What is the meaning of the Datthabba Sutta? In relation to the question: "Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet:

A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda,
and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato;
and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ,
as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato.
sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu,
they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā;
Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya,
they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo;

Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above:

What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta?

Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: 'there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation'?

How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happiness"?

Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

MN1 states:

MN1:171.4: ‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—

The happiness of nibbana is therefore empty of nandī.
MN1 also states the difficulty of this understanding:

MN1:172-194.31: But the mendicants were not happy with what the Buddha said.

Perhaps the clarification here may help, since there is identification in nandī:

MN1:148-170.24: nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na m
aññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati.

MN1:148-170.24: But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as
extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment.

What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta?

SN 22.59 says the five aggregates are impermanent, unsatisfactory (dukkham) & not-self, which are called the three characteristics.

Many suttas, such as SN 22.1, clearly show the word 'dukkha' in relation to the three characteristics does not mean suffering or pain but, instead, refers to the potential of impermanent things to bring suffering when clung to or the incapacity of impermanent things to bring real lasting happiness. For example, SN 22.1 says feelings (vedana) are related to suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair) only when clung to as "I", "me" & "mine".

It logically follows the Datthabba Sutta does not say "pleasure as pain" or "the pleasant as painful" or even "pain in happiness" as the translators translated.

Logically, if sukha was painful then sukha would be a "dart" or "sallato".

While pleasant feelings can be a "dart" ("sallato") in comparison to Nibbana, this is not the teaching in the Datthabba Sutta.

The word "dukkhato" or "dukkhata" means "state, nature or characteristic of unsatisfactoriness; capacity to bring suffering or incapacity to bring real happiness". A synonym for "dukkhato" is "danger" or "bait" ("agha"). "Dukkhato" is used in relation to the three characteristics in AN 6.99, in Thig 1.14 or as follows:

Khandhe aniccato disvā, dukkhato ca anattato; Khepetvā āsave sabbe, arahattamapāpuṇiṃ. Thi Ap 26

The Datthabba Sutta says the wise person sees the "potential for suffering" or "danger" or "unsatisfactoriness" or "imperfection" in pleasant feelings.

The Datthabba Sutta does not say pleasant feelings are painful, as the translators literally & illogical say.

If pleasant feelings were painful, why would many suttas, such as AN 4.41, say jhana is a pleasant abiding here & now (diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārāya).

While the 3rd translation of "pain in happiness" is the best of these three errors, it remains an error. The translation should be "potential suffering of the pleasant" or "unsatisfactoriness of the pleasant". "Sukha" here does not mean "happiness".

Note: "sukkham" in the Datthabba Sutta does not mean "happiness". The Datthabba Sutta is about vedana or feelings and the translation should be "the pleasant" or "pleasant feelings". The Datthabba Sutta says:

Pleasant feeling should be seen as suffering. Painful feeling should
be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling should be seen as impermanent.
Sukhā, bhikkhave, vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā, dukkhā vedanā sallato
daṭṭhabbā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā aniccato daṭṭhabbā.

The Datthabba Sutta further says the wise person sees the impermanent state of neutral feelings.

In conclusion, the Datthabba Sutta does not infer: "there is no benefit in a pleasant sensation". Instead, the Datthabba Sutta simply says, in accordance with the Dhamma, that pleasant & neutral feelings are impermanent & are unsatisfactory; they are not perfect or permanent happiness; they are fraught with danger if clung to.

It follows the Dhammapada 203 says: "Nibbana is the supreme happiness" because true Nibbana is a permanent happiness that excludes the danger or suffering of clinging.

Thus Nibbana is a not a "pleasant feeling". The word "sukha" in Dhammapada 203 does not mean "pleasant feeling" but means "happiness"; just as the word "sukha" in the Datthabba Sutta does not mean "happiness" but means "pleasant feelings".

Thus only a fool would agree with the translation: "Who sees the pain in happiness" because: (i) there is no pain in Nibbana; and (ii) the Datthabba Sutta is not about "happiness" but is about "pleasant feelings".


Is mathematics empty? Buddhists say that everything is empty.

Is mathematics empty?

I thought that "empty" meant conceptually constructed. But how can the fact (not the expression) 2 + 3 = 5 not be a fact which is true regardless of how we are counting?

Emptiness in eastern philosophies usually have a more subtle meaning than we use in the west. Check this wikipedia article on Emptiness. And there are many answers regarding emptiness (sunyata) like this one. There is also an article in wikipedia on Śūnyatā.

The most common understanding on emptiness (on Buddhism) is that it is dependently originated. It means that it does not have inherent meaning or value, but it relies on other things. In mathematics the numbers two, three, five and so on just has meaning because of the number one. And also, the number one only has meaning relying on the other numbers.

In a more practical sense, numbers only has meaning because of the objects, like apples, rocks or sheep. Now, emotions, that have no clear bounds, can't be numerically described. You could say that you felt happy twice today, but you can't express its intensity and form numerically. Then math is true not because it has inherent meaning, but because it works for what it is used.

There is another interpretation I read on this QA (and also in some wikipedia article but I couldn't find it):

  [Emptiness is] a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not.

In math words, the number one only exist because there is the zero. And there is zero only because of the one. (Although the zero was "created" much after the integer numbers). If we couldn't distinguish between zero and one, no numbers would make sense. There is only happy because there is not-happy. There is only "self" because we define our bounds, we define what is not-me.

Likewise we can only perceive suffering if we know what is not-suffering.

So, when we say that math is empty, we don't mean that it is false or is meaningless. But we mean that is not absolutely true, that it is true in relation to something. Truth is a relation, not an absolute thing.

It seems that there are certain relationships among forms and phenomena that we call "mathematical" relationships. These relationships can be seen to be consistent and without any need for axioms to support them, they are tautologies and ontological. Axiomatic systems fail at some point due to their eventual self referential nature and containing axioms that cannot be proved within the given system. The relationships that are referred to above existed long before any human mind appeared on the scene to discover them and give them a rational form...

Regards,

B.W.


Arahants, Precepts, Monasticism, & Worldly Things Namo Buddhaya!

I had four questions pertaining to conduct & the Buddha:
(I am Theravāda Buddhist)

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?
Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?
How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?
(For example (to name one of many): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w )
"Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offense of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385)
Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#alone
How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Please help! Metta to all!!!

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants[-To-Be] can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?

The earliest scriptures depict a 'hearer' (such as Kondanna or Upatissa/Sariputta) attaining stream-entry and soon after attaining Arahantship.

The one or two suttas (such as AN 3.87) that more strongly infer a stream-enterer has at most seven more lifetimes appear to be illogical; given they infer a "same self", which is contrary to the stream-enterers destruction of "sakkaya ditthi" ("view of real self"). For me, these suttas appear to be later Abhidhamma, inputed into the suttas.

The most well-known sutta about stream-entry, namely, SN 13.1, is often falsely translated as including the phrase "seven more lifetimes at most" but the Pali actually does not include the words "lifetimes". SN 13.1 appears to say a stream-enterer has "seven more fetters at most to breakthrough".

Also, the phrase below about Non-Returners might also be questionable in its translations and interpretations. For example, two different translations and interpretations below:

  Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṃ bhikkhusaṃghe pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—

  In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.

  vs

  Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are spontaneously arisen,7 who will realize perfect coolness in that existence and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.

