source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Agitation during mindfulness tickling I was following an older thread , however I would love if someone could respond with an answer as to how I can handle the following situation. This happens almost every time I do mindfulness. As I sit in mindfulness I almost always get a tickling or tingling sensation from my clothing, whether its the bra or underwear etc. As I sit there I try to continue breathing in and out focusing on my anchor, but inevitably the sensation gets the best of me, I feel exasperated and do what I ned to do to relieve the sensation. I feel like I could burst from the agitation sometimes, and I have never been able to sit through the agitation long enough for it to go away, the agitation can persist for 10 plus minutes. <Q> This could be the hindrance of Restlessness - worry which accompanies irritable tingling tingling sensations. <S> This is increased by not giving wise attention to it. <S> That is to look at the sensation with equanimity noting that it arises and passes away. <S> There is, bhikshus, the lack of mental calm (cetaso avupasamo). <S> Frequently giving unwise attention to them is food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, and for the growth and abundance of arisen restless and worry. <S> ... <S> There is, bhikshus, mental calm (cetaso vūpasama). <S> Frequently giving wise attention to them is not food for the arising of unarisen restless and worry, nor for the growth and abundance of arisen restless and worry. <S> (Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) <S> Ahara Sutta <S> The enlightenment facts to cultivate and not to cultivate are as follows: <S> And should cultivate: <S> When the mind is restless it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of the doctrine, energy and rapture, because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them. <S> When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them. <S> Aggi Sutta | <S> The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest <A> Monks & nuns generally do not wear bras & underwear <S> therefore you can follow their example when meditating. <S> Refer to this link . <S> Monks in tropical countries are still retaining this ancient set of clothing with the addition of an inner shirt covering the left shoulder but revealing the right and a waist belt to tighten up <S> the under robe <S> (underwear is not allowable, rather not prescribed for monks, though wearing underwear is a common practice for modern monks). <A> As @Dhammadhatu mentioned it is best to wear comfortable clothes. <S> I have felt ticklings and sometimes etchings while meditating. <S> I wouldn't say it's a mindly hindrance but rather an external hindrance. <S> At home, I would wear a silk/nylon t-shirt (It feels comfortable and light) and a Sarong <S> (It doesn't restrict/tighten your legs like it would do with Jeans and <S> it provides a good air ventilation to your lower body leading to a comfortable sit. <S> Also, It's more comforting when not using an underwear) <S> This is what I have experienced and what I do to prevent the ticklings. <A> There are always sensations on our body. <S> As you become concentrated and mindful, you start to notice those sensations. <S> This is very normal to get irritated because this is our normal habit pattern of reacting. <S> You should try not to agitate and observe those sensations equanimously.
|
You are bound to get those sensation as you sit mindfully, your mind gets concentrated. When formally meditating, it is ideal to wear comfortable loose clothing. And if you need to do anything to get rid of it, do it mindfully.
|
Benefits of Producing and Caring for Children Genetically speaking producing your own children perpetuates your own genes. Buddha spoke at length about the 31 Planes of Existence. What is Buddhism's (not just Theravada) position on having children? Namely the benefits of producing and caring for children? Or does Buddhism mostly see them as a constraint (i.e. Rahula "chain") and there is no connection between between your own progeny and the afterlife? <Q> Ahmed, From "Living in the World" in Awareness Itself by Ajaan Fuang Jotiko: § <S> Once, when one of Ajaan Fuang's students was being pressured by her parents to look for a husband so that she could settle down and have children, she asked him, "Is it true what they say, that a woman gains a lot of merit in having a child, in that she gives someone else the chance to be born?" <S> "If that were true," he answered her, "then dogs would get gobs of merit, because they give birth to whole litters at a time." <S> How ever, once you have organiced your "Rahulas" production, you have certain duty out of you "linga"-worshiping (bhava-tanha) or craving after sensuality (kama-tanha) to care for it and get rightously ride of it (tanha). <S> That starts with not harming it right from the moment of conception. <S> "This has come into beeing." <S> So seeing such, the burdens and sacrifies other need to bear, one does no more desire for birth and a womb but tries to pay ones last dept of gratitude, giving all back and maybe even share the highest gift, once then made his own. <S> If you would not have been father, mother, son, daughter once, if not having Upanissaya to the Dhammas father, how could this seed possible cause a conception of light, here and now? <S> Its good to celerbrate the fathersday , and getting the lessons of gratitude understood rightly by performing. <S> Nobody called you to come. <S> (Note: This is a seed of Dhamma and not meant for commercial puposes or other wordily gains.) <A> Buddhism holds a favorable view on having children because only a human can become a fully enlightened Buddha, and being born as a human is a rare occurrence. <S> I know you asked for a general Buddhist perspective, not just Theravada, but the Chiggala Sutta <S> does a great job of illustrating how rare a human birth is. <S> "Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. <S> A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. <S> A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. <S> And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. <S> It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. <S> Now what do you think: <S> would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole? <S> " <S> "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole." <S> "It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. <S> It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. <S> It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. <S> Now, this human state has been obtained. <S> A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. <S> A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. <S> The Wikipedia page Human beings in Buddhism states the same thing from a general Buddhist standpoint. <A> There's a Zen story that may be topical, here: <S> Is That <S> So? <S> Not producing, but at least caring for children. <S> I suppose there may be down-side to it too: if that circumstance prompts you to be selfish, aversive, grasping, cruel, etc.
|
I suppose the children benefit (from your care), and you get to do the right (caring, virtuous) thing.
|
Why people in our realm are so fundamentally different? Apparently, almost all of us living on Earth are the results of specific Bardo Thodol events, that led us here. We all failed to get to the higher realms. Except of course those who voluntarily chosen this place to serve and educate. And those for whom this realm is actually a promotion. We were all reborn. Considering the countless number of realms, wouldn't it make more sense for people to be much similar in nature being born in one place? Does it mean that all the differences (smart/dumb, greedy/generous, kind/evil, materialistic/non-materialistic, spiritual/ignorant, educated/illiterate...etc) are less important, than something fundamental that unifies us? what is it then? Lust? desires? Outside world is the result of one's development and ultimate true nature of the beings here, so we all deserve what we have? Why such gigantic variety and number of variables? to increase the choice selection for the next life? <Q> The truth is, we don't all live in the same world. <S> The world you perceive is a projection of your mind, so what you see largely depends on your energy which in its turn depends on your karma. <S> Phenomenal reality is not an aquarium full of fish, it's more complicated than that. <S> To the extent that our energy is similar, which means we have made many similar choices in the past, our realities will be overlapping and vice versa. <S> Someone who came here to teach, may not at all live in the same reality that you live in, but they can project an image into your reality. <S> My teacher said, a murderer lives in a very different reality than his victim, but they overlap around a few attachments they have in common. <S> Karma is what we can control by being careful. <S> Energy can be tuned in meditation and also by controlling your attention. <S> Also, Karma affects your future energy, and energy affects your choices, therefore your karma. <A> The short answer is Kamma and ignorance. <A> The three marks of existence are those fundamental properties that are universal throughout Samsara <S> , no one is born in a truly different state. <S> The Buddha did not ask 'why' with regards to variety, but one could say that variety within Samsara is perceived to be infinite because without Atman finality cannot be drawn in a concrete fashion (no concrete or Essential delineation of 'that which exists and is (can be) perceived' and 'that which exists but is never (can never be) perceived' is possible).. <S> “Contacted, bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives." <S> SN 35.93 <S> Contact is what unifies experience, empty of contact, there isn't much to talk about. <S> Intention, right intention , is what determines our lives, whether this one or the next. <S> Intention is what determines what Kamma one acquires, and hence the fruit one reaps. <A> I'm not sure that people in our realm are so fundamentally different. <S> For example, the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying, As human beings we are all the same. <S> We have this marvelous intelligence, which sometimes creates problems for us, but when influenced by warm-heartedness can be very constructive. <S> In this context we need to appreciate the value of having moral principles. <S> And , Firstly, as a human being, His Holiness is committed to the promotion of human values such as compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment and self-discipline. <S> He says that as human beings we are all the same. <S> We all want happiness and do not want suffering. <S> Even people who do not believe in religion can benefit if they incorporate these human values into their lives. <A> diversity in Karma lead to diversity of life expectancy, attractiveness, health, experiences, etc. <S> diversity in genetics leads to changes in appearances and health also. <S> diversity of habitual tendencies which have build up over time different habits of which some may be generosity, kindness, etc. <S> diversity of of past Sankhara also may lead to ignorance, situation which lead on to attachment, aversion, etc.
|
It's complicated, but for practical purposes it's enough to know that it all depends on karma (long term) and on your energy/state of mind (in the immediate timeframe).
|
Different Reasons of Dhamma's Decline In many suttas the Buddha stated different reasons for the decline of the Dhamma. Why and how it happens. The different causes. Can I have the references of those suttas? -Metta <Q> Ani Sutta - have desire to learn the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha and not anyone else Anagata bhaya Sutta - teaching not practiced in earnest and procrastination <S> Sugata Vinaya Sutta - monks become unapproachable and have wrong understanding <S> Dhamma emerging and unspiritual people lead to decline Appamada Sutta - heedlessness, indolence, excessive desires, unwise attention, lack of full awareness, evil friends, neglect of the wholesome lead to decline. <S> Opposite preserves the Dhamma. <S> Thiti Sutta / Parihana Sutta - Satipatthana not being practiced. <S> Practicing preserves the Dhamma. <S> Mahā,parinibbāna Sutta - being anxious to learn and practice <S> Dhamma will result in the highest attainments [and preserve it] Vinaya Cullavagga - admission of women etc. <S> More on this see the references of: The Dharma-ending Age by Piya Tan <S> In addition the commentarial literature has the 5 antaradhāna which is mentioned in another answer. <S> They are: adhigama-antaradhāna - attainments disappear, because the practice is polluted with miss conception. <S> paṭipatti-antaradhāna - <S> because attainments are disappear, the practice is neglected, hence it disappear pariyatti-antaradhāna - because practice are disappear, the learning is neglected, hence it disappear liṅga-antaradhāna - <S> because learning are disappear, the monasticism (Sangha) is neglected, hence it disappear dhātu-antaradhāna - <S> because reverence to wards the Dhātu disappear, the Dhātu is neglected, hence it disappear <S> So ends the Sasana and beings the dark ages <A> "Formerly, bhikkhus, the Dasaarahas had a summoning-drum. <S> As the drum began to split the Dasaarahas inserted one peg <S> and then another peg <S> until in time the summoning-drum's old drumhead had disappeared and only a framework of pegs remained. <S> " <S> Even so, bhikkhus, will the bhikkhus become in the future. <S> And those discourses spoken by the Tathaagata, profound in meaning, transcendental, dealing with voidness, to these they will not listen when they are recited, they will not lend an ear, they will not set the heart upon final knowledge[48] and will not consider that those things should be learned and mastered. <S> But those discourses made by poets, poetry, mere beautiful words and phrases, spoken by outsiders and disciples, to these they will listen... <S> they will consider that these things should be learned and mastered. <S> "Therefore, bhikkhus, I say, you should train yourselves thus: "' <S> Those discourses spoken by the Tathaagata profound in meaning, transcendental, dealing with voidness, to these we will listen when they are recited, we will lend an ear, we will set the heart upon final knowledge and we will consider that these things should be learned and mastered.' <S> " <S> — SN 20.7 <A> 5 antaradhāna, in this commentary of this sutta , is completely conclusion.
|
Ovada Suttas - boastful about preaching ability, lack of faith, moral shame and fear, elders not setting a good example Kimbila Suttas - lack of mutual respect towards the teacher, Dhamma, Sangha, practice, each other, heedfulness and hospitality Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta - counterfeit
|
Meditation and family life I started meditating regularly four years ago, about an hour daily. Then, three years ago, my son was born, and since then it's been really difficult for me to be constant with my practice. It's hard for me to make time to meditate. Only during the night I find some time to be alone, but I'm so tired... Do you have any advice on how to rebuild my practice amidst family life? <Q> Be mindful of everything you do. <S> That is meditation. <S> Distractions are meditation objects. <S> Not showstoppers. <S> Showstoppers are mostly your strong wrong views like God, soul or nihilism. <A> You said that you meditated for about an hour daily. <S> Now that you are busy, why not ten minutes per day of formal meditation? <S> If there is no time for formal meditation, you can still be mindful all the time: <S> Other people say they don't have the chance to meditate because they're too busy. <S> Sometimes schoolteachers come to see me. <S> They say they have many responsibilities <S> so there's no time to meditate. <S> I ask them, 'When you're teaching do you have time to breathe?’ <S> They answer, 'Yes.' ' <S> So how can you have time to breathe if the work is so hectic and confusing? <S> Here you are far from Dhamma.' <S> Actually this practice is just about the mind and its feelings. <S> It's not something that you have to run after or struggle for. <S> Breathing continues while working. <S> Nature takes care of the natural processes – all we have to do is try to be aware. <S> Just to keep trying, going inwards to see clearly. <S> Meditation is like this. <S> If we have that presence of mind then whatever work we do will be the very tool which enables us to know right and wrong continually. <S> There's plenty of time to meditate; we just don't fully understand the practice, that's all. <S> While sleeping we breathe, while eating we breathe, don't we? <S> Why don't we have time to meditate? <S> Wherever we are we breathe. <S> If we think like this then our life has as much value as our breath; wherever we are we have time. <S> — <S> Ajahn Chah, "The Peace Beyond" <A> Try to mediate 2 session of 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening / night. <S> If the session is too short <S> you will not get result. <S> It is like rubbing 2 fire wood sticks. <S> To get fire you have to rub them enough to ignite. <S> If you practice too short sessions and not seeing the benefit of meditation soon enough might perhaps may lead you to give up. <S> If they are too long it might interfere with your day to day activities and you might give up meditation as it becomes a burden. <S> Also if the session are too far apart then the results from the previous session may wear off and you might be starting the session from a lower progress point. <S> Again you might not see much benefit as progress might seam slow if the sessions are far apart. <S> You just have to balance these concerns and make a decision.
|
Also you can try shorter session but perhaps adding up to about 2+ hours a day.
|
Looking for a Buddhist story about trust I heard a Buddhist story about trust some time ago and am trying to locate it. The story goes, there are some men travelling (I think) to a temple or monastery and on the way they get swindled and lose all their belongings to a con (or something, somehow are tricked) When they get to the temple or monastery they are asked what they have learned. The first man says 'not to trust anyone' and is not admitted. The 2nd (or 3rd) man says that he has learned to be careful who he trusts and so is allowed entry. Does this sound familiar? Does anyone know of a Buddhist tale that is similar to this? Thanks! <Q> The Pali Canon has some good ones on the "Trust, but verify" theme, like the "Four Great References" in DN 16 , the Gotami Sutta , or the famous Kalama Sutta of AN 3.65 <A> The Story of King Pasenadi of Kosala While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (204) of this Dhammapada, with reference to King Pasenadi of Kosala. <S> One day, King Pasenadi of Kosala went to the Jetavana monastery after having his full morning meal. <S> It was said that the king had eaten one quarter basket (about half a bushel) of rice with meat curry on that day; so while listening to the Buddha's discourse he felt very sleepy and was nodding most of the time. <S> Seeing him nodding, the Buddha advised him to take a little less rice everyday and to decrease the amount on a sliding scale to the minimum of one-sixteenth part of the original amount he was taking. <S> The king did as he was told and found that by eating less he became thin, but he felt very much lighter and enjoyed much better health. <S> When he told the Buddha about this, the Buddha said to him, "O king! <S> Health is a great boon; contentment is a great wealth; a close and trusted friend is the best relative; Nibbana is the greatest bliss." <S> Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: <S> Verse 204: <S> Health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth, a trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the greatest bliss. <A> On the matter of trust in giving, there is the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅga Sutta : <S> “When an ethical person with trusting heart gives a proper gift to unethical persons, trusting in the ample fruit of deeds, that offering is purified by the giver. <S> When an unethical and untrusting person, gives an improper gift to ethical persons, not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds, <S> that offering is purified by the receivers. <S> When an unethical and untrusting person, gives an improper gift to ethical persons, not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds, <S> I declare that gift is not very fruitful. <S> When an ethical person with trusting heart gives a proper gift to ethical persons, trusting in the ample fruit of deeds, I declare that gift is abundantly fruitful. <S> But when the passionless gives to the passionless a proper gift with trusting heart, trusting in the ample fruit of deeds, that’s truly the best of material gifts.” <A> I remember a very similar story in an episode of the TV series “Kung Fu” with David Carradine. <S> 2 boys were robbed taking some goods to town: one of them was Kwai Chang Caine. <S> One boy gave the response you quoted, whereas Caine said “Always be aware Master” and was allowed to remain in The monastery. <S> It is possible the writers borrowed the story. <A> I have heard a similar story. <S> But it's not exactly a Buddhist story. <S> There is a book called 'Pancha Tanthra'. <S> It has many stories like this. <S> There are also youtube videos on these stories as cartoons. <S> You will find many resources. <A> As another answer already said, it features in an episode of the old Kung Fu TV series -- see Season 1, episode 7, The Tide -- one of the footnotes says: When the young Caine and another student are robbed, the other student learns not to trust strangers and is dismissed from the temple. <S> Shaolin are required to trust: the TAO TE CHING [F] says in both chapters #17 and #23, "He who does not trust enough, will not be trusted. <S> " <S> I don't know about the quote from the Tao Te Ching -- I looked in a couple of translations and didn't see the cited quote in chapters 17 or 23. <S> In one translation I looked at, it does say in Chapter 49 ... <S> The saint trusts those who are trustworthy. <S> He also trusts those who are not trustworthy. <S> This is the true virtue of trust. <S> ... <S> but the Tao Te Ching isn't Buddhism, presumably. <S> Apparently Shaolin is Buddhist -- <S> contrasted I thought with Wudang, which was or is Taoist -- <S> but, I don't know, maybe Shaolin has Taoist influences too <S> -- I doubt we can trust the Kung Fu TV series to be really accurate, culturally.
|
Try googling 'Pancha tantra stories about trust'.
|
Practical advice on not eating after noon My question is mainly to monks and nuns in this group, but I welcome answers from others as well. If one were to give up eating solid food after the midday, as instructed by the Buddha to his Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, what practical advice would you give such a person in order to avoid getting gastritis and stomach ulcers? <Q> This advice seems relevant (by a gastroenterologist and published in Canada's largest newspaper): Fasting tips for those with gastritis and peptic ulcer <A> From what I think, stomach juices from if you keep thing about food or feel hungry. <S> Whenever hunger arises if you are equanimous then and do not have this lead to thoughts about food and food craving then your stomach will become inactive and also hunger will subside. <S> You can use the sensation of hunger as an object of insight meditation. <S> This is how I whether it you when I am in retreats. <S> Also when you are occupied there is tendency you feel hunger less. <S> In such situation if thoughts about food does not arise I guess your body will not react by producing stomach juices. <S> Also one purpose of not eating after noon is to make time and also make practicing meditation easier. <S> So if you are in mediation for most of the day you do not tend to get these issues. <S> You do not burn much calories to get hungry. <S> You would not be thinking about food. <S> You would also had a lite diet. <S> Hunger is a flavor of aversion which you should try to avoid arising. <A> One needs to chance his/her life and simply tries. <S> To give certain advice that makes general sense for many in facing problems is not possible, and if wished to talk in personal, one may free to ask in way of talk, public or in areas where only practicing exchange personal things if wished, here given. <S> It's how ever not a problem to keep parts or all eight precepts permanent for lay people. <S> Note also that there have been not given any advices or rules in detail to lay person by the Buddha, since such a practice actually can only be explained who do and there have been many, not so today. <S> So any commentaries are prepared from certain monk rules and do not really match the precept but are counteracts of problem in regard of tendencies in the Sangha at this time. <S> You may also talk to Upasaka Akila about feedback, who did such merits for a week successful some weeks ago, in way of respectul talk. <S> [Next time, you do good to generally approach Monks and Nuns <S> proper] <S> (Note: <S> This is a Gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other worldly gain.) <A> I think you're worrying too much. <S> Not eating for 16 hours is really not that big a deal. <S> During times of scarcity, our forebears would go days between meals! <S> There are tons of people practicing this kind of diet albeit for health rather than spiritual concerns. <S> You are much more likely to find practical advice through that avenue than via the Buddhist community. <A> Eat alkaline foods during your period of eating. <S> Drink aloe vera and cooling things to cool your ulcers. <S> Keep yourself busy or in calm-abiding / loving-kindness meditation. <S> Try fasting for days at a time instead. <S> This may condition you. <A> if Lord Buddha gave such instruction than it means that one who has susceptibility or predisposition to a medical condition that would lead one unable to fulfill the instruction should not undertake it or alter it with the aid of a physician.
|
Take anti-acid formation tablets (if you must). Don't worry or think about your base desires for food and sex. If you are looking for some practical advice, my inclination is to steer you towards the intermittent fasting community.
|
How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana? Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana? Or simply, is their any time intervals in which meditator experiences all the jhanas one by one? <Q> "Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' <S> — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. <S> Why is that? <S> Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. <S> In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' <S> — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. <S> Why is that? <S> From lack of developing, it should be said. <S> Lack of developing what? <S> The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html <A> If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana? <S> It depends on the person. <S> But this this amount of practice I would presume you might not be able to get Jhana. <S> You might perhaps get the 1st Jhana, since based on initial and sustained application to which there is metal activity (active action), but beyond this is will be difficult, as there is not metal activity or there is nothing you are doing (passive / inaction). <S> Even 1st Jhana would be very difficult. <S> Once a monk told me that reaching the 1st Jhana is possible if you practice about 10 to 12 hours a day for about 15 days. <S> And perhaps going beyond this you might have to endure similar practice for years. <A> How much time it takes to experience 4th <S> jhana?v <S> Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. <S> Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. <S> If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana? <S> One cannot put a time perspective on such practices. <S> Just practice diligently, systematically and with great effort . <S> Undertake the (samatha) meditation practice for the sake of the practice itself - not for gaining anything. <S> The minute one is thinking about achieving and gaining something, one has fallen into the hindrances.. <S> As a result of that, one has moved away from the primary object of meditation and thus are not cultivating concentration. <S> Its a good idea to regularly clarify and affirm ones intentions for practicing - especially with Jhana meditation <S> , that is very important. <S> Its easy to become attached to the pleasant sensations this type of meditation practice can result in. <S> One should ask oneself why one takes on this practice. <S> Wholesome intentions for engaging in Samatha meditation could be: Collecting the scattered mind (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation) <S> Deepening serenity Purification of the mind stream Cultivating a high level of concentration <S> (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation) <A> Entering jhana states will be significantly hindered by the will to do so. <S> It is natural process brought on by right efford, right intention and right understanding during the meditation. <S> W. van den Boogaard
|
A wholesome intention is essential. Achievements in former lives and karma produced in the current plays an important role in whether or not jhana's can be achieved and in which period of time.
|
Helping Others Who Still Need to Suffer due to karma I was wondering if helping others who are suffering prevents them from receiving their karmic dues. For example, if Person X caused great suffering to others, then according Buddhism, his Karma will come back to haunt him in the same life or a next life. Now suppose, he does suffer in another future life but a Good Samaritan rescues him before all his karmic debts are paid. The Good Samaritan improves his karma account with the good deed but he has still rescued someone who still has a debt to pay to society. How can one justify helping others in this case? I'm not trying to find fault with Buddhism. <Q> Karma is not meant as a punishment or retribution or debt to be paid which you are not to interfere with. <S> It is complicated with many interactions. <S> The environment has to fall into place for its results to be seen. <S> If the environment can influence the effects of Karma, it can be eradicated or changed in some cases. <S> Since Karma is complex you you cannot say for sure. <S> Also this is the good Karma for the person doing it. <A> In the present moment we may have the opportunity to understand, support or help another fellow human in the spirit of compassion. <S> To behave compassionately towards another in the present moment can only improve life for ourselves and those around us. <S> If all our actions cause a reaction we should endeavour to live our lives more skillfully and with compassion. <S> I was very touched recently by a reading on Gratitude. <S> "Any <S> goodness that we encounter in the world is a gift from people now and in the past - a handful of people we know by name, and millions of others who's names we will never know. <S> For their countless acts of generosity, we owe them our deepest gratitude. <S> Our job is to take the lantern from their hands and carry it a little farther down the road." <A> The ideas in your question are your own. <S> They are not related to what the Buddha taught. <S> The Buddha taught if suffering was caused by actions performed in the past, we would be helpless. <S> Those who fall back on past deeds as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. <S> Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded <S> , they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. <S> This was my first legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view. <S> AN 3.61
|
By helping others your can help lighten the burden of their Karma and in some cases counteract the bad Karma altogether.
|
What is the true nature of karma? The more I study and meditate upon karma the more I am convinced that it is a physical thing and not a moral one. The universe is a massive interweaving assemblage of gears and wheels and shafts and cogs. By doing this simple action (we'll call it "X") you create a rippling of reactions as a direct result. These are the primary reactions then secondary then tertiary and so on. Thus the momentum imparted from the original action resulted in countless other effects. And the momentum or propensity of the actions to continue in that general direction is in my opinion the true nature of karma. Not some altruistic ideology that frowns upon immoral actions and exacts a eventual penalty just for that reason. Now, granted, the ill effects on others from those type of negative actions may create its own karmic momentum. But so many see karma as some sort of cosmic police force and that just isnt the case. At least not as I see it. Would someone agree or set me straight? <Q> O! <S> Bhikkhus, it is volition - cetana that I call Kamma, <S> -cetanaham <S> bhikkhave kammam vadami <S> Karma is always mental . <S> But the consequences( Vipaaka ) are both mental and physical. <A> It is true that its not a good bad thing ..... <S> BUT it actually almost sits on definitions of good and bad one on one What you said is said in almost all places that talk about karma in buddhism and its always in this funny way <S> they start very bold in stating on how karma is not about good and bad but just the law of karma the way things are .... <S> but than if you continue to read you see that good is almost one by one the same as wholesome and same with bad and unwholesome <S> * <S> ** <S> no one is punishing you (also said almost everywhere that they talk on karma) <S> but you will be "punished" not on purpose when you will receive the effects of your action <S> it has differences like for instance meditation is considered wholesome karma - and can be considered even better karma than donating money for example giving money for example is good cause its letting go of attachment - also it developes metta --- which are things which will benefit you edit : <S> but karma can be unfair (like real life police actually) <S> some stuff you do can be very little and have great effect and huge stuff you do have a tiny effect <S> when the time is right <S> (i belive you heard about comparing karma to seeds the unfair part of karama can be different than good and bad <S> which is if you give 40 <S> you might get 20 or get 4000000 <S> its not tit for tat <A> You are right in using physical things to explain karma. <S> But reasoning can only get us this far. <S> Reasoning does little to eliminate sufferings. <S> The main wish of the buddha is to have everyone be free from sufferings and be enlightened. <S> Since buddha has seen karma being responsible for sufferings he teaches us not to create karma. <S> And since there many types of karma, there are many different teachings - 84,000 of them. <S> Thus besides besides explaining karma, we must know that we should not create them. <A> Karma can be simply explained using the Newton's 3rd law : "Every action has a reaction which is equal in magnitude & opposite in direction. <S> " <S> These actions include, thoughts, words & physical actions. <S> Through the way we do these actions, we alter the momentum of the force that we emit in doing them. <S> The return is always even equal to the depth of our intention in doing it. <S> That's why Lord Buddha has asked us to remind the good thing we do in our life over & over again. <S> It will increase the depth of our intention in doing it & increase the momentum of the return we get. <A> physical thing and not a moral one <S> Karma is created as part of the Dependent Origination Process due to craving and clinging. <S> In the Since it is part of this process it is neither physical nor moral. <S> In this context becoming is the karmic component. <S> in the context of the 5 Aggregates <S> the Karmic component is included in Formations which is not physical but mental. <S> But morality is positive karma (gives results which is felt as being pleasant when experienced) an immorality is negative karma. <S> universe is a massive interweaving assemblage <S> The interactions are complex which only a Buddha shall know for sure. <S> Having said this the universe is a complex interaction of many factors. <S> immoral actions and exacts a eventual penalty just for that reason Immoral action does have penalties but there is no law giver. <S> The next moment is conditioned from this moment with the input of fabrications created through volitional actions. <S> Each moment has so much state built in, it is like a granary with abundance of seeds which can germinate at any moment to give results. <S> Much of the this state is transferred from moment to moment. <S> By staving each moment of input you can stop the accumulation of karmic seed. <A> Things (forms) exist as long as they act (inner-motion), and the process is either conscious, or unconscious. <S> Therefore, human birth is of extreme importance.
|
The word karma literally means action , and action is motion , so it is of physical nature, it is the play of energy. what is said for sure is that an unwholesome (akosala) action has bad results and good action good results ....
|
If someone have experienced supernatural abilities through meditation, than why don't he shows it to world? If somebody goes beyond fourth jhanas and has received super knowledge and also powers, than why don't he shows it to world and shares his knowledge and experience to world or say scientist and science community so that the general humans will believe in dharma and religion? <Q> The objective of Dhamma is the work yourself out of stress and misery which is to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path . <S> These kinds of practices diverts from this focus. <S> If someone start practicing being attached by such display then most likely their goal will not be tied with the Buddhist goal. <S> Perhaps for this reason monks are not supposed to display such abilities. <S> Even for lay, through there is not rule, it is not advisable as you are diverting the attention and focus from the true purpose of the practice. <S> Also then meditation practitioners will be no different from magicians and illusionist, like David Copperfield . <S> People will go to them to learn magic tricks and not to learn the dhamma with a view to Nirvana. <S> People go to see David Copperfield for entertainment and not spiritual guidance! <S> Displaying these abilities may attract a following and belief, but for the wrong reason. <A> If the story of Jesus is believed to be true, Jesus did what is suggested in the question and look how Christianity turned out; thousands of years of killing over a (narcissistic) personal saviour. <S> Acts of magic or witchcraft will not change the majority of people for the better. <S> This is why DN 11 teaches with proper wisdom the ' miracle of instruction ' is superior to the ' miracle of psychic power '. <A> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html <S> Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: <S> To Kevatta <S> This Sutta talks about the drawbacks of displaying magical powers. <S> tl;dr it mostly just does not prove anything other that you do have the powers, people will still try to argue that it is not what you say it is. <A> Of Leonardo da Vinci it is known that he invented the principle of submarine boats - but also it is transmitted that he explains "why I do not give this to the open: because they would use it for even more warfare on the sea" (paraphrased from memory). <S> Similar caveats have been sometimes explicated in science (for instance with atombomb by Einstein and others - documented in a biography I've read). <S> Anyway... the best answer on this has surely been given by @Suminda and the idea with it should be a frequent topic in self-observation and meditation.
|
Also when displaying these abilities one might develop pride which would lead to one's downfall.
|
What does "Namaste" mean in Buddhism context and why is it even associated with Buddhism? A commenter on the NewBuddhist blog claimed that one should not say Namaste in a Tibetan Buddhist event (in this context). I remember one time saying "Namaste" while at a Tibetan Buddhist event, and someone quickly pulled me aside and said, "Oh, no-- do not say 'Namaste!' Say, 'Tashi Delek!'" I'm not entirely sure why I brought that up... perhaps because I'm still confused as to why it was wrong to say Namaste. -- SillyPutty I'd like to make a disclaimer that I am not from a Buddhist country so I'm confused. I never even read from anywhere that The Buddha even says this, or is the phrase really Buddhist -- you can imagine my confusion. Is this a modern phrase? What is its connection to Buddhism? <Q> Namaste is a greeting in the Hindu custom and does not have a context in Buddhism . <S> Namaste (/ˈnɑːməsteɪ/, Hindi: <S> [nəməsteː] (About this sound listen))), sometimes spoken as Namaskar, Namaskaram is a respectful form of greeting in Hindu custom, found on the Indian subcontinent mainly in India and Nepal and among the Indian diaspora. <S> It is used both for salutation and valediction. <S> Namaste is usually spoken with a slight bow and hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointing upwards, thumbs close to the chest. <S> This gesture is called Añjali Mudrā or Pranamasana. <S> The greeting may also be spoken without the gesture or the gesture performed wordlessly, carrying the same meaning <A> My impression from travelling in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand & Nepal is 'namaste' is Indian & Nepalese & not related to Buddhism. <S> Namaste, sometimes spoken as Namaskar <S> , Namaskaram is a respectful form of greeting in Hindu custom, found on the Indian subcontinent mainly in India and Nepal and among the Indian diaspora. <S> Namaste is usually spoken with a slight bow and hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointing upwards, thumbs close to the chest. <S> This gesture is called Añjali Mudrā or Pranamasana. <S> In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". <S> The greeting may also be spoken without the gesture or the gesture performed wordlessly, carrying the same meaning. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste <A> Namaste means that the good in me recognizes the good in you. <S> It is generally an Indian greeting <S> and I agree with the sentiment. <S> In fact, I agree with many things expressed by various hindu doctrine. <S> Probably because I spend a lot of time with the Upanishads. <S> The fact that some may find the term's use distasteful in some other context merely reiterates its' beauty. <S> The GOOD in me ... <S> the part of me that exists beyond all the political smatterings and social claptrap ... recognizes and appreciates the GOOD in you ... <S> whether I disagree with your opinions or life et al. <S> It is truly a remarkable sentiment and impervious to such trivial attacks. <S> You have found some common ground or commonality between the two of you despite all other things. <S> You have connected.
|
In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". It is used both for salutation and valediction.
|
Is it true that Lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka? I've heard there's a rumor saying that lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka and ancient "Dambadiwa" is not India but Sri Lanka. There's a "sal" tree in Sri Lanka which matches to the exact tree that we believe which was there in the birth of baby prince "siddhartha" . I dunno whether they're true or not I just wanna know whether there's a truth behind it, whether what we believe so far is just a lie?! (Ps not Buddhism but the life story of Lord Buddha) <Q> Lumbini, Nepal has been recognized as the birthplace of Siddhartha Gautama since a stone pillar was placed at the site by the emperor Ashoka circa 245 BCE. <S> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbini <A> Prince Siddhartha was raised, according to Buddhist texts, in Kapilawastu <S> (I will not present sources for this as I think this would be undisputed). <S> The modern name for Kapilawastu is unknown: I will quote a note from Wikipedia page for Gautama Buddha . <S> The exact location of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. <S> It may have been either Piprahwa in Uttar Pradesh, northern India, or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal. <S> The two cities are located only fifteen miles from each other. <S> The Buddha's birthplace is said to be Lumbini, and it should not be any farther from Kapilawasthu than few days of travel by horse-carriage. <S> So the birthplace must still be in the India or Nepal, even if one discounts the pillar erected by Emperor Ashoka at Lumbini . <S> (The place previously known as Rummindei was renamed to Lumbini when the Ashokan pillar was found in 1896.) <S> The note quoted above is well cited, and it is evident that although the exact birthplace is unknown, it has been at least reduced to a very small area, thousands of Kilometers from Sri Lanka. <S> The disputes for birthplaces of religious figures are not uncommon in present day. <S> For example, even though there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that Jesus was born somewhere in Middle East, there are Christian groups who believe that he was born in some place in United States, for example, Alabama. <A> I personally believe that Buddha was born in Lumbini in Nepal through in recent times there are a few small groups in Sri Lanka saying otherwise. <S> I personally would be careful about these movements and groups. <A> There's no truth in it. <S> But people usually like to hear new things. <S> So any new idea presented with some make-belief evidence can get a following. <A> I echo what Suminda and Sankha has already mentioned. <S> Be cautious about what you hear or read. <S> As Sankha mentioned - it might be a tactic to gain followers. <A> Buddha was born at Lumbini, Nepal. <S> That is also close on india border . <S> So nowadays , india also claim birthplace of buddha was India. <S> But , there is no chance that buddha birthplace is Srilanka.
|
I doubt that the Buddha was born in Sri Lanka. Personally, I don't believe it to be true.
|
Resources for Sutta study/discussion for beginners What texts would you recommend for sutta discussion sessions, where a majority of the participants will be new to discussing suttas? with metta <Q> This is my standard recommendation for beginners:a)Read BuddhismCourse. <S> (Take about 12 hours to read and give you a good idea about the teaching) <S> http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/ <S> b)Print <S> a copy of this Dhamma Chart and refer to it while studding Buddhism. <S> http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16785 <S> c) <S> Read Buddha’s Teaching by Narada. <S> Start from chapter 15. <S> http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh <S> ... <S> gsurw6.pdf <S> d) <S> While you reading above texts please listen to the following Dhamma Talk by Joseph Goldstein. <S> http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/6162/ <S> e) <S> Start reading Sutta. <S> Start from Majjhima Nikaya. <S> https://suttacentral.net/m <A> If you would listen to nirapekshathwayemaga Season 8 - (there are 30 video clips in all), you will get to learn the Dhamma with all the relevant sutta references. <S> These 30 sermons are of such importance, that I am going to translate the contents into English in the near future. <S> I will launch a brand new website "A MEDITATIVE LIFE", for the benefit of all within one year. <A> Mukhapatha is the best. <S> So easiest way is listen directly from pa-auk teachers. <S> The tipitaka memorizers can teach Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali <S> Canon <S> easier more than try to done it yourself. <S> You have many other ways more than mukhapatha, but if they will been the best way to teach, the buddha will used them. <S> But he never.
|
Good starting point would be to read Bikkhu Bodhi’s “In the Buddha’s Word”Then read Sutta Central.
