Judges passing the death sentence The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying:

  When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
  seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
  struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
  exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
  striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
  slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
  slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."

What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law?

Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why?

Is it right livelihood?

Yes, and it's good to compare it to that quoted story, as many think that for a "higher, nobler" aim, doing wrong is ok. Or out of duties, like moderators and "responsible" often think.

Not only doing by oneself, but also order by words or sign and mental approve (which is the heaviest) are the doors of action (kamma).

Not even the judge, but also those who install such as death sentence inlaws, order death sentence, or mental agree face the results of the kamma of killing. So one should be careful also when voting or watch news of "bad-mens-hunts".

Always good to address here is the Dhanañjani Sutta in regard of duties.

  "What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

  "No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

Is it right livelihood?

Ordering death is no right livelihood, spoken in regard of the main question.

"But": There is nothing total wrong which the work as judge, althought surely not very conductive for the practice. Remember the devoted King who gave up judging and passed it to his servants, having faced than "noble" people are capable to lie for sensual pleasure.

The work as someone who orders the physical harm or even depriving from life, or depriving of own, is of cause wrong livelihood, at least at the moment he makes use of the power for such. So it might depend much on the law he has to execute itself as well.

Same as doing soldier is not perse wrong, but only if not firm abstaining from killing.

(Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and notorious doubter by for those after firm stand upwardly and toward liberation)

Judging presents a tremendous burden of responsibility. Witness the following very sad judgment from AN4.111:

  “Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow these forms of training?”

  “In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”

  “Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures.
  And yet you say
  you kill them.”

  “It’s true, Kesi,
  it’s not appropriate for a Realized One to kill living creatures.
  But when a person in training doesn’t follow any of these forms of training, the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.
  For it is death in the training of the noble one
  when the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.”

Note that the killing is indirect by non-support. Yet one reads finality in this judgement as well as a deep sadness that there are no skillful means for helping those with no wish to be helped.

Judges uphold and are constrained by the laws of society. As citizens, we can advocate for laws that support the common good with the least harm. Whether we exile, imprison for life or execute those who maliciously and grievously violate society's laws is a shared responsibility.


Buddhism on paying for previous bad Karma I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism.  However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years.  And it was slightly worrying.

He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information.  She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled.  Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong.  Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach".

However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes.  Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person.

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.  And that obviously there may be more to the story.  I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?  As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done.  Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"?

In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably.

Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression.  But that's not you now.  Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"?

Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.

The above is wrong view. Many monks are idiots.

  I also appreciate that they were seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

The above is wrong view. The monks were offering a superstitious (rather than spiritual) answer to her questions.

  But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?

Buddhism became extinct in India because the Buddhism after the Buddha developed an obsession with past & future lives, which made it the same as Hinduism. It invented superstitions such as the Jataka Stories & added dodgy suttas into the suttas, such as the unique MN 135; which obviously justified the status quo of the society and supported the monks who pandered to the ruling classes for political support & financial donations. As a result, this corrupted Buddhism became extinct; absorbed into Hinduism.

Real Buddhism teaches about suffering & its cessation. When the Buddha taught about "kamma" ("action"), he taught about unwholesome & wholesome kamma that leads to "suffering" ("hell") & "happiness" ("heaven").

Obviously, a lack of a "worldly" quality cannot be explained by past lives. Our academic skills or intelligence, our ability to make money, our ability to play sport, our ability to play music, our physical beauty or ugliness, is obviously unrelated to "suffering" & "happiness". It is quite obvious many highly academically intelligent people are evil; such as the evil people who work in evil governments or evil industries that create evil things, such as wars & weapons of mass destruction. Or the many greatest musicians, most beautiful movie stars & champion sports people who die of drug addictions & unhappiness.

In summary, there is no correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". Since the Buddha taught Dhamma  was not something "worldly", there can never been any correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". In fact, a hypothesis could be pursued or researched about whether the majority of high level university graduates end up working in immoral unethical industries.

To end, similar to many current Western Christian schools, it appears the primary goal of this Buddhist school is not to make the students good people but to make the students high academic achievers for the gaining of worldly financial rewards. Similar to the dodgy MN 135, the impression is these religious schools are teaching narcissistic "spiritual materialism".

It's always miserable if caught to address either the wrong people, or at the wrong time or not attentive. There are places where only such miserable gather together and nobody would be able to help them out...

May all gain the bliss to get known those having left home.

A/the possibility to increase ones "luck" toward better is to practice generosity toward sublime and stick firm to Sila, virtue as this is the base for connection and learning.