  7. Oppatika, born instantly and fully mature without going through the process of  conception, gestation, infancy, and childhood-that is, instantaneous mental birth (not necessarily "re-birth").

Also the suttas (eg. MN 123) about the Bodhisatta coming to earth from heaven seem mythological because in these suttas the Baby Bodhisatta walks and talks about 'himself' from childbirth, which is contrary to suttas such as MN 64, which say a new born child has no conceptions of self.

  Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?

If there is an explicit understanding in the family these items are to be used for the whole family then it does not break the precept. But, yes, if you take your brother's things without permission, it is a breach of the precept. The precept is for the purpose of developing respect for the property & feelings of others.

  How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?

Many of the Vinaya rules are about monks avoiding giving bad impressions to laypeople. Without knowing the specific rules exactly, in my opinion, there is a breach of the Vinaya because the videos looks like the monk & nun are together in a private place. Also, their posture & dress looks sloppy & undisciplined. Undisciplined looking monks & nuns will only attract similar undisciplined people to Buddhism, which is pointless when these converts cannot practise Buddhism due to their sexual obsessions and lack of sexual boundaries. Keep in mind sexual desire is the 1st hindrance to entering the Noble Path.

  How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Lay people offer them. If lay people don't understand, I imagine the monk explains. For example, if a monk is on alms round in a non-Buddhist country, people, out of curiosity, will ask the monk: "What are you? What are you doing?". I imagine the monk would reply: "I am a Buddhist monk. I have vows of not using money. I go on alms round to collect food to feed myself for my spiritual practise. I place my trust & faith in the goodness of people to offer me food. In return, I teach them Dhamma, if they ask".

This famously happened to Ajahn Sumedho in England, who was offered land for a monastery by a non-Buddhist stranger. Read below:

  In the spring of 1978, one of those small miracles happened that stop the mind's rational expectations. Keeping to the apparently pointless routine of going out for alms every day, as prescribed by Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho encountered a lone jogger on Hampstead Heath whose attention was arrested by the bhikkhus' appearance. This jogger had acquired an overgrown forest in West Sussex called Hammer Wood, out of the wish to restore it to its former glory – but he also understood that this was work for more than one man and one lifetime. Although not a Buddhist, he had the openness of mind to appreciate that an order of forest monks might be the perfect wardens for his woodland. Subsequently, he attended one of the ten-day meditation retreats that Ajahn Sumedho held at the Oaken Holt Buddhist Centre near Oxford, and later made an outright gift of the forest to the Sangha. This marvellous act of generosity...

  How The Buddha Came to Sussex


Potential of Five Minutes of Meditation Once, when I went to a Buddhist meditation center, an experienced meditator said: "Sometimes, for meditation, all it takes is five minutes [in a session]." I'm wondering what is the meaning of such a statement.

Does this refer to relaxation? Insight? Or something else? What is the most plausible meaning?

According to Abhidhamma Jhana is one thought moment. One thought moment is so small there could be billions of thought moments in a splash of the light. So the five minutes of Jhana is quite an achievement for a beginner.

The Buddhist Bhavna is something you do every second of the day, when eating, taking a shower etc. The 5 min thing makes it sound like the following.

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCq8-XvqU1Q

Does the meditation look and feel like this?

If that is so, you are doing a Vedic form of meditation. Even Buddha played with the breath before enlightenment. It will give Jhana but they are not Ariya Jhana.

How the correct Buddha meditation got corrupted is explained here.

-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31576/15007

The correct meditation espoused by the Buddha is here

-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31543/15007


How to completely be aware of each moment? How can I be completely aware in each and every moment, even working, walking, or talking? Is "continuous breath awareness" is an answer?

You can still be aware of the breath. In case of working it is more easy to see the expansion and contraction nature / sensation of breathing process. In which case it might be an idea to look at your chest or abdomen for rising and falling sensation.

When you walk, talk or do anything else you need mindfulness to do the task right. In Buddhism this awareness is not too tied to being aware of what you do. What needs to be done is to be aware of the arising and passing of sensation (phenomena what is felt) with equanimity. In the case of breath any sensation pertaining to the breath like expansion contraction or touch at the upper lip or nose or length will be sufficient.

Short answer: You cannot.
Longer answer:
You really, really can't.  You can't even really see how much you are unconscious in the present, and you and I are considerably more unconscious that we'd care to be aware of.  Awareness of unawareness is itself awareness.

The student asked, "What should be done about temporary lapses in presence?"
T'ou-tzu said, "Who informs you about them?"

Solution #1:
Have you ever heard of Alex Honnold?  Look him up on Google Images.  He climbs mountains without harnesses.  You want to be present every moment?  Try that.
(Don't really try that)

"Be like someone who sees a ferocious tiger, totally engrossed in getting away and escaping with his life" - from Pocket Zen Reader by Thomas Cleary

The tendency is to relate to awareness as a place one resides, get's to, or who one is.  Awareness is a fluid state that has no outer boundary, always anchored in the present, infinitely expansive. If you think you are aware, you are not aware.
Our awareness is content and context.  The content of our awareness varies according to situation, mood, etc.  The context of our awareness is the space wherein the content of our awareness lives.  The larger and more open the context of our awareness, the richer and more varied is our experience, the greater our intelligence and ability to interact with that which shows up in our field of consciousness.
The context of your awareness expands and contracts, and within this context lives what you experience as your self.
Edit:  To avoid misinterpretation; this isn't to suggest that one shouldn't be mindful at all times.  But let's be clear:  You can't do that.  No one in this forum can.  That isn't to say you shouldn't be mindful at all times; but you can't and you won't.  But you still should.  There is no answer that will suitably provide you with what you need in order to be mindful at all times.  If you look at it as a place to get; let me remove all suspense:  YOU WILL NEVER GET THERE;  however, it is always possible to come from there.  I recommend you do that.


How many countries did Lord Buddha travel? While reading about Lord Buddha I found that he traveled to some other countries. But I couldn't find exactly how many countries. Does anyone know the answer for this?

Solosmasthana are 16 sacred places in Sri Lanka, that Gautama Buddha is said to have visited. Buddha is said to have visited the country three times and on one occasion, the  footprint of the Buddha was placed symbolizing the Buddha's presence. The sacred left footprint is said to be imprinted by Buddha on his third visit to Sri Lanka at the apex of the Sri Pada Mountain. There are two other places that the Buddha is said to have visited and placed the sacred footprint. One is in Thailand, and the other is at Sunaparanta – the present day Saudi Arabia, & at the Kaabah.

India is not the land of lord buddha. The british conquers changed and misunderstood the history of india and sri lanka. Lord Buddha born in JAMBUDEEPA. Jambudeepa is ancient sri lanka. A part of ancient sri lanka was known as Jambudeepa. Sri lanka is the lowest gravity country in the world where the Lord Buddha born. India was never known as Jambudeepa. Indian history has no records of buddha. But Sri lanka has many records. Buddha never visited any country. Lord Buddha travelled only in the island of ancient sri lanka. (helabima). Mahawansa is about the histroy of ancient sri lanka. Dambadiva and Jambudeepa refer to sri lanka. But people misunderstood it.

References:

Gautama Buddha was born in Hela Bima
Gautama Buddha was born in Hela Bima (Volume II)


Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists? I recall reading words or translations in the Pali suttas suggesting the following:

It is a path of decline to give donations to non-Buddhists.

It is most meritorious to give donations to the Noble Sangha & higher Ariyans

People are sick, injured & disabled in this life due to violence they have done in past lives.