|
Are there any exceptions to the first precept? I recently accidentally injured a bee, I did all I could to help it, but its wing was broken and so was its leg, it could not walk nor fly, it was clearly in a great amount of pain and distress. I tried to heal it with some energy work, but it was no good, I am just not experienced enough and for some reason on that day couldn't find focus with my energy work. So I took the decision to do what was necessary to stop what I took to be unnecessary suffering, I killed the bee. In another occasion where I was not responsible for the initial injury, I found a bee in great distress on the ground, I am not sure what happened to it, I think maybe it stung somebody because it appeared very hollow inside. There was nothing that could be done for it, and though it gave me great sadness, I also killed this bee to end its suffering. I love all life, it greatly saddens me when I accidentally kill something, and even more so when I have to do it knowingly. But it would sadden me even more if I had to leave a being in suffering and not doing anything when I could and there wasn't a reason not to. Am I breaking the first precept or can an exception be made to end the great and unnecessary suffering of a being who cannot be saved from their fate? I heard a story about one of Buddha's previous lives where he sad that he found out about a murderer on a ship who was planning to kill everyone, and out of only compassion for the man the Buddha killed him with no hatred and only love so that he wouldn't have to go through all the terrible rebirths fore his actions of killing everyone on the ship (this is from a memory of someone telling me this story, I believe that they had read it somewhere, but I may be getting some the details wrong). And that by doing so he in fact cleared a huge amount of previous karma, rather than gaining any for this act. That is not to say though that I am doing this with the intent to clear karma, I merely want to help the bee. Now although that is a different situation, could that be related at all to this? <Q> Don't beat yourself up over it. <S> Precepts are an interesting thing. <S> Most people come at them with the idea that they are iron clad laws governing our behavior. <S> Don't get me wrong, in some ways they certainly are. <S> When you take this kind of legalistic perspective, however, I really think you are missing out on their greater purpose. <S> The precepts are decidedly simple. <S> Abstain from killing. <S> Abstain from stealing. <S> And so on and so forth. <S> But what does it mean to kill? <S> Did the Buddha really say steal? <S> The Pāli reads more like "do not take that which is not given". <S> What does that mean!? <S> Likewise, anyone with an opinion will give you their interpretation on what the "sensual pleasure" precept refers to. <S> Reading the precepts this way isn't to split legal hairs or an attempt to loosen restriction. <S> These are all valid and important questions - questions <S> I think the Buddha intended us to ask by making his training rules so brief in content. <S> Rather than view the precepts as moral law, it might be helpful to see them as a kind of spiritual Rorschach test. <S> What you see is very much dependent on where you are in your spiritual development. <S> Please don't take that to mean that the more ironclad you are in your interpretation, the more advanced you are in your training. <S> The precepts are factories of insight. <S> They are meant to teach and enlighten not just govern behavior. <A> Wanting to help the bee is good Karma as it is caused by compassion. <S> Thinking that killing is ok is bad Karma as it is a wrong view caused by ignorance. <S> Completing the kill is bad Karma as it breaks the 1st precept. <S> It's the same case with the example of the Bodhisatta. <S> Make it a point to use the term 'Bodhisatta'. <S> Not 'Buddha'. <S> You either practice compassion and try to heal the bee or practice equanimity and let nature take its course. <A> 5 elements of 1st precept: Living satta. <S> Be aware satta's living. <S> Killing consciousness arising "I will kill it". <S> Try to kill by that consciousness. <S> Satta die by that effort. <S> Must complete 5 elements to break 1st precept. <S> No one can break 1st precept by just the fifth element. <S> Source: tatiyapārājikā-sikkhāpada in vinaya-pitaka.
|
Having great sadness is bad Karma as it is caused by aversion.
|
What is Buddhist reality? If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things? <Q> In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller. <S> Also there is conventional and realities. <S> As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. <S> This is for the sake of communication. <A> A seeker came to Buddha and started to talk about his studies. <S> He tried to seem knowledgeable, worthy a discussion with Buddha. <S> He wanted to get appreciation. <S> He wanted his attainments to be acknowledged. <S> Buddha listened to him, gently smiling. <S> Eventually the seeker had finished talking. <S> He thought Buddha would answer then, but Buddha kept silence. <S> What would you do in place of that seeker? <S> Thoughts jammed in his head. <S> He didn't know what else to say, every attempt to continue the talk he could imagine seemed stupid. <S> What happened next? <S> After some time the seeker respectfully bowed and silently left. <S> What did he understand? <S> Did he understand what Buddha meant by his silence? <S> Maybe he just pretended to have understood, to avoid looking stupid? <S> To answer this, we need to be able to see beyond words, beyond formal ideas. <S> That ability to see beyond words was the aim of Buddha's teaching about the ultimate reality. <S> It was not just to change the vocabulary. <S> Would that be important, whether that seeker talked about shunya or about human beings? <S> Do you understand? <S> Talking about shunya and about human beings for Buddha was not different. <S> His words were always relative truths. <S> The ultimate truth was never in the words, and never could be. <S> That's why Buddha spoke about human beings. <S> Subsequently, many Buddhists misunderstood what is absolute truth and what is conditional truth. <S> Nagarjuna explained that, but even today many practitioners, even many Buddhist teachers have distorted views on that. <S> Be very careful. <S> It's so easy to get incorrect understanding and cling to it thinking that you "know". <A> One reason given in the suttas is that he did it by request, and out of compassion. <S> Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1) , <S> As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma. <S> Then Brahma Sahampati [etc...] <S> Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. <S> The Buddha's not viewing the world as 'self' wouldn't stop him from having compassion. <S> Compassion is one of the four recommended attitudes to have towards others. <S> Also, views such as , <S> There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. <S> There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. <S> There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves. <S> ... <S> are defined as "wrong view"; I guess that would be some kind of "nihilism". <A> Your question mean nothing in present, in the past, and in the future. <S> But buddha mean present thing is nothing in the past, and present thing is nothing in the future. <S> Ultimate realities of human being are causes and effects. <S> Nibbana ultimate reality is perfect finished of causes and effects. <S> Anatta is uncontrollable to being or nothing. <S> There are just causes arising to make effects. <S> And effects vanishing because of causes vanishing. <S> No self, no atta. <S> Ultimate realities all is anatta. <S> (present of it's future). <S> They are present because of their causes arising. <S> They are past because of their causes vanishing. <S> They are future because of their causes still possible to arise. <S> Nibbana ultimate reality is no time because it has not any cause, so no any effect, too. <A> The Buddha's reality is relational - non-Self is the inferred (observational evidence at enlightenment MN27 ) <S> understanding that if 'things' are only ever observed as impermanent, they cannot be said to be observed to have a permanent core (or shell, or any other observed aspect). <S> Things are not provisional, simply subject to conditions. <S> 'You' and 'I' are not provisional in the Buddha's words, rather the concepts are subject to a mother and father for the conditions of birth, food and water for the conditions of life, and some other conditions for death (say a spear in the eye, or lack of food). <S> This is not saying anything more than we already see - things are not observed to exist independently in and of themselves, independent of others. <S> This is not a nihilistic existence, but experience and values are derived from relations, not things in and of themselves.. <S> all experience being observed as impermanent and lacking any and all notions of Self, universal values (Dhamma) are therefore rationally derivable (subject to the continued validity of the observation of impermanence). <S> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics for modern evidence as to the effectiveness of the world view).. from a relational QM point of view, properties arise only with observation and interaction (not without observation as that would be unverifiable - both unscientific and un-Buddhist), with individual quanta empty of independent properties. <S> In other words - empty jenga blocks don't build concrete, well delineated Selves - 'I' is a useful everyday notion, but no thing certain or permanently delineated within the structure of experience. <S> The notion of Self is frame dependent - dependent on observation, subjective. <S> The objective truths of the world are those of impermanence, non-Self and unsatisfactoriness with such a 'build' for psychological systems (the last point being the first step to building the Buddha's world view - 'limited resources, unlimited wants', but with evidence beforehand)
|
Ultimate realities of human being is present, past (present of it's past) and future
|
The proper meaning of Bhagava What is the real meaning of Bhagava? Or are there any multiple meanings? Sutta references are appreciated. -Metta <Q> Comments from the following link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html Bhagava: also rendered "the Auspicious One" or "the Exalted One"; the most frequent appellation of the Buddha, though not restricted to Buddhist usage. <A> Bhagava comes from bhagga + rāga . <S> That is one how has destroyed lust. <S> bhagga -rāga, ˚dosa etc. <S> (in def. of Bhagavā) at Mnd.142 = Cnd.466 Source: <S> bhagga <A> It is many meaning for the buddhanussati practitioner. <S> See: <S> Recollection of the Enlightened One (buddhanussati) in Visuddhimagga. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf <A> The Blessed One (Bhagava) <S> The Buddha is endowed with the six things: (1) Lordship [Issariya], (2) Doctrine [Dhamma], (3) Fame [Yasa], (4) Glory [Siri], (5) <S> Wish [Kama], and (6) <S> Endeavor [Payatta], <S> thus He is called the Blessed One. <S> 1). <S> He has the supreme lordship over His own mind as follows: i. Anima – power to make the body minute (e.g. making the size of an atom), ii. <S> Laghima – power to make the body light (e.g. walking on air), iii. <S> Mahima – power to make the body huge, iv. <S> Patti – power to arrive where He wants to go, v. Pakamma – power to produce what He wants by resolving, etc., <S> vi. <S> Isita <S> – power to make anyone or anything follow His wishes, vii. <S> Vasita – power to create at will water, fire, etc., and viii. <S> Yatthakamavasayita – power to attain the perfection in all ways in Him who wants to go through the air or do anything else of the sort. <S> 2). <S> He has the supramundane Dhamma. <S> 3). <S> He has the greatly pure fame, spread through the three worlds, attained through the quality of veracity. <S> 4). <S> He has the glory of all limbs, perfect in every appearance, which is capable of comforting the eyes of people eager to see His material body. <S> 5). <S> He has the wish i.e., accomplishment of whatever is wanted by Him whether it be for His own benefit or for another’s (others’). <S> 6). <S> And He has the endeavor, the right effort, which is the reason why the whole world reveres Him. <S> http://www.tbsa.org/articles/BuddhaQualities.html
|
The word "Bhagava," can be translated as "the Blessed One"
|
Buddha dealing with pain If enlightened beings aren't bothered by pain, why did occasions happen where Buddha was unable to give a lecture because the pain was so severe or when he had to meditate to lessen the pain he was feeling. Surely if the pain truly didn't bother him, he could have just continued as normal without needing to do anything special. Thanks. <Q> Enlightened beings are not bothered by pain. <S> The body requires lying down to recover from back problems. <S> So it's the sensible thing to do. <S> When the Buddha is resting, he usually resides in the Jhanas. <S> Even when the Buddha is not resting, it is said that he enters the Jhanas between every sentence he speaks. <A> You may not bother raining. <S> But you are still wet walking in a rain. <S> All people can see is you are wet,but they cannot conclude that you are bothered by rainsolely from the fact that you are wet. <S> And Buddhism is a way to let you not bother raining,not a magic to let you walking in a rain and keeping yourself dry. <A> Because focusing on dismissing the physical pain would distract him from providing his best lesson.
|
But if you try to sit through severe back pain, it could lead to further complications.
|
Help! I'm in love with enlightened man Pardon my English .I was lucky enough to meet this man . This man is living Buddha . He is not a monk. Lives simple life. He is such a mystery. I'm in love with enlightened man. It's not recent ... it's been years and years... He never claimed that but it's absolutely obvious to me. He is extremely handsome intelligent and more , so much more. I can feel when he enters the room, there is so much heat or fire. He is shining and he makes everyone around him smile. He has big beautiful eyes they are so sharp it's like he can see through appearances . He is absolutely perfect. I think about him day and night all the time I cannot forget him. It's my attachment to pleasure or is this real love??? When i think of him i just melt. On the other hand i know he is not interested in me as a woman and will never be. And it drives me nuts. I feel stupid. What to do? I was planning to tell him that, but am so scared that i'll feel stupid. I suppose it's obvious on my face anyway. But it's been so long and the feeling gets stronger. I should move on i know it, but he is such a perfection... I have no word to describe this man . Just ''ahh''. How to let go?? or should i keep? <Q> If he is really enlightened, he will not be interested in you (romantically). <S> The Pali suttas state: <S> It is impossible for... whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. <S> Sutava Sutta <S> However, he could show friendship ( metta ) towards you. <S> True spiritual friends ( kalyanamitta ) are difficult to find in the world. <A> Dukha - not getting we want, getting what we don't want, getting what we want then losing it. <S> The fact is you don't really know this man is enlightened and it doesn't even really matter whether he is or not. <S> Sounds to me more like he <S> exudes confidence and charisma which is always attractive. <S> Confident people attract people like flies to shit. <S> You have two choices <S> -1)forget <S> it and get on with your life. <S> 2)try to hook up with him. <S> Number two obviously involves some risk, risk of rejection, risk of falling in love then being heart broken etc <S> but you never know unless you try. <A> I think that real love is more like unity, like being the same. <S> Attachment is more like artificial excitement, desire. <S> In that sense, love and attachment are different things. <S> Love is like calm warm extending, open and limitless. <S> In that, you discover limitless unity with all beings, all universe. <S> That is immersing deeper in true reality. <S> Attachment is stimulating your feelings, which is like taking stimulants - it will pass, bringing hangover. <S> Love does not create problems, attachment does. <S> Love makes wiser, attachment makes vexed and blind. <S> If a person you love is indeed excellent in wisdom and compassion, ask his advice just like you wrote here. <S> It might be not necessary to say that you ask his advice for yourself. <S> Just ask what would he think and advise people in such situations. <A> There's no "living Buddha". <S> The Buddha existed more than 2500 years ago. <S> Looks like you are overcome by lust/passion. <S> Usually Patikulamanasikara meditation is recommended to such individuals <A> This is quite normal. <S> Be aware of your feelings and use your commonsense. <S> There is a story where a woman (female monk) had fallen love with Ven Ananda and a beautiful woman was proposed to Buddha. <S> Here is another story. <S> ------------ <S> Just as they were leaving the city the Venerable Maha Kaccana was standing at the city gate, putting on his outer robe before entering to walk on alms round. <S> When the youth Soreyya beheld the golden-hued body of the elder, he thought to himself: "Oh, that this elder might become my wife! <S> Or may the hue of my wife's body become like the hue of his body!" <S> At the very moment this thought passed through his mind, Soreyya was instantly transformed from a man into a woman. <S> Startled by this inexplicable change of sex, he jumped out of the carriage and fled before the others could notice what had occurred. <S> Gradually he made his way to the city of Takkasila. <S> His companions searched for him in vain and reported his strange disappearance to his parents. <S> When all attempts to trace him proved futile, his parents concluded that he had died and they had the funeral rites performed. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel405.html <A> Try to sit and close your eyes and imagine these:What if he only has 1 eyeWhat if he doesn't have any noseWhat <S> if he's deafCut every part of his body and organs and try to look into it. <S> And ask to yourself whether if you still like him if he doesn't have any of those beautiful part. <S> Hopefully this works for you. <A> This is the daftest question I have ever read. <S> Yes, zen masters occasionally have wives; there were great Korean / Japanese debates about whether this sacrifice of 'celibacy' was a distortion of the meaning of Buddhism. <S> Trust me, an actual Buddha isn't interested in having sex with you, they have other things on their mind -- <S> tantra aside. <S> Are you in love with someone <S> and they not you?
|
If he is interested in you (romantically), he is not enlightened.
|
How to be kind when you don't like people or the world? I'm not sure I make a very good Buddhist. The thing is I really don't like people. They constantly disappoint me. I find most people to be so stupid. Take for example half of America and the idiotic orange leader they have elected. What kind of idiots would elect a bigoted narcissistic fool such as this?? I don't care if it's "wrong speech", I'm not going to be polite about it, the man is a delusional scumbag and such a negative force on the planet. I cannot feel any compassion or kindness for him or his ignorant redneck believers. If someone killed him I would honestly feel glad. Yet a short distance away in Canada there is one of the most compassionate amazing leaders ever to grace the earth. Go figure. America seems like hell on earth to me. Most of the world seems to currently be controlled by dangerous mentally ill people. A lot of the time I dont even want to be here anymore. The amount of money it costs just to scrape by and survive this life now is another reason that I don't want to be here. A life that is sustained by money feels so meaningless. Sure life is more than about money but let's face it without it you die and nobody cares less. It's all so screwed up. <Q> What really matters is whether you follow the noble eightfold path and you understand the four noble truths. <A> I have answered before on metta threads (where I usually get downvoted) but it is best to start with equanimity towards the world & then move up to metta <S> (when appropriate). <S> Dhammapada states: 171. <S> Come! <S> Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. <S> Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it. <S> 58. <S> Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing. <S> 59. <S> Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom. <S> If you are enlightened, kindness is merely a natural emotion that eminates from your own freedom of heart & kindness towards yourself in your cultivation of liberation. <A> If the whole world is covered in broken glass, you could either try to wrap the world in leather or you could start wearing sandals. <S> Trying to wrap the world in leather is like trying to change people in the world. <S> Wearing sandals is like fixing your own mind so the outside factors cannot bother you. <S> If you are overwhelmed by hate, Metta meditation is the one recommended. <A> These opinions you have, what is the source of them? <S> What is the source of any opinion? <S> Have you met either man or did you read an article, hear a report or hear someone talking about them in a bar? <S> If you haven't met them, consider how you have relied on intermediaries to form an opinion of two people you don't actually know. <S> Do you trust these intermediaries (tv companies, newspapers, members of the general public)? <S> Why? <S> Meditate on this. <S> All the world's a stage, <S> And all the men and women merely players <S> ; They have their exits and their entrances, Consider the double meaning of <S> entrances and exits . <S> What are the entrances and exits of a human being? <S> What goes into the body and via what channels? <S> What is light? <S> What is sound? <S> What is food and water for? <S> What about air? <S> How long can you go without these things? <S> Why?
|
Once you have your hate subdued to a degree you could move on to Satipattana meditation which will eventually eliminate anger.
|
If a living being is not self aware than can he experience suffering or pleasure? When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering? <Q> Dogs don't forget pain. <S> You only have to look at a dog that has been continuously beaten and then cringes or tries to bite anyone who tries to pet it. <S> Yes it has become an automatic reaction but there must be some kind of memory there about humans not being trustworthy. <A> the suffering is the same suffering <S> If by self aware you mean mindful- <S> than most people arent mindful <S> 99.9999% of the time --- <S> many many monks if good ones are not mindful most of the time About bacteria i cant say much <A> I think that (according to Buddhism) humans, animals, ghosts, and residents of hell all belong to the same kind of category: all " sentient ", all composed of the five skandhas, and all subject to suffering. <S> Since all belong to the same continuum (i.e. samsara), I expect that they all "lose memory" and that their "suffering finishes" in much the same way. <S> I don't consider a dog as like a bacterium, by the way: IMO a bacterium is more like a plant than an animal. <S> I think different schools of Buddhism differ on whether plants are "sentient" and have any "consciousness". <S> don't they just forget or loose the momory of their suffering after it is finished? <S> Isn't that more-or-less true (or untrue) of people too?
|
Its very clear that dogs are conscious and feel the same pain as humans do and
|
What are do's & dont's which should be followed for serene & calm life? I would like some rules in the form of dos & don'ts to ensure happiness & eradication of miseries for making life calm & serene. <Q> The don'ts: <S> Buddhism teaches ten kinds of unskilful action the serious lay Buddhist to refrain from, namely: Killing. <S> Stealing Unwholesome (uncaring) <S> sex Dishonest speech Harsh speech <S> Divisive speech Frivolous speech <S> Greed <S> Hatred Selfishness & ungratefulness (delusion). <S> To this add avoiding the roads to ruin ( DN 31 ), namely: <S> Addiction to drugs & alcohol <S> Gambling <S> Nightlife/ <S> nightclubbing Addiction to sensual entertainment <S> Bad friends <S> Chronically laziness. <S> Add to this: <S> Avoid borrowing money leading to living beyond your means ( AN 4.62 ). <S> The dos: <S> The opposite of the above. <S> Safeguard <S> your social relationships in the 'six directions' ( DN 31 ). <S> Engage in wholesome pleasures, such as exercise, sports, outdoors nature, arts, contemplative music, charity work, generosity, meditation. <S> etc. <S> The entire list is here: https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html <A> Observing the "five precepts" is the starting point. <S> The five precepts are the "don't do" things (the things to avoid). <S> Then you have to practice things to do -- I ask people in my meditation group not only to observe the five precepts but also practice the opposite. <S> That is: Killing vs loving kindness <S> Stealing vs generosity Inappropriate sex <S> vs refrain Lying vs telling the truth Alcohol vs practicing mindfulness <A> Shamelessly stolen from Dhammadhatu's great answer: <S> Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity. <S> In my personal experience, this is really the make-or-break-factor. <S> It is the one thing which you can positively, actively influence daily, nay, in each moment. <S> It needs no study of any text or "rules". <S> It can often be very easy, but sometimes very hard, which means you can often practise it, and sometimes learn very much from it. <S> This includes being nice to your enemies, loving people who would be hated by others, appreciating things other people do which would otherwise seem unappreciable to you, and so on. <S> All of these things are not obvious if you really think them through, but they are possible. <S> It is very important that what you do to achieve this goal is not running around with a constant insincere smile, but the feelings expressed above need to be real . <S> This is the hard part, which will lead to your personal development. <S> But it is noticeable. <S> There is some quote about Marilyn Monroe, visiting some GIs in Vietnam, where some guys said that she had such an overwhelming presence not because she was beautiful, a goddess even, but because she sincerly made everyone feel liked and "on the same level". <S> That's the kind of quality you're looking for. <S> Another example would be if you were to be attacked - your goal would be to be able to defend from attacks, but in a way that really is good for the attacker. <S> You would not want to "break" or kill your attacker. <S> But you would also try, while "winning" decisively, to leave him with his honor intact, or, better yet, find ways so that you both can win and there is no loser at all. <S> Equanimity obviously entails that you keep your calm in difficult situations, and not only by suppressing your anger, but by really letting the stressfull things "pass through" without letting them harm you. <S> There is a lot of mind work you can do to achieve that. <A> Thank you for your deeply thought out question. <S> I have been looking at the Buddhist Stack site for a little while, and I notice some real similarities in the way many of the questions are formed. <S> So, first , it is good to study, <S> by which I mean get a perspective of the landscape, in this case the Buddha's Dharma. <S> Think for yourself. <S> If someone tells you to jump of a cliff, you probably will not, Thank God, for that. <S> So , when this hypothetical person told you to jump , what happened? <S> you had an insight that there would probably be a bad result. <S> So, the Buddha was quoted as saying do not believe any think he tells you , until you have tested the truth of that saying and the possible benefit of that idea for you to apply. <S> So, much for that , for now. <S> So you study, then you get the big picture and you actually start to see how using your mind in a certain way is much more beneficial that using your mind in another way. <S> This is the beginning of good judgement. <S> So, Here's the biggie. <S> So, How do I stop doing evil, well , let's start on the simplest level. <S> What if you determine that to get really frustrated and angry and nervous about what just happened to you is not good. <S> So , then , you go to a quiet place or find some friends and calm down. <S> This is ceasing to do evil and learning to do good. <S> So now, you might have gotten a little , "good idea" . <S> If you keep doing this , with all your experiences, you will learn to relax, and better still , you will say. <S> "Oh, I am relaxed now, that is better that going crazy. <S> " What if I start to develop some real concentration. <S> I bet I could do this even better, and maybe, just maybe, I could help someone else learn to become happier, too. <S> And so on. <S> Of course there is much more. <S> Good Luck.
|
Cease to do Evil, Learn to do Good, remove all defilements , follow this way to Compete, total, supreme Enlightenment. Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity. You need to really see what is good about someone who seemingly is "out to get you", or someone who is "stupid", and so on.
|
Metta towards a non-sentient entity or substance (e.g. rice)? Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice? If not, why not? Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object ... for example, might speaking kindly to a sealed jar of cooked rice cause it to rot more slowly (as suggested by Masuro Emoto's rice experiment)? Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was to put cooked rice in three sealed jars: then say hateful words to one jar, loving words to another, and ignore the third. Allegedly the rice jar to which were said loving words does well (rots more slowly), and the ones you ignore and say bad words to will do less well (they rot or grow mouldy more quickly than the other one). Edit : the experiment didn't work - i also added two slices of the same apple next to the rice - and even the "good" rice and apple got rotten a bit faster <Q> Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice? <S> Not that I know of. <S> If not, why not? <S> This essay says, These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). <S> They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. <S> Also I don't think that rice is capable of "suffering" (because it isn't sentient; it's inanimate), and <S> so it's not a suitable object for "metta". <S> Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object <S> I don't think so. <S> I think you're asking that the rice last longer before spoiling, that it be less impermanent; and I don't remember seeing doctrine which I could construe as saying that "wishing that something were less impermanent is enough make it so". <S> Conversely there's doctrine about doing rather than wishing: saying e.g. if you want a long life then you should do things which are conducive to long life (not just wish for it). <A> Metta is practitioner's consciousness that thinking to make happy consciousness <S> arise in the other lives . <S> (sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu) <S> Rice never have happy consciousness arising . <S> Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was just utuniyāma . <S> That experiment was just regular of nature. <S> It doesn't mean rice has consciousness arising. <A> Metta is practiced in order to overcome the feeling of negativity and alienation towards the world in the practitioner's mind. <S> The grudge towards the world is replaced with compassion for the people. <S> If this negativity is not removed it remains a drain of emotional energy and precludes attainment of Jhanas. <S> Since no-one normally has grudge against rice or apple, Metta towards it is a nonsensical concept.
|
Rice isn't a "living being", and one does not have "social contact" with rice. Perhaps being careful about preparing the rice you care for, and doing something such as cleaning the jar more carefully or sealing the jar more tightly, might show an experimental effect.
|
Is Buddhism a syncretic religion, and then what would they say on the Abrahamaic religions? Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners. I suppose some of my family are Christian, and though I wasn't really raised that way, I'm wondering, if Buddhism is syncretic, as with the Tao in China, how it has or will combine with the Abrahamaic religions. Has there been any serious scholarship charting this, or even, though the idea seems off, predicting it? <Q> It might appear that Buddhism is a syncretic religion because it apparently has some similar features to Hinduism and/or Jainism: <S> Rebirth Concept of Karma Samsara Monks with orange robes and shaven heads Beings like Brahma, Sakka / Indra, Yama , devas, gandhabba Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism <S> Some Mahayana deities resemble Hindu deities <S> The use of beads or rosaries in Mahayana Buddhism similar to Hindu Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism <S> Similar ritual elements like cremation and use of incense <S> In terms of philosophy, the oldest teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Canon, especially the Sutta and the Vinaya. <S> From there, we can see that some of the core and non-core Buddhist teachings, from the Pali Canon, are a stark departure from Hinduism and Jainism, and some are quite original: <S> The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (both Hinduism and Jainism subscribe to eternalism of the self) - see this answer <S> The middle way between asceticism and indulgence (Jainism tends towards asceticism) - see this answer <S> The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see <S> this answer and contrast with Hindu BG2.24 <S> The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17 ) - see SN35.85 <S> In terms of karma, not everything we experience is a result of past karma (compared to Jainism) - see this answer , SN36.21 <S> and MN101 <S> There is no Supreme Creator God (unlike Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions) <S> - see this answer <S> The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22 ) <S> - see this answer <S> Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer <S> However, as also discussed in this answer , later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. <S> Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. <S> On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question ). <S> However, Anatta and the lack of a Supreme Creator God , still keeps Buddhism very far apart from the other religions, and due to this, it is very unlikely that Buddhism will form a doctrinally syncretic relationship with Hinduism, Jainism or the Abrahamic religions. <S> The syncretism is likely to remain at the cultural level, if it exists at all. <A> Original Buddhism is not syncretic. <S> The core Buddhism teachings (namely, the four noble truths, three characteristics, dependent origination, emptiness, six elements, here-&-now Nibbana with feeling, etc) are 100% original. <S> The Buddha is said to have said: " These were realities he had never heard about before ". <S> This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering’: <S> thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. <S> SN 56.11 <S> If they were not 100% original, the whole idea of a 'Buddha' would be a falsehood since a Buddha is self-fully-enlightened without the help of a teacher ( SN 6.2 ). <S> Buddhism ( MN 115 ) states there can only be one Buddha in a world-system. <S> He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system ― <S> there is no such possibility.’ <S> And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a possibility.’ <S> However, lots of modern Buddhism is syncretic. <S> Theravada is 'Maha Vihara', which refers to a Hinduistic style Buddhism from Sri Lanka (which most of the posters on this chatsite believe in). <S> Judaism is also very unique in its doctrine & does not appear syncretic. <S> However, Christianity certainty seems Syncretic, maybe the most syncretic. <S> Yet the Xtian fundamentalists believe it is the most original. <A> Buddhism is not a religion, it is a practice. <S> Likewise, Taoism is a philosophy. <S> ANd <S> I would answer, no, it is not syncretic -- it stands on its own. <S> Because even though they may be said to have scripture, these are not given by god, but by humans and so properly speaking could be said to be a perpetually-curated set of guidelines towards the perfection of the practice. <S> To the Asians, I believe they see it like a religion, in that they abide with a devotion by which only religion compares, yet that similarity doesn't make it a religion, in any Western sense, or even probably Near Eastern.
|
The less profound Mahayana Buddhist teachings are very syncretic, incorporating Hindu deities and esoteric Hindu & Chinese teachings about 'non-duality' and 'non-naming'. As to whether it's a religion, neither have any gods, so they can't properly be called a religion.
|
Once ignorance is removed ,is the cessation of suffering automatic? As per my understanding the only effort I have to make for the cessation of suffering is to realize the Truth as it removes the ignorance. Once I have removed the ignorance rest of the things happen automatically. With cessation of ignorance comes the automatic cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the automatic cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the automatic cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the automatic cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the automatic cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the automatic cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the automatic cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the automatic cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the automatic cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the automatic cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease automatically. Are there any other choices(other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering?Because as per my understanding cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth. If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? Because realizing the Truth would mean automatic cessation of Consciousness. Have you met anyone who has realized the Truth but has no intellect consciousness ? Here is the definition of consciousness : "And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness. <Q> Ignorance does not cause consciousness. <S> In your studies of Buddhism, please avoid this materialistic error many Buddhists have. <S> As a beginning student, it is important to learn the right way, from the beginning. <S> The suttas ( SN 22.82 ) say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa). <S> In reality, dependent origination is describing how ignorance pollutes consciousness, similar to how dirt pollutes pure water or how dust covers a mirror. <S> SN 46.55 provides some good analogies. <S> This is why there are many suttas that describe how a Buddha has no ignorance but remains conscious, such as SN 22.53 , Iti 44 and the end of MN 38 . <S> In other words, what ceases is 'ignorant-consciousness' or ignorant-sense-contact (called avijjāsamphassajena ). <S> If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. <S> Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. <S> Owing to its release, it is steady. <S> Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. <S> Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. <S> Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. <S> SN 22.53 <A> I would say that it is not automatic, only the illusions cease. <S> Once the illusions cease, you know how to alleviate the suffering. <S> It is assumed that one is compassionate. <A> Are there any other choices (other than realizing the Truth) <S> I will have to make for the cessation of suffering? <S> As long as we use many fabrications to build our reality, we may benefit from making certain choices, e.g. how to deal with those fabrications. <S> All these choices can lead to the same goal of realizing the Truth. <S> (E.g. certain choices can help us in cleaning our mind from the processes which recreate illusions). <S> However it's possible indeed to make no other choices than the choice to realize the Truth, and come to the cessation of suffering. <S> cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth. <S> Yes, that is so. <S> No ignorance (no limited perception) means no fabrications and so on. <S> But we should understand correctly: it means no fabrications as "real", "solid" things. <S> No consciousness as "real thing" , etc. <S> The cessation of ignorance means that the illusory nature of all "real things" is realized. <S> So they don't limit anything with "walls" of fabrications, the consciousness doesn't jump from fruit to fruit, etc. <S> It is said that in awakening six kinds of consciousnesses turn into six kinds of wisdom. <S> It means that there is no consciousness as something real and existing, but the function of phenomena to be conscious manifest. <S> If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? <S> When we say "someone is conscious" we speak in terms of existing human being who is conscious. <S> Buddha may appear to us as such being. <S> To Buddha, however, it may appear that there are no human beings, and no one is conscious. <S> For example, Buddha may see instead of human beings an immense field of intertwined causes and effects. <S> PS. <S> See some detailed explanations here: <S> Is causation (hetu) in SN 22.82 different to conditions (paccaya) in Dependent Origination?
|
When ignorance ceases, what occurs to consciousness is it become pure.
|
How observance of the 5 Precepts is done? As I know one says the 5 propositions and then goes about his day. Or are the precepts also pegs for mindfulness? Keeping them constantly in mind? <Q> You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind. <S> After while it becomes second nature to you. <A> Please see this question on Appamada (heedfulness) . <S> We need to be heedful of the precepts that we choose to undertake willingly. <S> This is an idea that doesn't just exist in religion or spirituality. <S> If you are a professional like a medical doctor, you need to be aware that the life and health of your patients depend on your decisions. <S> If you're a civil and structural engineer designing a building, the lives of the many people who may use the building you designed, depend on your design. <S> If you have very young children, you need to be always aware of where they are and what they are doing. <S> When you're leaving your house everyday, you need to be mindful of locking the doors, locking the windows and turning off the gas or other heating appliances so that you wouldn't cause accidental fires. <S> Similarly, you have to be heedful of the precepts that you choose to undertake willingly. <S> There are also other aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path like Right Speech or Right Action, that we may need to be heedful of. <S> If you commit yourself to be heedful of practising something, then it should be similar to being heedful of being constantly aware of your very young children's whereabouts and wellbeing. <S> I think it is not very different. <A> When you break one of the rules, however, there is no need to punish yourself. <S> Keep in mind that you are observing the precepts and strive to improve. <S> This is where being mindful throughout the day of the precepts is important. <S> One cannot simply be a person who "says the 5 propositions [sic] and then goes about his day" because the whole point of undertaking the five precepts is to follow them and realize the benefits. <A> Maybe usefull to answer the question: How to Observe(ing) <S> the (5) precepts , Ursula <A> Keep 5 precepts in mind, first queue, and meditate together. <S> But meditation is second queue. <S> As time goes by, 5 precepts will be automatically appear in mind. <S> At that time, you just use a few time to check the precepts. <S> However, if you in a meditation course, you should do follow to your teacher, first. <S> Because (certified) <S> buddhist teacher must can read the practitioner mind. <S> So he should know what is the best for his student.
|
The Five Precepts can be taken formally, but to observe them properly you must be heedful not to break any of the rules during the day.
|
Buddhism - Is it a religion? I disagreed from the very beginning, after understanding some Buddhist philosophy, that it is not a religion. In my opinion, it is not a religion but a lifestyle or administration under which Buddhist teaching is practised. Please clarify why it is classified as a religion. PS : I have met many people specially from Nepal, who claim as a Buddhist monk but yet they don't seem to practice any Buddhist norms. And they even call me 'nastik' (one who don't believe in religion) <Q> It depend on what you mean by the word religion. <S> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods If you take above definition, Buddhism is not a religion. <A> Buddha is a ' dhamma ', which means a set of knowledges, practises, path & realisations that support the mind to be free from suffering. <S> The word ' dhamma ' means ' that which supports '. <S> Therefore, Buddhism is not a religion & is not 'yoga' or 'binding'. <S> In his 1st sermon (SN 56.11), the Buddha taught to not be bound ('yogo') or 'devoted to'. <S> The Buddha taught to not cling to the teachings (MN 22); not to cling to him (SN 22.87) or have blind faith in him (MN 38; AN 3.65). <S> The enlightened practitioner is 'independent' (MN 56). <S> The Buddha called his path of practise 'the holy way of life' ('brahmacariyaṃ'; MN 29 & 30) <S> therefore it is certainly a way of life rather than a religion. <S> There is nothing 'supernatural' in Buddhism. <S> Everything is natural ( dhatu ; MN 115; MN 140), including phenomena such as 'supernormal psychic powers'. <S> The 'gods' in Buddhism are merely people; i..e, the rich, powerful or psychic mystics from other paths. <S> There are no gods, apart from people, such as Sakka, king of the gods, who lived in a palace with many sexy nymphs (MN 37). <S> The gods rule the people (SN 11.5). <S> That is why in Thailand, the king is considered a 'god' or reincarnation of the Hindu Vishnu. <S> However, in countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka & Tibet, Buddhism is a religion for the common people called ' puthujjana ', where the common people believe in spirits, spirits of ancestors, ghosts, gods in the sky, gods in the trees, angels, reincarnation & other superstitious 'religious' things. <S> This photo is of people in Thailand worshiping a Hindu god & spirit house. <A> Of course it is. <S> The word "religion" comes from the Latin "religare" which literally means "to bind". <S> To be a religious person is to take on a set of beliefs, bonds, obligations, and laws so as to arrive at some sort of understanding or union with the divine. <S> I'd go so far as to say that the word "religion" is an almost perfect translation of the Sanskrit word "yoga" which means "yoking" such as when you place an animal in harness so as to be led. <S> Both imply that the adept is submitting their will to a spiritual vector that is not of their own creation. <S> They are relinquishing their own way-making for a path set down by those who have gone before. <S> To practice Buddhism is to put your trust in the training even when it asks for things that are outside your comfort zone and current level of understanding. <S> To be a Buddhist is to be a person of faith - both in the efficacy of the Dharma and your ability to realize it.
