source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
How does the first noble truth associate dukkha with each of the five skandhas? I'm looking at this definition of dukkha : Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha. Taking this definition of the five skandhas, The first of the above (birth aging and death) might I suppose relate to "form": "form" or "matter"[e] (Skt., Pāli रूप rūpa; Tib. gzugs): external and internal matter. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs The second of the above might relate to sensation: "sensation" or "feeling" (Skt., Pāli वेदना vedanā; Tib. tshor-ba): sensing an object as either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral Do the next three parts of the definition of dukkha relate to the next three skandhas? If so can you please explain how they're related (i.e. how each of the other three skandha are dukkha)? Are "association", "separation" and "not getting what is wanted" each associated with three different skandhas? Or is that all skandhas are equally able to be a type of "clinging" or attachment? <Q> Birth is the arising of aggregates. <S> Death is the disappearing of that which arose. <S> Ageing is the changing in between. <S> Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are all Dukkhas caused by clinging to the five aggregates. <S> Separation from the loved is the separation from pleasurable/neutral experiences(five aggregates). <S> Not getting what is wanted means not being able to control the five aggregates at will: Not being able to retain pleasurable/neutral experiences. <S> Not being able to keep away painful experiences. <A> The five skandhas are the five attributes which constitutes a living being. <S> The five Skandhas are: form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formation (samskara), and finally consciousness (vijnana). <S> Form or rupa is attributed to the six physical realms. <S> It is anything that can be sensed or touched by the being. <S> This even includes the beings body. <S> The problem with separating the definition of the Dukkha's with the Skandhas is that you can't. <S> They are all inter-related. <S> The Five Skandhas are a fundamental Buddhist concept and play an important part in Buddhist doctrine. <S> For it is through the Five Skandhas that the world (Samsara) is experienced, and nothing is experienced apart from the Five Skandhas. <S> So let us look at the first definition of Dukkha and attempt to break it down. <S> Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha <S> This sentence is explaining the pains of a finite existing body that is imperfect. <S> This can be categorized as "form". <S> Form also referring to the basic building blocks meaning the "four elements" or Mahābhūta. <S> In order for a form to exist it requires consciousness, the second Skandha. <S> Once form and consciousness makes contact (phassa), it is translated into sensation (vedana), the third Skandha. <S> This is where the two skandhas arise known as perception (samjna) and mental formation (samskara) which reacts to the form. <S> Without the five skandhas you would never know how birth, aging and death is dukkha. <A> Suffering is result of ignorance of karmic of skandhas, 5 aggrrgates in creation of ego. <S> Ego has tendancy to cling and create 'self', 'I', or 'me' based on in dependent relation with 5 skandhas. <A> If for example I take my young, healthy, hygienic form as favorable, and an old, sick, unhygienic form as unfavorable. <S> If I perceive someone as a loved one, and another a foe, then these perceptions can be misery: when you part with a loved one and have to be with a unloved person. <S> When you are conscious of the touch of a soft cushion you get a pleasant feeling , and in an uncomfortable seat you get unpleasant feeling. <S> If you get an uncomfortable seat and when your body comes in contact with it you feel unpleasant sensation. <S> Also any pleasantness that you experience, which can change or come to an end, will give displeasure: for example when you are with someone you like (perceive positively) and you have to part. <S> Likewise if you analyse every aspect of the 5 aggregates it leads to suffering if there is craving. <S> In absence of craving there is not suffering. <S> E.g. I do not distinguish someone as a person you do not like then this perception does not lead to suffering. <A> The five aggregrates are irrelevant. <S> Birth, death, etc, are only suffering when clung to. <S> Read these suttas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html
|
They are related to all aggregates. Association with unbeloved is the association with painful experiences(five aggregates). Then, there is suffering when you grow old, sick or dirty. The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as clinging (upadana).
|
What's the difference between perception and consciousness? Having read descriptions of perception and consciousness (two of the five skandhas), I still don't understand the difference. Is there an important difference? What is the difference and why is it important? <Q> In relation to the five aggregates, the consciousness aggregate solely refers to main minds, such as the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth. <S> This excludes mental factors. <S> Mental factors are consciousnesses but they are not included within the category of consciousness aggregate. <S> Except feelings and perception (or 'discrimination', etc.) <S> mental factors are included in the category of compositional factors. <S> Because perception is a consciousness, it is clear and knowing. <S> It means that it has the capacity of taking the aspect of the object it apprehends, and it knows/apprehends its object. <S> According to Mahayana Abhidharma, perception is one of the five omnipresent mental factors. <S> It means that perception accompanies every single main mind. <S> Here is an example: an eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that aspect is apprehended by the perception factor that is in the retinue of the eye-consciousness as well. <S> A main mind and its concomitant mental factors share five similarities that are explained by Yeshe Gyaltsen in his Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness <S> Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors . <S> Regarding the entity of perception, the Compendium of Knowledge says: QUESTION: <S> What is the defining characteristic of discrimination <S> [Tib. ' <S> du shes, literally, aggregation-knowing]? <S> RESPONSE: <S> It has the characteristic of knowing upon aggregation. <S> It has the entity of apprehending the sign and apprehending the mark, through which one designates an expression to objects of perceptions, hearing, differentiation and knowledge. <S> Yeshe Gyaltsen explains further: Just as it has been said above, it is a knower that, upon the aggregation of the three – object, sense power, and primary consciousness – apprehends the uncommon sign of an object. <S> Also, A Discussion of the Five Aggregates says: <S> Later in the text, he explains two division: <S> The apprehension of a sign with regard to an object means to apprehend it through individually distinguishing the object's particularities, such as blue, yellow, and so forth. <S> The apprehension of a sign with regard to a convention means to apprehend it through individually distinguishing the convention's particularities, as when one thinks <S> , "This is a man; that is a woman." <A> Say in the past you had a bitter experience with X <S> and you see him the 1st reaction would be unpleasant sensation. <S> This is a reflex or knee jerk reaction even before you fully recognise the person. <S> See: Viññāṇa (Consciousness) Perception <S> - Analyses what has some to your consciousness further and names, rebers and recognises the object. <S> Now you recognise and name the person, this is Mr. X, he has these looks, he was a bully at school, etc. <S> or even perhaps this is another person who looks like Mr X. See: Saññā (Perception) <A> The definitions given in the texts are not so clear. <S> Here's a translation for a sutta defining sañña and viññāṇa : <S> “And why, bhikkhus, do you call it sañña? <S> ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called sañña. <S> And what does it perceive? <S> It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. <S> ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called sañña. <S> [...] <S> “And why, bhikkhus, do you call it viññāṇa? <S> ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called viññāṇa. <S> And what does it cognize? <S> It cognizes sour <S> , it cognizes bitter <S> , it cognizes pungent <S> , it cognizes sweet <S> , it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. <S> ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called viññāṇa. <S> -- <S> SN 22.79 <S> These alone are not very helpful, though. <S> This is how the Visuddhimagga puts it: <S> For though the state of knowing (janana-bhava) is equally present in perception (sanna) , in consciousness (vinnana) and in understanding (panna), nevertheless, perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful and not-self. <S> Consciousness knows the object as blue or yellow and it brings about the penetrating of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the [supramundane] path. <S> On the other hand, in her analysis, Sue Hamilton 1 presents <S> saññakhandha as, roughly, the aspect of the mind that recognizes, discriminates, conceptualizes and identifies (e.g. naming) something. <S> Conversely, viññāṇakhandha is the awareness of or consciousness of . <S> Furthermore, we know from the suttas that viññāṇakhandha is six-fold (paired to the 6 senses) and it is one of three things necessary for contact (the others being the presence of a functioning organ and a corresponding object). <S> We also know from the suttas that contact seems to be defined as the first event that triggers a sequence of mental activities. <S> Thus, viññāṇakhandha seems to refer to the bare awareness of "something", or more generally, to the sequential awareness of each stimulus brought by the senses that the mind inclines to, or becomes aware of (manifesting contact ). <S> From then on, vedana follows, along with a proliferation of mental activities (including more sophisticated recognition activities performed by sañña ). <S> 1 : <S> Identity and Experience: <S> The Constitution of the Human Being <S> According to Early Buddhism
|
Consciousness - knows what is felt and results in pleasant, unpleasant or neutral sensation as a reflexive mechanism.
|
How to get rid of "Ego" I have a Girlfriend that I met few years back. She loves me a lot,she is quite brilliant from her childhood, and now she is working in a big firm. I am working in a smaller firm than her. When we were in college, it seems we will not fight ever, but after we got passed and she got placed we are having a lot of fight. She sometimes says some bad words to me, that i can't handle.But i don't want to fight anymore, but I think I've ego problem. Every time i think not to fight but finally we ended up with big fight. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such ego inside one's inside. Thank you. <Q> More than ego, it could be the high level of stress involved in working for a big company. <S> In any case, Marananussati meditation would be a good start for both of you. <S> "The disciple who devotes himself to this contemplation of death is always vigilant, takes no delight in any form of existence, gives up hankering after life, censures evil doing, is free from craving as regards the requisites of life, his perception of impermanence becomes established, he realizes the painful and soulless nature of existence and at the moment of death he is devoid of fear, and remains mindful and self-possessed. <S> Finally, if in this present life he fails to attain to Nibbana, upon the dissolution of the body he is bound for a happy destiny." <S> - Visuddhimagga <S> Another reason could be the wanting to control each other. <S> As long as you two don't exceed that framework, don't try to control each other too much. <S> Come to an agreement on how to resolve issues. <S> Make a determination with her to always use kind words and wisdom to find a solution rather than disrespectful words and emotional thoughts. <A> You could practice the The Buddha's Eight-Fold Path. <S> Right Understanding (Samma ditthi) <S> Right Thought (Samma sankappa) <S> Right Speech (Samma vaca) <S> Right Action (Samma kammanta) <S> Right Livelihood <S> (Samma ajiva) <S> Right Effort (Samma vayama) <S> Right Mindfulness ( <S> Samma sati) <S> Right Concentration <S> (Samma samadhi) <S> I suppose you don't have to practice all 8 if you only seek temporary results. <S> Metta is a samatha practice that can be very effective in greatly lessening anger temporarily and the ego delusion temporarily. <S> The practice of vipassana will lessen the ego delusion slowly towards a permanent end to the ego delusion, over a long period of practice that can take a lifetime or lifetimes depending on the person practicing. <S> There are many approaches and interpretations to the practice of samatha and vipassana. <S> The best way to learn is with a good teacher. <A> the root of all our problems is wrong view. <S> Once we correct our view and start on the Eightfold Noble Path, we start coming out of suffering. <S> Here is what Ven S.N. Goenka has to say about our view, our ego, and how it is formed and cultivated. <S> Here is what Ven Yuttadhammo has to say about Right View. <S> When one listens to this Dhamma, <S> Cintanmayi Pannya <S> ( wisdom gained through analysis) will arise. <S> But this wisdom is not sufficient to release one from suffering. <S> For that one needs to have Bhavanamayi Pannya <S> (wisdom gained through experience). <S> This can be acquired by attending a meditation retreat near you. <S> Registration for a 10 day retreat under Ven S.N. Goenka can be done here <A> With regards to your situation, You are thinking that you are working for small firm while your girlfriend works for big firm. <S> That causes trouble. <S> So do not make trouble for yourself. <S> Ask yourself why you are with your girl friend. <S> Focus on the feeling you had back in while you were in the university days. <S> Treat her just like you did back in those days without prejudices. <S> With regards to getting rid of ego,Don't seek then it will come. <S> It's there within you always. <S> You just don't know. <S> Sit with legs folded crossed on the floor. <S> Face wall or mountainside. <S> Close your eyes. <S> Put hands naturally on the knees or at the center of body as described in buddha's sitting form. <S> Question yourself where you came from?Where <S> you go <S> when you die?Keep do that every minute, everyday when you have time. <A> From what you say I think she also might having a ego problem. <S> This arises in conceiving: I (X) am better than Y <S> I (X) am equal to Y <S> I (X) am lower than Y <S> when in general it can be perceived by majority of people as an external impartial observer that: X is better than Y X is equal to Y X is lower than Y <S> There are 9 combination of the above 2 which form different shades of ego. <S> Now when ego sets in what happens is that you think your view or take in the matter is more superior and discount that the other party has to say. <S> Also your ego makes you attached to your viewpoint. <S> The conflicts happen due to one-sidedness of thinking and emotional attachment to one's view. <S> Best is work on how you can approach and viewpoint or argument more logically than emotionally. <S> Also see: Atammayatā by Piya Tan <S> Is There a Soul? <S> by Piya Tan Sakkāya Sutta <S> Nadī Sutta ... <S> which have discussion on ego. <S> To do that it is best to do meditation. <S> You can try http://dhamma.org or http://internationalmeditationcentre.org . <S> Since both you and your girlfriend seems to have some form of superiority it might be a idea for both of you to go to a course.
|
The correct practice of samatha meditation can temporarly bring peace and lessen the ego delusion. Have a cordial discussion with her and come to a solid understanding of each other's expectations. To get rid of ego you have to get rid of craving or attachment of one's views and attachment to be better than someone else in a given aspect.
|
How to deal with people giving reviews to the teaching? I recently asked a question here and like always some good friends helped me, Their references were right on point and they referred the correct Sutras and i'm forever thankful for that. But when i kept on reading i found it very hard to forgive the author of this particular article on Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta. I do not know who that person is but he has written a review on the teaching on a site that most of us use as a reference source. The only question was that he had taken the teaching and given historic definitions of his own to certain parts of that sutra. He somehow say that "King Alexander the great" is the person that Buddhists took inspiration to form a story on Devas and the great king who make earth his empire. Here is some.... Discourses such as the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and the Mahā Sudassana Sutta (D 17) allude to “the celestial city of the devas,” Āḷakamandā,28 which could be Alexandria on the Indus, founded by Alexander the Great in 325 BCE, or Alexandria-of-the-Caucasus,29 some 150 km north of today’s Kabul in Afghanistan. Possibly, the stories about Alexander (the prototype of the world conqueror) and the subsequent presence of the Indo-Greeks,30 inspired the ancient Buddhists to formulate the “great man” ideology. So according to this person Sutra pitaka of tipitaka is a work of fiction. I want to be honest, i was real angry when i saw someone quoting the teaching and telling the world that it is a work of fiction, i was very ashamed of the fact that one of his own references was from a man from my own country.I would also like to request our good friends here to read the whole article before posting as an answer,because someone might get caught up in the wrong side of the isle after reading some person's foolish efforts to review Lord Buddha's realization. Please give me some good advice on how to deal with such people. (I would love an answer from Ven.Samana Johann) <Q> someone might get caught up in the wrong side of the isle after reading some person's foolish efforts <S> There will always be reviews coming from writers who are not comfortable with things like heavens and divine beings. <S> People with materialistic views will be drawn to such articles naturally. <S> If you get angry at them, you might be clinging to the Dhamma as "my religion" or "my belief". <S> Having everybody to believe in the same thing is not the goal and wanting that to happen will only frustrate you. <S> The goal is to use the Dhamma to attain Nibbana. <S> You can certainly help others to stay away from misinformation while doing that, but it should come from compassion, not clinging or aversion. <A> In the suttas, we see the Buddha regarding a wise person one who reflects that grasping and insisting firmly on a view would create clashes and disputes with those who hold a different view. " <S> Where there is a dispute, quarreling. <S> Where there is quarreling, annoyance. <S> Where there is annoyance, frustration.' <S> Envisioning for himself clash, dispute, quarreling, annoyance, frustration, he both abandons that view and does not cling to another view. <S> Thus there is the abandoning of these views; thus there is the relinquishing of these views. " <S> ( MN I 500 ) <S> He also sets an example when saying: “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. <S> A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world . <S> Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. <S> And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists. <S> -- SN 22.94 <S> Also, as a side note, the language used in the article, it's propositions are that of hypothesis. <S> In other words, the author is speculating about it, conducting an inquiry (e.g. note the use of "possibly") and drawing parallels -- like any historian would do. <S> So, he does not seem to be defending or promoting any position as a fact. <S> And because he is just offering alternatives, he is not really leading or misleading. <S> After all, as a matter of principle, when an author offers alternative possibilities (e.g. "it's possible that a person is guilty of certain crime"), he/she is not accounted for readers who decide to remove the provisory character of the statement without reflection and simply believe the possibility to be true (e.g. "the person is certainly guilty of certain crime"). <S> In this way, readers can mislead themselves but the author is not responsible for it. <A> It's typical human nature why forum like this or chiritinity or religion exists and consequently their misunderstandings. <S> That's why some buddhist sectors keep in very hermited to preserve authority and the jewel intact. <S> Buddha's teaching knowledge alone can be a hinderance to seeing what he realized. <S> It's not knowledge building. <S> You have to meditate and experience. <S> When you build a knowledge while have a strong ego, which ironically it means it can be a danger and might better off not studying at all. <S> Buddha said everything in simple terms 2500 years ago. <S> That's all you need to know. <S> Wisdom and whaever written in sutras as knowledge, interpretation, findings, they all come at once without studying them just when one see the glimpse of the truth. <A> Please email Mr. Piya Tan for clarification. <S> TheMindingCentre @ <S> Gmail.com or Dharmafarer <S> @ <S> Gmail.com <S> That's the best way to deal with it. <A> Any commentary on the Suttas by anyone is a personal opinion or explanation on that Sutta. <A> Any commentary on the Suttas by anyone is a personal opinion. <S> For example, I personally rarely agree with the commentaries of Piya Tan. <S> Similarly, often other people do not agree with my personal views of the suttas. <S> In Buddhism, we can only deal with this using non-attachment because, in reality, there is not much consensus in Buddhism. <S> My impression is many Buddhist groups & sects have idiosyncratic & worldly agendas. <S> It is only by letting go of craving & attachment can the true reality of Buddha-Dhamma be known. <A> Piya Tan is a renown and respectable Buddhist scholar and lay Dhamma teacher to some it may come as a surprise <S> but Tipitaka is not a literal Buddhavacana <S> , it's a man's creation, especially the mythical motifs, based on the teachings of the historical Buddha just as the Bible is not the literal word of God but a creation of men, as has been demonstrated by the extensive biblical research on many levels <S> consequently Mahaparinibbana sutta was not composed or narrated by the Buddha, but is a result of literary efforts of subsequent generations of Buddhists nevertheless this fact doesn't devaluate and doesn't invalidate this corpus of texts on how to deal with such people <S> my advice is to apply towards them all four brahmaviharas
|
If your opinion differs than just leave aside what you do not find agreeable.
|
Why do we believe it? When we attend a meeting; just right after we leave the meeting room, every one understands the conclusions of the meeting differently. Even if it is written, every one interprets the message of the written message differently. In politic, people distort messages for their favor, even when the message is recorded, the interpretation can be quiet different. How do we believe in the ancient Tipitaka whether it is genuine or altered. We don't know the real teaching of lord Buddha. We believe what we believe as we interpret things on our own favor. We have our own versions of Buddhism that fit ourselves. Each of us has our own version of religion. <Q> It should be verified through pratice by what you experience at the experiential level. <S> Normal <S> you should: <S> Learn the theory (Pariyatti) <S> Practice what you learned (Patipatti) <S> Experience what you learned why which you verify the teachings (Pativedha) <S> When you reach 3 your doubts will be cleared as you know for yourself. <A> Tripitaks especially those first two ones Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitakas they are written after the tradition of oral trasmission of the teaching of Buddha. <S> Even in these days in certain asian buddihst tradition, written transmission is not conducted because an individual practicionals awareness is all different to person to person. <S> They are guided individually. <S> It applies to Buddhas teaching when he was alive the Dharma was trasmitted oral only, and the 10 deciples memorized all those and were written in Pitakas from their perfecrt recollections after the first council. <S> You can highly rely on their recollections. <S> They are telling the truth in simple terms. <S> With regards to how do you know?Once <S> you see the glimpse of the truthAnd your world changes upside down with shedding of tears <S> you just know there is no difference in writings of Dharma. <S> Buddha nature or Buddha seeds are same regardless of who, when, where realizes. <S> Tripitakas are diamond jewel where direct descriptipns of Buddha are found. <A> This question cannot be "answered" because I believe it hits us humans, straight at the core of our faith and understanding of everything in general. <S> Buddhism is just one of the routes to enlightenment. <S> It is not a religion. <S> But unfortunately some people take it as such because they are skewed to "faith". <S> It gives them a false sense of "hope". <S> A hope that says there is a "savior" among us in our hearts. <S> What we don't understand is that spirituality is actually subjective. <S> How we realize the ultimate, is up to us. <S> I don't wish to go through a whole load of drivel just to make you understand that belief and faith works everywhere in our world. <S> It happens with all religions, politicians, social media, advertising, add your own list here. <S> Belief and blind faith seeps through our very roots in society. <S> There may be a point in questioning beliefs but ultimately that is just to ground yourself in reality and see things as they are. <S> You cannot really, totally change what's around you. <S> I'd suggest using common sense and questioning for yourself at best along with practice. <A> Here's how and why it all happened if that helps you.... <S> After Lord Buddha the teaching was kept alive by the monks who learned and kept it by heart, they did it in few different ways. <S> Some individuals kept it all while some learned chapters. <S> Time to time they would come together for a reciting. <S> This would be called a Council , It is essentially a global gathering of monks who have the teaching by heart. <S> Here they would each recite the teaching that they have kept. <S> This was done to clear any doubts and clean the error as all the other are listening and chanting too. <S> In Sri Lanka the same tradition went on until an all island drought came. <S> Some monks went to india and some stayed in the island. <S> They hardly saved themselves but a lot of Arahats passed away because of the drought. <S> They decided that the Oral tradition is not reassuring as they saw it first hand. <S> So they did another Gathering or a "Council" and this time they wrote teaching. <S> This Became the "Tipitaka" of Theravada. <S> So the whole process was done right and transparently. <S> This is how it happened. <S> I should remind you that if one chooses to put away the tipitaka he or she ends up with nothing else <S> but his or her own version of things that his or her mind construct to benefit. <S> Without the tipitaka there is no Buddhism left to follow. <S> I must say that one thing you said is wrong. <S> It is not a Buddhist thing to make our own version. <S> I agree that we all interpret the teaching in our own way, but one should not make personal beliefs. <S> But the teaching is open to different interpretations as we all are with different wisdom and intelligence. <S> Namo Buddhaya!
|
If you experience something you know for a fact it is true.
|
If sex is prohibited, how do we survive? Sex can lead us to suffering in many ways; however, if all of us are just like Lord Buddha according to his story, wouldn't humanity become extinct? <Q> Sex is prohibited for monks and nuns If you are not observing higher precept like 8 or 10 precepts sex is not prohibited for lay person. <S> Lay person has only to adhere to 5 Precepts. <S> This prohibits wrongful sexual acts, i.e., sex with someone under another's protection... and other acts. <S> As you said sex is craving and can lead to suffering. <S> But not very body or householder is in the stage to eradicate higher stages of craving for sensual pleasure than the rudimentary level which might lead to misconduct. <S> At the basic level this is what is required. <S> As you progress in the path you have to remove sexual urge. <S> Also Vipassana Meditation can help reduce sexual urge. <S> There are Samatha techniques also <S> but if you take the insight root you kill 2 birds with one stone. <S> You can try http://dhamma.org or http://internationalmeditationcentre.org <S> which has centres in many cities and faily large outreach. <S> You loose complete sensual desire is when you become a non-returner where by you eliminate the fetter of sexual desire. <S> If you take human world number of being achieving this state is small. <S> Hence there is no risk of extinction. <S> Also a stream enter will have lust and a lay follower may engage in sex as long as it is lawful (a stream enter does not engage in sexual misconduct). <A> So the real question is what a person needs. <S> It's either the continuance of the Human Race or being free from personal Suffering. <S> Before anything else let's look at what Lord Buddha said about Humans. <S> Lord Buddha said that there is only one Human realm. <S> But Lord Buddha never said that there is only one Human world. <S> People often misunderstand Earth for the world realm. <S> According to Buddhism there are numerous planets like earth which includes Humans in them. <S> Some experts suggest that Lord Buddha means Parallel worlds, but that is not up to us to decide. <S> So even if a disaster kills all of us here it would not be the end of the human race. <S> Is <S> sex forbidden? <S> The simple answer is NO. <S> But if someone wants to take and advanced step while living a Lay person's life he or she can refrain from SEX. <S> So it is a personal choice not a necessity or mandatory. <S> But we as Buddhists consider sex as a low and worldly joy, As what we seek is a much better one. <S> A Buddhist does not need the continuance of the world, A Buddhist has one goal and that is Nirvana. <S> But Lord Buddha directly said that Buddhism is only for the wise and others will not understand. <S> So we as Buddhists do not share that view a lot of religions have of a world with only one religion. <S> We know that there will always be a huge amount of people who are not Buddhists and we will always be outnumbered. <S> Lord Buddha taught this as a nature of beings. <S> So there will never be a chance of Humans race meeting <S> it's end because of Buddhism. <A> In most Buddhists cosmologies worlds and civilizations come and go... <S> Whole worlds go extinct. <S> Hell Realms come and go... <S> as do biological species... <S> buildings... <S> yada yada... <S> Heaven Realms... <S> human and animal lives, the whole nine yards. <S> This process is larger than a lifetime though in scale, worlds of beings raise and fall out of existence, our lifetimes do not extend the duration required for observing these events. <S> All that being said, sex in itself is not an inherently bad thing. <S> Since all current medical technology can't end age... <S> As pointed out in the other answer it is certain behaviors that are to be avoided for lay people concerned about karma. <S> The majority of these things involve things like consent, respect. <A> Sex is an outcome of heat - one of the four elements which this world is made of. <S> If there is no body heat, body dies. <S> Therefore its wrong to say that enlightened ones cannot have sex. <S> In fact in majority of all major religions prophets were married and had children. <S> Prophet Moses was married. <S> Prophet Mohammed was married. <S> Ram and Krishna of Hinduism were married. <S> But yes they never hankered for it. <S> It is the need of the others they were fulfilling not their own needs. <S> The pleasure enlightened ones get in sex is nothing compared to bliss of Nirvana. <S> Until and unless one is enlightened sex will play a dominant role in one's life. <S> Some honest ones will acknowledge it and others will be evasive of it. <S> In India there was a practise in the past to see if one has transcended sex. <S> People will feed the person who claims enlightenment to heart's content with food which is laced with aphrodisiac (Viagra kind of substances). <S> After that a prostitute will be sent to his chamber in night to seduce him. <S> If somebody claims that he has transcended sex I suggest to use this technique on himself. <S> Ofcourse this technique is only for men but this works and takes away delusions. <S> And this technique is religion independent.
|
You are correct that if sex was never engaged in humanity would go extinct.
|
How do I prevent non-buddhists from going against fourth precept? As we know fourth precept is the one precept that the Bodhisatta has never said to have broken since he started cultivating Paramita. When I need to prevent a Buddhist person form lying, I state the above statement. And that is the reason that I was also prevented by telling lies. But if we need to prevent a non-Buddhist person from telling lies or going against fourth precept, how can we do. How can we motivate him/her not to lie? <Q> Simply ask him whether he likes to be deceived and cheated if some one else did it to him. <S> If someone cannot be trusted would you act on what he says. <S> How comfortable would he be to have to put up or deal with a person who is trying to deceived him. <S> Lies cannot always be kept under wrap and if it surfaces what might happen. <S> This would be a better way to a Buddhist also. <A> But if we need to prevent a non-Buddhist person from telling lies or going against fourth precept, how can we do. <S> How can we motivate him/her not to lie? <S> I think the whole point in Buddhism is, that you can't change someone else . <S> You can only change yourself. <S> This is dukkha, people are doing bad things even though you're trying to stop them. <S> Keep that in mind. <S> You could try to make a philosophical argument telling the truth (e.g. Immanuel Kant). <S> Which means more or less 'One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself' <S> Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. <S> In Grounding, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. <S> This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. <S> The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). <S> With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. <S> If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. <S> The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in itself. <S> The theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. <S> Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences. <S> If it helps, good, if not: <S> well, this is how it is. <A> There are very many non-buddist people (some billions of people) so you can not watch everyone and police them against breaking a precept. <S> But you can forget about anyone else and watch yourself instead. <S> That way you'll use your time wisely. <S> If you go judging other people you'll create pride <S> ( I am superior to the others because I can do this and that)you will create anger and aversion because someone is not obeying a rule. <A> Meditation is not just about sitting in a certain postures, concentration etc etc. <S> It is about understanding order of things. <S> Meditation implies inwardness i.e. focus on yourself not on others. <S> You yourself are not perfect. <S> How can you ask others to be perfect or follow a path or a percept? <S> Become perfect if not then at least disciplined and people will follow you.
|
You have to watch yourself, forget about watching others. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
|
Can Buddhism be harmful? There is the much talked about example of "zen sickness". But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human? I'm looking for an answer from anyone, not necessarily a Buddhist perspective. Though, of course, I'd be dismissive of anything unreasonable. <Q> i can say that Buddha was mindful of every word he said making sure they are beneficial to all beings. <S> However, there might be some thing that seems to be harmful in short term but actually good in long run. <S> For example, during Buddha's time, 500 monks committed suicide after contemplating unpleasantness of body and 5 skandha. <S> (Buddha often talked about the drawbacks of all things that create sensual pleasures). <S> Those monks took it over the top and felt disgusted by their conditions so they took the wrong way out. <S> Later, someone asked Buddha if he didn't see that coming, Buddha said those monks would have taken their lives anyway from past karma. <S> at least they got some true knowledge in dhamma while they were still here which would benefit them in the future. <S> So in short, practicing Buddhism according to Buddha (8 folds path) is not harmful. <A> But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human? <S> Many people pratice certain techniques as Buddhist pratice. <S> When you come across a pratice that someone says is a Buddhist pratice you should try to ascertain: is this actually the Buddhist pratice comparing it with the original words of the Buddha in record or have you learned the right things have you understood the pratice correctly and to the enough detail or do you understand the theory behind the pratice <S> well enough <S> is what you are practicing the correct pratice or despite you have learned the right thing and know the theory <S> are you putting it to practice the proper way <S> does your pratice fit your character type. <S> Now within the the different meditation techniques there are suitability based on character type. <S> If any of the above are not met you cannot blame the pratice. <S> More particularly you should contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations pertaining to: Sensation from beauty or ugliness of physical form and sensations arising from the states of material form Sensation on their own right due to perceiving something is favorable or not Sensation due to mental states Sensations due to mental content <S> One case of Zen Sickness ( Zen Sickness by zen master Hakuin) mentions about excessive striving. <S> In Buddhism you effort should be balanced. <S> Excessive striving can lead to craving, restlessness and doubt: <S> you are caving for the result or some experience which you are chasing after through meditation. <S> You are accumulating craving instead of reducing it. <S> you are too frequently measuring your progress hence restless about getting the results fast or doubting the technique, the teacher, and your ability. <S> Resentment follows if it is less and excessive pleasure if it is more. <S> Also you are doing something other than meditation which is measuring progress. <S> Also if measuring lead to doubt you are engrossed in doubting that practicing. <A> This is a simple tip for your mind. <S> The real Buddhism is the religion which have mentioned by the Lord Buddha. <S> Its the only way which shows the path to nirvana. <S> If you want to study, feel and follow the Buddhism, then I prefer you to follow the real Buddhism which mentioned by the Lord Buddha. <S> The real path(real Buddhism) will never let anyone to a harmful way. <S> You may feel, if you able to find a little time to study the real Buddhism. <S> Friend, I think, the "Zen sickness" that you have mentioned is a trend in modern culture.
|
Also if you pratice Insight meditation then nothing can go wrong.
|
What is the water filter of Koṇāgamana? No matter how many different ways I search, I seem to get this exact/ALMOST exact phrase:"These relics include the staff of Kakusandha, the water filter of Koṇāgamana, a piece of the robe of Kassapa, and eight strands of hair from the ..." But I cannot find an explanation for it. This supposedly belonged to the "grandfather" Buddha to Gautama, aka Koṇāgamana (all according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas ), and Siddhartha supposedly lived in the 6th century BCE. If there are 1,000 Buddhas per kalpa and 4.32 billion years in a kalpa , that means they average 4.32 million years between appearances. So, what could this "water filter" possibly consist of? Thank you for your input. To be specific, I am interested in the history and historicity of this artifact. For example, when was it first mentioned? From where did it originate? How did it come to Shewdagon Pagoda? Etc... <Q> It is believed there are relicts from the previous Buddhas' in the Shwedagon Pagoda . <S> This is possible that such artifacts survived since it is within the world cycle Maha Kalpa . <S> All monks should carry a water filter to filter out insets from the water. <S> I would believe this will not be any different. <S> It will be a basic piece of cloth. <A> There's no "Grandfather" Buddha. <S> The Buddhas are not related. <S> Prince Siddhartha's grandfathers were king Sinhahanu(father's side) and king Anjana(mother's side). <S> Corporeal relics of each Buddha disintegrate as the respective Buddha Sasanas end. <S> But it is possible for other relics to survive longer. <S> Like the staff of the Buddha Kakusandha and the water filter of the Buddha Koṇāgamana in the Shwedagon Pagoda. <S> 4.32 billion years is a Hindu count. <S> An exact number isn't given in Buddhism. <S> Only analogies provided. <S> There are no 1000 Buddhas per Kalpa. <S> The maximum you get is 5. <S> It is called the Maha Badra Kalpa. <S> The water filter is a piece of cloth, just like mentioned in the other answers. <A> You probably get the exact phrase because the phrase originates from one source, i.e. information about the Shwedagon Pagoda. <S> Also if I google the phrase, google tries to return sites which include the exact phrase. <S> The timing between the arising of Buddhas is not uniform, and I haven't come across suttas which mention exact numbers like 1000 Buddha's per kalpa. <S> I am not aware of the existence of physical archaeological evidence of the 3 Buddhas before Gautma. <S> That would be an interesting discovery in many ways, including the theories of human evolution. <S> However, that wouldn't affect my practice. <S> The hair strands of the Gautma Buddha seem plausible, and the wiki site about the Pagoda says that they were the hair given by Gautma Buddha to Thapassu and Bhalluka. <S> As the artifacts of the other Buddha's, I am skeptical.
|
Water filter's during Gautma Buddha's time were simple pieces of cloth, to strain out insects out of compassion, and during a life time of a Buddha/Bhikkhu he could have used many.
|
What are habits in buddhism? How are habits seen in buddhism - how are they explained ? read now about habit making - and would love to hear users views on habits - and what they see habits as And what people think about habit making and its effectiveness and why <Q> How are habits seen in buddhism - how are they explained ? <S> Habitual tendencies persist from life to life. <S> Say you were a monkey than then born a human sometimes the tendency to jump last. <S> Only the Buddha can overcome habitual tendencies. <S> Even an enlightened person will have habitual tendencies. <S> read now about habit making - and would love to hear users views on habits - and what they see habits as <S> And what people think about habit making and its effectiveness and why A worldly person does many thing habitually. <S> So if you develop wholesome habits this definitely would be a bonus for this life and after. <S> In absence of weighty and near death Karma, habitual karma decides the next life. <S> Also see: Anusaya by Piya Tan <S> The Unconscious by Piya Tan Unconscious Views by Piya Tan <A> We are our habits. <S> We are what we repeatedly do. <S> So we can You focus on the issue of how we are creating suffering for ourselves because of our habits, and how we can develop new habits that create the causes for happiness. <S> If we find ourselves engaged in unskillful habits, we’ve got to learn how to overcome those habits and replace them with more skillful habits. <S> We can’t do this for one another. <S> It’s a personal, individual matter. <S> So the precepts are a crucial part of this. <S> They help you develop good habits and foster insight. <S> In particular, they help you see into your habits of self-indulgence. <S> A lot of the pleasures we indulge in really do get in the way of deeper pleasure, deeper happiness. <S> The hardest habit of all that we should strive to overcome is the ‘I am’, mine, myself belief in all of us. <S> We can’t see things clearly because the “I am” gets in the way. <S> It’s interesting: <S> The Pali word for “conceit”—mana— <S> doesn’t mean only a sense that you’re better than other people. <S> If you say, “I’m worse than other people,” or “I’m equal to other people,” that’s conceit as well, because you’re still building the “I am” around things. <S> There are several ways to get around this. <S> One such is the Buddha’s advice to Rahula: <S> Whatever comes up is inconstant. <S> It doesn’t last, so <S> it’s not enough to build an identity around. <S> Another way around the “I am” is that, whatever comes up in the mind, you remind yourself that this happens to everybody. <S> Remind yourself that you don’t have any innate nature. <S> The mind is neutral. <S> It just knows. <S> The thinking is skillful or unskillful, but those are habits, which aren’t innate at all. <A> I'm also interested in habits and found this text in the Samana-Mundika Sutta <S> And what are skillful habits? <S> Skillful bodily actions, skillful verbal actions, purity of livelihood. <S> These are called skillful habits. <S> What is the cause of skillful habits? <S> Their cause, too, has been stated, and they are said to be mind-caused. <S> Which mind? — for the mind has many modes & permutations. <S> Any mind without passion, without aversion, without delusion: That is the cause of skillful habits.
|
Though habitual action is at the pre conscious level they have karmic potent.
|
How to practice mindfulness during job hours Is there any way to stay mindful when your mind is busy at work? <Q> It is not an easy task to stay mindful as a software developer. <S> I am one myself, and I even wrote a book on that matter. <S> There are three things I consider important for myself. <S> First : I practice meditation when I am not working. <S> This gives me the roots I need. <S> Second : I need to interrupt my daily workflow so I can remember my practice and what I learned from it. <S> Third : I need to focus on work when I am working and focus on the rest, when I am not working. <S> Which means: no Facebook at work time . <S> But when I become tired at work, I interrupt my workflow and practice. <S> For interruption, I use several tools which change from time to time. <S> Influenced from Zen, I sometimes walk mindful: Kinhin . <S> Or I cook the best cup of tea possible . <S> Or I just meditate in my chair . <S> Give yourself " focus times ". <S> Don't waste your time with other things. <S> Working as a software developer means, your mind is occupied by a technology problem. <S> Sometimes you cannot feel your body, because you are concentrated on the problem. <S> I don't think this is bad. <S> Just interrupt when your mind/body demands it, and go back to the analogue life. <S> Sticking with the digital life is as bad as sticking with the analogue life alone (at least for us programmers). <S> You may also want to read another Zen programming related blog post of mine, in which I wrote about some of my thoughts on working. <A> Is there any way to stay mindful when your mind is busy at work? <S> Simply be mindful of sensation in your body. <S> E.g. posture <S> Once been seated for a while there is bodily discomfort prompting you to move when you see someone attractive, neutral or unattractive when you feel some attraction or repulsion or do not care. <S> Watch these sensations. <S> feeling touch your cloths touch of the sea feeling of the fingers when you type Sensations due to mental states Sensations due to mental content <S> Also see: Being mindful sitting/working on a computer <A> I cannot find his video now but Mingyur Rinpoche recommends that if you have a job that requires a lot of focus and thinking about the task then begin with your focus on the breath for 10 seconds then start your task while being aware of the breath. <S> Continue with the task for a while even if you forget the breath. <S> Mingyur's method avoids problems people have with losing the breath every 5 seconds and having to fix their meditation so often that it interferes with work.
|
Occasionally, perhaps every 5-10 minutes, take a few seconds away from your task to strengthen your attention on the breath and then return to your task while being aware of the breath. When you have interrupted work and you feel you are mindful, go back to work and hack.
