behind? <Q> This is something you have to decide. <S> There are many angles to consider. <S> Some that <S> I through of are: <S> What happens to your family when you leave. <S> This can later become a worry that can come back and hold you back in your practice. <S> Sometimes some level of unsatisfactory is conducive to practice as you are always tested in daily life which might not be the case when in long time meditation as a recluse. <A> There are sufferings that parents cannot help. <S> I dont remember from what sutta <S> but it goes something like <S> , parents cannot help a child to be free from sufferings that caused by illness, aging, and death. <S> If your family wants to be free from these universal sufferings, they have to practice dhamma. <S> No other ways around it. <S> Anyone or any being that has name and form (Nama-rupa) experieces sufferings, period. <S> Suffering ends when nama-rupa ends. <S> (those who achieve enlightenment still experience physical pain while they still have the body) nothing you can do to eliminate those sufferings for them. <S> Best you can do is tell them Dhamma taught by Buddha. <A> Don't be so attached to others. <S> Even if they are suffering through self-inflicted drama, your family's suffering is theirs, not your own. <S> Gradually speak less and less and become ready to leave. <S> They will never be able to answer your questions. <S> You will never be able to answer their questions. <S> May each person go to the best place where they will to find their answers!
|
Leaving does remove some responsibility which makes time for serious practice.
|
is language a barrier? If I am an illitrate of all (this worldly languages) and I am aware of all the unanswered doubts, then how come i'll explain you 'what I have asked or answered ? There are so many bars in putting questions or placing answers people. Ahh.. Nt easy admin. <Q> I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness. <S> According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed. <S> The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication). <S> I suppose there are several different types of language barrier: <S> Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate") <S> Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf") <S> Understands one natural language but not another <S> (e.g. understands english but not chinese) <S> Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha ) <S> Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms) Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.) <S> Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.) <S> It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands". <S> There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier". <S> On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'. <S> Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon. <S> Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication. <A> As for literacy in general-- you have to remember that the Buddha didn't write anything down. <S> I'm not sure that he was literate. <S> There weren't books, instead people did incredible feats of memorization. <S> Or did you mean you personally? <S> So far this community is full of people who really want to help you people with their question. <S> If you just keep throwing words at people, some will stick. <S> Usually if it is an interesting question, people will edit your question to clean up the English. <S> In the old Pali texts, the speaker often uses many words with similar meanings in a row, as if they are trying to make sure that if you don't understand one word, you'll understand one of the next near synonyms. <S> If you keep throwing words at us, we will eventually get the point and in turn, we will keep throwing words at you until we reach an answer. <S> (This isn't true on all StackExchange sites, on some sites, like StackOverflow, questions get closed if they aren't coherent and reasonable.) <A> Language is a means of communication. <S> When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance. <S> The realisation should be at the experiential level. <A> Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. <S> Language is linear and fixed. <S> Experiences are fluid. <S> It is not like taking a photograph or making a duplicate. <S> When one uses language or words to describe an experience what happens is the experience itself is transformed. <S> Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify experiences which are impermanent. <S> First we think then we churn our thoughts using words then before we know it <S> we've built a solid wall of concepts around us imprisoning ourselves from the world of sensing or experiencing or just being. <S> This is why its said that Language shows and hides their meaning at the same time. <S> So like everything else in life language should be used skillfully and not as a substitute for reality. <A> I was looking through the answers for the most famous Buddhist story about an illiterate person... <S> the 6th patriarch, Huineng. <S> He was illiterate yet (he could not read or write) but due to great past merit and cultivation, when he heard a Buddhist sermon he Awakened. <S> Afterwards he just worked in the monastery and the head, the 5th patriarch, did not know of his Awakening for a long time until he did a poetry contest to find the most Awakened student. <S> Huineng was born into the Lu family in 638 A.D. in Xinzhou (present-day Xinxing County) in Guangdong province. <S> His father died when he was young and his family was poor. <S> As a consequence, Huineng had no opportunity to learn to read or write and is said to have remained illiterate his entire life. <S> from Wikipedia <S> I reccommend reading the full story from The Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Huai-Chin Nan.
|
Language is a "system of communication".
|
Translation of 'ekayano maggo' In the Mahasatipatthana (DN 22) sutra the Buddha speaks about ekayano maggo . What is the exact translation in English: is it: 'direct way' or 'only way' ? <Q> The analysis quoted here says that, literally, it could be either; but that, looking at various places in which it's used in context, it makes more sense if it means 'direct'. <S> The people on that site seemed to agree that that's the best analysis. <S> And, this article makes a similar argument to explain why 'direct' is a more fitting meaning than 'only'. <A> Following are some interpretations any translation should consider: <S> This is the way does not branch off (Direct way, single way) <S> This is the way as taught by the Buddha <S> (The way of the One) <S> This is the way that one should practice alone. <S> Any body else practice will not help. <S> This is the way leading to one destination <S> There is no other way. <S> (Source: <S> The Four Foundations of Mindfulness by Sayadaw U Silananda) <S> The best translation may be "the way" <A> According to my understanding "Ekayano Maggo" means "sure path" or in Sinhala "Ekanthayenma ya haki Margayak"
|
This is the only way leading to the destination.
|
Why can't a Buddha's power just save us already? Like Jesus I am a faithful believer in the Buddha's teachings and I even believe in the iddhi powers they all had and that show up in our day as well. I also believe in the various Bodhisattvas and Buddha's even within Taoism and contemplate and marvel at them every day, their mysteriousness, hard work and wisdom. Some of the scriptures have some astounding excerpts though of millions of bodhisattvas and deities... Which is why I wonder why, if we are: a bundle of skandhas with no central core; quite subject to cause and effect; crying for saving; individuals the omnisicient, omnipresent, omnipotent ( iddhis ) buddhas and bodhisattvas have vowed to save from actual suffering and also awaken; Then why don't the billions of bodhisattvas and buddhas just make manifestation bodies and march across the universe and pacify and awaken everything as the first Buddha vow states? What is your opinion on this matter? <Q> If you are "a faithful believer in Buddha's teachings" you have missed his point entirely. <S> You should not believe a single thing. <S> Instead, your own experience should lead you to your own conclusions. <S> This is what Buddha left behind. <S> Techniques for waking up, so that you may dissolve into pure experience, as did he and countless others. <S> Only you can save yourself. <A> In response to your question, may I ask what are we saving ourselves from ? <S> Samsara is an endless (and beginningless) grinding cycle where all beings are being agonized by myriad forms of suffering (Dukkha). <S> However, Samsara, and even higher realms of existence are illusionary, how can one be saved from an illusion? <S> Here is an excellent analogy I read from the esoteric master Huang Nian-Zu: what is the best way to save a man being hunted by a vicious tiger in a nightmare? <S> The answer isn't trying to run away or defending yourself. <S> The best solution is to simply wake up and end the dream. <S> Our true self has always been safe asleep, and the tiger can not harm us. <S> In theory, the above sounds like a really simple solution. <S> In reality, though, the difficulty to achieve this is parallel to the depth of one's delusion and attachment. <S> Every being is one with Buddha. <S> We are all capable and deserve the perfect wisdom, fortuity and abilities that Buddha possess. <S> To seek help from Buddha and Bodhisattvas we need to awaken the Buddha within ourselves. <S> Hope this helps. <S> If there is anything I could improve on with my reply please kindly share your views :) <A> Main cause of your problems are when you come in contact a sensation arise and you react due to our delusional perceptions which proliferates other sedation to which we react. <S> You liberation is being non reactive to the sensation and reducing <S> pre conditioned reaction. <S> The Buddha cannot subdue perception of another being or indefinitely influence the sensations experienced by another being or influence indefinitely the reaction to sensation of another being. <S> Hence we have to work on our own liberation. <A> Now why can't a Buddha just intercede?From what the Enlightened Zen Master Huai-Chin Nan said... even the Buddha's cannot penetrate our ignorance and so that is why they provided all these mantras as a means of accessing their consciousness so that they can help us and help us out. <S> It's like a "password" to enter into their system. <S> In my own words, they can only help us as much as our sincerity, purity and jhana allows them! <S> From another perspective, isn't it true that we each of us contain the power of gods , the power to become a Buddha ? <S> So how can this god nature <S> this buddha nature be brought out by anyone but itself? <S> If it was able to be brought out by an "other", <S> this buddha nature that you have within you would not be buddha nature! <S> It would be "slave nature." <S> Similarly, you yourself cannot egoistically bring about this buddha nature. <S> Because you (skandhas) are just ego. <S> Everything you are, feel, think... is "false thought". <S> All you as the egoic container can do... <S> is prepare and wait... and even that is not enough. <S> As the diamond sutra states, it comes without coming... <S> only then is it true coming. <S> Thus, use that understanding in your own cultivation of effortlessness, because the closer you are to effortlessness, the closer you are to It. <S> This Buddhism is becoming very Taoist, no? <S> Another speculations for why the Buddha's might just be "passive" in their universe-saving policies... <S> how is this whole saving business even necessary. <S> Karma is karma. <S> Everyone deserves what they got. <S> What do you learn more from, hard experiences or easy <S> experiences?What are you more thankful for, difficulties and failures or easy-gimmes? <S> Karma is a wonderful educational system that the Buddha's have no need to intercede with. <S> (I really learned this concept through the Buddhist cosmological analyses given in Mind Experiment by Professor Bavo Lievens.) <S> They gave their education, it's time for you to play the game and cultivate your own Tao. <S> Look at some pictures of the Angry Hell Buddha (I forget what it's called). <S> Anyway, their help is always at your beck and all when you ask with focus, clarity and faith. <A> If the Buddha came to you today and offered the blue pill and the red pill like in the movie The Matrix, and by swallowing this blue pill, you will get instant Nirvana, would you accept it? <S> The answer is that 99.999% of serious Buddhists will not accept it, because they are not ready to let go of their attachments right now. <S> Even if they accept the Buddha's teachings, they are not mentally prepared to leave everything that forms their reality. <S> They don't want to be "saved" right now. <S> They might ponder about their loved ones, material possessions, career etc. <S> They won't be ready to let go of their personhood. <S> But they may want to get there progressively.
|
Just like a Buddha cannot save you, you can't effort yourself into enlightenment.
|
Supplication in buddhist practice Does any Buddhist practice consists of supplication, or is there too much merit being exchanged for that? Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something, either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my child's life."). <Q> If there was a practice like that in Buddhism, it doesn't come from the Buddha's teachings. <S> One practices loving-kindness by making a wish(not a prayer) such as "May I be happy" or "May the world be at peace" or "May my enemy be well" and so on. <S> The purpose of this practice is to help negate states of anger in the practitioner thus benefiting everyone. <S> No God, Buddha or anyone grants the wish. <S> It all happens in our own minds. <S> If one doesn't understand this then one might mistake practice for ritual as well. <S> For example, one doesn't pray but pays homage to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in mindful rememberance. <S> This practice is for the benefit of the practitioner by way of building humble states of mind and when one is humble, that will benefit others as well. <S> All practices that come from the Buddha's teaching are like this: Benefiting both the practitioner and the beings the practitioner comes into contact with. <S> We practice to build wholesome states for ourselves. <S> The less we are unwholesome the less others will suffer because of us and the more they will be happy when they come into contact with us. <S> We help others by helping ourselves. <S> This is a good kind of selfishness :) <A> Perhaps the Pure Land schools of Buddhism come closest to the notion of supplication. <S> To quote wikipedia <S> it is one's faith in the salvific compassion of the Buddha Amitabha, [..] and the earnest wish to enter the Buddha's happy land, that is said to bring deliverance into Buddha Amitabha's Western Paradise <S> However i believe that even in these schools it isn't a simple matter of just giving oneself over to another power. <S> For instance in Shin Buddhism (also know as True Pure Land School) <S> the Nembutsu is chanted as an expression of gratitude rather than a request for divine assistance. <S> On the flip side to this, even Zen practitioners bow to their cushions . <S> So even in Zen, where the emphasis is very much on your own endeavors, recognition is regularly given to something outside of oneself. <S> You could even say that this was almost supplication. <A> Just an example quote form scholarly research: <S> According to the general teachings [rather than Vajrayana] of Buddhism only the fully awakened one, the Buddha, can be the object of supplication, veneration and devotion.