|
To undertake the Buddhist path is to take on a set of precepts and training principles so as to understand, with direct knowledge, the experiences enjoyed by those Buddhas and other enlightened persons who have gone before you.
|
Seeking guidance on avoiding meditation distractions and sluggishness Do any of you readers , know of a very simple, dependable starting point for an old meditator , who sits everyday, but I do not have contact with any meditation teacher, who I am connected with. I sit, and make an effort to practice the mahasatipattana practice. For example, a thought to start out my meditation, that will enable me to have a session where I am not distracted or get to nervous , or sluggish, and so on. I say some prayers and refuge, and the I meditate, afterwards , I dedicate to merit to all living beings, not excluding a single one. Part of my problem , is as I get older I have more health problems that affect me now, physically.So, I hope I made my question clear. I know , if I could go on a retreat, I would be sitting more firmly, but I can't attend a retreat at this time in my life. I have started , lately, the last two years, sitting for 5 minutes, twice a day. with prayers, dedication of merit and so on. Does any one have a similar situation , were you have figured out how to start correctly? Meaning, starting out and having an undistracted session? The alternative is, I just don't meditate , but maybe read some Buddha sutra, or a good teachers explanation.. <Q> A standard beginner's practice for those who get distracted is to count your breaths. <S> You can count them by subvocalizing, or on fingers. <S> I counted by touching my thumb to three phalanges on each finger, and for each full hand - count one phalanges on the other hand. <S> Another practice to establish the mind in the beginning of the session is to 1) <S> review all body sensations, head to toe and explicitly note every discomfort, then <S> Once the review is complete this way, it helps to set all distractions aside. <S> Then again, it's not like the distractions and sluggishness is one, and meditation is some perfect state separate from those. <S> So don't treat the obstacles as something unexpected, working with obstacles is the meat and bones of meditation. <A> I am 76 years old and have practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years. <S> I suggest that what you need to know is how mindfulness meditation actually works. <S> I have written a book on this topic but nobody buys it because I cannot afford to advertise it. <S> Anyway, mindfulness meditation works because it engages something I call a safeguard cognitive process. <S> It helps for you to know that your mind cannot understand something unless it makes sense to you and your mind cannot do something unless it makes sense to you. <S> You have a very sophisticated intelligent function or mental process that constantly makes sure that what you think, do, or decide actually makes sense. <S> This process can be viewed as a safeguard against errors in learning or against errors in the application of what you have learned. <S> This very intelligent process operates unconscious, so you do not get a chance to see its benefits. <S> When you practice mindfulness meditation you engage this process by being objective and alert. <S> I suggest meditating for at least 20 minutes at day. <S> You might try "focusing" as defined by Eugene Gendlin because it is similar to more advanced forms of mindfulness meditation. <S> My name is Ronald Cowen. <A> There is a very simply Mahayana method, derived from the meditation teachings recorded in Classical Chinese Sutras. <S> A) Sit in comfortable position, ideally Lotus pose - like most the Buddhas' statuses. <S> If you can't just sit as you are comfortable with, doing the visualization of light... <S> [excerpted]. <S> B) <S> Or, doing visualization of fire... [excerpted]. <S> It's very good for health and curing. <S> I don't think the teachings of breathing meditations (or your mahasatipattana) , [added: neither the so-called mindfulness meditation ], mostly found around the corners, are correct. <S> If you can do correct breathing meditation it would be awesome as well. <S> Neither are there translations of any Chinese Classical Sutras can be trusted. <S> Even Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka were grotesque molested by the translators, I discovered when doing some related researches. <S> I say some prayers and refuge If you do so, I highly recommend you replaced with Nianfo (Jap: Nembutsu). <S> It will greatly benefit you esp. <S> benefiting older people. <S> Apart from all the talks of Nembutsu, these Buddhas/ Bodhisattvas names are composed of Seed Syllables of Sanskrit, it has its mystical property that's mentioned in Gateway of Dharani, taught in Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. <S> Again trusted Eng. <S> translation unavailable most were done by Theosophists like Edward Conze, they were badly translated. <A> Good to have guidance on fundamentals. <S> A Buddhist teacher will be very beneficial. <S> Individuals vary. <S> Any starting point at any point in life is possible.
|
The whole point of (Buddhist) meditation is to work with your inner condition, until you learn to manage it, and in the process get some insight. 2) review all breathing tensions and emotional sensations and note all of the preexisting conditions, then 3) review the state of the mind and note the quality of thinking & awareness today. This can expel sluggishness, for it empowered.
|
What do Buddhists say about illogical self sacrifice? I don't want to sound Vulcan, but I mean self sacrifice which is out of proportion, what do Buddhists say about it? So as an example, going on a dangerous hunger strike, in order that your well fed friend has another loaf of bread. I got thinking about this via dying for the "one you love", but obviously that sort of thinking is off in Buddhism. <Q> Here are three possible angles to look at it from: <S> A genuinely selfless action can be a wholesome act of generosity and compassion. <S> If the action is meant to manipulate or punish others (or even yourself), it will have bad results. <S> Sometimes we are not aware of how we can have selfish motives for apparently selfless acts, so we have to be careful. <S> One of the "fetters" that binds a being to endless rounds of rebirths is attachment to "rites and rituals". <S> So fasting as an attempt to propitiate fate or karma or God, or to achieve some kind of magical outcome, is useless. <S> Prior to his enlightenment, the Buddha spent years starving himself thinking that that was the route to liberation from suffering. <S> His motivation was pure, but he realized that it was pointless to destroy his body. <A> In Buddhist Jataka stories you find Bodhisatva (Buddha in a previous life) sacrificing his life to feed hungry animals etc. <S> However, in Sutta what you find is the practice of the middle path or Noble Eightfold Path. <A> Self-sacrfice for me is doing the washing up in the temple (or anywhere else for that matter) <S> - I'm doing it in service of the dharma, other motives (besides obvious practical ones) are wrong (this is on a good day btw, normally I'm doing it because I'm told to :)). <S> Other types of self-sacrifice often look to me like acts of extreme defiance coming from anger and ego, but I think it's a matter of choice ultimately.
|
But... A sacrifice of any kind can be wholesome or unwholesome depending on the deep motivation.
|
what happens to the mind during meditation? l experienced stopping of thoughts comes to the mind at a point and starts again.During that time my breathing has completely stopped.it is like mind has stopped for a moment.could that be possible? <Q> This experience is called Asanna in Buddhist meditation. <S> (see no 22 in the link)Please make sure you practice this meditation in conjunction with Vipassana meditation. <S> It also advisable to practice meditation in conjunction with Noble Eightfold Path. <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html <A> There are reports about something called nirodha-samāpatti , the so called 9th jhana, which is associated with Buddhahood and nirvana, though not identical to it. <S> With regard to the difference existing between the monk abiding in this state of extinction on the one hand, and a dead person on the other hand, M 43 says: "In him who is dead, and whose life has come to an end, the bodily (in-and-out breathing), verbal (thought-conception and discursive thinking), and mental functions (s. sankhāra, 2) have become suspended and come to a standstill, life is exhausted, the vital heat extinguished, the faculties are destroyed. <S> Also in the monk who has reached 'extinction of perception and feeling' (saññā-vedayita-nirodha), the bodily, verbal and mental functions have been suspended and come to a standstill, but life is not exhausted, the vital heat not extinguished, and the faculties are not destroyed." <S> However, I personally believe that life depends on breathing. <S> So I am almost entirely skeptical that even the Buddha could have achieved this bodily state. <S> I even found the claim here <S> that: Having attained the fourth absorption, inhalation and exhalation have ceased. <S> But given that appears in a discussion of 'feeling' and the prior cessation perhaps not a necessary component, <A> This is uddhacca-hindrance. <S> Right concentrated consciousness, of ānapanassati-meditation, has only thinking of breath. <S> Stopping of thinking is wrong of meditation. <S> Stopping of breath is wrong, too, for a newbie. <S> To correct it, Focus back to breath. <S> If you can find it, just focus on breath point at nose. <S> In pali canon, the buddha and commentary concern(paccavekkhaṇavasī) ānāpanassati-jhāna after meditation. <S> They have not know the description of ānāpanassati-jhāna while still meditating. <S> In contrast, they just know only breath while still meditating, non stop. <A> The breath does not stop. <S> Here, the mind must let go more & be more quiet, until the mind can feel the breath again. <S> Trying to focus will not help because it is the very act of trying (to focus) that makes the mind too coarse or gross to know the breathing. <S> The supramundane path of the Buddha is only about letting go. <S> The Buddha taught supramundane meditation ( jhana ) is developed by making letting go ( vossagga ) <S> the meditation object ( SN 48.10 ; end of MN 118). <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> SN 48.10 <S> There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga). <S> MN 118
|
What happens is the breath stops being an object of awareness because the breath calms but the mind remains too coarse or gross to be aware of the breath.
|
Where is the line drawn with stealing? It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes. So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift. On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn. So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines. Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not? It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card? For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing? <Q> ‘If a monk, intending to steal, takes from a village or from the wilderness what has not been given to him— the sort of theft for which kings, having caught a thief, would beat, imprison, or banish him, saying, “You’re a bandit, you’re a fool, you’ve gone astray, you’re a thief”— he too is expelled and not in communion.’ <S> Second Parajika rule <S> This is for monks, but it's pretty clear - or at least it leaves the subjectivity to individual jurisdictions! <S> (so in Italy, if you are starving and steal food, it's ok. <S> If it's less than the value of a good shield (1/4 dinar), then in Sharia countries you are not in trouble) With regards to possession, who possesses and to what extent, are probably useful measures. <S> Who possesses is usually well defined (if not, then theft becomes a gray area). <S> To what extent - how long should patents and copyright last, whether you can even effectively charge for something like streetlighting - are all likely subject to a social consensus. <S> Overall, if you perceive the object of your desire to be in the possession of someone else, or that someone else directly tells you so (asking is always a nice way to establish possession), then any intentional act to take such a thing, against the wishes of the owner would be theft, regardless of social consensus. <S> Piracy and claims as to the injustice of any and all economic systems are ancient claims, modernity only offers a novel spin on them. <S> Whether that possession is rightfully in their hands or not, is for their kamma, not yours. <A> Taking any thing not lawfully given is stealing. <S> An Aboriginal leader was sued in Australia for picking up a ten cents coin from a public building for stealing. <A> Personal morality is personal morality. <S> In the world, lawmakers make laws for jurisdictions. <S> Ideally laws should be made thoughtfully and skilfully. <S> Of course, this is proving challenging in the rapidly changing world we live in but is the issue specifically Buddhist? <S> As far as Buddhism is concerned, the dharma is clear: if it's not yours, don't take it. <S> If something is legal to take, it's not theft. <S> If a system fault robs a customer, he/she should be reimbursed/compensated. <S> If you think something should be legally theft, you can change the law or influence lawmakers to change it. <S> To be fair, the liberality of the modern world encourages a lot of behaviours that are legally grey but not compatible with Buddhism. <S> Listening to an artist's music on YouTube without paying for it is theft. <S> I do this <S> and it's incompatible with Buddhism. <S> On the other hand, so is music itself (strictly speaking), certainly the music most of us listen to. <S> What to do? <S> My own non-Buddhist take is that if I take from the world, I should give back more to the world. <S> The key principle is not to be a parasite on balance. <S> I judge my own actions. <S> The dharma judges me. <S> And if I break the law of a king or queen, they send one of their goons to bash me. <A> Buddhism is about non-harming & respect. <S> A rationale for non-stealing is as follows: <S> Again <S> [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. <S> Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. <S> What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. <S> How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' <S> Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking <S> what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. <S> Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects. <S> SN 55.7
|
If you think/believe/know that within a jurisdiction, a thing is claimed by someone and they don't have any desire to relinquish it, intentional taking of it is theft.
|
What does one need to give, for liberation? A twofold question for the sake to become even one. General theoretical, general practical and personal answers of reflection (and generously let others have part of it) are suitable. Or even incl. all the views on it, to give a broad spectrum to grasp. (Liberation here means the highest goal a living being can archive: end of suffering and stress) <Q> All you need to give is your trust in the process. <A> Do you mean what you need to give up in order to become free from suffering? <S> Dhammapada 221 says: <S> Give up anger, abandon conceit, overcome all fetters. <S> Ills of life (dukkha) do not befall one who does not cling to mind and body and is free from moral defilements. <A> You don't give in any thing to Nibbana <S> but you realise Nibbana. <S> Once you realise Nibbana you release from gross factors to subtle factors gradually and develop Bodhiakkhiyadharma. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81 <S> ======== <S> Then Ven. <S> Sariputta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and sat to one side. <S> As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Sariputta, how many are the strengths of a monk whose effluents are ended, endowed with which he affirms the ending of the effluents (thus): 'The effluents are ended in me'?" <S> "Eight, lord, are the strengths of a monk whose effluents are ended, endowed with which he affirms the ending of the effluents (thus): 'The effluents are ended in me.' <S> Which eight? <S> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.028.than.html <A> "What does one need to give, for liberation?" <S> His self. <S> Once the self is given, it is realised that nothing is ever given nor taken. <S> Giving or taking are just mere concepts ... <S> illusions ... not truth. <S> It is within this realisation of the truth that liberation is achieved. <S> But again ... <S> Achieving or not achieving are just mere concepts ... <S> illusions ... not truth. <S> It is within this realisation of the truth that liberation is achieved. <A> Friendliness. <S> Compassion. <S> Joy for others. <S> Equanimity Cultivate <S> these states within yourself and send the feeling out to all beings. <S> Anything experienced from developing these skilful states, give.
|
All you have to give up are your preconceptions.
|
Is there a time difference between death and re-birth? What is the Theravada position to following question?Is there a time difference between death and re-birth? Some further reading:Are my future parents already here? https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961&hilit <Q> In abhidhamma, when death consciousness vanished, then rebirth consciousness arise, immediately. <A> Some Theravada teachers say there can be an interim period but the commonly accepted belief is that there's no interim. <S> Because the death marks the last arising of the five aggregates in this life but experiencing does not end there if you are not an Arahant. <S> Another five aggregates should arise somewhere else immediately after that. <S> Unless the next birth is in the immaterial realm, the next experience should have physical materiality as a part of it. <S> In other words <S> Rupa <S> + <S> (Vedana+Sanna+Sankhara+Vinnana) . <S> Thus it is Mentality+Materiality or Namarupa. <S> Which means it's either a new life or the mind process is still holding on to a subtle form of the old body. <S> Either way, the mind cannot exist without a body except in the immaterial realm. <S> In all the reported cases of beings floating around, they could see, hear things. <S> Which means there's materiality associated with the mind process. <A> Here's an answer from the Theravada tradition by Ven. <S> Narada Mahathera (which appears to come from his book " The Buddha and His Teachings " <S> ): <S> The continuity of the flux, at death, is unbroken in point of time, and there is no breach in the stream of consciousness. <S> Rebirth of the mental flux is also instantaneous and leaves no room whatever for any intermediate state (antarabhava). <S> Pure Buddhism does not support the belief that a spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary state until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation." <S> In some other Buddhist schools, there is an intermediate state called bardo or antarabhāva .
|
Rebirth takes place immediately, irrespective of the place of birth, just as an electromagnetic wave, projected into space, is immediately reproduced in a receiving radio set.
|
How can I direct attention on an breath without consciously breathing? In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing? <Q> These books are wrong, which is why relatively few Buddhists are stream-enterers or reach jhana. <S> The seeing of the computer screen happens automatically, as long as your head is pointed in the direction of the computer screen & your mind is not asleep. <S> Similarly, in meditation, feeling & knowing the breathing happens automatically, as long as the mind is quiet, still & gentle. <S> All that is really needed is to sit upright with a still, quiet, gentle, awake mind. <S> The difficult part is the quiet clear mind. <S> If this can be done, the breathing part is easy because the body breathes automatically & the mind knows breathing automatically when the mind is quiet. <S> The path of the Buddha is the giving up of craving, which includes not craving when meditating. <S> The Zen masters say: ' The silent mind can listen to grass '. <A> (Ānāpānas)sati-kammaṭṭhāna= mindfulness, on breath, meditation . <S> It is not breath meditation. <S> There for, the practitioner training mindfulness, not breath. <S> The breathing is always automatic. <S> The practitioner doesn't have to control it. <S> The problem is that the natural of breath is soft and little, so people who never train mindfulness on breath have not enough mindfulness power to notice it. <S> To fix this problem, return your focus back to point at nose tip, when you find their, without worry, your mindfulness will meditate up to see your breath. <S> Trust the buddha that breath is automatic. <S> Don't worry about breath. <S> It is certainly automatic. <S> So just find it only at nose tip. <S> Shortly after that, a breath will appear to your mindfulness. <S> Summary each step of meditation: <S> http://122.155.190.19/revata/download/Books/Pa-Auk_Eng_Books/Mindfulness%20of%20Breathing.pdf <S> Ᾱnāpānassati <S> (Mindfulness-of-breathing) - An Introduction: http://www.pamc.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=32 <S> The Meditation Practice of Pa Auk Forest Monastery 1-3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMQBXmaSFTM <A> You can't not breathe, it's automatic. <S> All you have to do is be aware that you're doing it and keep bringing the mind back to it. <S> You're only controlling it if you feel you try to change the breaths for example making them longer or shorter <S> which by the way is useful in some circumstances. <S> Don't over think it. <S> Just sit and breathe <A> Only mindfulness will bring everything in order. <S> Just focus on breathing. <S> Knowing out-breath, knowing in-breath is enough. <S> In the early moment, one cannot focus on it as mind wander outside. <S> As time goes by, concentration arise and it is very clear. <S> Dhamma will show by itself. <S> Some people may think, it is the beginning of meditation. <S> But later he/she will know this out-breath in-breath noticing is all the way from beginning, middle and the end, the only way to nibbana, no two.
|
Whenever the mind wander, just pay attention on out-breath, in-breath. To observe the computer screen in front of you, you do not have to do anything with your eyes.
|
what is anatta during vipassana practice? During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta? <Q> No. <S> Anatta arises from seeing the arising and passing nature of conditioned phenomena wherever you look. <S> You see that the whole body is like mass of bubbling particles. <S> One set gets destroyed another arises. <S> You also see that this process is not controllable and this process generates sensations which are essentially unsatisfactory. <S> Unpleasant sensations are unsatisfactory, pleasant sensation are unsatisfactory when they end and neutral sensations are unsatisfactory as they are conditioned and pass away giving rise to unsatisfactory experiences. <S> In addition, craving towards any of the sensation gives rise to the notion or perception of a being. <S> Such perceptions all end in unsatisfactoriness. <S> Whatever unsatisfactory is not worth identifying as self. <S> This is Anatta. <A> When in meditation observe fabrications that arise in your mind. <S> If you see that no matter what fabrication you observe, the observed fabrication is not you nor it's yours, that is the experience of anatta. <S> You said that during your meditation mind itself can be seen. <S> Do it again and ask yourself if this mind you see is you and is it yours? <S> If you clearly see that it is not you nor it's yours, <S> that is the experience of anatta. <S> Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible in your mind. <S> Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible outside your mind, in the world/universe. <S> No matter where you'll observe, inside or outside, you'll experience anatta. <S> Na matter where you'll search, you'll experience anatta. <S> All is empty of self. <S> This is knowing anatta by experience. <S> Once anatta is known in the way I described, then the realization of the dhamma is not far away. <A> During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. <S> no thoughts were coming. <S> mind itself can be seen.is this anatta? <S> Seeing anatta is seeing the natural absence of 'self' in things; such as the absence of self in a drop of water. <S> If the mind can see its knowing & consciousness (awareness) is without self; if the mind can see it is the physical body that breathes rather than a 'self' that breathes; if the mind can see the breathing is merely 'air' or 'wind' (rather than ' my breathing '); and if the mind can see the automatic happenings in meditation occur without any self; this is beginning to see anatta . <A> What you are describing is a state you reach when you practice meditation. <S> This cannot be anatta since anatta is not a state, it is a property of existence present in all things. <S> Rather, your description looks like you have reached a state called access concentration. <S> This is the first but important step in practice. <S> Thoughts don't arise or if they come, they stay in the background, because the subtle tension that gives rise to thoughts doesn't become strong enough to distract and goes to the background <S> (This is what I believe you meant by mind itself can be seen). <S> Also, your description that mind itself can be seen also tells me that is not related to anatta, as that itself is a thought (without that you would not know that it is mind <S> you are seeing), which means you are in the identification stage and not (yet) seeing the true nature of things. <S> Observing anatta is seeing the grasping/identification activity in action and noting that that is not me (if it is, then who is the I that is watching it? <S> - hence a contradiction so both are not me in essence). <A> I don´t know. <S> If you look inside whilst thinking, ask yourself "What is this?" <S> Try to find the one who is thinking. <S> Then the thought just vanishes, because it is Not-Self, not you nor anything else, but a changing phenomenon that comes and goes. <S> Just let it go by asking What is This? <S> There is no answer in your brain, you just need to see that there is nothing behind a thought but emptiness (no entity)
|
If at the end of your search for self (atta), you experience anatta and just anatta (no self), then you'll know anatta: all is not self. This is the state where mind no longer gets lost in usual wanderings, and breathing becomes relaxed, with mind staying with the object of meditation (breathing).
|
Meditation in stressful environments My significant other is an extremely busy person who constantly lives life on the road and rarely has moments to himself. He's an incredibly stressed out person and because of this I've recommended meditation to him. I've given him a pair of mala beads and well wishes but I'm not sure how else I can help him. What are some tips that I can offer him? It pains me to see him so stressed so often and I would like to help him relax and reflect. Thanks so much in advance! <Q> This is based on nothing more than my own experience so please take it in that light. <S> I'm fairly busy at times as well. <S> When I am super busy <S> I find it very difficult to do any 'formal' meditation. <S> It makes me more stressed sometimes to have to do 'another thing'. <S> One thing I find useful is posture. <S> There are no meditation police (i think) telling you that you must sit for meditation. <S> Why not try lying down and doing nothing, perhaps watching the mind and paying attention to the desire to do something else; the desire to check your phone, write an email, get up and so forth. <S> It's all there going on and worth a look. <S> I don't find it stressful <S> and it does alleviate the whir of the mind. <S> If nothing else your partner gets to lie down for 10 mins. <S> If your partner really struggles for time this can always be done last thing at night. <S> Everyone has to go to bed at some point <S> so there is a little time there maybe. <S> As I say, this is just what I have found useful when struggling. <S> A teacher once said to me that meditating lying down wasn't cheating so <S> it's kind of based around that idea. <S> Anyway best of luck to you and your partner. <A> Short sessions work for me when I'm stressed. <S> But I also try not to stress out on the fact that I have only a little time some days--10-15 minutes. <S> I don't think time is a crucial factor anyway. <S> It's the quality of your meditation experience that counts. <S> Also, I have found that some of my most insightful sessions have come when I'm most stressed or least inclined to practice. <S> Shamatha is a good antidote for a mind on the jump. <S> I have been practicing it for almost a year now and have been able to see some real progress. <S> As to the posture police, they should remember that the Buddha cited four acceptable postures: sitting, standing, walking or lying down. <S> In other words--anything! <S> Keep at it and good luck! <A> It pains me to see him so stressed so often <S> > <S> I suggest that you practice some breath meditation. <S> Then teach that to your significant other. <A> "It pains me to see him so stressed so often <S> and I would like to help him relax and reflect." <S> The most important question is not how you can help him, but: does he want your help? <S> I understand he needs help, but does HE want your help? <S> I understand he's incredibly stresses, but does HE want to do something about it? <S> You and your significant other are both adults and smart people. <S> If he really needs your help, you two will definitely sort it out and find a solution. <S> If you two can't find a solution and you need to come here ask for suggestions how to help him, <S> then:1. <S> either he doesn't need your help or2. <S> there is some other issue not related to your question that you, or him, or both need to sort out If it's 2, I suggest to find a wise teacher/therapist who will help solve these other issues. <A> Mindfulness meditation can help a person deal with stress. <S> This is due to the fact that, by being objective, it facilitates the engagement of psychological "safeguards," unconscious mental processes that make sure you are thinking or doing the best thing, given the circumstances. <S> This is how mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) <S> medical programs work. <S> In general, more advanced states of mindfulness meditation are required to gain insight into more unconscious and flawed forms of motivation (karma). <S> If you want to know more about the practice, please read my book, How Mindfulness Meditation Works .
|
First of all, you should learn to relax. I sometimes find it useful to set a timer for a small amount of time (10 mins say) and just do that.
|
How is suffering the supporting condition for faith? In Upanisa Sutta Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light. Thanks a mil Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply. Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali byBhikkhu Bodhi <Q> The sutta lists links of dependent origination, backwards. <S> So I'd read it as "With existence as condition, birth. <S> With birth as condition, suffering. <S> With suffering as condition, faith." <S> I expect it means faith in the four noble truths, for example: <S> i.e. because of (conditioned by) suffering you agree with the noble truths (including the first noble truth), and develop confidence in the Buddha's teaching. <S> Note that suffering is the end or final result of samsara ... and <S> faith is the beginning or first step towards liberation. <S> So this sutta lists two sequences of links (the conditions of suffering and the conditions of liberation), and links the two together there. <S> There is a longer article on the sutta here , which talks about how faith arises, and a shorter one here . <S> You might possibly be confused by the term "supporting condition": other translations may include "proximate condition", "requisite condition", "prerequisite". <A> Suffering drove Prince Gautama to renounce his comfortable life and find the path to the end of suffering. <S> Hence suffering should be enough to motivate us to have faith in the path found by Gautama Buddha. <S> From the Sukhamala Sutta : 'Subject to birth, subject to aging, subject to death, run-of-the-mill people are repelled by those who suffer from that to which they are subject. <S> And if I were to be repelled by beings subject to these things, it would not be fitting for me, living as they do.' <S> As I maintained this attitude — knowing the Dhamma without acquisitions — I overcame all intoxication with health, youth, & life as one who sees renunciation as rest. <S> For me, energy arose, Unbinding was clearly seen. <S> There's now no way <S> I could partake of sensual pleasures. <S> Having followed the holy life, I will not return. <S> You can find the definition of the faith (or conviction) follower and dhamma follower in the Kitagiri Sutta and the Vinnana Sutta (and the other suttas in SN25). <A> It is said in the suttas that one who is suffering will sink even more in suffering or will begin a search out of it. <S> Now when one hears the Dhamma that initial suffering helps the person to have faith in the Path. <S> Also when one is enjoying the sensual pleasures of the world, somone like a prince, on hearing the Dhamma faith may not be established in him. <A> There is a psychology behind mindfulness meditation that is not easy to understand. <S> You can ask a meditation master who is accustomed to Western students. <S> Or you can read my book on meditation.
|
Suffering motivates the practice of mindfulness meditation, only if (1) a person understands what type of experience constitutes suffering, (2) a person understands the causes of such suffering, and (3) a person understands how mindfulness meditation removes the causes of such suffering.
|
Certainty and Skeptical Investigation I know Buddhism promotes skeptical investigation, and finding things out with a personal conviction about them, i.e. not believing the Buddha on hearsay but rigorous examination. I wonder: how is such a certainty achieved? I would think the combination of shamatha and vipassana is the answer, but I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain of the perception) or cognitive ( feeling certain of some analytical reasoning). Personally, I feel like I often achieve a feeling of certainty, but it usually fades into doubts and alternate hypothesis. I can't seem to generate a sturdy sense of truth. I appreciate any answer to this question.Thank you. <Q> Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. <S> He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. <S> As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. <S> At the same time, you study theory - explaining the mechanisms - which sheds light on your practice. <S> Certainty comes as a result of having acquired the skill. <S> This may or may not come from theory, and may or may not be something you can explain in words. <S> Conceptual model is the optional part that aids one's practice and helps transmit the teaching forward, but cannot give the sense of certainty by itself. <S> In Vajrayana schools, certainty also comes from the lineage blessings through a ritual known as empowerment (abhisheka). <A> "I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical reasoning)." <S> When you look at at the sun, you know with certainty the sun is there. <S> This is the feeling of certainty. <S> To get this feeling <A> It is sufficient to understand the psychology of mindfulness meditation to be appropriately motivated to practice it. <S> But relative certainty about this psychology can be based only upon skill in very advanced states of mindfulness meditation during which a person can systematically observe the unconscious processes that create karma. <S> This advanced practice is traditionally practiced after Enlightenment by meditating on the Theravadin Abhidharma. <S> The reasonable person seeks evidence, not certainty. <S> No knowledge is certain. <S> At best, knowledge can only make sense given the evidence. <S> This is the nature of the mind. <A> I use hypothesis testing. <S> Conceptually, theoretically, philosophically, physically, spiritually, scientifically ... <S> I test things against their most staunch adversary in all different points of view. <S> And I demand the most back-breaking, ego busting opposite viewpoints that I can find. <S> Of course this becomes an almost impossibly hard standard to meet when examining philosophical or theoretical or spiritual areas and checking for their basis in fact and science. <S> So I guess my final test is always true, modern science and then focused more on data than explanations. <S> But at least being a plausible physical theory other than "magic". <S> That's a must. <A> The Buddha found certainty by only trusting what could be directly observed and verified (is the 'falsified' a pleonasm?). <S> The characteristic of impermanence (anicca), for directly observed things (not inferred 'things' like Plato's Forms or God), is present for all that has been seen at all scales, whether a proton a sandwich or a black hole, whether at the time of the Buddha or now. <S> One can posit permanence somewhere beyond what is observable (the Hubble volume these days), but it would be a hypothesis outside of all observation up to now. <S> That impermanent experience, is unsatisfactory (dukkha) is simply logical, as even happy experience ends.. <S> (this is subject to the economic problem, 'unlimited wants, limited resources', but then space-time is not a resource we can extend anyways) <S> Direct observation of non-self (anatta) with regards to 'oneself', is inferred until nibbana. <S> The modern world offers more well defined insights along the lines of the Buddha from the scientific method imo, as the two share a core requirement for observational verification. <S> You have Copernican, Gallilean, special, general relativity and relational QM, which explain conditioned experience progressively more and more accurately. <S> Science is heading towards having to accept anatta soon because what is directly observed now is no different from what was observed 2500 years ago - impermanent and empty of self referential information.. or likely more 'impermanent and describes observed experience less accurately if observer independent or self referential properties are assumed'! <S> Both the scientific method and the Buddha however, cannot offer 'certainty' for conditioned phenomena. <S> QM states that the Sun will not come up tomorrow with some probability (say quantum tunnel into a black hole) <S> , statistics cannot reject the null hypothesis at the 100% significance level. <S> It is not necessary to be skeptical about impermanence with regards to conditioned phenomena however, because there is not a single bit of observable and verifiable counter-evidence up till now.
|
Or when you think about something in your mind, you know with certainty the thought is in your mind. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you infer the mechanisms at play. I'm talking about you must get insights through shamatha and vipassana, then you need to ask yourself questions and the answers will logically come if you gained enough insight from meditation.
|
Can Stoicism be seen as something close to Buddhism in some aspects? I am asking this question, for I try to follow much of Stoicism , and I can see that there are certain similarities. But there are also many differences. Could some aspects be the same or at least alike? For example, Stoics assert that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If one is cruel, it is because he is unaware of his own universal reason. If one is unhappy, it is because he "forgot" how his true nature actually operates (these concepts seem to me very similar to the Buddha Nature, which belongs to all living beings, but is often in a latent state). PS : I am sorry if the tags are wrong, I am new here. <Q> Stoicism can be seen as very similar to Buddhism in that it appeals to an ultimately indefinable reality which, through the denial of ego, awareness of which brings harmony to life. <S> Also, the stoic acceptance of whatever happens being in accord with nature is like non-attachment. <S> Stoics permit suicide in a wider range of cases than Buddhists, although the principle that suicide is an option when spiritual practice is no longer possible is the same. <A> I have seen many people quoting stoicism in Buddhist teaching. <S> Mainly Bhante Sujato from Sutta Central. <S> They use Stoicism to discuss rebirth and Kamma and even Dependent origination. <S> The way I understand only Buddha came up with the clear path to attain Nibbana. <S> Buddha is the only person who proclaimed completer four noble truths. <A> You might watch this discussion between Robert Wright and Massimo Pigliucci: THE WRIGHT SHOW -- STOICISM VS. <S> BUDDHISM
|
A Buddhist writer I read recently said that they are in many ways the same other than the Buddhist has greater joy to the extent to which their ego has dissolved.
|
'Impermanence' during vipassana practice Thoughts stopped when seen them. Either happy or sad feelings of mind disappears by seen them. Is this impermanence? <Q> Yes. <S> You are getting the hang of the fact that experiences come and go, and they get affected by mere looking at them. <S> There is also impermanence at a deeper or subtler level, where every sensation becomes ripply or vibratory - that can be seen when mind is trained to see impermanence at a deeper/subtler level. <S> edit: I don't know a better term to use than ripply to describe it, anyways my usage of the term comes from Shinzen Young's meditation manual , page 41. <S> (A beautiful illustration of meditation path up to the arising and passing away stage can be found in pages 40-45) <A> Impermanence is when you see something arise and then pass. <S> So yes, when you see thoughts and then see them stop, that is impermanence. <S> Same is with feelings. <A> During Vipassana, you will see the impermanence in all Sankhara. <S> Seen impermanence in Jhana also an aspect of Vipassana.
|
This is impermanence, at the experiential level.
|
Is my Meditation Practice Too Busy? I've been meditating fairly regularly for the past 5+ years, but have really only begun to follow Buddhism the past year or so. As such, my meditation practice has changed. I admit, I am not presently working with a teacher or monastery, though it is on my radar. I meditate every morning, from 20-30 minutes, and then usually a short one at night, around 5 minutes. Yes, I'd like to meditate more often, I'm working towards that. I wonder if my meditation is too 'busy'. I begin with focus on the breath, generally counting up to 10 a few times. I also throw in the "I have arrived, I am home..." mantra during this period. I then move to a short 'prayer' routine that I developed in recovery from drugs/alcohol - this is only about a minute or so. I typically then spend a bit focused on non-self, passing through the body and saying 'I am not any singular part - I am not the senses, the flesh, bones, blood, organs, etc'. This often leads to contemplation of the 4 Noble Truths, with which I sit for a bit, maybe 5 minutes or so. I wrap up usually with metta, going through the various people (myself, an honored person, loved, disliked, etc.). Writing this I'm like "wow", I do all that in 20-30 minutes??? So that's why I pose the question here - might it be wiser to just stick with one of those? Abandon all? Center on just a few of them? I feel like it works for me, I do enjoy it, but I do wonder if I'm sorta 'cheating' in the sense that I'm doing too much, keeping the mind too occupied in order to pass the time 'quicker'. <Q> The reflections you are doing are both excellent & necessary however they are the development of right view and not the development of right concentration. <S> The development of concentration is developing a quiet & still mind. <S> In developing a quiet & still mind, the right view reflections you are doing are used only when a hindrance arises or when grasping/attachment to meditation arises. <A> Yes, this does sound quite busy. <S> Be mindful of pleasant feeling filling your experience from attention on the breath and relaxation. <S> When the body is full of pleasant feeling and you are comfortable and satisfied within your meditation, being mindful of bliss and joy, you have reached the first jhana. <S> Give yourself 30 mins to reach this stage. <S> Try not counting and bringing in other concepts. <S> Just stay with the breath, cultivating pleasant feeling. <S> This method is in line with the Buddha's original instructions. <S> This is right Samadhi. <S> Subscription to teacher or monastery is not required. <A> Encompassing all that you do within 20 minutes is both honorable and perhaps not the best practice all rolled into one. <S> Simply focus on the breath to begin. <S> It will be your guide. <S> Thanissaro Bhikkhu has excellent videos on YouTube that make the practice seem easy. <S> Metta/Loving Kindness meditation is a great way to end the day if you would like to continue the practice.
|
Try keeping your attention sustained on the breath, using the breath to relax the entire body in a way that feels good.