Prisoners of Karma: A Story, maybe a more dettached access for prisoners.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for an exit of this wheel)


Jhanic concentration and feeling Could anyone share your experience and knowledge? People who have attained strong concentration have the ability to read other people's mind. My question is, what is the 'knowing'? Do they read other people based on what they feel? For example, one person concentrates his mind on a person, when his mind is calm, other people's mind will be felt and reflected in his feeling. Is this correct? How do they know, based on what?

Any reply would be great, thanks.

It is inappropriate to ask such questions, because they unequivocally end in an argument which is basically the same as trying to convince someone in the 14th century of how an aeroplane works. It simply isn't possible to explain without the experience.
Imagine trying to describe the colour blue to someone who has not seen it.

I believe you can directly look into thought when you develop abhiññā. But at a lesser level meditation increases your ability sense the moods and emotions of people around you (spiritual awareness). This can happen though vipassana also as you stay contemplating internally and externally.

4 Modes of Mind reading as per Sampasadanīya Sutta:

  Mind-reading
  Furthermore, bhante, unsurpassable is the Dharma that the Blessed One teaches concerning
  mind-reading. Bhante, there are these four modes of mind-reading:

  (1) Here, bhante, by means of a sign, one declares: ‘Thus is your mind: this is in your mind; such is
  your thought.’ And however many such declarations he makes, they are exactly so, not otherwise.
  This is the first mode of mind-reading.

  (2) Furthermore, bhante, one does not make his declarations by means of a sign, but after listening to
  the sounds of humans, of non-humans, or of devas, having heard their sounds, one declares, ‘Thus is your
  mind: this is in your mind; such is your thought.’ And however many such declarations he makes, they
  are exactly so, not otherwise.
  This is the second mode of mind-reading.

  (3) Furthermore, bhante, one does not make his declarations by means of a sign, nor after having
  heard voices of humans, of non-humans, or of devas, but from having initially applied and sustained
  his mind, listening to the sound of a person’s thought-vibrations,
  one declares, ‘Thus is your mind: this
  is in your mind; such is your thought.’ And however many such declarations he makes, they are exactly
  so, not otherwise.
  This is the third mode of mind-reading.

  (4) Furthermore, bhante, one does not make his declarations by means of a sign, nor after heard
  voices of humans, of non-humans, or of devas, nor by listening to the sound of a person’s thought-vibrations,
  nor from having initially applied and sustained his mind, and listening to the sound of a person’s
  thought-vibrations, but by a samadhi free from initial application and sustained application, one knows
  the mind of another with his own, thus:
  ‘By the way the mental formations of this good man are inclined, the depth of that mind will think
  such and such a thought.’
  And however many such declarations he makes, they are exactly so, not otherwise.
  This is the fourth mode of mind-reading.
  With regards to mind-reading, bhante, this is unsurpassable.


Conscience and Buddhism How does Buddhism view conscience? Do you follow your conscience or Buddhist morality? Your conscience does not always in line with Buddhist morality. For example, cakes are not poison but generally are not considered as healthy food, Buddhism does not prohibit you from selling cakes to other people. But your conscience says, it's better to sell something that can make contribution of health to people at large e.g. healthier food compare to cakes.

Do you ignore your conscience or follow it?

EDIT

Although selling cake is not wrong livelihood but your conscience tells you to choose healthier contribution. It's easy to fall into extreme. Buddhism is the middle path. How do you keep it balance and not neglecting your conscience at the same time?

If selling cake is better than selling drugs, selling healthy food is better than selling cakes and so on. I am wondering what is the use of Right Livelihood as in the Noble Eightfold Path, are they all considered Right Livelihood, except drugs?

What I meant was which one do you listen to? Listening to conscience is necessary, as you said. But what you think is right or wrong does not necessarily true or middle path. If selling healthy food is better than selling cakes, logically one will follow what is best, we consciously put the latter one into the "not to do" list and choose former one as our Right Livelihood. But how do you know if you follow this kind of thinking you're not going to fall into extreme? We create our own version of Right Livelihood. Both cakes and healthy food are not considered wrong according to Buddha.

It's a good intention to desire to make a livelihood that does neither harm one self nor others, and conscience is very importand toward path and beyond.

As for how to use it all the way to highest liberation, best to get known the talk by the Sublime Buddha to his Son Ven. Rahula.

Mudita

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for liberation from it]

Buddhism does not tell you to sell cakes. Just because Buddhism does not tell you to not do something does not mean you should do it.

Buddhism has taught addiction to sensual pleasures is suffering, for both monks & laypeople. Therefore, if you have a good conscience, you should try to reduce addictions & unhealthy lifestyles.