Today, I read a post soliciting for donations on a Buddhist forum for a sick non-Buddhist. Since the time of the post, no one has given a donation, except me. Because I am simple minded & a sucker for bleeding hearts, I gave a US$37 dollar donation, to symbolize the 37 bodhipakkhiyādhammā, which include the 7 factors of enlightenment, which, according to the suttas, cure disease & illness.
My questions are:

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm? In other words, should I practise equanimity?

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

What is the karmic destination of a person that solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

Good Brahman, good householder,
sure is it that good householder's intent is not so kusala provoking intended, but anyway my person will answer for what ever, who ever, can be healed:

Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists?

Not at all, but always good to give to the sick. Not a single being not worthy to receive the basic means for life, even if a 'bad' one. Sure, such merits are most in sphere of Sila in ones relation or not that upwardly, yet secure not usuall fall down and keep ones level.

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

One can not force or stop anothers beings actions, kamma, nor fruits. Yet one can provide with conditions that certain fruits could ripe. What one gives he gain and given can be only what one has gained/one has. Taking on given is the receivers thing, being touched and where.
**There are five proper times/occasions, always good to give and toward anyone, even if not beloved, enemy, bad: **

when a being approaches new (one comes)

when a being leaves

in times of sickness

in times of hunger

and best and alway, with merits strong upward: to those with virtue, metta (Ariya, training for Ariya)
  In the proper season they give —
  those with discernment,
  responsive, free from stinginess.
 Having been given in proper season,
  with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
  — straightened, Such —
  their offering bears an abundance.
  Those who rejoice in that gift
  or give assistance,
   they, too, have a share of the merit,
  and the offering isn't depleted by that.
   So, with an unhesitant mind,
   one should give where the gift bears
   great fruit.
      Merit is what establishes
      living beings in the next life.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

One isn't urged to control or teach other lessons since most not even able to have oneself under control. Such thought's a strong connected with defilements and wrong view.
If really wise, one gives always if one is able to without harm (against precepts, rules bond to)

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?

Sure, if deliberately seeking of non-support of the Noble Sangha, being an outcast, one is sure to walk straight toward hell. Yet, not to forget is that ones perception counts of what is perceived and how to react on it.
As for giving to the Sangha, even if defacto only perceived as such, not Noble yet, see 'former' Bhante Varados last suspicious gift before he actually headed toward highest, gained firm path of release:
MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

Supreme leader of the Dhamma is the Buddha, and if perceiving the Tatagatha, one is wise to be quick. It's always of high results to give toward the Sangha of the Buddhas disciples (monks).
As for Johann, good householder wouldn't be able, since he had turned over the bowl long time ago toward householder Dhammadhatu and those bound to him.
(And serious asked: aside that there is NO way one could make my person receive money even indirectly and seldom one would meet even other possibility if no Upanissaya, even if strong wishing, does good householder think that in good ten years dwelling as beggar in spheres good householder dwells even the effort of giving a spoon of rice was made? If not simply sharing forward the merits of others, there wouldn't be any reason to enter this outwardly homeland of marxists and traders void of basics. As if a monk would look for alms under not so wise Devas or hundry ghosts.)

What is the karmic destination of the troll, who solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

It's not a matter whether Buddhist or non in regard of giving at the first four proper times. If one lives in dependency of the Buddhaparisa and in certain corrupt way leads their wealth outside, such is of course demeritious. As for praise and prefer of what is to be blamed or minor, such leads also downwardly.
As for 'troll': Three things are praised, encouraged by wise: support of parents, generosity, go forth. Someone calls someone encouraging toward generosity, even at certain right time, is therefore to be seen as fool.
Often has good householder be told about the unfortune Moneylender, heirless and not able to enjoy his whealth as he destroyed his merits by having doubts later... disregarded Sublime.
And as the Buddha warned, less more harmful for oneself as to discourage others from doing good, generosity.
So may good householder have ways to possible not fulfill a complete transgression, or finds ways to confess and apologize, so that, aside of not able to run away from the poorness he will meet, may be able to wander on.
As the Buddha told: be quick!
Be quick in doing
  what's admirable.
  Restrain your mind
  from what's evil.
  When you're slow
  in making merit,
 evil delights the mind.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

While such are kusala thought, they are bond to heavens, Samsara. If able to practice vosaga, real giving and abound desires after garlands of the mind at all, if such done as effect of insight: much mudita, yet in householders really bad situation, possible difficult before not having solved old and out of the hole of transression.
Best wishes, metta & mudita
Addition because useful for understanding the comments since easy disappearing often:

And at least, in regard of householders bad advise, in his answer, to do not seek for the Noble Ones for ones generosity: Indeed, Noble Ones, at least an Arahat, is not in need, or wishes for gifts, yet not only Dhammadhatu would need a punsh of merits and really a missery when cutted off by ones stupidy... encouraging public to don't give toward the Sangha in a Dhammic room, possing there to be a wise and Noble one.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I
stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life
karma?

I have only ever read one sutta that implies the above, namely, MN 135. Since MN 135 is addressed to a Brahmin, it is obviously fake dharma. If MN 135 was true, it would have been taught to many Buddhists in many suttas.
The myriad suttas about kamma are about how current kamma determines the future (rather than about how the present is determined by an unknown past). Sutta such as AN 3.61 says if we believe past lives cause our current problems, we cannot solve our current problems and protect ourselves from more problems.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn
the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

The situation of Angulimala pertains to the present life. His prior evil actions in the present life caused people to take revenge on him in the present life. The situation of Angulimala is unrelated to ideas of past life karma.

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead,
blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring
demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?
In other words, should I practise equanimity?

No. The Ariya Sangha already have the greatest gift, namely, the gift of enlightenment. Your material gifts are not needed for the Ariya Sangha. Due to their great fine repute, the Ariya Sangha have sufficient requisites.

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as
Samana Johann?

No. The bhikkhus are well looked after. They have sufficient requisites.

What is the karmic destination of a troll that solicits donations from
Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

Good destination because the troll has faith in the universal goodness & compassion of Buddhists.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the
donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness &
beautifies my heart?

Yes. Past life determination is superstition. Buddhism teaches any type of rupa (physical form) can be subject to illness & injury. Also, Buddhism teaches unimpaired physical & mental faculties assist in enlightenment. Therefore, we should, as best as possible, according to our means, help a man preserve his remaining eye sight. Metta-karuna is one of the greatest things.


Consciousness and Name-Form In the twelve nidanas in the dependent origination it is said that through ignorance arises constructive activities (Sankskara). I do understand that. But the fact that I am still having trouble understanding is how Sankara causes the consciousness to arise and how consciousness cause the name and form to arise.

I do understand that cause of name-form the consciousness arises as these two are very interdependent. But my question is as the above.

How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise?
How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?

In my interpretation (which is a product of my own vipassana), the translation and interpretation of nidanas is a little different. I tend to think of nidanas in terms of developmental psychology:

Avidya is innate ignorance, so far so good.
Sankskara is "imprint that creates subsequent tendency to react in a certain way". Kind of like memory but at a lower organizational level. So when there is ignorance, the interaction of primordial nature with itself leaves traces, which, given enough repetitions, eventually accumulate into tendencies and expectations.
These tendencies and expectations get progressively more robust and integrated until they connect into full-fledged continuous experience ('vijnana'). This experience is not reality itself though, but an interpretation/projection assembled from the tendencies and expectations.
Through the same process of accumulation of sankskaras (which remain the underlying fabric comprising the experience) the whole process keeps on maturing until some of the tendencies and expectations crystallize to the status of objects ('namarupa'). These objects are second-order constructs - the signs (nimitta) that make up the original experience are further interpreted up the chain of abstraction.