|
Supplication does appear in Buddhism, even though there is less emphasis on it than in Christian teachings: Buddhists are less likely to e.g. put their successes down to being blessed.
|
Does any school seriously believe Maitreya might appear in my lifetime Say, the next 30 years? The world is going to undergo great turmoil IMO, as technology outstrips not just need but the reality we live in. Is there much or indeed any chance that Maitreya will appear to help humanity through these changes? <Q> Well, things have to get really really bad <S> and then it'll have to get really really good in order for Metteyya Buddha to appear: " <S> And the sons of these sons will come to live eighty years; their sons to 160 years; their sons to 320 years; their sons to 640 years; their sons to 2,000 years; their sons to 4,000 years; their sons to 8,000 years; their sons to 20,000 years; their sons to 40,000 years; and the sons of those that lived 40,000 years will come to live 80,000 years. <S> Among humans living 80,000 years, brethren, maidens are marriageable at 500 years of age. <S> Among such humans there will be only three kinds of disease—appetite, non-assimilation and old age." <S> At that period, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteyya, Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an, Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now. <S> ~ <S> DN 26 ~ <A> Most of the commentaries say that this Buddha Sasana will last for 5000 years... <S> So there are around 2400 <S> + years still left for the Gotama Sasana to disappear... <S> This link gives a detailed explanation of the way in which the first the attainments will disappear, then the method, then the learning, then the symbols and finally the relics. <S> http://www.lawsofthenature.com/GotamaSasana.aspx <A> I don't think so, how can anyone believe that Maitreya would appear in this lifetime? <S> The main sign of Maitreya's arrival is the life span being around 80,000 years. <S> During The Buddha's time He said: " <S> At present, monks, one who lives a long time is 100 years old or a little bit more" (Arakenanusasani Sutta, AN 7.70) Which is basically the same as now in modern times. <S> The life expectancy among people that had food has been like nearly the same since ancient times. <S> But arahants and paccekabuddhas still can arise during the time-period in between the appearance of a Sammasambuddha. <S> The distinction between paccekabuddhas and sammasambuddhas is that sammasambuddhas are considered as Supreme Teachers but paccekabuddhas can still teach just not as well. <A> Wikipedia claims that there are non-Buddhist schools or religions, who say variously that Maitreya will arrive soon or did arrive recently (e.g. in the 19th century): see Maitreya - Non-Buddhist views <S> Although they're non-Buddhist, I mention that in case it has been causing some confusion. <A> I think there are some modern alternative religious movements, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, that claim that Maitreya's rebirth is imminent, or that he is even amongst us now, but neither the suttas nor the sutras support this view. <S> The most ancient texts concerning Maitreya clearly state that he will not appear for many tens of thousands of years, when human civilization is enjoying a super-industrial golden age. <S> The earliest scriptural date I've seen for Maitreya is his association with the appearance of Shambhala in the 25th century, according to the Kalachakra. <S> Bahais belive that Baha'u'llah was Maitreya. <S> Followers of Adidam believe that Adi Da was Maitreya. <S> The Nepalese "Buddha Boy" appears to believe that he is Maitreya. <S> Other recent claimants include Peter Deunov, Samael Aun Weor, and Claude Vorilhon. <S> Annie Besant and Leadbeater , leaders of the Theosophical movement, made this claim for Krishnamurti <S> but he repudiated it. <S> There have been many people who have claimed to be Maitreya since the seventh century.
|
Many sutras suggest that he will not appear for millions of years.
|
What distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness.However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness. <Q> Here is a short passage from What <S> the Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula that discusses how consciousness is different than perception. <S> I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I found the example given helpful to my own understanding of consciousness. <S> It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object. <S> When the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which simply is awareness of the presence of a colour: but it does not recognize that it is blue. <S> There is no recognition at this stage. <S> It is perception (the third Aggregate discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. <S> The term 'visual consciousness' is a philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary word 'seeing'. <S> Seeing does not mean recognizing. <S> So are the other forms of consciousness. <A> Before differentiating between Consciousness and Awareness we'd first have to define what Consciousness is and what Awareness is on its own. <S> Try to answer these questions <S> How do you know that your aware? <S> What's the evidence?Where <S> do you find your awareness,your knowing?Not <S> What you know <S> but what's it like to be <S> knowing?What's it like to be aware? <S> Can you sense how some experiences goes beyond words,concepts and intellectualised ideas. <S> And can only be described by our relationship or attachments to it. <S> So what is awareness?Maybe <S> Awareness is A <S> , Maybe Awareness is B, Maybe Awareness just IS. <S> I have to add that consciousness <S> is an aggregate and is biased. <S> It may well be the result of clinging to awareness. <S> Seeing it as My awareness. <S> But i still think its difficult to pin down. <A> It's difficult to translate "buddhist terms" that refer to aspects and functions of the mind to western equivalents. <S> Moreover, since buddhist psychology is quite sophisticated and detailed, it would be hard to draw distinction over loosely defined concepts (such as "consciousness", "awareness" and "mindfulness" under quotes). <S> For example, there are many terms that carry some form of awareness used in the suttas, but with different nuances. <S> One of them is viññāṇa (which is actually sixfold). <S> Another, which may overlap with our understandings of "consciousness" or "awareness" is sañña . <S> Sati , which is usually translated as "mindfulness" is also a very technical term in buddhism. <S> Generally, these 3 terms <S> (there are a few others) not only refer to distinct processes of the mind, but also may have different meanings across the suttas themselves. <S> Furthermore, they also appear to overlap in some cases. <S> A few questions (eg. <S> this and this ) have been asked here about the definitions of some of these terms and differences. <S> One book that explores this subject in depth is Identity and Experience: <S> The Constitution of the Human Being <S> According to Early Buddhism . <A> "Awareness" is an English word used by Westerners that (to my knowledge) does not really exist in the terminology of Pali Buddhism. <S> Sati' means to 'remember' or 'bring to/keep in mind'. <S> The Pali uses the word ' anupassi ' ('continous seeing') <S> when referring to being aware of meditation objects or uses the word ' sampajjana ' ('ready wisdom') when referring to knowing clearly what is going on in meditation. <S> Westerners like using the word 'awareness' <S> but I do not know a Pali equivalent. <A> You could think it like this. <S> Consciousness means cognizing something. <S> Or become aware of. <S> In other words Vinyana. <S> So Awareness and Cognizing is somewhat the same in terms of terminology. <S> Mindfulness is knowing that you know something. <S> In other words knowing that you cognize or knowing that you are aware of.
|
It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an object. I agree with the view that "mindfulness" ('sati') is a purposeful application of awareness or consciousness. '
|
Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art? Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art? <Q> As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as and . <S> From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47 when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign. <S> The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art. <S> So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now) as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state. <S> As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene. <A> Because it is not the middle way. <S> The representation of the Buddha is not primarily a representation of the human or of history alone, but of the realized wisdom of a Buddha. <A> Because people often wish to deny that starvation and illness exist. <S> Even Buddhists find these facts challenging <A> The fat, bald, laughing"buddha" is a chinese monk named Ho Tai (or Mi Lo Fa) . <A> Beautiful answer by Robin111. <S> But I believe the question is why isn't Buddha represented as emaciated?Specifically <S> why do people have the fat Laughing Buddha statue everywhere especially at the front of business buildings ? <S> Mainly this is because it represents wealth, commerce, and overspending, something businesses like . <S> Most when asked say "it's luck. <S> " <S> These people feel it attracts abundance . <S> Other reasons this trend has remained so is because: the Buddha did not attain Awakening until he "fattened up" a little, taking the milk curds from the woman, and taking care of his physical form the obesity/fat belly <S> represents happiness and physical health <S> [ironic because I feel much happier on successful fasts than I do overeating!] <S> . <S> Remember that happiness <S> (a result of the 2nd training) <S> is a foundation for Awakening (the 3rd training). <S> obesity is representative of wealth in earlier times (actually all times, except this past century) which in reference to Buddha perhaps represents spiritual wealth.
|
Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.
|
Looking for negative reference to women in the Avatamsaka Sutra I came across this rather gender progressive comment from Nichiren If we examine the Flower Garland Sutra, the first sutra to be preached after the Buddha attained enlightenment, we find that it is a Mahayana work preached by the Buddha in his aspect as the Thus Come One of the reward body. Thus, to the voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and others, it was like daytime to an owl or nighttime to a hawk; though they listened to it, it was as though they did so with deaf ears or blind eyes. This being the case, though people hoped that the sutra would enable them to pay back the four debts of gratitude, because it speaks disparagingly of women,3 it was hardly possible for them to repay the debt of gratitude owed to their mothers with the sutra. which is footnoted with 3) For example, the Daishonin cites the passage “Women are messengers of hell who can destroy the seeds of Buddhahood. They may look like bodhisattvas, but at heart they are like yaksha demons” with regard to the Flower Garland Sutra. This passage is cited in A Collection of Treasures as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra. http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2/Content/264 I can't for the life of me find this or anything like it in my Cleary edition of the Avatamsaka. (I believe it is there, I've read all sorts of misogynistic passages in sutras, I just can't find it) <Q> I downloaded the Chinese translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and did a few searches for patterns with different combinations of words that are likely to appear there (e.g. 女 "woman", 地獄 "hell", 種 "seed", 夜叉 "Yaksha"). <S> I found quite a few phrases, but none of them looked like the cited passage. <S> My knowledge of classical Chinese is very rudimentary, so I may be mistaken. <S> However, the search inside the Cleary translation on the Amazon website doesn't show any such passage either. <S> EDIT: I found a classical Chinese/classical Japanese phrase that is the source of your quote: <S> 女人地獄使。能断仏種子。外面似菩薩。内心如夜叉 <S> 。 <S> It can be found in this text at 7-094. <S> Unfortunately, there is no information about the author nor the date when it was written. <S> In any case, it is definitely not modern Japanese, so I don't think it was written recently. <S> It seems to be a Nichiren commentary to the Lotus Sutra. <S> EDIT 2 <S> : The above quote is preceded by "華厳経云", which means "Avataṃsaka Sūtra says". <S> That explains why the passage is commonly (and incorrectly, as we may conclude) attributed to this sutra. <S> EDIT 3 <S> : I found information about the origin of the quote , which, in light of the facts presented above, we can regard as conclusive: <S> This statement is not found in the extant Chinese versions of the Flower Garland Sutra. <S> However, A Collection of Treasures written by Taira no Yasuyori during the Jisho era (1177–1181) cites it as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra. <A> I think I might have found the actual source. <S> In an anthology of Japanese Literature, I find almost the exact same text , in what looks like a modern fictionalized discussion between two monks, one who says the quote is from Vasubandhu's "The Treatise on Consciousness-Only" I haven't confirmed that, because I can't find the full text of it. <A> The concluding chapter of the Avatamsaka is the Gandavyuha, widely regarded as a sutra in it's own right. <S> The Gandavyuha honours women more than any other sutra that I know of. <S> It tells how a pilgrim named Sudhana discovers a succession of teachers, including 22 who are female. <S> Each of the 22 female teachers gives Sudhana a vitally important insight into the true nature of reality, including the Indra's Net principle of interconnection and inter-reflection.