Is the samadhi of Yoga the samadhi of Buddhism? I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism?

A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Patanjali system has the following concepts about Samadhi:

Samprajnata Samadhi: one is developing focus on the meditation object but comprehends external stimuli
Asamprajnata Samadhi: one has developed focus on the meditation object hence does not comprehend external stimuli
Savitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus this triggers a thought process which one can discriminate and abandone or continue
Nirvitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus one has control over thoughts
Savichara Samadhi: thinking is available
Nirvichara Samadhi: thinking is unavailable

In Buddhism, there are the following concepts of Samadhi:

parikamma samadhi – preliminary concentration
upacara samadhi – access concentration
appana samadhi – fixed concentration
Jhanas - states of samadhi based on the Jhana factors present

Parikamma and upacara samadhi is similar to samprajnata samadhi and appana samadhi is similar to Asamprajnata Samadhi

Vitarka and vichara are Jhana factors. Savitarka indicates there is vitarka and nirvitarka means there is no vitarka and savichara means there is vichara and nirvichara means there is no vichara.

In the Hindu system of samadhi, the object of concentration may be subjected to perversions (vipallasa) hence choose concepts like: permanent, self, pleasant and beautiful. In the Buddhist system, the objects are not subjected to vipallasa.

In the Hindu system, the object of samadhi is always a conceptual (pannatti) object which is which leads to perversions (vipallasa). In Buddhist systems, the objects can be conceptual or real (paramartha). If it is conceptual after developing Jhana one contemplates the object as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self.

When the object chosen is is not subjected to perversion, wholesome and based on something real (paramartha), the concentration gained is Samma Samadhi or the right type of samadhi.

Right samadhi is whatever samadhi there is coming from right view and right effort, which is really just the usual jhanas but seen from right view, right understanding, right doctrine and right effort, ie Samādhibhāvanā http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.014.wood.pts.htm which is all about restraint, instead of being seen from some wrong understanding created by some puthujjana, including Patanjali.
For the buddha, the jhanas are abiding the in the pleasant present life, which are nice, but the right concentration is what makes ''yathā-bhūtaɱ pajānāti.'' ie seeing properly form , consciousness and all that.

  Monks, do ye apply yourselves to meditation.

  The monk who is meditative knows a thing as it really is.

  And what does he know as it really is?

  In this connexion he knows as it really is,

  'This is ill.'

  'This is the arising of ill.'

  'This is the ceasing of ill.'

  'This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.'

  Monks, do ye apply yourselves to meditation.

  The monk who is concentrated knows a thing as it really is.

  Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:

  'This is ill.'

  'This is the arising of ill.'

  'This is the ceasing of ill.'

  'This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.'

Or way longer,

https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pali/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.005.pali.bd.htm#p1

  "Develop concentration, monks.

  A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being.

  And what does he discern in line with what has come into being?

  The origination[1] and disappearance of form.

  The origination and disappearance of feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications.

  The origination and disappearance of consciousness.

  "And what is the origination of form...

  feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications?

  What is the origination of consciousness?

  "There is the case where one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened.

  And what does one enjoy and welcome, to what does one remain fastened?

  One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to form.

  As one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to form, there arises
  delight.

  Any delight in form is clinging.

  From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play.

  Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering.

  "One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications...

  "One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to consciousness.

  As one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to consciousness, there
  arises delight.

  Any delight in consciousness is clinging.

  From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play.

  Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering.

  "This, monks, is the origination of form.

  This, the origination of feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications.

  This, the origination of consciousness."

  "And what is the disappearance of form...

  feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications?

  What is the disappearance of consciousness?

  "There is the case where one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain
  fastened.

  And what does one not enjoy or welcome, to what does one not remain
  fastened?

  One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to form.

  As one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to form, any delight
  in form ceases.

  From the cessation of delight comes the cessation of clinging.

  From the cessation of clinging/sustenance, the cessation of becoming.

  From the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth.

  From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease.

  Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering.

  "One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications...

  "One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to consciousness.

  As one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to consciousness,
  any delight in consciousness ceases.

  From the cessation of delight comes the cessation of clinging.

  From the cessation of clinging/sustenance, the cessation of becoming.

  From the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth.

  From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease.

  Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering.

  "This, monks, is the disappearance of form.

  This, the disappearance of feeling...

  perception...

  fabrications.

  This, the disappearance of consciousness."


How can evil doers be 'reborn' as 'human'? In the Pali suttas, SN 56.102-113  state those that realise the Four Noble Truth will be 'reborn in the human state' (manussesu paccājāyanti). The same message is found in SN 56.47 & SN 56.48, which also state the human state (manussattaṃ) is very rare.