|
What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana (and how do we work to get there) There seems to be this ongoing debate both within the Buddhist Tradition itself and with the world-at-large as to how a practitioner should relate to the world. The Buddha himself forsook his family and all worldly-pleasures in pursuit of a spiritual life prior to his enlightenment. Such practice and attitudes has largely been preserved within the Theravada tradition. The Mahayana, in particular its Chinese strain, stressed on the ability to heal the world within and without, to relate to all sentient-beings in a loving way through the practice of Metta and Karuna - the Bodhisattva way of life. Compared to the Christian Gospel of love, the Buddhist doctrine seems so much more rational and pragmatic - Metta is just a means to an end, not an end in itself; it is practiced just to help the yogi remove obstacles from his or her road to nirvana. It is not uncommon to find Buddhists who are aloof to worldly affairs and loving relationships - the yogi who chose to lead a life of solitude and inner-peace, in place of worldly pursuits; the vagabond who chose to wander in this world so that he may find his true home in another. My question would be: How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world? <Q> From my own experience, at certain point in one's practice, one's ties with the regular world reduce so much that one no longer gets any energy from participating in mundane affairs ("There is nothing further for the sake of this world"). <S> At this point one has only two choices: either go 100% hardcore ascetic ("Arhat") or engage with society in the teaching/helping capacity ("Bodhisattva") - either openly or secretly. <S> One can't really be "normal" anymore, pursuing success and entertainment, since one's value system no longer goes up to worldly goals. <S> So if one were to engage with the world lukewarmely on samsaric terms - then one would either die miserable death, or regress badly -- hence only two reasonable choices. <S> I suppose this is why it is often said that once you go far enough there is no turning back. <S> As to which option is preferable, I think it's totally up to personal inclinations. <S> Some people are very self-sufficient and very comfortable being the end in themselves. <S> For them the peace of minimalism is way more agreeable than the high drama of Bodhisattva's path. <S> Other people need to get energy from the outside, so they chose to give something, to get something in return. <A> The one who wants to become a Buddhist should take refuge in the Triple-gem. <S> It means taking spiritual guidance only from the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha. <S> If you are a lay person, you are expected to put forth and honest effort to keep to the Five Precepts on a daily basis. <S> Eight precepts are recommended on full moon days. <S> Lay Buddhists are allowed to work for worldly ambitions such as running a business, getting married, having a family etc. <S> as long as they do not do it in unwholesome ways. <A> How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world? <S> Imo Buddhism do not tell you how you 'should' live your life. <S> Other people tell you how you should live your life. <S> Buddhism will tell you what sort of lifestyles is wholesome and what is not. <S> But whether to follow it or not is up to you. <S> Because at the end of the day what you do is all on you. <S> Having said that, Buddhas analogy of a lotus flower, which is born from muddy water, fed from muddy water, but risen up from muddy water toward the sun and living untouched by muddy water describe the mindset of an enlightened Buddhist. <S> You are born out of the world, you are fed (depend on for your survival) by the world, but you rise from it and live untouched by the all the unsatisfactory things going on in the world. <A> The Middle Way is not an extreme in itself. <S> Mahayana swings towards concentrating on benefiting other first (more anatta-y), Theravada swings towards concentrating on benefiting oneself first (more anicca-y). <S> In the end, whilst 'defining himself' as a meditator at heart, the Buddha never declined to answer an honest question on the Dhamma. <S> It is important to live in line with all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path. <S> The world as a conditioned, dependently arisen experience, is seen as a burden. <S> In stating an accurate and verifiable description of experience within anicca, anatta and dukkha, curiosity for the world becomes less of a driving force, so engage with the world out of compassion. <A> "What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana" <S> The is no more relation to the world (in all its meaning), upon attaining the Unbound (Nibbana). <S> If asking "is there any relation left", one could say "formal to the Noble Ones", if spoken of kindship. <S> Yet, if asking "what is the benefit, the use, for others of that?" Being beyond of trade and exchange, Such is an unexcelled field of merits. <S> Directed to the Unbound as well. <S> "How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?" <S> In using food/relation/sustenance/entertainment just to abandon food/relation/sustenance/entertainment. <S> "How do we work to get there?" <S> By working on the conditions for the capacity to practicing this Noble Eightfold Path <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by trade and exchange] <A> The [Tibetan] <S> Mahayana tradition teaches that nirvana is a direct understanding of emptiness. <S> This direct understanding of emptiness is gained by a combination of study and meditation on emptiness. <S> This direct understanding of emptiness is also a direct understanding of reality and liberation from samsara <S> so it becomes obvious what is important, and what is not. <S> For example, generosity, patience, compassion, kindness, etc. <S> The ultimate goal is to become fully enlightened in order to be of the most help to all sentient beings.
|
I would expect that further you travel on your path less you will be attached to the world. I have been taught that the Bodhisattva way of life is required for full enlightenment. If one wishes to dedicate one's whole life to Buddhism, one may renounce the lay life and get ordained as a monk or nun.
|
How to have a relationship Every intimate relationship I have ever had has ended in a lot of pain and grief. The last one lasted for 17 years but eventually broke down. That was a year ago and the pain is still very raw at times. My question is this. If attachment causes suffering then I was obviously very attached but how do you have an intimate relationship without becoming attached? It seems just like the normal human thing to do. You like someone, you fall in love and it hurts when they're gone.You kind of don't even realise it's happening until it ends and then you feel like you want to die. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a close relationship on the Buddhist path anymore but I also don't want to live life alone. I know Buddha left his family but in these modern times there seem to be plenty of teachers who have partners/spouses. <Q> Impossible. <S> When there's relationship, there's bonding. <S> When there's bonding, there's pain when it ends. <S> The only thing you can do to minimize pain is to stay as independent as possible, and be your own source of joy and acceptance. <S> Which means playing an active role in your life, instead of relying on your partner for initiative and values. <A> Buddhist guidance about how to have a relationships is provided at the following links. <S> THE PARTNER (A good spouse) <S> Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune Living Together <S> (1) Sigalovada Sutta: <S> The Discourse to Sigala --The <S> Layperson's Code of Discipline <S> This guidance is not only used for any prospective relationship but also for reflection about where past relationships did not work out. <S> When painful separation occurs, instead of trying to practise non-attachment, it is wiser to investigate the causes & conditions that resulted in a relationship inevitably not working out. <S> Contrary to the contemporary method of getting the sex out of the way and then getting to know eachother, the Buddhist way is getting to know eachother's values & future aspirations before engaging in sex. <S> Generally, the sexual part is what leads to the attachment, striving to maintain the unsuitable relationship & pain. <S> So in Buddhism, the mutual & suitable personal qualities are given priority. <A> Your wanting to have a partner is causing you suffering. <S> Meditate on that. <S> There's no romantic relationship without attachment. <S> Attachment leads to suffering. <S> However, having a relationship is not discouraged for lay people. <S> Here are some criteria to find a partner who will cause you less suffering. <S> Is her faith similar to yours? <S> Does she have similar moral standards? <S> Is she generous as you? <S> Does she have similar wisdom? <A> Arturia, If wishing to stay together, meet again and again, this Sutta might help: Living in Tune .How <S> ever, it can be of course, but not need to make it to ones burden, be caused by previous, and present, actions, that longer lasting relations will not come to be, and it's maybe wiser to conform the 1. <S> Noble Truth, that all related phenomenas are subject of breaking apart, do not last, are subject of suffering and not really worthy to seek for it, hold on it, making it yours. <S> Then investigate it's cause, of such a phenomena (2. <S> Noble Truth). <S> Seek for it's solution, in the 3rd Noble truth, and having won certain faith, following the 4. <S> Noble truth, in going into relation with the Tree Sublime Juwels, beyound all relations and dwelling possible in relation with the Dhamma for the rest of this live comfortable and in ease. <S> Support and advices might be found also here: Into the Stream . <S> There is a lot of freedom in not having any relation, yet of course certain relation has to be seeked for to gain that. <S> To answer the question: "How to have a relationship" in short: to give food/nurishment ( upadana ) into it, so a constant required sacrify of what one hold, regards, took as self. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains and nurishing relations with it, but for possible benefical relation for liberation] <A> Difficult relationships are certainly the greatest and most common source of suffering today. <S> Fortunately, over the last century or so, a lot of insight has been acquired about the causes of such suffering. <S> Our problems with relationships are generally related to having grown up in an abusive or dysfunctional family. <S> If your parents were deeply loving people (being valuable friends and deeply sensitive to the needs of others), then chances are you will be able to seek a loving partner instead of a toxic partner simply because the difference between the two will be obvious to you. <S> If your parents were unloving and emotionally abusive, then you may have very low self-esteem and/or be a very angry person. <S> A stable loving relationship requires a great deal of interpersonal awareness, goodwill, insight, and genuine concern for the well-being of one another. <S> Modern couple therapy can be a sophisticated approach to unraveling the complexities of a difficult relationship. <S> I suggest that the concept of "attachment" in the context of this deeper and more scientific understanding of human relationships is a concept of little value when it comes to understanding the psychology of loving relationships between parent and child, between brothers and sisters, between friends, between lovers, and between husband and wife. <S> It provides no insight and no remedy for the difficult times in a loving relationship of any kind. <S> If you are in an emotionally painful relationship, you are better off finding a good psychotherapist or couple therapist rather than trying to apply the concept of attachment to a form of suffering that the Buddha never had to deal with because his students were all monks and nuns!!
|
After getting married you can make the relationship smoother by treating the wife in following ways: by being courteous to her by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority of the house to her, by providing her with adornments.
|
is buddhism outside the idealism and materialism? is buddhism is not certainly the idealism or materialisn?Buddhism philosophy is about the consequence mechanism about five elements* and those elements aren't viewed as the material,antimatter or spirit.But the motion and change of them is showing that Buddha or at least the nearest original of his book want to say that the motion and objective reality(material or time) is real,and it sounds like materialism.But the motion is come from,where?isn't it an conscious,thinking of mind construct from data,to create the motion,the time concept and feeling about it?Some time buddhism mention about mind,but doesn't it say the mind is a part of motion of elements? * fundamental elements (vietnamese: ngũ uẩn) <Q> Buddhism points out that both are concepts, reality is free of concepts (unless we impose them). <S> In my experience concepts like idealism etc. are deeply ingrained, unlike "my nose is itchy", so it's useful to remember they're just in my head. <A> Material(rupa) is ultimate reality in Buddhism. <S> The mind(citta) is an ultimate reality too. <S> Cittas come one by one very fast and each lasts for an extremely short period of time. <S> The more we are mindful, the more we can see these cittas. <S> If we aren't mindful, like most people(unfortunately), we can't see the individual cittas that make up our stream of consciousness or our mind stream very well because they blur together. <S> It's not that "Conceptual Reality" is wrong, <S> The entire Tipitaka is conceptual. <S> Among the many purposes of the Buddha's teaching, is making us understand the difference between "Ultimate Reality" and "Conceptual Reality" because we usually just blur the two realities together. <A>
|
Yes without going to the extremes existence and non-existence or eternalism and nihilism Buddha taught the middle path which is Dependent Origination.
|
What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life? Please answer these two questions: 1a. Suppose there is an ignorant person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground? 2a. Suppose there is an enlightened person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here & now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground? <Q> In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping. <S> In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth. <A> 1a. <S> will grasping stop? <S> Grasping will not stop, grasping occurs. <S> 2a. <S> will grasping re-arise? <S> There is no enlightened person, there is no ignorant person, there is just grasping, aka neurosis. <S> This neurosis is what's passed from life to life. <S> Once you learn to be free from neurosis, you learn to be free from termination of life, from "person" etc. <A> The question is whether (in each case) grasping will stop or re-arise. <S> So far as I understand it: Aggregates arise and cease Aggregates may cease here (death) and re-arise there (birth) <S> Generally clinging-aggregates are dukkha (says the first noble truth) <S> View of 'self' (identity views) are dukkha (says the doctrine of anatta) <S> The above are (and remain) <S> universal truths regardless of X and Z. X and Z inherit their own kamma. <S> One is and the other isn't ignorant of these truths, one does and the other doesn't suffer.
|
Grasping will not re-arise, grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.
|
Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas? Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas? Can the other four niyamas from the "Five Niyamas" remove a person's karma? Or just affect it? <Q> No, if speaking of "can one deed make another undone" ( MN 101 ), Breath, but by the deed of traing the mind, one can reach the ability to bear results of fruits from deeds easier. <S> See the The Salt Crystal . <S> Since it has much impact of general ways of thinking, living mostly in a world of believe that unrightouseness could be corrected, the Essay Wisdom over Justice might give certain inspiration, dealing at least with this issue outwardly. <S> For Suttas (teachings) on kamma <S> (actions) look up here: Kamma <S> In detail, of what certain sects see as skillful (here Niyamas ), there are certainly deeds which are not benefical at all for even lighten effects of old kamma, not to speak of going beyound. <S> But such would need the discussiin of each of this practices. <S> Some of this classical are benefical, kusala-kamma . <S> To get rid of the effects of ones previous deeds eternally, there is just one refuge: Nibbana. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange] <A> They can influence Karma and affect Vipaka(result).ex: <S> The reason why mangoes taste the way they taste is due to Bija Niyama & Uttu Niyama. <S> Not because of Karma. <S> So when you eat a mango, the pleasurable feeling at the tongue arises due to Karma. <S> But Karma cannot make it taste like an apple, if you eat a mango. <S> The nature of the pleasure is conditioned by other Niyamas. <S> Similarly, they could potentially make some Karma defunct(Ahosi) by not giving them the chance to come into fruition. <S> ex: <A> Kamma is destroyed only by the Dhamma Niyama of not-self ( anatta ). <S> Just this noble eightfold path — <S> right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. <S> AN 6.63
|
When the world system is about to be destroyed, if you do a Karma that can only give result in the sensual realm, it could become defunct due to the destruction of the sensual realm.
|
Is shame and remorse unskillful? I read this in another answer on this site: "and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion. my person thought it's worthy to lift the question if shame and remorse (before, while and after a deed be mind, speech or body) are generally unskillful, therefore to be abandoned, or if certain shame and remorse is actually skillful and very needed, therefore to develop and relay on it. (Note that remorse/ kukkucca , as a hindrance, falls by abounding sense-desire, end of reason for ill-will) Feel invited to reflect, and possible share even Buddhas view on this mind qualities: An invitation of shameless making merits, so that one might not feel remorse, having not done, later. [Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange] <Q> The other answer on this site was fine in its essence, spirit, purpose & intent. <S> There is the unwholesome 'remorse' or 'guilt' ( kukkucca ), which is a hindrance; and there is the wholesome 'sense of shame' ( hiri ) , which is a virtue and one of the five gates to Dhamma. <S> The Lord Buddha said: He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds. <S> He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds. <S> For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future. <A> I suppose it's part of a skillful response to unskillful action. <S> Conversely, "shameless" is usually portrayed as undesirable. <S> The response to skillful virtue is said to be "lack of remorse". <A> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. <S> Sometimes shame and remorse can guide you to do skillful actions. <S> Sometimes it can guide you to do unskillful actions.
|
As the other answer on this site implied shame towards unskilful deeds is for a Buddha a means of learning a lesson and moving beyond guilt & remorse. It depends on the circumstances.
|
Is there a canonical reference for the story about the war between the Buddha's relatives? I've been looking for a reference for the story of the conflict between Kosalan king Vidubhara and the Sakyans, that the Buddha tried to stop. There are several versions of this on the web, but none of them give any references. Is it canonical? Whether it's canonical or not, where does it come from? <Q> Yes, these are striking stories given with varying details even though the 'lesson' is usually the same. <S> I found this summary by a monk named Cittasamvaro; ' <S> Within the Buddhist Scriptures, there is little evidence for collective karma, though the commentaries abound with karma stories. <S> One such is the defeat of the Sakyan kingdom at the end of the Buddha’s life, and the subsequent destruction of the conquering army through natural disaster. <S> Though the Buddha reportedly knew that the war would occur due to past karmas, he still tried to intervene peacefully. <S> The conquering army also paid for its part in the bloodshed, by being swept away by a flood. <S> (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā 1.46, Viṭaṭūbhavatthu). <S> Despite the Commentarial stories, stories that are not part of the direct teachings of the Buddha, there is little in the Sutta/Vinaya to suggest that there is such a form of collective karma'. <A> Late Upasaka Goenka gave a very detailed teaching, based on cannonical references: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed? , Robert Michael. <S> On seeing the importance here: Dhamma is unwisely grasped, if used for politic and wordily gains: <S> One should not make an effort everywhere, <S> should not be another's hireling, should not live dependent on another, should not go about as a trader in the Dhamma. <S> ud <S> 6.2 Topics and Speech that easy leads astray and goes straight to papanca , as this is here very close and inclined seemingly; involved. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.] <A> The evidence for this kind of Buddha's involvement is from the commentaries to the Pali Canon. <S> Thus commentary for Attadaṇḍa Sutta (Sutta Nipata 4:15) says the this sutta was spoken by the Buddha in front of the warring parties in the dispute over Rohini River. <S> Translation of the commentary is in the Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Sutta Nipata, p. 1189: <S> https://books.google.com.mm/books?id=TYQ2DwAAQBAJ&dq=bhikkhu+bodhi+sutta+nipata&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY0JH49v3lAhUdyzgGHetFBisQ6AEILjAB
|
In the case you mentioned, regarding revenge Pasenadi's son Vidūdabha took over Sakyans, it is story from the Dhammapada Commentary.
|
How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does? Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting question , or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate: How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does? There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha". `(Mv.I.6.7) [11] Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?” (Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses: “All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353] I have no teacher, and one like me can’t be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of the Kasis. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.” (Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.” “Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations’ end. I’ve conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.” When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` ( The Discussion of the Group of Five ) As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant". Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good... Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like: Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? So what is that all about with this paradox? How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart? Just a " Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi , or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did? [[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange] <Q> How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does? <S> The difference is that the teacher is a fully enlightened Buddha - the only one of his kind in this Aeon. <S> A fully enlightened Buddha has uprooted all defilements. <S> There are absolutely no traces left of any defilements. <S> Its impossible for a Buddha to create Kamma. <S> What might seem like praise or blame from the perspective of a non-Buddha is vastly and completely different from the perspective of a Buddha. <A> The "I" the Buddha is attributing all these virtues to is not the ego/illusion of self (atman) but the non-self (anatman), the no-soul or no-self doctrine. <S> American-born Zen masters sometimes call this "Big Mind". <S> It is this non-self that speaks to the atman (in the form of Mara) in the Buddha enlightenment story: <S> Mara appeared in front of Buddha and said ” you, who go where no one else will dare, will you be my guardian” and Buddha said “architect, finally, I have met you. <S> You will not build your house again”. <S> Mara said, “but I am your house, and you live in me.” <S> Buddha said, ” oh lord of my ego, you are pure illusion, You do not exist.” <A> There are two things going on here: <S> It can stop or combat the improper arising of arrogance <S> It can be a practice in the perfection of truthfulness and honesty <S> It can stop the arising of lust for worldly reputation <S> It can stop the arising of the self-cherishing attitude <S> It can easily be seen that Buddha's are by definition completely perfected and have accomplished the perfection of all virtues. <S> Therefore #2 is unnecessary and irrelevant for them. <S> To be really clear, the problem with accepting praise can be that it is not warranted <S> OR <S> that it causes improper or non-virtuous thoughts to arise. <S> Or both. <S> That is why you see highly, highly, highly accomplished masters who reject praise for themselves. <S> When you see HHDL and Lama Zopa Rinpoche rejecting praise ... <S> well, how on the earth can such a lowly being as I accept it. <S> For lowly beings like myself, praise can be a really hard thing to skillfully handle. <S> It causes definite arrogance to arise for me <S> so I really don't want it. <S> For a Buddha, there is no such problem. <A> Remember that popular "Knights and Knaves" puzzle? <S> The Knights can only say the truth. <S> Otherwise he'd be a Knave. <S> Similarly, the Buddha only said the truth and <S> He'd be a Knave otherwise. <S> For us worldlings who are trying to walk the path, we can't praise ourselves 'cuz we'd put ourselves on the Knaves camp if we do. <S> Simply answer honestly those questions in Mv. <S> I.68: are you all-knowing? <S> ended all cravings? <S> have no counterpart? <S> rightly self-awakened? <S> beat the drum of the Deathless? <S> conquered all evil qualities?
|
A Buddha is a completely enlightened being who has perfected all the virtues For us non-Buddhas, there are many virtues that can be cultivated by rejecting praise for oneself For someone who is on the path and has yet to perfect themselves, praise - even if it is truthful - can be problematic as it can act as a cause for the arising of arrogance and all the non-virtues mentioned above.
|
Lack of Pleasure and Joy I noticed aside from gross sensory pleasures such as eating, or sometimes writing, I don't feel much pleasure or joy. It is as though the emotional spectrum of joy and pride, and other such positive emotions, is limited in myself. This considered, is there any likelihood of success to any meditations or practices given I am doing things without happiness and joy? I feel like I'm trying to move forwards while something is inherently lacking. Thank you. QUESTION: Also, what are the wholesome pleasures and joys usually implied in the Buddhist path? EDIT: I would like to say that it feels as though such positive emotions are unFELT, but not unSOUGHT. Basically, I am drawn to positive situations and joys, e.g. listening to music, but the FEELING seems absent. Anyone have any idea what is going on? <Q> Sounds like you are looking for positive emotions from entertainment (e.g. music). <S> That is one way to get positive emotions... not necessarily invalid but rather superficial and not lasting. <S> Another way to get joy is through setting challenging goals and achieving them. <S> When you can overcome your weakness / limits, you will feel rewarded, and worthy of self-respect. <S> In Buddhism the challenging goal we set is Right Bodily Behavior, Right Verbal Behavior and Right Mental Behavior. <S> When we overcome our bad habits and achieve certain level of perfection, we can truly congratulate ourselves and that gives the special type of joy. <S> (And then the joy of Completion, which is the highest.) <S> But even on mundane level, you can set challenging goals, like sport, raise yourself to challenge despite pain and weakness - and then congratulate yourself. <S> Try it, it really does work ;) <A> The proper themes of meditation for beginning and to provide joy: What should one meditate upon as a beginner? <S> To have joy in something, it requires devotional practice: <S> Respect, Confidence and Patient <S> And yes, without joy no headaway, going forth. <S> One needs a "star" or to see good attributs of real stars in one self. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world] <A> You are stiffled. <S> You think that you are not allowed to enjoy life, enjoy women and pleasure in life because of clinging and craving and dukka and death and the danger in sensual pleasures. <S> But you are not a monk. <S> You don't meditate as much as a monk would do, who would enter jhana and be content with robe, bowl, medicine. <S> You don't have to stop following the red thread, enthuziasm <S> , that will make your life worth living and enjoyable. <S> Do the things that make you enthuziast. <S> If you don't know them find them. <S> Let yourself express the life in you. <S> Take dance classes. <S> I do and it helps. <S> Get involved in social circles. <S> Expand them and meet new people constantly. <S> It is the joy of life. <S> I do so <S> and it helps my meditation. <S> Don't rush things, be patient. <S> Be outcome independent, don't do things having expectations, do them because you enjoy being yourself doing them. <S> Results are bound to come.
|
You can have a break with meditation until you will be enthuziastic at the thought of sitting.
|
Meditation's Effect on Strong Attachment I have a straightforwards question: does meditation decrease attachments -- e.g. to alcohol or social media -- by increasing willpower, or by other mechanisms? I would think shamatha increases willpower in the long-term, but does it produce some other effects that decrease attachments? Thank you. <Q> Meditation can result in samatha (tranquility & joy) and vipassana (insight). <S> As for samatha, if well developed, it provides an alternate, more healthy & free source of pleasure. <S> All minds require 'pleasure' however some sources of pleasure are more healthy than others. <A> When you concentrate out of alcohol, you are not attaching alcohol that time. <S> The distance between you and alcohol will increase. <S> This can be meditation, if your concentration concentrating samādhi object or vipassanā object continuously and improvely . <S> But, if not, it is just a sīla, precept, if you just deny to drink an alcohol, because alcohol denying is just a precept in 5 precepts , so it is just meditation base, but it still not meditation. <S> Sīla-training stop whole physical attachment, not just alcohol. <S> Sīla is base of meditation, but it is not meditation because mental attachment still able to arise . <S> When any unwholesome mind, such as attaching mind arising, that time is not meditation, because the meditation is training continuously and improvely . <S> Samādhi-continuous-training stop whole present mental attachment. <S> Vipassanā-continuous-training extirpate whole future attachment. <A> Shamatha can be viewed as an off-shoot of the traditional Theravadin practice of mindfulness meditation. <S> Its purpose is to establish “calm abiding” in which calm objectivity and common-sense understanding are extended to establish a meditative awareness of one’s state of mind, thoughts, and emotions. <S> From a Theravadin point of view, the establishment of calm abiding is a good beginning but not an end in itself. <S> Nonetheless, a calm and objective mind automatically corrects perceptions, feelings, beliefs, desires, and “attachments” that do not make sense to your common-sense mind. <S> This is the mechanism that causes MBSR therapy to work. <S> In this way, certain types of problematic sankhara (schemata) are revised. <S> However, there are deeper and more problematic sankhara that cannot be corrected in this manner. <S> The next level of mindfulness meditation consists of meditating on “the body in the body,” which is similar to the process of focusing developed by Eugene Gendlin. <S> The more advanced levels of mindfulness meditation engage the Bodhicitta and require a lot more explanation. <S> If you want to know more about these more advanced levels, you can read my book on how mindfulness meditation works.
|
On a very basic or crude level, meditation can provide an intimate insight into how addictions & habits disturb, trouble & enslave the mind, which can help the mind develop a distaste or dispassion towards these more coarse/gross addictions & habits.
|
What is the meaning of the word Uncreate? This link mentions that there is an existence of uncreate state of self(opposite of created state of self..correct me if I am wrong..). The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men. My questions are : What is the meaning of the word Uncreate? Is Uncreate state a noun or a verb? <Q> I once heard a myth, not sure how real, that New York City has a massive underground flooding problem - but because the city infrastructure situation is so insanely complicated, no-one can even dream of fixing the leaks - instead they just have a system of pumps running 24/7 pumping the water. <S> The city can only exist thanks to the pumps, if the pumps were to stop even for an hour, the city would get flooded and the rest of the infrastructure would collapse. <S> This is how the story goes anyway. <S> Samsara is like that. <S> It requires continuous maintenance. <S> We are not normally aware of this, but we do put tremendous effort 24/7 to maintain Samsara. <S> We do it ourselves. <S> Our Ego (image of self) is contrived, and requires constant effort to maintain. <S> Our idea of the world is contrived as well. <S> Our idea of how the world should be is also contrived. <S> The pumps that maintain these systems are our narratives that we keep telling ourselves again and again. <S> The whole mass of suffering is based on these pumps. <S> Similarly, mere intellectual understanding of Dharma, of Anatta, of Emptiness etc. is equally contrived. <S> Because it is contrived, it does not hold under pressure of real-life circumstances. <S> The uncreated, the natural, is always there, <S> like the clear sky above the clouds, we just have to stop the pumps in order to see it. <S> Direct experience belongs to this category, and so will hold under any pressure. <S> This is the meaning of "uncreated" here, not in the active sense as in "deconstruct". <S> Although come to think of it, certain amount of deconstruction (of ego, of habitual illusions) is sometimes necessary too. <A> The English word "uncreated" is an adjective which, here, is used as a noun (or is used to imply a noun, or used without a noun): <S> i.e. "the uncreated [something]" (where [something] is an implicit noun, for example "state"). <S> Using an adjective without a noun, like this, is a slightly unusual form of English. <S> Its meaning is similar to "unconditioned". <S> It literally means "not created". <S> There's another translation of the Dhammapada here , which I like because: It includes the original Pali <S> I think it's a careful translation (approved by a committee) <S> It also includes an "origin story" for each verse. <S> As it happens, this translation clarifies that it's talking about Nibbana: <S> He who is not credulous, who has realized the Unconditioned (Nibbana), who has cut off the links of the round of rebirths, who has destroyed all consequences of good and bad deeds, who has discarded all craving, is indeed the noblest of all men (i.e., an arahat). <S> See also this answer , which lists 33 synonyms for (or attributes of, nouns used as names for, and/or adjectives which describe) Nibbana. <S> As for the Pali, the word in question here is Akataññū . <S> According to https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=27280 or (similarly) <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ebC4xQmlg <S> apparently that verse is difficult to translate without the commentary: and I think they're saying that Akataññū is some kind of play on words <S> : i.e. it usually means something like, " not knowing what's created for one's benefit (therefore ungrateful)"; and here, it means, " knowing what's not created (i.e. Nibbana)". <A> To complement the answers here, something created ( saṅkhāra , "put together", a "heap") is always unstable, impermanent: it "becomes otherwise", "it ceases", "it dies", etc. <S> Something created is subject to these outcomes due to being conditioned. <S> Conditioned by those things that were "put together" that gave rise to it, that created it. <S> As is the case in samsara, the things that made it are also "created", conditioned, recursively. <S> Then, uncreated is the very opposite. <S> It's not "made" or "put together" from other things (as is the case with saṅkhāra). <S> Because it wasn't "put together" or "constructed", it's not conditioned by what, otherwise, constructs it. <S> No change can be observed, therefore, it is stable. <A> Namaste Brahman, the ultimate reality, the One, the non-duality - source of all creation. <S> From the One all forms of consciousness, from the lowest to the highest, are born in the duality (material) world. <S> At birth, we rise like the waves rise from the ocean and return to the ocean when our journey is over. <S> All that is born in the material world has the Brahman nature. <S> But only the ones that attain enlightenment return to the source as buddhas. <S> P.S. Words are labels not truths. <S> They only point to the truth. <S> Like "APPLE" - that is a word, not an apple. <S> Only an apple is an apple. <S> "Uncreated" is a word not a truth. <S> It has no meaning beyond the meaning we give it. <A> Also, generally means not a mental, thought, or social, familial belief or orientation.
|
Uncreated to me in a Buddhist context is a adjective. In this case, uncreated means, non-contrived, natural, something that does not require an effort to maintain.
|
What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana? This question is pretty straight forward. Suppose I wish to attain Nibbana then what are the conditions which I must fulfill in order to attain Nibbana? <Q> What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana? <S> This answer is pretty straight forward. <S> Practice and perfect the Noble Eightfold Path as laid out by the Buddha. <S> When perfected, the Path Consciousness takes Nibbana as an object. <S> It performs four distinct functions, i.e.; "fully understanding Dukkha, abandoning the origin of Dukkha, realizing Nibbana and cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path" . <S> Is Nibbana guaranteed after perfecting the Noble Eightfold Path ? <S> In the Nagara Sutta , the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality). <S> "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. <S> And what is that ancient path, that ancient road? <S> It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. <S> I followed that path and by doing so I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..." -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl. <A> From a Theravada perspective, in order to attain Nibbana (the fourth and final stage of enlightenment), you generally need to pass through the first stage of enlightenment, which is the fruit of stream entry . <S> In this YouTube video , Ven. <S> Dhammavuddho explains the characteristics of a sotapanna (stream winner) and explains how to get there. <S> He quotes from many suttas to support his points. <A> The experience of nibbana for the first time happens at the first stage of awakening, other wise known as stream entry. <S> The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors: <S> Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. <S> Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. <S> Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry. <S> — SN 55.5 <S> The practice leading to disenchantment, dispassion, and release follows a stepwise path of cause and effect. <S> "Now, I tell you, clear knowing & release have their nutriment. <S> They are not without nutriment. <S> And what is their nutriment? <S> The seven factors for awakening... <S> And what is the nutriment for the seven factors for awakening? <S> The four establishings of mindfulness... <S> And what is the nutriment for the four establishings of mindfulness? <S> The three forms of right conduct... <S> And what is the nutriment for the three forms of right conduct? <S> Restraint of the senses... <S> And what is the nutriment for restraint of the senses? <S> Mindfulness & alertness... <S> And what is the nutriment for mindfulness & alertness? <S> Appropriate attention... <S> And what is the nutriment for appropriate attention? <S> Conviction... <S> And what is the nutriment for conviction? <S> Hearing the true Dhamma... <S> And what is the nutriment for hearing the true Dhamma? <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html <A> A slightly cheeky thought: it's not about fulfilling conditions, but rather removing conditions. <S> In practice, cultivating good conditions yields good results (and thus this is prescribed as part of the path), but ultimately the unconditioned needs no conditions. <S> When a fire burns out because its fuel is exhausted, it vanishes. <S> All that remains is the vanishing. <A> As Upasak inb4dead told . <S> There are no conditions for Nibbana. <S> Nibbana is unconditioned. <S> To possible reach the Unconditioned, one needs to hold on, put into, increase the conditions to let go of them. <S> One needs to have <S> upanissaya (strong conditions) and give into strong condition causes ( upanissayapaccayena ). <S> Of which causes are conductive and which not, how to foster, increase, develop... <S> conductive causes, all of that is what the whole teaching are about. <S> The Essence of the Dhamma might be useful, since the Unconditioned is not to be reached without giving conditions to attain. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade] <A> I can’t disagree with any others answers advocating this or that practice. <S> But what jumps to my mind is the Buddhist teaching all conditioned things - those arising from causes* and conditions are impermanent. <S> Thus ultimate extinguishing, Nimbanna, is beyond conditions or causes. <S> But, as one uses a raft to cross a river and then abandons it, causes and conditions may be used to reach the unconditioned, and uncaused, which I think cannot be spoken of, or should not if it could be. <A> One who attains Nibbana has extinguished ten fetters: <S> “Bhikkhus, there are these ten fetters. <S> What ten? <S> The five lower fetters and the five higher fetters. <S> And what are the five lower fetters? <S> These are the five lower fetters. <S> And what are the five higher fetters? <S> Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance. <S> These are the five higher fetters. <S> These, bhikkhus, are the ten fetters.” <S> -- <S> AN 10.13 To extinguish these fetters, one practices the eightfold path. <S> Or, more comprehensively, one practices and fulfills all factors of the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā . <A> Question does not apply. <S> The proper question would be what are the conditions for cessation of All/aggrigates <A> The condition for Nirvana is "suchness". <S> The condition for suchness is having no conflict between "is" and "should". <S> The condition for no conflict is insight into the nature of things. <S> The condition for insight is study and practice of Noble Eightfold Path.
|
Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Associating with people who are truly good... Nibbana is unconditioned, uncaused, unmade. Personal-existence view, doubt, wrong grasp of behavior and observances, sensual desire, and ill will.
|
Talents/Skills we possess as Humans I have a strong desire to be an actor but I don't possess such skills... So is it possible that after reincarnation I come back in a body/form with acting skills. (I know this is a childish question but please help me)I really want to know. <Q> You can be reborn in this life as an actor. <S> In a fundamental way, life is like a stage and we are the actors in the play. <S> I guarantee you that your desires will lead to results. <A> It is not a childish question at all. <S> Buddha guaranteed you will get or become whatever you want if you have, faith (saddha), precepts (sila), knowledge in Buddha's teachings (sutta), giving (jacca) and wisdom (panna which is either meditation or seeing raise and fall of all things. <S> It is in sankharuppatti sutta. <S> Other things Buddha said would help which I don't remember the name of sutta, you will be successful in whatever your intention if you have ; precepits, living not far from jahnna, have vipassana, stay in sunyata. <S> Good luck with your goal. <S> And if you are a Buddhist, don't forget to work towards becoming a stream enterer too. <S> Its a guarantee destination <S> even after you get what you want or want to be. <A> Because an actor is a mijjhā-ajīva in 8-mijjhā-magga, akusala-kammapatha-offense career <S> that buddha said "reborn in hell" , 7th of 10 akusala kammapatha. <S> you just expect and attention at actor's life in every time of your life, especially when you making a merit. <S> I love to sing and act like you, but I try to avoid to be in this career. <S> Because they are direct hindrance careers for the meditations. <A> Light, The skill, actually being very mindfull and hold on certain mind states, which are required for an actor, are the same means one would use in the practice of the path to liberation. <S> So best if one starts to become a real actor here and now. <S> One able to set his mind by will1 on every kind of way of thinking. <S> Good to train that, and good to memorize the text. <S> Best try to be a Dhammic actor. <S> There are at times, as far as seen, many monks and nuns public visible, who have been actors before. <S> Start to act like a Noble One. <S> Right here and now. <S> Train it all day and night, everywhere. <S> Becoming an Arahat means to become a real actor, not limited in his freedom of appearing, taking on what ever skillful profile at wish and is therefore regarded as real Star. <S> What character would you like to act? <S> Buy acting is one called great. <S> And the meaning of that goes rightdirect to the main question: Talents/Skills we possess as Humans Not by birth <S> is one a human with inherent skills, but by deeds, by acts, one can be rightly called human. <S> So if not a sillful actor, not much chance to be rightly called on with human skills: <S> O! <S> Gotama, we have a dispute on birth. <S> Bhāradvāja says 'by birth a Brahmin is made' <S> And I say 'by actions a Brahmin is made. ' <S> Vāseṭṭha Sutta: <S> To the Brahmin Vasettha <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.] <A> The advice given by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo in his essay " The Skill of Release " should be helpful to you: <S> When we're true in what we do — when we don't stop or grow lax or give up — the results, even if they show up slowly, are bound to be great. <S> The fact that they are all growing at once is what makes them slow. <S> It's like a tree with lots of branches to protect itself and give lots of shade. <S> It's bound to grow more slowly than a banana tree, which has only one stem and gives good fruit, but is exposed to lots of dangers. <S> Some people get results quickly; others more slowly. <S> The slower people shouldn't compare themselves or compete with the quick ones. <S> The quick ones shouldn't compete with the slow ones. <S> It's like polishing boards and mirrors. <S> Polishing a mirror so that you can see your reflection in it doesn't take all that much talent, because the nature of the mirror is already reflective. <S> But to polish a board so that you can see your reflection in it, even though it may take a long time, is a sign of real expertise. <S> This basically means that you should have determination and perseverance towards achieving your goals, in this very lifetime. <S> And don't compare yourself to those much better than you, for their path would be different from your's. <S> Of course, some goals may not make sense, for e.g. if I wasn't born in the USA, then I cannot become the President of the USA. <S> In MN57 , the Buddha said of the ascetic who had taken the vow to live like a dog, that if he lived his life behaving like a dog, thinking like a dog and having the mind of a dog, fully and without break, then he will be reborn in the company of dogs in future, if his vow is successful. <S> So, similarly, I would surmise that if you vow to become an actor, and take the effort to try to become an actor, study acting, practise acting, thinking like an actor etc., fully and without break, then you could be reborn in a destination where it is conducive for you to become an actor and also possess the talent of acting. <S> Such is speculated of child prodigies too.
|
Yes, if you can accept to born in hell after an actor's life .