|
So if it is there at all, I think it's more likely that the quote is a summary/paraphrase of a larger chunk of the sutra, and not a direct translation.
|
How can I overcome the causes of anger? When I get angry with someone, I can usually calm this feeling after some time through meditation practices. But I'm wondering how can I overcome the causes of this 'anger' in a way that I don't get angry anymore with something? <Q> Excellent that you are interested in this! <S> You are motivated to attain Arhatship! <S> Permanent uprooting of the poisons is achievement of Theravedin Enlightenment/Arhatship. <S> I will summarize the pathway in a recursive way that you can not only use for any of the three poisons (anger, greed, delusion)... but you will find will be permanently valuable for the entire path! <S> 1st training: restrain your action by following the Eightfold path. <S> Force yourself to follow Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood <S> no matter what! <S> 2nd training <S> : use anything you would use for the 2nd training, concentration. <S> This can be a contemplation that fixates your attention away from the anger (breathing, brahmavihara, etc.) <S> 3rd training: vipassana. <S> Be clearly nakedly aware of the emotion as a sensation. <S> It will dissolve. <S> The 3rd training is hard to do without proper advancement in 2nd training. <S> The 2nd training is hard to do without proper advancement in the 1st training. <S> The 1st training you must do or else you will sink into a lower form of existence in the next life. <S> Rmemember that the above method may seem like a lot in words <S> but it's main success <S> is in the lifestyle path you choose (animal-killers or prostitutes are not Right Livelihood and will experience more poisons than others always) and being mindful in the moment (#2 and #3), transforming the emotion. <S> This can be a matter of a split second. <S> I have not referenced any lengthy suttas in this text but <S> these are all true things said by the Buddha. <S> I would recommend seeing the chapter on the Three Trainings within the free book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for more info and read the entire book. <S> Super big secrets. <A> how can I overcome the causes of this 'anger' in a way that I don't get angry anymore with something? <S> You overcome anger by being AWARE of anger. <S> 1.When anger arises note "anger". <S> Remember it's not your anger". <S> It's just anger. <S> By doing this you create detachment from it. <S> Creating distance or space. <S> That is usually enough to give you some gap to talk yourself out of it. <S> But if it persists and you find yourself struggling. <S> Then.. 2.Focus on the anger. <S> NOTE: <S> Do not focus on angry thoughts,or memories or plans. <S> When i say focus on the anger <S> i mean focus on the physical/sensations of anger. <S> The heat in your body,the sweat on your face,tension around your jaw,the saliva being produced in your mouth,the heat behind your ears. <S> Be aware of your overall physical state when your angry. <S> Now tell me where is that anger? <S> Show me where it is. <S> Try to find it?So that i can mark that part of your body with a marker. <S> We'll know who <S> the culprit is!Is it that feeling in the back of you <S> neck?Oh <S> it's moved up to your head. <S> Why is it moving around? <S> Now it's gone down your spine. <S> Why is it you can feel anger so strongly <S> but you can never seem to pinpoint it in one spot. <S> It just moving all the time. <S> Anger looks so big, mean and overwhelming when your not paying attention to it but once you take a closer look it seems to be reduce in size,nothing more than tiny particles swirling around different spots of your body and <S> even then if you pay more attention <S> you'll reduce it to nothing. <S> It's dissolved. <S> We think anger is solid and permanent <S> but it's not. <S> When anger lurks in the deep waters of our subconscious we have a distorted view of it. <S> It becomes an impulse that we must let out or it becomes unhealthy,it gathers momentum demanding action to be taken. <S> But the anger is not doing this. <S> We are. <S> By our inability to see it clearly(ignorance).when we bring it to the surface of consciousness <S> we see it for what it is. <S> Just sensations arising and falling going it's own way. <S> So the next time anger arises stay with it in this way. <S> But if you can not then by all means practice restraint. <A> Like all emotions, anger is a healthy, honest, innate insight into your sense of wellbeing. <S> You have the right, as a human being, to feel and be angry. <S> A therapist once told me that 'anger is your dignity', or a call from your soul to be have your sense of self valued. <S> That you are interested in resolving your anger in a way that is compassionate to someone is endearing. <S> But, denying your right to be angry is limiting your right to feel, live, and love freely. <S> Your anger, as unreasonable as it might seem, is coming from an honest place and is likely prompting you to change an aspect of your relationship with someone. <S> However, acting aggressively or denying someone's feelings is not 'right action'. <S> You may also have to change your relationship to your anger and the lens you view anger. <S> Anger is a sign of a weakened relationship, with someone else or within yourself. <S> If you meditate on the causes of your anger, meditate to strengthen your compassion for the wound causing your anger and conditions you can create, within yourself and within the relationship with someone else. <S> And do so to liberate your all of your strength and your relationship. <A> Anger result due to ignorance. <S> Ignorance of when we make sense input our perception and views makes us react to our sense input. <S> We see, hear or feel something which we do not like or something turns out to not what we expect, we react with anger. <S> Hence when you get some sense input jest look at it as feeling. <S> If the above does not work you could try doing some loving kindness meditation.
|
To transform your anger, you may have to change the way you communicate with the 'someone' you mentioned by being more honest and being willing to be vulnerable about painful, troubling feelings. Bee mindful of the feeling it cause and just leave it at that without any reaction knowing that the feeling also will pass away.
|
Does using or watching YouTube break a bhikkhu's rules? Would using YouTube or other social media, where one is exposed to music or forced advertising/entertainment, be breaking the rules for monks? "the watching of entertainments are stumbling blocks" This makes watching any of YouTube (Number 7 of the eight precepts) an area of concern. <Q> It is my personal experience that frequent games, movies, TV, YouTube, smart phone use and browsing definitely reduce one's mindfulness. <S> This is a fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed? <S> The nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. <S> The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures. <S> Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads long pieces of text voluntarily and people find even Twitter too difficult to concentrate on. <S> The nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace. <S> It reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. <S> It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against. <S> YouTube itself is just a tool, it is neither good nor bad, it is the nature of the mind that watches YouTube <S> that is the determining factor. <S> There are a good many dhamma talks on YouTube for example. <A> I have seen many references to this such as http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html <S> The seventh precept speaks of refraining from dancing, singing and the playing of musical instruments. <S> Is it not proper for one to ask another to perform so that one may watch? <S> It is not proper. <S> I guess that in a strict order of Buddhism, this precept may have its place as a form of discipline. <S> In other areas I have studied, this would be considered the letter of the law. <S> It makes sense if you want to keep the passions cool, do not raise them with music and drumming and dancing with members of the opposite gender. <S> However, in the spirit of the law, Zen Shakuhachi flute music can be part of a practice in meditation as is archery, sword, and flower arranging. <S> Listening to or playing this music for purpose of going deeper into meditation seems perfectly sensible under the spirit of the law. <S> When you meet a restriction on personal liberty, it can be instructive to examine the intent of the rule and also examine the intent of the practitioner of not following it strictly. <S> In a monastery, breaking the rules can be an exit sign. <S> In life, the rules are guidelines for novices. <S> Those who have broken the wild stallion can refine the art of riding far beyond the initial guidelines for taming the wild thing. <S> Intention is the key to understanding ourselves and the path we walk. <S> Thank you for the question. <A> Youtube is just a tool... <S> one doesn't watch youtube, one watches a movie, a vídeoclip or a Dhamma talk. <S> Think in youtube as a simple channel of communication <S> , if you use it right, watching, let's say, Dhamma talks or guided meditation <S> , how can that be bad or breaking a precept? <A> No not necessarily because Youtube is not synonymous with entertainment although the masses do use it for this aim. <S> In fact, Youtube is one of the best learning programs in existence . <S> With all the video tutorials and such. <S> Also, use an adblocker. <S> It DOES go against mental self-cultivation to be exposed to all the inappropriate content on the internet including blatant advertisements and sex appeal. <S> It will unsettle you and break your vows to be exposed to all sorts commentary and "sexual education" material as well. <S> Focus on Buddhadharma videos and videos relelvant to your particular trade (e.g. business, cooking, product development, etc.). <S> Another thing, customize your feeds. <S> If you do not customize your feeds <S> you will not get the particular educational programs that you are looking for (if you're a java programmer, java feeds will show up, thus improving Right Livelihood). <A> Householder jmkjuy, interested, good to consider for your self whether such entertainings and use of given with string will lead to debtslessness and toward liberation at first place. <S> Yet one can walk on not without debts but one is wise to consider toward whom <S> and what . <S> What and who gives toward release? <S> Regardless of kammic impact and long term happiness or bonds of such for all in all modes of life being a natural law: watching entertainments, music, films... <S> all of that is breaking even the basic eight precepts, not at all proper and given for monks. <S> Using not personal giving resources, aside of "emergency cases", similar to approach common charity alms food, touches in many cases even ease thieving, aside of possible ceating, not able to keep or go into contracts. <S> Sharing Dhamma for commercial and even bad use with approve, maintain others trade with it with approve, also this can be easy thieve, at least total improper. <S> See also on explainings and encouragements on social media use . <S> Giving the heritage of the Sangha intentional away for commercial use or such as common propaty (both incl. <S> bad use by law, even non-commercial and creatives <S> , open-sources... are incl. <S> bad use by law!) <S> is simply thieving from the Sangha and often very aware, yet based on wrong views. <S> May all take care and be wise enought to build on their good conditions in all regards. <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)
|
If you go to youtube to hear music that is not filled with words, and does not stir up the passions, in other words pure music, then that can be an aid in meditation practice just as sitting, walking and lying down meditation all have their place.
|
Is 'Neo' the Buddha? In the Matrix, is Neo's character just Sidhartha in a new life? Does the movie have any implication to whether Neo is actually the Buddha? I know the movie is chalk full of notions of being Buddhist or at least explores some of it's foundings but Im asking is anyone in the movie, mainly Neo, seen as The Buddha? <Q> I've never understood why people somehow think that the Matrix is somehow a Buddhist movie. <S> It's actually a very thinly veiled allegory for Gnosticism. <S> In Gnosticism, you have the idea that an evil creator god called the Demiurge created the physical world and trapped the souls of people in physical bodies to have dominion over them, and the goal of Gnosticism is to escape physical existence. <S> Most of the Matrix is a copy and paste of that. <S> The core ideas of Buddhism really aren't in that movie in any real sense. <A> I don't think Neo is the Buddha in this movie because the Buddha rediscovered the Truth on his own, <S> Neo on the other hand had Morpheus and Trinity reveal it to him. <S> Neo would be similar to someone who realised or awakened to the Truth because he took the red pill which i would liken to an insight pill. <S> The irony is The Buddha was likened to a physician who could prescribe medicine and in the Matrix Neo was given the red pill to wake up and get a dose of reality. <S> :"> <A> It's obviously possible to see the story as an allegory, in which case, sure, Neo is the one who woke up. <S> But nothing in the story suggests that Neo is intended to be a reincarnation of Siddhartha Gautama.
|
No, not in the context of the story.