|
In Buddhism, is Escapism seen as a bad thing to take part in? In general in Buddhism, is escapism seen as a bad "movement" to involve one's self in? I have seen many posts on SE about separating one's self from one's body, or getting rid of desire, so; would these actions been seen as escapism? <Q> Escapism does not address the core issue. <S> Say you have X experience which you do not like <S> and you distract yourself with Y experience with <S> you take pleasure in. <S> The solution is temporary as Y ends you are left unsatisfied again. <S> The case of much of the suffering are the unwholesome roots in craving, aversion and ignorance. <S> Buddhist practice aims to remove them. <S> Now let's take experiance you like. <S> What happens is you think "Ah, I like this" hence the notion of I arises in your mind. <S> Likewise with many forms of craving and aversions. <S> So if you remove the craving or aversion by being equanimous (and also remove ignorance being aware of the arising and passing nature of phenomena) you stop perceiving a self. <S> There is not separation of self from the body, it is just that you do not perceive a self as an entity. <S> Also any perception of self is a concept or abstraction created by our mind which is never in tune with the true nature of what actually is there. <S> Hence you have to get rid of any concepts about self (which in all cases will be wrong). <S> Escapism <S> How is Vipassana different from escapism? <S> Vipassana is to face the world. <S> No escapism is permitted in Vipassana. <S> Source: http://www.vridhamma.org/Question-and-Answers#escapism <A> here we go.. <S> this Sutta directly addresses escapism As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is resistant. <S> Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him. <S> Touched by that painful feeling, he delights in sensual pleasure. <S> Why is that? <S> Because the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person does not discern any escape from painful feeling aside from sensual pleasure. <S> As he is delighting in sensual pleasure, any passion-obsession with regard to that feeling of pleasure obsesses him. <S> He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling. <S> As he does not discern the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then any ignorance-obsession with regard to that feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain obsesses him. <S> full sutta here: <S> Sallatha Sutta <A> i am going to try to answer this. <S> please let me know <S> if incorrectly rephrased your question, " Is getting rid of sensual desires is a form of Escapism? ". <S> I think it could be. <S> It is a first step to let go of desires (or 5 hindrances for that matters), when one can let go of them, equanimity remains. <S> However, equanimity, is also a fetter or higher parts of 10 fetters that a non-returner (Anagami) has to learn to let go. <S> Equanimity is fetters 6 and 7. <S> Budddha did not give specific lectures on how to let go of 5 higher fetters. <S> Once you let go all fetters, then Nirvana is realized. <S> It may sounds like a cop out, but nirvana is not annihilation nor can be explained logically. <A> Escapism - the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy. <S> According to the above definition, 'escapism' is unskillful even by common sense standards. <S> ex: <S> Listening to songs to deal with your stomachache. <S> It is not "separating 'self' from body". <S> It is "not taking the body or mind as a 'self'" as neither is qualified to be considered as a self in reality. <S> Thus no escapism involved. <S> Working to remove desire is the opposite of 'escapism' as desire is the origin of suffering - 2nd noble truth . <A> This is a core teaching in Buddhism and circulates around in the term being mindful . <S> By avoiding experiences that are unpleasant, the practitioner does not learn a lesson life is trying to teach them. <S> By grabbing the bull by the horns and facing your problem head on, wisdom and experience begins to unfold. <S> To no longer have desires is commonly misinterpreted as all desires. <S> There are such things as wholesome desires such as wishing the well-being of all human beings. <S> You can still enjoy your favorite pizza, go inside if it's to cold outside, stay in bed while you're sick, but that's ok. <S> You're human and you recognize it's going to happen. <S> It means you have accepted whats happening in the here and now; but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy life nor take action to help those in need.
|
Escapism suggests you are trying to run away from suffering, but in reality we are trying to be changed by suffering. Escapism is not a principle found in Buddhism. To say there are no more desires means you no longer have strings pulling you around.
|
How to achieve consciousness in nirvana? If achieving “nirvana” means that we will be liberated from the illusion of consciousness, how then will we know (be conscious of) our achieving this “nirvana”? How can we be “conscious” of this, if “consciousness” will no longer exist? <Q> At the point of Nirvana consciousness ceases momentarily and starts again when you come out of the Phala Samapatti. <S> At this point you see the the collapse and reforming of the links of Conditional Relations / Dependent Origination. <S> how then will we know (be conscious of) <S> our achieving this “nirvana”? <S> You have seen the cessation of the 5 aggregates and start of it through full experiential knowledge of seeing the working of cause and effect. <S> How can we be “conscious” of this, if “consciousness” will no longer exist? <S> You need not be conscious about Nirvana <S> but you insight into cause and effect <S> will make a paradigm shift in your outlook about the 5 aggregates. <S> Also see: <S> How does stream entry occur? <S> Also following quote might be of interest. <S> This is slightly explained in more detail during the 20 day course. <S> What do you think is the ultimate goal of Vipassana? <S> SNG - <S> The ultimate aim is to clean the mind. <S> It can come to you anytime depending on how pure you are. <S> In that state, all your senses stop functioning. <S> It could be for a second, a minute, or longer, but for that brief period, you are beyond all sensation, all thought. <S> -S <S> N Goenka, from interview published in the 'life positive' magazine. <A> Nirvana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion. <S> Consciousness is not an "illusion". <S> What is an "illusion" is delusion. <S> When Nirvana is attained, the mind remains consciousness. <S> You can read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html <S> Best wishes <A> In certain sects of buddhism, there is the theory that there are ten worlds ranging from hell to buddhahood. <S> Each of these "worlds" however, is really a life state, or living condition that exists inside of one's self. <S> The tenth world, buddhahood, is also called nirvana. <S> If one is in this state, one is without delusion, but still conscious and able to go about daily life. <S> Additionally, not all sects of buddhism's goal is to "free one's self from the delusion of consciousness", but to instead be truly happy and help others. <S> In this sect, there is another "theory" called the ten factors. <S> They are what the true entity of all phenomena consist of, and, if correctly using the ten factors, one is freed from delusion. <S> If you want to learn more about the ten factors, this website gives a much better description than I am able to: The Ten Factors <S> I hope this answers you question well!
|
Nirvana is beyond mind and matter.
|
How does the Buddha define "atheist"? As usually atheist is mean a belief that there is no god. Is there any definition by Buddha about atheist ? I read philosophy that inhumanity would called atheist really other than belief in god . <Q> It is one of two extremes that Buddha avoided by revealing the middle way; Pratītyasamutpāda . <S> "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. ' <S> Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. <S> Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:.." <S> - Kaccayanagotta Sutta <A> Theism is a belief there is God. <S> Buddha was the first inner scientist who asked his disciples not to believe but find out through experience. <S> I think Buddha's position is unique amongst all enlightened beings till his time. <S> His radical departure from belief being the first requirement stands apart. <S> His point was simple - you are miserable and you need to get out. <A> A language encodes in it an associated culture. <S> Theism/Atheism binary does not apply to the Indic culture. <S> God/ <S> no <S> -God was not at all the central question for ancient Indians. <S> Rather it was who believed in the central <S> philosophy(which may or many not involve God) and who did not. <S> The term used is Āstika & Nāstika. <S> .. <S> the Buddhists themselves have branded only the Cārvākas as nastika. <S> For example, Nagarjuna wrote in his Ratnavali, that nastikya (nihilism) leads to hell while astikya (affirmation) leads to heaven. <S> Further, the Madhyamika philosopher Chandrakirti, who was accused of being a nastik, wrote in his Prasannapada that emptiness is a method of affirming neither being nor non-being and that nihilists are actually naive realists because they assume that things of this world have self-existent natures, whereas Madhyamikas view all things as arising dependently within the context of casual conditions. <S> There were also Buddhists that were accused of believing in ideas outside of the Buddha's teachings, and they were called nastika in the "Bodhisattvabhumi" (a section of the Yogacarabhumi by Asanga) and the scripture also declared they should be subject to isolation so their views do not infect the rest of the Buddhist community. <S> Source : <S> Wikipedia - Āstika and nāstika <A> Buddhism accept there are deities in this sense <S> it is not atheism but hold the position the deities have a finite life like any other being and are not alimity / omnipotence (unlimited power) , creator deity , omniscience (infinite knowledge) , omnipresence (present everywhere) , omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) which slants more towards atheism .
|
Atheism falls under ucchedavāda which was vehemently rejected by the Buddha. Atheism is a beluef there is no God.
|
What arises first - feeling of object or visual representation of object? I'm wondering what do other meditators see when they analyze closely the arising of a visual representation of an object in their mind? Please do this experiment: go into meditation and think of a visual representation of an object of your choosing. Look carefully how that visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please describe here what do you see, from the moment there is "nothing" in your mind, to the moment when the visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please also give an estimate how many hours of meditation have you practiced in your life. Here's what I see when I do the above experiment: What I'm seeing is that first, there arises the wish/want/decision/effort (I use different words here, but I'm referring to the same thing). Then, there arises a subtle subtle subtle feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the stronger is the feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, when I wish/want/decide/effort even more, an incomplete/dimmed/unclear representation of the object can be seen. Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the more complete is the visual representation of the object in my mind. In my life I practiced meditation for about 450 hours. UPDATE: I know that in Buddhism this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights" ... the reason I'm asking you to describe your personal insight in the experiment above is to see it first hand why this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights". I personally don't know any experienced meditators, thus I have nobody to ask this same question and see how personal insights of others differ from mine ... that's why I'm asking here. Hope some experienced meditator will give some description of his personal insight by answering this question. <Q> The optic nerve first goes to the amygdala where emotion resides and then to a large processing area to the back of the head where the image is formed. <S> So indeed feeling is first but still <S> this knowledge must be realized for oneself by oneself through meditative attention or else it is just intellectual knowlegde. <A> I personally think this happens. <A> It is said in the scriptures that the order is this: contact - feeling - perception - thought formation - consciousness. <S> Indeed one should find out for oneself that this is true and not believe it without examining. <S> My suggestion to your experiment would be to vary the object you call to mind to be unpleasent, pleasent since the hardest feeling to detect is the neutral one.
|
Contact arises first "seeing or thinking", followed by apprehension of the Sign (ie "A cup"), apperhension of Characteristics (ie Ugly) and so on with liking/disliking, wanting/aversion etc
|
Why intake of intoxicating substances is not included in 10 unwholesome actions? Following are the 3 unrighteous bodily conducts out of 10 unwholesome actions described in suttas such as Saleyyaka Sutta . Killing living beings Stealing Sexual misconduct I would like to know the reason why the intake of intoxicants, liquor and drugs is not listed as one of unwholesome actions. <Q> Saleyyaka Sutta mention 10 without intake of intoxicants Veludvāreyya Sutta <S> mention 7 without intake of intoxicants <S> Sigal’ovada <S> Sutta mention 4 without intake of intoxicants (this is mentioned separately though) <S> Once I heard that in early Indian kings use to take a drink in the evening. <S> The Buddha was careful not to introduce this precept in early day of his teaching until most of the Kings, ministers and tycoons where his disciples. <S> Later when this happened this was introduced. <S> If this was prematurely introduced many who were taking habitual or customary drinks might not have been inclined to listen to the Dhamma. <S> This is just a theory to explain the lack intake of intoxicants in some Suttas some which were early days of the dispensation. <A> When one is drunk, it could serve as the condition that leads to killing, stealing, raping, etc.. <S> OR it could just cause him to throw up and then pass out. <S> In other words the 10 unwholesome actions are listed because they're all manifested explicit actions while taking intoxicants is a to-be-manifested action.. <A> Buddha told Ven Sariputta that he would not answer to any questions or teach anything that might promote heedlessness. <S> So here is strictly my opinion. <S> Perhaps there is threshold of consuming alcohol or intoxicants?? <S> For example, if one uses cooking wine to prepare a dish for its aroma, would that consider breaking a precept? <S> What about fermented rice for desert (yeast+rice+sugar)? <S> It has slight alcohol in it <S> but not enough to alter mind. <S> Again, my opinion, there could be a possible threshold of consuming intoxicant but mentioning it would promote heedlessness. <S> It could possibly be that there is some qualifier in the 5th precept that is best not to mention? <S> Best not to consume it at all. <A> The Unwholesome actions produce a karmic seed that will definitely fruit. <S> For example, even if you killed someone out of self-defense, there would be a negative result. <S> Even if you got angry towards someone because they are harming themselves, you would produce a negative karmic seed. <S> That is why these are "unwholesome" fundamentally. <S> Many things that produce an un-sober state on the other hand only do so after a certain point. <S> There are many medical situations where it is necessary. <S> Many medicines have alcohol as an agent. <S> The same goes for other inebriating drugs. <S> It is of course better to avoid them altogether <S> but there is no diet that is fundamentally unwholesome. <S> On the other hand, the unwholesome actions are on some fundamental level going to cause some karmic repercussion. <A> First of all, the Buddha never talks about drugs as such. <S> He talks about alcohol, including a form of alcohol that was used in Ayurvedic medicine as an anesthetic, i.e., a drug, but the Pali suttas do not include any words that can be directly translated as "drugs. <S> " <S> Alcohol is frequently absent from lists of prohibited activities, including the famous Pansil, i.e., Five Precepts. <S> There is a fourfold version of pansil called the Four Restraints. <S> As to why this is the case, the answer is that it is because the Buddha did not prohibit alcohol for the first eight years of the sangha. <S> This happened during a famine, when all that the villagers had to offer the monastics was palm wine. <S> Subsequently drinking alcohol was added to the Four Restraints to make the Five Precepts, and the Buddha forbade the ordination of drinkers, but at the same time drinking alcohol is a very minor offence in the Vinaya, requiring confession only.
|
The Buddha only prohibited alcohol when a monk got drunk and passed out, embarassing the sangha. In a way, the 10 unwholesome actions already take into account the intaking of intoxicants in the sense that intoxicant is a condition for the manifestation of any one of those 10 unwholesome actions.
|
Are there buddhists who criticize Eckhart Tolle as it is not really a buddhist teach? If so, what is their critique? Eckhart Tolle is a spiritual teacher who is influenced by Christianity and Buddhism etc. Now he says that there are Buddhists who claim that his teachings are not really Buddhist. But in what way are his teachings not really Buddhist? <Q> If something is not what the Buddha said then it is wrong to miss attributed something to the Buddha as this is what the Buddha taught. <S> A summary of the majority of Buddha's teaching is encompassed in the Wings of Awakening , 3 Marks of Existence , 4 Noble Truths , Dependent Origination . <S> So if what Eckhart Tolle writes does not have these aspects and if what is found in line with the doctrinal system then you cannot call it Buddhism. <S> Also some of the core teachings of Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible with each other, so any philosophy influenced by both is neither Christianity nor Buddhism. <S> See: -ism <A> There are also Christians who claim he doesn't teach Christianity very well either. <S> Instead, he draws off sources the general public would typically understand. <S> Eckhart Tolle and his teachings are more Taoist than Buddhist. <S> His favorite book to read is the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao tzu. <S> He explains this in his talk called, "Eckhart Tolle - Tao Te Ching and a previous global evolutional era". <S> Although he has very similar teachings to Buddha, he neglects the primary teachings such as the Four Noble Truths, the Three Gems, the Eight Fold Path, and so on... <A> I've read Eckhart <S> Tolle's book " The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment " and <S> if I compare it with Buddhism, I would say Tolle is teaching some form of samatha meditation, that might help someone reach the first or second jhana. <S> Being established in the jhana is being present in the "now" in my opinion. <S> The experience that Tolle had, which he considers to be enlightenment, is probably just the piti, sukha and samadhi experienced in jhana. <S> I think those who are familiar with Buddhism could read Eckhart <S> Tolle's Enlightenment Story and come to their own conclusions. <S> Of course as we know, there's a lot more to Buddhism than attaining jhanas. <S> In fact, being addicted to jhanas could be an obstacle to Nirvana. <S> In his book, he talks about focusing on breath or sensations in the body. <S> These are of course, samatha objects of meditation to induce concentration. <A> I disagree with those who says that Eckhart's teachings are not Buddhist or Eckhart is not enlightened. <S> It can be true that Eckhart didn't become a Sakadagami immediately as he describes in his <S> books(but <S> it is possible that he became a sakadagami immediately too). <S> But whether he immediately become a Sakadagami or not doesn't matter, it is not a difficult thing to recognise his purity right now . <S> Also Eckhart teaches mindfulness in essence in his teachings, but also teaches things like inner body awareness , or breath awareness to make the beginner meditator's mind calm a little bit. <S> But the core of his teachings is mindfulness . <S> He leads people to give attention to whatever they are doing. <S> Looking, listening, walking, washing the hands, driving, observing the emotions or whatever.. <S> This is clearly mindfulness <S> So just looking from this side, Eckhart's teachings are very aligned with the Buddha's teaching. <S> Ofcourse Eckhart's many descriptions about the nature of the reality fits more with Hinduism. <S> He speak about one consciousness , god etc. <S> So yes from just looking from this side Eckhart's teaching is not aligned with Buddhism. <S> But we must not forget that Buddhism's main goal is to make people experience <S> the nature of reality themselves. <S> That's why Buddha who was a very intelligent being wanted people to avoid transforming Buddhism to a kind of a worshipping or studying based conceptual belief system. <S> To sum up, from the experience level Eckhart's teachings are very aligned with Buddha's teachings and from the conceptual level Eckhart's teachings <S> are partially aligned with Buddhism. <A> As I see it, Buddhism is working through the process of generating a fourth wheel of the dharma — a wheel integrated with the modern, scientific, Christianity-rooted secularism that predominates in the West — and people like Tolle are part of that process. <S> Remember, Buddhism has only been active in the West for a bit more than a century, which is practically nothing in the timeline of a faith. <S> Of course, traditionalists will always balk at the idea of a new wheel, and will tend to see people like Tolle as interesting curiosities rather than proper teachers. <S> And of course, there's no way to tell if Tolle's influence will withstand the test of time. <S> This is a period of flux, so the status of everything is subject to change without notice. <S> Such is life.
|
If you call something Buddhism it will be attributed to the Buddha and should be inline with the doctrinal system the Buddha taught.
|
self esteem and the need to feel proud of ourselves When I see my direction of motivation towards working or relationships or for that matter even meditation is the want to feel proud of myself. Why do we need to feel proud of ourselves? Can we overcome that need? Also want to know if this is related to emotional insecurity <Q> Lack of self-confidence can be made up of several different aspects like: guilt, anger turned inward, unrealistic expectations of perfection, false sense of humility, fear of change or making mistakes, depression etc. <S> Depression can actually also be a result of a lack of self-confidence. ' <S> The damage can actually be found in your ego. <S> The ego is an identity fabricated in the mind by past events. <S> For example your birth name, skin color, nationality, sex, or anything that deals with past experiences which reaffirms the identity of who you are. <S> In Buddhism, there are terms such as "antidotes" which are used to cure delusions associated with general or specific sufferings. <S> For example, anger can be cured with patience and love. <S> Anxiety can be cured with acceptance and wisdom. <S> Self-worth can be cured by loving-kindness and wisdom. <S> Loving-kindness, also known as Metta, is a practice to accept and love others and ourselves unconditionally. <S> Typically Metta is practiced through a meditation which usually uses a mantra such as, May you be happy. <S> May you be well. <S> May you be safe. <S> May you be peaceful and at ease. <S> Other methods may include visualizations such as a radiating red or white auras from the heart symbolizing love. <S> Meditation is important but more importantly is service. <S> It takes the attention off yourself and puts it onto others. <S> This is the quickest way for developing Metta in yourself while putting it into practice. <S> Next, you need to develop wisdom. <S> Studying sutras, listening to Dharma talks, and reading books on the subject is a fantastic way to gain knowledge. <S> Knowledge will help you systematically but it won't necessarily develop wisdom. <S> By doing meditations such as "Zazen", you will gradually see through the ego the same way you would see through a desert mirage. <S> Eventually by seeing through the ego it will wither away completely leaving you at peace. <A> Being proud is a natural consequence of certain thought patterns rooted in craving, i.e., when there is craving there is self conceiving in some cases and some cases when there is self conceiving can lead to being proud. <S> [ Tanhā Jālinī Sutta , (Vicarita) <S> Tanha Sutta ] <S> To overcome feeling proud you should be aware when you evaluate yourself higher and be equanimous in face of pleasant sensation that follow. <S> To develop wisdom you have to be aware of the arising and passing nature or impermanent nature of what is experienced. <S> To fully eradicate the roots so this does not arise again, you should know the whole sphere of sensation or phenomenas which you can sense and your perceiving the experience and positive, negative or neutral and the pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations that follow. <S> [ Pahāna Sutta , Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 ] The practical aspects is better learned by doing a formal course. <S> You can search for a suitable course location at: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index , http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html <A> I think it is pretty good explained here <S> If one regards himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of the body that is impermanent, painful and subject to change, what else is it than not seeing reality? <S> Or if one regards himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of feelings, perceptions, volitions or consciousness, what else is it than not seeing reality? <S> If one does not regard himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of the body, the feelings, perceptions, volitions or consciousness what else is it than seeing reality? <S> - SN 22.49
|
The motivation behind the need to feel proud of yourself has it's roots in a lack of self-worth and confidence.
|
If you are/become very sensitive for sounds what could be the reason/cause? If you get disturbed at night by tiny sounds or find it difficult to hear loud sounds at day is there a particulary cause known for that in buddhism. Is it bad and what to do about it? <Q> Something that you once ignored is now being noticed because your living in the present moment. <S> You're aware of things which you didn't notice before. <S> It may seem louder than usual because your mind is no longer being occupied by something else. <S> Another explanation could be sensory adaptation to a new environment. <S> It's not uncommon for practitioners who return from retreats to be more sensitive to their environment. <S> Their ears have adapted to the silent lifestyle but eventually adapt to usual city noise over time. <A> If you have too much sensitivity to sound it means Air element is disturbed. <S> It also results in insomnia. <S> Your body is a five element phenomenon. <S> Buddha never paid any attention to them because they are supposed to be taken care of by right living and meditation techniques. <S> But modern man is a highly disturbed creature with a toxic body. <S> I suggest if meditation techniques are not working try detox techniques which some monks practice like eating light or limiting to two times in a day. <S> It is important you take care of nutrition and calories otherwise it will be counter productive. <S> If they do not work visit a herbal medicine practitioner. <S> Try Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine. <S> They are very effective in fixing imbalances especially for meditators. <A> To hear you need: have a functional ear faculty a sound to hear direct your consciousness to the ear faculty <S> Assuming you ear is in good condition as you hear well in night. <S> Since you are sensitive at night, and not at day, when things are quiet, is that you are more composed or focused with you attention at the ear to hearing than in day time. <S> During the perhaps with other activities you are also distracted hence attention is not fulling on the sounds you hear.
|
Sensitivity could just mean your senses are being noticed.
|
What can I do to help avoid laxity while meditating lying down? My upper back muscles are not strong enough yet to support seated meditation, so I use supine/savanana posture sometimes. My mind falls into short dream states, like hypnagogia, very easily in this posture, however. Any tips for overcoming this laxity while doing supine meditation? I am only doing samatha meditation these days. <Q> The Meditation on Falling to Sleep: We can be on mindful guard for the arising of the moment we start to fall asleep. <S> This mindfulness should stop the falling asleep and can give an initial boost in the meditation faculties like effort and concentration <S> so we won't fall asleep as much <S> and we can then better practice whatever we want with those improved faculties and wakefulness. <S> We can know when we are starting to fall asleep by finding and tuning into were <S> the bodily or mental experiences are that we know always happen right before we start to fall asleep. <S> We then can easily catch when we will start to fall asleep. <A> When you are falling asleep or getting drowsy there is a feeling associated with it (mild uncomfortable heaviness or tightness around your head). <S> Concentrate on this sensation analysing is in terms of Mahābhūta or type of sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), in this case it is mildly unpleasant. <S> Also you level of awareness is diminishing, so focus on any sensation and actively keeps directing your awareness to any sensation you can feel , continuously evaluating to see if there any lapse of awareness and redirecting your attention to sensations that can be felt. <S> Also see: <S> Pacalā Sutta <S> How to remove dullness of mind, without sitting meditation, in regular activity? <S> How is the faculty of persistence developed? <S> problems with meditation in the morning Which Hindrances are counteracted or enhance by the 37 and Jhana Factors? <A> I would recommend trying two positions and one form of breathing. <S> First, the way people usually breath without thinking about it is through the chest. <S> This type of breathing takes more concentration making one more mindful of the breath regardless of the meditative position assumed. <S> Second, let's consider the two most likely to succeed positions. <S> Lie down on the floor (beds ARE for sleeping) with your legs bent and your toes turned inward toward the center so that your legs do not flop open as you relax. <S> Arms slightly away from the body with palms up. <S> No pillow for the head. <S> Jaw relaxed with tongue resting on the roof of the mouth. <S> Eyes open to discourage sleepiness. <S> Unless this is your normal sleeping position, you should be able to remain mindful during your meditation. <S> The other position is to turn on your side with your arm crooked to rest your head. <S> Your other arm should be resting on your side. <S> Place a small tubular pillow under your shoulder for support. <S> It is alright to move your arm occasionally for comfort, and then resume your meditative position. <S> Again breath from your diaphragm, and jaw/tongue as described above, eyes open. <S> A blanket may be used to lie on if you do not have carpeting.
|
When using a supine position the trick is to be comfortable without being so comfortable that one falls asleep or enters that subconscious state. Try breathing with the diaphragm, allowing the belly to rise and fall.
|
Hard not to control my breathing For the record I'm new to meditation.I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting. Though sometimes I just ralize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it. I don't want to do it, just happens.Is it just me or it will be better with practice? <Q> Don't try to force or control anything, observe and just note it and continue. <S> It's not that much important how your body reacts to your meditation, but how you deal with these bodily reactions. <S> Yes, there will always be some bodily reactions that will distract you from meditation, but the point is to not get distracted and just remain in the "present moment". <S> With practice you will be less distracted, until you won't be distracted any more. <S> Practice diligently and you shell rip the rewards soon. <A> That sounds like bad advise if you are practicing insight meditation. <S> This answer assumes the practice in question is insight meditation. <S> "You" don't control the breath. <S> I had this same question when I was starting out and the teacher basically said "You don't control the breath <S> so there is no problem, just keep seeing things as they are moment by moment". <S> For me, it was just a matter of losing my wrong view that I had to be concerned that I'm controlling the breath. <S> If I'm thinking that I'm controlling the breath then I would focus my mindful awareness on this thinking(instead of worrying that I was controlling the breathing). <A> For the record I'm new to meditation. <S> I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. <S> That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting. <S> On objective of meditation is to calm the fabrication . <S> By controlling you are, in some instances, you will be creating fabrications. <S> Though sometimes I just realize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it. <S> This you should be careful not to do. <S> There is a stage in Anapanasati <S> you have to calm the breath, but in this instance also you just have to intention to calm but <S> not the action to calm, hence you are not doing any action to calm it. <S> I don't want to do it, just happens. <S> Is it just me or it will be better with practice? <S> If it happens naturally then it is OK. <S> Also see: <S> Anapanasati: <S> Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu <S> Ānâpāna,sati Sutta <A> A simple and practical solution for occurance of own control of breathing is intentionally stop fabricated breathing for few moments and observe. <S> Then you will be able to sense that the body (spontaneous neural discharge from the brain to nerves that innervate respiratory muscles) automatically start breathing process after few seconds of tolarance period. <S> Now you can start observing the natural breathing. <S> Most teachers dictate to make several deep breaths before start the meditation in order to make an exact understanding of the touching point in the breathing channel. <S> This practice leads for some novice practioners to unknowingly continue the same practice of fabricated breathing. <S> This may be called 'Choiceless Awareness'. <S> May the Noble Triple Gem Bless You <A> While you control your breathing or focus to your whole body, you losing to focus the breath at nose's tip point. <S> So the right practice is not control your breath or focus to your whole body, but just discerns your breath at the nose's tip point. <S> And do not focus the nose's tip or nose's tip touching, <S> just focus on the entire breath that touching at only nose's tip, not <S> whole respiratory : <S> The ānāpānassati-pabba is sequences of practice: <S> Monitoring the breath: <S> "Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' <S> Then the breath going to be fainter and shorter: Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' <S> Then the breath maybe disappear because of the practitioner's weak mindfulness, breath still going on <S> but he can't see it. <S> So he has to train his mindfulness to be stronger mindful on fainter and shorter breath by making more focus on breath's touching point, the tip of nose: <S> He trains himself, 'I must sensitively discerns the entire breathing when I will breathe' <S> He trains himself, 'I must sensitively discerns the entire breathing when I will breathe.' <S> He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming breath.' <S> He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming breath.' <S> For more the tricks of 1st step, when the practitioner forget to focus on breath, the 2nd step, when the breath disappear, you can see in the path of purification , ānāpānassatikathā, CH. <S> VIII (9) Mindfulness of Breathing 259. <S> There is a trick in mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta ānāpānapabba's commentary , too. <S> Note 1 <S> : Touching is not breath. <S> Breath appear because of breath touching at nose's tip. <S> So, the practitioner focusing on only breath at only nose's tip, not on touching or nose's tip. <S> Note 2
|
: Also, breath appear at the whole respiratory, such as throat or lung, but don't focus on it, because the practitioner practicing concentration meditation, so too much breath touching point will make the practitioner distraction. But we should always endeavour to 'let it go' and become just an observer without interventions or conclusions. The depth of the breath change generally becoming shorter but some cases if there through disturbances this might become deeper.
|
Translating "dukkha" as "reactivity" Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of Pointing Out the Great Way , says this (emphasis added)... The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which could also be rendered as “reactivity.” For, as we experience events unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated. My question: Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"? Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha. <Q> 'Dukkha' means 'suffering', that is, mental torment, i.e., a lack of peace. <S> So "reactivity" is certain a type of dukkha since reactivity is disturbing, tormenting & not peaceful. <S> However, other mental experiences are also "dukkha", such as sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. <S> Reactivity or mental concocting is one kind of dukkha (called sankhara-dukkha; see SN 38.14; "stressfulness of fabricat ing ") <S> but it is not a translation of the word "dukkha". <A> Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"? <S> No <S> I don't think so. <S> Philologically I think of dukkha as being originally an antonym of sukha -- <S> Sukha is a Sanskrit and Pali word that is often translated happiness, ease, pleasure or bliss. <S> Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains <S> Yes I think so. <S> It might make more sense the other way around: to say "reactivity is dukkha" rather than "dukkha is reactivity". <S> Saying "reactivity is dukkha" might not be too surprising, given that everything is dukkha i.e. dukkha is one of the Three marks of existence : <S> sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā <S> — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" <S> I think that "reactivity" is one example of a saṅkhāra (e.g. "reactivity" a combination of a "reactor" with a "thing-which-it-reacts-to"). <A> As I understand reactivity is incessant and chaotic mind response to external stimuli (through senses ofcourse). <S> But reactivity cannot be called suffering because it is the root cause of suffering. <S> Mind impacts body in a negative way. <S> Mind also impacts emotional health badly. <S> When mind (desire) causes action it is past (I am) or future oriented (I want to be). <S> Certain actions are caused by body e.g. intake of food. <S> Many actions originates in Heart for example a song or a painting. <S> These actions will not be the cause of suffering because you will not loose awareness while performing these actions. <S> Mind's natural condition is to be silent and work only when needed. <S> Right now a civilized man's mind work all the time for no reason. <S> This 24/7 schedule is the main reason why modern man is an unhappy lot. <S> I think Brown has gone a bit overboard by defining reactivity as suffering (Dukkha). <A> When you have contact your consciousness react with some sensation or the other. <S> If the sensation is unpleasant it is unsatisfactory, it is pleasant and changes or ends it is still unsatisfactory <S> and if is neutral it is still unsatisfactory as wholesome and unwholesome roots which create future sensation are still present and the process of rebirth continues. <S> If you crave to any of the sensations then you create suffering for the future, but if you are equanimous the seed of past karma which gave fruit will not find fertile ground to give results in the future. <S> [ Cūla Vedalla Sutta ] <S> So your ingrained habitual reaction to contact creates sensation which in turn creates sensation which lead to unsatisfactoriness with the contact and potential to create unsatisfactoriness is the future. <S> [ Cūla Vedalla Sutta ] <S> If you develop equanimity in the face of pleasant and unpleasant sensations than craving and aversion and wisdom in the face of neutral sensation, than the habitual reaction then you can overcome in contact with sense objects, will prevent future occurrence of unsatisfactoriness. <S> [ Pahāna Sutta , Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 ] <S> I feel the authors is relating his understanding that the habitual reaction is what keep you rolling in misery in the future and this tendency to react creates misery now, but I feel the rendering is inaccurate as it is explaining causality by equating a result to the case, i.e., if A causes B then A is B, which is not the most right way to understand it. <S> In my point of view "reactivity underlies dukkha" would be a better rendering. <S> Some of the description above are based on: <S> Cūla Vedalla Sutta pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes; <S> painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes; neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it Pahāna Sutta the latent tendency of lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling; the latent tendency of aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling; the latent tendency of ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neutral feeling. <S> Avijja Pahana Sutta 2
|
"Dukkha" means "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".
|
Rebirth, transfer of memories, what is it? I have a person in my own family who's aware of his past-birth. He knew it by age 7 only. When family started investigation 'they found it all true. How he has died in his last birth, how much of children he had, what work he was doing when he died and etc. I want to know what the buddha said about rebirth and transfer of memories to a new born? Moreover I wish to get more examples. <Q> As for conciseness it arises and passes. <S> At death it passes in one body and arise in another. <S> This process don't end at death or with brain damage or death. <S> As this instance passes away the next state arises with persistent sense impressions. <S> Sense impressions are tied to the mental body while conceptual impressions are tied to the physical body. <S> So if you get brain damaged you cannot think and perhaps learn new concepts but past impressions stay, [ Mahā,nidāna Sutta ] these sense impressions do persist beyond death as part of the Bhavanga Citta . <S> Recallability depends on the level of hindrances. <S> [ (Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta ] <S> For further understanding perhaps you can study the Buddhist rebirth process. <S> Jhana meditators can recall past lives since sense impressions have persisted. <S> 5 Hindrances is one case of we cannot remember and as meditation overcomes this you can remember better. <S> [ (Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta ] Also see: How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed <A> Spontaneous past lives recollection per Buddha can be found at Khajjanita Sutta For modern day research, look up late Dr. Ian Stevenson University of Virginia School of Medicine <A> The Khajjaniya Sutta explains whatever experiences from the past are recollected, they were never "I", "me" or "mine". <S> You would probably need to look elsewhere for an explanation of reincarnation since the Khajjaniya Sutta refutes the idea of " I existed in the past". <S> Note: <S> The Pali term "pubbe nivāsaṃ" at the start of the Khajjaniya Sutta does not mean "past lives". <S> It means "previous dwellings". <S> In his new translations, Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the term "past abodes". <S> The term similar term 'nivesā' ('fixations') is also found in the Haliddakani Sutta, which provides a good explanation of the idea of "dwellings".
|
The Khajjaniya Sutta explains the mind was mistaken in the past, i.e., ignorant, to regard experiences as "I", "me" or "mine". The mental impressions that remain are part of the mind (Nama) which does not die at death but passes away in one body and arise in another.
|
Are chakra's used in Buddhism? I think that in the hindoestic yogi there are using chakra's very common. But are they also used in buddhism? If not, why not? Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism? <Q> But are they also used in buddhism? <S> There are some references to chakra in certain types of Buddhism. <S> E.g. see Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings? <S> Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism? <S> In Theravada Buddhism the closest is the places to fix attention or resting places of attention. <S> See my answer to: Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings? <A> Especially in types of Yoga practice such as ‘Lama Yoga’ they get you to energize your chakras, and fire up the kundalini using a type of breathing exercise. <S> They refer to kundalini as a very transforming flame of raw sexual energy, and energizing the chakras is done by breathing exercises that requires excellent physical and cardiovascular health. <S> To me Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism, and there is absolutely no mention in the Doctrine of the use of chakras. <S> In fact the only place that I came of a mention of a chakra is regarding Supreme Buddha’s chief disciple, Moggallana. <S> The other chief disciple was Ven. <S> Sariputta who died half a year before the Final Passing Away of the Awakened One. <S> Soon after the death of Sariputta, Mara, the embodiment of evil and the Lord of Death, claimed Moggallana's mortal frame, by entering his bowels. <S> He could not make him possessed by entering his head, because he had access only to the lowest Chakra. <S> Moggallana, however, told him calmly to get out and away as he had well recognized him. <S> Mara was very surprised that he had been found out so soon, and in his delusion he thought that even the Buddha would not have recognized him so quickly. <S> But Moggallana read his thoughts and ordered him again to get away. <S> So this is the only place that I found any mention of this. <S> Concentrating and calming the mind by breathing in and breathing out, mindfully with full awareness, is known as Anapanasati. <S> How mindfulness of in and out breathing brings the contemplation of body and contemplation of feeling to their culmination is explained very differently in the Buddhist Doctrine. <S> In reading Ananda Sutta, Girimananda Sutta, Anapanasati Sutta etc. <S> it will be obvious that this meditation needs to be developed and pursued ardently with thorough understanding and awareness as per the scriptures. <S> At the same time be aware not to mix it that of Hindu meditation practices. <S> Hindus advice <S> you to first be aware of breathing by first fixing attention on the feeling of the breath at the nose palate (roof of the mouth) and then progress to places like the one located either in the middle of the chest or the solar plexus. <A> The Chakras corresponds to major energy exchange points between metaphysical and physical body. <S> There are many exchange points other than seven major. <S> Accupuncture talks about 600 plus points. <S> Tantra Buddhism followed in Tibet talks about four chakras. <S> Buddha remained silent because these Chakras are associated with psychic powers which are distractions in disciple path. <S> Best answer can be obtained by asking a living Buddha. <A> The Tibetans have a chakra system similar to the Hindu system, but based on four, five, seven or even ten chakras instead of the familiar seven. <S> The specific symbols of the individual chakras also differ somewhat, and the Hindu concept of kundalini is replaced by the notion of "airs" or "drops. <S> " The 32 marks of the Buddha also seem to include some nascent references to the chakras, especially the 1000-spoke wheel sign on the feet, golden-hued body, ten-foot aura, long and broad tongue, the white urna curl that emits light between the eyebrows, and the protuberance at the crown of the head.
|
You are correct in say that in the Hindu Meditation practices the Chakra is used.
|
What to do when a thought comes up while meditating From the meditation podcasts I have heard when a thought comes up acknowledge it by saying "thinking" and then try to gently return back to your breath. There is something else I tried experimentally. In this case I was not noticing my breath, but was noticing my thoughts. I did this by asking, "what's the next thought" and tried to observe my thoughts mindfully. Obviously more thoughts arose, but it felt like I was still practicing mindfulness. And it seems easier to do this type of mindfulness while in an environment with a lot of distractions. (Walking, running, etc.) I wanted to know if it is ok to do this? Also, are there other methods for handling my thoughts? <Q> It is important to understand what is meant by 'right view' (samma ditti) which covers the origination of thoughts, the causal arising of thoughts, and the non-self nature of thoughts and the entire thinking apparatus. <S> This understanding will help one to be mindful of the arising and passing away of thoughts during meditation without identifying with them. <S> The default view that a thought is mine, created by myself naturally causes one to pursue them. <S> While the right view of the true nature of thoughts eventually leads one to be unbounded from thinking. <A> Anapanasati (meditation on the breath) works just the way it should be. <S> It was highly recommended by the Buddha himself and successfully used for the last ~2500 years now. <S> It's really simple: When you breath out, know you breath out. <S> If you want to develop samadhi <S> ( concentration is a misleading term, let's just call it peaceful stillness ) <S> , then the best way is to choose an mediation object (breath, metta, walking, ...) and follow the instructions. <S> In this case I was not noticing my breath but was noticing my thoughts <S> I did it by asking "what's the next thought " and tried to observe my thoughts mindfully <S> Don't do this. <S> You will eventually get caught up in thinking and emotions. <S> In meditation ( samatha ) thoughts are a distraction. <S> They pull you away from your object of meditation. <S> So dropping your meditation object will pretty much end your meditation. <S> Dealing with distracting thoughts <S> I guess half of all questions in this SE relate to that topic, so <S> I'm just gonna link some instructions. <S> In general, you have to find out by trying what works and what doesn't. <S> What makes you (your breath) more peaceful and what makes it more stressful. <S> https://youtu.be/oeJ2LaFaDCY?t=53 <S> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL603BD0B03E12F5A1 <S> (you probably heard this) <S> And it seems it is easier to do this type of mindfulness when in an environment with a lot of distraction . <S> (Walking or running etc.) <S> I myself noticed that in such a environment it's very beneficial to 'sort' <S> those distraction in regards to the six senses. <S> This is seeing, hearing, thinking, tasting, feeling, smelling. <A> Bring your attention to your hand (any) and to the middle of your forehead. <S> Do it simultaneously. <S> The first will keep you in the moment. <S> The second will enable you to observe your thoughts. <S> The hand will tingle and become warm when you turn your attention to it; each finger in turn – with your mind’s eye, look at your thumb until it tingles and becomes warm, then to the next finger and so on, until your hand tingles and becomes warm. <S> Be very aware of the warmth and be in the present moment. <S> At the same time, with your mind’s eye, look through the middle of your forehead at the thoughts rising and let them pass without being captivated by them. <S> This way, you won't wander away with the thought or be captivated by it.