So in my interpretation the twelve nidanas describe the natural process by which the primordially impersonal becomes (first aware and then) personal.

"Consciousness" is a broad term with many different contexts. The vinnana following sankhara in the DO formula is the kammic-consciousness/KammaVinnana, a connecting thread of personal continuity through sequence of rebirths, as described in the commentary to SN 22.3 (Ven. Bodhi's footnote in "The Connected Discourses"):

  I follow the reading of the text in Se and Ee, rūpadhāturāgavinibaddhaṃ , also supported by Spk (Be), as against Be -vinibandhaṃ. Spk resolves the compound, rūpadhātumhi rāgena vinibaddhaṃ, and explains this consciousness as the kammic consciousness (kammaviññāṇa). The passage confirms the privileged status of consciousness among the five aggregates. While all the aggregates are conditioned phenomena marked by the three characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal continuity through the sequence of rebirths. This ties up with the idea expressed at 12:38-40 that consciousness is the persisting element in experience that links together the old existence with the new one. The other four aggregates serve as the “stations for consciousness” (viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo; see 22:53-54). Even consciousness, however, is not a self-identical entity but a sequence of dependently arisen occasions of cognizing; see MN I 256-60.


Does Buddhism explain the past karma, and rebirth, of a short-lived fetus? When the rebirth-linking consciousness arises in the fetus (I read elsewhere at around 26 weeks), but the fetus dies (somehow) prior to or during birth, is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened? And could it be a result of previous lifetime good or bad karma?

In this situation, while there are senses, the fetus cannot make any conscious decision or thought processes or have any understandings yet. Of course depending on the situation physical suffering may have occurred.

So I am trying to understand what kind of link this lifetime is, between the previous and next lifetime, and the effect on continuing rebirths.

is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened?

not for a worldling
workings of kamma are inexplicable, and are not to be pondered upon lest they cause disquietude and agitation and because such pondering isn't conducive to attainment of nibbana, that's from the Buddha
workings of destiny are yet less explicable, if i may add, because destiny is a combination of personal kamma and fortuity

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to
be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
about them."

Acinteyya sutta (AN 4.77)

A rebirth is a rebirth and the life-span does not have a restriction, A life can end as soon as it starts or last a hundred years. The last life will end as soon as the being has mastered all states of physical,mental and emotional endurance and acknowledges that it is a everlasting spirit and not nothing eles.

Here is a well described link to the start of consciousness of a being at the beginning stages of life.But the answer to your question is what I stated above.

There are Five levels of self-awareness

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf


Buddhism accepts horoscope? This can be a stupid question to ask as Buddhism is much superior than astrology. But my problem is in today's society the Buddhists are too much concerned with these horoscopes than any other religion just like it is a part of Buddhist teachings. Why is that? Is there a truth behind it or any connectivity with Buddhism ?

Horescopes did exist at the time when the Buddha was born but they aren't mentioned often in the Buddha's teachings. One mention of horosopes is in the
Samaññaphala Sutta, this sutta lists many types of fortune telling as wrong-livelihood for monks.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills, bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

Horoscopes existed in many cultures, the reason why it remained more prevalent in Buddhist countries is more down to speculation. It depends both on Buddhism and on other religions' attitude towards horoscopes. Some reasons might be:

The idea of seeing peoples' future is very present in Buddhism which gives credibility to the idea of seeing others' fortunes based on astrology.
In other religions it may be offensive to predict peoples' fates because it is believed that only God has the ability to do so.
The Buddha didn't say that predicting the future is wrong livelihood for lay people (probably because only holy men did such things in the Buddha's time)

There is truth to all these quasi-sciences because they are based on principles in astronomy, science, and medicine. Many benefit from it in small ways which can be cumulative.

Although it is divergent from the focused, intensive practice towards Buddhahood, it is quite complementary to handling one's issues--should one be a fast learner and not spend too much time with them.

The end result is one can make better decisions for one's life which will in turn allow one the better environment and life to Practice, free from qualm and issues. Everything will just fall in place and one can also challenge oneself and be prepared when an encounter with a particular person might be predicted to be dysfunctional.

Just like how in Buddhism there are different meditation methods (variations really) for different temperaments, the various temperaments in astrology have distinct differences that can inform oneself on the best for people of a certain nature.

That being said astrology is very complicated and other personality typing, Myers-Briggs, palmistry, and other idiosyncrasies, can often play heavily into it and balance things with a person one would think as one's enemy... so maybe it is all pointless!

Ultimately, astrology has nothing to do with Buddhism and spending that time that would be spent on regular Buddhist cultivation would be a mistake and depending too much on it is a mistake because karma is one of the things that Buddha said is too deep and pointless to muse upon--to instead just try one's best and cultivate.


Am I holding the right views? Apart from right view of stress , origination of stress, cessation of stress and path to cessation of stress, I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.

My question is :Am I holding the right view that humanity must be saved from stress?

Mankind should be introduced to the Dhamma and taught the Dhamma. But it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she wants to become free of suffering, or not. Not everyone wants to be liberated from suffering.

From MN75:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

From MN26:

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

There are many types of suffering and stress, anxiety, fear etc are mental sufferings. Thus wanting to be free from suffering is natural and knowing the path is the right view.


How did this teleportation happen in DN 16? In DN 16 it is written that:
"Then the Buddha came to the Ganges River.
Now at that time the Ganges was full to the brim so a crow could drink from it. Wanting to cross from the near to the far shore, some people were seeking a boat, some a dinghy, while some were tying up a raft. But, as easily as a strong person would extend or contract their arm, the Buddha, together with the mendicant Saṅgha, vanished from the near shore and landed on the far shore.
He saw all those people wanting to cross over. Knowing the meaning of this, on that occasion the Buddha was inspired to exclaim:
'Those who cross a river or stream
have built a bridge and left the marshes behind.
While some people are still tying a raft,
intelligent people have crossed over.'"
My only question is how did such teleportation happen? Is it metaphorical?
What are your thoughts on it?

Piya Tan's translation and commentary of DN 16 has two footnotes:

The various texts differ regarding the details of the Buddha‘s crossing the Ganges. They however agree that he
uses his psychic power to teleport himself and the order across the river. The redactors added this episode despite
the Vinaya rule against the public display of psychic powers (Pāc 8 = V 4:25): see Kevaḍḍha S (D 11) = SD 1.7
Intro (3.3). The Pali texts apparently regard the episode as ―symbolic of the Buddha‘s attainment of the  ̳other side‘
of transmigration, ie extinction (nirvana), by the power of meditation‖ (Warder 1970:71).

According to the Sarvastivada account, only the Buddha crosses the Ganges by his own power. The monks
swim across while other disciples build a raft (Waldschmidt 1950-51:158). The imagery here is obvious: the Buddha
has crossed the ocean of suffering; his immediate disciples, the monks, crosses the river of suffering using their own
effort; and the lay disciples are working at their own means of the salvation, the raft. On this verse, cf Dh 85.

SN 51.22 explains how to do levitation.
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn51/sn51-022/index.html
And it's not just the Buddha, or famous chief disciples. Anyone who develops a strong enough 4th jhana has the potential to master this ability.