|
Submission in Buddhist teachings / practices I have heard people, Buddhists I guess you would say, mention submitting to a higher power. It was just in passing, but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism. I think I would like to "submit", and can do so without losing my mind etc.. Well, I don't know if that makes any sense, but thanks for any guidance. <Q> The idea of surrender in Buddhism in general can vary very, very widely, depending on the particular ideology. <S> Some ideologies believe you need to submit totally to a Guru to be enlightened, others do not. <S> It depends on how people have set the system up in the first place. <S> Pureland Buddhism is particularly strong about this point, and I encourage you to look it up. <S> That being said, it is important to mention that Buddhism is not, at its core, about believing in something or submitting to an ideology.. <S> it is about The Dialectic or Conversation that happens when you try something, find out it is not quite as described, then <S> ask a question about your personal experience and get a clarifying answer, or engage in a debate. <S> That is the dynamic. <S> Discovery through experience, discussion and debate. <S> So, submission and dominance fall then to the status of Dualistic Thinking, and are no different than black and white, cold and hot, or back and front. <S> Both are illusory... <S> Maya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion) ). <S> It doesn't mean that you give up.. <S> it means you let go of the strong attachment you have to particular ideas about the world and yourself, and allow mind and body to take you to places where you can experience truth. <A> I am recently extremely interested in Buddhism, I've read the dhammapada, done alot of thinking and reading about it. <S> However I have not actually done much meditating. <S> My most recent experience in trying or doing meditation was during a moment I was feeling suicidal. <S> I get suicidal thoughts fairly often I think compared to most people. <S> Anyways, a very short time into it, a part of my mind gave me an incredibly strong thought/order telling me to submit. <S> I 'submitted' (idk how, it's all just mental) and immediately felt much better. <S> Since this experience I have felt more at peace, and so I paradoxically am more empowered. <S> In this case, submission is the cause of dominance. <S> This experience was hardly dualistic in the usual sense. <S> The concepts have now become merged into a whole, or at least, the opposite result followed the opposite action. <A> 'Letting go','giving up' or 'relinquishing' (' vossagga ') is the core Buddhist practise. <S> Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation and ripens in relinquishment (vossagga). <S> MN 118 <S> It is like submission to the Nirvana element, which can dissolve mental negativities. <S> Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all... <S> Those who trust in the Dhamma of dispassion have trust in the best; and for those who have trust in the best, the best result will be theirs. <S> AN 4.34
|
Surrender in the Buddhist sense, on the other hand, is about letting go of any fixed notion of self, the universe or any other idea, and trusting in experience to guide you to truth.
|
Buddhist (Theravada) cure for "Insecurity"? While the Pali scriptures address (or at least reference) a number of specific sufferings that a human being can be subject to (Jealousy, Anger, Fear, etc.), do any of the teachings deal with the specific suffering of Insecurity (and how to overcome it)? Meaning a lack of self-confidence, usually caused by the mind making itself subject to fears and illusions that creep in and which it lacks the strength to banish or prevent in the first place. <Q> 1.One of the ways to deal with anxiety,insecurity or lack of self confidence is by developing Sila (Morality,Integrity,Virtue,Ethics). <S> "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous person through his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment , without timidity , in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world." <S> — DN 16* 2. <S> Anxiety comes from fear and fear comes from aversion ,a way to counter act aversion is by practicing metta bhavana (to yourself First,make sure you spend a lot of time on yourself,lack of self confidence masks self hatred). <S> 3. <S> Counteract Fear by developing one of the five spiritual faculties,Faith .Take refuge in the Triple Gem <S> ,Take refuge in the Present Moment. <S> Embrace the present moment. <S> Anxious or not. <S> This just makes it worse. <S> Just note it. <S> Anxiety. <S> Be present for it. <S> Hold it in Awareness and compassion. <S> Yes you might feel worse or uncomfortable but that's okay. <S> You can note. <S> Uncomfortable. <S> No matter what arises due to insecurity to anxiety you can always Note. <S> Which means there is something bigger than anxiety and that is Mindfulness. <S> And soo you will see it changes. <S> So have faith in the Buddha's teaching,put it to practice and see for yourself. <A> Not sure in which sutta , but I remember Buddha having been asked a similar question, about timidity, I think in Anguttara Nikaya. <S> His answer was, basically, that confidence comes from skill. <S> The examples of skills Buddha gave were speaking, manners (posture/walking/standing/sitting), and knowledge of Dharma (he was talking about bhikkhu elders being confident at teaching Dharma, if I remember correctly). <S> Chogyam Trungpa compared Buddhist training to taming a gorilla. <S> The first stage is to learn to move around without breaking stuff and hurting oneself and people. <S> In Trungpa's interpretation, this is essentially what Sila (Shila) is, a practice of discipline, or warrior-like simplicity, cultivation of lifestyle opposite to indulging. <S> This matures into efficient action devoid of any unnecessary/unproductive wavering. <A> I agree with the commenters above <S> and I want to add that insecurity is a state of mind <S> and thus it has the properties of anicca (impermanence), <S> anatta (insubstantiality) and dukkha (causing suffering). <S> The practice of vipassana trains us to see our states of mind as they arise and cease and not to cling to them. <S> Once we learn to let them go, we realise they are not "me", they are not "mine": we simply witness the ups and downs of the mind without identifying with them and without getting upset with them.
|
From my own experience I can add, regular meditation helps tremendously to reduce the pathological kinds of self-reflection. Don't fight it or get upset that you got anxious. If one is well-learned and well-trained at whatever s/he is doing, one tends to be more confident than an incompetent bumbler.
|
How does our inactions contribute to Karma?... For eg:How can you justify act of your cook killing an animal for your non buddhist guest? I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency.... Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?.. So as to avoid confusion.. My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed... <Q> If he asks the cook to just prepare meat without intending him to kill, he does not violate the 1st precept. <S> He will get good Karma for arranging a meal for the guest. <A> I came to know <S> His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency <S> Yes <S> but is the meat bought at the supermarket or he keeps animals to slaughter for <S> food?If it's bought at a supermarket than I think it would be less bad karma than if he had it slaughtered. <S> Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?.. <S> Yes I definitely think asking your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest is Not dhamma .I <S> think it generates bad karma but <S> only the level of intensity varies according to our intentions. <S> I don't think we can kill another being even for food and get away with it. <S> Though killing an animal for food is better than killing them for fun for sport. <S> So the karma varies according to our intention. <S> I don't know maybe it's just personal opinion <S> but i just can't see that. <S> My conscience won't allow me too. <S> Which is why If I have to eat meat,which I do everyday, I say a little prayer and allow them to kill me for food in the future if a time like that should come. <S> It's an act of compassion to give yourself to sustain others. <S> Though i'm sure some of these animals we're not given a choice.so that's why I feel gratitude. <S> For the food itself. <S> So i do think it's wrong <S> and i do accept all the consequences. <S> We are the owner and heir to our karma. <S> If we must kill an animal for food then we should do so in the most humane way and make use of all it's parts, for meat,hyde,fur for clothing etc. <S> In some cultures that shows respect for the animal you've hunted. <S> And I'm sure that's in line with the spirit dhamma. <S> My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. <S> Like here for eg. <S> Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed... <S> Karma is intention. <S> Action with intention. <S> What is your intention for killing an animal? <S> and What is your intention for not doing anything to stop the animal being killed? <S> This will contribute to the fruits of our karma. <A> how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions? <S> .. <S> Like here for eg. <S> Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed... <S> If the above "inaction" was not driven by volition associated, it is reasonable to admit it does not affect karma (ie. <S> there wasn't, in fact, an action). <S> If volition led to, eg, not stopping an animal being killed, there was karma, since there was action. <S> It just wasn't observable. <S> Presumably, the kind of karma is dependent on the volition, not on the fact that an animal wasn't saved. <S> So I think it would be premature to simply conclude that inaction in these circumstances are bad. <S> AN 6.63 : <S> cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi Intention, I tell you, is kamma
|
Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest If Dalai Lama asks the cook to kill an animal, he violates the 1st precept and commits bad karma.
|
How Can One Tell The Difference Between The Spiritual Mind And The Physical Mind? Is there any information in the texts that tell you the difference between the spiritual mind and the physical mind. I know there are ways to transcend, but that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm asking is complicated. At what is a thought or action created by the physical mind/brain, and when is a thought or action created by the spiritual mind, or super-consciousness, or whatever. Or, are all thoughts/action created by the mind? <Q> There are other sources that support the notion that there is only one mind or consciousness in all that is. <S> Here is one such source <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_body <S> In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not regard the body and the mind or spirit as being two entirely separate entities- <S> there is no sense in Buddhism that the body is a "vessel" that is guided or inhabited by the mind or spirit.[1] <S> Rather, the body and mind combine and interact in a complex way to constitute an individual. <S> Buddhist attitudes towards the body itself are complex, combining the distaste for sensual pleasure that characterizes the general Buddhist view towards desire with a recognition of both the individuals dependence on the body, and the utility of the body as an aide in the development of insight. <S> Roshi Suzuki has given lectures to American students teaching what is beginner's mind. <S> It might be of interest. <S> www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf <S> When thoughts stop, there is nothing but sweet nothingness. <A> There's no physical mind. <S> Brain is Rupa(matter). <S> There are only 2 aspects to the universe. <S> Nama - mental aspect <S> Rupa - physical aspect <S> These 2 are further subdivided into five groups called the Panchaskanda (five aggregates) Usually what we call as thoughts belong to the Sankhara group. <S> Thoughts are caused by both physical and mental causes. <A> I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and we have a notion of the reactive mind and the creative mind. <S> The reactive mind is small and governed by habitual responses. <S> The creative mind is big and can respond to situations in a more positive and open way. <S> With practice we can access the creative mind however even then the reactive mind will be there <S> but as a part of this greater whole. <S> There is a lecture about this or some <S> lecture notes if you prefer. <S> From the lecture notes - the reactive mind is.. <S> [..] also a repetitive mind. <S> The reactive mind tends to do the same thing over and over and over again. <S> That’s another reason why it’s like a machine. <S> It gets the same stimuli - the same old newspaper <S> open, the same weather or whatever it may be while the creative mind is [...] <S> active on its own account. <S> The motive power, the force, the drive, the inspiration, as it were, of the creative mind, comes from the depths within the mind itself. <S> Not just from external stimuli. <S> I personally find this way of thinking moderately useful however it can lead one down the path pf a very goal orientated and grasping practice if not taken in the right spirit. <S> Also it's interesting to note that this concept was nicked from the Scientologists who, i think it's fair to say, have a mixed reputation as a spiritual community. <A> There is no such thing as a physical mind. <S> The mind has no form, color, size, smell, etc. <S> The brain is the organ that controls the body. <S> Once a thougth arises it can create an emotion and from that comes the "motion" or action. <S> The mind control the brain and the brain controls the body.
|
A thought is always a mental process originated in the mind.
|
buddha and the fear? Fear is something that can hold us back in inaction. Fear is something that i have in me regarding my presence and purpose of existence. Apart from my social life, apart from whatever i can do for my family i have an instinct to have much more potential in me. But fear of loosing my present keep me in inaction and i am unable to step forward to my purpose (meaning of my existence). So many doubts and real life barriers are also here. I want to know at what point buddha overcome his (level) fear ? And how it feels to be fearless (completely) ? <Q> Complete and permanent fearlessness came for the Buddha with Awakening, of a different type than pathological fearlessness: for us still shackled by the Hindrances there is only temporary release in the Jhanas and learning to accept fear as part of existence. <S> Moreover, as Acharya Buddharacitta writes, the Buddha taught the Karanya Metta Sutta to his monks in order to help them develop mindfulness as some disgruntled devas were oppressing them with frightful visions : Monks, go back to the same spot! <S> It is only by striving there that you will effect the destruction of inner taints. <S> Fear not! <S> If you want to be free from the harassment caused by the deities, learn this sutta. <S> It will be a theme for meditation as well as a formula for protection (paritta). <S> Then the Master recited the Karaniya Metta Sutta — the Hymn of Universal Love — which the monks learned by rote in the presence of the Lord. <S> Then they went back to the same place <S> So that's also a way to deal with fear. <S> EDIT <S> As others have noted, fear comes from aversion (and this is why the Karanya Metta Sutta dispels fear by replacing it with loving kindness). <S> Thus, the Buddha vanquished fear when he destroyed aversion. <S> This happened before Awakening. <A> According to the Palicanon-sutras he had to fight with his fears in the seven years of initial life in the homelessness. <S> The key of overcoming the fear was his deep determination to go that path whatever might happen . <S> I think the "lion's roar" sutta is the one in which he describes something of the process before his awakening ( <S> but there are a couple of other suttas dealing with this) and some moments of real fear and anxiousness in the deep and dark forests. <S> And the "gosingam forest"-sutta closes with his proposal <S> , what makes this forest getting a holy glance: a monk, determined to sit-down and meditate and not to stop before getting the full insight/before destroying the illusion . <S> So his precept was, just to bear the anxiousness/the fear. <S> When it occurs to look at it: to look inside oneself, to look at the fear how it arises, to breath and to observe the breathing and let go any anxious emotion and look how it goes down again... and steadily proceed on the path. <A> Fear is an instance of aversion. <S> Aversion is 1 of the 3 roots of evil . <S> You eradicate aversion when you attain the state of Anagami . <S> Buddha attained the state of Anagami before attaining Buddhahod in the last watch of the night on a Vesak full moon Poya day, about 2603 years ago. <S> To know about how it feels to be completely fearless, read about the life of the Buddha; his encounters with Angulimala the thief , Alavaka the demon . <S> Nalagiri the drunk elephant etc. <S> You can also read stories about Arahaths and Anagamis .