|
The thing I've learned from meditation so far: Don't try to be clever, just follow the instructions! Any time you find your attention wandering and you are being caught up in a daydream, just become aware of your hand in the present moment. Focus on your being (via your hand, which holds you as an anchor in the present) and the middle of your forehead (through your mind's eye; don't move your physical eyes).
|
Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea? Are there ever situations where practicing mindfulness is not recommended during Buddhist practice. Could it ever have undesirable side effects or cause hindrances on the path. Or is it always the case that the more one practices mindfulness the better? The motivation for this question comes from my own practice. I've really felt recently that mindfulness can have a negative effect on me. Perhaps swelling the ego and a lot of time contemplating what my emotions are, what I am doing and what I am thinking. This has ultimately seem very inward looking and counterproductive. I don't really expect or want someone to diagnose my own particular quirks (you can have a go if you really want). But I do want to know if there is general advice from established teachers about the possible negative side effects of mindfulness practice and when it might be contraindicated. <Q> That is the reason why beginners tend to think "When I sit on a cushion, there's a fireworks of thoughts, images, etc. <S> coming to my mind. <S> It seems like an endless waterfall of thoughts, etc.". <S> This is a mistaken conception, though, since these "fireworks" were actually already present, but merely unnoticed. <S> Thus, cultivating mindfulness (along with vigilance) helps one understand better what delusions are the master of him. <S> He also comes to feel that he is enslaved by these afflictions (which is a necessary step in Dharma practice, since it leads to generate the wish to abandon afflictions, recognizing them as the origins of suffering). <S> All this is painful and stirs the mind quiet a lot. <S> Through cultivating mindfulness, we exhume "demons" that we might not be able to face yet, or to understand. <S> We might shed the light on things we are not able to look at yet. <S> That is one of the reason it is necessary to rely to a teacher who gives you practical (and boring) exercises and with whom you have interview every so often. <S> Moreover, opening one's eyes is necessary but not sufficient. <S> We have to change what we pay attention to and the way we pay attention to them (these are usually part of the exercises). <S> This is difficult because karma drives us to pay attention to always the same things that feed our deluded mind more and more. <S> In addition to relying on a teacher, one must study, because by way of studying the teachings of the Buddha, you will come to know what to pay attention to, where to look, and how. <A> Mindfulness isn't about self-diagnosis but it can easily lead to self-criticism if one isn't careful. <S> This is rarely a bad thing. <S> Even if you are out partying, you can be mindful of your wacky dance moves and so long as you do this correctly (without judgment) it will not necessarily interfere with your ability to have a good time. <S> Even with the most worldly examples, everything is in its right place when mindfulness is practiced correctly: making love, playing video games, eating, etc. <S> It can be nice to stop even in the midst of enjoyment to be detachedly mindful... <S> it often produces great insights. <S> Moresoover, the non-worldly activities are helped through mindfulness as well. <S> The problem is when people use mindfulness to stack thoughts on top of thoughts due to self-judgment. <S> Mindfulness is not about that. <S> If one enters a state where one cannot stop one's thoughts and one cannot calm oneself, one should practice samatha not vipassana (mindfulness)... or just try to force oneself to go to sleep. <S> Proper mindfulness always leads to an effective course of action but one should always hold more important an attitude of self-acceptance and non-attachment as the heart of mindfulness. <A> Look up satta bojjhaṅgā or 7 Factors of Enlightenment. <S> From Aggi Sutta , example of the wrong time to cultivate 3 of 7 Factors of Enlightenment (tranquillity, concentration, equanimity) <S> At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of tranquillity , the enlightenment-factor of concentration , the enlightenment-factor of equanimity . <S> What is the reason? <S> A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors. <A> “But mindfulness, bhikkhus, I say is always useful.” <S> -- SN 43.56
|
Yes, practicing mindfulness can be a bad idea. When one practices mindfulness, he opens his eyes and comes to see more and more things that were previously unnoticed. It is about being present and objectively being aware of what it is without judgment .
|
Heaven and Hell in Buddhism I need to understand some concept about Buddhism. Does Buddhists believe on after live of Paradise and Hell? What are the belief of Buddhists regarding this? <Q> Yes, there are 31 realms of existences . <S> From top to bottom: 4 immaterial realms 16 fine material realms 6 heavens human realm <S> Asura hell <S> ghost hell <S> animal hell Niraya(hells of unimaginable suffering) <S> Life spans of each realm varies, but there are no ever lasting places of existence. <A> Some Buddhist scriptures state by doing good you can go to heaven & by doing evil you can go to hell. <S> Also, if you love the Buddha, you can go to heaven. <S> 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell . <S> But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heaven ly world.' <S> Bhaya-bherava Sutta <S> ~~~ <S> The liar goes to hell ; also he who, having done (wrong), says, "I did not do it." <S> Men of base actions both, on departing they share the same destiny in the other world. <S> There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. <S> These wicked men will be born in hell because of their evil deeds. <S> It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people. <S> Four misfortunes befall the reckless man who consorts with another's wife: acquisition of demerit, disturbed sleep, ill-repute and rebirth in hell . <S> Nirayavagga: <S> Hell <S> ~~~ <S> Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me & is plain, open, explicit & free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven . <S> Alagaddupama Sutta <A> There are different realms described <S> but I don't think it needs to be so complicated. <S> The point is that you create your own hell or your own heaven, for example; if you hit your head against a wall on purpose, would you not be in pain? <S> Would this be hell? <S> Another example; if you lie and cheat, people you have hurt may come after you and hurt you, wouldn't this be hell? <S> Alternative, if you are careful you can avoid hitting your head, wouldn't that be great? <S> And if you don't lie and cheat, then you don't need to worry about people taking revenge, wouldn't not having to worry about anything be heaven? <S> You create your own reality, even right now in this lifetime.
|
Yes, you will keep being born in these places again and again according to your Karma, every time you die, until you attain Nibbana and end the process.
|
Animals and humans in Science vs. Buddhism About the doctrine of the 31 realms of existence. I have a few questions, because science, especially the theory of evolution, makes a good argument for categorizing humans as animals . Is this list of 31 realms static or can single realms vanish? Because due to science we know that this earth won't last forever. This would mean, that there are no animals or humans anymore, unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely if you consider the set of condition it took of several billion years to evolve humans). The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals and just use different techniques for surviving as every other species as well. So knowing that there was a time of transition, where there only existed primordial human beings, how could you at that time say if it was a human or an animal? How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved to a totally different species according to the conditions in the environment. So how should you understand this classification of beings. Is it just a provisional and time-dependent concept? Or is it only related to the degree of suffering, which predominate each realm? I know on this topic are already many questions. But none of these related to this particular question. So please don't tag as duplicate. <Q> Some Buddhists regard the realms of existence as psychological states of people. <S> For example, if you are moral & humane, you have a 'human' existence. <S> If you act impulsively, without self-control, without reasoned reflection, & particularly without moral conscience & with violence, your state of mind is like an 'animal'. <S> The following quotes from the scriptures support this view. <S> Particularly, the quote at the bottom states an 'animal', by realising the Four Noble Truths, can be reborn as 'human', such as occurred to Angulimala <S> (the former mass murderer who became a fully enlightened monk), as shown in the video link at the bottom. <S> Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. <S> Which two? Conscience & concern. <S> If these two bright qualities did not guard the world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of those who deserve respect.' <S> The world would be immersed in promiscuity, like rams with goats , roosters with pigs or dogs with jackals. <S> But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'" <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.than.html <S> ~~~~ <S> I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. <S> Now at that time a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds of bestial topics (tiracchānakathaṃ) of conversation: <S> conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html <S> ~~~~ <S> Few are the beings who, on passing away from the animal realm, are reborn among human beings or gods. <S> But far more numerous are reborn is hell. <S> For what reason? <S> They have not seen the Four Noble Truths. <S> SN 56.123 <S> (no link) <S> Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49oX1Shxf4 <A> The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals <S> No, it doesn't. <S> It's just a theory with some supporting evidence. <S> Is this list of 31 realms static or can single realms vanish? <S> No conditioned phenomena is static. <S> This time, up to 14 realms will be destroyed by fire at the end of the aeon(Kalpa). <S> Most of the beings are born in higher Brahma realms at the time. <S> Those who don't make it(due to nihilistic views) will be born in a hell that is out of this world system. <S> unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely... <S> In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars. <S> How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? <S> Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved According to Buddhism, there's no crossing of the line between species, unless you mean something like a human dying and being born as an animal. <S> Also, humans are devolving during this period of the cosmic timeline. <S> Not evolving. <A> Some Buddhists take the stance that the mind is the driving force behind evolution and the appearances of different species (and beings). <S> Dalai Lama dismisses the element of randomness in the theory of evolution based on natural selection:[5] <S> From the Buddhist's perspective, the idea of these mutations being random events is deeply unsatisfying for a theory that purports to explain the origin of life. <S> Lopez elaborates that the process of Rebirth (into any of a large number of states of being including the human, any kind of animal and several types of supernatural being) is conditioned by karma (action of consciousness), which explains Dalai Lama's view.[6]
|
Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the view that humans evolved from animals. No, it is very likely, even scientifically speaking, to have similar living conditions elsewhere in the universe.
|
Investing in poultry stocks and Buddhism Peace !! I am planning to invest some of my money in poultry stocks in the stock market and having second thoughts. As I understand Buddhism teaches not to kill any living beings although it does not say directly not to eat meat even for monks or laymen. However , I don't think humans can survive without destroying other species . e.g. Even if you take water it has bacteria or micro creatures in it . My intention is to make a profit , not kill animals . However I may have contributing to animal suffering by a proxy. I am in a grey area. Is this something morally wrong ? <Q> Honestly I would say that it's not even a grey area. <S> To quote the Vanijja Sutta in full "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. <S> Which five? <S> Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat , business in intoxicants, and business in poison. <S> "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." <S> By investing in a poultry company you are in effect a part owner of that business - therefore you are in the 'business of meat' Of course when you say poultry stocks I'm assuming that this is a business for producing meat for consumption. <S> If the business is raising chickens so that small children can love them and keep them as pets then fantastic - a wonderful ethical investment (slight tongue in cheek - I couldn't resist). <A> Actions are never wrong in Buddhism. <S> Actions either lead to suffering or they do not lead to suffering. <S> Some practicioners get very technically crazy on the first precept. <S> Some would say that because you arent actually there killimg the chickens directly then you are not in violation of the 1st precept but then some (like me) say it does violate the 1st precept. <S> This isn't just a vegetarian issue, you would actually be profiting from the killing of beings like hitmen or butchers profit from killing. <S> So, it would also be wrong livelihood. <S> We should try to humble ourselves. <S> Are we really better than chickens? <S> If we are thinking with our hearts as well as our brains we would want nothing but peace and happiness for all beings. <S> There must be better ways to invest money anyway. <S> -Metta- <A> What you said may possibly be true in that humans many not be able survive without destroying other species. <S> Also, the Buddha did teach 'karma' is 'intention' therefore the Buddha did not generally directly admonish or criticize people for killing animals for food for their personal or family consumption. <S> However, the Buddha did say carrying on a business from the slaughter of animals is wrong livelihood probably because this involves concentrated killing en-mass. <S> For example, in the chicken factory, the workers must spend 8 hours per day killing chickens or watching chickens being killed, dismembered, gutted & processed. <S> This has been shown by psychological studies to have severe adverse psychological impacts upon the workers, such as the following: <S> This thesis research focuses on the negative effects that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (later referred to as CAFOs) have on the environment and the psychological and physiological effects of alienation of food production on slaughterhouse workers of industrial slaughterhouses in comparison to niche-market slaughterhouses.... <S> Slaughterhouse workers are also at risk of Perpetration-Inducted Traumatic Stress, which is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and results from situations where the concerning subject suffering from PTSD was a causal participant in creating the traumatic situation. <S> http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses
|
For me, investing in stocks in the meat industry is not in keeping with right livelihood.
|
Notion of good and bad in Buddhism if I understand correctly, Buddhism is opposed to dualistic concepts: Us vs. them, beautiful vs. ugly, pain vs. pleasure. We should rather realise the emptiness of those constructs in order to see the things in the way they really are, i.e. see their real nature. How then, does that translate to the concept of good and bad? Because I think every Buddhist tradition teaches us that certain behaviours, acts or ways of thinking are beneficial and create good karma, whereas others are detrimental to our spiritual progress or to our own well-being and that of others and create bad karma. Examples of good vs. bad behaviour abound in many texts like the Vinaya rules but also in the Noble Eightfold Path itself. Right speech for example is considered good whereas the opposite - lying, denouncing, spreading rumors, careless speech in general are surely to be considered bad, detrimental, whatever you want to call it. How can I accept the duality of good vs. bad while accepting that other dualities are just hollow projections of the untrained layman's mind that keep me from seeing the true nature of things? I would also be greatly interested if somebody could shed a light on the different traditions' views on the subject. Thank you! <Q> The Buddha's enlightenment came from ending craving & attachment rather than from ending dualistic perceptions & thoughts. <S> Understanding good & bad for moral/social purposes is one kind of knowledge. <S> Seeing & understanding the true nature of reality for liberation is another kind of knowledge. <S> The Buddha taught: (1) avoid evil; (2) do good; & (3) purify the mind. <S> Purifying the mind means ending egotistic attachment towards good & bad rather than giving up the understanding of good & bad. <S> ' <S> See evil as evil.' <S> This is the first Dhamma discourse. ' <S> Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' <S> This is the second Dhamma discourse. <S> These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence. <S> Itivuttaka 39 <A> Even in Zen, the tradition at the forefront of non-duality, there's a famous saying, something like:"Before studying Zen, one saw mountains and rivers as mountains and rivers. <S> After gaining deeper knowledge, one saw mountains and rivers as no mountains nor rivers. <S> But now at last, one sees mountains and rivers once again as mountains and rivers"So basically, there's a gradation or stage of cultivation. <S> At the beginning, whether one wants to experience non-duality or not, it's still only a theoretical abstract concept which one is yet able to experience for oneself. <S> That's why there's a need to clearly differentiate what's wholesome and what's unwholesome. <S> That's why there're the Vinaya, the Five Precepts, Eight Precepts, Ten Precepts, the 8NP's Right Speech, Right Livelihood, so on and so forth. <S> Any serious Dhamma practitioner has to go through this training first until observing precepts no longer something one has to strive for but has become second-nature. <S> Only until then will the truth of non-duality becomes fully manifested and one can fully live and experience it for oneself. <A> It's not that complicated. <S> Mental states that lead to suffering are bad and the mental states that lead to or conducive to freedom from suffering are good. <S> In other words; craving, aversion and ignorance are bad; whereas non-craving, non-aversion, non-ignorance are good. <A> Nonduality is not taught in the Pāli literature. <S> Bad and good are. <S> Throughout the canon we find the Buddha dividing things into good or bad both in the conventional sense as found in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas, and in the absolute or ultimate sense in the Abhidhamma literature. <S> The Dhammasangani (the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) begins with a chapter of states that are good followed by a chapter of states that are bad. <A> Non duality is a conceptual tool, and like all tools you need to know when to use it. <S> Of course you should have moral standards, otherwise its impossible to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. <S> This requires a discerning mind. <S> Where non duality shines is when you encounter obstacles. <S> For example anger because you despise someone, you reflect and realize he isn't so different from you after all and apply compassion. <S> In fact usually as people practice morality, they often becomes judgmental of people with less stringent morality because the discerning mind is very active. <S> Same goes when you experience revolting environment (perhaps a dirty toilet), instead of emotionally repulsed, they calm the mind and accept it, allowing them to clean it without disturbing their inner peace. <S> When encountering craving they also use non duality to detach themselves. <S> Monks use meditation on corpses to realize that the human body is actually a living breathing corpse. <S> The attractive human bodies are realized to be impermanent and unsatisfactory. <S> Sure it's not mentioned in the Pali Canon perhaps because they wisely didn't want to get into a whole philosophical debate, but aspects of it are definitely already there.
|
In both senses states that are good lead to happiness and release, states that are bad lead to unhappiness and further becoming. The original Buddhist teachings do not include a doctrine of non-duality.
|
The fear of committing to a monastic lifestyle I have a persistent fear of going without food that prevents me from giving monasticism a full shot. Some background: I suffered for approximately 4 years with something called cyclic vomiting syndrome. This is an affliction characterized by recurrent, prolonged attacks of severe nausea, vomiting, and prostration with no apparent cause. During this time I repeatedly lost and regained 100s of pounds at a time. Losing weight, while something I needed to do, was not fun. My longest single attack lasted a full 7 days during which time I was unable to keep any food down whatsoever, much less get any sleep. Retching on a completely empty stomach 45+ times an hour is a hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. So, food is important to me. At the same time I realize that too much is not good in a myriad of ways. So, where are all the Buddhist monasteries at which I'd be afforded the opportunity to practice self compassion as opposed to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through a whole lot of discomfort in order to satisfy my ego and other's expectations of what constitutes a good, chaste and worthwhile existence? That doesn't seem mentally or physically healthy or conducive to showing loving kindness and compassion to others. I'm a firm believer that in order to be able to show compassion for others, I need to show it to myself. I'm mainly thinking about food here. Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? At least until my stomach had shrunk to such a degree that hunger pains were perhaps more a nuisance than anything else? I think I understand the reluctance on the part of many monastics to allow things like eating after noon, etc. It so happens also, that I suspect that their concern is misplaced. It seems to me that there aren't many things in life that don't consist of shades of grey. It also seems that Buddhist monastics in general tend to lose sight of the nuance making up many of these things. So, is there a tradition I should be focusing on? A teacher? (Ajahn Brahm is a favorite btw.) Am I way off base with my concerns? If so, how should I go about rectifying my inconsistent views? If not, then what? <Q> By practicing monastic life, if you mean becoming a monk, it's a no go with your current condition. <S> But if you just want to practice meditation, staying at a monastery, you still have to give up Marijuana and Nicotine. <S> No serious monastery would allow you to smoke while you stay there. <S> But usually you have to bring your own food for evening meals. <S> I would suggest for you to do an online meditation course and to get advice on how to give up your addictions while consulting a doctor to treat your ailments without Marijuana and Nicotine. <A> I normally wouldn't advice anyone who is not committed to Buddhism to become a monk, because you will probably end up being a bad influence or even ruining the reputation of the temple. <S> That said, for drug rehab there are temples specializing in treating drug addicts: http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/life/high-and-low-ends-rehab-tourism-thailand-295566/ <S> http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction-treatment/thamkrabok-temple/ <S> I can't vouch for their effectiveness, but it might be what you are looking for? <S> Edit <S> Apologies, I realized I have been far too judgmental and not compassionate enough in my response. <S> It is good to have the desire to leave the householder's life, and that should be encouraged. <S> The thoughts have crossed my mind too. <S> It is just unfortunate to see so many monks behaving badly because they went into it without any considerations or good intentions. <S> I knew some people who went into it because they have health problems and want to get some good merits to fix their problems. <S> I even had an acquaintance who decided to renounce the world then left the monastic order one year later for unknown reasons. <S> Ideally someone who will become a monastic should have only the highest noble intentions in mind to deal with the challenges and obstructions ahead of them. <A> Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? <S> I'd like to mention <S> , I saw a video by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu (probably one of the "Monk Radio" videos, but I don't remember which one). <S> He was talking, describing something, and sitting next to him were other monks listening along. <S> Anyway, the topic was food for some reason, and he said that people have this experience <S> (I think he implied that everyone has this experience) when they're meditating and keeping the sixth precept: I forget what he said exactly <S> but it was something like, people think, "What is this hunger <S> Oh God <S> I'm going to die. <S> " <S> What I found remarkable was that, when he said that, both of the other monks started to chuckle or laugh with him: as if they'd been there. <S> So I guess, it's not that there's something wrong with eating ... <S> but there is something right about not eating; and part of the rightness is that, by doing it, you apparently earn the right or learn to be able to laugh at that kind of speech. <A> I feel that your fear is unfounded and it is due to your clinging to the sensual pleasures of food. <S> The reason monastics do not eat after 12 is because having less food in your body makes the mind more active. <S> There are scientific studies to prove this. <S> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section1C.t-1.html <S> The stimulation of hunger gives your brain the ability to retain information better and concentrate better. <S> The more important discussion here is your fear , which came into being due to your illness. <S> Which makes me feel that you should confront it and see if it is really true. <S> The mind will always resist anything that takes us out of the comfort zone and anything that is unfamiliar. <S> Try to attend a few retreats and see if this works out for you. <S> Facing the fear is the only way to deal with it , but in small doses. <S> And if you deciede monastic life is not for you ,be compassionate to yourself. <S> WE all progress at our own rate. <S> Wish you all the best in your journey. <S> Much Metta!
|
Experiencing a short term monastic experience is fine though, if you can stick to the rules during that time. Some monasteries allow lay practitioners to take just 5 precepts and have food in the evening as well.
|
Asking about Parent-Child relationship karma. Is it bad if I don't wanna go visit my dad? My parent seperated since I was young and I was rise by my mom.Right now my dad is not in a good condition and unfortunately my aunt and uncle from my dad's side doesn't like me much. Too be honest I don't wanna face with my aunt. I know she loves him so much and she hates me because I choose to stay with my mom. I don't know what to do. For example today I told my mom I will go visit my dad but mom said she needs me to have a dinner with her.so she told me to go visit my dad the other day... If I don't go visit him.. Will it be bad ? I know this is such a stupid question but it is hard for me to make up my mind. When I see my dad It is not so peaceful inside because of the people around him... <Q> Your question is very important, but difficult to answer, since within Buddhism answers are not always what we want to hear. <S> Your father and his family members are experiencing there own karma, which in this case is not good for them or pleasant for others. <S> Within yourself you should try to find loving-kindness for their suffering. <S> You can accomplish this by realizing that the bad manner that they use with you is a lesson in how not to behave. <S> Try to find compassion. <S> This will help your mind to accept, and realize that your visit with them is temporary...when it is over do not dwell on it. <S> In Tibetan buddhism all sentient beings were once our kind and loving mothers. <S> We try to remember that in our dealings with others. <S> It is not always easy, but you will be a better person if you have compassion for all others. <A> Just switch positions around and you'll know what to do. <S> Imagine you were the father, you fell ill and your own son came to visit you. <S> How would you feel? <S> What if he didn't come? <S> Don't worry about that uneasy feeling when seeing folks at your dad's house. <S> Furthermore, by not visiting your dad, that'd only deepen the animosity from your aunt for she'd think that you indeed didn't care about your dad at all. <S> By showing up, you'd have fulfilled your part by showing that you care. <S> Whether that'll change your aunt's attitude or not is not important for you have done the right thing <S> and there's nothing to regret. <S> Anyway, that's just my two cents.. <A> Every thought is a manifestation of kamma being either kamma productive or kamma resultant. <S> The aversion toward seeing your dad is no exception. <S> All aversion is rooted in hatred (patigha) and delusion (moha). <S> Is it bad? <S> Yes in that hatred and delusion are always accompanied by unpleasant feelings (domanassa/grief) and never with pleasant feelings (somanassa/joy). <S> In a perfect world we would disregard people's shortcomings and the wrongs they have done to us. <S> But, we do not live in a perfect world <S> so it's up to us to grow toward this ideal. <S> It isn't easy and it takes lots of work. <S> I too had a poor relationship with my father. <S> I tried to make it work <S> but I didn't have the right understandings to get there. <S> He passed away long ago <S> and I still feel guilt and remorse at times that I couldn't get past those things that kept us apart. <S> It was foolish of me to expect him to be something he wasn't when I couldn't live up to my own expectations for myself. <S> I'll end with a quote from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Our actions are our longest lasting possessions." <S> This includes our failures to act too. <A> In the Sigalovada Sutta the Buddha does say that children should minister to their parents <S> "In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East: (i) <S> Having supported me I shall support them, duties, (iii) <S> I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) <S> I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) <S> furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives. <S> Clearly though this was advice given a very long time ago in a culture very different to ours. <S> However the advice of Having supported me I shall support them, does still seem relevant today and perhaps pertinent to your situation. <S> Ultimately though I would hesitate to say do or don't visit difficult relatives <S> but I personally felt a lot better when I re-established contact with some family members. <S> I felt like a source of suffering had been alleviated somewhat even though in many ways they remained as difficult as ever. <S> Just my own experience. <A> The Buddha taught (at SN 10.12) that family members should try to develop truthfulness, mental training, patience & sacrifice/generosity towards eachother. <S> Therefore, if your father wishes for you to visit him, you should try to train yourself to have patience and generosity towards him & his family. <S> You should also try to be honest & truthful and speak your concerns to your father & ask your father to ask his sister to stop being unfriendly towards you. <S> If your aunt is unpleasant to you, you should try to be truthful & patient towards her and tell her you wish to visit your father; you wish to do what is best for your father; so to please stop being unfriendly towards you. <S> If a family member is making you feel bad, you should try to truthfully communicate your feelings to them. <S> While your situation is difficult & challenging, you should always remember it is not you that is making bad karma but them. <S> As a child, you should never blame yourself of doing bad karma when it is your parents & your aunt & uncle that have done bad karma. <S> Your parents divorcing was bad karma done by them. <S> You seem to care about your father, which is good karma done by you. <S> Try to see who is doing the bad karma & try to develop the goal of being better than your parents, aunt & uncle. <S> The Buddha taught some parents have children that are morally better than the parents. <S> You should try to develop yourself to be morally better.
|
Your aunt & uncle getting angry at you is bad karma being done by them. You'll get a much greater kind of peace that comes from doing what's right and from seeing the joy in your dad's eyes upon seeing his son by his side.
|
Why is the Heart Sutra so important in Mahayana Buddhism? So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India. Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism? Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation. http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/ It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra. "Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and there is no attainment whatsoever" Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth? Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/ What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling. Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization. <Q> Maybe because Clinging/Upadana is such a powerful destructive force even advanced practitioners still have a tough time dealing with. <S> So the non-clinging theme reflected thru insight into Emptiness/Sunyata throughout the sutra would be a great way to remind us about it. <S> That's why in many Mahayana temples, this sutra is usually recited at the end of any session, after other sutras have been recited, sort of a reminder to the practitioner of the Clinging elephant in the room. <S> Anyway, don't worry too much about why it's the most popular or most important. <S> It's a pretty common stock phrase in Mahayana to say this or that sutra is the most popular or most important. <S> You'll see the same thing being said in the Lotus Sutra, the Amitabha Sutras series, etc. <S> Afterall the spirit of the sutra doesn't seems to deviate from the Buddha's teaching about the 3 characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas: impermanence/anicca, unsatisfactory/dukkha, and non-self/anatta. <S> And the sutra simply reminds us that it indeed holds true for all "conditioned dhammas", including the Five Aggregates, the Twelve Ayatanas, the Eighteen Dhatus, the Twelve Nidanas, and even the Four Noble Truths! <A> Perhaps its terse nature and convenience for chanting (quote from your question) is the exact reason that it is popular. <S> I believe all the Prajnaparamita sutras point to the same thing in the same kind of way. <S> Why wade through the perfection of wisdom in 8,000, 25,000 or even 100,000 lines when you can pop the Heart sutra in your pocket and off you go. <S> It's why I know it and haven't read any of the others. <A> So I posed this question to my teacher at the temple yesterday, and the answer floored me! <S> I asked her what is the meaning of "No suffering, origination, cessation of suffering, path" in the Heart Sutra, and if it was some kind of crazy wisdom. <S> She replied: "No, this is an understanding of emptiness, that is an understanding that things are caused through causes and conditions (dependent origination). <S> Like a cup of coffee implies the existence of coffee beans, although coffee beans by themselves do not necessarily result in coffee because you require other conditions such as the sun or farmers. <S> When the seed is removed, the fruit does not exist. <S> When a person attained peace and happiness and resolved their suffering, the suffering they had is in the past and no longer exist in the present. <S> Because of the awareness of this, a Boddhisattva can work to liberate beings with no fear of suffering in Samsara because he knows that ultimately suffering is impermanent." <S> And as the sutra goes: "He passes far beyond all confused imagination and reaches Ultimate Nirvana" <S> Mind blown. <S> I can understand why Xuanzang put so much emphasis on this sutra based on his difficult experiences on his journey now. <A> In my opinion, the sutra has no hidden or mysterious purpose. <S> Instead, in my opinion, the sutra is a product of 'bright delusion' or 'white darkness'. <S> The sun provides light to enable people to see. <S> But if people look directly at the sun, their eyes become 'blinded by the light'. <S> Similarly, certain states of samadhi or concentration give rise to 'bright delusion' or 'white darkness' <S> The temporary liberation of the illusion of 'non-conceptuality' gives rise to the conception that non-conception is liberation; similar to how, before his enlightenment, teachers of the Buddha regarded the sphere of 'nothingness' as Nibbana. <S> In my opinion, there is no such thing as non-perception or non-conception (unless in nirodha sampatti , which is a state of samadhi induced unconsciousness). <S> If something can be experienced & described, it has been perceived & conceived. <S> In MN 43, it is said: "wisdom & consciousness are co-joined". <S> Yet the Heart Sutra declares there is 'no cognition'. <S> If there was 'no cognition', such 'non-cognition' must be cognised for there to be the cognition that there is 'no cognition'. <S> The Pali version of Buddha defines sunnata as 'empty of self'. <S> Yet Nargujana appears to have defined shunyata as 'empty of inherent existence'. <S> Nargujana regarded Nirvana & samsara as the same, thus appearing to negate both. <S> Therefore, in my opinion, the sutra has no hidden purpose. <S> Instead, the sutra is an idiosyncratic conception about (a 'non-existent') <S> enlightenment since it appears to conform with the conceptualizations (philosophy) of Nargajuna. <A> I like it. <S> Buddhist philosophy isn't, and doesn't need to be, an analytic argument, because it is there to be realised in meditation, not (just) studied and unpacked. <S> So instead of trying to unpack it, why not ask what the rest of the canon has that it lacks? <S> Given that it mentions, as you say, the basic terms of buddhism (emptiness, the noble truths), perhaps it can encapsulate those teachings, by denying them. <S> I think the key phrases are <S> There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever... <S> The Buddhas... Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment Which suggests (to me) that enlightenment is void, form. <S> Whether or not that means that it is anything beside (fearless) verbal quiescence, I really don't know.
|
Given that all the sutras are skillful means, one would imagine the heart sutra is popular because it works , or at least gives the impression of doing so.
|
Would a skin condition stop someone becoming a monk? I am asking this behalf of my friend. He was gonna commit suicide. But I managed to calm him down by taking him to a Buddhist temple. He had a really fun life, movies, friends, night outs, girls, cars, everything. But suddenly he got to know that he has a skin condition called herpes. Something like a pimple. But it seems he regret a lot a lot as it has no cure. But it is a very common all over the world. He doesn't understand and tried to suicide. He has given up life. Luckily I brought him to this Buddhist temple and managed to save his life. Now he is very interest in becoming a Theravada monk and spend the life in a temple meditating, learning and practicing Buddhism. I decided to support him as he was a good person, help others, donate etc. I am wondering if his conditions and previous life style matters to become a monk. Thanks. <Q> Previous lifestyle & herpes should not prevent a person from becoming a monk. <A> The commentary on page 195 of this document, TheBuddhistMonasticCode II , implies that it depends on the type of skin condition, where it is, how severe it is, and whether it's likely to spread. <S> I don't know to what extent it applies to herpes. <S> This answer to a related question starts with, <S> The degree of strict interpretation of such rules largely depends on the monastery, tradition and abbot under whom one ordains. <S> Most monastic orders I know adapt these rules to suit their circumstance in practice. <A> I am glad you managed to save your friend's life. <S> I suggest that both of you google "Thai monk with neurofibromatosis" and become aware that his 'problem' isn't a real problem. <A> look up Jivaka Kumar Bhaccha (Buddha's physician). <S> He also treated other monks during Buddha's time. <S> One day he noticed that many lay men in the market had their head shaved. <S> He realized that many people ordained just to get free health care and would dis-rope and went back to normal lay person life after their illness was cured. <S> So he asked Buddha not to ordain people with certain illness or conditions. <S> This has to be clear, if your friend's condition does not meet the perquisite to be a monk, it doesn't mean he wont make progress in Dhamma. <S> Here are quotes and referecencesJīvaka's fame as a physician brought him more work than he could cope with, but he never neglected his duties to the Sangha. <S> Many people, afflicted with disease and unable to pay for treatment, joined the Order in order that they might receive that treatment. <S> On discovering that the Order was thus being made a convenience of, he asked the Buddha to lay down a rule that men afflicted with certain diseases should be refused entry into the Order (Vin.i.71ff). <S> Jīvaka was declared by the Buddha chief among his lay followers loved by the people (aggam puggalappasannānam) (A.i.26). <S> He is included in a list of good men who have been assured of the realisation of deathlessness (A.iii.451; DhA.i.244, 247; J.i.116f).
|
If your friend wants to become a monk, he should talk to a monk at the temple.
|
practicing the brahma viharas in meditation Is there clear instruction about how one should practice the brahma viharas in the teachings? Should one go through each one in order [metta - karuna - mudita - upekkha] or is it possible to do i.e. only karuna (in a formal meditation sitting) Why is it that (from my perspective) many meditation teacher only seem to focus on metta ('loving kindness') meditation (and not the other 3). Is there a particular benefit or is it important to practice it in order to get into the 'cycle' of the brahma viharas? <Q> Thanissaro Bhikkhu said the other Brahma viharas are applications of Metta, and that is why Metta is the core focus in the practice. <S> Of these four emotions, goodwill (metta) is the most fundamental. <S> It's the wish for true happiness, a wish you can direct to yourself or to others. <S> Goodwill was the underlying motivation that led the Buddha to search for awakening and to teach the path to awakening to others after he had found it. <S> The next two emotions in the list are essentially applications of goodwill. <S> Compassion (karuna) is what goodwill feels when it encounters suffering: It wants the suffering to stop. <S> Empathetic joy (mudita) is what goodwill feels when it encounters happiness: It wants the happiness to continue. <S> Equanimity (upekkha) is a different emotion, in that it acts as an aid to and a check on the other three. <S> When you encounter suffering that you can't stop no matter how hard <S> you try, you need equanimity to avoid creating additional suffering and to channel your energies to areas where you can be of help. <S> In this way, equanimity isn't cold hearted or indifferent. <S> It simply makes your goodwill more focused and effective. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/headandheart.html <A> As for your 2nd question, I suppose the brahma vihara are dependent upon metta. <S> If there is no friendliness & goodwill towards others, the other brahma vihara cannot be cultivated. <A> In order to be able to practice Brahmavihara, First you need to get your Metta. <S> How to get Metta? <S> First you need to be happy, if you're not happy, you won't be able to give your happy feeling to others. <S> Think about Happy Feeling and send those feeling to a friend[same gender / not family/ alive] .Try to stay with object for at least 30 mins till an hour. <S> Then you'll realized that you don't feel your body, can't stop smiling <S> and there's something around your head. <S> Then you'll send to some friends then some families then some random peoples then all of your enemies. <S> After this you'll get your metta and you can start radiating it to your surroundings. <S> Once you got your metta, send it to every directions. <S> 6 Directions as described in the suttas. <S> Then you'll realized that you're in a very big space, with metta and an infinite space, you'll experienced karuna. <S> Then it changed into Mudita then <S> Uppekha then bla bla bla until Everything Ceased. <S> Brahmavihara is the easiest object that even an 8 years old kid could get into arupas.
|
The scriptures generally mention the practise of all four brahma vihara together.
|
How should one practice Dhamma in order to overcome loneliness? Loneliness is an obsession of a person when facing old age and death. How should one practice the teachings of the Supreme Buddha in order to overcome this obsession? <Q> Samatha (tranquility) meditation using anapanasati <S> (meditation with in & out breathing) can be used as a method to overcome loneliness & distress. <S> I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert & mindful — putting aside wanting & distress with reference to the world. <S> Anapanasati Sutta <S> ~~~ <S> So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes and may my mind, through lack of clinging, be released from fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing. <S> If a monk should wish: 'May my memories & resolves related to the household life be abandoned,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing. <S> Dipa Sutta <A> This is actually an interesting problem that is personal to me, how do you introduce the teaching of the Buddha to a person who has no inclination in practicing the Dharma. <S> While a practitioner might recognize the power of meditation to alleviate distress, your average person has no clue what it is and no interest to learn it. <S> This is where the cultivation of Upaya skillful means comes in. <S> My own paternal grandmother for example, passed away after experiencing a lot of suffering in her final days. <S> One of her regrets was not taking up a more vegetarian diet (my relatives consume a lot of meat) and believed it to be one of the cause of her pain. <S> One of the things we did in her final days were to play recordings of Buddhist music, which seems to help calm her somewhat. <S> Example: <S> Namo Amitabha Namo Sakyamuni Buddha <S> (x100 every day) <S> You can couple this with buddhist prayer beads to aid counting. <S> If they find this too simple, you can add more challenging tasks such as longer dharani or even a short sutra. <S> Sukhavati Vyuha Dharani (往生咒) <S> Great Compassion Dharani (popularly known as Great Compassion Mantra) <S> These are highly effective form of meditation, and is a lot easier than telling someone to do sitting meditation. <S> Buddhist music are also easy and good gentle introduction cheer up lonely souls. <S> In Chinese culture we actually have something called a 'chanting box', which is a music player with chanting installed. <S> This is also great for someone who is sick. <S> Ideally you would want this person to participate socially at a community temple if possible. <A> “Loneliness is the poverty of self, solitude is the richness of self.” <S> May Sarton (1912-1995) <S> “We seem so frightened today of being alone that we never let it happen. <S> Even if family, friends, and the movies should fail, there is still the radio or television to fill up the void. <S> We can do our housework with soap-opera heroes at our side. <S> Now, instead of planting our solitude with our own dream blossoms, we choke the space with continuous music, chatter, and companionship to which we do not even listen. <S> It is simply there to fill the vacuum. <S> When the noise stops there is no inner music to take its place. <S> We must re-learn to be alone.” <S> - Anne Morrow Lindbergh As Aristotle has rightly stated that man is a social animal, Men wish to live in society, enjoy companionship, and happy to be crowded by fellow beings. <S> Brahmajala sutta maintains that the initial feeling the first being to reappear in the present age of world reformation felt was loneliness. <S> He wanted company. <S> So, according to the Buddhist story also, the need of company and consequential necessity of interpersonal relations is ingrained in living beings. <S> The Buddha’s practised (and, of course, made the followers also practice) seclusion only till they attained spiritual heights. <S> After the attainments, they return to society to be in service for the benefit of many (bahujana). <S> The Buddha once said “I, Udayi, sometimes, stay crowded by monks and nuns, lay disciples both men and women, by kings and chief ministers, by leaders and disciples of other sects.” <S> (Majjhima Nikaya 11.8) <S> According to Balakrishna Govinda Gokhale, the Buddha’s refusal of Devadatta’s five proposals is evidence to the fact that he did not want to make monks totally outside the social relationships. <S> Making those conditions compulsory would have meant a complete termination of all inter-personal relations even among the members of the Sangha.
|
So one could suggest to the person to start a basic practice, for example chanting the name of a buddha or bodhisattva or mantra for a certain number of times.