As for the law of kamma, the message that unwholesome actions lead to pain & wholesome actions lead to pleasure is found in countless suttas, namely:

  'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

However, a sutta named the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta claims evil-doers can be 'reborn' in the human state, as follows:

  There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying,
  showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried
  out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she
  reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower
  realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
  of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is
  short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life:
  to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

How can this be? How can one single sutta (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta) override the doctrine or law found in all of the suttas that a brutal bloody-handed killer of living beings will experience a state beset by suffering? Surely, a killer than feels no pain from killing & murdering is a psychopath.

might be lost in translation somehow.   from this

  "No ce kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ
  upapajjati, sace manussattaṃ ..

if replace "in stead of" with "if not" , that it makes more sense.

  if not reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination,
  the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state,....

It could also mean that when karma is exhausted in suffering plane, and being appear in human world after? So once you burn your "debt" you move to the next phase or rebirth, lacking the "debt"

The vice versa is said to occur at the end of a rebirth in the heavens as a god. They burn through their "good debt" quickly and tend to fall into the lower realms when their dues are paid.

I am an amateur self taught Pali.  I could be wrong but at least it opens up for those who know more about Pali to chime in.  Could "No ce" together with rest of a sentence,  is better to translate to "if not" rather than "instead of"?

As simple as possible but not simpler:
Birth as a human means that you have accumulated good karma in the past!
However nobody has ever explained the amount of karma,it's measuring unit.The moral code has always been it's meter of measure!

Know that both heaven and hell are labyrinths for the soul.Sooner or later the soul finds its way out!

After all what you think,you become!Nothing is permanent,even those souls can change,that's why they are reborn as humans,however once a human you pay your karma,your bad luck,being poor,ignorant and so on.

Hope for enlightenment!


Are all forms of Dukkha related to a sense of self? A few days ago I started reading books about Paticcasamuppada because I realized how little and shallow was my understanding on this capital matter.

Despite getting the gist of it, I still have problems understanding the exact details.

For instance, I understand that dukkha arises from the 3 kinds of craving (kama, bhava, vibhava), and that craving is the condition for the arising of sustenance/clinging/fuel.

I've been reading a book based on Dhamma Talks given by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Under the Bodhi Tree) on the topic of Dependent Co-arising. There it is said that all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine".  Is that always the case?

If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself?

Or to put it in other words...

Is the arising of the idea/perception of self always necessary for the arising of dukkha?

I'm not sure if I'm expressing my doubts correctly.

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

From the second noble truth, we know that suffering (dukkha) is caused by craving (tanha). From the third noble truth, we know that the cessation of suffering comes through the cessation of craving.

What is craving really?

From this answer, we learn that craving is a habit of reification or objectification-classification (papañca). I quote that answer here:

  Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a
  generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A
  child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply,
  because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is
  attractive and desirable.

  Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its
  fake promise to make you happy.

Meanwhile, in this question, I quoted Sutta Nipata 4.14:

  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the
  world?"
  "He should put an entire stop to the root of
  objectification-classifications (papañca): 'I am the thinker.'

  Commentary (Thanissaro):
  The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads into the
  immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
  thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
  into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
  perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
  must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
  granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
  inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
  drop them.

Now what is the notion of the self? It's a mental fabrication. It's a view. It's a thought in the mind.

Due to this deep-seated thought or view of "I am the thinker" i.e. the notion of the self, one reifies everything that is perceived through the six senses into objects and classifies them according to its relationship to the self. It creates the duality of self and non-self, as well as classifies the relationship of non-self things to the self e.g. this belongs to me, that does not belong to me. Without the notion of the self, this reification would not exist.

And craving is, as said above, just a habit of reification.

For e.g. when you look at food that looks interesting to you, you experience craving. When the food is not present and you think about it, that's clinging. When you try to get this food, but it is denied to you, you experience anger. If somebody else took the last piece of that food and it is denied to you, you feel jealous as you see them relishing it.

To you, that meat thing on the plate looks like delicious food. To a vegan, that may look repulsive.

Why is this the case? That thing on the plate is just a thing. It's your mind that objectified it and classified it as delicious food. The vegan's mind objectified it and classified it as repulsive food.

Isn't it delicious food, only relative to you (the self) and your eating preferences (some characteristic of your personality i.e. part of your self)?

To a honey bee, that meat thing on the plate is not even food, because that's not the kind of food that it eats. That's just dirt to the bee. The bee objectifies it and classifies it relative to its self.