|
Fear is a primal instinct which has its function as it enables us to avoid dangerous situations, thus fearlessness is in itself dangerous and there is such a thing as pathological fearlessness .
|
The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth Why didn't the Buddha, who knew there were 31 realms of existence, not talk about the roundness of the earth and planets? <Q> The basic project of Buddhism is solving the problem of suffering (or sometimes some other variation of the fundamental problem), usually through a realization about who we really are. <S> In addition to that, the Buddha didn't bother to challenge many of the other ideas of his day regarding the realms, or karma. <S> (He did take on caste, the economic system, to some degree the inequalities of men and women) <S> He didn't challenge the world's thoughts on a lot of other issues, like medicine, astronomy, geography and so on. <S> The sutras were written 100s of years later, and accumulated all sorts of unrelated material. <S> By 700 AD, when Vajrayana was well established, the Buddhist canon included books on medicine, astrology and more. <S> There are many varieties of Buddhism, the secular version dispenses with the cosmologies as instructive myths and the core project of Buddhism remains. <S> On the other hand, traditional Buddhism still holds the realms to be literally true, necessary for the Buddhist project and proponents like to call doubters "scientist", "materialist" or dismissive of "faith". <S> If the basic project is to stop the cycle of rebirth and enter a sort of heaven (nirvana), then the realms are essential to Buddhism, without them the basic goal becomes incoherent. <S> If the basic project to end suffering, that is a goal that can imaginably be achieved in this lifetime <S> and it's validity <S> is unaffected by what may happen after we die. <A> The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth? <S> Perhaps because it had nothing to do with being free from suffering. <S> How come? <S> if he didn't know about the basic fact that all kids now know, instead he said it was flat. <S> And i can't find any reference of him saying the earth is flat.can you? <S> Doesn't it mean that what is said in the buddhist text is unreliable? <S> That depends on each person. <S> If the person has developed the jhanas and the ability to travel to other realms then the text is reliable to him. <S> If the person has faith in the Buddha the text is reliable for him,for people who completely ignore any metaphysical aspect and practice insight meditation in the here and now,the text is reliable for them. <S> For people who need to see scientific proof for everything then the text is unreliable for them. <S> The Dhamma invites you to practice and see for yourself. <S> No one is forcing you to believe. <S> You decide what's best for yourself. <S> On the other hand he did mention about 31 realm of existence which is more difficult to comprehend and cannot be proved. <S> Yes he had to mention the 31 planes of existence because it was related to his teaching of suffering and the cessation of suffering. <S> He didn't mention the earth is round,the chemical composition of the sun,how to build a space ship,how many rings there are in jupiter,what my cats name is because it was irrelevant. <S> The 31 planes of existence is only difficult to comprehend if you do not see cause and effect. <S> Everyday our mind states changes. <S> One minute we are happy (in the deva realm) <S> the next we are angry <S> (hell realms).Really you don't even have to believe in a place this in itself is enough. <S> That said some of the Buddhist Universe truth are proven false by the today scientific discovery already. <S> Fortunately all Buddhists only have to worry about freeing themselves from suffering. <A> The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth <S> The Buddha always talked about spherical shapes throughout the suttas .Spherical shapes when referring to other worlds and also realms. <S> You may also be confused when it is talked about the eight cardinal directions , confusing it for a flat plane. <S> Instead the saying "anything in the eight cardinal directions" refers to the entire unvierse outside of yourself. <S> Also, according to this blog entry he describes the earth very perfectly including its radius. <S> " I can look for the exact source but try googling it and comment back first. <A> You may find Mr Piya Tans commentaries about the Aggañña Sutta and the Satta Suriya sutta to give some examples where the Buddha used cosmology . <S> As to why he declared some knowledge and not others read the Simsapa Sutta. <A> According to my knowledge, there are six realms if we are talking about the Living Buddha. <S> He mentioned it during his teachings on Bhavachakra , known as wheel of life. <S> These realms are taught based on the lives of all sentient beings in earth.
|
I think the only reason the Buddha mentioned the 31 planes of existence was to help us understand more about samsara and that there are mind states that correlates with these 31 planes of existence. Also, in the Surangama sutra or some other sutra Buddha describes the roundness of planets and "sun-systems. He may not have been referring to the physical earth but the metaphysical or spiritual universe.
|
What do we do when we've broken a precept? How should we proceed in our practice when we have broken some of the five precepts? I am anguished over this unwholesome behavior and the negative karma I created. Ajahn Brahm talks about self-forgiveness and the Buddha in the Sankha Sutta (the Conch Trumpet Sutta) talks about waking up from unwholesome behavior by refraining from such actions in the future. And of course, there is the story of Angulimala, so there are some examples in the teachings of people waking from patterns of negative karma-making. I suppose the only way to proceed is to maintain the precepts, deepen my practice and strive to create wholesome karma? <Q> That is bad Karma. <S> What you need to practice is Samma Vayama(The <S> right effort) of the noble eightfold path. <S> The effort (1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states; (2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen; (3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen; (4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen. <S> Take the triple refuge and the five precepts every morning to remind yourself. <A> When you start off you can keep contemplating on the virtues and adhere to them. <S> If any is broken make a strong determination not to break it again. <S> As you progress look at the sensation each volition creates. <S> If then sensation is gross then the action that follows will also be a gross action (breaking a virtue) hence should be avoided. <S> Repenting is not productive. <S> At higher stages you will notice that repenting also causes gross sensations, but until then keep in mind that repenting aggravates the Karma. <A> Sit with your emotions of regret and cry and truly feel the pain you caused others Decide to fuel it into following the Noble Truths to live a balanced life and work towards the super awesome goals of Buddhism which are far beyond anything that any drug or thing or person can ever give you! <S> Make a small offering (a small bowl of rice will do, throw it in your garden the next morning) to your family ancestors, ghosts and the other beings and ask them for their help every night. <S> (a certain social circle may not be seeing you in a while!) <S> Find a replacement habit for each of the things you want to change (for example, if you feel relaxed by drinking, listen to music instead and do deep breathing... <S> it'll give you a similar feeling and will lead you towards even higher attainments--while enhancing your brain and body) <S> Keep monitoring your avoiding these triggers. <S> Each day you can avoid these triggers (that are related to certain unbeneficial behaviors) is a day closer to permanent change! <S> Studies show that if you can maintain a habit for 21 consecutive days, you basically have changed the way your brain works! <S> Good luck! <A> You put your concern into an abstract concept, which is a hindrance. <S> When you know, that you did something unhealthy/unwise etc. <S> "make it good" where you did bad. <S> I.e. if you'd hurt someone, tell them you know and how you feel about it now, no matter how their reaction might be. <S> You can only solve problems on their very level but never in abstract religious-conceptual-whatever way (by putting a concrete situation into a philosophical or religious structure.
|
Then at night, before going to sleep, reflect on the day's activities and see if you broke any precepts or if you can improve with Samma Vayama and try to do better next day. Don't regret or repent! Forgive yourself when you have fully taken this decision to change and made this sacrifice List the different things you want to change Describe how each of these things are triggered and decide to avoid these triggers!
|
Is there a correlation between sukha and passadha? Is there a correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga)? <Q> When Piti arises and you stay equanimously watching the arising and passing knowing its impermanence (with no attachment or craving to this feeling) then Piti will fade away and Passadhi will arise. <S> When Passadhi initially arises you may think your meditation is regressing as you loose Piti and also board after a few hours of Passadhi. <S> Piti is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara resulting from craving. <S> Passadhi is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara from Ignorance or Sanna. <A> Sukha isn't one of the 7 Bojjhangas, although Piti (rapture) is the fourth of them <S> so I think that's what you meant. <S> Yes, there is a connection. <S> For example, in the section on the Bojjhangas in the Anapanasati Sutta it says: "[4] <S> In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. <S> When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. <S> He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. <S> "[5] <S> For one enraptured at heart, the body grows calm and the mind grows calm. <S> When the body & mind of a monk enraptured at heart grow calm, then serenity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. <S> He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html <A> http://lucid24.org/sn/sn46/sn46-003/toc-addon/index.html <S> It's not just that sutta, SN 46.3. <S> Doing a search for passaddha-kāyo sukhaṃ returns (60 hits).At least 60 sutta references to that same 7sb awakening factor <S> sequence.passaddha-kāyo sukhaṃ: (with) pacified-body, [physical] pleasure (results)
|
When Piti is developed correctly it will lead to Passadha (which simply means tranquility or peace.) It's not just a strong correlation, it's the direct cause.
|
Which text does the four sights story come from? One of the most famous stories of the Buddha is that of the four sights in which the Buddha sees old age, sickness death and a monk for the first time. However I read that this story doesn't actually occur in the Pali Canon. Can anyone give the reference for the text or texts that this story does occur in. Also since it doesn't appear in the Pali Canon is it reasonable to suppose that it might have less historical accuracy then other events in the Pali Canon. After all if it had of occurred wouldn't the Buddha have told Ananda at some point who would have then recounted when the storied were been collected after the Buddha's death. This is of a side point really - and probably unnecessarily contraversial. <Q> Possibly a later development based on AN 3.39 . <S> In that sutta, the Buddha didn't explicitly mention He saw those signs but the ideas were there: ... <S> Amid such splendor and a delicate life, it occurred to me: ‘ <S> An uninstructed worldling, though himself subject to old age, not exempt from old age, feels repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when he sees another who is old, overlooking his own situation. <S> Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. <S> Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ <S> When I reflected thus, my intoxication with youth was completely abandoned... <A> Literary Sources of the Buddha Legend says, <S> In the later works Nidanakatha, Buddhavamsa and the Lalitavistara Sūtra, the account was consequently also applied to Siddhārtha Gautama. <S> The "Mahāpadāna Sutta, DN 14" isn't one of the suttas translated in the Digha Nikaya section of accesstoinsight . <S> There is an English-language translation of it here: <S> http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Maha-padana_Sutta <S> I don't know what current scholarship says. <S> This paper from 1914 starts with, To students of Buddhism and Comparative Religion desirous of knowing Buddha's own views and teaching from his own words, it is extremely disconcerting to find that the Pali Canon can no longer be regarded as <S> the actual "Word" and Doctrine of Buddha himself. <S> ... and goes on to claim that the doctrine that there were previous Buddhas was invented after the historical Buddha's death, <S> The theory that former human Buddhas preceded Gotama, although generally accepted as an integral part of Buddha's Buddhism, seems to me to have been invented after the Buddha's death. <S> ... <S> which would imply that DN 14 were a later invention. <A> On my memory, it first appears in the Buddhacarita, the earliest "full biography" of the Buddha, written by Asvaghosha around 100-150 CE. <A> I'm not sure when the story of the four sights was first mentioned but it definitely doesn't seem to be a part of the early texts. <S> The Devaduta Sutta mentions that seeing a baby, old person, sick person, a person punished, and a corpse as all being a kind of message sent to humanity to be reflected on, so perhaps some of this was interpolated into the biography. <S> Personally I don't think the traditional biographies have much historical merit. <S> The earliest texts we have don't mention a lot of these kinds of things, and a lot of the embellishments are also found in the biographies of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism <S> so I think there was probably a lot of borrowing of folk traditions. <S> I think that these stories are very useful as a source of moral inspiration, but I think that they are very weak as a source of actual history.