Buddha verifying his enlightenment If I remember correctly, Buddha wanted to verify his insight after his sit under the Bodhi tree. He took a leaf and reversed the cause-and-effect leading to him holding that leaf in order to check something. Can anyone point to the story?

In the case of Gauthama the Buddha, there is no description about a leaf. The Buddha did review dependent origination, direct, reverses and direct & reverse order, as in the other answers.

But there are cases of Pacceka Buddha's who have been enlightened by seeing a withered leaf.

  Two other Jātaka tales report the attainment of Paccekabodhi on seeing a
  withered leaf fall. In these cases, too, it is clearly an external condition
  that is responsible for the break-through to awakening.

Paccekabuddhas in the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika-āgama Parallel Bhikkhu Anālayo

  At that instant Darīmukha seeing the garden now empty came and sat on the royal seat in the garden. A withered leaf fell before him. In it he came to see the principles of decay and death, grasped the three marks of things, and making the earth re-echo with joy he entered on paccekabodhi.

No. 378. DARĪMUKHA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume III tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1897]

  But when the king was gone, Sonaka returned and sat on the stone seat, and so it was that a withered leaf of a sāl tree fell from its stalk in front of him, and on seeing it he cried, "Even as this leaf, so will my body fall into decay," and acquiring supernatural insight by reflecting on the impermanence of all things he attained to the state of a paccekabuddha, and at this very instant his characteristic as a layman vanished, and the marks of an ascetic became visible, and saying, "There is no more re-birth for me," in the utterance of this aspiration he set out for the cave of Nandamūla.

No. 529. SONAKA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume V tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1905]

How the Lord Buddha verified his awakening he told his first later disciples, the story delivered in the Mahavagga here.

  ...“Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘ … has been comprehended, ...abandoned, ...experienced, ...developed’...

My person does not think that an Awakened would use a leave, matter, for his situations verification. So it might have been a folk or fake story, if having been touched by such.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks of stories and entertaining with it, but as a door for release from bonds and interest)


Threefold division of noble eightfold path Right view is the first step in noble eight-fold path as mentioned in many answers here.

Right view
Right resolve
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). It's mentioned in many suttas that these three are sequential. But when considering this three-fold categorization, right view comes at the end.

Moral virtue (sīla)

Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood

Concentration (samādhi)

Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Wisdom (paññā)

Right view
Right resolve

For more information: Noble Eightfold Path

My questions are:

Which is the correct sequence out of the above two?
Which sequence to follow?

The forerunner of the path is right view (MN117) and basically this means that you must understand something about Buddhism correctly before starting to practise.

However, the rest of the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is not sequential. It's rather, iterative.

Here are some metaphors.

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.

Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.

Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).

As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.

As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.

So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.

Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.

Both Upasaka Damith, how ever:

This sequenze, sila, samadhi, panna (as a training to enter the path) is not really found in the Tipitaka but simply serves those who actually have gained a foot in Dhamma, by right view. Only in regard of highered virtue, mind, wisdom, this sequenze is taught. For people in training (i.e. Noble ones, especially monk).

Laypeople, those who did not leave home (strong attached to senses), lacking faith or understanding on the danger in the world, are taught to train Dana, Sila, Bhavana, so to possible come to access concentration, could hear the good Dhamma with proper attention and possible gain right view, i.e. Ariya path.

That commentary-approach, adopted in householder practice since short time, serves also the idea that a worldling is able to practice the path and the whole foundation of "housholder-practice", or meditating for no real benefits.

As it was pointed out by the Buddha, asked whether Samadhi or wisdom comes first, it depends on whether someone is already a Sekha (noble disciple), or still a neither-Sekha-nor-asekha.

Atma will add the answer to this question given by the Buddha, when matched the link, later... here, the Buddhas answer to 1): Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyan (note that the Buddha, also here, does not really speak about a training of/for outsiders)

As for which way to follow: it's clear that right effort has to focus simply on right view and virtue till livelihood and all other comes by cause, it self, no will needed. Cetana Sutta

And how does one gain needed wisdom, right view?

  "Monks, these eight causes, these eight requisite conditions lead to the acquiring of the as-yet-unacquired discernment that is basic to the holy life, and to the increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of that which has already been acquired. Which eight? Pañña Sutta

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other binding ways and should be deleted possible, if the place does not allow such non-commercial, liberating}


What are the different ways of protecting one's practice? I am mindful of my skandas, but that doesn't prevent other's samsaric action, trying to influence me and my practice. What are the different ways of protecting one's practice?

Mindfulness will "protect" your practice.

Mindfulness is a wholesome mental factor (cetasika) and when it is present, one is not reacting to phenomena, i.e. by running away from unpleasant phenomena and running after pleasant phenomena. Instead one is standing still. One is in the present moment, clearly recognizing that it is our own reactions to phenomena that create suffering. An unwholesome thought or anger is still just a thought and a feeling. Its our own aversion towards these objects, that create our suffering.

So by keeping mindfulness at all times, one is protecting ones practice.

I would recommend the video "How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.

But surely in trying to protect your practice you are still practising a form of grasping at something which has no permanence?
Should you just let it go, observe and learn that by letting go you are still practising?


What arises first - feeling of object or visual representation of object? I'm wondering what do other meditators see when they analyze closely the arising of a visual representation of an object in their mind?

Please do this experiment: go into meditation and think of a visual representation of an object of your choosing. Look carefully how that visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please describe here what do you see, from the moment there is "nothing" in your mind, to the moment when the visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please also give an estimate how many hours of meditation have you practiced in your life.

Here's what I see when I do the above experiment:

What I'm seeing is that first, there arises the wish/want/decision/effort (I use different words here, but I'm referring to the same thing). Then, there arises a subtle subtle subtle feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the stronger is the feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, when I wish/want/decide/effort even more, an incomplete/dimmed/unclear representation of the object can be seen. Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the more complete is the visual representation of the object in my mind.

In my life I practiced meditation for about 450 hours.

UPDATE:

I know that in Buddhism this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights" ... the reason I'm asking you to describe your personal insight in the experiment above is to see it first hand why this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights". I personally don't know any experienced meditators, thus I have nobody to ask this same question and see how personal insights of others differ from mine ... that's why I'm asking here. Hope some experienced meditator will give some description of his personal insight by answering this question.

The optic nerve first goes to the amygdala where emotion resides and then to a large processing area to the back of the head where the image is formed.

So indeed feeling is first but still this knowledge must be realized for oneself by oneself through meditative attention or else it is just intellectual knowlegde.

I do not think it is appropriate to answer this at the level of personal experience as it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights so let me give a theoretical answer.

When a object arises in the mind the following happens:

you get conscious about the object to which you experience a reflexive reaction which intens manifests as sensation of pain, pleasure or neutral depending on if the reaction what a positive, negative or neutral reaction. See: consciousness and feeling / sensation
together with the reaction, the sensation that follow and other qualities of the object you build a perception of the object. See: perception

In summary it is consciousness and reactive / reflexive sensation that arises 1st followed by (visual) clarity of the object by filling in the details when you perceive or cognise it.

In addition see: five aggregates


Theory of momentariness -- do things arise ex nihilo? As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.

My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)?

Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing).

In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller.
 No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same.