So, all types of craving and clinging and views are all relative to your self. If there is no notion of self, then the (sight and smell of the) thing on the plate is just something on the plate, that evokes no emotion.

So, all forms of sufferings are indeed related to the notion of the self.

All forms of dukkha are not related to the sense of self. Maybe the origin of the dukkha is related to the sense of self(example: the origin of having a "body" or " form" for humans or other beings is related to being attached to the self) but it is possible to become an Arahant and still not be free from all dukkha, but Arahants are completely free from sense of self. Arahants still have physical pain and physical discomfort but they are completely free from suffering. Even in the high enlightenment stages before the Arahant stage- once-returners and non-returners- who still have a very weak sense of "having a form in their beings" don't have identification with the "form" or the "self" in their beings so they are also free from "self" but not yet free from the dukkha.

  Dukkha (/ˈduːkə/; Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha) is an important Buddhist concept, commonly translated as "suffering", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress". It refers to the fundamental unsatisfactoriness and painfulness of mundane life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

All kinds of "suffering" is related to self. When Angulimala is about to kill the Buddha, Buddha gave this teaching to Angulimala(In the Angulimala movie-Thai film):

  First, everything is impermanent(conditioned things). Your so-called mind is impermanent as well. In contemplation you'll see endless impermanence. Second, everything causes suffering. Nothing should be clung to. Please contemplate If your mind can yield true contentment. Angulimala Third, everything is without a true self. What you're contemplating is not your true self. Angulimala, to cling to "myself" and "mine" causes all sufferings

So all forms of suffering is related to the "sense of self"(identification with the sense of self) but all forms of dukkha are not related to sense of self because physical pain, physical discomfort etc are also dukkha but the enlightened beings are not free from these things(but they don't suffer based on them. For the stream-enterers the situation is different because it is the transition stage. So they don't believe to the sense of self, deep down they know the nonsense nature of the thoughts, emotions and feelings but they still identified with them without believing it them to be true. That's why stream-entry is not complete enlightenment but it is a wonderful tool(and it is a guarantee for future enlightenment) to become completely free from the identification of the sense of self in the future.

For more detailed information about stream-entry:

Monk Radio: Stream Enterer by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

But ofcourse life is only available in the present moment so a meditator mustn't seek future's gifts but must be mindful of whatever arises in the now.


The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747
"POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and
have no real existence.
POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic
realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of
really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent
of one’s own mind.
POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness-
only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope
of one’s experience."
"Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective."
That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind  Thank you.

Didn't you already ask this?

"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he
knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just
imaginations created by his mind"

Who's conceptual framework would that be done with?
What do you think minds are, things with an unchanging essence?
As I see it, key to understanding the 'mind-only' perspective is recognising all experiences have to be filtered through subjectivities, there is no truly objective, because no one experiences that, only consilience of experiences: like between different senses, & by comparing with others.
We each carry our own reality, but it's one where we constantly interact with the reality of others. A modern framing is 'peer to peer reality'.

It is more that we are lost in an inner vortex of feeling/perception which forms a kind of virtual and personal inner world. In Yogacara, this is called the seventh consciousness - mānas-vijñāna or the surface-level of mind: the superficiality of the mundane faculties of perception of which its counterparts are the previous six, but the actions derived from them all are rooted in the eighth consciousness, sometime called the storehouse consciousness. This latter consciousness is what gives shape and substance to the play of cause and effect.
When you say, 'does he pretend to communicate with other minds?' - Not quite, because he knows situationally that the feeling/perception of others is just an automative script. In many ways we are all reading from a conditioned script which Yogacara might call the alaya-consciousness where all the karmas are stored, or where all our predefined responses wait for the correct conditions to converge. We are all therefore already indulging in pretence.
In terms of social transactions and conversational dynamics, for an enlightened mind, there is a relearning of social interactions some of which never bother. They will prefer to stay on their own, resting in the company of whatever. It is the case that some people are quite adverse to the enlightenment experience; they don't like it at all and wish it had never happened. This happens for a few reasons but one of them is poor understanding.
For some, this relearning will involve the recognition of the ignorance of others, their reactive states of consciousnesses all with a view to blending-in. This blending-in might be because there remains a body that needs taking care of, so one might go to work. The other reason for learning to blend-in is via compassion. He sees the extent of suffering caused by investing time and energy into mere feeling-perception-based endeavours. Blending in means re-playing the roles that have now been relinquished, but re-playing them with greater awareness or situational wisdom.
So it is more a relearning to operate at a different level, but when I say level, I don't necessarily refer to any sort of hierarchical structure, but more the ordinariness of clear, bright and unhindered perception. There isn't a going North, East, South or West to realize that. It is a here-and-now occurrence soiled by the obscuration of feeling-perception or in yogacara terms, mānas-vijñāna.