|
In the early Pali sources, the legendary account of the four sights is only described with respect to a previous legendary Buddha Vipassī (Mahāpadāna Sutta, DN 14).[13]
|
Were the Buddha's earliest followers bhikkhus? What is the proper name for the Buddha's earliest followers such as Ananda and Sariputta - the ones that followed the Buddha during his lifetime. Would the term be bhikkhu and bhikkhuni or does this only apply to settled monastics? <Q> There are 4 Bhikkhu - Male monk <S> Bhikkhuni - Female nun <S> Upasaka - Lay male follower <S> Upasika - Lay female follower Also note that in the Suttas all of the above are referred as Bhikkhus in addressing. <A> The earliest records we have refer to Ānanda in many ways. <S> But bhikkhu is one of them. <S> For example in the Mahāpadāna Sutta we find Mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etarahi ānando nāma bhikkhu upaṭṭhāko ahosi aggupaṭṭhāko . <S> A bhikkhu called Ānanda, monks, was our servant, the best of servants. <S> Similarly in the Kalyaṇamitta Sutta <S> (SN i.87) <S> Atha kho, mahārāja, ānando bhikkhu yenāhaṃ tenupasaṅkami <S> Then, your Majesty, I approached the bhikkhu Ānanda... <S> However he is frequently referred to as āyasmā ānando roughly Elder Ānanda. <S> His ordination as a bhikkhu was probably fairly conventional. <S> It's not recounted in full. <S> But at least twice his preceptor (upajjhāya) is mentioned, e.g. Tena kho pana samayena āyasmato ānandassa upajjhāyo āyasmā belaṭṭhasīso araññe viharati. <S> (Vin 4.86) <S> At that time Belaṭṭhaṣīso, the preceptor of Ānanda, was living in the wilderness. <S> Sāriputta's ordination was a bit less convention. <S> He was converted by Assaji and already a stream-entrant when he met the Buddha. <S> Curiously I cannot find any evidence of Sāriputta being called a bhikkhu in Pāḷi. <S> In some discourses that seem to be early the Buddha ordains men by saying ehi bhikkhu "come monk", but this was soon replaced by the more formal two stage ordination process. <S> On the whole I think bhikkhu and bhikkhunī are fine. <S> They really refer to a lifestyle rather than being an ecclesiastical title. <A> In this translation <S> it's "monks" and "Venerable". <S> Wikipedia says that, Bhikkhu literally means "beggar" or "one who lives by alms". <S> The 'ordained' monastics and the Vinaya existed (were created) during the Buddha's lifetime.
|
In Maha-parinibbana Sutta , for example, they're referred to as "bhikkhus" and "Venerable".
|
Does hand gesture have an impact on meditation or attainment of Nirvana? The question regarding the gesture while sitting for meditation has always intrigued me. When I tried to ask this to a Vipassana teacher in my 10-day course, he put it off saying I should concentrate on meditation first without worrying about these matters. Does it mean that it doesn't make any difference? I personally use the dhyana mudra (fore-finger touching the thumb in a circle, and other three fingers straight out) while sitting cross-legged. But in many of Buddha's statues, I've seen him keep the left hand over right , and in some others, thumb touching forefinger and hand kept straight across the chest gestures. Want to know from advanced practitioners, what do the Buddha's postures indicate? More importantly, does having a certain gestures have any good or bad effect on our vipassana practice? <Q> Yes and no. <S> Certain hand gestures cause better energy flow through your body and vibrations. <S> These vibration can be some times an aid in dissolving pain and also fabrication. <S> So my advice is do not bother too much about these as their contribution to your final goal is <S> marginal or non existent through it might give a mild boost to better practice in certain situation <S> is making you conferable to be seated for a long time by creating Piti which is one of the enlightenment factors but keeping in mind <S> you cannot bake a cake with one ingredient and attachment to the feeling or creating view and perception around the gestures <S> will hold you back <A> From my reading of around 40 suttas that mentioned Anapanasati, Buddha never mentioned about where to place your hands or arms. <S> However, in those suttas, he mentioned sitting down crossed legs in quiet place (forest, under a tree, empty house (room) etc. <S> he didnt even mention that you have to close your eyes. <S> then place your attention to the present and your breathing. <S> knowing clearly if breathing is short or shallow etc. <S> Here we go <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html <A> In traditions such as Zen, holding the hands in a mudra position is another way of directing mindfulness to the body, just as is having the legs, arms, torso, etc in proper alignment. <S> It is true that meditation is about what goes on between your ears, not your fingers -- see what works for you but don't let it become a source of distraction or frustration. <A> No one seems to have answered this from the obvious point of view: tantra . <S> According to the 9th century Japanese Tantric Buddhist practitioner, Kūkai, the abhiṣekha, or initiation, is a communication aimed at the body, speech and mind of the practitioner. <S> As such it consists of gestures, words, and images (mudra, mantra, and maṇḍala). <S> The communication of the abhiṣekha recapitulates the first communication of the Dharma from Mahāvairocana to Vajrasatva. <S> The primordial Buddha, Mahāvairocana had been sitting in the perfect equanimity of full and perfect awakening, but realised that until he communicated his experience. <S> So he manifested a being called Vajrasatva and through mudra, mantra and maṇḍala directly communicated his experience to Vajrasatva <S> who was immediately fully and perfectly awakened. <S> Mahāvairocana then asked Vajrasatva to pass on the abhiṣekha to other beings (who are also manifestations of Mahāvairocana). <S> This all takes place in a world conceived of as the body, speech and mind of Mahāvairocana. <S> All phenomena are the body of Mahāvairocana; all sounds are the speech of Mahāvairocana. <S> All mental acticity is the mind of Mahāvairocana. <S> In doing a Tantric visualisation one is attempting to repeat that first ever conversation in mudra, mantra, and maṇḍala.
|
If you get attached to the vibrations and gestures this will do more harm than good in your progress. Other traditions emphasize complete relaxation of the body, and the hands are just kept resting loosely. So in terms of Tantric Buddhist practice, yes, the mudras are a vital part of the process.
|
What is the difference between Satipatthana and Vipassana? In short, if i practice Vipassana meditation does it means i practice Satipatthana? <Q> Satipatthana is the name of the actual practice, and Vipassana is the name of the quality of clearly seeing reality which Satipatthana produces. <A> Vipassana itself is True Awareness, clear-seeing presence in the moment absent of wandering thoughts. <S> There is no Awakening without some success in Vipassana practice. <S> Continued Vipassana practice aka True Awareness, results in Complete Enlightenment. <S> Buddhism is really that simple and that's why the Buddha said "Mindfulness is liberation"! <S> Another pathway would be Anapanasati (breathing meditation).These are the two best paths and have sutras and many commentaries worth reading explaining how to construct that pathway. <S> In reality though all paths are the same and you will understand this after developing fluency over how to practice various meditation methods. <A> satipatthana = vipassana. <S> Vipassana is the meditation practice that follows the teachings of the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 22). <A> Yes, it is. <S> Buddha first taught Vipassana meditation just after delivering Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, when setting the Wheel of Dhamma in motion, to Pañcavaggiyas (five disciples - Kondanna, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji). <S> Later Buddha delivered Satipatthana how to practice Vipassana in details.
|
Satipatthana is merely a pathway (or meditation method) for Vipassana training.
|
I can feel the rising and falling of sensations in vipassana, but what to make of thoughts? There are two things I want to understand here. Firstly, though I'm not overly disturbed by thoughts during vipassana sitting, I just don't know how do I treat them. What I presently do is just try to ignore them and continue observing the rising and falling . But if the thoughts are too strong and persist, I tend to observe them impartially until they leave of their own accord (but during this time my observance of anicca has stopped). Am I doing this thing rightly or not? Secondly, I want to understand the reality of thoughts. I know that ultimately none of these have permanent reality, but compared to conditioned reality of sensations what is the conditioned reality of thoughts ? Basically, I want to know whether they have any objective reality, or they are subjective (just things in my head)? I recently read in a book that reality keeps vibrating each and every instant, and we need to look into the arising/vanishing of these vibrations, as that is what anicca is all about. My question is do these vibrations apply to thoughts as well or just sensations? <Q> How should I treat thoughts? <S> You should strive to know thoughts as thoughts . <S> If you are observing impartially, that's good. <S> If you are ignoring the light, fleeting thoughts, it depends what you mean. <S> You don't want to actively ignore anything as that will cultivate aversion or even a dullness of mind. <S> If you mean the thoughts are just too light, too fleeting to catch, then you're doing what you can, and your coverage will improve with practice, if you strive for it. <S> The other side of this is that it's more important to impartially observe whatever comes up, rather than simply impartially observing thoughts. <S> That is, you should try to stay in the here and the now. <S> Then the frustration becomes hotness in the body. <S> As soon as we are aware of the hotness, we should observe the hotness. <S> Or perhaps coldness following fear. <S> And then maybe the thought comes back, and we observe that, or we feel an irritation on the skin, and we observe that. <S> I'm giving as many examples as I can from my own experience to try to illustrate that when a thought overtakes us, the here-and-now can be a swiftly-moving target. <S> What is the conditioned reality of thoughts? <S> The Buddha placed thoughts on an equal footing with all other sensations, as you can read in the very brief Sabba Sutta (found in the Samyutta Nikaya, Sutta #35.23): <S> "Monks, I will teach you the All. <S> Listen & pay close attention. <S> I will speak." <S> "As you say, lord," the monks responded. <S> The Blessed One said, "What is the All? <S> Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. <S> This, monks, is called the All. <S> Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. <S> Why? <S> Because it lies beyond range." <S> So from a meditative point of view, the most objective things you have are the thoughts and the senses. <S> Don't worry too much whether thoughts are objective or subjective. <A> Here is a video called "Ask A Monk: <S> Correct Observation of Thoughts" by Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo. <S> In here its talked about how to observe thoughts and also about what happens when one is forcing thoughts to go away or to trying to stop thinking. <S> You might this video useful. <S> There is also a short quote on how to deal with thoughts from the book "How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace" by Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo, p. 11: <S> "... <S> In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one should acknowledge them as “thinking”. <S> It doesn't matter whether one is thinking about the past or future or whether one's thoughts are good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with, "thinking". <S> Then return to the rising and falling and continue practice as normal..." <A> Thoughts are result in verbal fabrications which result in sensations, when the thought makes contact with the mind sense door. <S> Each time a thought arises there is an associated sensation through out the body. <S> If you have many successive such thoughts this sensation accumulates. <S> E.g. multiple depressing thoughts will leave you depressed. <S> Happy memories will leave you happy and smiling. <S> Main few things you actively do: <S> Calm down the verbal and metal fabrications by trying to bring your wondering mind to a chosen object <S> Look at the sensation in the body (mainly around your head) <S> the thought proliferation has created. <S> (Tightness, heaviness, depressed, happy, excited, passionate, etc. <S> - also if you look deeply these are combinations of the Elements ) due to thoughts. <S> This will calm any bodily fabrications. <S> If breathing becomes fast. <S> If breathing has stopped does it start again. <S> Also you pulse. <S> Identify if the sensation is due to a mental reaction due to perception and see perception creates misery also and dilute these perceptions. <A> But if the thoughts are too strong and persist, I tend to observe them impartially until they leave of their own accord (but during this time my observance of anicca has stopped). <S> Am I doing this thing rightly or not? <S> Your observance of anicca should not stop. <S> Secondly, I want to understand the reality of thoughts. <S> I know that ultimately none of these have permanent reality, but compared to conditioned reality of sensations what is the conditioned reality of thoughts? <S> You should answer your question yourself. <S> Wisdom gained through experience is the right path to liberation. <S> If you want to know what is the conditioned reality of thoughts, do this: <S> Mindfully observe your thoughts arising and ceasing until they leave of their own accord. <S> Do step 1 until you mindfully observe: "There are no thoughts arising in me". <S> Once you note that your mind is completely stilled, proceed to the next step. <S> Mindfully and slowly arise a thought, for example arise a visualization of an object. <S> Observe how the thought visualization of the object arises. <S> Then, mindfully and slowly let go of this same thought visualization of the object. <S> Observe how the thought visualization of the object ceases. <S> Repeat the process. <S> The key here is mindfulness. <S> Like an experienced forensic who is dissecting every inch of a crime scene, so should you dissect your mind when a thought arises and ceases. <S> By doing the above exercise and mindfully observing what happens in step 3, you will understand the reality of thoughts. <S> You will see why they arise. <S> You will see why they cease.