I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason?
The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

This is essentially the question: "Does X exist?"; "Does X not exist?" which are questions the Buddha puts aside as not being helpful towards achieving the goal. Whether or not X exists, there is pain (dukkha). This is the problem that is dealt with in the Buddha's system.

The idea of 'cause', as 'hetu' and 'nidana' and 'paccaya' and a half dozen other terms are translated (including 'ahara' food!), is an error. "Hetu" the most reasonable candidate for 'cause' means 'driving force' (something like the teamster's 'giddy-up!'). Cause remains a mystery that is not dealt with as it is irrelevant to the solution of the problem of pain.

What we get in the Paticca Samuppada (and other formulas dealing with the origin and ending of things) is not a description of cause and effect (no matter how often it is translated that way -- it makes no sense as a cause-and-effect description) it is a description of causal association (aka: Bhk. Thanissaro: requisite condition; aka: proximate cause, economic cause).

Causal association can be seen.

That is the point.

We deal in this system with what we can see and know for ourselves; what we can do something about ourselves.

"It cannot exist without it" does not equal "cause."

We cannot see the 'cause' for the appearance of aging and death from birth, but we can see that without birth there would be no aging and death.

So without needing to deal with 'cause', we can know for certain that the result, whatever the 'cause' may be, can be eliminated by eliminating birth. And so on for the other causal associations.

Nothing out of nothing is nonsense because if x is from x then no difference between the two elements can be discerned, without change a before & after can't be discerned therefore it is an untrue description of a system because there is no basis to postulate the occurence of element of transformation.

Something out of nothing is senseless because if nothing = true then everything = not true, there are no elements to talk about as being, being in, having been or coming out of nothing.

It's deriving from zero, no basis for inference.

If x is true and change can be discerned it can be inferred a before & after.

As to momentariness it can mean;

  "a moment1 with a beginning middle and an end, arises as one thing[moment1] and ceases as same the thing; consecutive moment2 with a beginning middle and an end, arises as one thing [moment2] ceases as the same thing.

This is flawed because if a moment has a beginning middle & an end, then also a before & after is discerned and it is then not one unit of time and therefore an infinite splitting of time commences looking for the moment in the moment. This is related to Zeno's turtle paradox.

If no change in a moment can be discerned then it's cessation can't be discerned as that would require a beginning of the cessation commencing, one runs into the same problem of seeing a timeline in a supposed unit of time, a beginning of the beginning and so on.

The notions of a beginning & cessation refer to occurences, an occurence has temporal value, takes time; if an occurence took no time then it is not on the timeline and therefore no basis for it's being can be seen.

Some people have proposed this as their version of momentariness; "a moment changes as soon as it arises".

However this is just similarly flawed if one thinks about it as it says that a moment arises, as one thing and ceases as one thing but it's existance [being; present] is denied because if it changes as soon as it arises then arising it never gets to arise as something, therefore it's just an indeterminate fact of change and no elements get to arise as elements at all.

Not to mention it all relies on the something out of nothing & something to nothing lines as being possible in principal.

Alternative line of reasoning deals with an element which arises as one thing and ceases as another.


Maithri Bodhisatvas Ata pirikara I recently got to know that the Ata Pirikara that is to be given to Maithree Bodhisatva at the time of the renunciation by the Maha Brahma has already been created and ready.

Is there anything related to this sort of dharma in the tripitaka?

I have not heard of a ‘Atapirikara’ from Maha Brahma, but the legend says: “When Maitreya Buddha appears in the world, he will come to Kukkuta-padagiri (the Cook's-foot Mountain) – presently known as ‘Gurpa’, awaken Maha Kassapa, receive the Buddha’s robes from him, and then begin to announce the new dispensation.
Maha Kassapa had been praised by the Buddha as being equal to him in many respects. He had been the only monk with whom the Buddha had exchanged robes.

Then both Master and disciple walked towards Rajagaha. On the way, the Buddha wanted to rest and went off the road to the root of a tree. Maha Kassapa then folded his double-robe fourfold and requested the Master to sit on it as this would bring him, Kassapa, much benefit for a long time. The Buddha sat down on Kassapa's robe and said: "Soft is your robe of patched cloth, Kassapa." Hearing this, Kassapa replied: "May the Blessed One, O Lord, accept this robe of patched cloth out of compassion for me!" — "But, Kassapa, can you wear these hempen, worn-out rag-robes of mine?" Full of joy, Kassapa said: "Certainly, Lord, I can wear the Blessed One's rough and worn-out rag-robes."
This exchange of robes can be regarded as a great distinction bestowed on Kassapa, an honor which was not shared by any other disciple. By that exchange of robes the Buddha may have intended to motivate Kassapa to observe some other "austere practices" (dhutanga) as for instance, wearing only the triple set of robes, going for alms and not omitting any houses on the almsround. This would be a mode of conduct in conformity with wearing the Buddha's patched rag-robes. Thus the commentator says. However, the Buddha's offer may have been a quite spontaneous act in response to his being offered Kassapa's robe.

It is this very same rough and worn-out rag-robe that the Blessed One first wore and then given to Maha Kassapa, and in turn he too wore till his Pari-Nibbhana, that Maitreya Buddha will come to accept. Some say that Maha Kassapa didn’t attain Pari-Nibbhana. Instead, he took Samadhi within the rock - that Maha Kassapa will offer the robes of the Gautama Buddha to the future Buddha when Maitryea Buddha descends to this realm in order to share the next basket of teachings with the world. Others say it is an “Adhisthana” (by the power of his will to make such an event happen) that he made at the time he attained Pari-Nibbhana.


Materiality not materiality but mentality In our world the belief is that matter is only made of materiality not mentality. What I heard from a Buddhit monk is that materiality is actually mental. Can I hear both the Thervada view and the Mahayana view on this topic. Is it true that both of the paths say that there is only our experience nothing outside it exist.

The Pali scriptures refer to materiality (rupa). While materiality can only be known/experienced with mentality; this does not make materiality something mental.

  Whatever, Rāhula, is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the
  head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones,
  marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is
  hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived
  therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal element of extension.
  Whatever is an internal element of extension and whatever is an
  external element of extension, just these are the element of
  extension (earth).

  And what, Rāhula, is the liquid element? The liquid element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal liquid
  element? Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus,
  blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine
  or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  liquid element. Whatever is an internal liquid element and whatever is
  an external liquid element, just these are the liquid element.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of heat? The heat element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal heat
  element? Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is
  vitalised, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up,
  and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is
  properly transformed (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat,
  warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom,
  this, Rāhula, is called the internal heat element. Whatever is an
  internal element of heat and whatever is an external element of heat,
  just these are the element of heat.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of motion? The element of motion may
  be internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal
  element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to
  an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards,
  winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds
  that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or
  whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  element of motion. Whatever is an internal element of motion and
  whatever is an external element of motion, just these are the element
  of motion.

  Mahārāhulovāda Sutta

Suttas AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 say Dhamma Law exists outside of experience of it. Therefore, Buddhism does not say the only things that exist are those things that are experienced.

If only things in mental experience existed then, based on the experience of the puthujjana (unenlightened person), Nibbana/Nirvana would not exist.

Udana 1.1 says:

  When things [previously unexperienced] become manifest to the ardent meditating brahman; all his
  doubts then vanish since he understands each thing along with its
  cause.