|
Paths of Buddhism & Possibility of Compassion I have read about different types of paths for spiritual aspirants. Namely: Śrāvakayāna Pratyekabuddhayāna Bodhisattvayāna Of the first, Asanga states their faculties are limited: "These people are described as having weak faculties [...]" Of the second, he states they have medium faculties: "[T]hey are said to have medium faculties [...]" Finally, he describes the bodhisattva as with sharp faculties. In the Sutra on the Ten Levels , it says the sravaka will have practised: [...] through fear of cyclic existence and without [great] compassion, [...] I know that this is mainly a Mahayanist view. Nevertheless, my questions are : (1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime? (2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even at some later point? <Q> I always feel guilty giving interpretative answers with no references, but since that's exactly what you seem to be asking here, here we go. <S> Sure, there are people of different skills and capacities. <S> I wouldn't blame it on them, it's just a matter of circumstances, previous lives karma, old ignorance, we all were ignorant at some point. <S> But yeah, as my teacher explained, there are people who get it immediately, people who never seem to get it and just keep worshiping it as religion, and most of us in between, who get it with enough instructions and practice. <S> As Buddha said, it is for this category that we teach. <S> Enlightenment is feasible in one lifetime if one makes it a priority and stays honest with oneself. <S> I can't say some people are hopeless, that would not be fair. <S> But yeah, for some it's more difficult, because of conceptual stereotypes, karmic inertia, or emotional blockages. <S> Traditionally, it is said that Buddhist path does not always result in awakening of compassion. <S> Traditionally, you can be an isolated Buddha, who just can't stand the pain of engaging, and keeps to the peaceful abiding at all times. <S> However in practice, I just don't see how someone who really gets it can help but develop grand, immense compassion for all sentient beings. <S> So if you ask me, I'd say, if you're honest with yourself, compassion always arises. <S> But then again, I'm a Mahayana guy, maybe it's my bias, maybe I should learn to feel less pity for everyone :)) <A> Let's consider the scenario of students in university. <S> The ordinary student, just studies what is taught in the lectures and does not put in extraordinary effort. <S> Along the way, he might help one or two of his fellow students, who are his close friends, but he does not have the capacity or willpower to help many students. <S> He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 3 years, but with a mere pass. <S> He is now liberated from the student life. <S> The outstanding student, puts in extraordinary effort, including additional research and project work. <S> Although not required, along the way, he helps many fellow students as a teaching assistant. <S> He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 4.5 years, with first class honours or summa cum laude. <S> He graduates at the top of his class. <S> He continues further for another 5 years to complete his doctorate with high honours, and becomes a lecturer. <S> He too is now liberated from the student life. <S> The goal for most people is to simply become liberated from the student life and start working. <S> For this, becoming an ordinary student is good enough. <S> However, for the select few who are very ambitious, they would go the extra ten miles to graduate at the top of their class, earn a doctorate and become a lecturer, to teach others. <S> Similarly, the sravaka is like the ordinary student, and the Bodhisattva is like the outstanding student. <A> " (1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? <S> That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime? " <S> The faculties definitely are different between people and some practitioners do have greater facility for somethings than others, dharma topics included. <S> This is both modern understanding and buddhist understanding. <S> There are many suttas talking about "X kinds of people in the world" where some of these talk about people who understand quickly and people who understand slowly, etc. <S> There are also a suttas describing difficulties peculiar to certain disciples -- drowsiness, sensual delight, difficulties attaining jhāna, etc. <S> But any conclusion about the possibility or impossibility of enlightenment in one lifetime is pure conjecture. <S> I believe thinking about this only serves to convince ourselves <S> we can't, or try to convince others that they can't. <S> These don't sound like beneficial thoughts. <S> " (2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? <S> Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? <S> Or, can compassion always be developed, even at some later point? <S> " <S> I'm <S> don't think it's possible for an arahant to not have compassion developed, though this is just my opinion. <S> I can't remember texts that clearly state either way. <A> (1) <S> The motivation and meditative ability of a practitioner generally depends upon past experience acquired in previous lifetimes. <S> If a person has never meditated in a previous lifetime, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make very slow progress in the present lifetime. <S> Indeed, enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime.(2) <S> As infants, we all have an innate capacity for compassion. <S> Part of developing compassion consists of becoming a friend with integrity towards everyone. <S> This is the deeper meaning of the fourth vow (sikkhapada) taken by the novice monk (Samanera) to “refrain from lying (musavada).” <S> It is one of the ten precepts (dasa-sila). <S> To refrain from lying means to value truth, honesty, and the well-being of others (the opposites of lying). <S> This vow consists of a contemplation on the impact of one’s actions upon others and making appropriate adjustments. <S> It means putting others first on the basis of compassion and the support of others. <S> It means carefully taking into account the views, feelings, motives, and experiences of other people. <S> It means you actively look for ways in which you can be helpful to others.
|
If a person has experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse as a child, then the capacity for compassion can be very suppressed, making compassionate feelings or relationships almost impossible to achieve. If a person has experienced Enlightenment many times in previous lifetimes, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make rapid progress in the present lifetime.
|
Concentration as a Trait I have a simple question. Concentration occurs in the context of samatha meditation, but does the regular practice of samatha generate a trait-like concentration in daily life? In other words, is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of samadhi ? Or, is concentration mostly restricted to samadhi in formal meditation? Thank you. <Q> I'm not certain it can be said that jhāna itself extends to daily life after meditation, with all the different interpretations of jhāna going around. <S> At the same time, consider the following excerpt from AN 3.63: <S> “Here, brahmin [...] <S> , I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. <S> Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. <S> Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. <S> With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna [...] <S> I enter and dwell in the third jhāna [...] <S> I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna [...]. <S> “Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. <S> If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. <S> If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. <S> If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed” <S> So, the Buddha is describing a certain quality persisting after the meditation, referring to it as "celestial" ( dibba ). <S> This might be the trait your are asking about. <S> Note also that, if after samatha meditation one were "just like before the meditation", then for every single meditation, the difficulty to practice samatha would be the same. <S> However, it's expected that it gets easier with time and practice. <S> I would claim it gets easier because the mind acquires the qualities of samadhi, even though arguably these qualities may not be in their most potent state -- <S> say, during jhāna. <S> This might not be surprising from a neurological point of view, since the chemistry and behavior patterns of the brain are bound to change with any kind of repeated practice. <A> Is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of samadhi? <S> The simple answer to this question is "yes". <A> Speaking from experience, yes meditation improves the quality of everyday awareness. <S> I'm generally super aware already, but after meditation my lucidity and peripheral awareness further increases. <S> For example as I enter a room, I see more details at once without specifically looking for them. <S> Emotionally, I feel deeply relaxed and at ease. <S> Due to this deep feeling of "everything is good", my concentration improves too, I can focus attention on one thing and let the background awareness handle others, without worrying that I can miss something else. <S> This increased lucidity is so noticeable, that two people who meditate will recognize each other in a room full of people who don't. <S> I don't know how much of this is a permanently acquired trait that lasts whether I meditate or not. <S> I have a feeling that it slowly goes away after I stop meditating. <S> Oh well, impermanence... <S> ;)
|
The more developed is samadhi, the more it can be abided it at will & the more it will be prolonged, including outside of sitting meditation.
|
When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right? Some people have the ability to have for-spelling dreams. Imagine that someones'face changes into a devil and making a nightmare of it, could this be a dream revealing to the dreamer some information about other peoples state. Or can only demons'revealing dreams which are calm contain true messages? So this question concerns people who are usually gifted with visions etc. <Q> Maybe, maybe not. <S> Interpreting dreams is mentioned as a Wrong means of livelihood for monks (DN 2 and elsewhere). <S> If you want to have no negative dreams practice cultivating, developing, and pursuing loving-kindness towards all beings (metta). <S> It is mentioned as one of the 11 advantages of developing loving-kindness (metta): <S> "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into practice, and by establishing them. <S> What are the eleven? <S> He sleeps in comfort. <S> He awakes in comfort. <S> He sees no evil dreams. <S> He is dear to human beings. <S> He is dear to non-human beings. <S> Devas protect him. <S> Fire, poison, and weapons cannot touch him. <S> His mind can concentrate quickly. <S> His countenance is serene. <S> He dies without being confused in mind. <S> If he fails to attain arahantship here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-realm. <S> (AN 11.15) <S> Therefore try to concentrate and pervade your entire body and mind with loving-kindness on a daily basis to gain these 11 advantages. <A> For your title question: When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right? <S> The short answer is no. <S> I'm not very clear about your elaboration in explaining the title. <S> What dream is, is that the fragments of concepts and experiences left in the memory re-associated themselves without immediate sensual organs' input, during sleep. <S> Dharma Master Xuanzang (玄奘法師 602–664CE) has very profound explanation on how this happened with his neat Karika on the Eight Consciousness of Yogacara teaching. <S> In short, dream or nightmare is your mind's contriving and unreal. <S> Yet, due to dream happened without the sensual input's limitation and censorship, therefore, it's not confined in spatial-temporal. <S> In this sense, it could have fore-telling function, or reveal the true meaning of past experiences. <S> It's very rare though, required quite a purified mind. <S> On the other hand, other dimension of beings could penetrate into a mind in dream which dwelt in the same dimension, therefore, what your "demons" could be this type of thing. <S> However, it's only your mind allowed it's manifestation. <S> But in dream your mind, normal people, is helpless in controlling it. <S> Thus, you will be frightened, they seemed able to harm you, etc. <S> This could happen in meditative stage, for the same reason; for you are accessing your mind, disconnecting from your body. <S> The inside is the outside, the outside the inside. <S> But it's even more rare, very very few people could really do meditation this day, except gleaning a little bit of relief and comfort by sitting without thinking, or doing nothing, compared to the hectic daily life. <S> The teaching of meditation is lost. <A> In Zen, specifically as it relates to the Yogacara school, there is the concept of the alaya vijnana. <S> This is said to be the root consciousness of the individual. <S> To give a very quick gloss, this root consciousness contains within it all sense impressions (e.g. the five senses, the mind, etc.). <S> It holds them as a kind of potential energy that in turn can influence everything from our reactions, to our thoughts, and even our physical form. <S> In the dream state (as well as within deep states of meditation) the alaya vijnana is more accessible. <S> The patterns that emerge in dreams or in visions are the language of the root consciousness. <S> While they do convey "truth" in a sense, there is one caveat to working with them - <S> the discursive mind is utterly unsuited for ferreting out their "meaning". <S> As with koan practice (and koans are very much like dreams), the more we ponder and ruminate over our dreams, the further away we are from the "meaning" that our root consciousness is attempting to express. <S> If we are to explore our dreams at all, they should be approached with a mind purified by jhana practice. <A> Keep in mind that dreams are your conscious and subconscious talking, they are essentially you speaking to yourself and can reveal how you feel about things on the subconscious level. <S> The Bardo of the dream state is said to be "double-deluded" meaning our day to day lives are an illusion, but the dream state is doubly so. <S> However, there is a Tibetan practice called dream yoga that turns the doublely deluded dream state into an opportunity to practice To benefit from doing dream yoga a practitioner should realise the dream-like nature of appearances. <S> They should also have a proper and strong motivation and the determination to use the dream state in their practice. <S> Normally, if you experience drowning in a dream, fear arises. <S> In dream yoga practice, you can change that condition by first recognising you are dreaming and then by performing extraordinary activities, like miracles. <S> Being able to do this is a sign of success in the practice of dream yoga, but success depends very much on your previous accumulation of positive actions. <S> In other words, success depends on your mundane activities which in turn get reflected in the dream state. <S> Some more resources on Dream Yoga can be found here , and here
|
Negative dreams indicate evil or negative thoughts inside of you.
|
Anatta & Atman the same thing? I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss -Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? -Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? -Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why? <Q> I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. ' <S> Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom. <S> At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state. <S> The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). <S> Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united and the ultimate sentient principle. <S> This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'. <A> The two are opposites. <S> One is Pali (anatta) and the other is Sanskrit (atman). <S> The 'an' portion indicates 'no', which indicates why the two are opposite in meaning. <A> What is atman? <S> If you refer to atman as a soul which transmigrates after death then you are wrong. <S> There is no soul which transmigrates after death. <S> Rebirth is just an echo of what was the last consciousness at the time of death. <S> Rebirth is like a stanza learned by student from a teacher. <S> If you refer to atman which is the listener of the ears, seer of the eyes, smeller of the nose, comprehender of the mind <S> then again I am afraid Buddha <S> says there is no such atman. <S> Buddha goes on to say there is no Atman... <S> Atman is like a illusion. <S> In other words there is no self worth identifying as my or your soul. <S> Like all illusions, the illusion of atman must collapse. <S> Once that happens gates of Nirvana opens for you. <S> Hindus live in the world of Brahman... <S> Understanding of Brahman is the ultimate goal. <S> Buddhists do not live in any such world. <S> Therefore I am afraid Buddhist philosophy leads to a different state of mind. <S> Should we describe that state as blissful ? <S> That I can not answer for sure <S> but it seems blissful is the right answer. <S> Is that blissfulness permanent ? <S> Yes in both the cases it is said to be so. <S> Is that blissfulness me ? <S> Hindus says Yes that blessedness is your self. <S> Buddhists say there is no self. <A> Atman is 'self', Annata is 'no self'. <S> It's apparent that they are complete opposites. <S> But could they be the same? <S> Ask a classical Zen master and you might get a good bonk on the head with his staff. <S> Which is another way of saying, <S> that's a pretty good question! <S> You can try to answer, but why spoil it? <S> Maybe the best questions should be left unanswered. <S> Just keep asking the question... <S> The Hindu "I am that" and the Buddhist <S> "I am not that" The same? <A> Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? <S> Yes I think so. <S> Part of Buddhist doctrine is, more-less, that self-views are a cause of suffering. <S> I get the (not very well-informed) impression that the Hindu tradition includes teaching something like, neti neti -- <S> "the self is not this". <S> A corollary of that search might be that the "self" or Self is something other -- is Atman or Brahman. <S> Perhaps a Hindu would expect a Buddhist to somehow identify with Nibbana (or the Tathagata), see that as some refuge for a sense of self (or of being, or of action, etc.). <S> So if selfishness and identifying with the body and the shandhas is an extreme (worldly) position, maybe Atman and so on is logically opposed to that -- and a different extreme! <S> Whereas Buddhism being a middle way, neither extreme, might say, "not the other extreme either -- i.e. also nibbana isn't self, is anatta ". <S> Wikipedia's Paramatman suggests that the (or some) Hindu doctrine might be similar somehow ... <S> Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes. <S> ... <S> but that article's comparison with Buddhist doctrine says only ... <S> Buddhism rejects a metaphysics of "ground" such as the paramatman. <S> I think that there is some Buddhist "metaphysics", and sometimes some doctrine about "ground" <S> (but those are a couple of words I don't know enough of at the moment to explain).
|
As you see the concept of Atman and Anatta are opposite of each other. As for ' Atman ', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. Anatta translates to the Sanskrit as anatman, often translated into English as 'no-self', or 'no-soul', and represents the teachings against there being an ontological or surviving soul (atman) as taught by many religions.
|
Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards? Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards? And if so what does Buddhist philosophy have to say about that? Are they necessary, or are they just to keep with appearances? ps. The Dalai Lama is one of my heroes so this should in no way be taken as a joke. <Q> Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards? <S> According to Ganden Thurman, executive director of the Tibet House ; "... <S> Whenever the Dalai Lama travels, "he has his own bodyguards and staff, of course, and translator and two attendants," Thurman said. <S> "And then the State Department people provide the protection envelope around his person..." <S> There are, though, information about former bodyguards; From Dalai Lama's bodyguard to Dharamshala Municipal Councillor: Journey of a common man "... <S> DHARAMSHALA, FEB 3: <S> A Tibetan civil servant has been inducted in the Dharamsala Municipal Corporation as a councilor, a feat no one has achieved ever in the history of Tibetan exile. <S> Dawa Rinchen, Dharamshala Tibetan Settlement Officer and a former bodyguard to His Holiness the Dalai Lama..." <S> Nun now teaches Buddhist psychology, once was body guard for Dalai Lama "... <S> The Venerable Robina Courtin has led many lives. <S> At 70 years old, she’s been a Buddhist, a Catholic, a musician, a political activist, a radical feminist, a martial arts expert, an advocate for prisoners and even one of the Dalai Lama’s personal bodyguards..." <S> The Dalai Lama’s Bodyguard "... <S> Dawa Singya Bhutia (center) was a soldier, trained in Kung Fu and bodyguard to the Dalai Lama..." <S> The multitasking bodyguard <S> "... <S> It's no mean feat to be a private bodyguard for the Dalai Lama..." <S> May this be of use to you. <A> In DN16 , the Buddha praised the protection of Arahats. <S> While the Dalai Lama may not be a Arahat, still the protection of saintly people is implied here. <S> "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?" <S> "I have heard, Lord, that they do." <S> "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline." <A> The direct answer (“Yes”) has already been provided, with enough references <S> bh @Lanka’s excellent answer. <S> But I would like to add a perspective: <S> The Dalai Lama (for centuries) has been the political head of the Tibetan state and is not just a spiritual teacher (which too, he of course, is — and a very important one too). <S> The spiritual head of the Gelug sect, to which he belongs, is the head of that Ganden monastery (Ganden Tripa), not the Dalai Lama. <S> This political status makes him special and revered by Tibetans of all sects (even ones that have been in discord with the Gelugpa). <S> The ascension of the Dalai Lama is a rare occasion in history where a monastic was on the throne of a country (a “monk-king”, if you will). <S> It is also natural that rival political forces, rebels, opposing/occupying states would target him in this status. <S> Would it not be logical for a head of state to have bodyguards? <S> So the situation is not quite the same as states providing security for their arhats or foreign countries providing routine security cover for visiting dignitaries. <A> Some security (e.g. counterintelligence, a cordon, secure premises, trusted drivers and so on) are also provided by the State <S> he's in (e.g. the Indian governments, <S> and/or any countries he is visiting). <S> Even previously, in Tibet, he lived secluded (possibly more so than now).
|
I couldn't find anything about any current bodyguards for the Dalai Lama, presumably due to security reasons.
|
Only thoughts were experienced during practice Now no sounds were experienced during meditation only thinking was there.what shall be done here? <Q> If thoughts are experienced, find out who's the experiencer of your thoughts. <S> Be a spectator or witness to your thoughts. <S> Be a mute witness. <A> from Kaṇṭaka sutta ......... <S> First higher state of the mind, sounds are a thorn. <S> To one in the second higher state of the mind, thoughts and discursive thoughts are a thorn... <S> congrats and anumodana on you accomplishment. <S> Seems to me you are well into first Jhanna. <S> What is next? <S> If i have accomplished what you have done, would try to let go/not involve with thoughts since it is thorn to second jhanna. <S> Kantaka Sutta <A> I would say for most, myself included, that it can often be difficult to get to and sometimes maintain the state you describe. <S> I too experience this on a regular basis. <S> Most of my meditations that is to say. <S> Wasn’t always this way. <S> In my opinion, it is progress and not to be concerned about. <S> It’s all just part of the process. <S> All the best. <A> If mind is attached, concentrated on a certain object well, the other animals lose. <S> One does not hear sounds most and many times, yet far away from right concentration. <S> Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope. <S> Catching a snake, he would bind it with a strong rope. <S> Catching a crocodile... <S> a bird... <S> a dog... a hyena... <S> a monkey, he would bind it with a strong rope. <S> Binding them all with a strong rope, and tying a knot in the middle, he would set chase to them. <S> " <S> Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats, would each pull toward its own range & habitat. <S> The snake would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the anthill.' <S> The crocodile would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the water.' <S> The bird would pull, thinking, 'I'll fly up into the air.' <S> The dog would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the village.' <S> The hyena would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the charnel ground.' <S> The monkey would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the forest.' <S> And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they would submit, they would surrender, they would come under the sway of whichever among them <S> was the strongest. <S> In the same way, when a monk whose mindfulness immersed in the body is undeveloped & unpursued, the eye pulls toward pleasing forms, while unpleasing forms are repellent. <S> The ear pulls toward pleasing sounds... <S> The nose pulls toward pleasing aromas... <S> The tongue pulls toward pleasing flavors... <S> The body pulls toward pleasing tactile sensations... <S> The intellect pulls toward pleasing ideas, while unpleasing ideas are repellent. <S> This, monks, is lack of restraint. <S> "And what is restraint?... <S> The Six Animals "Just" be mind"full"! <S> Observe the animals within the frames of references. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.] <A> What should be done is to continue with the meditation work diligently and work on understanding the instubstantiality of questioning experiences during meditation, which are based on judging and comparing and finds its roots in doubt. <S> All meditation effords will be fruitious when done with the right efford and intention and will naturally evolve in subtler states. <S> Sole volition as the driving force and understanding of creation of karma will be enough to progress. <S> Be well.
|
Be relaxed, don't treat your thoughts just leave without dabbling with them.
|
How to be mindful while doing routine activites like walking on a street known for years? I started observing nature as I walked by the street which I take daily to get out of colony. Problem is that I have already observed it throughly. There isn't anything that I haven't observed. Brain gets in auto pilot mode in such situations. I tried to keep my attention on my shoes and thus counting my steps. This has a danger of me getting hit by something because I was looking down. Where am I supposed to look and what am I supposed to think while doing mundane routine activities like sitting in an auto and moving on an already known default path? There is no stimulus for brain to do anything new. I still have to be on my guards though. I don't want to reach in dreamland where I am totally unaware of what's happening around me. I tried to focus on "Waiting for my thoughts to appear so that I can acknowledge them". This reduced anxiety and made me happy but this way I had forgotten that I was walking since the brain was on auto-pilot mode . <Q> There isn't anything that I haven't observed ... <S> My person doubts, even outwardly there is nothing not changing, not different <S> , now it's even more of value to look at the frames of references for mindfulness . <S> Giving way, while walking (dana, generosity), not to step on someone, no short cuts, no violation of rules (sila, virtue), walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it. <S> When willing to look on the side, stop, turn, then look and watch out the greed that normaly drives one to try to do all at one time. <S> One of the frame of references (meditation), then watch out thoughts, feelings, arising, moods, if the first is already managed good. <S> Put the sense under control, not letting the eye, ear, nose... follow contact of objects. <S> One practicing, one being mindful, is never bored and later gifted with right gained ease and re(a)l-ease . <S> And, as a side effect of step by step, one reaches his place faster as any vehicle could provide it. <S> Start be simply train your body posture, putting your steps straight | not / or \ one after another, not bending more than the head, not walking like a duck or a rooster. <S> Don't swing your arms, don't twist the body while walking. <S> One movement consciously after the other. <S> Simply that training will be maybe very hard for a good time, but give one real good results. <S> Direct relations are found also in your parallel questions in this answer <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.] <A> If you are walking on a mostly empty sidewalk a good method would be to be mindful of the movement and sensation of the legs, silently noting right, left, right, left. <S> If the sidewalk is crowded or you have to walk in the neighborhood street then loving-kindness meditation while walking probably would be better. <A> Not exactly Buddhist, but one way I train my outdoor students in awareness is to play the occupation game. <S> One day, be an electrician. <S> Notice where all the power lines go, see what gauge each of them is, how they tie into each home and business. <S> Inside, see the outlets and all of the lights. <S> What wattages are each of the bulbs? <S> How many volts does each outlet supply? <S> What can you say about the switches? <S> Where are the breaker boxes? <S> The next day, be a brick layer. <S> Notice <S> all of the stone work. <S> Who has asphalt driveways? <S> Concrete? <S> Paver stones? <S> Which houses are made of brick? <S> What color are the bricks? <S> Are they all standard sizes? <S> Any embellishments? <S> Look for artistry and craftsman ship. <S> Look for shoddy work, etc. <S> The following day be a car salesman. <S> Which brand is selling best? <S> Which colors are most often used for each make? <S> How many new cars are on the road? <S> Next, be a seamstress. <S> Notice the cut of clothes, etc. <S> Be a cobbler. <S> Be a roofer. <S> Be a plumber, etc. <S> etc. <S> etc. <S> While you aren't developing mindfulness in a strictly Buddhist sense, you are developing a number of the factors of mindfulness. <S> For instance, just playing the occupation game requires you to be ardent and to exert effort. <S> Remembering what occupation you are that day and noting what should be looking for engages sati to a degree. <S> Seeing each detail fully can help you develop sampajanna. <S> Give it a go. <S> It's actually kinda fun.
|
When walking, look where you put the next step, step by step, know, lifting, pushing, setting down, take care not to step on someone, get slowly a " An All-Around Eye ".
|
Why doesn't Mara suffer? Everyone born in this world is bound to suffer. Mara tempted Buddha so many times to abandon his quest which he did not. Yet Mara herself never suffered due to her own Karma or due to her belief system. Mara is alive even today. My question is why not Mara, the tempter, suffers or suffered due to her belief system and actions ? <Q> Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, " <S> The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed , disappeared right there. <S> SN 5.10 <S> ‘Get out, Evil One, Evil One, get out. <S> Do not annoy a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple, lest for a long time there be woe and sorrow for you.’ <S> ... <S> While he was looking around, Evil One, Dūsin the Māra deceased from that place and arose in the Great Niraya Hell. <S> What was that Niraya Hell like where Dūsin the Māra was boiled , For striking the disciple Vidhura and the brahman Kakusandha? <S> It was that of the hundred iron spikes, all suffered separately. <S> This was the Niraya Hell where Dūsin was boiled, For striking the disciple Vidhura and the brahman Kakusandha. <S> MN 50 <A> Mara isn't necessarily a real being. <S> Mara is our own propensity to follow wrong views, doubts, defilements, bad habits and to give up on reality as it is. <S> If Mara is a being then Mara would suffer like any unenlightened being. <S> Is there some scripture somewhere that states that Mara is immune to suffering? <S> I have never heard that Mara was female. <S> What scripture supports that Mara is female? <A> Initially a reply to this comment: If Mara suffered so much then why Mara still exists? <S> Why didn't Mara turned down and surrender to Buddha? <S> There is a necessity for Mara's existence. <S> Hot only seems so hot when you have something to compare it to, in fact if you have nothing to compare it to it is not even "hot", and if the temperature of the comparison point changes, then so may the "hot". <S> There cannot be light without darkness, nor darkness without light. <S> If you do not know evil you cannot know good, if you do not know what is 'bad', how can you ever understand what is 'good'? <S> We start off with things being in a sense 'bad' so that we have freedom, and this doing us a service, instead of just starting off as angels who can never do any harm, we are tempted and given the choice so that it is not by creation, but by choice that we do 'good' and choose who we are. <S> Another thing is that 'suffering' is really just a creation of the mind, it kind of exists until you are free of it and realise that it is not actually really that real, but really it doesn't exist as such. <S> It's just a concept. <S> I also think that Mara is going to be a very different kind of being to us <S> so we cannot interpret her in the same way. <S> But she has to exist for balance and freedom. <S> If you have not helped yourself be free from something you cannot hope to help others. <S> Your power comes from your karma, only when you know how deep the hole goes and how to get out of it <S> can you help others, if you never went down the hole you wouldn't be much use to anyone. <S> Mara is a great teacher. <S> When you see Mara you really see yourself. <S> You have the balance within you and it is your choice.
|
Mara (a psychic that decides to harass Buddhists) does suffer according to the suttas:
|
How to lose identification with my body and physical appearance Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering. How to lose identification with my body? <Q> On one practical side: be mindful. <S> Meditate daily. <S> Understand that the suffering and joy derived from your appearance is impermanent and doesn’t matter much. <S> It is wise that you seek to reduce this attachment, but don’t do it from a place of aversion and anxiety. <S> On a deeper side: reflect on the fact that you are a bag of meat and organs. <S> There’s a great talk from the Buddha about this, see if you can find it. <S> Try to see things more clearly, more objectively. <S> Understand that your body will gradually deteriorate and decay. <S> Be ready for that. <S> Of course you can take care of it, but understand that the body is not YOU, but a mere vessel with an expiration date. <S> Priding yourself of your body is no different than doing it with your car or house. <S> It’s just a mere accessory. <S> This answer doesn’t have a clear solution but hopefully will point you to the right direction to find a solution yourself. :) <A> A good exemple is when you are surround by a lot of people. <S> With no judgement, just from simple and pure observation. <S> Like if they looked at a flower. <S> Then you can start to look around, and realize that people are not different than you. <S> They have the same thinking, same shames and desires. <S> By doing so, we can realise that we are not alone, and how we look like <S> , matter only if you decide it does. <S> Meditate can definitly permit you to vusalise this more naturally. <A> I suspect you are a beautiful woman. <S> If so, you are referring to a consciousness that many beautiful women have. <S> But, before you view this as bad of you, you should view an interview on YouTube of the Dalai Lama by Piers Morgan. <S> In this interview, Morgan asked the Dalai Lama, “Do you ever feel temptation when you see a woman?” <S> The Dalai Lama’s reply, “Oh yes. <S> Sometimes I say, ‘this is very nice.’ <S> But then thinking ‘too much problem.’” <S> My suggestion is that, if the Dalai Lama finds a beautiful woman attractive, then there must be something good about it, even if it is a problem for him. <S> The reality is that, if you are conscious of being beautiful, then it is due to the fact that people see you as beautiful and they experience beauty as a good thing. <S> Hence, your consciousness of being beautiful is not a delusion and your sense of worth is based upon a worth experienced by others. <S> Of course, this is a problem for you because your beauty is not you. <S> This is not a problem with identification, but a problem with a misleading process of social perception. <S> Pride and shame are understandable consequences. <S> In answer to your question, do not try to “lose identification” with your body, instead, understand the social process and how it can be confusing or complicated for someone, you in particular.
|
Recontextualise the situation you are in can really help. Accept your current way of thinking, and be patient and compassionate with your self about making a change. You can close your eyes, and start to imagine how you physically look like in other people's eyes.
|
What is doctrine on ordinary daily posture? In this question I'm asking about posture -- holding the body straight, for example -- not especially asking about posture during formal meditation , which was the topic of previous questions. I was surprised to read this answer , which includes, ... walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it. Sometimes (though, not often) I see something similar in other answers, for example : You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow. I was surprised to see that because: I don't remember that's being a doctrine in the suttas -- at most maybe I remember comments on (or descriptions of) the Buddha's or Rahula's physical appearance, e.g. "like a lion" etc. Buddhist doctrine emphasises view, and knowledge, and wisdom and so on -- if there is a mind-versus-body dichotomy, I'd expect Buddhism is more on the "mind" side of things. Some doctrines seem intended to deemphasise the value of the body -- meditations on the foulness of the body, contemplation of corpses, etc. So -- what is doctrine about posture (from suttas, from what you've been taught, and/or from your personal experience)? And, do you know, why ? And what is difficult about that practice? And does that affect your social relationships, somehow? How does it interact with practicing prostration? <Q> Specifically, they are found in the 75 sekhiyas. <S> The first 26 are almost all about posture. <S> The reason for these practices is really no different than those related to appropriate posture during seated meditation. <S> And it has a similar set of challenges. <S> In the West, we often set up a dichotomy between the mind and body. <S> No such division exists within Buddhism. <S> Form is just another skandha. <S> Just because Buddhism meditates on the foulness of the body does not mean that it should be ignored or viewed as somehow less important. <S> The body is also a tool that can be used on the way to liberation. <S> A posture maintained ardently, with mindfulness, and clear comprehension will have a comparable impact on cognition. <S> It establishes alertness and vigor while a bodily posture that is not meticulously maintained falls into sloth, heedlessness, and dissipation. <S> An upright body is an upright mind. <S> They are not different things. <A> I have a very vague memory of a sutta in which Buddha mentions graceful posture, in passing. <S> Somehow in my memory, he specifically commented on someone's manner of sitting down. <S> He said, one should sit down slowly, not crashing down. <S> This may be a fake memory though, could come from another source, not sutta. <S> Buddha also gave specific instructions for behavior during an alms round. <S> This included upright posture, looking down instead of staring or rubbernecking, not throwing one's arms randomly like a child, eating carefully etc. <S> As far as oral tradition, the explanation goes that your posture & grace is tightly connected with one's emotional energy and the state of mind. <S> In Vajrayana the entire emphasis of mid-to-higher tantras is on one's energy expression, so there they practice extensively to have the right type of "deity pride" including corresponding posture and mood. <S> In my opinion, this is actually a very important part of the Teaching that deserves more attention. <S> The three separate phenomena we call "body", "emotions" and "subconscious mind" are in fact facets of the same continuum. <S> So the way we carry around our body, move our hands, use our facial muscles is a very direct expression of our awakening (or lack thereof). <S> Although, for a student, the body practice is mostly about internal benefit of overcoming one's bad emotional habits, for a teacher it becomes a tool of external influence and motivation. <S> The right posture, grace, smile, demeanor are all parts of the rainbow body experience, utilized to arouse in students confidence in their teacher and entice them to imitate and develop similar wholesome qualities of mind. <A> Funny you ask this, I was just at my orthopedic today for a right shoulder issue and was talking with him how my physical therapists guidance on controlling my posture has helped my minor SLAP tear and stuff improve. <S> I still need to carefully workout to retrain the surrounding muscle and tissue <S> but <S> yeah <S> now I am conscious of it and the cause... years of bad extended posture. <S> Buddhist/Eastern advice <S> : Buddhism has the various sitting postures. <S> They are all conducive to better lower body health and bioenergetics. <S> The Buddha talks about its benefits for chi transmutation extensively somewhere and there are entire Buddhist schools that center around this like the Lu Mountain Temple here in Rosemead, California where they bear the pain until they cannot any more because it is good for one's karma. <S> Taken from Tao & Longevity by Master Huai-Chin Nan: <S> Although some people may suggest sitting for hours at a time I advise against this. <S> I suggest to intersperse just a few seconds of yoga if you will be sitting for long periods of time as modern science suggests that one's organs begin to shut off just from 20 minutes of sitting down. <S> Buddhist walking meditation is also a good alternative, too. <S> My sessions tend to be 20 minutes in lotus posture or standing meditation and then a few minutes break involving yoga poses and the five tibetan rites. <S> Taoism suggests to sit maximum of 8 hours, lay 8 hours, and be on your feet 8 hours. <S> This is recursive of course and a tally of one's daily total. <S> Worldly advice: <S> When working on your computer be conscious of your elbows because they affect your entire ergonomics! <S> High-held elbows will tighten your shoulders and put excess strain. <S> Push your chest out and relax your shoulders. <S> Try to sit in a relaxed erect position just like how when one is in lotus posture. <S> There should be a J curve at the lower back. <S> Try to use a sitting ball as a chair instead, I used to hate it and then got used to it over time and now I love it <S> and it is great for your back muscles! <S> Get a standing desk <S> Alexander technique has some great advice that is visualization based and informs one's body posture
|
In the Theravadan tradition, most of the rules governing posture don't come from the suttas, but rather the vinaya. The highest posture is considered the lotus posture which one should perfect.
|
Whether knower disappears automatically after doer disappeared? Did meditation; when concentration on the breath at the tip of the nose suddenly controller has disappeared and cittarupa came without control.Is it a stage that knower and doer disappeared?after the experience feel like no self at that time. <Q> Did meditation; when concentration on the breath at the tip of the nose suddenly controller has disappeared and cittarupa came without control. <S> Cittarupa always functions by itself. <S> The idea of a "controller" is an illusion created by delusion, ignorance, clinging & craving. <S> Is it a stage that knower and doer disappeared? <S> after the experience feel like no self at that time. <S> Yes. <S> When the sense of knower & doer disappear, this is insight into anatta (not-self) of the five aggregates. <S> The five aggregates operate on their own, without a self controlling them. <A> Strictly speaking, awareness of the knower and doer disappear only during the meditative state of samadhi, including the experience of sunyata in samadhi. <S> But there are many states of samadhi. <S> In Theravadin Buddhism, insight into no-self is a relative truth and not an experience of samadhi. <S> In Mahayana Buddhism, the experience of no-self occurs only during the experience of sunyata, making no-self an absolute truth. <S> Nibbana and sunyata are not the same thing. <S> Ordinarily, “concentration on the breath at the tip of the nose” is a part of vipassana practice. <S> However, depending upon one’s karma, a person can easily slip into a state of full samadhi. <S> You seem to be mixing the Theravadin and Mahayana teachings, which can be confusing. <A> The Buddha tried to show us the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all that constitutes a human being, so that we make real effort to get out of the wheel of birth and death. <S> We have to understand that there is no individual who owns body, feeling, perception, thought and consciousness. <S> That is the most difficult aspect of the Buddha’s teaching. <S> Difficult to conceptualize and even more difficult to experience. <S> Without meditation, it will remain an intellectual exercise. <S> Even in meditation only if you are a’Sotapanna’ / Stream Entrant, will you l get to understand that there is the deed, but no doer.
|
They disappear together in any case. In the Theravadin tradition the experience of the knower remains present during vipassana or insight meditation and also during Nibbana.