|
I saw a cat killing a mouse. Could have stopped it, but didn't I saw a cat chasing a mouse outside of my house and kill it. I could have chased the cat away and saved the mouse's life but I just watched and didn't do anything. Not that I was enjoying what I saw but this made me think whether what I did was a sin or not. I just think I would have interfered with nature had I stopped the cat from killing. One side there is the food chain and on the other karma. I am confused. Is it a sin to not stop a predator from catching its prey? <Q> " <S> Chethanaham Bikkhawe Kammam Wadami" - volition is Karma <S> Did you not prevent it because mice are usually an annoyance and 1 less mouse makes your life better? <S> If so, it's bad Karma. <S> Later you may make up an excuse like "not wanting to interfere with nature". <S> But what matters is the intention at the time. <S> If you were wishing for the mouse to escape, it is good Karma. <S> If you actually saved the mouse, it's more good Karma. <S> If you were neutral based on Upekkha(contemplating on Karma and Vipaka), it's good Karma. <A> IMO there's a similar concern with people: <S> outside my house I see people raising farm animals, in order to kill them for food. <S> What should I do about that? <S> Try to chase the people away? <S> I think, probably not, even if only because I think that's likely to be ineffective (i.e. that kind of tactic on my part wouldn't stop people from killing). <S> I suppose that the Buddhist equivalent of a "sin" is klesha or kilesa . <S> I suppose or it feels to me as if it probably is a sin, several sins: torpor (not doing something about it), ignorance (not knowing what to do about it), conceit (thinking that you could do something about it), hatred (not liking what you see)... <S> Technically it's not breaking a precept: you're responsible for what you do, not for what other people do. <S> But it's probably also right to find it questionable, if someone could have saved someone but didn't. <A> If one sees a judge passing death sentence to a criminal, can one stop it? <S> One can only pray that both the judge and the criminal will not go to the lower realms, but one is not sure, and perhaps both judge and criminal can go higher realms- <S> one is never sure of samsara! <S> It really depends on motivations, karma etc which one who is not enlightened will never tell... <S> Thus focus on one's own enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings <S> , for now one cant judge activities of mouse and cats, predators and prey. <A> If you had small children (babies) in your home, would it be good karma to allow pests to accumulate in your home (like mice, rats, cockroaches, fleas, ticks, gadflies, etc) that might bite your children? <S> I lived in a forest monastery once where (in the past) there used to be tigers & mice that chewed the dhamma books. <S> So dogs were introduced so the tigers would attack/eat the dogs rather than the novice (child) monks and cats were introduced to eat the mice. <S> The teachings of karma are for the purpose of keeping people free from trouble (rather than for imprisoning people). <S> In the strict monks rules, a monk that kills a human being for any reason is expelled from the order. <S> However, a monk that intentionally kills an animal must only confess the action. <S> As for allowing or wanting a cat to kill a mouse, there is no offence. <S> For a monk to empty a water jar with mosquito larvae in it is an offense. <S> However, for a monk to place a cloth over a water jar to prevent mosquito larvae is not an offense. <S> What is what here? <A> Next time around, try to stop the cat from killing the mouse, and then give the cat some food to eat. <S> That'd cover all grounds: saving the mouse's life without the expense of the cat going hungry. <A> It is the mouse's karma to die, and the cat's karma to kill the mouse. <S> We recognize that animals live in the realm where they cannot comprehend and benefit from the dharma. <S> You could have saved that mouse, maybe, but it would not change the fact that some animal would most likely kill it. <S> We can only direct our own karma, not the karma of others. <S> You can save a cow from slaughter only to have it killed in pasture by a wolf. <S> Do that which is compassionate, engaging in altruistic loving kindness and generousity. <S> Do not beat yourself up because you cannot or did not save a single creature.
|
To make oneself paranoid or worrisome about cats & mice is bad karma but to not stop a cat eating a mouse is not bad karma (just as 'cleaning' your house of dirty pests in not bad karma). If you were neutral based on indifference born of ignorance, it is bad Karma.
|
Death according to various schools of buddism How is death perceived in various schools of Buddhism? Are they all same ? What is death according to Buddhist monk and lay Buddhist? Are there references / materials by monks on death bed about death? <Q> In the ancient Pali scriptures, the word 'death' has two meanings: (i) <S> conventional; & (ii) ultimate. <S> The Buddha taught a 'self', 'person' or 'being' (' satta ') <S> is only a mental state of craving & attachment ( SN 23.2 ); that in reality, there is no 'being' (' satta ') to be found ( SN 5.10 ). <S> 'Death' only happens when there is unenlightened 'self-view'. <S> This is why the Buddha called enlightened selfless nirvana: 'The Deathless'. <S> He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. <S> And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' <S> Thus was it said. <S> With reference to what was it said? <S> 'I am' is a construing. ' <S> I am this' is a construing. ' <S> I shall be' is a construing. ' <S> I shall not be'is a construing. <S> Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. <S> By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. <S> A sage at peace is not born, does not age <S> , does not die , is unagitated, and is free from longing. <S> He has nothing whereby he would be born. <S> Not being born, will he age? <S> Not aging, will he die? <S> Not dying, will he be agitated? <S> Not being agitated, for what will he long? <S> It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. <S> And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' <S> Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta <S> In enlightenment, all that occurs at what is conventionally regarded as 'death' is the five aggregates come to an end, that is all. <S> Form is impermanent... <S> Feeling... <S> Perception... <S> Fabrications... <S> Consciousness is impermanent. <S> That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory. <S> That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end. <S> Very good, my friend Yamaka <S> , very good. <S> Yamaka Sutta <A> My rep not enough for comment, So this is not an good answer because I've no reference for you. <S> Everything that have soul are the same. <S> Animals, people, human, monk, angel etc. <S> However, The basic precept for every human to close the hell was 5 percepts because these percept make you not exploit other's and your's life. <S> But for monk there where 227 percepts, This make lay buddhist and others can worship them. <S> Monk are so much much bigger chance to go to hell. <S> But also much bigger merit for him if he was good. <A> There's no death. <S> Beings wander from life to life. <S> By experience they learn. <S> By knowledge they destine themselves to future lives. <S> Until enough knowledge is attained. <S> Wander no more.
|
In the language of ultimate truth, 'death' refers to the psychological idea that "I" or a "person" or a "being" (" satta ") dies ( SN 12.2 ).
|
Which suttas in the Pali canon give instructions for how to cultivate equanimity? Which suttas in the Pali Canon give flat out instructions for how to develop equanimity? <Q> Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 1 <S> Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 2 with commentary <A> Also you can check out Sata,upekkha Sukha Sutta. <S> (The happiness of pleasure and of equanimity.) <S> A.2.7.9. <S> When one is greedily attached to families one is always placed in an extreme position of difficulty and as a result one cannot maintain one's mental indifference, or equanimity. <S> Equanimity (upekkha)is the main teaching of Buddhism. <S> Attachment, either personal or impersonal, paves the way to ignorance (avijja) which prevents one from understanding what is good and evil, what is merit and what is demerit, what is right and what is wrong. <S> Therefore we should be wise enough to be detached from the world as far as possible and of equanimity. <S> But here I should emphatically say that revulsion is the other extreme. <S> So attachment as well as revulsion should be understood very clearly and categorically. <S> Understanding detachment paves the way to the realization of Nibbana through upekkha or equanimity. <A> MN 54 - Potaliya Sutta: <S> To Potaliya http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.054x.than.html <S> The Buddha said in the Potaliya Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya that the pleasures of the senses are perilous and of much pain, (bahudukkha bahupayasa adinavo ettha bhiyyo). <S> Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity . <S> In this Sutta, pleasures have been compared to a skeleton (atthikankalupamakama), to a lump of flesh (mansa pesupama kama),to a grass torch made of straw (tinukkupama kama), to a pit of glowing embers (angarakasupamakama), to a dream (supinakupamakama), to what is borrowed (yacitakupamakama), and to the fruits of a tree (rukkha phalupamakama). <S> Sensepleasures are normally of little satisfaction and of much pain. <S> There are ten comparisons. <S> So we see that pleasures of the senses are through and through of little satisfaction and cause much tribulation. <S> We shall now examine the relationship between raga and attachment. <A> In MN101 Buddha explains: <S> When I exert a fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the exertion of fabrication there is dispassion. <S> When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion. <S> What's meant here by fabrication, is a mental fabrication that counteracts the cause of stress. <S> For example, when you see a person you like and suffer that you can never be together, you fabricate a thought like: "this person is actually not so good, we won't be happy together anyway" etc. <S> What's meant here by development of equanimity <S> is looking at things philosophically and impersonally, as if from 30,000 miles away. <S> You say to yourself, "this is just an instinct, the eyes caught the image, the brain interpreted it, the chemicals produced in the brain" etc. <S> Both of these techniques are further explained in the teaching on Five Perceptions (panca sanjna). <S> The basic idea is that if dukkha is caused by a desire for an unobtainable attractive object, one should either fabricate perception of foulness, or perceive the object philosophically as a temporary arrangement of causes and conditions. <S> And if dukkha is caused by repulsion for an unattractive object that one can't get rid of, one should either fabricate the attitude of metta, or again, perceive the object philosophically. <S> If you really think about it, the "philosophical" method is also a type of fabrication. <S> We fabricate a perspective that sees the object under a different angle, which liberates the mind from the inner conflict that caused dukkha. <S> So what both methods boil down to, is understanding that all perspectives on things are optional, that you can pick any perspective you like, as long as it's helpful. <S> The real equanimity comes from this realization that no perspective is "the right one" and from mastering an ability to switch perspectives at will, which leads to detachment from any single perspective and therefore to equanimity.
|
In the Alagaddupama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya the Buddha compared sensual pleasures; to a skeleton, a lump of meat, a torch of dried grass, a pit of glowing embers, a dream, something borrowed, the fruits of a tree, a slaughter house, an impaling stake, and a snake's head.
|
The idea of transfer merit It is said that merit transfer is a later development. We reap what we sow, it is not possible for the merit to be transferred. Is it true any recipient will not be able to receive any merit that is done and transferred by someone? <Q> However, transferring merit to dead or unconnected people, yes, that would bring the results to the giver similar to a metta or gratitude meditation. <S> Whether there is actual merit being transferred to the dead would be not knowable. <S> In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to hisparents as the East: (i) <S> Having supported me I shall support them,(ii) <S> I shall do theirduties, (iii) <S> I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) <S> I shall makemyself worthy of my inheritance, <S> (v) <S> I shall offer almsin honor of my departed relatives . <S> Sigalovada Sutta <A> Merits(punya/the good deeds) as well as the bad deeds can be transferred/dedicated( anumodana ) to others. <S> But there is an element of action involved at the receiving end. <S> For example; someone commits a noble deed and transfers that merit to me. <S> To receive the merit, I should endorse and acknowledge the action. <S> This is usually expressed as " Sadhu! <S> Sadhu! <S> Anumodami ". <S> Same applies for evil deeds. <S> “Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami. <S> Chethaithwa kamman karothi kayena wachaya manasa” <S> Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. <S> It is after having thought that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. <S> Nibbedhika Sutta: AN 6.63 <A> I think that the Paccha-bhumika Sutta implies that people's destiny is influenced by their own actions. <S> There are other topics on this site about transferring merit which explain the practice in more detail. <S> Perhaps it's similar to metta meditation, i.e. it could at least have an effect (or begin by having an effect) on the practitioner. <A> @B1100… your question applies to that of afterlife too. <S> The question that arises is that… Who gets the benefit of the meritorious deeds at the time of one’s death, if there is no 'self'? <S> Is the same person who does deeds will reap the benefits or is it another person who will reap the benefits? <S> Buddha did not fall into two extremes when explaining who reaps the benefits. <S> One extreme is to say "it is the same person who reaps the benefits". <S> The other extreme is to say "it is another person who reaps the benefits". <S> It is neither the same person nor a completely different person". <S> I am unable to find in which sutta this is explained – hopefully I’ll come across it sooner or later.
|
Of course merit can be transferred, such as when the love or goodness of one person makes another person feel love or goodness, such as when parents love their children & thus transfer their merit to their children.
|
Doctor assisted suicide - does doctor break the first precept? Doctor assisted suicide - a hot potato in the western countries these days. Although this is a kind of suicide, the patient is fully awake and living human being in contrast to a patient in life support due to brain death. According to the Buddhist teachings, what are the karmic repercussions for the doctor who assists the suicide? <Q> Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life, or should look about to be his knife-bringer , he is also one who is defeated and is no more in communion. <S> -- <S> Attitudes to Euthanasia in the Vinaya and Commentary <A> First among the five precepts, acknowledged by all Buddhist practitioners, is not to take a life, especially a human life. <S> Consequently, from the Buddhist point of view, that the time of death is uncertain precluding the taking of life to be determinable, both suicide and the one who assists suicide generate extreme negative Karma. <S> In the case of euthanasia, the individual concerned is already actively dying, and the outcome is certain. <S> It can be argued that "mercy killing" in the last hours is an act of compassion where the Karma is neutral; i.e., the patient will die if I act...the patient will die if I do not act. <S> Finally, I would point out that your example of the patient who is brain dead, by definition cannot make a decision for Physician assisted suicide; and one cannot determine the number of years (with an otherwise healthy body) that that individual would live. <S> So to take that individual's life would be a clear case of murder. <S> It is the karma of such a person describe in your example to be and remain in that state until karma determines their life span. <A> The Pali scriptures explain 'kamma is intention' (AN 6.63). <S> Thus the results of kamma (an action) will follow the quality of intention. <S> The moral precepts are training rules thus not 100% fixed for lay people (however, the killing precept is 100% fixed for monks, since many of the monks rules are about the public image). <S> That said, it is not considered bad karma for a mind free from greed, hatred & delusion to commit suicide. <S> Therefore, a person that commits suicide due to unbearable physically debilitating (rather than emotional) pain is blameless. <S> As for the doctor or helper...? <S> [Channa said]... <S> Friend Sāriputta, I am not getting well, I am not comfortable. <S> Mypainful feelings are increasing, not subsiding;…their increase and nottheir subsiding is apparent. <S> I shall use this knife, friend Sāriputta;I have no desire to live... <S> [The Buddha said]... <S> Sāriputta, when one lays down a 'body' ['kaya': grouping of five aggregates] & takes up a new 'body', then I say one is blameworthy. <S> This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa; the bhikkhuChanna used the knife blamelessly. <S> MN 144 <A> Suicide is one of the greatest of sins that one could do unto self. <S> In the Vinaya generally, suicide is condemned. <S> Assisting or encouraging suicide is equal to the gravest offences. <S> A monk who deliberately ends the life of a patient, even from compassionate motives, is expelled from the monkhood and can never re-ordain in this life, so there’s no room for assisted suicide in Supreme Buddha’s dispensation. <S> It is said that this act will take you to the worst hell - the great hell / Ānatareika Niraya. <S> Now you know the danger of this Samsara. <S> You and I would have committed suicide a countless number of times in our previous births. <S> This shows the urgency and importance of becoming a Sotha-Aapanna – to get into the stream – the Noble Eight-fold Path.
|
Assisting suicide would be considered an offence of defeat in a monk.
|
Sudden arising of disgust I was meditating today on accepting and letting go of fear, anger and anxiety (which were very loud in my mind at the time) when suddenly my reactions to these states turned into disgust: whenever anger came up, I quickly became disgusted by it. Same thing happened for fear and anxiety. As soon as I sense the suffering in my thoughts, I become disgusted by them. Why is this happening? <Q> Why is this happening? <S> Inner wisdom could be functioning. <S> Below is a quote from The Removal of Distracting Thoughts <S> sutta: <S> Like a well-dressed young man or woman who feels horrified, humiliated and disgusted because of the carcass of a snake, dog or human that is hung round his or her neck... <S> the monk in whom unskillful thoughts continue to arise... <S> ponders on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, blameworthy and productive of misery. <S> Then the evil, unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. <S> By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation). <S> The Fire <S> Sermon describes the liberation that results from clearly seeing the 'fire', burning or oppressiveness of lust, hatred & delusion. <S> In the text, the word translated as "estrangement" is ' nibbindaṃ ', which also means 'disgust' or 'revulsion'. <S> The quote below explains the word 'nibbindaṃ': <S> The more common translation of nibbidā is “disillusionment, disenchantment” but <S> the more serious spiritual practitioners generally prefer “revulsion,” even “disgust.” <S> http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.1-Nibbida-piya.pdf <S> In some commentaries, 'nibbindaṃ-disgust' ( nibbidanupassana-nana ) precedes or creates the 'desire for liberation' ( muncitukamyata-nana ) rather than liberation itself (as found in the scriptures). <S> Note: 'Disgust' is not the same as 'hatred/aversion'. ' <S> Disgust' leads to freedom, since it leads to the rejecting, dropping & subsiding of the negative emotion. <A> The Buddha said that all suffering is caused by craving, which is also interpreted as attachment. <S> Your meditation started out as letting go of these afflictive emotions, which you were clinging to as evidenced by the loud noises in your mind. <S> It was a good start, but what happened is rather than letting go you flipped to the polar opposite of attachment, which is aversion. <S> This is not an uncommon event when one is trying to cope with afflictive emotions. <S> Our conceptual mind outside of Buddhism has learned that what we do not like/love <S> we must dislike/hate. <S> Your meditative practice needs to find the middle... <S> and I do not mean apathy... <S> rather that you neither like nor dislike these emotions; that they do not influence your life in any positive way, and that you can let go of them without acting on or reacting to them in any manner. <S> They will still crop up on occasion, so repeat the process until you can go through life without any need for these emotions to arise. <S> Lama Surya Das devotes a large section of his book, "Awakening the Buddha Within", to meditation training. <A> The idea of meditation is to focus on your meditation no matter what. <S> To be disgusted simply following your anger, fear, anxiety etc. <S> means you are losing focus on meditation. <S> Every meditator goes through the same. <S> Just bring your thoughts back on meditation again and everything is ok.
|
The mind could be becoming clear & attuned to what is healthy & peaceful.
|
Is enlightened cognition more than its parts? Is enlightened cognition, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts? I'm asking cos: (philosophical interpretations) they say that for Buddhists there is nothing more to a thing than its parts. But, every part of anything (it seems) is conditioned and only of a practical value. <Q> Mahayana-Nagarjuna philosophy states everything is conditioned & comprised of parts. <S> Original Buddhism does not. <S> The impression is your question arises because of illogical philosophy, which makes the philosophy sound contradictory to you. <S> The original Buddha was fully enlightened thus explained reality without flawed description. <S> Enlightenment leads to the permanent end of suffering. <S> Since enlightenment 'uproots' the causes of suffering, there is no longer spiritual work to do. <S> So the 'parts' either end (in redundancy) or, otherwise, are permanently established. <A> From the flow of your words, I think that you may be confusing enlightenment with emptiness. <S> Both can be confusing, but I will try to clarify each. <S> According to Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche, enlightenment is the ultimate achievement of buddhahood; and emptiness is the lack of inherent reality of a phenomenon or person. <S> I have often heard lamas teach emptiness as the breaking down of phenomenon in their parts in order to establish that it does not exist as and of itself. <S> In other words, we see a mundane table and we believe that it has an inherent existence, but the table is made up of legs,top,nails,screws,glue...not fixed, but constantly changing from moment to moment from the atomic level up to the fact that it ages and rots. <S> All is impermanent. <S> Also, in the mundane world one would look at the collective parts as having a practical value as they appear to make the table. <S> However, within Buddhism we see all things as dependently arising; all is depend for its existence upon something else, cause and effect, which is karma. <S> Ergo, the table is dependent upon its parts to make a table. <S> A person is dependent upon karma to make a life. <S> these principles can be applied to all that we perceive in this world. <S> When it comes to explaining enlightenment, I do not feel that I can explain it any better than Lama Surya Das:"Enlightenment is not about becoming divine. <S> Instead, it is about becoming more fully human. <S> In examining the archetypical experience of the Buddha, we see that his enlightenment represents the direct realization of reality---how things are and how they work. <S> Enlightenment is the end of ignorance. <S> when we talk about walking the path to enlightenment, we are talking about walking the path of an enlightened being. <S> " <S> If I have misinterpreted your question, please kindly rephrase the question. <A> I am going to break this down for clarity in my own mind, if not in the minds of others. <S> So to paraphrase, is the acquired knowledge and understanding of wisdom, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts? <S> Wisdom, is insightful understanding. <S> Simple put the question seems to be, is wisdom more than its parts? <S> Alright, now let's add the comment's reference to "direct realization of reality", which from the Buddhist view means Ultimate Reality, the direct realization of emptiness which leads to the end of suffering completely which is enlightenment, or buddhahood. <S> In the deeper sense, Prajna is insightful understanding; and Bodhi is the perfection of wisdom, or the teaching that all phenomenon are empty of self essence, which ties back into the direct realization of reality. <S> This also takes care of the "in any Buddhist tradition" part of the question. <S> Is wisdom more than its parts? <S> In the mundane world it is not, since one accumulates pieces and parts of wisdom, conventional wisdom, without sensing a higher pursuit. <S> However, upon the realization of Ultimate Reality, the parts cease to play a role as they too become impermanent through emptiness.
|
Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism translate Prajna and Bodhi as Wisdom. By definition "enlightened cognition" means that one is "freed from ignorance and misinformation" in order to pursue "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding thought experiences and the senses" (quotes from a couple of dictionaries).
|
Is generating intention necessary? Any intentional action is kamma. We do good and bad actions. Like any other actions, sometimes we do it intentionally, sometimes we just do it without intention. Is it necessary to generating good intention before/when doing wholesome deed? The more we do good deeds the more frequent we create this intention which can easily become an obsession of the mind and create (new) sankhara. But if there is no intention, how can a good action become a good kamma? <Q> Mental intention is always necessary for an action. <S> However an intention (such as Right Intention of the Noble Eightfold Path) does not always have to have 'self' or 'attachment' involved with it. <S> There are three kinds of kamma: (1) bad kamma; (2) good kamma; & (3) void kamma. <S> The intrinsic meaning of 'good & bad kamma' is there is attachment or 'self' invested in the action & its results. <S> To quote the scriptures: <S> And what is the right view with effluents (defilements), siding with merit (goodness), resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? <S> There arefruits & results of good & bad actions. <S> MN 117 <S> 'Void kamma' means there is no 'self' invested in the kamma. <S> Buddhas appear in the world for the primary purpose to teach about void kamma or ending kamma. <S> The higher practise of Buddhism is doing necessary & compassionate kamma with a void mind or 'doing without a doer' (rather than for the accumulation of good karma). <S> It is for stopping obsession with kamma & stopping creating (new) sankhara. <S> To quote the scriptures: <S> And what is the cessation of kamma? <S> This noble eightfold path — <S> right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path ofpractice leading to the cessation of kamma. <S> Nibbedhika Sutta <S> In summary, the enlightened view is 'ignorance' is the doer of both good (meritorious) & bad (demeritorious) kamma and 'wisdom' <S> is the doer of enlightened void selfless kamma. <S> Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates (abhisankharonti) a meritorious (good) formation (saṅkhāraṃ), consciousness fares on to themeritorious; if he generates a demeritorious (bad) formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if hegenerates an imperturbable formation, consciousness fareson to the imperturbable. <S> But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignoranceand aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignoranceand the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious(good) formation or a demeritorious (bad)formation or an imperturbable formation. <S> Since he does notgenerate or fashion formations, he does not cling toanything in the world. <S> Not clinging, he is not agitated. <S> Not beingagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. <S> He understands: ‘Destroyed isbirth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has beendone, there is no more for this state of being.’ <S> SN 12.51 <S> This link may be helpful: Kamma in Buddhism <A> With or without intention, volitional actions are defined as kamma. <S> For example, killing an animal in excruciating pain while the intention was to free it from agony. <S> It is just the lack of awareness or mindfulness. <S> For example; one could slap a mosquito involuntarily; but the thought process required to kill is complete, hence bad kamma is accumulated. <A> If you give a glass of coca cola to a person because he looked thirsty and its good karma. <S> If you give a glass of coca cola to a person with the intention ofincreasing his/her sugar level in order to fall sick, then it is badkarma. <S> Most of the actions come from an intention. <S> If you were walking listening to music and looking around <S> and you happen to step on a cockroach, then its not bad karma for you, because you never knew a cockroach would be there nor <S> you saw it before you took that footstep. <S> But if you were walking in the path knowing there are cockroaches and there is a chance that you step on one <S> but still you continue to walk carelessly and suddenly you step on a cockroach, then it is bad karma. <S> This is because it is ignorance. <S> True that you did not meant to step on one, yet you stepped. <S> You walked carelessly knowing there is a chance that another living being could be harmed if you are not careful. <S> But you continued to do so <S> anyway <S> and it harmed a living being. <S> That is a sin. <A> @B1100… it is worth checking the Atthi Raga Sutta (where there is passion) in Samyutta Nikaya. <S> SN 12.64 <S> - Atthi Raga Sutta: <S> Where There is Passion http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html <S> In this Sutta the Buddha explains the causes for the continuation of life from one existence to another or the life through samsara. <S> In it the Buddha talks about four types of ‘food’ that are nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence, that is for the continuation of the process of birth, aging, sickness and death. <S> One is material or physical, while the other three are mental nutriments. <S> We were born because we had these four nutriments and as long as we are nourished by these nutriments, life will continue in countless numbers of various existences. <S> The third of the four is Nutriment of intellectual intention (manosancetana ahara). <S> This consists of mental formation and intentions (volition) which the mind creates and with which it becomes involved in regard to the object with which it comes into contact. <S> When the eye sees form, the nose smells odours, the tongue tastes, the body contacts tangible objects, volition and intentions arise in the mind. <S> This too is a nutriment which results in repeated births. <S> The arising of volition (cetana) is the result of mental factors. <S> They may be wholesome or unwholesome intentions. <S> Mental factors are not permanent, they constantly change. <S> They are the result of desire. <S> If we are mindful we could realize this and understand the nutriment of intellectual intention in this manner. <S> If someone binds your hands and legs together and tries to throw you into a pit of glowing embers, what would you do? <S> You would try to run away and escape. <S> This is how the nutriment of intellectual intention should be regarded. <A> Generating intention before doing good will reduce the karmic reward. <S> For deeper explanation see the chapter on the 6 Root Afflictions about Doubt in the book "How to Measure and Deepen your Spiritual Realization".
|
Even in habitual or involuntary actions, there might be an element of intention. Generating regret after doing bad will reduce the karmic punishment.
|
Is it possible to be reborn for all eternity? According to Buddhist teachings, is it possible to continue to reborn and suffer for all eternity? Suppose if a being never attained any merit, never was able to work through its old karma. Would it be possible for that being to never escape suffering? I have heard some people say: No, nobody can be reborn and suffer forever. For an extremely long time, maybe, but not forever. I mean, forever is really an astounding concept. Even if you take billions of trillions of gazillions of births it's still nothing compared to forever . If it's not possible to be reborn forever, then it implies that all beings are eventually destined for Enlightenment. Some may have an insanely long way to go, but if they're not gonna be reborn forever, then they have to eventually attain Enlightenment? Do some beings continue to be reborn and suffer forever, or are all beings destined to attain Enlightenment eventually ? I prefer answers that give sources and all that. But some nice reasoning is also welcome. <Q> Many people are interested in living forever (eg Christians) because such people do not think living is suffering. <S> Instead, they wish to spend forever with their loved ones. <S> That is why they are not queuing up to practise Buddhism. <S> My impression is Buddhists are similar, in that they wish to believe in reincarnation so they can live more lives. <S> That is why most Buddhists are not practising the path, hardcore, but preaching that Buddhists must believe in reincarnation, rebirth, whatever. <S> Also, Buddhism does not state making merit ends suffering ( SN 12.51 ) <S> so what is its relevance? <S> Also, Buddhism does not state all beings are destined for enlightenment ( AN 10.95 ). <S> Imo, the questions are an extreme & pointless misrepresentation of Buddhism. <S> If the questioner truly believe they were suffering, they would be a monk urgently putting out the suffering, like as if their hair was on fire. <A> First, if I may, I will correct one misunderstanding:Enlightenment = free from rebirth =/= <S> not no MORE rebirth... <S> Enlightenment means one will not be bounded on the wheel of destiny--rather one will be able to help others freely. <S> Thus, do not equate Enlightenment with totally never being born. <S> It's beyond born and unborn. <S> To answer your question: The latter is correct: all beings are destined to attain Enlightenment eventually. <S> The Mahayana sutras state how people will all be saved at some time or another, specifically Maitreya Buddha who, when he returns, will deliver "billions" of beings at a time through the universe. <S> (Surangama Sutra) <S> Here is more info on this Buddha: <S> Maitreya Bodhisattva is the future buddha of this world who currently resides in the Tushita Heaven. <S> A Dictionary of Buddhist Terms and Concepts relates the following information about him: <S> "A bodhisattva predicted to succeed Shakyamuni as a future Buddha. <S> Also called Ajita, meaning 'invincible.' <S> Some accounts view him as a historical personage who preceded the Buddha in death. <S> He is said to have been reborn in the Tushita Heaven where he is now expounding the Law to the heavenly beings there. <S> It is said that he will reappear in this world 5.670 million years after Shakyamuni's death, attain Buddhahood, and save the people in Shakyamuni's stead. <S> For this reason he is also sometimes called Miroku Buddha. <S> Belief in Miroku prevailed in India around the beginning of the first century A.D., and spread to China and Japan. <S> In the fourth century, a monk named Maitreya (c. 270-350) became famous as a scholar of the Consciousness-Only school, and was later identified with this bodhisattva." <S> (pp. 266-7) <S> Maitreya Bodhisattva is the only bodhisattva who is revered by both Theravadin and Mahayana Buddhists (aside from Siddhartha Gautama and his past lives as a bodhisattva). <S> His coming is predicted in the Pali Canon as well as in the Mahayana Sutras. <S> Although no one falls on the end of the "forever" spectrum--nonetheless, there are certainly people are closer on the spectrum towards "forever" than others, having lived a very impetuous existence with little consideration for spiritual cultivation or making merit (e.g. chanting a Buddha's name). <A> A person with achieved enlightenment will end the birthing cycle and go to nirwana. <S> It is the greatest achievement of a Buddhist. <S> Lord Buddha has told until there is no beginning or an end to the birthing cycle of all beings. <S> So it is wise to go to nirwana and end the tormented cycle of sansara. <A> From the viewpoint of most (if not all) Buddhist schools, you have been being reborn since beginningless time- all the way through repeated universes as they come and go in their own cycles. <S> You will continue to do so. <S> The point is, you may be fed up of the suffering that you continue to experience. <S> Enlightenment (or Nirvana) is a permanent (as in forever) and irreversible step out of the suffering. <S> In some Mahayana schools, this does not mean an end to the continuum of consciousness though. <S> It's not really 'rebirth' as you think of it, as being free from the idea of 'self' frees you from having to plod around as a single being.
|
Once enlightened a Buddha is able to be reborn (or merely manifest) simultaneously in multiple (no limits) places across the universe.
|
Why is fasting allowed in Buddhism? One of the answers to this question ' Is there a tradition or practice involving fasting in Buddhism or Buddhist countries? ' says that fasting is followed by Tibetan Buddhists. Why is fasting allowed since it is as extreme as gluttony and not a middle way? If I am right, following the path of the śramaṇic and yogic systems which existed at the time of Gautama Buddha, he subjected his body to extremes such as fasting and then realized that such extremes do not help in his enlightenment. Has the Buddha prohibited fasting in any of his teachings? <Q> There are a lot of scientifically proven benefits of fasting for short periods of time. <S> Within the earliest form of Buddhism, fasting after noon is recommended way of life. <S> This means they would get done with the "taking care of the body" part of their life out of the way early and can devote the most time to what is truly important: spiritual cultivation. <S> This is a fast of 16 hours. <S> On the other hand, very long fasts that are weeks long is not the Middle Way and Buddha recommended against that. <S> Eating 3 meals a day is actually falling further on the opposite spectrum: eating too much, so be wary. <A> Lay Buddhists observe the Full-moon day as a day of fasting when meals are not taken after mid day. <S> On that day they abstain from sensual pleasures and the use of high and luxurious seats and beds. <S> Time is spent on the practice of the Dhamma. <S> This has to be developed as an inner strength. <S> Fasting alone does not lead to purification. <S> The bhikkhus too fast daily between midday and the following dawn. <S> But this is not called fasting. <S> For some people when meditating fasting may work well, but for others it works just the opposite — the more they fast, the stronger their defilements get. <S> It's not the case that when you starve the body you starve the defilements, because defilements don't come from the body. <S> They come from the mind <S> There is the Dhammapada verse (with regards to ascetic Jambuka) in the scriptures that says that realization is far superior to mere fasting. <S> It’s English translation is : “Month after month a fool may eat only as much food as can be picked up on the tip of a kusa grass blade, but he is not worth a sixteenth part of those who have comprehended the Truth.” <S> But other ascetics at Buddha’s time did so. <S> But it is said the prolonged, so-called meritorius fasting of other ascetics who have not destroyed the passions, is not worth the sixteenth part of a solitary day's fasting of an Ariya who has realized the four Noble Truths. <S> There’s another Dhammapada verse (with regards to ascetic Bahu Bhandika) <S> that says, that external penances such as fasting cannot purify a person. <A> I'd like to relate to you an account I once came across of the way that people in the time of the Buddha prepared for death. <S> For those who kept the Precepts of Virtuous Conduct fasting was not at all difficult because they were used to abstaining from an evening meal on Uposatha days. <S> When their illness reached the point that they felt that they had no more than ten days left to live they would stop eating.... <S> Their efforts to avoid food were for the purpose of having a mind completely undisturbed. <S> When the body starts to run down it loses its ability to digest food and so anything consumed turns to poison, making the mind restless and confused. <S> So they prepared themselves for death by abstaining from food and taking only water or medicine. <S> As death got closer, they would stop taking even water or medicine in order to focus their mindfulness and self-awareness, so as to die in the way of remainderless extinction. <S> http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Heart_Wood_from_the_Bo_Tree.htm
|
I read fasting is done when dying, since eating food can cause pain to the body & disturb the mind.
|
A pigeon settled on my balcony. What should I do? A pigeon is going to build a nest on my balcony. I tried to make it fly away but it comes back. I rent this flat and not sure if I'll stay there till winter. I mean if another person rents the flat he'll definitely get rid of it. In my country people have no respect for animals. Besides the hostess doesn't like that. Should I insist in chasing the bird from my balcony or let him stay there? <Q> You cannot predict the future of the bird or take responsibility for it. <S> Also, the bird may nest on your balcony temporary (for breeding) rather than permanently. <S> If the hostess (landlord) disapproves of the bird, they should remove it. <S> It is not your responsibility to make modifications to the property of the landlord or hinder the landlord in the maintenance of their property. <S> Instead, if you think the bird will damage the property, it is your duty (as a tenant) to report this to the landlord. <S> In summary, the bird is not your responsibility (karma) and <S> the external structural problems of the apartment is not your responsibility (karma). <S> The problem is the bird's karma & you should not interfere with the bird's karma. <A> I am new to this website, and have little training, but wish to be helpful. <S> I have been in a position, several times, in my life, where I wished to help an animal, but didn't know what action would be most helpful. <S> My advice would be to let the pigeon do what it thinks best. <S> It surely knows more about pigeon life than you do. <S> If you drive it away, it may try to nest in a place even less suitable than your balcony. <S> IF you do end up living there until it has offspring, AND you know what food would be healthy for them, and you can give them food, without giving your "hostess" cause for complaint,do so. <S> That may allow the young pigeons to mature faster, and leave in time to avoid problems. <S> Otherwise, I think it best not to interfere. <A> A pigeon settled on my balcony. <S> What should I do? <S> Right View (Samma Ditthi) would be the overall frame of reference when choosing how to act in such situation. <S> It's important and necessary to understand the ethical distinction of kamma into wholesome (kusala) and unwholesome (akusala) and the roots from which these actions spring. <S> Unwholesome kamma is action that is morally blameworthy, harmful to spiritual development and contributive to suffering for oneself and others. <S> Wholesome kamma is action that is morally praisable, conducieve to spiritual development and beneficial for oneself and others. <S> Kamma is wholesome or unwholesome if its roots (mulas) are wholesome or unwholesome. <S> These roots are three-fold. <S> The unwholesome roots, also called the root defilements or kilesas are greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha) . <S> The wholesome roots are their opposites, expressed in negation as non-greed (alobha), non-aversion (amoha) and non-delusion (amoha) . <S> Within the negation lies their corresponding virtues, ie. <S> renunciation, detachment, generosity, loving-kindness, sympathy, gentleness and wisdom . <S> A distinctive feature of kamma is its capacity to produce resultants corresponding to the ethical quality of the action, ie. <S> the root cause. <S> Actions originating from the wholesome roots will always produce wholesome resultants which in turn will prepare and make the mind conducieve to the practice of meditation by calming and tranquilizing it, making it steady and less wavering. <S> Also wholesome, meritorious actions can be/is recommended to rejoice in. <S> Afterwards the impermance of the meritorious action should be contemplated in order to achieve insights. <S> In MN 9 1 , the Buddha explains; <S> "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma" . <S> To sum up, only you can decide how to act or if it's appropriate and ethical to act at all. <S> If you do choose to act and want to base your action in the Noble Eightfold Path, then the action should be motivated by the wholesome roots, thereby producing a wholesome result for you and other beings. <S> 1 <S> MN 9: <S> Sammaditthi Sutta: <S> The Discourse on Right View . <A> In my home I let the pigeons be there year after year. <S> I can’t remember ever killing an insect in my house in the past 12 years. <S> It’s live and let live, as we are all here for a short time. <S> But if you want to get rid of the nest just wait for a while. <S> You could let the birds build the nest and live with them until their babies have fledged. <S> Then when the winter comes get rid of it. <S> It can be fascinating to watch the birds sitting on the nest, the eggs hatch and then the young grow up and fledge. <S> It doesn’t take that long for the baby birds grow. <S> They will only stay in the nest and around your home for only a short time. <S> They will then fly away to find their own mates. <S> The parents too will move on and then you can get rid of the nest. <S> If I’m to quote from “Milinda Panha”… there is a lesson that we can learn from this little bird. <S> (44. <S> THE HOUSE-PIGEON.) <S> 'Venerable Nâgasena, that one quality of the house-pigeon you say he ought to take, which is it?' <S> 'Just, O king, as the house-pigeon, while dwelling in the abode of others, of men, does not become enamoured of anything that belongs to them, but remains neutral, taking notice only of things pertaining to birds; <S> just so, O king, should the strenuous Bhikshu, earnest in effort, while resorting to other people's houses, never become enamoured of women or of men, of beds, or chairs, or garments, or jewelry, or things for use or enjoyment, or various forms of food that are there, but remain neutral always, addicted only to such ideas as become a recluse. <S> This, O king, is the quality of the house-pigeon he ought to have. <S> For it was said, O king, by the Blessed One, the god over all gods, in the Kulla Nânada Gâtaka: "Frequenting people's homes for food or drink,In food and drink alike be temperate,And let not beauty's form attract thy thoughts."'
|
If the bird does not harm you, then you should let it nest.