Since enlightenment is knowing/experiencing things that were previously unknown/unexperienced, it is illogical to say Buddhism only says what is experienced is what exists. If Buddhism actually said this then Buddhism would be giving priority to the existence of unenlightened experiences, which is obviously not the case. Since Buddhism gives priority to teaching about things, such as jhana & Nirvana, which are not experienced by most people, then Buddhism is obviously teaching mostly about things that do not exist in the experience of most people.

In Theravada Rupa (materiality) means earth, air, fire, and water.
Conventional sense of what we called earth means the physical earth but we can't see it. We can only feel the softness and the hardness of the earth. Rupa also independently arisen and earth, air, fire, and water are not independent of each other. For instance water can be ice (patavi), cold/heat (tejo) gas (vayo) water (apo)
This analysis is mainly found in Abhidhamma.


What is opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being? What is the opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being?

Nichiren did not address the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being. Buddhists in general do not address this, basically because Shakyamuni, the founder of buddhism in India, did not address this even when asked what he thought about it.

Also, in Japan in the thirteenth century, the general population was not interested in this so no one is recorded as having asked Nichiren about it. The lack of interest may be attributed to the influence of Shintoism and Confucianism in Japan since neither pay much attention to this question either.

In order to verify that Nichiren did not address this, the Nichiren Buddhism Library offers a searchable database for writings by Nichiren and for a record of his oral teachings as well.

A lack of concern about a creator deity may be difficult for a theist to understand. I do know some buddhists, including some Nichiren buddhists, raised theistic and polytheistic, who do believe in a creator god. In buddhism this is okay, just like it is okay to be an atheist or an agnostic. Since these questions are not considered to be decidable, the choice of belief about a creator is up to the individual. Practicing and living one's life as a human being in this life are primary.

Buddhists are atheistic agnostics. Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy and way of living guided by Sakyamuni Buddha. Religion is the devotional relationship between God and his believers, but Buddhism is not the same.


What does delusion feel like? In his book Breath by Breath Larry Rosenberg writes about meditating on the three kleshas directly i.e. meditating on craving, aversion and delusion. He is talking in the context of the Anapanasati Sutta. I can understand how one could recognise aspects their own hatred or craving. But how could someone recognise their own delusion in that moment of meditation?

Specifically, I can see that anger would be very obvious and one would become very familiar with the burning, energetic, dominating quality of this. In the same way, one's own craving and desire could become recognisable - we are familiar with what wanting actually feels like. However what does delusion actually feel like. What bodily sensations are associated with it. What does the mental quality actually feel like.

I can imagine looking back and with hindsight been able to see that at that point in time I was very deluded and thinking some very strange things. But how can the deluded mind see itself as deluded in that moment? How can we meditate on this? What does delusion feel like and how can we learn to recognise it?

I think that 'aversion' and 'desire' are opposite/complementary extremes of each other.
Similarly I think that 'delusion' is (defined as) the opposite of 'truth' (sacca/satya, the four noble truths) and (I presume) other 'true dharmas' (for example, one delusion might be a wrong view about 'self').
So I guess that you can be 'aware of delusion' whenever (if ever) you're aware that you have forgotten 'right view' or 'right mindfulness'.
If it's the 'root' klesha, I suppose it has many manfestations, but one of those is presumably  any addictive behaviour: repeating the same harmful mistake.
You're right though that at the least the "The Four Frames of Reference" section of the Anapanasati Sutta only talks about "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". Maybe the parts of it after that i.e. "Awakening", "Knowing", and "Release" are describing the opposite of "ignorance".

Also, in The Taste of Freedom Bhikkhu Bodhi writes,

Three kinds of feelings have been pointed out by the Buddha: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling, i.e., feeling which is neither pleasant nor painful. These three classes exhaust the totality of feeling, and one feeling of one class must be present on any given occasion of experience. Again, three mental factors have been singled out by the Buddha as the subjective counterparts of the three classes of feeling and described by him as anusaya, latent tendencies which have been lying dormant in the subconscious mental continua of sentient beings since beginningless time, always ready to crop up into a state of manifestation when an appropriate stimulus is encountered, and to subside again into the state of dormancy when the impact of the stimulus has worn off.
These three mental factors are lust (raga), repugnance (patigha), and ignorance (avijja), psychological equivalents of the unwholesome roots of greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). When a worldling, with a mind untrained in the higher course of mental discipline taught by the Buddha, experiences a pleasant feeling, then the latent tendency to lust springs up in response — a desire to possess and enjoy the object serving as stimulus for the pleasant feeling. When a worldling experiences a painful feeling, then the latent tendency to repugnance comes into play, an aversion toward the cause of the pain. And when a worldling experiences a neutral feeling, then the latent tendency to ignorance — present but recessive on occasions of lust and aversion — rises to prominence, shrouding the worldling's consciousness in a cloak of dull apathy.
[...]
Under the dominance of lust he is drawn to the pleasant, under the dominance of hate he is repelled by the painful, under the dominance of delusion he is confused by the neutral. He is bent up by happiness, bent down by sorrow, elated by gain, honor, and praise, dejected by loss, dishonor, and blame. Even though he perceives that a particular course of action can lead only to his harm, he is powerless to avoid it; even though he knows that an alternative course of action is clearly to his advantage, he is unable to pursue it. Swept on by the current of unabandoned defilements, he is driven from existence to existence through the ocean of samsara, with its waves of birth and death, its whirlpools of misery and despair.

So the three poisons (lust, anger, ignorance) correspond to three types of feeling (pleasant, painful, and neutral); and delusion therefore is associated with a "neutral" feeling, and "consciousness shrouded in a cloak of dull apathy" and "confusion".

Delusion is our normal state so we are all familiar with what it feels like. Delusion is this niave realist, rational, or materialist complacency. The world is absolutely nothing like we think it is.


Illusion of continuity I read an article that included the following -
 "Through careful, mindful observation of this process of sensation overlaid with cognitive evaluation, it’s possible to tease apart the raw sense data from all the mental activity about it.

And when you do this, you may notice that the raw physical sensations, which until now you had always assumed to be continuous, are actually absent much of the time.

What’s happening is that raw sense data arise and pass away rapidly in little chunks, with gaps in between the passing away of one chunk and the arising of another.

Some of those gaps can be quite long, relatively speaking, but normally you don’t notice this because all that mental processing about the sense data fills them in, giving the illusion of continuity."

I have been meditating for about 6 years and attended several retreats but I still don't understand this on an experiential level. I dont think I have assumed them to be continuous.
It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there. I get an itch and then it's gone. I have a pain and then it's gone etc etc. maybe I'm misunderstanding this concept??
Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration? And same with a pain?   Perhaps my concentration is not strong enough to ever notice this. I try to examine a sensation sometimes but an itch just seems like an itch to me.
I feel I'm not making much progress,if any at all, with this stuff. I read about what is apparently supposed to happen, things you're meant to notice and experience, insights etc but my meditation just seems to be the same thing every single time. Sitting, noticing breath, thinking, noticing breath, itch, thinking, notice breath etc. It feels more and more pointless everyday. I don't seem to be learning to see the "true nature of reality" or heading toward "enlightenment" Why not? Where am I going wrong?

What they mean, is that our experience is assembled from hints presented by the sense organs. The eyes, ears catch glimpses of what's going on, esp. as we move around - and then build a theory from those hints, theory that we see as reality. There's a lot of assuming going on during that process, a lot of interpretation, and a lot of habit.