|
Rather consider objectively that a thought is a thought, and seeing it as anything else is subjective. A thought might become frustration, and you should observe that impartially. Also pay attention to changes in breathing.
|
Does breeding dogs fall under right livelihood? Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners? Edit : Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon. There are two relevant suttas that I found: The Vanijja Sutta The Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated. <Q> Depends on which system your in. <S> In the Mahayana system, the precepts have an animal liberation theme, i.e. not using animals for anything. <S> In the Upasaka precepts. <S> (15) <S> If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises cats or foxes, he has committed the sin of negligence. ... <S> (16) <S> If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals, such as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and refuses to give them away to someone who has not received the [upāsaka] precepts, he has committed the sin of negligence. <S> Without rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his cyclic existence, ... he cannot avoid going down an evil life-path. <S> ref: <S> http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html <S> And in the Brahma Net Sutra precepts <S> On Harming Sentient Beings <S> A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or measuring devices. <S> He should not abuse his governmental position to confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart, restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success. <S> (82) <S> In addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such animals. <S> (83) <S> If he intentionally does such things, he commits a secondary offense. <S> ref: <S> http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm <S> I'm a vegetarian myself, and sympathetic to animal right issues-- <S> the pet trade, zoos, and circuses do involve a certain amount of unneeded suffering and death on the animals parts, but for some people, their dog or cat is the only reason they have any sympathy at all for non-humans. <S> So pets are a sort of unvolunteered diplomats for their species and animals in general. <S> Anyhow, here is one asian, dog charity <S> I follow- https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262 <A> With Buddhist morality, you have to remember there are two levels: <S> The conventional, that is used like fence posts to demarcate boundaries and provide a framework. <S> This includes the precepts, and the other teachings of the Buddha on right livelihood, ascetic practices, etc. <S> The ultimate, that deals with actual mental immorality, similar to a real fence that actually prevents escape. <S> This involves mental states of greed, morality, and delusion. <S> The fence posts are important on a conventional level, since without them, one wouldn't know where to put the fence, and the fence would most likely collapse without their support. <S> Precepts support practice, and provide clear indication of what is out of bounds. <S> They don't describe true morality. <S> So, conventionally speaking, breeding dogs may not be wrong livelihood in the Theravada, as per the other answers, but most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being). <S> How wrong depends on many factors, often independent of the actual livelihood. <S> How you treat your dogs, euthanization, etc. <S> Often, the level of "wrong" is not significant, and simply slows down one's progress towards enlightenment. <S> The point is not to let one's livelihood become a barrier towards nibbana. <A> Under Samma Ajiva , five kinds of wrong livelihoods are identified: trading in animals for slaughter dealing in weapons dealing in slaves dealing in poison dealing in intoxicants <S> So breeding dogs for petting is fine! <A> While there mightn't be any specific quotes from Buddhist texts regarding the breeding of dogs, this doesn't necessarily mean it's fine. <S> Depending on the methods and goals of the breeding, this can lead to a number of severe health issues ongoing to purebred dogs. <S> One need only begin to research the breed history and plight of the average sausage dog, pug, cavalier spaniel, etc, to read of the common health issues that have arisen from inbreeding and from the emphasis of certain defects through breeding. <S> Another issue is pet overpopulation - there are millions of unwanted cats and dogs that are taken to shelters every year and euthanised as they are unable to re-homed. <S> To be adding dogs bred purposefully to these numbers would exacerbate the issue and denying existing dogs the opportunity to find a home. <S> Additionally, the current attitudes within society towards dogs are such that they are commodities to be purchased and traded, utilised for some practical or social purpose (such as a status symbol in the case of some purebred dogs) and these attitudes are reinforced by the encouragement of breeding and its transactional nature. <S> I don't think holding these attitudes is spiritually healthy. <S> One might argue that the treatment of dogs such as the above constitutes dealing in slaves.
|
I think people are able to have productive and ethical relationships with animals, however I would argue that the combination of animals and commercial purposes creates welfare issues as the business maxims of maximum output for input inevitably come into play.
|
Is it OK to mentally multi-task during vipassana meditation? It appears that I have found it possible to focus both on the breath (as a meditation object) and to be aware of a bit of a train of thought. Is this acceptable, or unacceptable, or should it be avoided? Or, is it perhaps simply varying "snippets" of mind-moments where I am slipping in and out of bare awareness of the meditation object? <Q> Multi-tasking is an illusion... <S> I have read that the mind and the senses are like a monkey sticking its head out six different windows rapidly in succession. <S> A great lama once told me that trying to solve a puzzle when you sit down to meditate is in actuality making another samsara. <A> I'd say that if you multi-task, acknowledge multi-tasking (which is at that moment on top of both breath and thoughts), let it go, and return to the breath. <S> And see what happens in the next moment. <S> Perhaps when you multi-task, there is also a reason underneath that (avoiding some difficult feelings or pain, ambition to meditate "well", avoidance of boredom or tiredness) which you can become aware of (not by analyzing, just by looking), -- then acknowledge that one, let it go, and return to the anchor. <A> There are times you have to think and in these cases it is fine as long as you look at the sensations through which you can understand the other aggregates. <S> In general meditation you have to reduce metal fabrications hence have a look at the thought, their sensation and bring the mind to an anchor. <S> This way you can tame the verbal fabrication. <S> One very important step in Vippassana is to tame the fabrication. <S> So you have to keep this in mind focused. <A> The most important thing is that you should not be attached to your train of thoughts. <S> Whether your CPU (brain) has an efficiency of 2 cores or 6 cores, it doesn't matter! <S> What matters is that the cores are used efficiently. <S> And in Vipassana meditation, they are used most efficiently when they are just shut down (unattached/equanimous to thoughts). <A> Such a thing as "multitasking" does not exist, since mind has only one object one time. <S> So "multitasking" means nothing but dwelling in a fantastic illusion/construction and being totally unaware. <S> Calling it a puzzle is a good simile: it's just that one "solves" his own created puzzle. <S> People who think that they can handle more things at one time, are actually not at all aware of what they are doing (outwardly), even more so inward events. <S> Especially busy people, people who are proud of being "able" to handle many things at one time, hate to hear a (anti-"multitasking") doctrine like this. <S> However, give it a honest self-proof. <S> Record the whole stream and look at it picture by picture. <S> That reminds me on an essay about walking meditation, which may be of use: ... <S> Before yogis begin practicing walking meditation, they may have thought that a step is just one movement. <S> After meditation on that movement, they observe that there are at least four movements, and if they go deeper, they will understand that even one of these four movements consists of millions of tiny movements... <S> The Benefits of Walking Meditation
|
If you are aware of the snippets of mind-movements as they are alternating, acknowledge that awareness, and perhaps any induced reaction (liking, disliking, fascination, thoughts, comparison), let it go, and return to your anchor (breath).
|
Why Vipassana meditation need a base object? I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that Vipassana is about letting go of control and judgement, and the meditator will just become aware and accept things as they are. Be it pain, thoughts, sound, or physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath). I wonder we need to have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. Why don't we just let go from the very beginning and just become aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object? <Q> I think (please kindly correct me if i wrong) <S> Vipassana is about letting go of control & judgement, and the meditator will just aware and accept things as it is. <S> Will it be pain, thoughts, sound, and physical sensations like breath or a moving stomach (as we breath). <S> That sounds more like shikantaza/zazen . <S> Vipassanā means insight into reality: seeing the three marks of existence dukkha , anicca , anatta . <S> The practice is described in suttas such as Satipatthana and Anapanasati . <S> So, the actual goal is not "letting go of control & judement" -- however, "letting go" is a useful tip at some points in the practice. <S> I wonder why do we have a base object, like breath or moving stomach. <S> Why dont we just let go from the very beginning and just aware and accept any sensation as it is, without any default object? <S> Because insight into reality need some faculties developed. <S> Two of them are concentration (samadhi) and mindfulness (sati). <S> It so happens that is very difficult to develop concentration without something to anchor our attention: meditation objects. <S> Finally, samadhi and sati are not just random faculties. <S> Both are listed in the Noble Eightfold Path and in the Seven Factors of Enlightenment. <A> Two reasons: <S> The mind gets lost in the contents very easily, so having an anchor <S> (base object) will not let it go too far and for too long. <S> The anchor forces you to let go of stuff every time you come back, which is very useful and pushes the mind into the practice. <S> Letting go of control and judgment (or letting go of anything in the moment it arises -- to see it clearly as it is, just as a momentary eruption of activity of the mind) is is the goal(*) state, but not an effective means of arriving there (in my experience, at least). <S> In dry vipassana (Mahasi, for instance), you train (momentary) concentration along with mindfulness. <S> (*) (EDIT) not the ultimate goal of vipassana, but the highest mundane state, knowledge of equanimity regarding formations (sankharupekkha-nana). <A> The meditator uses the meditation object to center his attention (concentration— samadhi ). <S> When his attention is 'wandering' away, the meditator uses the object (i.c. the breath) as his 'base camp' to bring gently his awareness back. <S> Mindfulness—awareness (sati) and equanimity (upekkha) are the two wings which lead to wisdom, to insight (panna) : they show the meditator the phenomena as they really are (yathabhuta) . <S> Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. <S> The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 91: ' <S> To be mindful of something—of anything—is an act of generosity. <S> You are giving it life by allowing it into your world. <S> But the greatest benefactor—because you're showing respect to your own life—is you'.
|
Keeping mind on the base object trains concentration, acknowledging and coming back trains mindfulness.