|
Is samsara without end? I read the following in the PTS Pali dictionary: Saṃsāra "whose beginning and end are alike unthinkable", i. e., without beginning or end. Are there any Pali suttas that support this view of endless samsara without an end? <Q> Well, from Mahayana perspective it's both. <S> Accepting Dukkha (here, inherent unreliability) of phenomena makes it Tathata, suchness. <S> Accepting Samsara makes it Nirvana. <S> Does not mean Samsara has ended or Dukkha ended - not at all. <S> We just make an end to it (nirodha, 3rd N.T.). <S> Endlessness of Samsara is one thing you can truly rely on, which makes it unconditional Nirvana. <S> Now, if I forget all that and just reason from the original sources, here is what I get: <S> Looking at your PTS dictionary quote, they are talking about Anamatagga (without beginning / without end) being an epithet of Samsara. <S> When I search Sutta Central for "anamatagga" I find for example this verse from Therigatha: "... <S> Long are the foolish in Samsara, again and again cry without beginning, without end , over the father's death, the slaughter of the brother and the murder of the self. <S> Oh tears, breast milk and blood: without beginning, without end you run in Samsara! <S> Remember the wanderings of the creatures and the way the bones pile up! <S> Remember the four oceans, filled with tears, mother's milk and blood! <S> Remember in one epoch bones heap up like mount Vepulla! <S> Without beginning, without end have you flowed (lit. <S> samsara’ed), endless like the seeds of jujube fruit. ..." <S> This, combined with the literal meaning of the word "samsara" - "running by itself", "drifting" can point us in the right direction. <S> Samsara is endless unless we put an end to it (nirodha). <S> And how do we put an end to it? <S> By applying the principle of this/that-conditionality and undoing the 2nd noble truth, i.e. by accepting what is and arriving at tathata. <S> Now technically, what we accept is not really Samsara as it is, that would be surrendering. <S> Instead, we learn to see Shunyata <S> and that's what we accept, Samsara-as-Shunyata. <S> Does not mean that Samsara has gone anywhere though, it is still endless as it always were. <S> In fact, if we want to help other sentiment beings, we have to deal with Samsara every day. <A> A sutta like this ("the skeletons of a single person, running on and wandering in samsara for an aeon, would make a heap of bones, a quantity of bones as large as this Mount Vepulla") or this ("would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole") implies that it may be (or may have been) a very long time indeed. <S> It's not clear whether that long time is past, future, or present. <S> IMO <S> the implication is that it has been a very long time in the past, and that unless you start the follow the Buddha's way (for liberation) it will continue indefinitely (until you do). <S> The question of whether it's literally endless may be another of the unanswered questions ("Is the cosmos eternal?"). <A> The answer "Anamataggo" word is in S.N. Nidanavagga = <S> cause = <S> paṭiccasamuppāda = cycle loop of causes and effects . <S> You must recite and memorize it's pāli, before you ask something about pāli. <S> The answer already appear in sutta sequence, but you overlook it because you never recite and memorize it's original pāli. <S> The analysis of anamatagga word Why the translators try to translate like that? <S> Because of pāli context of this sutta forcing them to do like that. <S> Pāli's sutta : <S> " Anamataggo yaṃ, bhikkhave, saṃsāro . <S> Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ. <S> " <S> The translators must describe "Anamataggo" like: " <S> Anamataggoyaṃ bhikkhave, saṃsāro = <S> = <S> Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ ." <S> So, in commentary: anamataggasaṃyuttassa paṭhame anamataggoti anu amataggo, vassasataṃ vassasahassaṃ ñāṇena anugantvāpi amataggo aviditaggo, <S> nāssa sakkā ito vā etto vā aggaṃ jānituṃ, aparicchinnapubbāparakoṭikoti atthoฯ saṃsāroti khandhādīnaṃ avicchinnappavattā paṭipāṭiฯ pubbā koṭi na paññāyatīti purimamariyādā na dissatiฯ yadaggena cassa purimā koṭi na paññāyati, pacchimāpi tadaggeneva na paññāyati, vemajjheyeva pana sattā saṃsarantiฯ <S> However, some pāli students maybe over worry about "how to make 'anamatagga' by kaccāyanasutta (ancient pāli grammar cannon)", then they will be stuck their thinking with anamatagga's ingredients. <S> This is just the first rule of vicayahāra in netti-pakaraṇa cannon , pada-vicaya. <S> But commentary can going on by next rule of vicayahāra in netti-pakaraṇa cannon, pubbāpara-vicaya, then use "54, 60 jinavacanayuttaṃ hi" and "404, 370. <S> tesu vuddhilopāgamavikāraviparītādesā ca" of kaccayanasutta to translate 'anamatagga'. <S> So, if you recited and memorized pāli, first, you will know this process and leave out of being stuck in pāli's ingredient.
|
Samsara is endless, just like Dukkha is an invariant principle of sentient existence.
|
Is it possible to make an oath to control one's actions? Can a person decide to do X action and be able to do it forever... from a mental point of view - if physically he can do that action? What I'm trying to say is many times I decided to not do anything for fun or to meditate Y time every day but even when it was 5 minutes every day I didn't do it. Every time either I didn't want to sit to meditate or even be mindful of actions - or I wanted to watch a YouTube video and pass the time with YouTube videos etc. Is it possible to decided to do something and not break it at all? I mean for example I keep the 5 precepts by default and will probably keep them at the future hard for me to see a situation I won't - but for example if I decide to keep the 8 precepts and never break them (again mentally) even if I never have to face something like a physical injury or even friend begging me to go to a movie etc but just in dealing with my own defilement - can I decide not do break it in advance and guarantee myself I won't break it in the future (again if physically it's possible to avoid it). <Q> It looks like your problem is that you want to practice <S> but you don't want to practice. <S> This whole fiasco can be pondered. <S> The whole thing is the three characteristics manifesting. <S> Are you in control? <S> Do your plans and focus keep ending? <S> Are you suffering? <S> What are you learning? <S> Ask yourself what you are taking for granted. <S> You could learn a lot by just pondering what is driving your every action, your karma. <S> We are either distracted or mindful. <S> Check out the 5 hinderances that are in your way. <S> and if you fail ponder it but don't react like breaking the training rule <S> must be punished or reacted to is some way. <S> Don't get angry, get compassionate. <S> Check out how to overcome procrastination. <S> LOTS of people have procrastination problems. <S> There are a lot of free pdf's or ppt's online about procrastination. <S> Do not smoke marijuana everyday because it often zaps ones ambition. <A> I know what you mean about oaths. <S> It is easy to make an oath but usually less so to keep it. <S> Often an oath is an aspiration. <S> I suspect that nobody can be sure to stick to an oath except those who don't need to make one. <S> The idea of the practice is to transcend the need for oaths and to live spontaneously but to reach this point one usually has to make some aspirational oaths. <S> You might like to read up on Indian religion and the three Gunas. <S> It seems you might be in the grip of one of them <S> and this is a well understood condition. <S> Pondering on the three gunas might give you a way of beating your inertia. <S> I don't know a short introduction but Krishna Prem's wonderful commentary on the Bhagavad Gita covers the ground. <S> I imagine most practitioners make and break oaths and promises quite regularly but their oath is to keep climbing back on the wagon come what may, so that in the end the oath may still be effective. <S> For your condition Sadhguru recommends sitting in your room doing nothing for a few days. <S> This charges the batteries and rekindles motivation. <S> Usually we are too mentally busy and well-entertained to stay focused on our true goals. <S> It seems a mistake to stop doing anything for fun although it might depend what you mean. <S> Why else would the universe be here but for fun? <S> Even God gets bored sitting in his room. <S> If you associate fun with creativity then it is transformed. <S> Not having fun is not what Buddhism is about. <S> At least your problem is extremely common <S> so is much discussed in the literature. <S> I don't believe it is possible to control ones actions fully until one has seen the non-existence of self <S> and it is a reality. <S> Until then we all have to do the best we can and falling off the wagon means no more than than having to climb back on again, and again and again, until our oath is fulfilled and the wagon becomes our stable abode. <A> A possible variation is to make the oath to someone else (a teacher, your family, a friend, the Buddha) -- that (social standing, commitment) may provide a powerful extra incentive. <S> I think the suttas say that the right way is to clearly understand the disadvantage of something <S> -- it's that that would cause you (or that would give you cause to <S> ) refrain from it. <S> You mentioned "I decided to not do anything for fun"; it's also said that people need a reason for doing something, that you can't force yourself to do it unless you want to. <S> Maybe you're supposed to find or experience some benefit in meditation. <S> Maybe too you have to be discerning about what is and isn't fun -- some people (perhaps mistakenly) find drinking alcohol to be fun, for example. <A> Generally, it is important to view the precepts as training rules, rather than something set in stone. <S> Right speech, for example takes active practise, and of course constant reflection on it. <S> You will fail short of your ideals because past mental formations are still lingering and are too strong. <S> Moreover, it's always best to have a flexible, non-dogmatic, non-extreme outlook with regards to falling short of one's aspirations. <S> With flexible I mean that even though you have (strong) wishes and goals, they must not necessarily be in place right now & that you can - although being a struggle - tolerate such adversities, and that it's often worth to tolerate the uncomfort because you have a goal in mind (especially if you are indecisive whether to breach a precept or not). <S> Another "flexible attitude" is that of human fallibility,complexity & uniqueness. <S> All human beings are making mistakes, and that we're all by default complex and unique. <S> By complex I mean here that we're doing good, bad and neutral acts. <S> There is no way in disputing these things. <S> They are undisputable and therefore realistic, or flexible. <S> Above said, the Buddhist path is often called the "Gradual Path", which requires energy (viriya), enthusiasm (chanda) and cultivation (bhavana).
|
It is possible to make an oath (some people do), and for some people it (making an oath) even actually works, but other people find they break the promises which they make to themselves. Don't make vows or oaths but instead undertake training to not do or to do X
|
The spirit of five precepts The first precept tells us to refrain from killing living beings. If everyone in a city practices five precepts, everyone will become vegetarian.Is it true the spirit Buddha wants us to develop is vegetarianism? <Q> Those practicing Right Livelihood would also not be meat importers, suppliers or retailers. <S> The first precept is not about vegetarianism, or any type of diet. <S> It's about allowing sentient beings to live with ease. <S> However, if you observe the first precept, it is still ok to buy and consume meat that was frozen in the supermarket. <S> The reason for this is that you did not have the intention to kill and in fact, you did not kill that animal. <S> You're simply buying frozen lifeless meat that was long dead before you arrived at the supermarket. <S> Please also see this question for a detailed discussion on this topic . <A> According to my personal interpretation, the first precept reminds us how we hurt ourselves when we perform the action of killing. <S> There is a famous concept from the Harry Potter movies (and maybe the books), "Killing rips the soul apart". <S> They mean it literally in the movies. <S> I find the concept very similar to the first precept. <S> So it does not really imply vegetarianism, but something deeper. <S> Indeed, many Buddhist monks are not vegetarian. <S> They can not be, because they have to eat whatever food they are given by the laypersons. <S> To be particular about not eating any type of food is likely to become a problem while following a monastic life. <A> It's originally comes from Hinduism. <S> Buddhism emphasis on moral value of respect life. <S> We can practice this moral value up to our capacity and practical conditions. <S> E.g- <S> The citizens of Ice land totally depend on fish for their survival and they got little chance to practice this morality in their life style. <S> But when you have plentiful vegetables and fruits and access to it and still kill animal for food that is your desire for meat and you violate and break the morality. <S> The reason why there is no Vegetarianism as forced concept still you eat <S> only vege farmers kill thousand of insects using pesticides sake of your vege food <S> and you know animals are being killing for your food. <S> This is the nature of Human realm and confirm existence of suffering.
|
If every single person in a city or country practised the first precept with heedfulness , and also practised Right Livelihood , which prohibits trade in meat, then nobody would work as a butcher. There is no such a concept as "Vegetarianism".
|
How can we say no without giving explanations? Let's say that a friend asks you if you want to go on a trip with him. You have a bad feeling about it, your intuition raises a red flag. How do you say no without making up a fake excuse? When I say "no, thanks for your offer but I don't feel like it." People tend to try to convince me, and I end up having to be cold. I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why." <Q> If that's what you feel, you should exactly say that. <S> The more you allow yourself to relax and express what you really feel, without fear of judgement, the easier it becomes as you do it again and again, and you arrive at a place in your life when you can be truly yourself and happy, because you will be spontaneously manifesting your own true nature. <A> If it's a bad idea and if you are his friend, you should try to convince him not to go too. <S> Explain to him why it is a bad idea. <S> If he listens to you, you would've done him a service as a true friend. <S> If he does not listen, that's his Karma. <A> I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why." <S> Pondering your understanding in this particular situation and any subtle intentions or assumptions behind it could reveal a lot of hidden inner truth you might never have seen before. <S> You could say other things like: <S> "I know it's weird but these intuitions are trips unto themselves" <S> "Do you have any ideas why I feel like this?" <S> "Speaking of trips, have you ever tried meditation?" <S> I like to believe that the truth should get our respect over our worries about how other people evaluate us. <S> I like to believe that if our friends have the wrong idea about us in the beginning, in the long run our true friends will realize the right idea about us. <S> - Metta :) <A> Truthfully, you don’t owe an explanation. <S> There is no obligation. <S> If asked, then yes, be clear on what the issue is or simply use something generic like “it’s a personal issue” or the like. <S> If he is a true friend, there should already be a level of respect. <S> All the best.
|
I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why." Just a matter of getting comfortable and free from the grasp of fear and the control of preconceptions, and allowing yourself to be yourself.
|
How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father? One day my Father will leave me. I love him a a lot. It will cause suffering when he leaves. My question is : How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father? <Q> Let go of what is going to cause the suffering. <S> I.e. your attachment towards him. <S> Practice Satipattana meditation . <A> The way you express your feeling reminds me of a sutta where Buddha told story of how gods in heaven tremble in fear when they heard Buddha preached about impermanance. <S> Or even a great horse sees a shadow of a whip. <S> Since this a Q&A, Anatta is a cure. <A> Try to behave virtuously, do what you can, and see the virtue of/in others. <S> Even when you want the world to be other than it is, I think it would be worse if on top of that you regretted your own past misbehaviour; conversely you may find it better if you had good relations. <S> I think that "recollection of virtue" (including generosity) appears frequently ( e.g. here ), in one form or another, as something of a consolation or support. <A> There was a story of a very accomplished monk in the Soto Zen tradition. <S> One day, he heard that his master had died. <S> He took the news with apparent ease. <S> At his funeral, he was composed - greeting well wishers, accepting their condolences, smiling, and even laughing. <S> This lasted for much of the memorial service. <S> Right before they were to take the body away for cremation, this monk when to the side of his masters coffin. <S> He began to sob uncontrollably. <S> All of the people in attendance began to look at him with mouths agape. <S> Realizing that he was being stared at and wise to the reason why - after all it's not often that you see a Zen master lose his composure so fully and unashamedly - the monk said to the onlookers: "My master, who I have known all of my life, who I loved as deeply as my own father, has died. <S> If I want to cry, I'm going to cry." <S> Buddhist practice isn't Vulcanism. <S> It isn't about transcending our emotion and sitting in a tepid path of imperturbability. <S> Rather, Buddhist practice is about being openhearted. <S> It is about becoming fully and unashamedly intimate with the world. <S> If your father dies, of course you will suffer. <S> Why shouldn't you? <S> Allow yourself to experience the full extent of your grief. <S> Mourn wholeheartedly. <S> Anything short of that is a disservice both to your relationship with him and to your own feelings of love. <A> The Pali suttas say: 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 heavenly world. <S> MN 4 <A> You need to eventually face this suffering due to your attachment. <S> Such attachment is usually deep seated. <S> But what may be helpful is to contemplate on anicca or impermanence. <S> For this, you can take A Walk in the Woods with Phra Khantipalo. <S> Also, read the story of Patacara in Dhammapada 113 . <A> This is a difficult problem. <S> Although an arahant (enlightened person) would be free of grief in this situation, for the rest of us, sorrow is more or less inevitable. <S> There are a number of approaches. <S> One is to practice mindfulness of feelings, realizing that your feelings change from moment to moment. <S> Another is to realize that your father possesses the three marks of existence: Suffering, Impermanence and Egolessness. <S> Like all other beings, his life is full of suffering, and to grasp onto him is to cause suffering. <S> His life is impermanent, which you have already shown some awareness of. <S> He is not a self and does not possess a self. <S> He is composed of many things which themselves are composed of many things, and these things are always changing. <S> As mentioned by others, a regular meditation practice is also helpful for developing serenity and insight. <A> From the Dhammapada : <S> Sabbe sankhara anicca ti. <S> yada pannaya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe. <S> esa maggo visuddhiya <S> Every thing (experience specifically, since that is the primary) is ephemeral. <S> And by experientially internalising that wisdom, one comes out of suffering. <S> This is the path of purification. <A> Practice the Dharma. <S> Whether our father goes first or we go first, ultimately we have to face impermanence one day. <S> If our father goes first, we feel grief naturally, that is because we are attached to something-our father. <S> Yet if we go first, we are presented with a huge fear, because of the unknown of death. <S> Thus one should practice Buddhism diligently and without doubt because we really don't want all these sufferings.
|
Being mindful now of this unavoidable fact will help you deal with it when the time comes. Buddhism deals with all these grief and fear- sufferings. If your father was a good father to you (doing good karma), according to the Pali suttas, he will have a good rebirth.
|
Is there any AI that teach the Dhamma? Are there any Artificial Intelligence applications that can teach the Dhamma that are already out there or are still being developed? What can these AI apps do with Buddhism? How can they facilitate practice? What will AI in development possibly be able to do in relation to Buddhism in the future? Here are some examples of what I mean. Could AI: ...have a conversation with the Tipitaka as it's database? ...understand all the arguments and controversies and debate certain topics? ...help guide someone in their meditation. Metta. <Q> This Wired article shows how AI has been used to enhance Google Search. <S> You can search the Tripitaka and other Buddhist articles, on Google Search by adding site: <S> accesstoinsight.org or site <S> :suttacentral.net/en . <S> For <S> e.g. I Google-searched for: <S> did the buddha feel pain? <S> site: <S> accesstoinsight.org <S> And I got the first result below: <S> Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant: Two ... <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html <S> There is plenty of evidence to show that an arahant does feel sensations caused by physical changes. <S> For instance, the Buddha felt acute pain when he was wounded by a stone splinter[19] and when he suffered from indigestion.[20] <S> But he was able to withstand the painful sensations with mindfulness and clear ... <S> There are more tips on this page on refining Google web searches. <A> I am not aware of an AI application designed specifically to teach Dharma, but I think it is an excellent idea. <S> As a practitioner of both Buddhism and data science, I would love to work on something that has the capacity to provide dharmic sentiments at exactly the moment they are necessary, tailored to meet each person's needs. <S> Marketing is moving in that direction, so it is possible that similar systems could be trained on Dharma activity, rather than purchase activity. <S> More to come in this area over the decades! <A> You should probably look into AI applications that teach any content in general to get your answer. <S> Some general applications in teaching are: letting the AI reorganize contents to optimize learning based on usage data (like duolingo does) training a chatbot that you can ask questions to (it will have somewhat limited capabilities, but could be useful nevertheless) <S> But there’s a caveat here <S> : this involvement of technology could easily become an obstacle or distraction rather than a tool. <S> I would suggest you forget about this and keep it simple: read about the dhamma and practice the dhamma every day.
|
Now... if you want to dive specifically into the Dhamma, the uniqueness of a potential AI application would be to help you apply the Dhamma to your life, or also monitor your mental state during meditation practice.
|
Five precepts and lower realms My understanding is that, although we are practicing five precepts in this life, there is no guarantee we will not be reborn in lower realm, it is possible to take rebirth in lower realm in the next life or many lives after. But according some sources, when one practices five precepts that person will not be reborn in one of the lower realms (in the next life). Which one is the correct one? <Q> But if you reach at least the second insight knowledge - Paccaya Pariggaha Nana of the 16 stages of insight towards becoming a Sotappanna, it is said that you will not be born in a lower realm in the immediate next life. <S> If you are a devout Buddhist who keeps to the five precepts, it is highly unlikely to be born in a lower realm in the next life. <S> But there's no guarantee. <S> It mostly depends on the quality of your precepts. <S> As in how well you keep to them. <A> There are many levels of achievement in Theravada Buddhism (in ascending order): <S> Faith follower <S> Dhamma follower <S> Stream enterer <S> Once returner Non-returner Arahant <S> The faith follower basically has faith and conviction in the Buddha as the teacher of the path to the end of suffering, the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the 8 types of individuals on the path). <S> The faith follower would normally take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as vow to undertake the five precepts . <S> That's merely the first step. <S> The guarantee of not being reborn in lower realms (hell, animal, asuras and hungry shades) is the result of achieving stream entry (or higher). <S> For all others, there is no guarantee. <S> According to the Vera Sutta : <S> "When, for a disciple of the noble ones, these five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he is endowed with these four factors of stream-entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out this noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! <S> I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'" <S> The five forms of fear and animosity are stilled by the relentless practice of the five precepts. <S> The four factors of stream-entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, and having "virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration." <S> The noble method is the understanding of how suffering is ended by the realization of dependent origination . <S> The one who has fulfilled the above, becomes a stream winner, who is guaranteed freedom from rebirth in lower realms. <A> In Theravada, a person has to follow all the precepts (for a lay person or a bhikshu(ni) accordingly), a qualified answer to your question is to be provided by a scholar. <S> One of the core Theravada obligations, as I understand it, is to achieve Nirvana by obligatory following of all the percepts. <S> In Zen, a person also can be either a qualified master or a mundane follower, yet even an enlightment can be achieved within a single lifetime by any sentien being, even by ; a rebirth to lower realms can be a deliberate choice because of compassion. <S> In addition to usual percepts, specific Zen vows are to be taken. <S> In Mahayana, a person can be a layman, a scholar or ordained monk/nun/lama within an institution, and many depends on previous karma plus a state of mind at the moment when a person experiences death. <S> A person can be either a layman and a scholar or a scholar and an ordained practiotioner; the number of percepts and/or vows to be taken depends on a school and its lineage. <S> In Vajrayana, it is the tantric vows (which in some cases may contradict or exclude those taken by laymen) and their purity that define the outcome, together with a state of mind at the moment of death. <S> A person can be a layman at a superficial appearance, and an ordained practitioner and a well-learned scholar by one's nature. <S> A number and essence of the vows depends on a deity and a transmission lineage together with ethics.
|
Reaching at least the Sotapanna state is the only 100% guarantee of not being born in lower realms ever again. I think that depends mainly on the tradition and/or a practice chosen by a person to follow.
|
What is the meaning of the word Dhamma? Can anyone please explain the meaning of the word Dhamma in the sentence "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"?Since Anatta is Truth; Am I an instance of Dhamma? <Q> Here is a definition . <S> I'd summarise it to myself as "described thing" or "anything you can identify". <S> In the phrase <S> " Sabbe Dhamma Anatta " <S> , I think it's used in contrast to the other two of the three characteristics , i.e.: <S> The three marks are: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — " <S> all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent" sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" <S> sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" <S> Explanation: <S> saṅkhārās are aniccā and dukkhā saṅkhārās are anattā too <S> nibanna isn't a saṅkhārā but it too is anattā <S> So instead of saying "saṅkhārās and nibanna are anattā", summarize that as "all dhammās are anattā" (where "all dhammās" is meant to include all saṅkhārās and nibanna too). <S> ( In reply to the two comments below) <S> So: Dhamma -- a teaching or a reality Sankhara -- a compound thing or a conditioned thing Anicca -- impermanent Dukkha -- unsatisfactory Anatta -- non-self or not-soul or without I/me/ <S> my Sabbe -- all <S> And: All sankharas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta Nibanna is not annica and not dukkha but is anatta <S> Nibanna is not a sankhara but is a dhamma <S> So all dhammas (including sankharas and nibanna) are anatta Here (for example) <S> is a reference to Nibanna being a Dhamma: <S> The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. <S> For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". ' <S> Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. <S> Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. <S> A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. <S> The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. <S> The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. <S> They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. <S> They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality. <A> If simplified Dhamma as teaching of Buddha. <S> It's also interpreted as behavior or process of nature. <S> E.g when you consider three characteristics(anatta,dukkha,anicca); those are exists in nature and can be observed with our wisdom. <S> Simply Dhamma is how nature is operated or functioned with its fundamental laws and constants. <A> Basically "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" means everything is Transitory. <S> Everything will be destroyed eventually. <S> Nothing is permanent. <S> sentence breakdown. <S> Sabbe - every Dhamma ( this is complex and complicated word which has deeper meaning in buddhism ) - <S> In this instance Dhamma means things. <S> Anatta - Without form, without ownership, no bond, without soul, There is no such thing as me, my or mine. <S> By this sentence, it explains that bonds we create is the base for the sufferings. <S> Nothing is permanent. <S> So our bonds to certain things,people will become the causality for the suffering we hold.
|
"Dhamma" is a complicated word, or a simple word that's used in many different contexts.
|
Pushing onself too much? Is there a thing of pushing oneself too much to practice and doing too much which will cause someone to quit take a break for some time ? what about too little ? how you determine the middle way here ? <Q> There is a big obvious difference between doing something because you want it and enjoying the effort, VERSUS beating yourself with a stick like a horse. <S> In one case you are working hard but you're enjoying it, you doing what you believe in, you're getting deep sense of satisfaction from it. <S> In the other case, you are forcing yourself, breaking yourself, torturing yourself - <S> you don't really believe in it, you hate yourself for doing it, but you're still doing it. <S> My teacher said that the feeling of special enjoyment or satisfaction is a key criteria for success in spiritual practice. <S> If you're doing too little, you will not be happy with yourself. <S> If you are doing it right, it may be hard and painful - but you will feel happy and proud and inspired. <A> If you don't have a teacher, you will need to be your own judge. <S> If you cannot be your own judge, you will need to find a teacher. <S> Suzuki in Zen Mind <S> Beginner's Mind warns about going too quickly. <S> He recommends something like one hour per week meditation for beginners. <A> If you feel bored or tired with one type of practice (e.g. meditation) or feel like you're just spinning the wheels and going nowhere, remember that that the Noble Eightfold Path consists of 8 factors, in three major areas - development of wisdom, development of mind and development of virtue. <S> You can always focus on the other factors, to find renewed motivation. <S> Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. <S> It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. <S> To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. <S> Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. <S> One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one's destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. <S> To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. <S> Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view.
|
If you are pushing yourself too hard, you will not be happy with yourself. You can take a break from meditation sometimes to read up or learn the Dhamma, to cultivate Right View , which is the forerunner of the entire path.
|
Does Buddhism have an answer to disturbing sexual fantasies? I have extreme sexual fantasies that hurt me (submission, candaulism, etc.).Because of the internet and pornography many young people have increasingly extreme fantasies, and when they are attached to submitting to the partner, many suffer from it and would like to become dominant, strong, or at least normal men again. Does Buddhism have a solution to cure these sexual disorders? Regards. <Q> Ways of Denourishing of Sensual Desire . <S> Asubha reflextion, refextion on the ugly of the body behind skin, hair, nails, reflecting the backwards of sensuality. <S> Watching the dogs on the street... <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade] <A> Buddhism only teaches about suffering & freedom from suffering ( MN 22 ). <S> Buddhism teaches: " There is no fire like lust " (Dhp 202), which is a natural law. <S> One excited by lust, overcome by lust, with mind obsessed by it, intends for his own affliction, for the affliction of others or for the affliction of both, and he experiences mental suffering and dejection. <S> AN 3.54 <S> I can only recommend to research the suffering of both male & female sex & pornography workers & the growth of women on antidepressants, in order to learn how such extreme sexual behaviours bring the growth of suffering & the reduction in pleasure. <S> Jenna Jameson...has been called the world's most famous adult entertainment performer and "The Queen of Porn"... <S> Jameson would makerequests for drugs... <S> the pills of choice were Xanax, Ambien andSuboxone along with alcohol... <S> Jameson gave birth to twin boys... <S> Jameson and Ortiz split up ... <S> Ortiz was granted full custody of the twins... <S> Wikipedia <S> Suppose a dog, overcome with weakness & hunger, were to come across a slaughterhouse, and there a dexterous butcher or butcher's apprenticewere to fling him a chain of bones — thoroughly scraped, without anyflesh, smeared with blood. <S> What do you think: <S> Would the dog, gnawingon that chain of bones — thoroughly scraped, without any flesh,smeared with blood — appease its weakness & hunger? <S> No, lord. <S> And why is that? <S> Because the chain of bones is thoroughly scraped, without any flesh, & smeared with blood. <S> The dog would getnothing but its share of weariness & vexation. <S> In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: ' <S> The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a chain ofbones, of much stress, much despair & greater drawbacks.' <S> More metaphors here: <S> Potaliya Sutta <S> Buddhism teaches to relate to other people with kindness & compassion, including sexual partners. <S> Most women want to have children, similar to the porn queen Jemma Jameson. <S> The more sexual partners a women has, let alone the more engaging in extreme forms of sex, generally, the more diminished their capacity to be good or normal mothers will be. <A> Patikulamanasikara is the meditation recommended to the person defeated by lust. <S> Whenever you see people or think about people(including yourself), meditate on them in terms of those body parts until the perception of a person goes away and all you see is contemptible body parts. <A> Does Buddhism have a solution to cure these sexual disorders? <S> I would recommend watching the video; "Ask A Monk: Pornography and Masturbation (and Addiction in General)" by Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo. <S> He gives an in-depth and detailed teaching on exactly this topic both from a theoretical perspective and a practical, insight meditational , perspective. <S> A step-by-step guide on how to deal with these defilements is provided in the video. <S> May this be of use to you.
|
In summary, a solution to cure these sexual disorders is to see clearly they are disorders that bring suffering rather than activities that bring sustainable happiness.
|
Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder and schizophrenia, to name a few. Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather than unwholesome states of mind? What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view? <Q> I think that unwholesome states of mind are conditioned and temporary. <S> It's difficult to generalise <S> (i.e. I was told there are different results/experiences for different people) <S> but if someone has a mental illness they may have seemingly unwholesome states of mind, and this condition might last for decades, for a lifetime -- but/or, a change in medication, a change in their social situation (friends), might condition a thorough " night and day " change in the states of mind even before the end of this life. <S> Sometimes it may seem that the range of (or the extremes of) experience is wider: i.e. a longer and more acute experience of a hell and/or a heaven (even in this life) than other more "normal" people will experience. <S> I'm not sure that Buddhism rightly talks about what's "destined" for people <S> , i.e. perhaps it isn't correct to ask about it: because you can't predict the future and it may surprise you; because you should have some faith in the possibility of salvation, of becoming enlightened, of teachers, of refuge, of the three jewels; because there's some scope of agency and good (or bad) intentions, i.e. results are not predestined; and because the ability to see the effects of kamma on specific people is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers (and <S> the fact that he did it sometimes doesn't mean that we should assume that we can). <A> In your individual experience, moment by moment of being detached and content with each moment as they go by your attention, is where the dhamma is after all the pondering. <S> We better learn the practice quick before the body goes mentally ill. <A> Not much comes to mind <S> but there is the Dhammapada verse from the Violence Chapter: <S> Whoever uses violence.. <S> Quickly goes to one of ten <S> conditions:... <S> Bodily injury or insanity <S> ,.." When it comes to hell realms, it is too abstract to say. <S> The question is always what particular views, perceptions, tendencies and volitional formations are in play in the process of death because these will be giving rise to consecutive formations and desireablity of the result will be determined by the nature of the parent-states. <S> From Dhamma point of view you reap what you sow, so when asking what caused X, just by knowing things about X we can know some things about the things that caused it. <S> So in example good is caused by good, bad is caused by bad, otherwise it would be paradoxical if something rightfully discerned as good was caused by something rightfully discerned as bad. <S> If one doubts, pounders and does not gain conviction because of hypothetical situations in which bad actions seemingly have good results, that would be dependant on wrong understanding of the mechanics of Contact and therefore the Aggregates, basicly the whole analytical aspect is not grasped. <A> What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view? <S> Well, it's attachment of course. <S> Attachment to false, harmful concepts. <S> Attachment to old experiences. <S> Even attachment to traumas. <S> Attachment makes us stuck, rigid, dysfunctional. <S> "Klesha"s are mental and emotional obscurations that we generate through our attachment. <S> Kleshas are like clouds that distort our perception of reality. <S> And why do we attach? <S> Because we want to avoid pain. <S> Physical pain, mental pain, emotional pain. <S> We think that by holding on to one side, we can escape the pain associated with the other side. <S> But that's an illusion, the more we avoid pain the more frightful and painful <S> we make it. <S> And that fear of pain becomes gasoline that feeds the engine of mental illness. <S> So from this standpoint the way to mental health is through letting go of attachments, letting go of fear of pain, letting go of extreme polarization, towards integration and acceptance of the opposites. <S> Essentially letting go of false harmful concepts of the world and self, and the emotions associated with those concepts. <S> This is why study of Emptiness is a key, because it leads to deconstruction of rigid concepts. <S> From the perspective of Enlightenment, we are all mentally ill in some degree. <S> Mental illness is just a more blatant case of samsaric thinking, and Dharma is medicine for the mind.
|
Attachment to harmful sources of emotional energy.
|
Is there any way to decipher sensations in the body during Vipassana? Can we know what kind of Samskars are being eradicated from the kind of sensation? Like while doing Vipassana I feel cooling or stretched sensation on forehead; itching on throat; burning & tingling in other parts. (for now). So is there any way to know the kind of Samskars these sensations represent? <Q> You are not supposed to relate any physical sensation (or feeling) to any sankhara for a good reason. <S> Because in vipassana you are practicing to see the reality as it is. <S> This is the keystone of vipassana, to see the reality as it is, in order to discover three characteristics of all phenomenon (i.e. anicca, anatta, dukkha ). <S> Trying to find the corresponding sankhara to every feeling and sensation distracts you from this and if you insist on doing it, after a while you will find yourself playing a mental game and you'll be running in the opposite direction of vipassana's purpose. <S> Moreover, I think quite different sankharas can create the same physical feelings. <S> Also many a times a neutral feeling may arise because of physical conditions (how you sit, temperature, what you ate, etc.) <S> so it's literally impossible to find an exact sankhara for each and every sensation. <S> Of course, on the other hand, if you're doing vipassana and memories arises, they should not be oppressed but simply you should let them come, observe them and calmly come back to the object of meditation. <S> As you progress your reactions in real life will show you how you've progressed and which sankharas has been eliminated and which ones still remains. <A> I assume you mean "what fetters are eliminated". <S> You cannot decipher the eradication of fetters by any physical feeling. <S> You are only supposed to note them as they rise and fall. <S> Here's a related answer . <A> It is called Satipatthana Practice, the result is Vipassana loosely "clear-vision". <S> Satipatthana is translated usually as "Frames of Reference" or "Foundations of Mindfuless", however translation there is Four of them: States of the Body, Mindstates, States of Feelings and Particular States (Hindrances). <S> The practice is discernment of various experiences within the Four
|
You are not supposed to give meanings to any feelings. When the fetters are eliminated, you will know because they no longer arise in the mind.
|
What is your Dhamma? I am trying to understand Dhamma. If people ask me what is my Dhamma I say I am XXX , which explains my behavior to them. Suppose I ask you the same question ,What is your Dhamma? ,then what will be your answer? <Q> What is your Dhamma? <S> One cannot really have ones "own" Dhamma. <S> Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered.. <S> In the Nagara Sutta , the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality). <S> "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. <S> And what is that ancient path, that ancient road? <S> It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. <S> I followed that path and by doing so I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..." -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl. <A> When people ask "What is your Dhamma?", they usually mean what are the moral principles you try to live by? <S> In other words, what is your religion? <S> So if you are a Buddhist, you can simply say 'Buddhism', unless you are purposefully trying to give a complicated answer. <A> I say YYY! <S> When you ask question <S> What is your? <S> answer has to be " <S> our Dhamma",Dhamma is not property of any body and do you agree below? <S> If yes, you are answered or do you have any counter question? <S> 1.If simplified Dhamma as teaching of Buddha. <S> It's also interpreted as behavior or process of nature. <S> E.g when you consider three characteristics(anatta,dukkha,anicca); those are exists in nature and can be observed with our wisdom. <S> Simply Dhamma is how nature is operated or functioned with its fundamental laws and constants. <S> 2.As <S> a Buddhists we accept with wisdom Dhamma as teaching of Buddha. <S> E.g <S> When you consider three characteristics with your wisdom they don't need labels and they are fundamental and basics of nature. <S> Once Buddha declared 2500 years ago it with his wisdom then we can accept with our wisdom in our capacity. <S> If any religious leader declare some thing and not cope with human wisdom and dogma can't be consider as Dhamma. <S> If you are not Buddhist <S> it's better to consider Dhamma "how nature is operated or functioned(or behavior) with its fundamental laws and constants.
|
The Dhamma is timeless and impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone.