|
With my interpretation of 'rebirth', can I become a Buddhist and become accepted within a Buddhist community? I am just beginning and in need of help and advice on rebirth. I'm struggling for direction in life. I felt a connection with Buddhism in my day to day life and decided to pursue it further, In the hope it would help me connect to the universe in the way I crave. I'm struggling with the life, death rebirth concept. Before I take my next big step I need to know if my beliefs could be accepted. I believe heavily in cause and effect but I am struggling with the concept of rebirth. I believe that when I die, my mind dies with me. I am willing to accept that my mental energy may live on but not in the way I have read about. Please bear in mind I am not saying I categorically do not believe in rebirth I'm just saying my interpretation of it is probably not of the norm. I am concerned this will hinder my progress. I believe that my energy will not move to another being after I die, but I believe that the way I treat people and the good I do in my short time on earth will live on, although my body is gone I believe that in some way I will live on in the people I have encountered in life. The people I have done good and the people I have done bad. I feel I need to find a community as many people do not share my opinions and I find a lot of the things I believe marry up with that of the Buddhist beliefs and I want to extend I'm beliefs and build a better connection physically and spiritually with myself and my surroundings. I would like to find peace within myself and help others. As I'm sure you can tell I am very new to this and the way I explain myself is probably not the best, my spiritual connection is lacking and I'm struggling to see the bigger picture, that I what I wish to expand on. I'm just getting to grips with things and regardless to whether the answer to my question is a yes or no I will still pursue my beliefs. Ultimately I would like to know if I can become a Buddhist and if I can become accepted within a Buddhist community. Thank you in advance. <Q> You don't have to believe in rebirth. <S> Rebirth concept in Buddhism is not as simple as simple as reincarnation anyway. <S> It's actually better if you don't hold any blind beliefs in Buddhism since it is a find-out-for-yourself kind of religion, i.e. when you reach the proper stage you will have the insights. <S> It all starts from working on the trainings for morality, concentration and insight. <A> Core Buddhism is the practise of morality (non-harming), meditation (concentration) & liberating insight (wisdom), which comprise the noble eightfold path. <S> Belief in 'rebirth' is not found in the noble eightfold path. <S> Regardless, in Buddhism, there is no compulsion or requirement that one must believe anything; which includes the reported teachings of the Buddha. <S> Even when the Buddha was alive, it is reported he said, even if he taught something, one should not blindly believe but to investigate & realise the teaching for oneself. <S> Some Buddhist communities (centres) strongly emphasise rebirth. <S> However, one can often be part of these communities, as long as one does not actively or overtly try to subvert the teachings given there. <S> Ultimately, in Buddhism (even if 'rebirth' is believed or not) the method for liberation is the same. <S> Liberation is not reach by believing in 'rebirth'. <S> That is why 'rebirth' is not mentioned in the core (' noble ') teachings attributed to the Buddha. <A> Welcome to the group @megan. <S> You have done the right thing as this path depends 100% on the association with people of integrity in the Dahmma Path. <S> At the time of Buddha, one of His main disciples, Ven. <S> Ananda told The Buddha that 50% of the path depends on the association of Dhamma Friends, The Buddha corrected him, saying that it is depended 100% in the association of Friends in Dhamma. <S> Whoever who wants to get into the the Noble Eight Fold Path – the road less travelled, need the company of people of integrity in the Dahmma Path who would encourage you in this path. <S> There is a quality of the Dhamma called “Ehipassiko” (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). <S> The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects. <S> Now you are going to wonder, as to why it is so. <S> Even though you may not see it this way right now, as you progress in this path, you will come to realize that we are suffering from a disease of the mind. <S> The disease of passion, hatred and delusion. <S> And if we are to recover from this disease, we must take the essential medication called advice. <S> That is why you need the association of Friends in Dhamma. <S> At times you may feel that this advice given by some is a bit harsh. <S> At such times it is good to remember that strong advice is sometimes given to save someone from a big danger. <S> However, if a person dislikes advice then he tries to keep away from such friends who gave advice. <S> And ultimately, that person may come to dislike even the Supreme Buddha’s noble advice. <S> Would a person who dislikes advice in general take delight in the Supreme Buddha’s advice? <S> Of course he will not because the Supreme Buddha’s teachings are filled with advice. <S> Therefore, we must learn to welcome advice. <S> So again @megan, we are very pleased that you have joined our group. <S> If feel that we can help you in anyway, please do not hesitate to ask us.
|
Other Buddhist communities (centres) do not emphasis or teach rebirth & strongly emphasis the practise of meditation & the development of liberating wisdom.
|
Good method to start finding the core values of Buddhism? I've recently joined a meditation center that is very welcoming. I have went to a few meditation sessions, and so far I have felt focus on a deeper level. The community is small, though so they don't show many of the teachings. I'd like to read up on the core values of Buddhism, and furthermore, I'm looking for some good methods of finding out for myself what the values are. If you have any personal stories, all are welcome, as they will be more than useful to me and others with the same question. <Q> I am going to recommend three of my favorite teachers and their most popular books. <S> Keep in mind that each of these teachers comes from a different tradition but they are mostly in agreement as to the core values of Buddhism. <S> "A Path With Heart" by Jack Kornfield. <S> He was one of the very first westerners to teach Dharma in the West beginning in the 1970s. <S> "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh. <S> A famous Vietnamese monk who can trace his lineage back to the Buddha. <S> "Awakening the Buddha Wihin" by Lama Surya Das. <S> An American who studied for many years in Tibet and became a Tibetan Monk and is a very popular teacher. <S> All of these books are accessible and you may be able to find them at a public library or certainly find use used versions for sale online. <A> These are “Stanzas on Dhamma”, a popular collection of 432 pithy verses of a largely ethical nature. <S> There is always a story behind every verse. <S> The Dhammapada is very accessible, many copies of which are found for free distribution through temples and Buddhist societies, and also on the internet. <S> In the Dhammapada you will see a lot of ‘shoulds’. <S> But each should is based on a condition, <S> “This is what should be done by one if one desires that.” <S> So it is your choice to do it or not. <S> But if that is what you want, this is what you’ve got to do. <S> The nature of cause and effect is such that these are the practices you have to follow. <S> I will give you a few examples that you will find in: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ <S> “If when you see that there’s a greater happiness that comes from abandoning a lesser happiness, be willing to abandon that lesser happiness for the sake of the greater one.” <S> “A hand without a wound can hold poison and not be harmed. <S> In other words, if you don’t have any bad kamma, the results of bad kamma won’t come to you. <S> But if you have a wound on your hand, then if you hold poison it will seep through the wound and kill you.” <S> “All tremble at violence. <S> Life is dear to all. <S> Putting oneself in the place of another, One should neither kill nor cause another to kill.” <S> People who recognize their own mistakes and change their ways “illumine the world like the moon when freed from a cloud.” <S> “Better than a thousand meaningless statements Is one meaningful word Which, having been heard,Brings peace.” <A> The basic values of Buddhism are found in the Noble Eightfold Path, which can be read at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html More teachings about values, particular for lay people (non-monks), can be read in the following links: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.piya.html <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html <S> http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html <S> Note: <S> You should be very careful to not get into arguments at your meditation centre about Buddhist values (since many Buddhists are not learned about Buddhist values & want to learn their own values by meditating).
|
A good method to start finding the core values of Buddhism, @tuskiomi, is to start reading the Dhammapada (The Way of Truth).
|
If a monk sees a pin in his path, will he step on it and accept pain? I read about Buddhism where I came to know, we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything. And a random thing came to my mind: I even read that pain is seen as pain and nothing more, no bad or good feeling towards pain. So suppose a Monk happens to see a pin in his path: Will he step on it and accept pain, and think of pain as pain and detach from its feeling? Or, would he judge the pin which will cause pain and move away? Moving away shows that he knows its bad to step on the pin. This was just a question which came to my mind. I don't mean any offence, literally I have no idea of it. <Q> I have not read in original Buddhism <S> we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything (apart from possibly one popular yet questionable teaching, at this link ). <S> Buddhism teaches, about all things experienced by the senses, their origination, passing away, attraction, danger & escape from their danger should be comprehended (at this link ). <S> ... <S> discern, as they actually are present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawback and the escape from the sixspheres of contact. <S> Punna Sutta <A> What would the monk be accepting? <S> The monk would likely accept walking around the pin. <S> A well practiced monk knows the appropriate path isn't always the intended path. <S> The path a well practiced monk trys to make is the most appropriate path and not necessarily someone else's idea of an appropriate path. <A> When Wisdom is gained through the practice of insight meditation one learns to navigate more skillfully in Samsara, i.e. to reduce the amount of suffering for oneself and others, through wholesome/skillful deeds, motivated by wholesome intentions. <S> Skillful action would not be to purposely inflict suffering onto oneself. <A> no one will accept intentional self pain. <S> if he cannot avoid the pain he will accept it. <A> A Monk trains himself in sila (moral discipline) , which includes not intentionally hurting living beings. <S> Since he himself is a living being, he should respect and protect his life as he would others.
|
If that Monk have common sense he will avoid the pin.
|
Is this desire, to not be friendless anymore, healthy? I have been friendless for around 5 years. The reason I'm in this situation is due to my bad traits alone. I have actually grown accustomed to this till recently, when I became increasingly unsettled by the constant silence in my house. Usually, I've been able to shrug off this loneliness by busying myself with my studies, but lately, the strategy is not working. This desire for friends has been gnawing at me everyday. But I've been alone for so long now that I find it hard to make friends. So my question is, is this desire healthy in terms of a Buddhist perspective? And if it's not, how do I subdue this desire? <Q> Therefore, if (for some rare reason) you are intrinsically unable to make friends, you should accept this situation rather than suffer over it. <S> That said, the luminous or clear part of our mind is not the same as the bad traits of the mind. <S> If your mind is actually able to see it has bad traits then that part of the mind that can see is luminous & clear. <S> That is why Buddhism teaches we have the capacity to comprehend, work with & change the bad traits of the mind. <S> The very fact that you have concern about your personal situation shows you have the trait of friendship towards yourself. <S> If you are uncomfortable with pursuing friendship in an ordinary way, you can find a good Buddhist centre or temple to visit & discuss your personal concerns with a monk or teacher there. <S> The Buddha called himself the 'Kalyanamitta' or 'Noble Spiritual Friend', who does not offer superficial friendship but the gift of skilful methods & wisdom leading to peace. <A> I think your situation is made of two parts: dealing with solitude and getting to know more people. <S> From your description, it seems that you find solitude unpleaseant, so you've developted strategies to run away from it. <S> Why do you find solitude so unpleasant? <S> You have to investigate a little: what happends when you are alone? <S> what kind of thoughts do you have? <S> What do you find difficult to deal with? <S> As for the second part, try to think about what you understand about "having a friend" and "being a friend". <S> What do you expect from a friend? <S> Are your expectations realistic? <S> Are you acting like a friend? <S> Is there a behavior you can change so you come across as more gentle? <S> Ask for feed-back from someone close ( a relative) and see what you can improve. <S> Can I ask you if you have a meditation practice? <S> Good luck and take care of you and others! <A> Your desire to have friends is healthy and normal. <S> From a Buddhism perspective a layperson should enjoy life in such a way as to not harm himself or others. <S> Having friends is not harmful if those friends are good people. <S> I would advise you to go to dance classes, yoga classes or other activities where conditions are such that you get in contact with other people. <S> There you could also get feeback as Anca suggesteted in her answer. <S> Be kind and gentle to others and to yourself and friends will come as a consequence. <S> You don't have to cling to the ideea <S> " i must make friends" because it will happen by itself if you plant the right seeds. <S> So enjoy life, continue your practice and accept yourself and others the way they are.
|
The Buddhist centre can be a place where you can learn to develop better traits & friendship skills with others. Any desire that cannot be achieved will cause suffering.
|
Are there meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills? I meditate daily, for around 30 minutes or so, I have been on and off for the last few yew years. I only ever do a simple breathing meditation and I find it tends to make my mind smoother and more relaxed (compared to days I do not sit). I am also in the process of becoming a mathematician (hopefully completing my PhD in the next few months). Before embarking on my PhD I worked in IT as a developer/support manager, so my work has always been fairly cerebral. Given this context, I was wondering - are there particular types of meditation that specifically improve mental ability ? I know one of the obvious answers is that solving a problem in pure math is really a form of meditation, and I should probably just continue with the daily grind. I'm hoping for a bit more though. Thanks <Q> I am not aware of any meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills. <S> However (although I am not an academic), I have found, in my experience, the more clear & calm the mind is, the better my logic & problem solving skills. <A> I've heard that when you sleep on a problem, you're mind thinks of a solution during the rest. <S> That's kind of how meditation works, a sort of self-induced slumber (though its important not to fall asleep during meditation). <S> I'm not sure how exactly the mind works better after meditation and sleep <S> but my personal theory is that it separates from the object of meditation gaining a clear overview of possible solution paths. <S> As long as you don't go too far during a session it's been proven that meditation relaxes you. <S> Logical thinking, rationality, clarirty, etc, are necessary for a mathematical mind. <S> However, I feel thats <S> it is also necessary to have periods of fanciful and unplanned moments. <S> I think the type of meditatiom that would be good for math is samata as opposed to vipassana. <S> Briefly, vipassana focuses on present moment awareness whereas samata is on an object of meditation such as a candle or burning incense. <S> I have a graduate degree in statistics and work as a statistical programmer and feel that meditation not only helps me solve problems but also be a better person. <S> It may also give you a competetive edge when used in moderation. <S> Best of luck on your journey. <A> There is a practice called Analytical Meditation. <S> In this type of meditation you make a problem, or something that you want a deeper understanding of, to become the object of your meditation. <S> You then shift the sensations of the breath to the background in your mind. <S> The method is very well described on pages 361-368 of "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa. <S> I think it is exactly what you are looking for. <S> It is a component of the Mahayana vipaśyanā system called “The Union of Wisdom and Calm Abiding.” <S> The only caveat is that you must be able to sustain your focus on the object of your meditation, in your case the sensations of the breath. <S> If you do not have some degree of stability in your attention to the breath, Analytical Meditation will not yet be an effective practice for you. <A> "Learn no-self and there will be no problem":)(a quote I heard somewhere) <S> Sorry, I probably should have explained. <S> OP is practicing anapana right?What <S> I meant was, <S> how about Practicing vipassana to let go of problems, anything and everyone? <S> It gives practitioners wisdom for more appropriate decisions when dealing with problems... <S> although, I'm not so sure about "logical problems" although. <A> In addition to the clarity and calm that samatha, that practice you do already, provides, I would suggest vipassana. <S> I would suggest adding vipassana, aka cessation-contemplation , practice. <A> No but you can focus on your work better than before.. <A> You only have to keep the ultimate aim of enlightenment in mind when practicing meditation and living in the dhamma. <S> Then everything else, like improved logical problem solving skills, is achieved. <S> The good qualities that emerge and mature from the practice of Dhamma not only smooth the way for the journey to Nibbana; over time they have the effect of transforming the practitioner into a more generous, loving, compassionate, peaceful, and clear-headed member of society. <S> The individual's sincere pursuit of Awakening is thus a priceless and timely gift to world. <A> Breath meditation is the best choice of mind's support. <S> Because buddha said: Bhikkhu! <S> you should meditate samādhi. <S> Because of samādhi, you will understand the truth - samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha; samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti, S iii.13 (truth = causes and effects = logic ). <S> Another, you can also improve your brain by abhidhamma study @pa-auk monastery , too. <S> Sāriputta asked questions moreover hundreds millions questions about causes and effects in paṭṭhāna , the hardest cannon in tipitaka, for your brain.
|
Dedicated vipassana practice I had found makes me more aware of my own thoughts and any chronic logical fallacies.
|
Prohibitions against eating certain animals? I sometimes see rules suggesting that monks (at least Theravadan) should not eat various animals. The lists vary, but includes to varying degree: elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, slugs, cows, and humans. When I try to find something authoritative about this, I've come up short. Can anyone shed light on: (1) is there a list of animals that monks are prohibited from eating, and if so, (2) where does this appear in the canon, and (3) how/why were the particular animals listed? <Q> Page 308 of The Patimokkha RulesTranslated & Explainedby Thanissaro Bhikkhu : <S> To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkata. <S> Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. <S> The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? <S> Dogs are loathsome, disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them). <S> The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) <S> These prohibitions cover not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4.113). <S> (b) <S> The prohibition against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this point). <S> The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden. <S> (c) <S> The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings. <S> Thus eels would not be allowed. <A> According to Vinaya Pitaka -> <S> Mahavagga pali- <S> > Bhesajjakkanda ; following 10 meats are prohibited for ordained monks. <S> Human Elephant Horse <S> Dog <S> Snake Lion <S> Tiger Leopard Bear <S> Hyena <A> The following are prohibited for ordained monastics in the Theravada tradition BearDogElephantHorseHumanHyenaLionLeopardSnakeTiger <S> It was considered that the odours emitted from a human being who has eaten the flesh of these animals would cause them to be seen as a threat by the same. <S> This perhaps would particularly apply to forest dwelling monastics as they may be likely to come into contact with the listed animals.
|
The Mahavagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas.
|
What is the appeal of not Re-incarnating? I understand that after death, the mind may move to a different plane of existance to be re-incarnated, but what is the appeal of moving to a different plane after death? Is it wrong to say that I'm satisfied with where I'm currently at? <Q> The Buddha clearly rebuked the idea of consciousness/mind that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth] in Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38) . <S> " <S> Exactly so, lord. <S> As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another." <S> "Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" <S> "This speaker, this knower, lord, <S> that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions. <S> " <S> "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? <S> Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? <S> But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. <S> That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." <S> Birth( Jati ) is caused by becomming ( bhava ). <S> "Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?" <S> "No, lord." <S> "Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. <S> The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. <S> Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. <S> Bhava Sutta: Becoming (AN 3.76) <A> what wrong with being satisfied with current situations is that current situations don't stay with way. <S> They deteriorate and will break apart with 100% certainty. <S> If there was no death, there would be no Buddhism. <S> Just to be clear, Buddhism is not about leaving current situation to be in a better one. <A> That’s human nature. <S> You may not want to die, but it is going to come your way sooner or later. <S> That’s life, @tuskiomi. <S> But there is a deathless happiness out there if you are willing to work towards it. <S> For that firstly you need to get skillful in how you go about things in the present moment. <S> It calls for a different kind of skillset. <S> The problem is that most people in the world don’t have a correct idea about their skills. <S> They just do not know of their latent skills that are helpful in realizing life. <S> That is why you and I are satisfied just by living their lives eating, drinking, and enjoying. <S> It never occur to us to see into these latent talents that can be developed in this very life. <S> It is not our fault that things are such. <S> The French would say “Ce La Vie” – such as the way life goes. <S> That is why we are still in a journey of been born, getting sick, getting old, and dying again and again (Samsara). <A> "but what is the appeal of moving to a different plane after death?" Reincarnation has a forced nature due to Twelve Nidanas . <S> I would recommend looking at the Tibetan Book of the Dead for further anecdotal information on how we are drawn to reincarnating into certain destinies and then get sucked into that life (pre-birth). <S> Buddhism has as its purpose to stop this forced birth-and-death and control the process like a Tibetan lama, Enlightened master, or bodhisattva is able to, going where he is most needed in the universe, not where his karma (attachments/fears) compels him. <S> "Is it wrong to say that I'm satisfied with where I'm currently at?" <S> It isn't wrong but don't think that it is possible to stay in an existence forever. <S> Even if you live 100 thousand years as a golden immortal (one of the immortals that is discussed in Surangama Sutra) stretching out your existence for as long as possible through various health regimen, eventually it will end and when you reflect back on that time spent as an immortal, it will feel like a flash of lightning... <S> Do what you came here to do and be ready to go. <S> This is why it is best to become a Buddha... <S> the end result is this: dwell in your dharmakaya nature and emanate a new body where you are needed for as long as needed, for the highest good of all... <S> at this point you have no attachment to staying or going.
|
You may be satisfied with where you are currently at, but sooner or later you are going to want something better.
|
How to Attain Peace? Sometimes we feel nervous, afraid, or anxious while doing something. So, How can we attain peace in afraid mood or anxious mood? <Q> By acknowledging your anxious mood as a truth ( dhamma ). <S> Don't push it away, don't try to change anything, don't blame or criticize yourself. <S> It is a truth and therefore has the 3 characteristics of reality , namely anicca <S> (it has beginning, middle and end), dukkha <S> (it obviously doesn't satisfy you), <S> anatta <S> (you cannot control it; it arises due to certain conditions/habits/situations). <S> Why should it be different? <S> As for how to actually deal with fear/anxiety, you could listen to this talk from Ajahn Jayasaro. <S> He describes how fear/anxiety works. <S> It has both a physical and a mental aspect. <S> Fear builds up using a feedback loop. <S> If there is a fearful thought, a reaction in the body follows, you become worried about your bodily reaction with your mind, which then causes more tension in the body ... <S> You can break that cycle by staying with the body and watching the feelings/sensations there (more detailed in the video). <S> Being at peace means to be at peace with whatever arises, not getting things or mind states that are peaceful and dependent on external causes. <S> Peace means you're never at war with yourself :) <A> When anxiety arises, we should fully acknowledge its arising, by thinking or noting: " I feel anxious; I feel anxious " or simply: " Anxiety has arisen; anxiety has arisen ". <S> Then start to investigate into the causes for why the mind is anxious; including why certain objects make the mind anxious . <S> If anxiety is arising towards a worldly task, such as study or work, think: "I can only do my best; being anxious will not help my endeavor; if I can, how can I improve". <S> Anxiety is an emotion that can be resolved by rational or wise thinking. <S> In addition, mindfulness with breathing meditation can also help resolve anxiety. <A> Following factors hinder peace. <S> Sensual desire (kamacchanda) <S> Ill-will (byapada) Sloth and torpor(thina-middha) Restlessness and remorse (uddhacca-kukkucca) <S> Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha) <S> Anxiety is caused mainly by Uddhacca-kukkucca . <S> And it can be abandoned by developing tranquility, concentration and equanimity of the mind. <S> If there is water in a pot, stirred by the wind, agitated, swaying and producing waves, a man with a normal faculty of sight could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. <S> In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by restlessness and remorse, overpowered by restlessness and remorse, one cannot properly see the escape from restlessness and remorse that have arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago <S> do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized. <S> — Sangaravo Sutta SN 46:55 <A> It is natural for people get into situations where they feel nervous, afraid, or anxious amidst the hustle and bustle of Life today with so many commitments and stresses. <S> A way out of this is to somehow create some free time, to have a space to grow, to improve your spiritual practice. <S> An answer lies in reducing your activities. <S> When you have few duties, you have time to practice, because the answer lies in the Dhamma. <S> For this you need mindfulness and the stillness. <S> With the stillness, you’re in a position to let go of nervous activity, to let go of unskilful things in the mind. <S> With mindfulness and letting‐ go of the unwanted, you get to see things clearly. <S> In Dhamma—kayagatasati—is mindfulness immersed in the body. <S> It is a whole‐body awareness, that helps you feel more and more settled and at ease. <S> Then your nervousness will begin to fade away. <S> You will become calm. <S> In the back of our minds there’s always the fear of pain, fear of suffering. <S> To be at peace we have to get past that fear. <S> If you’re afraid to face up to pain, the mind can never be in control over itself because it’s afraid. <S> Then even your own mind is not a friend. <S> We’re afraid of many things. <S> There are fears associated with greed, with anger, with delusion. <S> That is where you have to focus to understand your fears. <S> You have to understand the emotions behind them. <S> Then you will get to know which part of fear is dependent on greed / passion, / on the aversion, and on delusion. <S> Then, when you address the underlying emotions, the fear will subside. <S> So learn to separate the physical from the mental side. <S> Remember that wherever there’s clinging there <S> ’s <S> weakness and <S> that’s what constitutes fear. <S> Then you will get to know whether it is a realistic fear or not. <S> This will help you find ways to overcome fear. <S> If you practice proper the Dhamma... there is nothing to fear. <A> Simple answer is to your Question is Try to Meditate. <S> if you can do that your mind will be Still..if your mind still you can control other feelings very well.. <A> It depends on whether one follows sutrayana or tantryana. <S> Sutrayana finds peace in understanding there's a cause to everything. <S> Tantrayana finds peace through thought transformations.
|
Then wisely reflect (think) in ways to reduce the power of the anxiety, such as: "This anxiety is irrational & unnecessary; I am safe; I am not in danger; this anxiety is impermanent; it will pass; the Buddha, Sangha & other practitioners have overcome anxiety & found freedom from it;" etc.
|
Sexual misconduct, what is it What is it? Is sex just for pleasure with your partner breaking a precept? Eg with a condom. And is being circumcised bad over personal preferences/ (hygiene,aesthetic)? is oral and anal sex bad? Is masturbation bad? And is circumcising your sons bad? <Q> Sexual misconduct is defined in the Pali scriptures as having sex with someone else's partner or fiancee and with those living under the protection of their parents or an institution (in the case parents, if the parents disapprove). <S> The purpose of refraining from sexual misconduct is to not harm/damage existing relationships. <S> Therefore, having sex for pleasure, using a condom, circumcision, masturbation & oral & anal sex are not, in themselves, sexual misconduct (even though some of these things can be unwholesome & unskilful). <A> In general, the Pali Canon is quite exoteric and seems to equate sexual misconduct with various kinds of adulteries. <S> Of course, for a monastic any sexual activity at all with the sole exception of involuntary nocturnal emissions is forbidden by the Vinaya. <A> One kind of sex is no worse than the other. <S> It all leads to suffering. <S> I have never heard of anything on circumcision in the Buddha's teaching but there is a rule that monastics can't cut the penis clear off. <A> Ideally, sexual pleasure should be avoided since it is craving. <S> But Buddha knew that this was difficult for the laity. <S> Therefore, he suggested that the laity should avoid sexual misconduct. <S> Sexual misconduct is simply sexual behavior which is outside social acceptance. <S> And you can interpret that according to your own society.
|
Generally speaking, sexual misconduct means any sexual conduct that involves violence or lying.
|
The Dangers of an Extended Meditation Session The Buddha was said to have meditated 40 days and 40 nights in a single sitting which begs the question is it possible to sit this long without any physical or mental injury? As an example, my meditation sessions vary in discomfort. Sometimes when it's good, I wish the alarm hadn't rung and then sometimes my foot falls asleep in 5 minutes. There's this theory I have that when meditation is done properly (i. e. you are not fighting yourself), the body will begin to self-regulate itself and the mind will begin to heal. Elsewhere, I have read that its good not to sit more than 40 minutes. Is this more of a legal disclaimer to prevent novice meditators from injuring themselves? What I really want to know is that if you're comfortable and physically able to sit 40 days and 40 nights, is it OK to sit that long? I guess there's a chance you may be stuck in that meditative state. Have there been reports of meditators who don't return to their consciousness? Are there any reports of people who have tried it? <Q> According to Empty Cloud <S> The Autobiography of Master Xu Yun (famed Chinese monk of the 20th century usually with name transcribed as Hsu Yun). <S> One day I cooked taro in a cauldron and sat cross-legged while waiting for my meal to cook and involuntarily entered the state of samadhi. <S> MY 63RD YEAR (1902/03) <S> Master Fu-cheng and others who stayed in nearby huts were surprised that I had not called on them for a long time and came to my hut to present their New Year greetings. <S> Outside my hut, they saw tigers’ tracks everywhere with no traces of man. <S> They entered my hut and seeing that I was in samadhi, they awoke me with a qing (a musical instrument made of stone, the sound of which is subtle but penetrating). <S> When I returned to self-consciousness, they asked me, ‘Have you taken your meal?’ <S> I replied, ‘Not yet, the taro in the cauldron should be well cooked by now.’ <S> When its cover was lifted, the cauldron was covered with an inch of mould. <S> Fu-cheng was startled and said, ‘You must have been in samadhi for half a month.’ <S> We then melted ice, cooked taro and ate our fill. <S> They joked with me and left. <S> Now you can take this story with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of hibernation-like state for deep meditation... <A> I believe it's more of a legal disclaimer, or due to ignorance. <S> In Chan, you get all sorts of affliction and pain <S> but if you don't quit and be vigorous, you will progress quite fast. <S> It is said long sitting produces Chan. <S> You have to be patient. <S> If by any means you get stuck in a state, your Master should be able to spot that and help you. <S> Please see Master Hsuan Hua's texts, it has some reports of monks sitting days straight in samadhi. <A> It is unlikely Gotama/ <S> The Buddha sat for 49 days in a single sitting as the legendary stories claim. <S> For example, the Maha-Saccaka Sutta explains how Gotama nearly died due to not eating food and his enlightenment only occurred after eating food. <S> ... <S> that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities...is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated... <S> Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' <S> So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. <S> ... <S> So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities <S> , I entered & remained in the first jhana: <S> It is doubtful, after nearly dying, that only one meal would sustain Gotama for another 49 days. <S> The Udana states, for 7 days after enlightenment: " at the foot of the Bodhi Tree, having just realized full enlightenment, the Lord sat cross-legged for seven days experiencing the bliss of liberation ". <S> When considering for the rest of his life the Buddha generally ate one meal per day, the stories or fables about a 49 day single sitting appear exaggerated, similar the the 40 days & 40 nights of Jesus in the desert. <A> From a physiological point of view, the body is not designed to remain fixed and stationary for long periods. <S> After two hours there is a risk of blood clots. <S> On the other hand, the great Korean master Seongcheol (1912-1993) is reputed to have remained seated inside a very small area (too small to lie down in) for eight years without sleeping. <S> A fellow monastic who disbelieved that Seongcheol was actually doing this spied on him, verified that he was in fact doing it, and tried it himself; his teeth fell out! <S> In one case I read about, after two days a female experienced a psychotic break which required ten years of psychiatric treatment to rectify. <S> It is a serious spiritual quest no different from the shamanic quest. <S> We have an idea that it's just a relaxation exercise. <S> This is grossly naive. <S> There are cases where people in the West have died as a result of extreme Buddhist practices. <S> What is your reference to the Buddha sitting in meditation for forty days and forty nights? <S> According to the Pali Canon, the Buddha remained sitting in meditation for seven days and nights after attaining nirvana. <S> My fellow Torontonian Tim Ward wrote a book called <S> What the Buddha Never Taught in which he discusses "samadhi suicde," a Theravadin ascetic practice in which one intentionally meditates oneself to death. <S> Of course, such a person immediately ceases to be a member of the sangha for violating the first precept (third defeat or parajika offence) against killing. <S> Anyone who advocates such practices is also automatically banned. <S> The Buddha forbade such practices after discovering an outbreak of suicide amongst the monastics while the Buddha was on retreat. <A> It is not about the Physical dimension. <S> Suppose if you do not have physical body, what is the problem in sitting for 10,000 years, vedic rishi's were able to remain in samadhi for 300 years. <S> In Deep meditation you are separated from your physical body (which is not you) Try to think that way.
|
A 7 day single sitting of a fully enlightened Buddha may be possible & is not as unlikely as 49 day sitting of an unenlightened Bodhisatta (seeker of enlightenment). I have met monks who sat straight for days (2 to 3 days) under recommendation of their teacher - this is in the Chan lineage. So meditation is not something to be undertaken casually. This can be ameliorated by doing a period of walking meditation every two hours. Such practices are also bad for the lymphatic system, which is probably why diet has been emphasized by many yogins, to reduce toxicity in the body. From a psychological point of view, there is some evidence that there is about a 10% chance of precipitating a latent psychosis as a result of fairly short periods of meditation retreat.
|
What is the best meditation practice to fall asleep? I want to know if exist some practice to meditate when I am ready to sleep, in order to train while I am dreaming. <Q> Maintain extraordinarily sharp attentiveness to your body as you fall asleep. <S> Your day-time meditation practice will have to be regular and consistent, without a daytime practice dreamtime practice will not really have a foundation to rest upon. <S> When you fall asleep, train yourself to stay aware of how all your limbs feel, the tension or laxity in your body, and the gentle rise and fall of your breath. <S> That is, in my experience, the best way to maintain aware levels of mind while falling asleep. <S> You must be able to observe without interfering too much, and that is why a daytime meditation practice is important. <S> If you set your intentions just before bed strongly, with the intent to further your practice and realizations in your dreams in order to bring ultimate benefit to all sentient beings and all that lives, you will make progress quickly. <S> There may be a few days where nothing happens, but if you keep to it, one day you shall break through. <S> As you fall asleep, keep your mind on your body energy and warmth, and you can use the physical body as an anchoring point for your attention until the falling away of gross perceptions takes place <A> If there is one meditation, it is ‘Aanaapanasati’ Meditation. <S> You can direct your breathing meditation to other aspects if you want to. <S> One such is having the breath as a way of training yourself to be kind to yourself and others in developing goodwill. <S> Here you do not entertain any thoughts but you are distracted rather than being mindful of breath. <S> Sleepiness is a hinderance. <S> One of the characteristics of the hindrances is that they deceive you. <S> When sleepiness arises, your mind is usually already on the side of falling asleep. <S> You don’t see it as a problem. <S> It is what you desire <S> and it is something desirable at that moment in time. <S> When the mind is lethargic, it’s time to get some rest. <S> It’s time to sleep. <S> You have to learn to see this as genuine hindrances, as a real obstacle on your path, and not be fooled into siding with it. <A> Among the 40 meditation subjects loving kindness meditation <S> has the benefit of sleeping easy. <S> Hence this is the best meditation to help with sleep. <S> One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. <S> One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. <S> The devas protect one. <S> Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. <S> One's mind gains concentration quickly. <S> One's complexion is bright. <S> One dies unconfused and – if penetrating no higher – is headed for [reborn in] the Brahma worlds. <A> This is not a question about Buddhism. <S> Counting down from 100, starting back at the top with a mistake or forgetting the next number. <S> There are many other ways to fall asleep too. <S> Meditation should not be done too close to sleep. <S> With that, meditation should not be done in the lying down position. <S> As for lucid dreaming, a dream journal is an apt idea. <S> (Sleeping is sleeping, there is no training.)
|
Likewise you can breathe in such a way that puts yourself to sleep.
|
If we tell lies to save lives, will that be a sin? This page, Lay Buddhist Vows , says, Do not distort fact This one is usually translated as: don't lie. Again: it wider than that. Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact. As per above phrase about 3rd precept of Pancha Sila, as a Buddhist if we tell lies it's definitely a sin. But in this modern world sometimes we have to lie: we will lie to our wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father; in this world you cannot find a person who has not lied. So my question is, if tell so many lies to save lives, will it be a sin? <Q> I think this question is a duplicate of: Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? <S> Should a person never lie? <S> "Duplicate" means that the answers to those questions should answer your question. <S> You wrote, we have to lie, we will lie to wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father ... <S> but I'm not sure that's true. <S> If you read the definitions of Right Speech on Access to Insight, it includes, He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal ... <S> If you feel the need to lie about something (e.g. your behaviour) then perhaps you should change your behaviour instead of lying about it. <S> Therefore "not lying" becomes a "training rule". <S> The subject is difficult to talk about, though, because you didn't describe examples of the various lies, which you say we have to lie about to almost everyone. <S> Lastly, about the phrase you quoted. <S> The first bit of it, i.e... <S> don't lie ... <S> is presumably clear enough. <S> So if you have a question about the quoted phrase, then maybe the question is about the next bit: <S> Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. <S> This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact. <S> The second sentence isn't clear to me: it seems to me that a "distortion of fact" maybe is a lie by definition. <S> See also e.g. Sankha's answer here for a more precise Theravada definition of lying. <S> Because I clearly don't understand the second sentence, I also don't understand the first: <S> The first might be talking about telling the truth in an acceptable way, e.g. about whether the truth is spoken gently and at the right time (which is acceptable) or harshly and at the wrong time (which is less easily accepted) <S> But it might also be talking about the opposite situations, "sugar-coating" a lie to make it seem acceptable, e.g. "I'll just tell my boss this little white lie: everyone else lies like this <S> and I have to lie too. <S> " <A> There are no sins in Buddhism, only skillful and unskillful behaviors. <S> You have to ask yourself whether the behavior causes suffering. <S> If it causes suffering you shouldn't do it. <S> Not because it is a sin, but because it causes suffering. <A> What matters is whether the lie teller has sinful intentions or not when telling the lie. <S> The precepts where never meant to be mechanically followed because we read it in the Vinaya. <S> The precepts are guidelines, not commandments. <A> Silence is not a lie. <S> Honesty is spoken. <S> If your believe in sin you do not understand self. <A> That draws the line and it gives a categorical answer to your question. <S> A lie is always best not told. <A> Honored Buddhaparisada, Good householder, interested, Telling what isn't true, to lie, means taking away what is true, stealing, harming. <S> Having harmed, what one gives, one receives. <S> But be clear that abstaining from "taking away, destroying, lie, does not require to give something. <S> Simply not taking is enough. <S> Understand the way out of doing simply wrong anyway? <S> (Note that this isnt given for trade, exchande, stacks or what ever binds one here, but to escape from this wheel, release!)
|
An Arahant is said to never deliberately tell a lie.
|
Feeling of Superiority and what to do about it? Sometimes I can see myself feeling superior to others because of what I know and they don't . I know that it is my ego which raises it head and is active at the moment. I also see persons, who are successful in profession, business, sports display show of superiority just to break the opponent's composure. Often ego needs bolstering and acknowledgement to survive the life's challenges. My question is how to achieve the balance without pampering the ego and without showing disrespect to others, by own accomplishment, knowledge, possession, gender, class etc and carry on. <Q> This is perhaps due to seeing your journey on the path as "self improvement". <S> Chögyam Trungpa wrote a book addressing this exact issue: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism that I have found to be very helpful in providing insight to this trap. <S> Ultimately, the spiritual path involves awakening the mind and eliminating ego. <S> "Bolstering" the ego may seem to help but often results in allowing the ego to use spirituality to reinforce its own power over your mind. <S> If we become successful at maintaining our self-consciousness through spiritual techniques, then genuine spiritual development is highly unlikely. <S> Our mental habits become so strong as to be hard to penetrate. <S> We may even go so far as to achieve the totally demonic state of complete "Egohood". <S> Also from this book: Retreat to nature, isolation, simple, quiet, high people-- <S> all can be ways of shielding oneself from irritation, all can be expressions of the Lord of Form. <A> One'd use the same approach to solve the problem like everything else in life: first is to get a clear understanding about the nature of that problem, then spend time to contemplate, and finally apply the proper methodology to solve it. <S> The Buddha taught about it in quite a few suttas here . <A> In his book “Further Along the Road Less Traveled: <S> Self-love Versus Self-esteem”, M. Scott Peck talks about the difference between the two. <S> In it he says that one being in love with one’s self esteem is NOT a good thing. <S> A person being in love with oneself is good. <S> It is an overall self-acceptance of who one is as a person, despite all of the foibles and faults. <S> In the scriptures - especially in the fourth chapter of the Suttanipāta <S> I it says that it is not good to even grasp/cling onto one’s sense of goodness, because such clinging only reinforces identifying with self-view. <S> It only leads to moral superiority or in other words one’s self esteem. <S> So instead we should have thoughts on the superiority of the Dhamma, as nothing excels Dhamma. <S> So even when discussing of our own experiences it is good to refer /writing in third person (writing from the third person point of view). <S> Say for example, <S> an individual who meditates inquires from a friend “How is your practice? <S> How are you doing? <S> Depending on the answer one will feel inferior, and the other will feel superior. <S> Did the result of such a conversation be beneficial to either one of them? <S> The Arahant are the only ones who have eliminated all types of conceit. <S> Not only the superiority and the inferiority complex, but the complex one of feeling equal (seyya mana, hinamana Sadisamana). <S> So if you get a chance to read M. Scott Pecks books like People of the Lie and <S> The Road Less Traveled, etc. <S> you will be able to distinguish between Narcissism and self-love. <A> I will answer honestly, with my impressions from what I've read, in translation. <S> I've read some monks <S> say that buddhism is good for the ego, but there's just no way that they can mean the competitive ego that strives to be better than others. <S> Maybe mindfulness can help with that, but the entire practice of buddhism is, like Abrahamic religion can seem to be, based on humility and respect. <S> You do have the recorded sayings of zen masters, but these are performed in a tightly knit community of monks. <S> Sure they are competing, and it is perhaps quite similar to highly aesthetic game, but the goal is found in the bodhisattva vows (to save all sentient beings through your own efforts), at near any cost. <S> In no way am I saying you don't get anything at all , but would suggest that if "what I know" is about the dharma, the best response is "no merit"; abandon some of your ideas!! <A> I practice the Zen tradition so I believe once you realise the meaning of emptiness then one is able to understand that the concepts of superiority or inferiority, are the result of the deluded mind creating separation . <S> It reminds me of the famous Bodhidarma talk with emperor Wu: <S> The emperor told Bodhidharma that he had built temples and given financial support to the monastic community, and asked the patriarch <S> how much merit he had gained for these actions. <S> Bodhidharma replied, "None whatsoever." <S> Perplexed, the emperor then asked the eminent monk who he was to tell him such things, to which he answered, "I don't know."