Establishing What is Not Dhamma I realized that often, individuals provide insight which differs from typical Buddhist philosophy. For example, people either allude to a self in some way, or deny the dissatisfactory nature of phenomena. They might, in this last case, advise spiritual achievements leading to joy, but not equanimity and detachment.

My question is : what is the best way to recognize such non-Buddhist teachings?

I mean this especially in regards to (1) obviously non-Buddhist teachings (e.g. a person putting forwards an existing self) and (2) seemingly Buddhist teachings (e.g. deviating views on emptiness, compassion).

So: What is the best way to recognize authentic Buddhism?

I think this question is complex, and study and contemplation might be involved, but I am curious as to your answers.

Thank you.

Any teaching that has one or more of the following elements is not the authentic Dhamma:

eternalism (god or self or soul or world is eternal)
annihilationism (there is no self and nothing after death)
an independent, standalone and eternal entity or agent at the core of all experience (the self or the soul)
extreme asceticism
extreme sensual indulgence
does not contain the four noble truths
does not contain the noble eightfold path
promotes non-virtue (killing other beings, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, intoxication, hurtful speech etc. - typical example is "waging holy war")
promotes wrong livelihood (trade in prostitution, slavery, meat, weapons, poisons, intoxicants etc.)

The authentic Dhamma is the opposite of the above.

All teachings are false teachings. All holy scriptures bullshit.
You cannot know the truth - You can only experience it
After 30 years of study and practice with the best Gurus India could offer, Sidhratrra only got disappointment and disillusionment
 Buddha is a state of mind, not a state of knowledge.


Which buddhist traditions use silent visual applause, instead of clapping, to show appreciation and what is the origin of this practice? In sanghas following the tradition of Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, to show appreciation one does not clap, instead one flaps his/her hands. This silent visual applause is similar to the sign for applauds in American, British, French and possibly other sign languages used by deaf persons.

Which other buddhist traditions also use silent visual applause to show appreciation? What is the origin of this way of showing appreciation in buddhism, was it borrowed from a sign language, and if so where and when?

This video says that it's widespread among French and German university students, ecologists, especially left-wing, for example at political assemblies and unions. And it says that an internet search shows that it's part of the "language of signs" but that no-one knows which country it began in.

The page Monks and nuns from the Thich Nhat Hanh collective, in Plum Village, France, pay our school a special visit suggest that Thich Nhat Hahn are:

From France
Teaching 'silent applause'
Teaching 'ecologist' songs such as "I love nature"

So perhaps they adopted the gesture from that milieu (or vice versa): i.e. from European students and young ecologists.

Well there is a link to a book of etiquette that says "Hindu hosts are ..... waving fingers."
www.read-write-now.org/UserDir/Documents/Cultural%20Etiquette.pdf

A Chinese tradition for shaking hands involves waving hands up and down
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.wku.edu%2Fhaiwang.yuan%2FChina%2Fdocs%2Fchinesecultureandcustoms.rtf&ei=9RxkVIb1JOmJsQTUzYD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNGd2Lid0ya_JeNnvRfMeNPpg7Xu8w&bvm=bv.79189006,d.cWc

  The traditional Chinese ‘handshake’ consists of interlocking the
  fingers of the hands and waving them up and down several times. This
  is today rarely used (except during festivals, weddings and birthdays
  of the elderly), and the western style handshake is ubiquitous among
  all but the very old or traditional.

Of course whenever you talk about clapping and Buddhism you get the sound of one hand clapping, a traditional koan.

I replied to hopefully get some discussion going on this interesting topic. Unfortunately my googling has not show me much more. Thank you for the question.


Why did Buddha passed away in fourth Jhana? I just wonder why Buddha attain Parinibbana in fourth Jhana.
 Why not first or say second Jhana?

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding

Buddha emerged from the 4th jhana and passed away with equanimity; to demonstrate he passed away with an ordinary mind viewing ordinary reality (rather than passing away in an altered state of consciousness). This shows faithful disciples they do not need jhana or any non-ordinary mind to pass away at peace. All that is needed is equanimity & wisdom.

  Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of
  nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
  dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the
  third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana
  he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from
  the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound. DN 16

However, the Buddha practised the jhanas before his passing to show he had not lost any mental mastery; per MN 12:

  I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty. Now suppose that I had
  four disciples with a hundred years' lifespan, perfect in mindfulness,
  retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom. Just as a skilled
  archer, trained, practiced and tested, could easily shoot a light
  arrow across the shadow of a palm tree, suppose that they were even to
  that extent perfect in mindfulness, retentiveness, memory and lucidity
  of wisdom. Suppose that they continuously asked me about the four
  foundations of mindfulness and that I answered them when asked and
  that they remembered each answer of mine and never asked a subsidiary
  question or paused except to eat, drink, consume food, taste, urinate,
  defecate and rest in order to remove sleepiness and tiredness. Still
  the Tathagata's exposition of the Dhamma, his explanations of factors
  of the Dhamma, and his replies to questions would not yet come to an
  end, but meanwhile those four disciples of mine with their hundred
  years' lifespan would have died at the end of those hundred years.
  Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
  will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom. MN 12

Buddha (and other masters) tend to depart from this life--or into the other boundless jhanas from the 4th jhana.
This is because the 1st three jhanas are "tainted" with certain attachments to bliss, joy, and pleasure.


How to "abandon the fetters completely"? I was thinking about this comment ...

  Yes, my target is to abandon the three fetters completely. I can make sense of 'Doubt' and 'grasping at precepts+practices', getting rid of the identity view is the hardest.

... and wondering about what "completely" means. I thought this answer implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum.

In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment?

I think that the Abhidhamma talks of "moments" (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this ("enlightened moments") is a good description.

There was also this ...

  The definition of a path is: A virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation.

... which, put me in mind of different moments (places, instants) along a path.

If "enlightened moments" is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?

Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind? Something like ...

  A Once-returner (Sakadagami) has greatly attenuated:

  Sensual desire
  Ill will

  A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from:

  Sensual desire
  Ill will

... suggests this may be gradual, progressive?

Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)?

Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual, regular, longer, normal, without intervals?

If that's so then is that related to so-called "mindfulness" -- which I imagine might mean "the ability to (more or less continually) remember the dhamma" and also "guarding the senses (to avoid getting carried away)".

So, lastly, why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?

Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world? Or are they unrelated, is a "seclusion" the only path and the ultimate goal (or at least through, i.e. up to and including, non-returner)?

Phew, big question! Let's see if I can address some of that...

"The process" definitely gets harder to talk about as it progresses. This is true not only in my personal experience, but is also substantiated by the tradition. Indeed, if Enlightenment was simple and straightforward to explain, wouldn't everyone be enlightened by now? More seriously, would Buddhism evolve so many different schools with their unique ways to talk about it?

According to most schools, the mind of Buddha is indescribable. Some schools insist Buddha is completely mindless (the consciousness ceases), while others posit that while Buddha does have awareness, it is completely beyond concepts. Buddha himself said:

  A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.

If the above does not explain, it at least provides some justification for why the talk about Enlightenment can hardly not be metaphorical, beating around the bush, and involving multiple mutually contradicting descriptions.

Is it gradual?

Yes and No. It is gradual in the sense that it involves work and unfolds increasingly over time... It's not "gradual" in the sense that it can not be achieved by doing the same thing again and again mechanically, and waiting for it to just happen. (Google "Zen polishing the tile" story.)

One of my teachers said: "Enlightenment is a choice we keep on making". This highlights one aspect of it, that it's not necessarily asymptotic nor is it irreversible, but because it's "a choice" we must learn to "keep on making", there is a sense in which Enlightenment is a skill that is developed over time.

You do know that this very question (gradual vs. sudden) was the main point of debate between the schools of Chan, as well as between Chan and Tibetan Buddhism? Although, some modern scholars conclude that such a reified distinction between schools was more like a rhetorical device used by the subsequent schools, and that none of the historical schools (to an extent that we can even talk about distinct "schools") were in fact fully "sudden" or "gradual".

Is it more and more moments?... there's no such thing as an "enlightened person"...

I would rather characterize it as "less and less" rather than "more and more". In my experience, it is less and less grasping/attachment, less and less overgeneralization, less and less confusing abstractions with reality, less and less losing emotional balance. And yes, less and less "enlightened person", less and less thinking/worrying about oneself in general, less and less trying to characterize oneself as something specific (enlightened or whatever). Less and less thinking of oneself as one distinct entity or agent. Less and less conflict, less and less suffering. It's like, the tangle gets progressively looser, until it's barely in a single piece anymore. Or, a fire that is pulled apart, into individual pieces of wood...

I was wondering what the difference is between [sotapanna] and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?