EDIT

Once you "let go" enough, you start seeing it. By "let go" I mean the unconscious process by which we maintain our contrived world. Nowadays I see it at both micro and macro level. For example as I hold the cup and look at it I can see how the mind "grasps" the "signs" - raw momentary snapshots of some distinct features, and how it "tells" itself what these signs imply by inferring the cup from them. I see how the mind goes over these "signs" again and again in circles, telling itself the story of the cup. Similarly, at the macro level, I can see how the mind grasps the facts of the world and builds the narrative of my life from these.

When some people practice mindfulness, they practice the opposite of letting go. They think mindfulness is when your observation is watertight. But watertight observation is really just a tighter version of the assembly process by which we contrive the world. Instead, as you stop trying to be in control of experience, you start seeing the gaps in the model. These gaps is what we are after - but you can't contrive your way into them, you can't control it - it only comes from letting go, which involves handling tremendous amount of insecurity.

EDIT2

What @xxxx means with his "looking for keys" analogy: normally the way our mind works is, we get a hint from sensory organs, we build a hypothesis of what we are looking for/at, and then we validate it by examining the evidence from sensory organs. If we approach meditation with the same attitude, we would say to ourselves: hey, I must be looking for gaps in experience, gaps in the modeling process, and here is how it's supposed to look like. But you can't see the real gaps with this attitude, this would be contriving gaps with your mind, like dreaming yourself a dream. Instead, it comes from letting go of the inner dialog, of re-telling yourself the story of what you see (micro), and the story of your life (macro).

Let's start with the 4 noble truth.

there is suffering - the itch
There is a cause of suffering - possibly any cause
there is cessation of suffering - after 10sec the
itch is gone- And this should be enlightening. but if you examine the itch instead of the object of meditation, the itch will be there, and there will be no progress. Focus on object of meditation.
There are paths to the cessation of all suffering - Realising everything is the 3rd noble truth - What you're doing now, meditating and realising itch will go away. Ultimately everything will go away because, everything is empty. And because everything is empty, sentient beings didn't see it, they suffer, so compassion arises.


Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? If so, are there any evidences of it. How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization?Is it linked with this fact?

Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha?

Yes, the Buddha speaks of them in his suttas, many of them from different times/planets throughout the universe(s).

If so, are there any evidences of it.

Other than the suttas themselves, yes in various other religious traditions.

How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization? Is it linked with this fact?

Yes it could be but rather than spending our lifetime endlessly trying to settle historical matters and learn other histories, let us be grateful for what the Gautama Buddha has provided us: a complete, methodical practice towards Enlightenment. We will need to devote whatever spare time aside from job and other duties to achieve what he achieved and the Buddhas after him (Padmasambhava). The other Buddhisms that stemmed from Hinayana Buddhism suggest there is a greater journey towards Complete Enlightenment and complete power, even after initial srotipanna and escaping the force of rebirth.
No need to excavate skeletons--it was hard enough for the Buddha to leave behind what he has and those after him.

Personally, I do not believe there were any Buddhas before Gotama.

This is why there is probably no evidence.

The idea of past Buddhas is found only a few suttas among thousands, where, in those suttas, the technology mentioned, such as chariot-making or potting, was the same as in the Buddha's time.


Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons? Receiving alms is definitely part of the monastic life.
Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons?
Is begging for alms considered Right Livelihood for lay persons?
Is begging for alms considered skillful for lay persons, compared to earning their livelihood in accordance with the five precepts, principles of Right Livelihood and teachings of the Pali Canon (or other scriptures)? Or is it considered laziness?

I dont know how the word 'begging' came into Buddhism. BHIKSHA is a sanskrit word which translates nearly to Begging in Modern Indian social sense. But the word is rooted into Pali as the donation to Bhikku. This 'alms'(please dont consider the modern English meaning ) is not the result of begging. In the early era of Buddhism, the bhikkus/bhikkunis were Teachers/Gurus to the common men, and in return to their teaching / services to the Society ; their daily needs as Food / cloths were given as the form of donation. These kind of donations are utilized for the management of Dhamma Sanghas.
Later only, the Bhiksha word became derogatory due to the social religious changes in India. Donation is a main source of resources in major religions, Xianity for example, they run churches by donation. But in Buddhism, it not about begging / taking for granted. The Bhiksha we give to Bhikkus/Bhikkunis are the reward we offer to the teachers.
thank you

The question is based in wrong view. The livelihood of a bhikkhu is not begging for food. A bhikkhu gains requisites for doing the internal & external duties of the Brahmacariya (Holy Life).

"Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of
the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the
good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way.
Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in
its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its
purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter."
Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka.

Similarly, a layperson should earn livelihood doing meaningful work. Begging for alms is not acceptable for a layperson if the layperson is not working to develop virtues.


Did the Buddha discourage antropomorphic representations of himself? The first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha appeared centuries after his death (see this related question). Buddhist art then was "aniconic", insofar as the Buddha was only represented through symbols such as the Buddha's footprint or the Dharma wheel. In the Wikipedia article on Greco-Buddhism, there is a hint as to why this might be so:

  [The] reluctance towards anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha, and the sophisticated development of aniconic symbols to avoid it (even in narrative scenes where other human figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the Buddha’s sayings, reported in the Digha Nikaya, that discouraged representations of himself after the extinction of his body.

This assertion isn't, however, accompanied by a reference to the relevant portion of the Digha Nikaya, and it is contradicted in Donald Lopez's latest book, From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha (University of Chicago Press, 2013):

  [N]o proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found.

Is there actual textual basis for the claim that the Buddha discouraged antropomorphic representations of himself (in the Digha Nikaya or other early Buddhist texts)?

A direct quote from the Digha Nikaya that explicitly expresses a prohibition or even a discouragement concerning his antropomorphic representations has not been found yet, as far as I know.

In Religions of the Silk Road (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1996), Yuvraj Krishan maintains that the aniconic period is due to a Vedic heritage: Vedism was aniconic because it considered the highest gods as ultimately transcendent and formless. His contention is that when Buddhism was in its infancy, those who were faithful to the growing tradition were careful to act within to the Vedic tradition to avoid any normative displacement. So it should not surprise us that the earliest representational art appears at the geographical fringes of the Indian subcontinent (Sri Lanka and Gandhara). The earliest source for this thesis that I know is John C. Huntington's 1977 paper titled "The origin of the Buddha image".

Although there seems to be no known explicit doctrinal injunctions against the representation of the Buddha in anthropomorphic form, there is an  oblique statement in the Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins (first called attention to by Arthur Waley) which may be interpreted as a prohibition and consists the only textual source I have found to this effect. In this passage, which deals with the decoration of monasteries, Anathapindika asks:

  World-honoured one, if  images  of yours  are  not allowed  to be made, pray  may we not at least  make images  of Bodhisattvas in attendance  upon you? (apud Waley, 1931/2)

Although this statement addresses the theme of iconic representation of Buddha, it is an isolated case and cannot really be construed as a prohibition. Therefore, Huntington's theory that the aniconic representation of the Buddha in early Buddhism was a result of Vedic traditions and not specific doctrinal prohibitions seems to be the best explanation.

Further reading:

Rob Linrothe, 'Inquiries into the origin of the Buddha image: a review', East and West 43, 1/4 (December 1993), pp. 241-256.

Early artists did not make statues of Buddha so as not to make mistakes in representing the features and characteristics of the Buddha.

The statues came later as a tool of worship to develop faith in the Buddha.

There is not encouragement or discouragement of this from the Buddha or in the ancient texts.