|
So, the first thing to investigate is to clearly understand the nature of that "feeling of superiority".
|
Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts? Killing a Buddha results in (immediate) rebirth in avici; what is the karma for cheating on your spouse? Karma is karma, but I'm asking merely because I don't think many people realise it is considered important in Buddhism. <Q> Ask yourself if the misconduct will bring about less suffering for any being. <S> Bring yourself to be honest with the person you wronged, take on their burdens. <S> Only once the suffering is forgiven will you see your true life potential Buddha nature. <A> light karma from sexual misconduct is creating enemies (someone who is delighted to see your destruction). <S> heavy karma is to be born in suffering realms (hell, animal wombs, hungry ghosts). <S> No need to have supernatural power to see this.. <S> wives, mistresses, girlfriends, husbands, boyfriends, parents of children under their custody, etc. will try to get back at cheaters. <S> I will post reference if I find the Sutta. <A> The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. <S> She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship. <S> She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male. <S> During that life he had molested young girls. <S> After his death he was born in hell. <S> He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time. <S> Next he was born a monkey. <S> Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded. <S> The wound festered. <S> The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering. <S> His ‘kamma’ was not over. <S> He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates. <S> Thereafter he was born a human being. <S> He was born a female. <S> Her mother was a low caste poor servant. <S> One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother. <S> Her life ended thus. <S> Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’. <S> Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation. <S> The Buddha taught us that one finds a faithful, loving and committed spouse as a result of their past actions. <S> But those who engaged in sexual misconduct in their past lives face results of their unwholesome actions in their present or future lives. <S> Hence, the Buddha advised us to restraint from engaging in sexual misconduct and to cultivate love and faithfulness to one’s partner.
|
Those who did not engage in sexual misconduct, and those who stayed faithful to their husbands and wives in their past lives, in turn receive loving and faithful spouses in their prospective lives.
|
The object of meditation I have been focused on the breath in meditation and I am interested in Vipassana, but I am confused about the object of meditation. I have read that you focus on the breath and as thoughts arise, you should observe them and then return to the breath and that it is the returning to the breath that increases one's mindfulness. I have also read that in Vipassana meditation, one shifts the object of meditation to the thoughts that arise and make them the object of mediation. This approach seems to be just sitting and letting your thoughts wander. Do I misunderstand the meaning of making arising thoughts the object of meditation? As it is now, I continue to make the breath the object and observe my other thoughts but generally do not pursue them, rather just categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath. <Q> In the meditation taught in the original Buddhist scriptures, the mind stays with the breath & free from thought. <S> In the original Buddhist scriptures, there is no 'shift' when vipassana is practised. <S> Instead, calmness ( samatha ) & insight ( vipassana ) are developed simultaneously. <S> The scriptures state: <S> These two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight. <S> MN 149 <S> For example, the breath arises & passes continually; a breath appears & disappears; a new breath appears, then disappears; another breath appears then disappears. <S> To see/experience clearly impermanence of breathing is vipassana. <S> To see clearly that it is the physical body that breathes (rather than the 'self' or 'I' that breathes) is also vipassana of ' not-self ' in relation to breathing. <S> ' Unsatisfactoriness ' means to see that because X breath & Y breath is impermanent; that breath cannot form the basis of or be relied on for lasting happiness (due to its fleeting impermanent nature). <S> It can also mean the impermanent nature of a breath, if clung to, will lead to suffering. <S> The ordinary distracting thoughts <S> the mind has are not really suitable for vipassana because they actually diminish awareness, clarity & discernment of the mind. <S> For the mind to practise effective 'vipassana' in relation to thought (sankhara aggregate), 'samadhi' (mental clarity & stability <S> , aka 'concentration') must ideally be very developed & pure (empty). <S> Ultimately, true 'vipassana' is 'enlightenment'. <S> It is very profound because it discerns the 'not-self' nature of the five aggregates. <S> Believing 'you' are observing 'your thoughts' or thinking 'my thoughts' are impermanent is not really vipassana because vipassana sees 'not-mine' or 'not-yours' ( anatta ) rather than 'my' or 'yours'. <S> To conclude, categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath is the right method according to the original scriptures. <S> You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. <S> What is past is left behind. <S> The future is as yet unreached. <S> Whatever phenomena/truth (dhamma) is present <S> you clearly see right there, right there. <S> Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. <S> Bhaddekaratta Sutta <A> Keep coming back to that. <S> I recommend you seek out some in-person meditation instruction - it will really help your meditation. <A> Here is a book you might be interested in. <S> It's compilation of about 30 sutta by Buddha about breathing mediation. <S> AnapanaSati per Bhudda wajana <A> Vipassana means 'seeing clearly'. <S> That means you cannot practice Vipassana , because it is the result of the practice. <S> Likewise if you practice Samatha, you don't sit down and become calm & one-pointed right away. <S> The practice and the result are not the same. <S> In order to practice Vipassana Bhavana <S> (= development of insight) you would traditionally use the instructions from the Satipatthana Sutta . <S> The foundation/object of this practice is not whatever comes up. <S> There are 4 things you should be mindful of (body, feelings, mind, mind objects). <S> All necessary instruction can be found in this guide: How to Meditate <A> There are 4 frames of reference in Vipassana <S> And what, bhikshus, is right mindfulness? <S> Here, bhikshus, a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the body in the body, removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing feelings in the feelings, removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the mind in the mind, removing covetousness and displeasure in the world; a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing dharmas in the dharmas, removing covetousness and displeasure in the world. <S> This, bhikshus, is called right mindfulness. <S> (Magga) <S> Vibhaṅga Sutta <S> To simplify it a bit more, the key is removing covetousness and displeasure in the world which appears in each instance. <S> This is by being equanimous and knowing impedance. <S> E.g. <S> If you take the body and sub section of posture. <S> Some postures may be comfortable, neutral or painful. <S> You just have to maintain equanimity and see the impermanence of the sensations. <S> [ Pacalā Sutta , Dīgha,nakha Sutta , Pahāna Sutta ]
|
The focus of this meditation is breath. In the original Buddhist scriptures, the term ' vipassana ' refers to the 'clear seeing' of the impermanent ( anicca ), unsatisfactory ( dukkha ) & not-self ( anatta ) characteristics of the five aggregates (body/breathing; feeling sensation; perception; thought/mood; sense consciousness).
|
In Buddhism what is love meant to be and how is it shown and can two people love each other? In some denominations in buddhism there is a conventional and an ultimate reality. So from the conventional point there could be, to begin with, two people so they could love each other. But in the ultimate reality there is only one, so it looks like that there aren't two people moreover there can't be love between people. But if I think about that it seems to be strange that there isn't love in buddhism. So what is love meant to be in buddhism and how could love be practised in the ultimate reality? <Q> The Piyavagga & elsewhere refer to at least three kinds of love, namely: <S> (i) <S> raga (lust); (ii) pema ; piya (affection; endearment); (iii) universal or divine love & compassion ( metta-karuna ). <S> This is similar to the three kinds of love in Greek-Christianity, namely: (i) <S> eros (lust); (ii) <S> phileo (affection); (iii) agape (self-sacrificing love). <S> People that realise the selfless ultimate reality love others with metta-karuna . <A> The Beatles sang “All you need is love” in our times. <S> Then there is another song on ‘Love’ that the celestial being, Pañcasikha, wrote to his ladylove in the time of the Buddha. <S> Pañcasikha approached the Buddha and playing on his vinā, sang of the parts of the body of his ladylove that he loves as much as the Arahants love the Dhamma. <S> The song that this Deva sang talks about both of the carnal love of passion, and of the altruistic love of the Triple Gem. <S> Our question here is how we can see this other “Love” through Dhamma. <S> The love that we project in the loving-kindness (Metta) Meditation is the true love that one exercises toward oneself and others. <S> We spread this other-worldly ‘love’ that is altruistic in nature in two ways. <S> The two methods are Appamānha Chētō Vimukkti and Mahaggata Chētō Vimukkti. <S> Loving-kindness meditation is meant to be a challenge for you to really think through as to why you would want to limit your love, and to remind yourself of why it’s good to have love for everyone. <S> In this guardian meditation, we spread love direction-wise without any limit. <S> Also we can spread loving-kindness by expanding the area of focus progressively. <S> As a person progresses deeper into Dhamma, he/she discards the false values in self, in cultivating awareness and a love that is altruistic and unselfish. <S> When a person gets into the Noble Eightfold path, he/she rises above the "fetters" (samyojana) of (1) personality view, (2) doubt, (3) clinging to rules and rituals. <S> This person is then possessed with qualities of honesty, uprightness, benevolence, altruistic joy, magnanimity, modesty and humility. <S> The negative qualities of deceit, cunning, hypocrisy, jealousy, avarice, feelings of self-importance and arrogance are not found in one who begins to walk the Noble Eightfold Path. <A> It's unconditioned in a sense, since the love is not dependent on the being (i.e. whether it's someone likeable or unlikeable), but still deals with the concept of ' beings '. <S> Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart - Metta Sutta <S> In ultimate reality there exist no beings at all (not even you exist). <S> There is only the experience of one of the 6 senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, thinking). <S> So metta would here not refer to the concept of loving other people, but rather to the state of mind that is free from defilements ( anger , greed, delusion). <S> This aspect is mentioned at the end of the Metta Sutta : <S> Not taken with views, but virtuous & consummate in vision, having subdued desire for sensual pleasures, one never again will lie in the womb. <A> Understanding love is difficult unless you are already a very loving person. <S> People who have lived through a dysfunctional or abusive family life understandably have a cynical or negative view of love. <S> That is a very tragic situation for anyone to be in. <S> But, if you want to observe someone in a very loving state, then you best observe the way a young infant loves his (or her) mother and father. <S> Concerning the Tibetan concept of sunyata, it is best learned after you learn about love. <S> For example, the Dalai Lama argues that the experience of sunyata does not deny the existence of anything. <S> To understand why he says that is another story.
|
On a conventional level metta (loving-kindness) means wishing all beings to be happy. So to your question, Love still exists, but goes beyond to a level of limitless that is difficult to fathom.
|
Is it sinful to masturbate in Bhutanese variety of Vajrayana? Is masturbation a sin in Vajrayana variety practiced in Bhutan as official state religion? When performed by non-monk, for example, adolescent boy, divorced man, as part of wider sexual practices used by partners, etc. <Q> Masturbation is not a Dharma practice, even in Secret Mantra. <A> It is not a sin for laymen. <S> Even for monks, it will become a "sin", if it's goal or end result is ejaculation, but not otherwise. <A> I get the impression that the word 'sin' is wrong when applied by a westerner toward Buddhism. <S> The 'sin' is relative and depends on context and is therefore diffused by virtue of relativity and context: and we see that the sin is in the eye of the beholder and not defined a priori as SIN. <S> The concept of God does not exist in Buddhism. <S> Sin is not really sin at all but mearly an opportunity to experience a path which may provide an excuse to change for the 'better'?.
|
The concept of sin is in and of itself a western concept and as such does not directly apply.
|
What is Zen, what are Zen beliefs, and why is it called Buddhism? Please note that i have no idea about what Zen is, and I mean no disrespect to anybody with this question. I have heard these words "Zen Buddhism", many times, and I'm curious: why it is called or attached to Buddhism, and how did it come to be? Can someone explain? <Q> 'Zen' is the Japanese name of the school of Buddhism that originated in China around the 5th century AC, called (in Chinese) <S> Chan Buddhism, and whose founder is thought to be Master Bodhidharma, an Indian monk. <S> Later, in the XIIIth century, Master Dogen introduced this species of Buddhism into Japan, where it is mostly practiced today, alongide with the USA and Europe. <S> It is a form of Buddhism because, among other things, it acknowledges the Way of the Buddha as a way to Awakening; because there is a traceable heritage that links today's Zen Masters with the historical Buddha; and because it emphasizes the practice of sitting meditation ('Zazen') as a way to achieve 'Satori', the Awakening. <S> There are various schools among the Zen tradition, but the more important today are the Soto and the Rinzai schools. <S> Each of these schools emphasizes different aspects of the Buddhist heritage, and though their ceremonies and mindsettings somewhat diverge, they converge in the emphasis they make on Zazen as a practice that provides, when constantly and earnestly taken upon, an insight into the nature of the Self and the ultimate unsubstantiality of reality. <A> I think the history is that at some point, people in China began to hear of "Buddhism". <S> From China it eventually moved/migrated to Japan (where it's called "Zen"). <S> There were/are several schools or sects in Japan. <S> My (not well-informed) impression is that an emphasis on meditation (or "sitting") might be partly in reaction/opposition to sectarian arguing over doctrine and intellectualisation. <S> As well as Japan, Zen also exists in Korea and Vietnam. <S> Some of the first Buddhists to arrive in the USA were Zen school, and "Zen" might be better known (I don't mean "well known", but known in the sense that "a lot of people will have at least heard of it") in Western popular culture than, for example, Theravada. <S> For example among the popular books on Zen that I read quite a while ago, The Three Pillars of Zen and Zen Flesh Zen Bones (both of which helped to popularize Japanese Zen). <S> One of the popular foundations in the West at the moment is Plum Village <S> whose founder is, I read, from Vietnamese Zen . <S> And to try to begin to answer "Why is it called Buddhism? <S> " there's Lineage and Dharma transmission . <S> I think that in theory or traditionally that's understood as an unbroken chain of transmission of Dharma from teacher to student, a chain going back to the earliest teachers and the Buddha himself. <S> The historical reality might be more complicated than that. <S> Even so I think there's an emphasis on studying with (learning from) a living and relatively enlightened teacher, perhaps instead of an emphasis (or an exclusive emphasis) on studying the earliest texts (e.g. the Pali suttas or the Chinese Agamas ). <S> As well as suttas there's also the Vinaya <S> which (I read) is apparently followed within some schools of Zen and not others. <A> 'Zen' is a Japanese word from the Chinese 'chaan', which is from the Sanskrit 'dhyana' & the Pali 'jhana'. <S> Zen is how Buddhism came to be after a long & centuries long journey across Asia to Japan. <S> Zen is generally included within 'Mahayana Buddhism' however, in my opinion, it is more 'Hinayana' ('individual focused') than Theravada (which has many teachings for laypeople). <A> the very thorough explanation of what Zen is:
|
Thus, 'Zen' means 'meditative absorption' & refers to a school of Buddhism with a primary focus on meditation.
|
third eye experience of mindful breathing I am practising mindful breathing and after a while it takes my concentration directly to my forehead. I tried to be in thoughtless state and just keep watching my forehead. After this practice for 2 or 3 days i feel a kind of pressure in my forehead for a day now. is this normal ? i am hesitated to continue my practice because of this. why i experience this sensation ? <Q> This sensation is being experience probably because you are deliberately focusing your intention on your forehead. <S> Your post states: <S> I tried to... <S> just keep watching my forehead. <S> If you simply let go & make the mind quiet, awareness of breathing will still occur. <S> This is because when the mind is quiet & not craving, breathing becomes the most gross or dominant sense object for the mind. <S> That is why the 8 fold path does not start with concentration but ends with concentration. <S> 'Mindfulness' means to let go of craving. <S> When the mind is quiet, it starts to 'collect' or 'gather' itself, which is the meaning of 'concentration' ('samadhi' - 'collectedness'). <A> The suttas didn't place any restriction on what area of the body one can focus on for mindfulness of breathing meditation. <S> But there're 2 areas commonly taught by most masters and widely practiced: the nostril gates or the diaphragm. <S> The nostril gates are taught in the Visuddhimagga commentary (starting from page 259). <S> If you find some discomfort during meditation, please consult your meditation master if you have one. <S> I you don't have one, make sure to closely follow the textual instruction and try switching the focus to the nostril gates to see if it helps. <A> May be that your problem lies in taking literally what your meditation master said. <S> If you find that focusing on the breath gets you distracted, the normal advice that you get is to just focus right between your eyes, or the middle of the forehead when breathing. <S> The problem comes when you stare right there literally. <S> While sitting upright, you should ‘touch’ that spot with your mind’s eye , and not strain to focus your eyes to that spot. <A> In my humble opinion, you should not be hesitant to continue - you should be happy. <S> This started happening to me yesterday, and continued today when I meditated. <S> I have a sensation in the middle of my forehead, a humming/glowing feeling. <S> As I meditated, I simply went with the flow to see what this was about. <S> I believe that it's what's called the "Third Eye" or the "Mind's Eye". <S> If you think about the way mindfulness mediation activates your brain's prefrontal cortex (please look at this article: http://www.mindful.org/how-the-brain-changes-when-you-meditate/ ) <S> it completely makes sense that we feel a tingling sensation at the center of our forehead. <S> I realized that while meditating I was sort of seeing myself from some interior position, like my 2 eyes but further in. <S> Then when I felt this third eye opening, I decided to let that be my vantage point for looking within, for viewing the chatter and the images that my mind throws about, and when I did that I felt that I made a real breakthrough in strengthening the powers of my prefrontal cortex. <S> Thinking now about the result of this, well, I can say that I have had some real progress thinking through some career issues today, and it may very well be that I have gotten more in touch with my gut instincts and deeper self-knowledge. <S> I'm no expert, this is just me. <S> I hope this is food for thought. <S> Good luck <S> Michael
|
Practising mindful breathing probably takes your concentration directly to your forehead because you are probably concentrating with your forehead. There is no need to ' concentrate ' to practise mindfulness with breathing.
|
How does extinction fit in the 12 links? I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased; that with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links. Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy? Or is that silly, like saying that the there exists the non existence of a crow's teeth? <Q> In Buddhism, there are many kinds of causation. <S> See this link about the five 'niyama' or 'laws of causation' (physical, biological, mental, moral & dhamma/spiritual). <S> The twelve links are the conditions leading to suffering; the cessation of which leads to Nirvana. <S> They are 'dhamma niyama' or 'spiritual causation'. <S> The twelve links are not mental causation (citta niyama). <S> Therefore, sense objects can be experienced without ignorance because mere sense objects (which are mental causation) are not suffering in themselves. <S> As for the other four kinds of causation, they keep rolling on (unless human life becomes extinct, which would make extinct moral causation & leave three laws of causation). <A> When you ponder, weigh, and compare the teachings of the Buddha, you have to base it on adopting the right attitude and asking the right questions about them. <S> AN 2.25 points out that some of the teachings are meant to have their meaning inferred, whereas others are not. <S> Only a Stream Entrant will be able to see this difference. <S> So you and I have a way to go. <S> If everything is impermanent and transitory, how can there be anything be present or absolute? <S> Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real independent identity (anatta) <S> so do not truly ‘exist’, though to ordinary deluded minds this appears to be the case. <S> Simply stated Dependent Origination can be said as, With this as condition, That arises. <S> With this NOT as condition, That does NOT arise. <S> This "Coming to be, and Ceasing to be" is happening all the time. <S> All phenomena are subject to this unending interaction. <S> And since all phenomena are dependent on other phenomena, they are all transient and impermanent. <S> Avidyā the first condition. <A> Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy? <S> There is only one this arisen by casue - Nirvana. <S> Everything else is asien due to a case. <S> Sense objects, sense faculties and contact and the sensation that follows are also arise by cause. <S> Sense faculties cease when you are in Nirvana. <S> with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links. <S> Nirvana is when you break out of the vicious cycle so it cannot be part of the dependent origination. <S> I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased; As long as you do not understand the 4 Noble Truths. <S> You have Ignorance. <S> This asies at the point of contact. <S> When you contact an object you feel a sensation and perceive the object not inline with its true nature and react with craving or aversion. <S> How to break Ignorance at this point is to be aware of the true nature (arising and passing) of the experience keeping you mind firmly equanimous.
|
The only absence of causation is Nirvana, when the twelve links stop creating suffering.
|
How to practice Mindfulness Meditation? I have been researching this lately and thought it was amazing. I just don't know where to begin or know any techniques. Can someone list some? <Q> The word 'mindfulness' means ' to remember ' or ' keep in mind '. <S> In the context of Buddhism, it means 'to remember' to practise the factors of the eightfold path. <S> For example, if you are speaking/talking, you remember to speak in a manner that is honest, pleasant/gentle, cordial & beneficial. <S> This is practising mindfulness meditation when meditating upon speech. <S> Therefore, in formal sitting meditation, how to practise mindfulness meditation is to sit without desire or worry & just sit with natural quiet. <S> When this is done properly, awareness of breathing will arise naturally as a sign of right mindfulness & later pleasant feelings will arise as a sign of right mindfulness. <A> You won't learn this one from books, only by trying out and practicing it. <S> The practice is to go beyond concepts like <S> Now I'm meditating , <S> this is good, bad, me, mine... and focus on the raw experience which is present. <S> If you sit down to start meditating with the intention to be mindfull you might have the feeling <S> Now I'm meditating , but in reality all you do is change postures. <S> You should have some basic instructions, but don't get into theory too much. <S> It won't help you, it will only reinforce your opinions and ideas. <S> I'd suggest to get to know the framework of Right Mindfulness , which are body, feelings, mindstates, mindobjects ( dhamma ). <S> The original teaching from the Buddha himself: Satipatthana Sutta: <S> The Foundations of Mindfulness A more practical guide from Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo (the noting technique): How to Meditate <A> Recently I m reading a dharma book (The Chinese Version), which 25 great beings demonstrated how they practiced mindfulness meditation. <S> The winner is: Guan Shi Yin Bodhisattva practices on hearing: http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama5/shurangama5_12.asp <S> You might be interested to have a read of above link as well as 24 other practices. <S> May you be happy and at ease <A> Try starting with accesstoinsight.org , Jon Kabat Zinn , Joseph Goldstein , Google Search Inside Yourself . <A> How about The Bhante Yuttadhammo channel on YouTube? <S> He has a lot of useful videos but check out "How to Meditate" for beginners. <S> His online videos are beginner to intermediate on much more than only mindfulness and he gives meditation courses from beginner to advanced. <S> The teachers below teach about the same way as Bhante Yuttadhammo and are very beginner friendly: <S> Joseph Goldstein, Bhante Bodhidhamma, <S> Gil Fronsdal <S> Just Google one of the above names in quotes and add "Dhamma talks" <S> There's a Youtuber called "Stephen Proctor" who gives outstanding beginning teachings on mindfulness meditation in my opinion. <S> Has anyone else heard of him? <S> Is it just me or can this guy really teach or what? <S> These teachers practice the same way I try to practice <S> but there are a lot of good teachers who might have a different approach. <A> The detail of the practice is outlined in Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta , but these instruction maybe difficult to follow for a beginner. <S> Best is to take a course in it. <S> 2 organisations with a reasonably wide outreach are: http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/ and http://www.dhamma.org or alternatively look for a teacher in World Buddhist Directory .
|
If practising formal sitting meditation, mindfulness is to remember to keep the mind in state that does not have desire for or get distressed about anything in the world.
|
How do i Focusing on the breath and letting thought go Now this may sound silly but I'm new to mediating and I hear that when you have a thought you just let it go. But if I'm focusing on the breath do I go off it, accept that I'm thinking then go back to the breath or just stay on the breath and if I get distracted go right back to it and not even focus on my thoughts? <Q> You should stay with the breath as much as you can. <S> You only have to 'let go' of something after you have 'picked it up'. <S> Therefore, if you have not picked up (attached to) <S> the thought, you do not need to let it go. <S> Instead, just stay with the breathing & let the thought float by & away. <S> This method develops both samatha (calmness) & vipassana (insight). <A> When you are distracted (which is natural) you return to the breathing. <S> The objective is to maintain a state of objectivity. <S> The key is not to avoid distraction but to not get involved with it. <S> By maintaining a state of objectivity, you automatically engage your Bodhicitta. <S> Later on, the Bodhicitta will become more conscious and become something like "focusing" as defined by Eugene Gendlin. <A> This article, “Generosity First” by Thanissaro Bhikkhu will help you IMO. <S> If you take to heart what he says and follow it to the letter, then, ... <S> this confidence is what allows you to overcome a lot of the initial difficulties: the distractions, the pain. <S> At the same time, the spaciousness that comes from generosity gives you the right mindset for the concentration practice, gives you the right mindset for insight practice—because when you sit down and focus on the breath, what kind of mind do you have? <S> The mind you’ve been creating through your generous and virtuous actions.
|
Mindfulness of breathing consists of paying attention to the sensation of breathing at the nose. Therefore, if a thought arises & it will just float away, then let the thought float away; like it is a passing visitor.
|
Is it possible for a human being to live without the mind? If a human being consists of two parts as mind and body, is it then possible to live without mind? Appreciate your ideas. <Q> To answer this question accurately is very difficult if you are not a scientist but often people have accidents that results in them being in a coma for an extended period, where their physical body is alive but their mind is not conscious. <S> If the mind is not conscious at all here then that physical body is living without mind (however from a Buddhist perspective, this is probably not a "human" living since, in Buddhism, <S> the word translated as "human" means to have a reflective & wise mind). <S> Also, there is a meditation state where the mind becomes unconscious, called 'the cessation of perception & feeling'. <S> This meditative state is compared to a dead body, where even breathing cannot be felt yet the 'life force' or 'vitality' of the body & heat remain. <S> For example, in the Buddhist scriptures, there are stories about monks that enter into the meditation state of 'the cessation of perception & feeling' & people watch them meditating (not moving) under a tree for many days, <S> believe they are dead & try to bury or cremate them. <S> Therefore, it appears it is possible to that a 'human' can live without mind. <S> What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time; and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception &feeling? <S> In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabricator (breathing)... <S> his verbal fabricator (thinking)... <S> his mental fabricator (perception & feeling) have ceased & subsided, his vitality isexhausted, his heat subsided & his (five sense) faculties (eye, ears, nose, tongue & body nervous system) are scattered. <S> But inthe case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception &feeling, his bodily fabricator... <S> his verbalfabricator ... <S> his mental fabricators have ceased & subsided, hisvitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided & his (five sense) facultiesare exceptionally clear (pure). <S> This is the difference between one who isdead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained thecessation of perception & feeling. <S> Mahavedalla Sutta <A> So I would argue that you can't live without the mind. <A> Mind is Vinnana and is one of the very basic six elements (Dhatu) that constitute you and me. <S> What would it be if we take out this ‘Mind’ element? <S> Viññāna as dhatu or elements, are divided into 7 classes:cakkhu-vinnana-dhatu = <S> cakkhu-vinnanadvi. <S> They depend on cakkhu-vatthu for their arising. <S> (eyes)sota-vinnana-dhatu = sota-vinnanadvi. <S> They depend on sota-vatthu for their arising. <S> (ears)ghana-vinnana-dhatu = ghana-vinnanadvi. <S> They depend on ghana-vatthu for their arising. <S> (nose)jivha-vinnana-dhatu = jivha-vinnanadvi. <S> They depend on jivha-vatthu for their arising. <S> (tongue)kaya-vinnana-dhatu = kaya-vinnanadvi. <S> They depend on kaya-vatthu for their arising. <S> (body)mano-dhatu = panca-dvaravajjana and sampaticchanadvi. <S> They depend on hadaya-vatthu for their arising. <S> (mind) <S> Mind is Vinnana and is one of the four type of food that is required for our survival. <S> What would it be if we take out this ‘survival’ factor – the Nutriment of Consciousness (Vinnana Ahara)? <S> There are six classes of consciousness. <S> When eye and forms are both present, eye consciousness arises dependent on them. <S> Similarly when ear and sounds are present, ear consciousness arises dependent on them <S> ; nose and smells are present, nose consciousness arises dependent on them; tongue and tastes are present, tongue consciousness arises dependent on them; body and tactile objects are present, body consciousness arises dependent on them; mind and mental objects are present, mind consciousness arises dependent on them. <S> This is a cause which results in the our existence. <A> When I was about 17 years old, my grandmother told me she would sometimes suddenly come out of her body. <S> I was thinking that in all the time I had lived with my grandmother as a child, I never seen her fall unconscious or anything. <S> She told me that was because her body would never loose consciousness when she went out of it. <S> She would feel "herself" or her "mind" hovering above her body <S> but the body was still walking and talking. <S> Apparently, a lot of the time when my grandmother was lucid and holding intellegent conversations with me and everyone else, she wasn't even in her body! <S> I don't claim to know if this means there actually was no mind in her body <S> but I thought it might be worth mentioning nonetheless.
|
Without the mind the human body dies, there are many case of people in comas, but in cases where there is absolutely no brain activity these people are kept 'alive' using life support.
|
What is the difference between Enlightenment and Nibbana? Is there a difference between Enlightenment and Nibbana? <Q> Enlightenment is the insight knowledge that cuts through & extinguishes the mind's defilements (cravings) of greed, hatred or delusion. <S> Nibbana is final peace or coolness that is experienced after the 'fires' of greed, hatred & delusion have been extinguished. <S> Enlightenment is the cause which allows (the pre-existing but hidden) <S> Nibbana to be experienced. <S> This process is described in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta Seeing (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) <S> thus , the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. <S> Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate . <S> Through dispassion, he is fully released . <S> With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' <S> The 'seeing thus' is enlightenment. ' <S> Becoming dispassionate' (end of craving) is Nibbana. ' <S> Fully released' is liberation (which is also Nibbana). <A> The real problem is that both concepts are poorly defined in the Pali Canon. <S> If you are a Westerner, then you want a more psychologically sophisticated answer. <S> After 50 years of mindfulness practice, I only offer the following answer: Enlightenment or nibbana can be viewed as that fullest possible attunement with the Bodhicitta, which is an innate and ancient intelligence that has developed within you and is the product of a long evolution of intelligent consciousness that is deeply loving. <S> Complicated? <S> Absolutely. <S> But an intellectual definition won't help much anyway. <S> However, the mindfulness of breathing allows your Bodhicitta to function (if only unconsciously at first). <S> More advanced forms of mindfulness meditation are somewhat like "focusing" as defined Eugene Gendlin. <A> Enlightenment is a translation of the Pali word Nibbana. <S> They are supposed to mean the same thing.
|
The knowedge 'fully released' is enlightenment, in clearly knowing the end of craving is Nibbana.
|
Should I meditate on one thing or just any sensation that arise? As I research I am hearing people say pick a single point and focus on that. Then I hear other say you should just focus on the sensation that arise in your body. Personal one point focusing is much easier and I often get distract on if I should focusing only on the breath or move it to the inch on my leg or the numbness from sitting. Most people from the east that I hear say single point focusing more western meditator that hear say focusing on different sensation. Which is it? <Q> When the mind is calm, it can also develop insight. <S> Meditating upon one thing helps establish equanimity (calmness). <S> The main practise in the teachings of the Buddha is to establish the mind on knowing when the body breathes in & when the body breathes out. <S> In does not matter where this knowing of breathing in & breathing out is established. <S> The knowing can be in a small area, such as the nostrils, nose-tip & upper lip. <S> Or the knowing can be in a larger area, such as the abdomen; or even a larger area, from the nostrils, throat, chest to abdomen (stomach). <A> You should find a teacher and follow their method. <S> There are two meditation branches, namely Samatha and Vipassana, in general the former developes great concentration whilst the second developes insight into the nature of things. <A> I think what you described is foundation of mindfulness (2 out of 4 in your question). <S> My reccomendation is to study satipatthana sutta first. <S> Buddha said we may focus on one of : mindfulness of the body; (breath is form of body) <S> mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā); mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta); and. <S> mindfulness of dhammās <A> Buddhist meditation practices can be broadly divided into Samatha and Vipassana. <S> For more information on them see this question and this explanation . <S> Vipassana meditation is mainly based on the Satipatthana Sutta which describes four foundations of mindfulness, namely: Mindfulness of Body Mindfulness of Feelings Mindfulness of Consciousness Mindfulness of Mental Objects <S> Generally agreed view is that Samatha helps to develop concentration required to develop insight - which is knowing the three marks of existence impermanence, suffering and non-self based on mindfulness. <S> Although mindfulness of breath is fairly simple and one could practice it by watching online videos or reading online, technique of Vipassana is quite complex and requires special guidance from teacher. <S> One of the many available options would be 10 day retreat at one of the meditation centers established in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin and as taught by Ven S. N. Goenka. <S> You could register for a course near you at Dhamma.org <A> As I understand it, there are different techniques within meditation. <S> The one-pointed focussing technique is one, the letting things arise is another. <S> They are useful for different things. <S> One pointed focus will help develop equanimity and concentration, while letting things arise is good for insight. <S> Often a meditation teacher will try and guide you through different processes over time, and when you have a teacher it is best to follow their sequence. <S> If you don't have a teacher, mindfulness of the breath is a good place to start. <S> This is a technique which can be begun very simply by just sitting and focussing on the breath, but can be extended by taking account of correct sitting and becoming more aware of the breath's subtleties. <S> YouTube carries a number of good guides.
|
The main objective of meditation is to maintain a mind of equanimity (calmness). So when you ask, which is it, there is no hard and fast answer, it depends on what you are trying to do.
|
In what ways you advance on the path ? In what ways you advance on the path? is it by lowering the hindrances ? or your ability to notice them ? you get a greater ability to not attach and let go ? im trying to understand in what ways we advance - i mean before becoming a sotapanna what do you improve throw meditation and if you answer for example : " you have less ill will your less angry" do you mean we lower the anger levels - if so how - did i remove existing anger "seeds" or did i improve my ability to notice and let go of anger - and if so is this an ability which builds up from meditaiton to meditation ? i would appreciate everything you can expand on the subject of advancing in the path <Q> The path is lead by right view, which is wisdom. <S> Each hindrance is the drive/motivation to do harm or enslave. <S> Therefore, to advance on the path, it is ideal that wisdom investigate each hindrance & examine why its motive is harmful &/or enslaving. <S> If the mind is not a slave to hindrances, to enter sotapanna the mind must have the selflessness to 'let go'. <S> Sotapanna will not be entered with force or will power. <S> It will be entered by dropping ego & self. <S> For some people who are very ethical or harmless, dropping the self can be difficult because it can be like 'dying' existentially. <S> For example, if you live in society, you can find somewhere, like some bushland or empty beach, to meditate alone a few nights a week. <A> The “Thayodhamma Sutta” in the Anguttara Nikaya tells you how to go about it, @breath. <S> It explain in full why and how to practice the spiritual life. <S> Specifically this sutta describes what you should avoid or irradiate in order to achieve Nibbana. <S> Thayo means Three – so it is abandoning three things at a time towards Path Fruition. <S> To abandon 1. <S> Birth 2. <S> Old age 3. <S> Death <S> You have to abandon: 1. <S> Greed (passion); 2. <S> Hatred; 3. <S> Delusion <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Personality view; 2. <S> Doubt; 3. <S> Rituals and observances. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Drowsiness of the mind; 2. <S> Following the wrong path; 3. <S> Unwise attention. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Unmindfulness (wrong mindfulness); 2. <S> Unawareness; 3. <S> Mental distraction. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Dislike to see the noble ones; 2. <S> Dislike to hear the noble teachings; 3. <S> Fault-finding mind. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Conceit; 2. <S> Unrestraint; 3. <S> Immorality. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Lack of confidence; 2. <S> Dislike to listen to others; 3. <S> Laziness. <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Unfriendliness; 2. <S> Disobedience; 3. <S> Bad Friends (Asathpurisa Sevanaya). <S> To abandon the above three you have to abandon: 1. <S> Shamelessness; 2. <S> Fearlessness; 3. <S> Non-diligence. <A> A good first step to advancing on the path is by increasing one's mindfulness. <S> Motivation and meditation are sufficient to do that, and this will start to show you specific instances where you are encountering hindrances or could do better. <S> For example, if you are walking impatiently and end up continually advancing in front of a friend rather than walking side by side with him, mindfulness may show you that you are doing this because of impatience to reach a goal, a desire for that goal, and clinging as well as a tendency to live in the future, rather than the present. <S> Mindfulness is a powerful tool at many stages along the path, it will show you many sides of yourself, details of your own reactions, the hidden parts of your nature that we usually don't get to see. <S> It is a key factor for early advancement on the path. <S> In terms of the seeds, my understanding is that it depends on which ones we "water". <S> The nutrients we take in, be they newspapers, movies or actual food, can feed our store of seeds. <S> So you can choose to feed a seed of anger or a seed of calmness, which may help you to stay detached when anger comes to visit.
|
Therefore, a good way to advance on the path is to focus on being a harmless & unselfish person and to also abide regularly in solitude so existential fear can be overcome.
|
Breath mediation during daily acvities Is it possible to do breath meditation during daily activities ? <Q> Mindfulness and Awareness is not a concept only to be practiced during Meditation. <S> Practicing Mindfulness and Awareness during the day, with Parents, Teachers, Customers ... and all other Beeings is a powerfull and healthy practice. <S> It is a tremendous challenge, <S> The Buddha spoke of the power of mindfulness in a very emphatic way: <S> Mindfulness, I declare, is all-helpful. <S> SAMYUTTA, <S> 46:59 and <S> All things can be mastered by mindfulness. <S> ANGUTTARA, 8:83 and <S> Further, there is that solemn and weighty utterance opening and concluding the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness: <S> This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of pain and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely the four foundations of mindfulness. <S> See THE POWER OF MINDFULNESS and A Guide to Awareness <S> There is no sense in not beeing mindfull and aware during your carmic activities, you know Buddhism ... <S> it is not all about your breath, it is all about your awareness and mindfullness during the day, the week. <S> If you feel you need more help, teaching or instructions, look for a good teacher with a solid reputation and established traditions along a respectable linage. <S> Addendum: <S> Perhaps the publication Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice is of some aid and section <S> OTHER DAILY ACTIVITIES a good introduction. <A> It is possible but as there are a lot of types of breath meditation it may not be possible to do your type. <S> If you do breath meditation for samatha remember that the point is to develop calm, the point isn't to see how long your can focus on your breath. <S> So if you have to focus on your task a bit that's not a bad thing as long as you do it calmly. <S> If what you are doing is a simple task you can largely be aware of your breath while you do the action in the background. <S> Compared to sitting in a quiet room, during daily activities there is a lot going on and your attention is probably jumping from a sight to a sound to a smell and then to another sight. <S> Some people use this to observe impermanence; as you inhale notice the sense arising in your awareness, as you exhale notice how what you are aware of has changed. <A> Gathas can be helpful for increasing awareness of daily activities and breathing. <S> They are short practice verses/poems read silently while we synchronize the reading with our breathing. <S> For example: (Breathing in) Washing the dishes is like bathing the baby Buddha; (Breathing out) <S> The the everyday is the sacred, the mundane is the profound <S> You can find more practice poems here and in the book "Present Moment, Wonderful Moment - Mindfulness Verses for Daily Living" by Thich <S> Nhat Hanh
|
If you are doing a complicated task then you'll have to put a lot of attention on the task but keep an awareness of the breath in the background which you can frequently go back to momentarily to remind you of equanimity, in that way the breath is like a refuge.