|
What is this personality split I'm feeling since practicing Vipassana? Ever since I've started practicing Vipassana, I'm starting to feel two distinct and diametrically opposite intentions are developing within me. The first one says "I've suffered enough, not any more! I'm prepared to do anything to experience Nirvana. Enough of supporting these cravings and desires, they have only lead to great suffering. I don't want to take another birth." Au contraire, the second one says "I want to enjoy the basic things in life. Though I've undergone a lot of sufferings, I should enjoy at least a little before leaving this world, its only fair. Is it wrong to enjoy things?" Whilst I vaguely used to feel this divide since long, its only since I've started practicing Vipassana that it has become more pronounced. Its as if like a big battle is going on between these two forces , and I'm just a spectator. Is this feeling normal, or my case is any different? <Q> I would say dont bother with any of them. <S> Simply note them as mental formations. <S> They belong to the 4th aggregate and are under the effect of the 3 signs of existence. <S> Note them and see how they arise and cease like all other conditioned phenomena. <S> There is no "self" experiencing this - there is only the arising and cessation of mental and physical phenomena. <S> Dont identify with them. <S> Dont take ownership of them. <S> These phenomena are impersonal and empty of any substance. <S> You should look up Conventional & Ultimate reality - Sammuti sacca & Paramattha sacca . <S> Or Check out the discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta by Mahasi Sayadaw . <S> In this discourse it is described thoroughly and in detail why the 5 aggregates cannot be taken as a "self". <A> It's not wrong to enjoy things. <S> In fact when you're free of the grip existence you're most capable of enjoying it: seeing the beauty of the trees and the nature. <S> It's like a beautiful painting: you don't have to believe in the contents of the painting to be able to enjoy it. <S> You should enjoy your life until your physical body dies. <S> The trouble is in your wanting: wanting to have a nirvana, wanting to avoid another birth or wanting to enjoy life. <S> Just be without fear. <S> All things come in their right time. <S> Perceive it all. <S> The whole world is your practice ground. <A> Whilst I vaguely used to feel this divide since long, its only since I've started practicing Vipassana that it has become more pronounced . <S> Meditation tends to bring forth our vague intentions,feelings,thoughts etc. <S> In other words your just seeing it clearly now because of mindfulness. <S> It used to go about unregistered in the subconscious until you became mindful of it. <A> Leave aside both than romanticize and just keep up your practice. <S> If you are too eager to Niravana then you will put too much effort. <S> If you go the other way then worldly pleasures come with more misery attached.
|
You can have nirvana and you can enjoy life at the same time.
|
Are all non-monastic ways of life wrong livelihood? Leading on from this answer - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true. Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful. <Q> "Is it true that..." is a difficult question to answer. <S> They are said to either leave the household life or pass into parinibbana. <S> See, for example, the enlightenment of Khemā: <S> At the conclusion of the lesson Khemā was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson. <S> Said the Teacher to the king, “Great king, Khemā ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbāna.” <S> The king replied, “Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbāna, never!” <S> She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher’s foremost female lay disciples. <S> Dhp-A 347 (from Buddhist Legends) <S> N.B. <S> the word "never" should actually be "enough!", in the sense that it's not time to think about that now. <S> The point is that, as mentioned in the linked answer, there is a difference between conventional morality and ultimate morality. <S> Conventionally, only those livelihoods mentioned explicitly are wrong, just as only adultery is wrong for one who keeps five precepts. <S> That doesn't mean that ordinary sexual desire is not ultimately misguided; it is. <S> Likewise, any livelihood for the purpose of maintaining a household life is ultimately misguided. <S> The only exception I can think of is where one's household life is identical to a monastic setting (i.e. no need for ambition, concern for belongings, etc.). <A> In Tibetan Buddhism there are many examples of yogis that didn´t live a monastic life but achieved enlighten during their lives. <S> The most revered of them is Milarepa, who after murdering family members in his early life, later became a Buddhist yogi and got enlighten. <S> Marpa is another good example; he had an ordinary life with wife, son, properties, etc. <S> and got enlightened. <S> Milarepa and Marpa are both from the Kagyu school, but in all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyigma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelupa) are examples of yogis, not living the monastic life and getting enlighten. <A> Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. <S> The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 124: <S> "Ordinary life is extremely important. <S> After all, most of us are not monks or nuns in a monastery devoted to meditation. <S> But if you take that [ordinary life] as a part of your practice—not inferior to monastic life and not superior—it can be extremely rich". <S> Isn't that what is really meant with catuparisa in the Sobhana sutra (AN. <S> VII) , <S> where the four groups [monks; nuns; lay man and lay women] are (...) 'accomplished together in wisdom, disciplined, self-confident, deeply learned and dhamma <S> bearers, who live according to the dhamma and illuminate the sasana?' <A> The quote was, ... <S> most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being) <S> I suspect that statement is related to Nekkhamma .
|
If you mean, according to a certain school, then yes, according to the Theravada, it is true, since an arahant is unable to practice non-monastic livelihood.
|
What are the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism? Can anyone provide short (maybe a couple of sentences) summaries of the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the differences between them. In fairly certain there are 4 main schools but I could be wrong in that. Also if there are more minor schools of interested then a link to further information on those too would be really good. I've read a bit about Tibetan Buddhism but the characteristics and differences of the main schools just won't lodge in my mind so this would satisfy bit of personal interest really. Many thanks for all responses. <Q> Rather simplified, somewhat caricatured presentation based on my own very limited knowledge: <S> Characterized by loose "democratic" organization (until the exile each monastery was independent, with no central figurehead a-la Dalai Lama) and by a very abstract main teaching intended to plant the student into an already-enlightened perspective. <S> Historically situated in Eastern Tibet. <S> Before the communist invasion this was a very deep, very conservative school, very proud of its archaic methods. <S> Kagyu - "the oral linage" from mostly Eastern (with some important monasteries in Central) Tibet, from 12th century. <S> Characterized by emphasis on effort and various transformative / cleansing practices, this school takes pride in live transmission of fundamental sanity and teaching by personal example that is not shy of adapting to the spirit of times. <S> Sakya - the study school, historically in close affinity with rich secular rulers of Central and Eastern Tibet since 13-14cc. <S> Emphasizes thorough knowledge of Dharma through study of texts. <S> Not always considered a mature monastic tradition by the above two schools. <S> The head role is passed down the family line, as in hereditary monarchy. <S> Gelug - the new reform school, founded in Central Tibet in 14th century, on the textual basis of the then extinct Kadam school (11-12cc). <S> The doctrinal foundation of the Central Tibetan government that saw itself in charge of Tibet from 15th to 20th century. <S> Characterized by relatively more rigid orgstructure. <S> Emphasizes logic and study of Madhyamaka. <S> The Gelug is the most recent and perforce drew upon the prior schools (Nyingma/Kagyu/Sakya) in many ways. <S> Bon - an ancient shamanic tradition germinated by influx of Buddhism, specifically Nyingma teachings. <S> Leads with shamanism as upaya in lower yanas, elevating to sutra-, tantra-, and Dzogchen-level teachings depending on student's capacity. <S> Ri-me - a universalistic movement in Tibetan Buddhism intended to harmonize the various views and styles of the different traditions while preserving their individual features. <S> Voiced by leading Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya scholars of 19th century, Ri-me re-established the non-sectarian principle that had been always present in Tibetan Buddhism despite the ongoing political struggle between the schools. <A> We should add the Jonang . <S> The official position of the Tibetan community in exile, at the urging of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is that the Jonang is counted as a major school ( http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30077 ) <S> The Jonang goes quite far back, depending on how you figure. <S> Though they were forcibly integrated into the Gelug school in the 17th century, some Jonang monasteries remained independent. <S> There are presently thousands of monks and nuns in this tradition at monasteries in Tibet's eastern region that came to Western attention only in the 20th century. <S> Among other things, the Jonang teach the Shentong/Zhentong view that has some influence in other non-Gelug schools, and are the source of Kalachakra teachings and practices that the present 14th Dalai Lama has actively propagated. <A> In addition to and as a complement to the above answers, I highly recommend this YouTube lecture series, Varieties of Tibetan Madhyamaka with Guy Newland (2011) . <S> Professor Newland is a renowned scholar on Tibetan Buddhism. <S> In the spirit of HH the Dalai Lama, Prof Newland here tries to treat the different sects as fairly and properly as possible.
|
Nyingma - "the old (translation) tradition", based on prehistoric transmissions of B into Tibet as early as 8th century.
|
How to Practice Vipassana? I have been practicing samatha for five years now and have rarely done any other kind of meditation. I have tried to practice vipassana in the past but get confused with how to do it. First of all you place your attention on your abdomen,when i'm more used to my attention being on the tip of my nose. Is there a way to practice vipassana with your attention on the tip of your nose ? I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique I found by accident, by widening my focus to the entire nostril instead of just a point. This helps allow for thoughts, etc. to arise. Because I notice during samatha thoughts are minimum to none. Please describe a method of practicing vipassana with the base/anchor being the tip of the nose not the abdomen . Many thanks. <Q> A hammer has two ends for a reason; one end is great for pounding nails, but not at taking them out. <S> The nose is avoided in Vipassana for a reason; it is too apt to lead to calm. <S> That being said, it is of course technically possible to cultivate insight at the nose, if you insist. <S> Vipassana takes as its base the four elements, earth, air, water, and fire. <S> As per the Visuddhimagga: <S> But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements. <S> -- Path of Purification <S> XVIII.5 <S> So, you have to find the elements at the nose; there is some faint pressure, which is the air element, and there is heat and cold, which is the fire element. <S> You might note "hot, hot" or "cold, cold" or "hot, cold", as it presents itself. <S> Also, "feeling, feeling" for the pressure. <S> Having taken that as a base, you would then note whatever other experiences arose, based on the four foundations of mindfulness, as per the instruction given by a teacher. <S> And, what Anthony said :) <A> It doesn't really matter which object you use, but there are traditions built up around using the nose or the abdomen. <S> The point of vipassana practice is to help you become totally aware of reality in the here and now. <S> I'll try to answer this from the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, as I've been taught. <S> The confusion you experience, and the desire to practice Vipassana from the nose; this is not an accident. <S> Vipassana practice is designed to expose these feelings. <S> When these feelings arise, they should become your meditation object. <S> If you are trying to figure this out without seeing a teacher, you can probably make some progress if you understand the general point of the practice and just how broad we are being when we say to meditate on this or meditate on that. <S> When the mind says, This is too difficult , in our tradition we meditate on the feeling by making a mental note of each experience as it arises, so if it's frustration we say to ourselves: <S> Frustrated…frustrated… <S> or if it's a desire to practice a certain way we just say to ourselves: Wanting…wanting… <S> and then we return to the abdomen: <S> Rising…Falling… <S> My point being that any experience you're having right now―whether <S> it's a sense object or feelings about that sense <S> object―should be the object of your meditation. <S> This is much easier said than done, but with persistence you will see some gains in your ability to simply be aware of each moment as it arises, instead of being caught up in concepts, or past, future, thoughts, feelings, etc. <S> Hope this helps. <A> First of all you place your attention on your abdomen,when i'm more used to my attention being on the tip of my nose. <S> Is there a way to practice vipassana with your attention on the tip of your nose? <S> I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique I found by accident, by widening my focus to the entire nostril instead of just a point. <S> This helps allow for thoughts, etc. to arise. <S> Because I notice during samatha thoughts are minimum to none. <S> I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique ... <S> Anapana is not necessarily Samatha. <S> It has all 4 foundations of mindfulness. <S> You start with Body mindfulness as the breath is the body fabricator. <S> Then you move to Sensation <S> Then Mental objects <S> Then Mental content Each of the 4 triads corresponds to the above. <S> In the process you have to calm all the fabrications. <S> Please describe a method of practising vipassana with the base/anchor being the tip of the nose not the abdomen. <S> The focus should be around the mouth as in the Suttas. <S> This can be the spot below the nose and upper lip. <S> (As interpreted by certain linages) <S> The tip of the nose of the the under side of the nostrils are also fine if this point takes you into excessive Piti too fast. <S> But at some point come to this place. <S> Refer: <S> Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing Anapana Dipani by Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera, Aggamahapandita, D. Litt. <S> Mindfulness of Breathing by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
|
The breath itself is a concept, so you can't use that as an object of Vipassana. The abdomen is just a convenient anchor that we come back to again and again; it is not special (as far as I have experienced). What I do is I keep the area small and regularly change the point after while until I know I can instantly sense each point in the nose.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.