|
Does rational thinking avoid dogma and enhance our wisdom? Rational - decisions and thoughts are based on reason rather than on emotion. Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Wisdom - ability to use your experience and knowledge in order to make sensible decisions or judgements. Experience - practical contact with and observation of facts or events. Knowledge - the facts, feelings, or experiences known by a person or group of people As per above definitions, "rational" thinking is nothing more than stick to "cause and effect"; and if someone says "rationalism can't provide answer to all the phenomena in nature", that's true due to the complexity of nature and limitations of our perceptions. So here come "wisdom": it says usage of our observation of facts (experience) lead us to reach realisation and understanding (to get free from ignorance or avijja ). As per above: Is rational thinking wrong thing to do? (or thinking stick to cause and effect) Does it help us to enhance our wisdom and free from avijja ? Note: I have expressed with my limited knowledge in English so all are free to edit without distorting main idea. Thanks. <Q> There are 3 kinds of knowledge. <S> knowledge based on thinking (cintā-mayā-paññā). <S> Rational thinking comes under this. <S> knowledge gained by learning from others (suta-mayā-paññā) knowledge based on mental development or meditation (bhāvanā-mayā-paññā) <S> Only the third kind of knowledge leads one to freedom from suffering. <S> One can never attain enlightenment by thinking up theories. <A> Rational usually isn't without emotion (in my opinion) -- rather it's a structure built on an implicit (often unspecified or unknown) emotional basis, and the emotional basis is often (perhaps invariably) irrational. <S> For example, IMO the following is an example of rational thinking: <S> That cookie looks good because I've enjoyed the taste of cookies like it in the past, therefore I want to eat it. <S> The cookie is behind a glass wall with a door in it, therefore I'll try to open the door <S> There's a man watching to see what I do, he might want my cookie, therefore I don't like that man <S> I don't like that man, etc. <S> I think this was an example of cause-and-effect reasoning. <S> This reasoning is logical but doesn't necessarily allow or encourage you to question the premise on which your logic is based: <S> Is the cookie good for me? <S> Do I really want to eat it? <S> Why is there a glass wall? <S> Is it true that the man might want my cookie? <S> Is it even my cookie? <S> Should I dislike him? <S> So Buddhism adds some necessary ingredients that are missing from mere rationality, including: Ethics Right view (or wisdom) and Concentration <S> Buddhism uses rationality or can be explained rationally, for example: Because attachment is suffering, consider detachment/dispassion/cessation <S> instead Because that cookie isn't given and isn't good for me <S> , I don't want it and won't strive for it <S> There's an idiom in English, "good servant but bad master" ("fire is a good servant but a bad master", "technology is...", "science is..."). <S> I expect that "reason" and "logic" may be like that, i.e. sometimes useful tools <S> but you shouldn't do something <S> just because it sounds "rational". <S> Also I'm taught to be rational, and if someone tells me to do something I often want to know why; and (theoretically) knowing why I do something <S> helps me to understand what I'm trying to do and therefore maybe even how to do it. <S> So it may be difficult for me to work with (practice, benefit from) a doctrine that's irrational -- it can be helpful if a doctrine is rational, if its reasoning is explained. <A> As you imply in your question, experience is one such equalizer. <S> But I'm not sure it's sufficient. <S> It owes its existence to something even more fundamental. <S> As dirty a word as this is in contemporary Buddhist parlance, <S> the single most important factor that ensures that our rationalism doesn't become dogmatic, cold, dead, and inflexible is faith. <S> When I say faith, I don't necessarily mean belief. <S> I'm not saying that you should accept by rote Buddhist doctrine as catechesis. <S> Instead, the faith that we should develop as followers of the dharma is one of openess and trust. <S> Without trust in the eight fold path, we'll never sit on the cushion. <S> When we're tired, when our legs hurt, and when the pangs of doubt are gnawing at us, unless we've developed a trusting mind, we'll never push through. <S> Without faith, there can be no experience. <S> Likewise, when we've put in our cushion time, when we've had great insights, when we've begun to see the world through the true dharma eye, unless we've developed a trusting mind, our progress stalls. <S> Without faith, we bind ourselves to an imperfect understanding. <S> Without openness, we've closed innumerable dharma gates. <S> Without the fundamental mind of trust, our current level of knowledge - not matter how subtle - gets in the way of deeper experience, more refined wisdom, and true understanding. <S> Lastly, and most importantly, trust, emptiness, and the awakened mind are unified in ways that defy rationalism, experience, reason, or even wisdom: To live in this faith is the road to nonduality, Because the nondual is one with the trusting mind. <S> - Seng-ts'an from the Hsin Hsin Ming
|
I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with rationalism provided that it is adequately counterbalanced by other factors.
|
What does Buddhism say about boredom? Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy.It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy. How do you manage all this? <Q> Well, technically boredom is a form of tanha , craving. <S> We crave for excitement, for fun, for an external source of energy. <S> And according to principle of "this-that conditionality" craving is also a form of aversion -- meaning, when we are bored we have an inner conflict against "this". <S> For some reason we think that "this", "here", "now" is not good enough. <S> My teacher explained, that every time we feel bored - that's really a signal from our inner mind that we have alienated. <S> It's a reminder that we lost connection or integration. <S> Because we lost connection, we feel something's missing. <S> From this perspective, every time we feel bored we should stop all activities, pause and look inside. <S> Basically, meditation. <S> When we get more advanced on this path, we can learn to maintain this connection at all times, and then we don't feel boredom, we never have the sense of dissatisfaction, we learn to live in suchness more or less at all times. <A> Boredom is the feeling of your small mind drowning in emptiness. <S> Like most negative sensations, it is fleeting and only as powerful as your resistance to it. <S> Embrace your boredom. <S> Let it wash over you. <S> The space that is left behind is the beginning of wisdom. <A> There are some advices on " RESTLESSNESS AND REMORSE " <S> When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them. <S> — SN 46:53 <S> As Iain sad/recommended. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade] <A> You can establish mindfulness by discerning the arising and passing of "boredom" and reflect on how that very boredom is conditioned. <S> Also one needs some patience because eventually boredom comes and goes, have to wait it out and keep looking at its arising and ceasing, eventually perception and discernment <S> will be appropriately conditioned by such reflection and mindfulness. <S> Recognizing, discerning, perceiving and learning about those phenomena. <S> Noticing the states of mind that are of likes and dislikes, wanting and restlessness in particular.
|
Take it one moment at a time, meditating on a moment-to-moment basis if you find yourself impatient and bored.
|
How does one know the difference between aversion and danger? How does a Buddhist know when to tolerate a situation, and when to exit a situation? For example, a lay Buddhist in an abusive relationship: is it correct to accept the abuse, or avoid it? Disclaimer: I am not referring to my own relationship. I just chose this scenario as a hypothetical example. <Q> Very interesting question. <S> I'd say, as long as you can keep learning from it, it's OK to stay in an abusive relationship, may even be useful. <S> But only if you know what you're getting out of it, what is it that it helps you practice. <S> May be patience, may be metta, may be egolessness etc. <S> But once you have exhausted learning possibilities, I would say it's time to move on. <S> In my mind this pertains to all types of difficult situations: abusive relationships, difficult job conditions etc. <S> If the pressure is so strong that it flips you into a victim mode all the times, and you completely forget that you are there to practice (as you would in a master mode) - that's probably a good indicator that the issue is more on the danger side than on the aversion side <S> , I think it's a question of strength. <S> There's no reason in subjecting oneself to what one just cannot handle, that stops being practice and becomes self-harm at that point. <S> So to summarize: 1) can you keep learning from this? <S> 2) <S> Are you not overwhelmed to the point of not being in control of your learning anymore? <A> What is dangerous that is harmful, stressful, undesired. <S> What one is averse to that is perceived as stressful, undesired and harmful. <S> Seem to me that it is a matter of evaluating the object of referrence, in this case the relationship. <S> Does OP rightfully perceive danger? <S> It is perceived as abusive by OP, if OP s perception is well developed as in <S> he is a wise & well-discerning person <S> then definitely he should run away once he starts perceiving the danger in such association. <S> It would be like seeing a punch coming and not moving away, you dont have to but all things considered you probably better off moving. <S> One who has a relationship has worry about relationship. <S> When there is no relationship, there can be no abuse of that sort. <A> It's the same as how you know not to put your hand in the fire. <S> You are not angry with the fire. <S> You are just avoiding potential danger. <S> It's the same as checking for vehicles when crossing the road. <S> Regarding relationships, you have to see with wisdom if it's really a case of your partner dragging you down all the time or <S> if it's just you looking for more and more. <A> There are two nice story and maybe it's of use: <S> The Healing of the Bull : A Story, by Suvimalee Karunaratna (2005; 10pp./29KB) <S> [PDF icon] <S> In this tale from Karunaratna's series of stories to be read aloud to young children, we meet a bull, crippled with anger and bitterness for the years of mistreatment he suffered at the hands of his masters. <S> Kapuri the she-elephant and the wise tortoise come to his aid, offering an important teaching on mindfulness, awareness, and loving-kindness. <S> Prisoners of Karma : A Story, by Suvimalee Karunaratna (2005; 9pp./26KB) <S> [PDF icon] <S> In this tale from Karunaratna's series of stories to be read aloud to young children, we meet a caged peacock who pines for the carefree days when he lived freely in the wilds. <S> Thanks to the advice of Kapuri the she-elephant and the wise tortoise, he learns to steady his mind and find peace even within the confines of his cramped prison. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade] <A> The danger is when we start to procrastinate and complain about our situation. <S> When a person thinks his volition is not guided by virtue but by an external circumstance that person is in servitude, and for a person who is in servitude there is no liberation. <S> All virtue lies in detachment and if a person acts virtuously then he is free from attachment. <S> However, if a person acts for fear of losing an external thing, for example, a partner or child his/her's volition is attached to an external thing and if start he admits to his mind that these things are above <S> his/ her freedom <S> this is servitude and that is the only danger for man. <S> We have to maintain at all time a free volition, free to follow virtue, and if you ever feel subjection and unable to act with goodwill and if you start to complain about your situation <S> then you have to remind yourself that the door is open, if you don’t you will start to live a life of a worm not of man. <S> Quoting from other schools.... <S> Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain Aversion is simply altering your right intention directed by virtue due to fear or ignorance while still maintain your freedom of choice in your thinking whereas a danger is admitting a mindset of servitude subjecting your volition to be controlled by someone else, thinking that you are not free when you are truly free.
|
Difference is that Aversion is to be uprooted as Defilement, Danger is to be avoided. Give the relationship a fair chance to improve with kind and respectful discussion regarding the issues before making any drastic decisions.
|
Is it complete shut down of perception and detachment of physical world? As we know people who stay in coma or unconsciousness "experience" timeless,space-less, absolute emptiness and total detachment from physical world. Even though I used the word "experience" will not suitable to describe the situation in coma or unconsciousness state. It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana" what happen when person die during the coma or unconsciousness state? Is this similar to Nirvana? (as total detachment of world.) <Q> It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc.... <S> and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana" <S> Actually that's far from Nirvana. <S> If that was the case any sleeping newborn baby would've been in Nirvana without the need for any Dhamma cultivation. <S> A person in a coma might seem to be at peace and without happiness or sorrow, but hidden in those deep layers of his consciousness are still the seeds of defilements, of greed, hatred, and ignorance. <S> As long as these "fuels" are still there and have not been eradicated, the Samsara cycle still goes on for him. <S> In constrast, a person who has attained Nibbana has perfect awareness, but due to the total elimination of all the "fuels", s/ <S> he's able to be 100% at peace while being 100% conscious. <A> No. <S> Chances are your bodily functions are ticking over and there will be some brain activity. <S> Just not enough to say or do anything. <S> You can get a "lock in" syndrome where you can think but just not move your body. <S> To the outsider you appear unconscious but you are fully awake inside. <S> There is a HUGE difference between actively "doing right thing" and "not doing something bad" because you are unconscious. <S> If you were made unconscious while holding up a bank, then you will probably still have bad thoughts. <S> No, it is not nirvana. <S> Nirvana is you coming to terms with the world, and your place in it. <S> It is not imagining yourself floating on a sea of lotus petals. <S> If you die in a coma, you don't get to say goodbye to anyone. <A> This is what happens. <S> When a person dies during coma or unconsciousness state, that person comes out of coma, becomes conscious. <S> Nirvana is understanding the cessation of thoughts. <S> Coma and unconsciousness are continuation of thoughts. <S> Coma and unconsciousness do not lead to the understanding of the cessation of thoughts. <S> The word "during" during coma or unconsciousness does not apply. <S> It applies only to you who is consciouss. <S> To the one who is in a coma or unconsciouss state, it does not apply. <S> Thus, there is no "during" for the person in coma. <S> There is only "now" and "now" for the person in coma. " <S> Now" before coma and "now" after coma. <S> "During" is only for you who is not in coma. <S> What is between "now" and "now" for the one in the coma? <S> Is there something? <S> Or is there nothing? <S> I guess you must find out. <A> As we know people who stay in coma or unconsciousness <S> "experience" timeless,space-less, absolute emptiness and total detachment from physical world. <S> Even though I used the word "experience" will not suitable to describe the situation in coma or unconsciousness state. <S> It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc.... <S> and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana" <S> In theravāda, this question's base-knowledge is ucchedadiṭṭhi, diṭṭhadhammanibbāna [nihilism&hold the doctrine of happiness in this life], rūpa-attato-sakkāyadiṭṭhi [form (the body) to be the self]. <S> what happen when person die during the coma or unconsciousness state? <S> In abhidhamma , person still has mind's arising until person's citta-ja-rūpa, such as breathe, still going on. <S> But because of karmma (kamma), temperature (utu), and nutrient (āhāra) are not good enough to support mind to done mind's job, such as making-nerve-impulse (citta-ja-rūpa), etc. <S> So, the tool of the scientist can't catch mind's arising of this person. <S> That's the reason why some vegetative state can awake again, after long sleeping. <S> Is this similar to Nirvana? <S> (as total detachment of world.) <S> Definitely no. <S> Because buddhā said in Sutta. <S> Saṃ. <S> Sa. <S> Dvādasamaṃ āḷavakasuttaṃ : (The Blessed One:) <S> “With faith you cross the flood and with diligence the ocean <S> With effort end unpleasantness and with wisdom purify yourself .” <A> Thinking that with death and the break up of the body of a Realized One that some real thing utterly ends contradicts the doctrine of anatta and was specifically refuted in Pali Canon Sutta.
|
If you are unconscious or in a coma then you are not laying there in a blissful state. This is not similar to Nirvana.
|
Are either of the two truths Truths (Satya)? Is it reasonable to call these truths, or would it be more reasonable to call them accurate statements from two different frames of reference? The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness. The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness, nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither. .. In that a statement with regards to the ultimate is false from a conditioned frame, and a statement with regards to the conditioned is false from the ultimate frame, how can either one declare any 'satya'? <Q> Prasangika-Madhyamika define a truth as whatever is not deceptive in that it appears the way it exists. <S> The opposite of a truth is a falsity. <S> Ngawang Palden says: Ultimate truths necessarily are established in accordance with how they appear to the awarenesses to which they clearly appear. <S> Conventional truths are necessarily falsities. <S> Ultimate truths are truths because, in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing them, they appear the way they exist (i.e. empty). <S> On the other hand, conventional truths are falsities and not truths because they appear as inherently existent while they do not exist in this way. <S> Thus, conventional truths are truths only in relation to ignorance. <S> This is because ignorance conceive of them to exist the way they appear. <S> In Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom by Jeffrey Hopkins <S> , it says: <S> In saṃvṛti satya , saṃvṛti means that which obscures, or conceals, reality, and thus saṃvṛtisatya means "that which is a truth for ignorance". <A> Generally speaking, I agree with you, they are more like descriptions from two different standpoints. <S> But I would actually go further and don't even call them "accurate". <S> In my mind, they are just approximations pointing in a certain direction, and when I blend both, I get a sort of 3D-vision in which I see reality as is. <S> This reality is a lot more "real" than these two flat projections, and they can't even come close to capturing it in all its awesome depth. <A> Maybe what Plato described is close to what's happening. <S> The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness. <S> Yes, for the people in the cave what is there is just the shadow and it is really empty. <S> The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither. <S> For the one outside the cave, when asked by those in the cave to describe what is ultimately real using the shadows and echoes of shadows <S> his answer can only be neither nor... <S> For those in the cave, it's true that the horse is 10ft tall, and the ultimate truth that it's 4 ft is not true for the cave dwellers.
|
The meaning of falsity is “deceptive,” and the meaning of deceptive is “discordance between the mode of appearance and the mode of abiding.”
|
What do different schools of Buddhism say about Mara Does the concept of "Mara Devaputta" (The being called Mara) exist in all schools of Buddhism? What is mentioned about that concept? <Q> Mara , according to the specific Buddhist and Hindu Cosmology, is the leader of the heaven above Sakra, prince of the Devas (see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence ). <S> According to Wikipedia's Mara (demon) article: <S> In Mahayana Buddhism. <S> There are traditionally these four types of Mara In traditional Buddhism, four metaphorical forms of "māra" are given: Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion. <S> Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death. <S> Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence. <S> Devaputra-māra, the deva of the sensuous realm, who tries to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha´s enlightenment. <S> He is destined to become a Pratyeka Buddha. <S> His followers might not be so fortunate. <S> The above image quoted from The Thirty-one Planes of Existence . <S> Note especially: Realm : 11) Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva) <S> Comments : These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. <S> Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here. <S> Cause of rebirth here : <S> Ten wholesome actions (MN 41) Generosity <A> You should consider reading S. Bachelor's book, Living with the Devil , where he explains how different Buddhist schools define Mara. <S> There is a short interview with the author: Living With The Devil -- <S> A Buddhist take on good and evil . <S> In fact, Batchelor considers "Mara" - the seductive allure of doctrine that offer the false consolation of an explanation of the meaning of life and "I". <S> There is even an opera about Mara <S> ( Mara the Opera ). <A> Batchelor is clear. " <S> Buddha and Mara are figurative ways of portraying a fundamental opposition within human natures. <S> " <S> The idea that Mara "comes down to earth, has a little chat with the Buddha, then goes off again" is for children. <S> Mara would not be a 'being'. <S> As Mara describes a natural function of the mind it will appear in all schools of Buddhism and all doctrines of the Unity of Self. <S> It just won't always be called Mara. <S> Jesus met Mara in the desert under a different name and awarded him the same treatment. <S> Mara is said to have sent dancing girls to distract the Buddha from his purpose and he simply turns them into cherry blossom. <S> I feel this is a useful story to remember for the ease with which the Buddha, like Jesus, dispatches Mara. <S> Once the ego and the distinct self is dealt with Mara becomes toothless because there is nobody to tempt. <S> This is my view and as such may be incorrect. <A> "Mara" is the enemy of enlightenment. " <S> Mara" can be so cunning that this morning a "Mara" visited this forum disguised with the user-name "Nibbana". <S> This shows how sneaky & cunning Mara is. <S> This Mara tried to stop the enlightenment my Holy Guru Volkov transmitted today. <S> In the Pali suttas, "Mara" is found in many places, such as: <S> The suffering terror of "ego-death" called "marana" (SN 12.2). <S> The cause of "marana", namely, attaching to aggregrates as "I". <S> "me" & "mine" ( SN 22.63 ). <S> A mind with psychic powers (generally a believer in God or Brahma) that tries to stop the enlightenment of unshakable faith in the Lokuttara (Supramundane) Buddha-Dhamma. <S> In summary, Mara believes the "birth" ("jati") of "a being" ("satta") is a physical organism emerging from a physical womb rather than merely the arising of a "view", as described in SN 5.10: <S> Why now do you assume 'a being'? <S> Mara, have you grasped a view? <S> This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. <S> Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, <S> So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' <S> SN 5.10 <S> In Chapter 23 of the Samyutta Nikaya, suttas about Mara as clinging to aggregates (SN 23.1, 23.11, 23.13, etc) are found together suttas about how "a being" ("satta") is a state of attachment (SN 23.2, 23.3, etc).
|
This Devaputra Mara is, according to Buddhists, a real sentient being.
|
What the characters of a human being? What should or are the characters of a human being? In today's age, r people real humans ? As i feel , humans are those who have compassion towards others, love towards others wheather it be animals nature or other humans.. But i don't see this any characters in todays humans(>99%). Should i call them humans just because they have intillegence ? I think even the crow is intillegent. Is only self awareness enough to be a human being? <Q> Beings with consciousness encompass all sentient beings, in addition to being self aware human being have a capacity to be compassionate, temperate, and just; generally humans have a capacity to be virtuous. <S> Quoted below is a stoic sage lamenting like you do (not Buddhist source i know, but i think its interesting to read. <S> :) <S> Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? <S> If the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his way? <S> (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? <S> Is every thing judged (determined) by the bare form? <S> If that is so, say that the form in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. <S> But the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. <S> Here is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is refuted: he is an ass: <S> in another man the sense of shame is become dead: he is good for nothing, he is any thing rather than a man. <S> This man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast. <A> Gelugpa scholars define a human being as: A sentient being that is of the type of speaking and understanding. <S> Thus, it includes baby humans, since a baby is "of the type of speaking" but does not speak yet. <S> It also excludes animals, since animals cannot come to speak even if one trains them <S> (we can train them to dance, however!) <S> "speaking and understanding" must be taken together. <S> Otherwise, one might say that animals are human beings because they have some level of understanding, or even some level of "speaking" since they express themselves and utter seemingly expressive sounds. <S> Anyway, the point is: there is no notion of "being human" in the common sense. <A> The human state is described in SN 56.47 & elsewhere: <S> Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. <S> For what reason? <S> Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. <S> Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. <S> For what reason? <S> Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. <S> What four? <S> The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. <S> SN 56.47 . <S> Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. <S> Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. <S> AN 6.39 Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. <S> What are the two? <S> Shame and fear of wrongdoing. <S> If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. <S> But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of other honored persons. <S> AN 2.9 <A> But i don't see this any characters in todays humans <S> Perhaps you should, it would be better if you did, see compassion towards others in other people? <S> There's a (non-Buddhist) saying that might be relevant: "The only way to have a friend is to be one." <S> Anyway, I wanted to quote from the Punna sutta : <S> "Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. <S> I am going to live there." <S> "Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. <S> They are rough. <S> If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?" <S> "If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands.' <S> That is what I will think, <S> O Blessed One. <S> That is what I will think, <S> O One Well-gone." <S> ... <S> "Good, Punna, very good. <S> Possessing such calm and self-control <S> you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. <S> Now it is time to do as you see fit." <S> Is only self awareness enough to be a human being? <S> I think that from a Buddhist point of view, the good thing about being human is the ability to understand Dhamma. <S> There's also a koan called Joshu's dog : <S> Has a dog Buddha-nature? <S> This is the most serious question of all. <S> If you say yes or no, You lose your own Buddha-nature. <S> I think that Buddhism teaches that "self" awareness isn't beneficial.
|
A human being is not necessarily "human" the way you understand it.
|
Role of IQ in attainment of stream entry I quoted below, the words of Ven. Dhammavuddho, who stated that, according to SN 55.5, to attain stream entry, one must have focused attention (yoniso manasikara) when listening to the true Dhamma from true men (ariyans) and contemplating on it. After that, they must practise the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. They can have focused attention, only if the five hindrances stop habitually obsessing their minds. Two types of persons pass this criteria - one who has attained the first jhana and one who is highly intelligent (has high IQ). Both can concentrate their minds effectively. My questions are: Is the role of IQ as stated above, found in the suttas? (reference request) How could not-so-intelligent persons compensate for their lack of IQ, if they want to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry? In the YouTube video entitled " Characteristics of a Sotapanna ", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing): Now we look at another Sutta - SN 55.5. ... It is mentioned that there are four factors or conditions for stream entry - sotapattiyangani. First, association with true men - sappurisa. Second, hearing the true Dhamma (Saddhamma). Third, focused attention or proper attention (yoniso manasikara). And fourth, practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma - Dhammanudhammapatipatti. The first one is association with true men. The word sappurisa also means ariyans - those who understand the true Dhamma. Because they understand the true Dhamma, you can hear the true Dhamma from them. The second condition - What is the true Dhamma? ... if it agrees with the Buddha's words in the Suttas, then it is the true Dhamma. .... The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I translate as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention. This word means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on listening to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have the five hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry. So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome states, which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will obsess him and obsess him habitually. So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana (i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has attained the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and the Buddha says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person habitually. So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly, it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ... The other type of person who does not have the five hindrances habitually obsessing his mind is an intelligent person - the person with a high IQ. Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good concentration and that was obtained from previous lives. A very good example is Albert Einstein. ... (some example of Albert Einstein) ... It shows that he had great concentration. So, people who are intelligent, they are able to focus their mind. That is very important. A scatter-brained person cannot be an intelligent person - the mind is so scattered. These are the two types of persons. One, because of previous lives, he's born very intelligent - he can focus his mind. The second person is one who has attained the jhanas. The fourth condition - practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. So he keeps practising the Dhamma and he will attain stream entry. Now this fourth condition may not be necessary for some people. We find in the suttas - many people when they listen to the Buddha, speaking the Dhamma, even for the first time, they attain stream entry. The Buddha confirms this. But some people after they have listened, it doesn't click immediately. They go back and they think about it and then it clicks. And then they understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry. So this practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is after he has listened, he starts to recall the Dhamma or investigate more of the Dhamma. And then after some time, then the pieces fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle. And then he sees the Dhamma. <Q> The quote seems to be equating IQ with concentration: it says, "Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good concentration and that was obtained from previous lives. <S> " <S> I suppose that sounds plausible -- that, to be intelligent, someone must be able to concentrate -- <S> but I guess that's a personal opinion of the author (not "universally valid"), and has exceptions to the rule: <S> I suppose that instead intelligent people may be conceited, for example; or lazy, or etc. <S> There's a bit in the Path to Purification about the six kinds of temperament, which says, One who "possesses understanding" is one of intelligent temperament. <S> According to that definition, perhaps it's a truism (perhaps "understanding" erases the hindrance of "skeptical doubt"). <S> I don't really know what Pali word is equivalent to "high IQ"? <S> There's a word cakkhumā <S> which I think is used often: usually translated as "with good eyesight", but occasionally translated as "intelligent". <S> I think it means, more or less, "with little dust in their eyes" -- able to "see" or perceive the dhamma. <S> According to the PTS dictionary : <S> Cakkhumant (adj.) <S> [cakkhu+mant] having eyes, being gifted with sight; of clear sight, intuition or wisdom; possessing knowledge (cp. <S> samantacakkhu) <S> D i.76 (one who knows, i. e. a connoisseur); cakkhumanto rūpāni dakkhinti "those who have eyes to see shall see" (of the Buddha) <S> D i.85, 110, etc. <S> -- <S> Vin i.16; S i.27; <S> A i.116, 124; iv.106; Dh 273; It 108, 115; DA i.221; DhA iii.403; <S> iv.85. <S> -- Esp. <S> as Ep. of the Buddha: the Allwise S i.121, 134, 159, 210; Sn 31, 160, 992, 1028, 1116, 1128; <S> Vv 125 <S> (= <S> pañcahi cakkhūhi cakkhumā Buddho Bhagavā VvA 60, cp. <S> cakkhu iii.); Vv 8127. <S> I guess that may be related to "right view" (and eventually "wisdom") <S> though, perhaps more than concentration. <S> I guess that to better understand the original quoted sutta (forgetting for the moment the Venerable's explanation of it as "high IQ") <S> it would be good to investigate the meaning of yoniso manasikāra . <A> High intelligence could also be a prerequisite for fabricating endless destructive taught. <S> So, I don't think its right to say IQ is a criterion. <S> It's not intelligence which is needed, but virtue. <S> Visakha, the great female supporter was only seven years old, when the Buddha visited her birthplace... <S> Though she was so young, she was religious and virtuous. <S> As such, immediately after hearing the Dharma from the Buddha, she attained the first stage of sainthood. <S> So, It's not the intellectual capacity of Albert Enstaine which is needed but been virtuous and faith in the teaching. <A> Not sure about the suttas, but in Milindapanha it is said: <S> “What is the reason that a child under seven years of age is unable to attain insight? <S> For a child is pure in mind and should be ready to realise the Dhamma.” <S> “If a child under seven, O king, could feel desire for things leading to desire, hatred for things arousing hatred, could be fooled by misleading things and could distinguish between wholesomeness and unwhole- <S> someness then insight might be possible for him. <S> However, the mind of a child under seven, O king, is feeble and the unconditioned element of nibbàna is weighty and profound . <S> Therefore, O king, although he practised correctly, a child of under seven could not realise the Dhamma.” <S> So some level of IQ beyond "feeble" seems to be a requirement. <S> Not sure how high it needs to be though. <S> Anecdotally from my teachers, some types of high intelligence ( <S> the ones leading to conceptual proliferation, papanca) may actually get in the way. <A> It took lots of worldly self-tribe-preoccupied people with high IQ, such as Albert Einstein (who initially but later regrettably lobbied the US govt), to build the atomic bomb. <S> Robert Oppenheimer proclaimed, from the Bhagavad-Gita: <S> "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." <S> Today, there are all sorts of people with high IQ working in military & financial industries. <S> IQ is obviously unrelated to stream-entry. <S> What is related to stream-entry is a pre-existing dispassion or disenchantment towards the world & the capacity (which includes fearlessness & strength) to let go & abandon 'self'. <S> If IQ was required for stream-entry then stream-entry itself would be a mental thinking exercise, which is not the case. <S> This shows how tenuous Dhammavuddho appears to be.
|
Stream-entry requires non-thinking rather than thinking. What is related to stream-entry is a sensitivity towards suffering.
|
What is yoniso manasikara and ayoniso manasikara? As suggested in this answer , it is a good idea to investigate this further. What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikāra) and unwise reflection (ayoniso manasikāra)? Yoniso manasikāra is also translated as wise attention, appropriate attention. Why is yoniso manasikāra important? What is it used for? How does one practise it? <Q> The way my teacher explained it to me, we can either be masters of our mind, masters or information (=wise attention), or our mind can be our master <S> , information can be our master (=unwise attention). <S> In the second case, we let our minds push us around. <S> We allow information to make us think about things whether it's good for us or not. <S> Things that are negative, or things that are useless to think about, things that make us feel bad. <S> Our mind tells us: "see this? <S> Because this is so <S> and so, you have lost <S> , there's no hope", etc. <S> We let our negative inertia maintain ourselves in maimed and injured condition. <S> Or, "see this? <S> you must want this." <S> - as is the case of lust or envy. <S> We eat all kinds of informational junkfood without being selective. <S> Or we let our rational mind, our logical mind, take us down the path of conceptual proliferation and fruitless quasi-intellectual speculation. <S> We get fooled by information into believing that we must come to certain conclusions, that we don't have a choice. <S> Yoniso manasikāra is Emotional Intelligence. <S> We decide what to think and how to think it - <S> in order to feel stronger, healthier, and motivated. <S> We actively decide what not to pay attention to, so negative mindstates cannot enter our minds. <S> We don't let "Mara", devas, spirits, memes, advertisement, etc. <S> and other informational viruses, to enter our informational space uncontrollably and do whatever they want to us. <S> We are actively responsible for our mental hygiene. <S> We know the noble truths, so we know how attachment to expectation mismatch causes dukkha and makes us weak, and how being blameless and having no inner conflict makes us happy and strong, so we actively exploit this mechanism. <S> Moreover, we decide how to frame our thinking, what context and coordinates to choose. <S> Because reality is an interpretation we make, choosing a mental framework is choosing a reality. <S> We choose reality in which we are happy and can make others happy. <S> We don't choose reality in which we are miserable and make others miserable. <A> I think Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta clearly show what inappropriate and approprate attention means. <S> Quoted below is the Sutta(" Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention " (SN 9.11), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. <S> Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013): <S> I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. <S> Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm. <S> Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse: From inappropriate attention <S> you're being chewed by your thoughts. <S> Relinquishing what's inappropriate, contemplate appropriately. <S> Keeping your mind on the Teacher, the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues, you will arrive at joy, rapture, pleasure without doubt. <S> Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress. <S> The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses. <S> A good response for your question can also be found: <S> In this discussion: Pali term: ayoniso manasikāra In this Glossary of Pali terms (which quotes from 10 suttas in which ithe term is used) <A> For example the Buddha used yoniso manasikara when he contemplated "what is the cause of death" - <S> "birth is the cause of death" <S> In daily life we would look at anger, in a ayoniso way, getting caught up in it. <S> But if we would look at in in yoniso way, we would check how it arises, why, where, and what is angry, what is hurt. <A> Proper ( Sujato )/careful <S> ( Bodhi ) attention starves the five hindrances and feeds the seven factors of awakening. <S> Conversely, improper ( Sujato )/careless <S> ( Bodhi ) attention feeds the hindrances and starves the awakening factors. <S> Ajahn Brahm often translates yoniso manasikāra as " the work of the mind that goes back to the source ". <S> SN46.51 <S> gives examples of how to apply yoniso manasikāra within the framework of the four right efforts.
|
In my understanding yoniso manasikara is attention at the origin, the source.
|
Does the will to live cease after enlightenment? What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living. <Q> "Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal. <S> That's not a good description. <S> Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss. <S> You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases. <S> When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel to many countries, spend more time with my family, enjoy different types of food, build a career, become successful, raise my children to be successful etc." <S> - well, that kind of thinking and emotions cease after enlightenment and is replaced with the peaceful bliss of the moment. <A> No, the will to live does not cease after enlightenment. <S> Firstly, we have to define what it means to have a will-to-live. <S> Arthur Schopenhauer, he been the first who coined this term, defines the will to live as a drive or conscious reason to live this life (not future life), the will to live this life not the will of becoming after death which the Arhat extinguished. <S> So, someone who doesn't possess the will to live will stop eating or even breathing as Zeno did and depart from life, but it's not so with an enlightenment person they have a reason to maintain this life. <S> As you pointed out an enlightened person will maintain his/ her life to teach others or if they can't teach they will remain in the world to ease the suffering of others by helping them to avoid the picks of pain and pleasure which are the worst enemy to a man seeking liberation. <A> Correct. <A> Attaining enlightenment is like running out of gas while driving. <S> The car does not stop immediately and the driver has no desire to hit the breaks to forcefully stop it. <A> Does will cease? <S> No, it is the opposite, the will is all that remains. <A> After Nirvana, that is the real enjoyable life, a state of supreme knowledge. <S> True bliss is in the company of such evolved souls. <S> That serves the to the purpose of life. <S> It's an enjoyable journey. <A> I'm not sure what is meant by "the will to live", but whether one has that view (or any other view!) <S> consciousness continues no matter what. <S> Moreover, an enlightened being's mind is in no way comparable to the mind of someone right on the verge of suicide. <S> The Buddha or other enlightened beings are no more capable of ending their consciousness than any other being. <S> Mind and consciousness continue after the break up of the body. <S> Further, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas work tirelessly for the benefit of sentient beings. <S> This is why the Buddha taught the Dharma and continues to manifest in countless ways to benefit transmigrating beings.
|
As my teacher said, once you "see" the emptiness, you have no reason to live, no reason to die, all you have from that moment on is your will , made strong through years of practice. If by "losing the will to live" you mean the state of mind right before someone commits suicide, it is important to understand that simply ending ones life will not extinguish the consciousness nor the karma that impels one to take further birth. A connection with cosmic consciousness and a cheerful acceptance of people and situations comes once we transcend in our practice and experience the inner world which is beyond the experience of senses and emotions. Other than teaching, generally there would be no reason to continue living (although there could be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents). Just like how the car stops when the momentum runs out, enlightened beings expire when their life runs out naturally.
|
Does "married adults living with parents in parents' house" count as breaching the third precept? It's very common for unmarried adult Asians in Asia to continue to live with their parents. Some choose to move out once they're married, some people for some reasons choose to stay even after they're married. One of the object of transgression of the third precept is having intercourse with those "protected by parents". My understanding is, generally speaking, protected children are underaged children, children who are vulnerable to unwanted advances and financially dependent. In the case of a married adult couple who is already mature and independent but can't afford to buy a house therefore the adult child with his wife live with his parents in his parents' house, does this count as "protected by parents"? How should one determine the scope of "protected by parents" according to the precept? <Q> I am confident that a married couple who live with their parents are not in violation of the precept against sexual misconduct. <S> If anything the question would apply to the marriage decision (asking parents for consent), but certainly not sexual activity that happens after the marriage. <S> IMHO <S> the point is that you need consent before having sex, and in the case of young people, you should not treat their own consent as acceptable because they are too young to decide, so any time you aren't sure, their parents should be involved in the decision. <S> Honestly that sounds horrible either way, but we can imagine young people getting married and how the consent of parents would often be a factor in that union not being misconduct, especially in an ancient society. <A> Once you become married, you are the guardian of your partner. <S> So you do not break the 3rd precept regardless of where you live. <S> Parents continue to support you out of the goodness of their hearts. <S> It does not make them your guardians once you become adults. <S> They can kick you out at any time and be in the right. <A> Every teaching about sex I have read is referred to in the context of marriage (e.g. AN 4.55; AN 4.53). <S> Any sex outside of marriage is obviously motivated solely by lust (rather than mostly by compassion), which is unwholesome according to the suttas (MN 9, which states lust <S> is the root of the unwholesome). <S> Therefore, it is quite logical that any sex outside of marriage is a volition of the precept because it leads to hungry ghost, animal (AN 2.9) & hell realms (DN 31). <S> Do we think a person that develops a habit towards unmarried uncommitted sex won't become a hungry ghost; similar to how men (who for some reason post on Buddhist chat sites) are often addicted to pornography? <S> DN 31 says parents show compassion & protection (security & safety) towards their children by arranging a suitable marriage. <S> This is the meaning of "protected by parents"; that parents protect their children from becoming hungry ghosts & bringing shame upon the integrity of the family . <S> Thus, that the children are married means they have been protected by their parents, regardless of where they live. <S> For example, in the time of the Buddha, generally the married children lived in the house of the husband's parents. <S> DN 31 says: <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, (ii) <S> I shall do their 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> In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion: (i) <S> they restrain them from evil , (ii) <S> they encourage them to do good, (iii) <S> they train them for a profession, (iv) <S> they arrange a suitable marriage , (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them. <S> In these five ways do children minister to their parents as <S> the East and the parents show their compassion to their children. <S> Thus is the East covered by them and made safe and secure . <A> Didn't Siddhārtha Gautama live in his father's palace after he married (and before he went forth)? <S> But I haven't heard a suggestion that that was immoral (only that it was impermanent and not ultimately-satisfying). <S> It seems to me obvious what "protected" means. <S> For example, in contemporary Western society when my girlfriend and I started "dating" each other as teenagers, that was with our parents' permission ... <S> it's for example when you're living with your parents, and when you're going to be "out <S> " you tell your parents where you're going, and who with, and what time you're going to be back, and who will be driving, and the parents can say "yes" or "no" or set conditions. <S> Also I guess that when you're married and living with your parents, parents have already said "yes". <S> Also I guess that "living with parents after marriage" is pretty normal, not modern -- <S> maybe in a new house on the same land. <S> I'd guess that rather it's the nuclear family <S> that's relatively modern (and not altogether a good thing).