|
How do you know if you have attained Nibbana? You read the suttas, understand their meaning, and put the teachings into practice. At the end of the day, how do you know if you have attained Nibbana? I think this is an important question because Nibbana is the ultimate goal and you need to know if you have finally reached the end. <Q> If the mind has reached final Nirvana, nothing in the whole world can bother it and make it suffer. <S> The mind will completely cleansed of greed, lust, anger, hatred, irritation, delusion, attachment, fear, worry, hurt, sorrow, self-view, etc. <A> Simple answer: <S> They see that there is no greed, anger or delusion arising in the mind anymore. <S> Long answer <S> : You might wonder how someone can know they have no greed, it is possible that they haven't experienced greed for several months <S> but they are not yet free from greed. <S> To answer this I think you have to ask a more basic question first: How does an enlightened know anything? <S> or What does it mean for an enlightened being to know something? <S> Imagine that an enlightened person is looking at a bird in a tree and the thought arises "There is a bird", now we might say that they "know" that there is a bird. <S> They make use of this information and scatter some seed for the bird to eat. <S> But perhaps they had poor eyesight and the bird was actually a brown leaf, when they see that it is a leaf they do not suffer because they knew that the sight of the bird was impermanent and they didn't attach significance to it. <S> They also knew that the thought "There is a bird" is something which just arises and passes, they didn't insist that the idea had to be true, if they had insisted that the bird existed then they would have suffered. <S> Despite this they were still able to use the information and scatter some seed. <S> Likewise, if somebody is enlightened and they see evidence for nibbana (such as a year passing without greed, anger or delusion) then they have thoughts like "This mind is awakened" arising. <S> They don't insist that these thoughts are true- just like the bird. <A> Nibbāna is a state of 'deathlessness' (amata)- the "unconditioned". <S> “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” (Majjhima Nikaya 2.265; SN 5.9). <S> It is "bhavanirodha” ( <S> The cessation of becoming / "subjugation of becoming"). <S> Nibbāna is “no longer coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", It is "liberation (vimutta)". <S> When a person who has realized Nibbāna dies, his death is referred as his pari-Nibbāna, his fully passing away. <S> What happens to a person after his PariNibbāna cannot be explained, as it is outside of all conceivable experience. <S> A definition of Nibbāna can only be approximated by what it is not. <S> It is not the clinging existence with which man is afflicted. <S> It is not becoming. <S> It has no origin or end. <S> It is not fabricated. <S> It has no dualities. <S> It cannot be described in words. <S> It is not conditioned on or by anything else. <S> In SN43:14 <S> it is said: “the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging, the stable, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated, the peaceful, the deathless , the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge...” <S> Calling Nibbāna <S> the "opposite" of samsāra or implying that it is apart from samsāra is doctrinally incorrect. <S> It is probably best to understand the relationship between Nibbāna and samsara in terms of the Buddha while on earth. <S> Buddha was both in Samsara while having attained to Nibbāna so that he was seen by all, and simultaneously free from samsara.
|
Nibbāna is not a place nor a state, it is an absolute truth to be realized, and a person can do so without dying.
|
jhānas, Zen, and how to practice concentration meditation I've read about the jhānas which one can experience from concentration (samatha) meditation. I have been practicing some form of mindfulness, breathing meditation, but have not experienced a state of absorption that is characteristic of the jhānas. I know that the jhānas cannot be experienced only by reading about them, however, the insight from my meditation practice alone has not brought me to them. From my perspective as a novice practitioner, it makes sense to look to the Zen (derived from the word dhyāna ) branch of Buddhism for guidance on the subject of meditation : In the process of deepening meditation, one can roughly identify three distinct stages: the stage of concentration, the stage of meditation, and the stage of absorption. This dualistic relationship is broken gradually as the practitioner moves into the stage of meditation. The ego-conscious activity is gradually lessened, and the barriers it set up for itself will gradually be removed. When the practitioner enters the stage of absorption, the dualistic framing of the mind will be removed such that the mind starts structuring itself non-dualistically. There will be no separation or distancing between an object of the mind and the activity of the mind itself. I don't have the budget for every book on Zen Buddhism, but I have read all the Zen books on Kindle Unlimited (the content is mostly history, terminology, and sitting accessories). What books are there that go into depth on Zen/samatha meditation practice? <Q> A true Jhana master, Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw: <S> Breakthrough inSAMATHA MEDITATION Knowing and Seeing (4th revised edition) <S> And if you can purchase this book, I highly recommend it: Practicing the Jhanas: <S> Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw <S> It's written by actual students of the Venerable Pa Auk, who actually succeeded in developing the Jhanas: very clear and concise, with practical advice. <A> Ajahn Brahm wrote a book about jhana called 'Mindfulness, Bliss & Beyond'. <S> It is 291 pages long. <S> The first 65 pages are at this link . <S> The method in this book emphasizes 'letting go' & is thus similar to many Zen teachings, such as the Xinxin Ming . <S> While I have not read it, a well-known book on Xinxin Ming is Faith in Mind by Master Sheng-Yen. <A> There are some great ressources around, some I frequently relay on are: The Buddha Net file Library on Zen, Chan The Buddha Net e-book Library on Meditation Zen Buddhism <S> WWW Virtual Library <S> But my advise will be, look for a Zen Sangha and learn to practice by a good teacher. <S> EDIT: <S> Since you ask: Which readings would you suggest for the purpose of concentration meditation? , start with; Wikipedia: Dhyāna in Chan Buddhism and see also the footnotes, Commercial, i.e. not free of charge: <S> Sit: <S> Zen Teachings of Master Taisen Deshimaru Zen Training: Methods and Philosophy <S> A Guide to Zen: <S> Lessons from a Modern Master <S> The Three Pillars of Zen Japanese Zen sites of different lineages: From Rinzai-Obaku Zen <S> As expressed in the famous description of Zen attributed to Bodhidharma, “A special transmission outside the scriptures, not relying on words and letters <S> / Direct pointing to the human mind, <S> seeing one’s true nature and attaining Buddhahood,” the essential standpoint of the Zen school is not to depend on words and letters. <S> Nevertheless, it does regard the study and chanting of sacred texts as an important part of Zen practice. <S> The texts and sutras most often used in Zen temples are the following: Links to Text From Soto Zen <S> Basic <S> Key Terms of Soto Zen Teaching <S> A great many people are now practicing zazen in the Japanese Soto Zen Buddhist tradition outside Japan. <S> But, because the tradition is so new in other lands, their practice may not always firmly based on a good understanding of the teaching. <S> Before we begin practice, we need some clarity about what we are doing and why we are doing it that way. <S> We need accurate background knowledge and a good understanding of ideas about the nature of zazen so that we can practice properly and skillfully. <S> We should not start blindly. <S> Otherwise our practice would likely go astray and get lost. <S> Links to Text <S> On both sites find some how to's and or chapters about Practice . <A> He comes at it from a Rinzai perspective. <S> John Daido Loori presents a very solid introduction to samatha from the Soto school in his Art of Just Sitting . <S> Neither author ever explicitly describes the jhanas in quite the same way as the Theravada canon does. <S> Still, even if they aren't explicit, the techniques both authors describe can be employed to reach everything up to and including the second jhana. <S> After all, there aren't all that many ways you can riff on one-pointed concentraton! <S> Beyond that, I'd recommend either turning to the Pali suttas, the Visuddhimagga, or any of the many jhana manuals that are currently available. <S> No Zen teacher or text that I'm aware of discusses techniques like the abandonment of rapture (piti) which is essential for moving into the third jhana. <S> This isn't to say that such texts don't exist, however. <S> It just means I haven't read them! <S> ;-) <S> But to be blunt, it doesn't make much sense to me to go digging in Zen for what's extremely well described elsewhere. <S> The Elder tradition did a great job documenting these states. <S> Might as well read what they have to say! <A> Right concentration (Samma Samadhi) is what you call jhana. <S> Right concentration then develop into directed thought and evaluation. <S> Directed thought is when you keep your thoughts on one topic. <S> Thinking of the breath or focusing on the breath, and being inquisitive will lead one to directed thought and evaluation, two of the factors of jhana. <S> If you would read the article <S> “The Steps of Breath Meditation” you will see that: ...as you let go, say, of the directed thought and evaluation of the first jhana, releasing yourself from the burden of those factors as you move into the second jhana, and so on through the different levels of concentration. <S> As you do this, you begin to see how much those levels of concentration are willed. <A> I want to add that I disagree that looking into Zen is the best place to learn about the jhānas. ' <S> Jhāna' is a Pāli word and jhānas are most systematically talked about in Theravada traditions. <S> In my admittedly limited experience with Zen, they do not talk about jhāna except to discourage it in some cases.
|
Zen Training by Katsuki Sekida offers a thorough introduction to the practice of samatha meditation in Zen practice. It is important to begin the practice with an understanding of the basic principles and underlying teaching behind what we will be doing.
|
Awareness in the body : ticklish/tingling feeling I'm trying to anchor my awareness while sitting at the desk. When bringing awareness to the body , I'm getting a tickling/tingling in the body . So to make it bearable I'm trying to move attention to different body parts and it keeps following too. So unable to hold awareness in the body for a long time. Is there any advice/guide on this ? <Q> In your efforts to anchor awareness, it sounds like you are suppressing the (mental) tension stored in your physical body (which will arise into your awareness if meditating). <S> Balance your effort. <S> At regular intervals, take your foot off the accelerator; ease off the throttle. <A> Try to wear clothes loose and soft. <S> If they restrict blood flow or put pressure on nerves, you will feel like scratching, or feeling tingling numbness. <S> Don't wear tight pants or pants made of thick material. <S> Take your shoes off and if your socks are thick and binding, take them off, too. <S> Getting itches or feeling other sensations like tingling, or feeling of lightness or a floating sensation are some of the common ones. <S> It is because, as relaxation sets in, the nervous system begins to pass sensory signals more efficiently. <S> They are sensory data that were kept blocked before. <S> When the body gets relaxed or more aware, it gives rise to these unique sensations. <S> So try to see it as just sensation. <S> If you are practicing awareness, make it a part of the practice. <S> Just observe as to how it come up and watch it pass away. <S> The main thing is not to get involved. <S> Keep your distance, and just observe. <S> Even if you don't feel at ease, or you can't relax, try to just observe it, without letting it rule you. <S> Let those feelings arise and look at them mindfully. <S> If you just sit still and observe your agitations, they will eventually pass. <S> They come and they go. <S> They have no real grip on you at all. <A> The tingling sensation may be used to restless worry. <S> You can just look at the sensation knowing its impermanence. <S> More on this see this answer .
|
Relax your facial muscles & take an out-breath or let go of some out-breathes. Try not to get too excited about it. People experience all kinds of varied phenomena when trying to practice awareness / meditation. If you are experiencing tickling / tingling sensations ticklish feeling, then first check on the clothes you wear.
|
Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening? Specifically, I am wondering if it is better to meditate at 7am or 7pm (even though doing both would be ideal). <Q> The number of times or the time of day depends on the type of meditation that you do. <S> If it is ‘Loving Kindness Meditation, it is good to do it for even a couple of minutes both morning, noon and night. <S> That is what Ajaan Mun did as told to us by Thanissaro Bhikku. <S> He said that, Ajaan Mun spread thoughts of goodwill to all living beings three times a day: in the morning when he woke up, in the afternoon when he woke up from his nap, and at night before he went to sleep. <S> In this way, the desire for goodwill, the desire for true happiness, framed his practice. <S> The best time to meditate is when you are not sleepy or drowsy or weighed down by the food. <S> It can be in the morning or the evening. <S> Most of the meditation practices that have become popular today are not in line with the Dhamma. <S> Some ‘so-called teachers’ would erroneously advice a student of mediation to note in your mind, “pain, pain”, when you feel pain in some part of your body during meditation. <S> For them it is vedananupassana – contemplation on feeling. <S> Then your mind goes astray, they will get you to note “going, going”. <S> Some view it as cittanupassana – the contemplation of mind. <S> Likewise if sleepy, to note “sleepy, sleepy”, and, if a desire or agitation come to pass, to note “desire, desire”, or “agitation, agitation”. <S> This to them is dhammanupassana – <S> the contemplation of mind objects. <S> These are incorrect practices that people are being taught as meditation. <S> So it is not the time of the day as we do not know the nature of each individual. <S> But no one should develop the idea of doing meditation in a hurry. <S> Your goal should be to develop mindfulness, and not doing it in a hurry. <S> So if you are more relaxed and have more time in the evening then that is the best time. <S> Then do it little at a time and generate mindfulness. <S> If too distracted or restless, then that is the time to stop. <S> After generating mindfulness in that manner you will realize that you can maintain the object of meditation without becoming sleepy or without allowing the mind to get dispersed. <S> Thereafter gradually increase the duration. <A> My experience is that if your day job is demanding morning meditation is better, you won't feel so tired and are less likely to fall asleep. <S> I also used enjoy sitting in the midst of all the morning sounds, the birds singing, the bin men collecting the bins, people rushing off to work. <A> Even for the same individual this may change from period to period. <S> So it is vise to divide the session into two parts. <S> Also more defilements gather when there are longer gaps. <S> So 1 hour in the morning and one in the evening / night is the minimum. <S> This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. <S> Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. <S> Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. <S> Meditate <S> one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. <S> This regular, daily practice is essential. <S> At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. <S> Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. <S> Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. <S> When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. <S> As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation. <S> ... <S> When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. <S> Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. <S> These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful. ... <S> Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. <S> If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. <S> You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. <S> In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana. <S> Source: <S> The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka <A> The correct answer of course is: it depends. <S> The whole point of doing meditation is to become more aware of yourself, your thoughts, your body, your emotions. <S> Also being aware is something you can do all the time by just watching and controlling your breath.
|
So while meditating on a regular basis is a good idea I'd do it when you have the most time and are not in a rush. For certain individuals they may be alert more in the morning and others during the night.
|
What are the benefits of caring parents? The Dhamma says that not helping parents is evil and preaches to take care of the elderly parents. What can be some positive outcomes the children will get by helping the parents? <Q> The Buddha says that there are two people that you can never repay, no matter what you do. <S> They are your mother and your father. <S> Again the Buddha said that there is one way that you can repay for all what they have done. <S> That is to establish them in this Dhamma Path. <S> It is not an easy task, as we are all full of defilements that muddy the waters and prevent us from seeing this path. <S> So if they’re stingy for example, then you can try to find some way to influence them to be more generous. <S> If they are not the type to observe the five precepts, then you could try to get them to be more virtuous, to have more principles in their lives. <S> You can gain merits that will help pave the way to your own Dhamma path, if you could help introduce your parents to the practice of Dhamma. <S> Try to do it in as diplomatic a way as possible. <S> Most parents resent their children who try to tell them what is right or wrong. <S> That is why you will have to find some means of doing this in an indirect way. <S> If they are not into Dhamma, try not to say that this is a Buddhist thing. <S> That is how SN Goenka thought Vipassana Meditation to the Westerners. <S> Only later that they get to know that this is the Noble Eightfold Path that their Master is leading them to. <A> Helping parents engages the mind in the moral ' right view ' of knowing what has been received as benefaction (gift; sacrifice) from one's parents & one's resultant reciprocal obligations (good actions to be performed). <S> This is called ' katannukatavedi ' ('gratitude'), namely, ' what others do for me; what I must do in return '. <S> The Pali scriptures state: <S> And what is the right view ...siding with goodness... <S> ‘There is gift, offerings, sacrifice [from] ...mother & father. <S> There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. <S> There is this world & the other worlds. <S> There are spontaneously born beings (sattā opapātikā)...’ <S> MN 117 <S> Having this 'right view' of ' katannukatavedi ' also helps develop skillful means in the other relationships in life & can also help develop the higher Noble Eightfold Path because 'giving up' ( vossagga ) selfishness is a primary factor for developing meditation & the Noble Eightfold Path. <S> When having such right view, the mind spontaneously arises in the 'human' (wise) or 'humane' (compassionate) state. <S> All people age, start dying & experience loss and those with wrong view generally are not able to cope with their own inevitable aloneness, old age & imminent death. <S> The above said, sometimes parents can be very stubborn, even to the point of death, therefore we should not always expect we can help our parents, as we would like. <A> looking for benefits is like doing business. <S> To the society you become role model. <S> Don't expect anything in return from your loved one's.
|
When ever you care or help your parents or others who cannot help in return, As per bhagavad gita, krishna said you will get more energy and inner peace. If parents are not helped, when required, the mind is spontaneously born in the 'animal kingdom' (of ignorance & immorality) & probably eventually in 'hell' (suffering) due to wrong view.
|
Will earth become a planet without Humans? lets imagine that in all the human in earth become Arhant, so after their death they will not born again (i mean all of the humans). after this will new humans born or Not, will earth become a planet without Humans ? <Q> Definitly, As per science when there is a start, there must be end. <S> Even our galaxy will expire. <S> you can take example of anything in this world, nothing is permanent. <A> Not if , my dear friend, when . <S> Suffering will always exist. <S> It is after all the first noble truth. <S> But I think your question is a theoretical one, and a very good one. <S> But back to the vastness of reality's expanse, surely another meteor would come around and add new life to the earth before it falls into the sun.... <S> de ja vue ))) <A> Do you think that everyone in this world will develop a sense of dismay (samvega) over the universality of suffering? <S> Of those who see life in this way, what is the percentage that will develop an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way? <S> How many will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma? <S> What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. <S> Buddha knew this well. <S> That is why He said, “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). <S> Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.” <S> As per the Teachings of the Buddha, the world will be without humans, but it will take an extremely long time. <S> This is been said by the Supreme Buddha as He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa. <S> Sanvatta kalpa means the time that takes the world to be destroyed after countless years. <S> Vivatta kalpa means, time of the beginning of the world. <S> Long before this day is going to pass and in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed One, an Arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya /Maithree. <S> You may now wonder whether there would be enough food for all. <S> Buddha once said, ““Dear devotee, I am looking at 92 Kalpas (a long time) to the past right now. <S> In all that time, no one had to face any destruction of their families as a result of offering their food.” <A> If all of the humans become enlightened you still have other sentient creatures who would become humans. <S> At that point those would be saved by buddhas and bodhisattvas. <S> But even then there is not a finite number of sentient beings since there is no transmigration, just rebirth of sankharas which is not strictly limited to one entity. <S> So, I don't see an end of sentient beings reborn on earth. <S> Whether humans evolve into something else is unknown. <S> And eventually the earth will be destroyed by the sun and disintegrate with the rest of the universe. <A> will all beings attain enlightenment or will all beings not attain englightement is a speculative view, much like is the view about is universe finite or is the universe infinite and the other 9 questions. <S> This question should be set aside. <S> It is irrelevant to the grow or maturity of the Dhamma. <A> There are infinite beings in a universe. <S> Event if a large number of beings become enlightened then still there will be infinite beings. <S> The number of beings in all planes who get enlightened is approximately 24 asankya . <S> The number of past Buddhas is infinite, the number of Arahants are infinite as there were infinite Sasanas . <S> But despite all who becomes arahants infinite being remain, of whom some maybe born in this world.
|
Yes, theoreticaly, if all beings now on earth attained enlightenment, then there would be no sentient beings as we know them (born live die).
|
Was the prohibition on eating dinner health advice? This fascinating article describes the Buddha as data driven ascetic . Buddha took a different approach: His rules were grounded in his own experience. Like a lot of us, he tried some crazy diets. But what worked for him was very simple. He gave little advice about what his monks should eat, but he was very particular about when they should eat it. His followers were basically free to eat anything they were given — even meat — but only between the hours of dawn and noon. Like any good data scientist, Buddha learned to ignore the outliers. Buddha didn’t give a mystical or supernatural explanation for this odd time restriction. But he was pretty sure it would improve their health. He had tested it on himself. “Because I avoid eating in the evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably,” he explained. “You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you will have good health.” The article goes on to discuss the empirical results of calorie restriction diets with mice. Now, what I'd like to know, is there any grounds to believe that the Buddha had health in mind when he suggested not eating dinner? I've read that many vinaya rules were based on how the laity would see the Sangha- eat lots would make the sangha look like gluttons, so they only took two meals. Also, Nikaya Buddhism's central problem to be solved was desire & aversion, so it was the fixation on hunger that was the problem, not that dinner was making one fat, unhealthy or short-lived. <Q> My recollection is the rule about not eating after noon was to stop monks going on alms round at inappropriate times of the day, including at night, where they could frighten lay people. <S> You can research the 'Vinaya' for this. <S> There certainly is a sutta where the Buddha states he enjoys good health by eating once a day <S> but my recollection is that is not the rationale, which is why many monks today eat twice per day. <S> When these staple foods go beyond their time limit (i.e., after noon) <S> a bhikkhu will incur an offence if he consumes them. <S> The original story shows the complications that can arise from leaving the monastery at the wrong time: The 'group-of-seventeen' bhikkhus — another set of frequent misdoers — went out one afternoon to enjoy themselves at a festival outside the city. <S> When lay people saw them they gave them a meal and food to take back to the monastery. <S> The Buddha therefore laid down this rule: "Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.] <S> " <S> (Paac. 37; BMC p.362) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#begging <A> Yes if I hadn't read it I'd be skeptical too. <S> It sounds a bit contrary to the primary/normal message: almost as if the Buddha were giving advice on how to be rich or become wealthy! <S> Nevertheless there are other seemingly-health-related suttas, for example Ittha Sutta <S> , It's not fitting for the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life to pray for it or to delight in doing so. <S> Instead, the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life should follow the path of practice leading to long life. <S> In so doing, he will attain long life, either human or divine. <S> The above (which also describes Beauty, Happiness, Status, and Rebirth in heaven as welcome, agreeable, pleasant) is addressed to a householder. <S> Dharmafarer's introduction to MN 70 talks about untimely eating on pages 1 and 2: it mentions "health" and also other reasons, and says that the rules (or prohibitions) were phased in gradually to let the monks adjust gradually. <S> Also I think it says (on pages 2 and 3) that the monks being addressed in this Sutta were monks but not very good monks: who were eventually expelled from the Sangha. <S> Perhaps, who knows, "health" is mentioned in this sutta because it's appropriate to the audience, i.e. of several reasons (for skipping dinner <S> ) the Buddha chose one (health) which he thought had the best chance of appealing to this particular audience. <A> I doubt the advice was for health purposes even if it may improve health. <S> It was probably to improve self-discipline for monks and is stated as a sign of a monk's virtue: <S> "He eats only once a day, refraining from the evening meal and from food at the wrong time of day." <S> (Apannaka Sutta, MN 60) Now modern science shows that eating too much is bad probably because the body wasn't designed to be digesting food all the time. <S> The FMD (Fast Mimicking Diet) has gained popularity as well showing great health benefits so far. <S> One meal a day (with calorie requirements) may or may not improve health, but will certainly improve self-discipline. <A> My understanding is that the reason for no meal after noon was two fold. <S> First, it was inconvenient for people to have monks come begging at that time of day, and people had leftovers in the morning from the previous day. <S> Second, monks who spend a lot of time meditating do not require as much food (calories) as the average person. <S> Buddha said that we should eat according to the needs of the body. <S> That means not only when you eat, but also what you eat. <S> Not a problem in ancient times, but consider modern times when monks are given junk food. <S> Many of them now have diabetes.
|
I'm skeptical that the Buddha said skip dinner because it's good for your health
|
Should I consider multitasking while listening to audiobooks? Is it a danger to mindfulness? One of the several advertised benefits of listening to audiobooks is that it is an ideal activity to accompany those many chores, such as washing the dishes, doing the laundry, running outside etc., that considered all together subtract a considerable amount of free time. For normal people doing this may look like a great idea, but as a meditator and buddhist practitioner I also see which dangers are there in relation to the mindfulness practice. In particular, I am afraid that by listening to audiobooks or, more generally, by conducting too many activities all at once, I may easily undo the effects of concentration meditation and mindfulness or lead my mind too astray. Even though I'm planning to do the experiment myself, I would nevertheless like to ask: have you ever been able to integrate your mindfulness practice with doing multiple activities at the same time? What have been, specifically, the results regarding listening to audiobooks, provided you have ever tried this? <Q> In my experience, though I'd hardly call myself a mindfulness expert, I don't feel audiobooks and the small level of multitasking they allow me to take on really negatively affect my mindfulness. <S> I guess, truly, the challenge is to resist the temptation to multi task or listen to books when you SHOULD be being mindful. <S> I suppose everyone's mileage varies, but I became an avid audiobook listener before beginning my mindfulness practice. <S> Mostly I listen to these while driving or if I'm doing some menial tasks like cleaning. <S> These aren't exactly places and times I find myself practicing really being present anyway. <S> Just my 2 cents. <S> Hope <S> it helps someone. :) <A> No, I wouldn't recommend a practitioner to multi-task while working. <S> As Alan Watts explained, "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. <S> Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." <S> Your job as a practitioner is not to think about anything while working. <S> It is through work that mind-body falls away. <S> What does that mean? <S> While washing the dishes your job is to only concentrate on washing the dishes. <S> No aim, no goal, no thoughts, no expectations, no Buddha but washing dishes. <S> This is your practice. <S> No thinking, "I am washing the dishes" or "I am not thinking while washing dishes" because you're not allowing mind-body to fall away. <S> Simply wash the dishes with non-thinking. <S> Here's a quote by Bodhidharma, <S> "Not thinking about anything is zen. <S> Once you know this, walking, sitting, or lying down, everything you do is zen. <S> Finally, I want you to consider why you're wanting to multi-task? <S> Does your mind get bored? <S> Are you trying to avoid certain sensations? <S> Is it hard to concentrate? <S> Does your mind get frustrated in the silence? <S> Why are you wanting to entertain the mind? <S> This is your practice. <A> What matters is how you want to do a particular activity and how important it is to you in the worldly context. <S> You can take your Buddhist practice to an activity that you are doing and do it with as much focus as possible, like you and your mind don't exist. <S> Only the activity is happening. <S> That's how it is done. <S> Choiceless awareness of the activity. <S> This mindfulness word has been marketed or thrown around a lot. <S> It doesn't mean anything apart from a latest marketing fad. <S> It is not a proper translation of any Buddhist term like Jhana or Dhyana. <S> This may be my opinion <S> but I have shut off all this marketing terms or practices and listening to audiobooks (or whatever people like to dump their mind with garbage from society). <S> Keep things simple, do one thing and do it fully. <S> Nothing matters but the awareness of the task at hand. <S> That's the essence of activity in Buddhist terms. <S> If you look at Zen, you'll understand what they are getting at. <S> Now it depends on you. <A> When you multi-task you do not give the fullest attention to what you do. <S> Also you may think that you are multi-tasking, but in reality you are not. <S> Just see how the following things happen so quickly when our five senses comes in contact with the related one of the outside? <S> For instance, when body, tangible object and consciousness come together, there arises contact. <S> With the arising of contact, simultaneously, there arises feeling (vedana) – feeling born of body contact. <S> Since feeling is conditioned by contact, feeling differs in accordance with the change of contact. <S> Then, there is the recognition of perception. <S> This is called sañña (perception). <S> These things happen so quickly when our five senses comes in contact with the related one of the outside, that only a highly developed and ‘quiet’ mind can differentiate the time difference. <S> Jhana can be said as a sense of wellbeing and stability you can develop from within. <S> For this one has to close all other doors, and have open only one sense door – leaving no room for ‘multi-tasking’. <S> Only inside Jhana, can the sapta bodhyanga (Seven factors of enlightenment) can be fully developed. <S> For this one has to practise Samatha and Vipassana properly. <S> Then a different kind of ‘multi-tasking’ takes place. <S> When you are practicing concentration, you are developing several factors of the Noble path at once. <S> There’s right resolve, the resolve to renounce sensuality, to find a pleasure that’s not involved with sensual passion; right mindfulness, which is the theme of right concentration; and right livelihood, looking after your needs in a skillful way. <A> What is needed is Wise Attention, i.e., being free from unwholesome roots, hindrances and Vipallasa. <S> On hearing a sound with the ear,one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity. <S> Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta similarly in Titth’ayatana <S> Sutta Also be aware of your reaction to the content agreeable or likable, disagreeable or unlikable, indifferent. <S> These are what leads to the sensations of joy, pain or equanimity above. <S> So what ever you hear know impermanence of the sensations what arise with it and be equanimous. <S> Being equanimous displaces aversion and craving and seeing impedance displaces ignorance. <S> [ Pahāna Sutta ] Having Wise Attention <S> all 8 Path Factors develop automatically. <S> [ Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta ]
|
Multitasking or engaging in activities like listening to audiobooks is not an issue for mindfulness.
|
How to get to Nirvana? I am very new to Buddhism. What would be the most accurate way to practise and reach to Nirvana?Did Lord of Buddha show us? <Q> The fourth noble truth states that the path to ending suffering is the noble eightfold path. <S> Right view <S> Right resolve <S> Right speech <S> Right action <S> Right livelihood <S> Right effort <S> Right mindfulness <S> Right concentration 1 and 2 are the foundations of wisdom. <S> 3, 4 and 5 are the foundations for virtue, 6, 7 and 8 are the foundations of meditation. <S> This is a very broad outline of the path to nirvana. <S> You should be wary of people who give a simple precise description with promises of results like "Just follow my practice for 10 years <S> and you'll be nearly enlightened". <A> The noble eightfold path is the way to reach Nirvana. <S> However, often the noble eightfold path is misapprehended, where: (i) <S> the wisdom component is misinterpreted in a manner that disconnects it from the rest of the path rather than has it lead the path; <S> (ii) 'self-views' (about karma & reincarnation) are created from the morality component; & (iii) <S> the concentration component is practised like hatha yoga , with all kinds of rigid & structured mind-body exercises. <S> Fortunately, in many places , the Lord Buddha summarised the path to Nirvana as non-attachment . <S> To practise the noble eightfold path most accurately, every factor must be based in non-craving, non-attachment & non-egoism. <S> Otherwise, ideas about the noble eightfold path may be followed for more than 10 years, enlightenment may never occur and ideas about reincarnation will be created to postpone practise for a future life you imagine the noble eightfold path teaches about. <S> In summary, the Right View component explains: (i) attaching to the five aggregates is suffering; (ii) this suffering arises due to craving & new becoming in the here-&-now; & most importantly; (iii) <S> this craving (attachment & ego-becoming) are to be abandoned. <S> It follows the Right Effort & Right Mindfulness factors function to keep the mind in a state of non-craving, non-craving & non-egoism, as described as follows: Of those, right view is the forerunner (leader). <S> One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. <S> One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. <S> Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view. <S> MN 117 <S> ~~~ <S> A monk develops mindfulness as a factor for enlightenment dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion (non-craving), dependent on cessation, resulting in letting go (vossagga). <S> MN 118 <S> ~~~ <S> And what is the faculty of mindfulness? <S> There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful...abandoning greed & distress with reference to the world. <S> This is called the faculty of mindfulness. <S> And what is the faculty of concentration? <S> There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga), attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. <S> This is called the faculty of concentration. <S> SN 48.10 <A> Just as an addition to all these quite detailed answers: As I understand it you can't get nibbana . <S> This phrase is like an oxymoron. <S> Nibbana is a word meant to describe the state of non-clinging, meaning you're doing less and not getting something new . <A> (With the risk that this only corresponds to a certain interpretation of Theravada buddhism, in particular based on Mahasi Saydaw and Sayadaw U Pandita's texts.) <S> Nibbana is "state" when mental processes (samsara, uniterrupted moment-to-moment arising of conscious experience) cease, thus it is a "state" called supramundane, outside of time & space. <S> It is said to have a profound impact on how one relates to experience and can be achieved through vipassana (contemplation practice). <S> Vissudhimagga describes 16 stages of insight naturally occuring during contemplation and the knowledge of fruition (phala-nana, #15) is just this. <S> The reason why I put "state" and "experience" in quotation marks is that the "moment" is missing from consciousness (like discontinuity in time which you only realize when it's gone). <S> "It" is never achieved permanently but its purification effects are lasting. <S> The Buddha said that Nibbana is achieved through vipassana (which cultivates wisdom, and rests upon morality/personality and concentration), as explained in other answers in more detail. <A> If there is ONE Sutta that tells in a nutshell the Factors of Enlightenment , the Path to Nibbana, it is the The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin (Mahasakuludayi Sutta) . <S> MN 77 . <S> They are: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness <S> The Four Right Kinds of Striving <S> The Four Bases for Spiritual Power <S> The Five Faculties The Five Powers The Seven Enlightenment Factors <S> The Noble Eightfold Path
|
The very first "experience" of nibbana is called stream-entry (sotapatti) and it can be attained repeatedly through practice.
|
Did I describe the following concept correctly? In a discussion, my meditation leader was talking about people who cannot control their cravings and wants, who are easily subjected to actions based on their whims and wants of their anger. He associated these people with having akusala thoughts. He could not find the English word to describe the person, and so I gave him the word impulsive as a way to describe these people. Was this the right word to use, and is there a better word that I could have used? <Q> That's a great translation. <S> Other words that may fit like impulsive <S> hasty imprudent <S> @ChrisW mentions in a comment that kusala means skillful, so <S> a <S> +kusala would mean the negation of kusala (if you look at how sanskrit works), thus another word may be unskillful <S> and it sounds like your meditation friend was trying to expound on what that term actually means. <S> Many words have nuances that can become lost in translation, so sometimes it is good to leave words untranslated, or look at how they were constructed. <S> For example: we could not say "pulsive" as the negation of "impulsive" even though "possible" and "impossible" have the same relationship as "kusala" and "akusala" -- it just depends. <S> Again, good translation, but be open to the idea that not everything need be translated (and thus nuance can be ushered into a new language body and preserved) <A> There's a definition of kusala here : <S> kusala : characterizes all which has pleasant and happy results: advantageous, meritorious, skilful, virtuous, morally good, good, right, prosperous, salutary, skilful. <S> Especially used in its moral sense. <S> The Commentary defines the term as having three meanings: (psychologically, spiritually) healthy blameless productive of pleasant and favourable results. <S> Kusala can also be defined as what arises on the basis of the three kusala·mūlas . <S> In terms of action, ten main kusala actions are listed and called together kusala·kamma·patha s. <S> I think 'impulsive' isn't exactly the same as akusala . <S> Let's look at an antonym of 'impulsive' , for example "cautious". <S> Or @slova's answer suggests "slow" and "prudent". <S> I imagine that someone who is not impulsive might think twice before speaking, look both ways before crossing the street, save their money instead of spending it ... but that (e.g. hoarding their money) is not necessarily kusala . <S> Or let's consider for example Siddhārtha Gautama's deciding to leave home: that story might (or might not) seem a bit "impulsive", but we shouldn't call it akusala . <S> Being impulsive might be one example of akusala (e.g. losing your temper and suddenly killing someone in anger), but there are other forms of akusala which are not impulsive (e.g. carefully planning a crime for a long time before doing it). <S> Also I hope that there are some forms of being impulsive that are not very akusala (for example impulsively deciding to try to help someone else, being impulsively kind). <S> You said that your " leader was talking about people who cannot control their cravings and wants, who are easily subjected to actions based on their whims and wants of their anger ". <S> Things like cravings and anger (and ignorance) are known <S> akusala-mūla which are translated/called/known in English the "three poisons" or "three unwholesome roots", also "three roots of evil" and "the three unwholesome mental states". <S> In that phrase, akusala is translated as "unwholesome" or even evil. <S> As @sova mentioned in a comment it's the mental state (e.g. of anger) <S> that's unwholesome, or the result (like the tree which grows from the "root") <S> that's unwholesome. <A> Although 'impulsive' can describe a part of what exactly "akusala" means, I'm not sure if we can see it as an English translation of the Pali word "akusala". <S> As we know, "Akusala" is the antonym for "Kusala". <S> "Kusala kamma" denotes "Righteous action" or to simply put it, "Good/virtuous actions' ,which are actions that bring happiness and give rise to pleasant feelings. <S> hHence, "Akusala" is just the exact opposite of this.... <S> that is it means something sinful or immoral, something that yields results that are unpleasant for one's heart. <S> I personally think, 'unrighteous' ,'unvirtuous' or something as simple as 'wicked' can be the closer translation of 'Akusala'. <S> Hope this helps :) <A> Because the word is the opposite of “kusala”, depending on the situation and what I would have to convey, there are other ways to better describe it; for example: If “kusala” denotes the advantageous, the “akusala” is disadvantageous when referring to intentions, as in kusala and akusala-cetanā. <S> If “kusala” denotes the wholesome, the “akusala” is unwholesome when referring to the roots of the wholesome (kusala-mula) and the roots of the unwholesome (akusala-mula). <S> If “kusala” denotes the meritorious, the “akusala” is de-meritorious when again referring to volition (Kusala Akusala Cetana). <S> When “kusala” is the Good, the “akusala” is the Bad/Evil. <S> When “kusala” is the Advantageous, the “akusala” is the Disadvantageous / detrimental. <S> When “kusala” is the Skilful, the “akusala” is the Unskilful. <S> I can understand you wanting to define it as “impulsive”. <S> But since the defilement tends to work impulsively, without deliberation, the transgression is less serious than slander and the kammic consequence generally less severe. <S> Still, harsh speech is an unwholesome action with disagreeable results for oneself and others, both now and in the future, so it is a “akusala”. <S> I agree that we speak and we act impulsively, and out of our thoughts arise speech and action. <S> It just means that mindfulness and clear comprehension were lacking. <S> Two suttas to read on “Akusala” are: (Akusalamula) <S> Aññatitthiya Sutta - A 3.68. <S> The nature of the 3 unwholesome roots. <S> (Akusala) <S> Kamma Nidana Sutta - A 10.174. <S> The negative root causes of karma.
|
As I see it, impulsive is not the right word to describe “Akusala”.
|
How to deal with pride and vanity from a Buddhist perspective? In my interactions with other people I am sometimes very full of my self, proud and vanitous and it leaves me with a bad taste afterwards or it even stops me from taking action in a direction I would desire. Do you know any examples in the Suttas where these conditions of the mind are treated? I am thinking about the perception of a skeleton as a helpful aid in this matter but maybe there are others. <Q> If you are doing things the correct way in your practise in listening to Dhamma, in participating in Dhamma discussions, in doing Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding should develop within you. <S> At times this happens. <S> But if this is not the case - if dispassionateness with understanding does not take place, it is the vanity and pride that surfaces. <S> That’s what happens when doing something which appears as correct thinking or correct action. <S> If vanity and pride arises in you, then you will have to take a step back and go through a process of introspection. <S> If vanity and pride is what gets developed in placing oneself above others and looking down on others arise in a person, it is due to his not doing things the proper way. <S> That would not happen if you follow this Path with a sense of humility. <S> To deal with this defilement from a Buddhist Perspective, one has to practice five factors that is found in the scriptures. <S> Then you will invariably develop the required antidote in dispassionateness. <S> In the Asavakkhaya Sutta , the Buddha explains, “Oh Bhikkhus. <S> There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”. <S> These five activities are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. <S> They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death). <A> The premise of this topic is that conceit is one of the last fetters to be abandoned <S> (so I guess you may just have to live with it: be aware of it, occasionally, for a while). <S> There are a couple of articles about it here on Access to Insight . <S> Not a sutta, but there's a Zen story: <S> The Giver Should Be Thankful <S> There's also a quote from Bodhidharma : <S> The Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall says that in 527, Bodhidharma visited Emperor Wu of Liang, a fervent patron of Buddhism: <S> Emperor Wu: " <S> How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?" <S> Bodhidharma: "None. <S> Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit." <A> The Buddha taught not all beings could realise his Dhamma because attachment to self is a very strong instinct. <S> Possibly you can ask yourself is Buddhism actually suitable for you? <S> For example, in Christianity, they say the words: " Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. <S> Only say the words so I can be healed ". <S> This is said to end pride & vanity, which are one of the seven deadly sins. <S> Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. <S> But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. <S> For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. <S> This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. <S> And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.' <S> Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to me: 'Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty <S> I reached. <S> This Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion . <S> What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't see.' <S> MN 26
|
If you realise Buddhism may not be suitable for you, this might help end pride & vanity.
|
What are some resources on Mahayana forms of Meditation? Are there any sources about Meditations of Mahayana Schools? <Q> For example, a great classical source on zazen would be Bendōwa by Dogen, which people jokingly pronounce bend over. <S> In the same subject of Samatha there is great treatise commentary in Alan Wallace's Stilling the Mind: Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence from perspective of Dzogchen. <S> There will be companion book by Alan Wallace Fathoming the Mind: Inquiry and Insight in Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence that takes on another section (Vipassana) of Vajra Essence treaty. <S> Apart from that, many references directly pointing at texts can be found in this section of Buddhist meditation on Wikipedia. <A> The heart sutra is from mahyana schools of thought it's out there <S> and one quite popular sutra .this <S> trend of Buddhist thought teaches the message through meditation one upon inquiry about reailty , samsara etc is like a dream / dreams which appear and then disappear ... <S> the meditation on Mahayana view is that all the mental problems .. <S> joys knowledge etc are not real they will arise and subside . <A> The two I recommend: Zhi-yi's Mohe Zhiguan <S> A meditation manual circa 594CE from the founder of Chinese Tiantai school, Zhi-yi (538–597CE) compiled from his lectures by his student. <S> Topics include: detailed instructions on samatha and vipassana; mindfulness in daily life, chanting, contemplation of the emptiness, meditation through prayer and sutra recitation, skillful means for easing one's mind and much more. <S> More information can be found on Wikipedia: Mohe Zhiguan <S> Dagpo Tashi Namgyal's Moonlight of Mahamudra Fundamental work by a Kagyu & Sakya scholar Tashi Namgyal (1513–1587) <S> providing exhaustive analysis of subtle points around samatha, vipassana, and mahamudra-style meditation. <S> More information can be found on Wikipedia: Dagpo Tashi Namgyal
|
If you include Vajrayana under Mahayana umbrella, then there are bits on tantric meditation in Introduction to Tantra on Lama Thubten Yeshe, or Guru Yoga by Tsongkhapa, which is a manual.
|
What is a good response when some-one says 'sadhu' to you? Is there an appropriate phrase when some-one says 'sadhu' to you, for example after making an offering at a monastery?Saying 'no worries', or 'that's okay' doesn't seem appropriate.Is there a appropriate response, or should I just smile and accept the compliment? <Q> 'Sadhu' means good. <S> So you can say 'Sadhu' back. <S> Here in Sri Lanka we commonly say "Theruwan Saranai", which means "May the noble triple gem be your refuge". <A> i don't think Sadhu! <S> requires a response, because it itself is a response or a reaction much like the exclamations <S> Great! <S> Well done! , which normally don't envisage any response <A> ** <S> “Namo Buddhaya!”**is what is most appropriate IMO. <S> Ven. <S> Gnanananda Thero of the Mahamevnawa in the year 2011 requested from devotees to say 'Namo Buddhaya' whenever we meet or depart, and this is his reasoning for getting us to do so: ” <S> Owing to the influence of this ancient Buddhist practice, today, whenever Hindus meet one-another, they too bring their hands together and say ‘Namo Narayana’ or ‘Oh Namah Shivaya’. <S> Some Buddhists too say ‘Namo Sairam’ when they enter the ashram of Sai Baba. <S> But the words ‘Namo Buddhaya’ have been forgotten by the Buddhists. <S> I realized that these old values must be rekindled. <S> Accordingly, I made a request from devotees on this Sri Sambuddhatwa Jayanthi Vesak Full Moon Day that the greeting ‘Namo Buddhaya’ should be brought back into usage once again. <S> This is a noble phrase that had been in use in our country for several centuries earlier. <S> ‘Namo Buddhaya’ connotes that; ‘May this Salutation be to the Supreme Buddha’. <S> The four-fold disciples, who have recognized the three refuges, use the phrase ‘Namo Buddhaya’ quite happily today.” <S> If someone says "Sadhu!", then you too can reciprocate by saying "Sadhu!" or "Namo Buddhaya". <S> We as disciples of the Supreme Buddha say sadhu three times to express our happiness or approval of something related to the Dhamma. <S> Now a person may ask as to why we should keep our gathered palms near chest or forehead or above the head when we say “Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu?” <S> , Why three times and not four times or two times? <S> My answer to such questions of course is not to dwell in such irrelevant questions, as then it is stretching this a bit much.
|
We say ‘Sadhu’ to show our appreciation of something. At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples to place both hands together in a gesture of worship and greet each other by saying ‘Namo Buddhaya’, whenever they met.
|
Did aliens come to meet Lord Buddha? In lord Buddha's daily routine, divided into five parts as follows. the morning session the afternoon session the first watch the middle watch (10.00 P.M. TO 2.00 A.M.) the last watch So the 4th part is The Middle Watch, from 10.00 PM to 2.00 AM. In that time Lord Buddha will answer the questions from "Devas", and these Devas come to see Buddha by flying Machine called "Wimanas" (or Vimana ). So my question is, does "Devas" here means Aliens? Did Aliens came to see Lord Buddha, and learn about Buddhism? <Q> Devas are buddhist celestial beings. <S> They don't have to mean aliens. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism) <A> You could say that they are aliens. <S> Also the definition of aliens means from another world. <S> So <S> yeah. <S> Check this article ; <A> Deva is from our universe (sometimes from other universe). <S> Alien is something we cannot identify yet. <S> May be they are living on a surface like human beings or may be they are living in the space like some Devas . <S> The word <S> alien is recently being used (in the science fiction sense, from 1953) and we cannot tell Deva and Alien are same or not by any means. <S> So back to the question, Deva met Buddha so many times from this universe and other universes (precisely Devas from 1,000,000,000,000 universes). <S> But not necessarily Alien . <S> For the flying machine, I didn't read anything like this in Sutra, what I read in Buddhist books is Deva used coach drawn by horses. <S> It may be flying but it is not a machine. <A> If you accept the Pali Canon as the basis of Buddhism, then it is clear that "original Buddhism" taught that the Buddha both taught and learned from devas, that they visited him and that he visited deva worlds. <S> Even the historically oldest Buddhist texts refer to devas and other worlds. <S> Moreover, as I have shown in my book, Conversations with the Buddha, many of these descriptions match the phenomenology of the UFO experience as described for example by Jacques Vallee in his book, Passport to Magonia. <S> Whether one accepts these descriptions or how one chooses to explain or interpret them is of course a matter of conjecture, but the references are clearly there and they are archaic. <S> No less an authority than Ajahn Brahm has publicly stated that he has personally seen both nagas and garudas, and appears to be open-minded about UFOs. <S> On the other hand, Richard Gombrich considers these references to be ironic (a view rejected by Rupert Gethin).
|
They are from a different world/plane/dimension.
|
Gods realm, how do you get out? Achieve Nibbana in this realm? It is stated that Buddha said that it is more difficult to achieve nibbana in this realm than in the human realm (due to absence of suffering). Imagine, that one of these gods, has realized that in fact he is "stuck" there and want to achieve nibbana and get out, even more, he created a whole reality where he "lives" similar to the human realm.This god did this because experiencing suffering, (even in this "simulation"), it will be easier to look for the exit out of samsara. Imagine that this god realizes that he's created all that, what should be the next steps for those kind of gods, (which actions or intentions), to follow Dharma and finally exit the samsara? Should he assume a "human form" just to follow Dharma or should he do it "from" the same "gods realm" "perception" ? Sorry if the question is too "fictious" or not understandable, let me know if you need more clarification. thanks. <Q> For example, AN 4.123 describes Nirvana ("unbound") in the god realms. <S> I think the answer to this common view is based in the type of 'godly' realm. <S> A most common godly realm in the Pali scriptures are higher meditation states ( jhana ), as described in AN 4.123 . <S> However, there are godly realms that equate to luxurious wealthy lifestyles of sensual pleasures (e.g. MN 37 ). <S> It is possibly this godly realm called The Sensuous World (kama-loka) that makes it difficult to achieve Nibbana. <S> Good sir Moggallana, the Vejayanta Palace has a hundred towers, and each tower has seven hundred upper chambers, and each tower has seven nymphs and each nymph has seven maids. <S> Would you like to see the loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace, good sir <S> Moggallana? <A> It depends, there are three realms Desire, Form, Formless. <S> Desire realm gods as the name suggests have desires and are more likely to be attached to their luxuries making it hard to study the Dharma. <S> However, Form and Formless realm gods all attained their positions from high skill in meditation and are far less attached to desire <S> and they probably don't find too much harder than us in following Buddhism <A> It sounds to me like you are talking about a particularly Vajrayana idea. <S> please correct me if that is not so! <S> If so, it should be noted that in that context, the "realms" are not considered to actually exist (I know they tend to say to the lay people that they do, but that's different from what the monks believe) and are symbols of Human Stereotypes. <S> Another you could have mentioned was The Hungry Ghost Realm. <S> All of them are symbolic of different broad ideas of ego, rather than being places which genuinely exist. <S> So, to answer your question, the same way everyone gets out: The Path.
|
From the perspective of the old Pali scriptures, I am not aware of anywhere that states: " It is more difficult to achieve nibbana in the a godly realm than in the human realm ".
|
Buddha statue of European/white likeness? Do Buddha statues exist that portray Buddha as a person of white or European likeness? Where would I find them? (Not sure what other than "white" or "European" to call it; you are free to correct me.) If not, why not? (I would like to explain in a few words why I am asking that question, but find it difficult to pin down the right words. It has something to do with the feeling of familiarity or likeness, and just plain fun of entertaining the idea that the Buddha can look like all the other people that are typically around me all day long. Plus, whatever drives people to make cover versions of songs, just seen as a "cover version" of the typical Buddha statue.) EDIT: Replaced the word "caucasian" with "white", because this should be less offensive. <Q> Just to add to the above, it is unknown what the historical Buddha looked like, and it is a matter of debate if he was, indeed, one particular person. <S> There are conjectures based on the Suttas and so on, but none of those are essentially good enough to make a strong conclusion on the subject. <S> So the ordinary response has been to make him look like whatever you like, and which helps you in your practice. <S> The Buddha could look occidental, african or aryan and as long as the image was useful, it would be fine. <S> In the end, its about the practice and the result. <S> The Buddha would probably be the first to say appearances are unimportant, and in this sense you don't get points for "getting it right". <A> Try google 'Greco-Buddhist art'. <S> The original Indian Buddhist art (below) did not depict a 'personal form' but usually showed a wheel, tree, footprint or empty space as a symbol of the Buddha. <S> This is probably because the Buddha famously said: " Enough, Vakkali! <S> What is there to see in this vile body? <S> He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. <S> Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma. " <A> I believe Sakaya (Buddha's clan) were Aryan (not the same context as Nazi would use it). <S> And per sutta where Buddha explained his physical features <S> , he said his eyes were complete green (this is up for academic debate because "complete green" in Pali could mean pitch black. <S> Wiki says they were deep blue. <S> Here is modern day real Aryan race <A> You're welcome. <S> He also said his skin was like gold. <S> This too is up for interpretation. <S> But with support from other sutta, i believe the idea of beatiful skin tone at the time was not too white nor too dark. <S> My take is that Buddha had tan skin. <S> But for sure he shaved his head. <S> In many sutta, it was one of the insults to Buddha by those of others beliefs. <S> Said to Buddha as he was walking " <S> stop right there <S> you bald headed monk, stop right there you thug!" <S> Ah. <S> I meant to put this on a comment.
|
My impression is the original Buddha statues were of Greek origin.
|
Seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka Course but no "good results" I have attended seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka course, but never experienced either the "subtle sensations" or the "free flow." I have stopped going to Goenka retreats because I get frustrated hearing about how after the first day I should be experiencing such and such, etc. I still practice anapana for a couple of hours a day and study the Dhamma, and am resigned to being apparently incapable of having these experiences, which they also say are not important, lol. However, Goenka talks about them over and over in the courses and about how various people get "good results." I wonder if others have this experience also, and how they have dealt with it. <Q> I would suggest you try another vipassana lineage. <S> Goenka goes for body sensations only (AFAIK, later they add mind objects, but I only have 2nd-hand knowledge about it). <S> Use a technique where all 4 foundations (body, feelings, mind, mind objects) are used from the very start could be useful; I am personally doing Chomtong-style practice (Ajahn Tong, a variant of Mahasi, dry-vipassana with lower concentration) and being exposed to e.g. difficult feelings and learn to acknowledge them and let go is extremely valuable for me. <S> What I also find very useful is to have regular interviews with teacher on the retreat. <S> Meditation has good results if you have more clarity, understanding or yourself and others etc; in short, if your life is better. <S> Experiences come and go and have little long-term relevance (despite the mind trying to persuade us <S> this is it in that moment). <A> Disclaimer: I'm not a teacher. <S> This is just my interpretation of Goenka's words, but his words are so explicit about this topic, and repeated so many times, that I feel that I'm just stating the obvious in the following paragraph. <S> The point is to systematically observe whatever you feel in different parts of the body, with equanimity . <S> Goenka talks a lot about the free flow, because many people experience it, so that they know how to respond to it. <S> If you don't experience it, you can simply ignore that part. <S> As for "subtle sensations", I'm not exactly sure how you interpret them, because (as far as I know) Goenka never explicitly says what exactly a "subtle sensation" is. <S> I'm pretty sure that acute pain wasn't the only sensation that you ever felt in your life. <S> Some sensations are more subtle than others, and Goenka explicitly says that we aren't supposed to judge them, so why should anyone care if any particular sensation is "subtle enough"? <S> I did experience good results of meditation, and they are completely unrelated to the free flow or subtle sensations. <S> Sometimes I felt free flow, sometimes didn't. <S> The benefits I get when I meditate regularly are not related to whether I feel the free flow in a particular period of time. <S> Seriously, I really don't see the point of struggling to have a free flow or some other particular sensations. <S> If your aim is to have pleasant sensations in your body, then I'd suggest having sex or masturbating, or perhaps watching porn. <S> That will get you what you want. <S> And requires much less time than two hours of sitting per day. <S> May I ask, did you ask the teacher about your problem? <S> What did he/she say? <A> You really should check out the book "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa. <S> I’ve done 7 10-day courses, 2 sati courses and been meditating with varying degrees of dedication for 23 years. <S> I’ve recently been introduced to the Culadasa book and <S> it’s given me a bit more guidance for these early stages. <S> In particular a precise description of a distinction between attention and peripheral awareness, and what to do with each. <A> I wouldn't say those meditative experiences aren't important. <S> I would say they kind of can give us a rough guide to were we are in our practice <S> but we have to be careful of attatching to them or misunderstanding them. <S> So, how do you practice? <S> Do you focus your attention on: the raw experience of your breath as it happens <S> The raw sensations in and on your body as they happen <S> The partiality towards your experience as it happens? <A> 1st if you crave for these experiences more further away they will be. <S> Once your caving subsides they may suddenly pop up, but this they are also transient and replaced by other experiences. <S> Also lack of confidence also hinders your progress. <S> To progress you <S> should Stop caving Build self confidence <A> We don't meditate for the results. <S> If we do, it only decreases the chances of getting results. <S> There are so many factors to include it's very difficult to predict. <S> Like the weather. <S> We meditate because the Four Noble Truths point to the Eightfold Path, and meditation is putting all 8 spoke of the wheel turning. <S> We meditate for liberation and liberation alone. <S> And we do it with our whole effort. <S> Paring off part of our expectations for "results" diminishes what liberation can do.
|
The benefits I experienced include things like better self-confidence, less stress, better social relations with others, less procrastrination. "Free flow" is not the point of the technique . Of course results happen, but results vary from person to person, from time to time.
|
Where do westerners get their "Buddhist" names? Many western Buddhists have non-western names: Jeffrey Block - Bhikkhu Bodhi Geoffrey DeGraff - Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Ajaan Geoff Deirdre Blomfield-Brown - Pema Chödrön Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like Dances with Wolves ), or are they more informal (e.g. Ajaan Geoff )? Just curious. <Q> Where do westerners get their “Buddhist” names? <S> In the Theravada tradition a novice receives a new name in Pali when a senior monk accepts his/her request to become Preceptor. <S> For more information see "Ordination Procedure in the Theravada Tradition" . <A> The same is true for Mahayana traditions ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name ) allthough exceptions are possible. <S> So for example the German Mr. Nölke, since many years abbot Muhô in Antaiji, Japan, got the freedom by his predecessor to choose his own dharma name, which he then officially "received". <S> Justification: as one could not choose its own name at birth, at least the choosing of the dharma name should or can be in our own hands. <A> What amazes me is that people's "Buddhist" names all seem to be Asian. :-) <S> The new name is a psychological device to provide a sense of belonging to that tradition, and pride is encouraged around it, since you have to meet approval to receive it. <S> There is really no reason your "buddhist name" needs to be from a particular culture. <S> unless it is useful to you as a tool to walk The Path. <S> If you need that sense of belonging, then its a wonderful thing. <S> But "naming" isn't a "Buddhist" thing. <S> It is a traditional cultural thing that was brought along for the ride as a useful tool.
|
People 'get' their name from a guru, which is a form of initiation into that particular tradition, and so the new name is almost always related to the root culture from which that tradition sprung.
|
Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana? Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana? Teaching "Jhana" means: Accepting students to learn only about Jhana Proper courses and guidelines for student: step by step, from first Rupa Jhana to Four Arupa Jhanas, in Theravada Buddhist teachings (see Dhyāna in Buddhism ) It could be a monastery or public institution or school, which people can join by paying fees or free; but well disciplined and helping students to experience and acquire the capabilities to enter the state of various Jhanas above. Are there any printed courses or lectures about entering Jhanas, published by such a school or institution (or by an author at least)? <Q> Ven. <S> Pa-Auk Sayadaw teaches both Samatha and Vipassana meditation. <S> First one develops Jhanas and then one can progress to Vipassana if wanted. <S> Here is a description from the website of Pa-Auk Forest Monastery : <S> "The meditation taught at Pa-Auk Tawya is based on the instructions by The Buddha as found in the Tipiṭaka (the Pāli Canon) and its commentaries. <S> In brief, the main practice is to begin with Samatha (tranquility) meditation, which is to develop absorption concentration, also called jhāna. <S> A yogi (meditator) is free to choose any of the forty Samatha subjects as taught by The Buddha. <S> In Pa-Auk Tawya, most yogis develop jhāna with mindfulness-of-breathing (ānāpānassati). <S> Having developed Samatha, the yogi may proceed to practise Vipassanā (insight) meditation". <A> He is the abbot of Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center . <A> Ajahn Brahm's group are dedicated to jhana. <S> Try these links: Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond - A Heditator's Handbook by Ajahn Brahm <S> Welcome to the Buddhist Society of Western Australia -Dhammaloka Centre <S> Jhana Grove Bodhinyana Monastery
|
Bhante Vimalaramsi is dedicated to teaching insight progress through jhana, following the original Pali suttas rather than the commentaries.
|
Do ascetic practices create samvega? If so, how? Do ascetic practices create saṃvega? If so, how? (I am trying to find ways to create samvega - and I understand ascetic practices can help in that). <Q> Anyone can arise into samvega, spontaneously. <S> In the West, it is discouraged as a non normative realization which leads to cognitive dissonance. <S> But at any moment, ascetic practice or not, one can stumble into samvega, given fortunate causes and conditions. <S> To try to find a way out. <S> This talk may be of help: Samvega and the Flailing Fish <S> Ajahn Thanissaro defines samvega as “the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived...and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle.” <A> Samvega is a sense of urgency to practice. <S> In this light, yes, ascetic practice and all distasteful events lead to samvega for all aspirants of the Way because of the first two factors of enlightenment . <S> i.e. when someone is mindful and investigates, then it turns into samvega. <S> Almost all ascetic practices, "good" (fasting) and "bad" (self-abuse), do this. <S> This may be due to the mental clarity and energies freed up (that normally go into digestion) or it may be due to the sympathetic (fight-or-flight) system becoming activated. <S> It may be a combination of both. <S> Self-abuse and pain also lead to samvega as one is triggered to think about death and of course liberation. <S> This may only be true for Buddhists though or those who have connected the idea of "liberation" with "death." <S> On the other hand , a person who is ignorant of a way leading out of birth-and-death may just immediately shirk away from the pain, missing the chance to contemplate life-and-death and instead seek out and comfort themselves in hedonistic pleasure instead of the pleasure of self-cultivation. <A> Ascetic practices do not necessarily let someone acquire Wisdom of Samvega. <S> You can see examples below. <S> When prince Siddhārtha saw four Nimitas (Old man, Sick man, Dead man and Monk) he was having the best of kinghood, the best of materials that a king can earn and have. <S> He also had a very beautiful wife and life was on the bed of rose petals. <S> But when he saw four Nimitas, he acquired Wisdom of Samvega and did retreat to find the truth about sufferings and escape from sufferings (free from suffering). <S> There is another example about a Paccekabuddha . <S> He was also a king and he got Samvega- while he was watching one of his maids preparing fragrance (Sandalwood paste); he heard the two gold bracelets on the maid's arm hit each other and made sound. <S> Eventually he became Paccekabuddha-hood after his mind did not attach to anything (from Samvega to Nirvana). <S> From the two examples above, it is not necessary to be ascetic to obtain Samvega. <S> Even if it is pleasing sense, one can get Samvega <S> if he/ <S> she can think all the pleasing sense come into existence finally become depleted, finally come to an end. <S> By this way, many people got "wisdom of Samvega" before.
|
In its most simple form, samvega is the thing which causes us to start practicing. From my extensive experiences in the healthy spiritual practice of fasting, when fasting for more than a day I definitely more intensely realize more of what is most important in life... though I can push this to the background of my mind still.
|
Is Karma different for accidental killing than intentional killing? Ever since I have started following Buddhism, I have stopped killing any type of insects but during the course of time I have accidentally killed few insects when I had no intentions of harming them like 1) While using touchscreen a tiny insect of few millimeters in length came between my screen & finger. 2) Accidental killing mosquito in sleep as they bite us. 3) Ants come under my feet whenever I am busy going from A to B (Here I mean totally immersed in work mode where you don't have time to think of anything else. So is Karma different for such types of incidents because I never intent to harm such beings, forget about killing them or will I get the same punishment for intentional killing? <Q> The background story to the first verse of the Dhammapada is of an arhat killing insects accidentally, because he's blind. <S> The verse says, All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. <S> If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart. <S> Something similar is found in the monastic rules (page 29): <S> In analyzing offenses for the purpose of determining penalties, the Vibhanga divides an action into five factors: the effort , the perception under which it is made, the intention motivating it, the object at which it is aimed, and the result . <S> In some of the rules, all five factors play a role in determining what is and is not a full offense. <S> In others, only two, three, or four play a role. <S> For example, under the parajika rule forbidding murder, all five factors have to be present for a full offense: The object has to be a human being, the bhikkhu has to perceive him/her as a living being, he has to have murderous intent, he has to make an effort for the person to die, and the person has to die. <S> If any of these factors is missing, the penalty changes. <S> For instance, object: <S> If the bhikkhu kills a dog, the penalty is a pacittiya (i.e. a less-severe penalty]. <S> Perception: If he cremates a friend, thinking that the friend is dead, then even if the friend is actually alive but severely comatose, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. <S> Intention: <S> If he accidentally drops a rock on a person standing below him, he incurs no penalty even if the person dies. <S> Effort: <S> If he sees a person fall into the river but makes no effort to save the person, he incurs no penalty even if the person drowns. <S> Result: If he tries to kill a person, but only succeeds in injuring him, he incurs a thullaccaya [which is another less-severe penalty]. <A> While usually we understand an "action" to be equated to its effects (e.g. the act of killing would be the act of "turning" a living thing dead), in Buddhism, intention is often equated with action, as per the sutra AN 6.63 : <S> cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi Intention, I tell you, is kamma (action) <S> Thus, wholesome and unwholesome actions are not simply judged by it's effects. <S> They are also not judged solely by one's intention, but generally also by one's (lack of) wisdom (i.e. by one's ignorance of the workings of dukkha ). <S> In Buddhism, it's not a dilemma a well-intended person doing something foolish (both the intention and the foolish act are distinguished). <S> Nevertheless, I think one is ultimately not really accounted for what lies outside the touch of the senses and the consciousness of the sensed data (as exemplified in @ChrisW's answer ). <S> Thus, killing a living being by stepping on it without having sensed it was <S> there is not quite considered an act of killing. <A> Sinful Killing/Intentional Killing <S> You can determine yourself whether it is intentional killing or not by checking as follows. <S> Before physically kill any living being, do you or don't you have intention to kill. <S> In the process of killing (like pressing [on insect], hitting, cutting, thrusting) <S> you know yourself (you are aware of) doing killing. <S> After the killing is done you see the living being is killed (or injured) and you are pleased to see that happens (you justify that it is killed and right to kill). <S> Any of three is happened on your mind? <S> You committed "Killing" karma. <S> It is subtle point that you break the first precept or not by completing three steps above. <S> But it is bad Karma if you did any one of the three steps and you should expect reflection of your deed. <S> Sometimes the state of mind and transition of mind during killing process was very fast and one or all of the steps seems not happened. <S> But careful analysis might show it happened very fast in your mind. <S> The most important point here is let bygone be bygone. <S> Do not let the notion that you committed killing linger in your mind. <S> You need to move on. <S> You need to determine yourself you will not break first precept in future. <S> Every end of the day you didn't do killing you should have notion and keep that notion with pleased yourself to multiply good karma. <A> To add to the already good spread of answers here, carelessness is something to be avoided. <S> Stepping on an ant can still add up, especially if throughout the week it becomes ants. <S> If you can avoid it, but do not avoid it, you are in some sense complacent. <S> Now if there is the situation where one was completely unaware of the situation and did not see the bug until it was too late... <S> Well that is different. <S> But if the sidewalk is flowing with ants, and one knows this, one should watch their step as they traverse the path... <S> And maybe put ones phone away for the few minutes of travel, and try to just be, and observe things as they are.
|
I think we're meant to infer that if you don't act with an evil mind (or act without an evil mind), that if the killing is accidental or unintentional, that's not as bad as intentional killing.
|
Book of zen kōans I am looking for a book of kōans that contains things like the following: Nasreddin Khodja commanded his disciples, when he sneezed, to salute him by clapping their hands and crying out: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," that is "Prosperity to thee, O Master!" Now it came to pass that on one of the days the bucket fell into the well [...] he descended, caught the bucket, and the boys were already pulling him up, when, just as he was drawing near the edge of the well, he chanced to sneeze. Whereupon they, mindful of the master's behest, let go the rope and, clapping their hands in high glee, cried out in chorus: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," Nasreddin was precipitated violently into the well, bruising himself against the sides. [...] "Well, boys, it was not your fault, but mine: too much honour is no good thing for man." And: A farmer’s horse ran away. His neighbors gathered upon hearing the news and said sympathetically, “That’s such bad luck.” “Maybe,” the farmer replied. The horse returned on his own the next morning, and brought seven wild horses with it. “Look how many more horses you have now,” the neighbors exclaimed. “How lucky!” “Maybe,” the farmer replied. The next day, the farmer’s son attempted to ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. “How awful,” the neighbors said. “It looks like your luck has turned for the worse again.” The farmer simply replied, “Maybe.” The following day, military officers came to town to conscript young men into the service. Seeing the son’s broken leg, they rejected him. The neighbors gathered round the farmer to tell him how fortunate he was. “Maybe,” said the farmer. And: An elder monk was addressing his students with a large staff. He asked the first student, "What is the Buddha mind?" The first student answered as well as he could, and said "To know the Buddha nature in all things." The elder monk hit the first student in the head with the staff. He went to the next student, and asked again: "What is the Buddha mind?" The next student answered "non attachment," and the elder monk hit him with the stick, too. He asked the third student the same question, and the third student did nothing but quake in fear. That student got a knock on the head as well. The process continued until one of the elder monk's students, before the elder monk had even finished his question, grabbed the stick out of his hand. That was the correct answer. And: A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon." Is there such a book? If so, what is its name? I would like to read more of these types of enlightening little stories. I don't like kōans that are heavy on doctrines. <Q> Two of the ones you quoted are new to me (and two are not). <S> There's a collection of 101 such stories here: <S> http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html <S> These koans, or parables, were translated into English from a book called the Shaseki-shu (Collection of Stone and Sand), written late in the thirteenth century by the Japanese Zen teacher Muju (the "non-dweller"), and from anecdotes of Zen monks taken from various books published in Japan around the turn of the 20th century. <S> I think this is a well-known collection; I don't know whether you consider it "heavy on doctrines". <A> The Gateless Gate is a classic koan compilation. <A> I think it's important to point out that what you are citing aren't koans per se. <S> Excepting the third one you've quoted, these would be better labeled as stories or parables. <S> A koan doesn't try to convey an intellectual lesson but rather attempts to point out either an obstacle a student is wrestling with or a characteristic of the enlightened mind. <S> Every koan (literally a legal case) can be separated into two parts. <S> First, there is usually a little story that may or may not make much sense to us intellectually. <S> A example that will be familiar to most is the Buddha holding up a flower on Vulture Peak. <S> The second part of the koan is called the turning phrase. <S> This phrase expresses the "essence" of the koan. <S> A teacher usually provides you with that. <S> I mean, you really can't tease out the essence of a koan until you've answered it, <S> right? <S> ;-) <S> (And I'd say that even after you answer it, you still might not understand its essence!) <S> The turning phrase is probably the most important part of the koan. <S> It's what the student would apply their mind to in meditation - saying that phrase on every out breath. <S> I'd even go so far as to say that it's what makes the koan what it is... <S> and it's the reason why the sources you quoted don't quite pass muster as an official koan. <S> The turning phrase is both the vehicle for entering mushin (e.g. one-pointed attention on emptiness) and the place where insight occurs. <S> In the example of Buddha holding up a flower, the student would say "flower" on every out breath. <S> As the student did this, their mind would become collected and blank. <S> As their mind settled into mushin, they would then begin to explore what the word "flower" was really pointing at. <S> If you are interested in learning more about koans, I cannot recommend Sekida's translations of the Mumonkon and Blue Cliff Record highly enough. <S> They're the best available in English and his footnotes are indispensable. <S> If you are interested in practicing Zen and really want to learn what these koan things are all about, you absolutely must work with a teacher. <S> Zen is very much an oral tradition of live transmission. <S> You can't go it alone. <A> There is a YouTube channel / site where actual Zen masters will read out koans for a crispy treat the gateless gate is really good and if you can track a copy of " the Zen bible " that has a mixture of study and story.. <S> Also our of Zen ... <S> the gospel of Buddha has very early stories similar to koans .. <S> one such story is of a mother grieving for only son .... <S> it's titled story of mustard seeds.. <S> Just. <S> Google this info and enjoy :: edit just go into Google ... <S> then YouTube type in Zen talks ... <S> the Zen bible is also on Google <S> it's in my very congested room <S> it would take me a day to retrieve please understand I use Google plus input topic <S> and there you go...
|
Three of the best known koan collections are the Mumonkan, The Blue Cliff Record, and the Book of Serenity.
|
In Buddhas Time Did Kings give Freedom to His Sex Wives(Anttappura Wives)? in lord Buddhas time their was many kingdoms in India. these kingdoms had many kings. kings had many wives. some kings had 500, 1000 (Antappura) wives but they all have main 1 queen & other wives used for sex uses.most of these kings became followers of Buddhism & Buddha & they obtain nirvana (1st 3 stages as below) The First Stage – Skt srotaapanna (The stream-winner) The Second Stage – Sakridagamin The Third Stage – Anagamin (The non-returner) so my question is after these became Buddhist & obtain nirvana did these kings given freedom to these Wives who use for sex uses? <Q> One such instance was King Bimbisara giving freedom to Khema to enter the order. <S> Many more may be found in the cemeteries and many may not even be documented! <A> So my question is after these became Buddhist & obtain nirvana did these kings given freedom to these Wives who use for sex uses? <S> When one wins Nibbana one has lived the holy life and done what had to be done, i.e. one has destroyed all fetters and achieved complete security from all bondage. <S> One has removed the veil of ignorance permanently and therefore do not produce either wholesome or unwholesome kamma. <S> Instead one's kamma becomes purely functional (kiriya), meaning that its no longer kammically potent and creates no further resultants (rebirth). <S> The cittas that arise in the javana process is no longer kammically determinate since craving has been destroyed. <S> Since an enlightened being has destroyed all fetters and root defilements its not possible to hold other beings captured against their will or use anyone for personal gratification. <A> I guess your question is after meeting Lord Buddha and achieving Nirvana would sex be permitted , one point I'd like to make is present day <S> Buddhism does not condemn sex between a loving husband and wife .. <S> There would be as then a certain moral code once you reach Nirvana or some enlightenment. <S> Sorry just to clarify ...I think what you've asked is whether the Kings post enlightenment allowed their former concubines to be used for sexual pleasure? <S> To my knowledge no body after enlightenment would approve of prostitution!
|
But sex for the use of pleasure would be inappropriate in a secular area such as temples etc or those in robes who take wows to abstain from many types of pleasure in the physical body also having more than one partner is kinda unfaithful too.
|
Difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana Is there a difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana ? Or are they just synonyms? <Q> The two terms are not exactly synonymous although their context of usage is synonymous since both terms are associated with "seeing" ("passa") the same true reality. <S> ' <S> Yathā bhūta ' means "true nature", as is found in AN 11.2 , namely: ' <S> yathā (true) bhūta (nature) <S> jānāmi (know) <S> passāmi (see) <S> *' " Vipassana " means "clear seeing" (namely, the Four Noble Truths, the true nature of suffering & peace; & the Three Characteristics, the true nature of conditioned things). <A> Seeing this as they are (yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana) leads to revulsion (nibbidā) --> dispassion (virāga) -- <S> > <S> liberation (vimutti) -- <S> > <S> knowledge of the destruction of the influxes (āsava-k,khaya,ñāna). <S> [ Upanisa Sutta , (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta , (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta ]. <S> So by means of Vipassana <S> you get yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana though which you can get liberation transitively. <S> Vimutt’āyatana <S> Sutta mentions this, though it skips some intermidiate steps <S> Nibbida <S> fomular implies that you have to pass through yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana. <S> Also see this answer . <S> Also see: <S> Nibbida by Piya Tan <A> "yathabhuta - seeing things as they are - not as you want them to be" - this was the instruction at Goenka retreats. <S> It relates to the four noble truths - suffering <S> is because we want things to be different than they actually are in reality <S> ...in short - craving is what suffering is... <A> Yatha does not mean "true." <S> Butha does not mean "nature." <S> Butha means either "[it] is" or "has come to be." <S> Yatha butha therefore means "as it (really) is," or "as it has come to be." <S> There is an implication of truth/reality, but that is not literally present in the language. <S> Vipassana is neither process or method as you can use multiple methods to attain vipassana meaning "insight" (lit. <S> vi = <S> "in" or "into" [in this context], passa = "see," na = nominalization marker). <S> Therefore cultivating samadhi allows us achieve vipassana regarding reality yatha butha. <S> Though, the causality could be reversed and you could say that when the mind is still in samadhi then we are able to see experience yatha butha, which then becomes the cause for vipassana.
|
Yatha means "as" or "like." Vipassana is the process of methodology to see things as they are .
|
In Buddhism can all we percieve / experience b used as teachers? ...I have been working on this one question for a while so can everything we experience in life internally and externally be used as our teachers from a Buddhist point of view?examples..Anger = powerful emotion active in a person when one is threatened or insulted ,,an injustice over a issue etc also known to protect the persons personality ( possible to say anger is a friend then ! ) anger is an emotion that is automatically generated ,defense mechanism. It is repetitive and has been for x million yrs within the human psyche. We could also say it exists in lower beings birds ,goats , dogs etc so anger could be an important link to other forms of life by now I think you'll get some idea about just one state of mind that's revealed so much ... <Q> The Buddha told us the three marks of existence, all things which exist in the mind have these properties: <S> Sabbe sankhara anicca Sabbe sankhara dukkha <S> Sabbe dhamma anatta All conditioned things are impermanent, All conditioned things are suffering, All things are without a self. <S> This means that everything has the potential to teach us. <S> We can learn about impermanence, dukkha, and not-self from anything which arises in the mind. <A> Anger certainly exists in lower beings such birds, goats, dogs, etc. <S> That is why, in Buddhism, anger does not represent the 'human state' (' manussa - dhamma '). <S> Instead, in represents 'birth' (' jati ') in the 'animal world' ( tiracchānayoni ). <S> Sensual desire... <S> ill-will (anger)... <S> sloth & drowsiness... restlessness & anxiety... <S> uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelmsthe mind and weakens wisdom... <S> when amonk has not abandoned these five obstacles... for him to understand what is for hisown benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, tounderstand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superiorhuman (manussa) state (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that isimpossible. <S> Avarana Sutta <S> Although anger is certainly a pre-programmed instinctual survival mechanism, does anger teach us it is the ideal way to respond to perceived threats? <S> Or is there a more 'human' ('reflective/wise') way to respond to perceived threats? <S> a cause/reason for its arising ( samudaya ); (ii) <S> a condition for its passing ( atthaṅgama ); (iii) an attractive, alluring or stimulating quality ( assāda ); (iv) <S> a danger or drawback ( ādīnava ); (v) a method to escape from the danger ( nissaraṇa ). <S> When people confessed their sins (moral transgressions) to the Buddha, he generally responded their sins were a 'teacher' for their growth & development. <S> For example: Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — arighteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership. <S> But because you see your transgression as such and make amends inaccordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. <S> For it is acause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance withthe Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future. <S> DN 2 <A> A trite answer might be "Yes, everything is a learning experience! <S> You can learn from anything". <S> A better answer might be "No: maybe not". <S> To start with, saying for example that "a turnip can be used as a teacher" maybe does a disservice to actual/genuine teachers (including the Buddha himself). <S> But not sexual intercourse, it says. <S> It doesn't explain why, but perhaps we might infer that sexual intercourse cannot be "used as our teacher". <S> Although I note that perhaps some forms of Buddhism do teach that, in some circumstances and for some people, there is something to be learned from sexual intercourse. <S> Maybe they teach remorse ... <S> however the lesson you ought to be learning instead of that is "skillful virtues" and " freedom from remorse ". <S> You say that anger "protects the person's personality, so it's possible to say anger is a friend then". <S> I suspect however that if you practice anger, then that does nothing but teach you how to be angry <S> (which maybe isn't a lesson worth learning, nor a "personality" you want to preserve).
|
Buddhism explains everything can be a teacher, it that everything has: (i) The Bhikkhuni Sutta suggests that various things like food, and even craving and conceit, can be helpful or instrumental. I suspect that maybe negative emotions, such as anger or jealousy, maybe can't be used as a teacher.
|
Is the term " mind " another way of describing awareness? Ok for starters allot of talk is about the mind in Buddhism... So the question I'm posting is there only really (truthfully ) awareness ? For example thinking has awareness.. Feeling has awareness... Seeking ..studying all have awareness as the common factor ...if there was no awareness non of the above is possible so is it really awareness in a conclusive form that is there and mind is just a term for it? <Q> "Awareness" is a very poor or inaccurate word to use in relation to Buddhism, despite the fact that so many Buddhists use it. <S> This is because, in English, "awareness" has many meanings, such as: (i) mere sense awareness <S> ; e.g. He was aware of the sight of the plane in the sky (ii) knowledge; e.g. He is aware that drugs are dangerous. <S> 1. <S> Having knowledge or discernment of something: was aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware that the music hadstopped. <S> 2. <S> Attentive and well informed: "Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people" (Armand Marie Leroi). <S> 3. <S> Archaic Vigilant; watchful. <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/awareness <S> In Buddhism, there are different words for the different types of mentality ( nama ), such as: consciousness (' vinnana '); that which 'experiences' sense objects via the sense organs ' citta ' ('mind-heart'); that which generates emotions (greed, anger, love, etc) & thoughts <S> ' mano ' ('intellect'); that which makes decisions, generates intentions, develops wisdom <S> Therefore, to answer the original question, feeling, thinking, studying, etc, have consciousness ('vinnana') as the common factor. <S> Buddhism defines the composition of a human life into five aggregates, namely: (i) body; (ii) feelings (pleasant & unpleasant sensations); (iii) perceptions (labels); (iv) <S> mental forming <S> (emotions, thoughts, images, etc) & (v) consciousness. <S> It is consciousness that allows each aggregate, including consciousness itself, to be experienced or known. <S> Thus the common factor, in terms of 'experience', is consciousness. <S> However, if we take a scientific approach, in terms of how these different mental functions exist, we would say the common factor is the brain or neurology. <A> If you take Namarupa according to the Skandha classification the following falls under Nama (mind) <S> feelings <S> perceptions mental formations <S> consciousness. <S> You know or are aware due to consciousness but there other 3 items which form the mind. <S> Also awareness is the function of consciousness and not consciousness itself. <S> So awareness in itself is not mind. <S> You are aware since partly due to conciousness, as you have to have an external stimuli, organ, and attention, <S> Cha Chakka Sutta may help shed some light. <A> from what I know, you are absolutely correct. <S> Awareness is an entity you can not isolate it by itself. <S> In other word, there cant be know without the known. <S> Buddha said, vinnana ends when name-form ends, and name-form ends when vinnana ends/ <S> so I agree with you when you said if there was no awareness non of the above is possible
|
It has to aware of something to be there.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.