|
To my knowledge, there are no teachings in the suttas that refer to sex outside of marriage as part of the Buddhist path.
|
Is every Dhamma cause of suffering? I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me. For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering? If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha? <Q> Is every Dhamma cause of suffering? <S> The same source says, sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" <S> It's sankharas <S> that are classified as unsatisfactory (and impermanent). <S> But the term dhamma is broad and can be used (in different contexts) to mean a lot of different things -- for example, Jayarava's essay on The Simile of the Raft identifies some of the different possible meanings of dhamma . <A> " But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. " <S> Perhaps it's clearer if, instead of understanding "all dhammas are cause of suffering", to understand that the craving for "all dhammas" is the cause of suffering. <S> It's taṇhā , it's the thirst that keeps us perpetually dissatisfied with the dhammas experienced. <A> One could say that the meaning of the word Dhamma is related to the word Concept. <S> The concept of "Nibbana" would therefore exist until all temporary realities cease, then what was conceptualized will be known as it is and known to not have the characteristics suffering, being discerned as ultimate peace and happiness. <S> The thinking about it and the Idea has characteristic of suffering because it only temporarily gains footing in the system in which all is happening. <S> The concept is not the real thing if u know what i mean. <S> So nibbana as a concept is in that sense <S> a formed idea therefore will change, gaining temporary existence in a system. <S> Nibbana as a reality is a possible state of the system, a state in which existence and matter gain no footing, this is brought about by tweaking the states of energy and information existing within the system.
|
No: as mentioned in this answer , nibanna is classified as a dhamma (and as anatta ) but not a cause of suffering.
|
When something goes wrong One hears of religious psychosis , with a 'Buddhist' element. As well as people who convert to or begin to study / practice Buddhism and seeming different, somehow worse; more solitary or unconcerned, etc.. What is going on these sorts of lives, becasuse I don't think "zen sickness" always applies to confusion with the dharma? <Q> There are cases when someone gets obsessed, this is known as the Dharma fever. <S> In my lineage this is not considered too bad. <S> Generally speaking, my Buddhism is Buddhism of love and acceptance - if someone is in a difficult life situation and lost balance, or even never had it because that's how their life turned out, we see that with the maximum warmth and try to make the best out of the situation. <S> In Varjrayana everything is energy, even the energy of confusion, so we try to use all that. <S> I personally hate silent, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive treatment of confusion. <S> If someone is completely off base, they need love and acceptance, not judgment. <S> The cases when someone gets arrogant and/or righteous are not tolerated well. <S> Ego is the enemy of enlightenment, so spiritual snobbery has to be persecuted. <S> I've never heard of true madness, but losing a sense of boundaries is standard. <S> This is where the personal presence of teacher and sangha comes in handy. <S> Someone has to stop you when your head starts spinning, slap you on the face, bring back to the ground and give a hug. <S> I miss my last teacher for that. <A> I think that psychosis is a state of disordered thinking, confusion, delusion (a "mental disorder"). <S> It might seem, superficially, like Buddhism -- <S> some withdrawal from ordinary worldly activities and concerns, for example, an unusual understanding of what's valuable, of who owns what -- sometimes also grandiose delusions, or a wide range of other possible symptoms, for example flattened affect, and so on and so on. <S> What is going on these sorts of lives <S> Well, by the definition in your question, you're saying that psychosis is going on. <S> It might possibly be that Buddhism (a Buddhist environment, values, practioners) is helpful for them and for those around them -- psychotic people behave abnormally, and maybe uncooperatively, and/or are less able than you might want them to be. <S> So your being able to detach a bit from what you expect of people -- your wanting to behave morally, independently (or unilaterally) of whether other people are behaving too -- might help to enable a better relationship than otherwise possible. <A> The rule of the thumb is that if someone becomes depressed or suicidal or negative or exhibit behavior that is harmful towards others, then they are doing it wrong. <S> One example of this from the Vesali Sutta are the monks who got too obsessed with the meditation on unattractiveness meant to overcome lust, and committed suicide. <S> The Buddha then advised the remaining monks to switch to the mindfulness of breathing to create positive feelings, if they became negative by practising something else. <S> This is just like driving a car - if you are veering too much to the left, then turn the steering wheel to the right and vice versa. <S> The goal is to reach the destination safely. <S> The second example of this from the Alagaddupama Sutta are people who learn the teachings of the Buddha but do not truly understand it and do not practice it. <S> Instead, they use it to attack others and defend themselves in debates. <S> This is a philosophical obsession. <S> A third example from the Acintita Sutta are people who are obsessed with useless metaphysical speculations, which drive them to madness. <S> However, spending time alone to reflect upon the teachings and meditate, rather than having a good time with the cool folks - that's quite acceptable. <S> An example of this comes from the Vajjiputta Sutta : <S> On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling near Vesali in a forest thicket. <S> And on that occasion an all-night festival was being held in Vesali. <S> The monk — lamenting as he heard the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse: <S> I live in the wilderness all alone like a log cast away in the forest. <S> On a night like this, who could there be more miserable than me? <S> Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse: <S> As you live in the wilderness all alone like a log cast away in the forest, many are those who envy you, as hell-beings do, those headed for heaven. <S> The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.
|
Many folks coming into Buddhism have preexisting aversion to this world.
|
Not breaking the first precept vs. developing compassion In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments). However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate? Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant? Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as: Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is cruelty. <Q> Compassion is a wholesome quality, but compassion cannot take you to Nibbana. <S> But the goal of Buddhism is not about dedicating your life to the cultivation of compassion. <S> If that is the case, you will have nothing else to do in life other than looking for beings in misery and trying to help them. <S> How can you even eat, drink, wear clothes if all your actions are dedicated to compassion? <S> There are always beings who do not have food, water etc. <S> You should give all your food to them and starve to death yourself, if compassion is all that you should cultivate. <S> Vegetarian food production causes much killing as well. <S> So why not starve to death to save any possible loss of life? <S> This kind of thinking comes from Jainism. <S> Buddhism does not fall into these extremes. <S> The goal of Buddhism is the end of suffering and there are other more important qualities that one must cultivate to achieve that. <S> Being vegetarian is not one of them. <A> If deeply wishing to live a compassioned life, to live on highest right livelihood, take just what is given into your bowl and follow the Arahats. <S> Ask possible for going forth since not easy to manage such in other ways. <S> "Preah karuna" (lord of compassion) is not out of reason a usual form of addressing those who went forth. <S> [Note: <S> This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.] <A> I think I see the practice of not "trading in meat, weapons, or poisons" as what you might call an "indirect" means of compassion and allaying suffering. <S> It might be (or become) <S> so easy to practice, though, that it is not "going out of one's way to give aid where possible".
|
We use the practice of compassion to counter cruelty in the mind.
|
What is worth desiring from the world? What is worth desiring from the world when everything is impermanent ? I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it. Here it states that I can not say Nibbana as mine or me or myself( I can not say I am in state of Nibbana and I can not say Nibbana as mine): “He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say. ( I am asking this question to understand the depths of knowledge... I am trying not to take delight in asking such questions.Buddha says one should not even take delight in Nibbana.) <Q> Let's forget for a moment about "I", and "wanting". <S> Here are some: <S> Negative things: <S> Minimise or eliminate "suffering" Minimise attachment, and craving, associated with suffering Minimise defilements <S> Minimise fetters <S> Positive things: <S> Maximize <S> wisdom <S> Maximise perfections <S> Maximise <S> factors of enlightenment Learn to practice the noble eightfold path. <S> Practice good deeds (and speech), and generosity, which are for example "a support for the mind". <S> I think that, when a monk is dying, another monk may be advised to remind him of his "attainments" -- <S> perhaps it's such "attainments", and "good deeds", <S> that are not (or that are less) impermanent. <S> As for "I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it" -- that seems like a contradiction, you know. <S> Imagine "I" is like a drop of water, and "Nibbana" is like an ocean. <S> Then "I desire Nibbana" or "I can't desire Nibbana" is like saying, "I wish this drop of water would be as big as the ocean, as permanent as the ocean, but still be the same individual drop of water." <S> Then people around you are like, "Dude! <S> Let it go! <S> Put the drop in the ocean, already!" <S> (or, depending on the school of Buddhism, maybe, "That drop of water is already like the ocean"). <S> I think a reason why Buddhism teaches anatta is because it's the characteristics of "I" that are associated with suffering -- craving to have things is associated with suffering; seeing and being attached to (and wanting to be attached to) an impermanent "self" that's going to die is associated with suffering; and so on. <S> One advice, which I remember from long ago, is to treat your sense of self (or your body) like a wound <S> -- you take care of it, you try to treat it so as to minimize suffering, but you don't love it, you don't become attached to it. <S> And you don't say "I can't want to be healthy because then this wound (my sense of self) would disappear." <S> Also there's some middle way, for example this sutta or this sutta <S> imply that some wanting is "right". <A> Nibbana is not of the world. <S> Nibbana is experienced by the mind & not by the self. <S> In Buddhism, the 'self' is merely a thought (SN 22.81). <S> There is, bhikkhus, that base (sense experience) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; <S> no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both ; neither sun nor moon. <S> Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. <S> Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. <S> Just this is the end of suffering. <S> Ud 8.1 <A> You used to desire stuff from the world before you understood the Dhamma. <S> After you understood the Dhamma, you can and will still desire stuff from the world. <S> The only difference is you do it in accordance with the Middle Way, the Noble Eightfold Path, the five precepts and principles of virtue (sila). <S> You don't suddenly stop desiring all stuff because they are impermanent. <S> Rather, when you desire stuff, you do so with an understanding that they are all impermanent and suffering. <S> What is worth desiring? <S> This understanding. <A> You can want to be strong instead of weak. <S> You can want to be a master instead of victim of circumstances. <S> You can want to learn to control your mind. <S> You can want to know the truth from the myths. <S> This world is a dream and everything here is like a phantom, but you can use it as gym to practice. <S> Even if impermanent, this is good exercise. <A> Maybe, upon further analysis of the terms of your question, the yearning for an answer will just... fade away. <S> That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. <S> SN 35.116 <S> Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos. <S> AN 4.45
|
You can want to help others feel less suffering, in both ways (external and internal help).
|
What makes someone become a gay? Is this the result of engaging in particular sexual behavior such as (frequent) casual sex, infidelity, etc? How can someone take rebirth as or become a gay/lesbian when s/he is not in the first place? <Q> I think the question is unimportant because Buddhism does not provide an answer for this question & because in Buddhism there is a path for laypeople that can be practised by both heterosexual & homosexual people. <S> I personally know gay people who are very spiritual, very moral, very faithful to their partners & extremely compassionate. <S> In short, there is no inherent correlation between casual sex, infidelity & homosexuality. <A> My first teacher taught how different types of attachments lead to certain karmic situations. <S> According to that system, homosexuality comes from attachment to high ideals and high standards. <S> Different types and levels of attachment to high ideals lead to different scenarios, some lead to cancer, some to immune system problems, some to mental illness, while some end up growing into positive achievements. <A> Well, how we are born is due to past Kamma (among other natural laws as well). <S> While that is said, Buddhism goes much deeper than the physical appearance, ones sexual orientation, political preferences etc. <S> Buddhism is about ending suffering. <S> Its about cultivating and purifying the mind and eventually becoming free from Samsara. <S> One can practice the Path no matter what ones sexual orientation is. <S> These things are not important. <S> What is important, is the quality of mind in an individual. <A> People say, and I suspect it's true, that there's nothing on that topic in the suttas. <S> And given that the workings of karma are difficult to explain, to predict, to know (i.e. perhaps only the Buddha is able to do it), I mistrust non-canonical opinions on that subject. <S> For what it's worth, here for example is a quote from a book Sexuality in Classical South Asian Buddhism by José Ignacio Cabezón: <S> I post that as evidence that people do find (and/or have written) that kind of attitude or explanation in some scriptures. <S> I'm unable to identify exactly what he's quoting, though <S> ( The Scripture on the Benefits of the Five Trainings ), or to find that translation elsewhere. <S> Anyway, according to that you may be reborn as "queer men" for the same kind of reason as you may be reborn as "women"; or as animals, in hell, or as ghosts. <A> I looked for 'homosexual' and 'gay' in more than six hundred Dharma e-books I have, and found no more than three mentions on the topic: <S> Geshe Tenphel says: Attachment is to be abandoned, whether it occurs in a heterosexual or homosexual person. <S> Again <S> Geshe Tenphel: <S> However, is it the case that gay people are born gay? <S> Is it not that due to circumstances later on during someone’s life that he or she becomes homosexual? <S> I myself am not sure how this happens. <S> And being a geshe, he studied for at least twenty years. <S> A mention that homosexual actions are non-virtuous in the same way <S> that sodomy (between a man and a woman), cunnilingus (between a man and a woman), masturbation, etc. are. <S> This being said, one of the issues of my approach here is that 'homosexual' and 'gay' are fairly recent terms. <S> However, I could imagine contemporary translators using it in translating even traditional texts. <S> It is shorter than "men who are attracted to men" and the like. <S> Still, my finding or lack of it <S> thereof is partial. <S> Now, to give you my own answer <S> : Generally, we say that a state results from negative karma only insofar as it hinders one's Dharma practice. <S> For instance, being born blind or becoming blind... being a woman in a society that makes it difficult to achieve anything and access Dharma, etc. <S> as a woman... being gay in a place where homosexuality is an issue, etc. <S> On the other hand, being gay does not hinder one's practice in and of itself. <S> From this viewpoint, I would think that being gay does not result from negative actions. <S> It might result from negative actions if it is completed by being born in an intolerant society where we do not have access to education, Buddhist temples, etc. <S> as a gay. <S> In addition, the suffering feeling that arises in dependence on being gay would result from negative actions. <S> But: Such a feeling does not necessarily occur. <S> One might have suffering feeling in relation to eating an ice cream. <S> The feeling itself says nothing of the object.
|
There all kinds of karmic scenarios, in one life or spread over multiple lives, so it's hard to be more specific, but generally speaking there's connection between attachment to high ideals and high standards, and homosexuality.
|
Sudden enlightenment described in the suttas A lot of suttas mention the case of sudden enlightenment, during the time of the Buddha. Do these cases speak only of stream-enterers, or can they even be full arahants? For me it's unbelievable, that either others or I must simply (!!) understand impermanence, in order to become an arahant. Thanks <Q> The first five arahants are said to have attained that after hearing the Buddha's second sutta, which was the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: <S> The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic . <S> MN 26 however says, <S> And so I was able to convince them. <S> I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. <S> Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. <S> Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth [etc...] <S> I don't know how to reconcile the timeline of that, with the Anatta-lakkhana sutta 's being the second sutta. <S> This question is discussed on pages 43 through 44 (i.e pages 2 and 3 of the PDF file) of this document: Assaji Sutta (also known as "SD 42.8" of Piya Tan's Sutta Discovery series). <S> The bit of that that's relevevant to your question <S> is: <S> In other words, listening to the Dharma alone does not bring arhathood. <S> However, it is imperative to remember the implicit fact that they are all good dhyana-attainers in the first place. <S> It is their dhyana-purified minds that make them the perfect candidates for the attaining of arhathood. <S> As such, it is not merely through listening that they become arhats (although, on the other hand, this “listening effect” may occur in the case of streamwinning). <A> Your question looks like the question "why the scientist can understand the relativity theory of Einstein, it is unbelievable!". <S> This is the reason why the theras told their story inside KN thera/therī-gāthā and KN thera-therī-apādāna at 1st saṅgāyanā of thera-vāda, because they want to let us know that they practiced themselves so long time ago more than you see their enlightened moment in sutta. <S> So, you and me, who have not enough practice-experience like those theras, still not enlighten after read many suttas. <A> I was also amazed when I read the accounts of Zen monks attaining enlightenment over slightest of push from the Masters. <S> What I have understood is that, Enlightenment is not a causal phenomena, its an acausal happening. <S> You cannot do something which leads to enlightenment. <S> You just have to cultivate the ground for enlightenment. <S> Once done, anything can lead to that final quantum leap. <S> Remember its a quantum leap, its not a linear traverse. <S> So, yes and no, you might need simply the insight of impermenance or you might need the Zen stick of a master, but you have to cultivate the soil. <A> Yes there were arahants who came to enlightenment just by hearing a 4 line sermon bhahiya daruciriya <S> is such a one.. <S> Only for become maha arahant need a certain long period of time.. <S> For become arahant not need that much of time,but the time need for that decide on the karma he has earned throughout sansara.. <S> If someone's earned a good ability of understanding the dharma through his karma he cant become arhant just by listing to a short phrase of dhamma.. <S> Otherwise he need a ''Thrihethuka'' birth also,so that he can understand well
|
Some stories of the great saints, such as Sāriputta and Bahiya Dāru,ciriya, give us the impression that they awaken merely by listening to the Buddha giving them a special teaching.
|
What is beyond the realm of Gods. After have studied Hinduism, and more modern reality creation referring to concepts such as higher vibrations, higher realms that exists beyond our material, such as the astral or heavenly. Also having witnessed fruits of human/divine will and the power of creative imagination, such as people being healed. However I have yet to truly study Buddhism, but I have a lingering sense that, unlike Hinduism, which is concentrated on an entity. That there must be something beyond the Gods, who most likely exist on a heavenly, but nevertheless, on a lower plane. What is beyond that? Oneness of all concepts and Gods? Infinite awareness? Is it experiencial only? What does Buddhism state when it comes to this? Thanks guys. <Q> The Theravada school teaches the thirty one planes of existence . <S> These 31 planes are separated into three major categories: Immaterial or formless world (arupa loka) <S> Fine material world (rupa loka) Sensuous world (kama loka) <S> The sensuous world is divided into: Happy destinations (including the human realm) Unhappy destinations (including hell and the animal realm) <S> The immaterial world has beings with mind but no body. <S> This world is above or beyond the gods (brahmas and devas). <S> The realms here include: <S> Neither-perception-nor-non-perception Nothingness Infinite Consciousness Infinite Space <S> It appears that devas (a type of god) and humans live in the happy sensuous destinations, while there are brahmas and devas (types of gods) living in the fine material world. <S> Brahmas are superior to devas. <S> Those who have reached the level of non-returners (anagamin) would be reborn in the upper five realms of the fine material world. <S> After this, they gain enlightenment there and would no longer be reborn, after passing. <S> All beings, whether formless beings or gods or humans or animals or ghosts etc. are not immortal. <S> The gods like the Maha Brahmas may live for a very long period of time, that they may assume that they are immortal, according to DN11 . <S> All unenlightened beings would face death and rebirth, while enlightened beings would no longer be reborn after physical death. <S> The Buddha is said to be the highest type of being of them all, who is enlightened and has psychic powers allowing him to teach gods and humans in the fine material world and sensuous world. <S> But even he is not immortal or permanent. <S> The only thing that is not impermanent is Nibbana. <S> Udana 8.1 describes it as: <S> There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; <S> no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. <S> Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. <S> Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. <S> Just this is the end of suffering. <A> There are other traditions called Pure Land Buddhism which are a bit different. <S> And so on -- <S> see for example Buddhist deities . <S> I think that, in Buddhism, enlightenment might often be regarded as greater than or beyond heaven -- but again, see Enlightenment in Buddhism , doctrine on this varies some from school to school. <S> Or perhaps you're asking about Dhyāna or Jhāna states (see Dhyāna in Buddhism ). <S> Or on the subject of "infinite awareness", some of the doctrine mentions " The Divine Eye ", a supernatural power attributed to the Buddha. <S> But (except to the Pure Land schools) I'm not sure that these doctrines are of central importance to Buddhism -- <S> i.e. writing about them might <S> , I don't know, misrepresent <S> what's central to Buddhism. <S> Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that all schools agree on something like, that heaven and hell and such-like are "mind-made", that there are mental "defilements" or "obscurations" (e.g. pride, avarice, and ill-will and so on), and that a goal at least for humans is to clean the mind of these. <S> IMO one of the Zen stories illustrates that: The Gates of Paradise . <A> He is referred to as 'Satta deva manussanam' which means, he is the teacher to gods and humans. <S> The word deva refers to both the gods and brahmas. <S> And in that field he was incomparable. <S> He was the supreme teacher and a vast number of gods, brahmas and human beings received his teachings, his advice, his guidance and they liberated themselves from this mass of suffering as a result of that.
|
The Buddha himself is beyond all gods. It may depend on the school of Buddhism; for example: The Theravada school may teach something like The Thirty-one Planes of Existence , with the proviso that the gods' (a.k.a. brahmas' and devas') time in the heavens is impermanent.
|
Should my happiness be dependent on the suffering of others? Once I asked a wise man "Why should I be happy?" He said "Because there are people more miserable than you. Thank God that at least you are better than them."There are couple of depressed kids living in my neighborhood(people call them mad). Sometimes I feel happy that at least I am not depressed or mad. I use their depression as a reason for my happiness. My question is (from the Buddhist point of view): Should my happiness be dependent upon the suffering of others? In other words should my happiness be dependent upon my ability to find an example of new low in the human suffering? <Q> For the question, "Why should I be happy?", if the answer is, "Because there are people more miserable than you. <S> Thank God that at least you are better than them," I think this is not an answer appropriate for Buddhism. <S> The reason is that today there are other people worse off than you, but in the future, it is also possible that you are worse off than them. <S> That's anicca - nothing is permanent. <S> This answer also shows a lack of compassion and loving-kindness. <S> Instead, you can generate happiness through the Brahmavihara of loving-kindness (metta), to wish that both you and them would be happy, safe and at ease. <S> The other Brahmavihara is compassion (karuna). <S> If you can't alleviate the sufferings of others, at the very least, you can contribute towards not increasing their suffering. <S> From the Karaniya Metta Sutta : <S> Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. <S> Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: <S> May all beings be happy at heart. <S> Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. <S> As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. <S> With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: <S> Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or hate. <S> Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. <S> This is called a sublime abiding here & now. <A> If today you feel happy/grateful because somebody's kids are mad and you are better, then if tomorrow I come and fight you or take away your belongings, you will be a very sad/depressed person. <S> If 2 retarded kids decide your emotions or if I decide your emotions, then this is a very bad thing for you, because in any situation in life, you will feel all kinds of emotions. <S> Your mood will be a slave to the world outside because anything can happen. <S> Whatever you feel as emotions is internal (inside you), be it happiness, sadness, anger etc. <S> , These are not external, please see this. <S> How do you want your emotions to be? <S> Sweet all the time? <S> Pleasant all the time? <S> If your own emotions are controlled by you yourself, the owner, then there will be no need to think about some retarded kids to feel better/grateful. <A> A reason to be happy is because you have been able to meet the Dharma, and want to practice it. <S> If the Dharma is anti-suffering, you suffer less (or not at all) with the Dharma compared to without it. <S> So your happiness may depend on (or be contrasted with, you can be happy because you're better off than) the theoretical, miserable you-without-Dharma. <S> But I'm not sure that the mind can attend to so many different things at once, i.e. ... <S> Dharma Theoretical absence of Dharma Theoretical suffering in the absence of Dharma Happiness that the suffering is only theoretical ... <S> so it may be more straightforward and effective to simplify that, to just ... <S> Remembrance of Dharma Happiness as a consequence of that <S> Perhaps the above still fits with, "Sometimes I feel happy that at least I am not depressed or mad." <S> But it doesn't imply you want other people to continue to suffer, for your own happiness to continue. <S> Instead perhaps you only need to be aware of your own suffering (if it arises), and its cessation. <S> Although, furthermore, beware that self-views (conceptualising a theoretical "me" that is suffering or not-suffering) <S> are themselves not skillful (i.e. they're "a thicket of views" and cause of suffering). <A> Theravada Buddhist Answer. <S> Should my happiness be dependent upon the suffering of others? <S> In other words should my happiness be dependent upon my ability to find an example of new low in the human suffering? <S> Samsara is impermanent meaning that people's suffering changes too. <S> If one bases happiness on an impermanent phenomena, one will unavoidably suffer too. <S> That particular type of Dukkha is called "Viparinama-dukkha" , the dukkha of the changing nature of all things . <S> The solution would be to practice the Noble Eightfold Path and work towards Nibbana. <A> A well trained mind leads to happiness and is not dependent on others. <S> We should wish for all beings to be happy. <S> It is a worthy dedication of merit. <S> Bedsides life is more enjoyable when we are surrounded by happy people.
|
Happiness comes from a pure mind, a stable and non-fragmented mind, thats able to see the true nature of reality.
|
Did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people? During his lifetime, did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people, or did he teach meditation only to monks? Are there any references to this in the Pali Canon or commentaries? It's clear that all Buddhists, including lay people, should gain the Right View by learning the Dhamma , for that is the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path . There are also references in the Pali Canon for lay people to live a virtuous life, for example in the Sigalovada Sutta . However, most of the meditation teachings appear to target monks. <Q> The Buddha taught people according to what interest them. <S> Maybe, there were few lay people interested in meditation while still enjoying lay lifestyle then. <S> For example, there is Uttarā Nandamātā who is described as "the best of women disciples in meditative power (jhāyīnam)". <S> There is also Citta the Householder who is well-versed in meditation. <S> There is a whole fascinating Samyutta about him. <A> I accidentally came across a sutta with recommendation for householders to allocate periods for meditation. <S> The Buddha gave this advice to Anathapindika <S> the householder, in the presence of 500 lay followers. <S> From Piti Sutta (AN 5.176) <S> : <S> Then Anathapindika the householder , surrounded by about 500 lay followers , went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. <S> As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to him, " Householder , you have provided the community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but you shouldn't rest content with the thought, 'We have provided the community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick.' <S> So you should train yourself, 'Let's periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.' <S> That's how you should train yourself." <S> Piya Tan wrote in his commentary on Piti Sutta that: Until recently (even up to the late 20th century), there is a common wrong view that spiritual training, especially mental cultivation or meditation, is only the domain of the monastic. <S> The laity merely makes merit by serving and supporting the monastics. <S> However, it is clear from the Pīti Sutta here <S> that spiritual development by way of mental cultivation is just as important for the laity. <A> It is said that there is no sermon without meditation. <S> There were no buddhist monks when the Buddha attained enlightenment. <S> The usual pattern is that the Buddha would preach the Dhamma to non-Buddhists and their minds would focus to a certain Dhamma teaching. <S> In other words, they would meditate on the Dhamma, attain enlightenment or gain sufficient confidence and subsequently enter the order. <A> In the most well-known teachings to laypeople, there is no mention of meditation ( satipatthana ); such as in DN 31 ; SN 55.7 ; ; MN 60 (in which meditation is only mentioned after going forth as a monk); AN 10.176 ; AN 3.65. <S> In SN 56.11 (the first sermon), it is explicitly said the Noble Eightfold Path was for those gone forth from the household life, as follows: <S> Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. <S> What are the two? <S> There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good. <S> The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. <S> And what is that middle way? <S> It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. <S> That is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. <S> In the modern West, most so-called Buddhist meditation for lay people is about accepting defilements rather than rejecting defilements.
|
Though there is no record of such meditation suttas teaching to lay people, I believe a few excellent lay disciples received meditation guidance from the Buddha.
|
Knowingly having to hurt a close person I will try to get my situation across without going into too much detail. About a year ago I moved with my mother to the other end of the country. For me it was an adventure and a good opportunity to progress in my career. For her it was the realization of a childhood dream. Growing up in the southern part of Germany she always longed for the north and the sea. She thoroughly enjoys her new life. For me, however, this was the worst year of my entire life. At the beginning I thought I merely had a bad case of homesickness but as the year progressed, I again and again slid into prolonged depressive episodes. I have been treated for depression before and I usually cope quite well with it, but now again, my situation has worsened to such a degree that I am convinced that I only have two possible courses of action: Get back to my hometown at the next opportunity or have my condition deteriorate until I am either hospitalized or until I harm myself. For the second time since my move to Hamburg, I get back to my hometown on a business trip. Last time I was there, it felt as though I had waken up from a bad dream. Nevertheless, I made the trip back. This time, I am sure that I will be unable to return. On the one hand I am filled with joy at the idea of returning home for good, on the other hand I cannot put into words how bad I feel about having to tell my mother that I am not going to come back to her. I have to emphasize that she is dependend on me in a way that is certainly to be considered out of the ordinary. She has lost a lot in her life which is why she clings so badly to our relationship. I know that the announcement is going to leave her devastated. I have about five years of buddhist practice and even though I think I have made a lot of progress and I know that I should aim to achieve upekkha, this is too big for me. This adds to the conflicting state, I am in at the moment. It feels as though, as if to add insult to injury, I am not only betraying my mother, but also failing in my endeavor to quite simply be a good person and to live according to the Noble Eightfold Path. I am not sure what kind of counsel I expect or want to receive in response to this post, but in any case I am heartfelt grateful for everybody who took the time to read through this. (And maybe has a few lines of her or his thoughts to share.) This has gotten longer than I intended it to be but I want to make sure to make my feelings understood as precisely as possible. By the way: I know that, quite apart from my feelings of spiritual shortcoming, depression constitutes a serious psychiatric condition. I do take medication and I have an appointment with my old Stuttgart-based psychiatrist two days from now. So I have taken care of that side of the coin. I would just like to try to evaluate and get feedback on my situation from a spiritual/Buddhist point of view. Thank you again! <Q> Have you meditated on the reasons why you feel depressed being away from your hometown? <S> Is it friends and your social life in your hometown? <S> Or is it some other reason? <S> If it is the friends and social life that's the problem, then you can try to make new friends. <S> For e.g. why not join your local Buddhist community? <S> For example, you can explore the Buddhistische Gesellschaft Hamburg e.V. . <S> They seem to have a lot of interesting activities like group meditation, sutta studies and dhamma talks. <S> This way you can solve two problems in one go. <S> Instead, he paved the middle way to enlightenment. <S> The same theme can also be found in the Sona Sutta with the analogy of the strings of a lute playing music only when it's not too taut or too loose. <S> So, I suggest that you don't have to choose either your sanity or your mother's extraordinary dependence on you. <S> Instead, you can pave the middle way, by solving multiple problems simultaneously. <A> Two thoughts, not particularly Buddhist, but coming from Buddhist experience... <S> You may consider this inspired by my practice and the teacher's instructions... <S> One, regarding "the bad dream" experience. <S> This sounds like a clear indicator that the town in the north is not your place in life. <S> In my tradition we are taught to trust our intuition. <S> Specifically, we believe that your life and your path should be bright... <S> Perhaps difficult and full of effort, but not gloomy. <S> If you feel like you're having a bad trip, that's enough of a reason for change. <S> Two, regarding your mom. <S> It is pretty typical for moms who had difficult lifes, particularly had issues with their male partners, to form strong attachment to their sons. <S> This works well for both sides for a while, but may turn into pathology over long time, if not checked. <S> Most people who went though similar scenarios, would tell you should start separating from mom, even at the price of hurting her and yourself in the process. <S> It will be for better long term, I think. <S> All in all, it sounds like you have come to the same conclusions yourself already, so all I can do is provide validation. <S> It sounds like you're very reasonable and have good connection with your heart, so keep trusting yourself and going on your own path <S> and you'll be fine. <S> As for causing pain to people... <S> Sometimes we can't avoid it. <S> As much as we would like to be perfect, we have to pay the price for the individualized existence. <S> Accepting our inevitable contribution to the pain of others is a humbling experience and, in my opinion, makes us more humane. <A> I'm not sure that "you have to". <S> Do you have a choice about it? <S> If so, you don't have to -- you can choose to, if you want to. <S> If not, you don't have to <S> -- it's not you <S> doing it <S> , it's just the way things are. <S> Also I'm not sure about "announcement". <S> That means you're making a decision (by yourself), and announcing the decision after the decision is made. <S> Might it be better if your mum participates in the decision-making? " <S> Mum, I feel I'll end up in hospital if I stay here; going home was like waking up from a bad dream; what do you think I should do? <S> What should you do? <S> What's best for us, can we compromise? <S> How do you find it here, are you making friends?" <S> and so on. <S> It may be that she wants whatever is best for you: <S> and so, all you have to do is to figure out with her, discuss, what that is. <S> Similarly you may want what's best for her ... and these goals (best for her and best for you) aren't conflicting, because what's bad for you isn't good for her and so on. <S> I say this without understanding your personal relationship, <S> but ... <S> Also "not coming back to her" is an extreme way to phrase it. <S> It does take hours to drive across Germany, so if you are living at opposite ends of the country then you wouldn't see each other every day, but you might still want to visit each other for holidays or something -- and talk by phone and whatever else you want. <S> A lot of people live in different countries, even, and/or visit (but don't live with) <S> their parents -- and a lot of people (parents and children) cope with that, <S> so <S> : a) it's maybe not extreme to ask/ <S> expect; b) there are many people with experience (role models, friends and advisers) of how to manage that. <S> And maybe your attachment to the old place is a bit of an attachment. <S> I remember (and sometimes "miss") <S> many places where I used to live. <S> Sometimes I'm reminded of the end of chapter 80 of the Tao Te Ching, instead of thirsting for other places, to be somewhere else. <S> I tried asking this question, Duty to parents? <S> , people's answers to which you might find relevant.
|
It is not always the case that you have to choose either A or B. Sometimes, you can find a third way, C. Drawing upon the example of the Buddha's life, he found that it did not work if he chose either over-indulgence or over-asceticism.
|
Mindfulness of brain -- references? I am looking for references to any (obviously modern) practices that might be described as "mindfulness of brain" or "meditation on brain" -- using the brain, part of the brain or nervous system, or any neuroscience concept as a meditation object or theme. An example might be using Daniel Goleman's idea of "amygdala hijack" for meditation on fear or other problematic emotions -- thinking about the amygdala during meditation or even trying to visualize it. This might include subtle body techniques (chakras, channels, winds, etc) that make explicit reference to brain or neuroscience concepts (which would be highly speculative, scientifically speaking, but that’s ok for my purposes). I am seeking references to established teachers or meditation systems or programs -- online or in books or papers -- not just ideas about how to do it, or the pros and cons of the notion. I'm also not seeking programs -- which abound -- that talk conceptually about brain or neuroscience but don't integrate that material into specific meditation material or themes. addendum -- 2/28 As I said, I am not looking to discuss pros and cons of "mindfulness of brain". I just want to know if anybody is even attempting it. This is a small part of a larger research project on the consequences of current neuroscience for Buddhadharma. In fact, if nobody is doing it, that would confirm a hypothesis. But there are a lot of people drawing connections between neuroscience and meditation, so it's conceivable that someone is attempting "mindfulness of brain". If so, I'd like to know the story. If nobody responds, that's fine. It will be some evidence of non-existence, though obviously not definitive. It's all but impossible to do an online search for this idea because all the conceptual material on neuroscience and meditation gets retrieved first. That's all -- I'm not advocating it. Thanks. <Q> Brain is a concept. <S> You cannot experience 'brain'. <S> So by definition, there can be no mindfulness of the brain. <S> You can be mindful of the idea of a brain. <S> Even if you split someone's head open and take out the brain, it's still just seeing, feeling, smelling... <S> So an attempt to create such a system would fail. <S> In other words, it would be a system that fortifies ignorance instead of weakening it. <A> Here is one response from dhammawheel.com in 2013. <S> https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=18207#p256513 <S> The rest of the thread is along traditional lines suggested here by answers and comments. <S> I have invited the author to provide more details here. <S> Meanwhile, here is the post... <S> Re: Mindfulness of the brain? <S> Post by Majjhima Patipada » Sun Aug 04, 2013 <S> 2:51 pm <S> As a life-long student of the brain (academically, professionally, and recreationally), "mindfulness of the brain" is something I do practice. <S> It takes a thorough knowledge of functional anatomy and the biochemical basis of neural activity in order to practice it in the way you may be thinking. <S> This can include "mindfulness of amygdalic activity and noreprinephrine release at synaptic terminals" as a simple example with which others are likely to have some familiarity due to the connection to anxiety and the fear response. <S> In fact, this type of mindfulness exercise is on occasional taught in psychiatric/therapeutic settings and in MBSR courses. <S> This, of course, is a modern development and is not taught in such a way in traditional Buddhist circles. <S> Interestingly, the connection of the amygdala to anxiety and fear responses has recently been cast in serious doubt by neuroscientists, perhaps illustrating the pitfalls of meditation practice based on science (as opposed to direct experience), certainly such an immature field as neuroscience. <A> The brain is just another part of the body & can be an object of meditative awareness, particularly when breaking though into the elusive 3rd Satipatthana & also the later jhanas. <S> Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. <S> Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara. <A> Following the work of Ivan Pavlov in the beginning of 19th century emerged a field of study concerned with sanity and behavioral conditioning, in particular what was studied was the effect of ignorance on mental health, the field was called General Semantics (not to be confused with linguistic study of semantics). <S> It was largely misunderstood and eventually absorbed into other disciplines concerned with cognitive therapy during the 1950-1960s <S> but there is still a community primarily focused on further study development of the discipline to this day. <S> It is mostly based on contemplation of the workings of the brain, behavioral conditioning and abandoning wrong views in regards to external & internal reality. <S> It is a systematic approach and a training. <S> The main pieces of literature are attributed to the founder Alfred Korzybski <S> ie his 'Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics'. <S> It is quite dense but there are also various popularization works such as the 'Tyranny of Words' by Stuart Chase, both available on Amazon and free pdfs online.
|
As for reference to "the brain" in the Buddhist scriptures, there is possibly Dhammapada 37, which states the mind resides in "the cave", which could mean "the skull", that is, "the brain": 37.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.