I think it requires the kind of practice that Buddha metaphorically described as leveling of the earth, starting from the mountains, then hills, then progressively smaller features, until even the ground itself is "flattened away", followed by space and the very mind itself. The way I understand this, we should keep looking for obstacles to suchness - the sources of existential conflict that generate the experience of suffering.

The sense of "I" is just one of such sources (albeit a major one). Another big source of suffering, recognized in Mahayana, is the idea of Enlightenment itself (aka the idea of Nirvana as goal "over there"). At some point the practitioner is supposed to "get over" (to quote my Zen Master) the notion of the goal, because the very notion of the goal dependently co-creates anxiety of not having reached the goal. Just another "bump" to be "leveled". Then there is this idea of reincarnation or rebirth, which is really just the good old Self in disguise. And then there are myriads other "bumps" not necessarily as universal but equally important for an individual practitioner. Someone is hung up on the unrequited love, someone has a problem of being self-conscious and shy in the social setting, someone is passive-aggressive etc. Every one of these is supposedly rooted in some sort of attachment/overgeneralization that must be transcended on the way to complete Enlightenment.

In this light, achieving progress towards the higher stages definitely requires going beyond the basic morals/meditation/philosophy and into the nitty-gritty of our everyday life situations and hang-ups. Like, definitely, 100%.

Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage...

As I said in other answers, I think that stream-entry is by definition the point when one gets more or less clear about the problem, the goal, and the method - and hence "enters the stream" of right practice solving the right problem, leading to the right goal. With stream-entry, suffering has been directly recognized as subjective condition, relationship between craving/attachment/overgeneralization and suffering has been directly seen, the cessation of suffering has been directly realized in at least one real case, and -- most importantly -- the overall way "things work" has been intuitively grasped.

Practice subsequent to stream-entry may certainly involve new discoveries and realizations, it's not like you stop learning - but all these discoveries and realizations should all fit within / feed back into, this basic framework of 4NT and "the way things work".

In a recent answer I said, stream-entry is when a student is supposed to completely get it 100% with no doubts, unlike Buddha who has to figure it out from scratch having doubts until the last moment. But in practice that 100% point-in-time understanding was only possible back when Buddha was still alive and Dharma was delivered straight from the source. As time passes between the lifetimes of Buddha and the student, the Dharma gets gradually more "corrupted" (diluted, mixed-up), and the phenomenon of stream-entry gets gradually less straightforward. The future students of Buddhism must do more and more work by themselves to figure out the puzzle, which makes their paths increasingly closer to that of the Buddha, at least in this one sense.

, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)? ...is that related to so-called "mindfulness"?

In my experience, as Dharma is internalized, and the habit of grasping is reduced, what I call "hard mindfulness" (keeping a constant watch over oneself) gives way to something much more fluid, more like the effortless ice skating. So, if we can speak about "more of the same" - it's more of the same fluidity and effortlessness. It's not that due to mindfulness your "moments of enlightenment" keep growing until it's one continuous Enlightenment. It's more like, due to the letting go and non-grasping, the GAPS between samsaric moments occur more and more frequently, until the whole thing gets so loose that it's not there anymore. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about this at length, the porous nature of reality, the soda-bubbles, the ping-pong, the gaps, and the space dancing with itself. I think it's a nice way to describe it. In fact, one of the biggest virtues of Tantra (in my opinion) is providing a language to talk about these indescribable experiences in a way that can be shared and understood.

Why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?

My teacher said that in the Eightfold Path, concentration (Samadhi) is not your regular "concentration" as in focusing on an object. It's more like ability to shift your attention of your subjective world to achieve a particular perspective on things. For example, we can look at things from a biological standpoint, or a sociological standpoint, or a semiotic standpoint, or a Buddhist standpoint. According to my teacher, in the Eightfold Path, concentration (Samadhi) requires developing an ability to control our perspective/attention of how we see the moment and life at large.

Specifically in Buddhism, first we develop ability to see the world phenomenologically as The Six Senses, Five Skandhas etc. Then we step it up a notch and develop ability to see Emptiness of all phenomena and the subject. Finally, we develop ability to let go of any position and sustain nirvikalpa-jnana, which is a completely unreified / unovergeneralized mode of awareness. Apparently this is what's actually referred to as Samadhi in the Eightfold Path.

Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world?

This is a big topic, but basically, the practice of jhana manifest in the everyday life as positive, upbeat attitude. You are supposed to understand the mechanisms of mind enough to be able to always maintain yourself in a good mood.

So there's all that on one hand... Now, let's put all this aside and talk about the following. In one sense, everything is already perfect. This includes the world and all sentiment beings including yourself (myself) in whatever state they are. Everything is perfect just as it is, with all its imperfections, that's a fact. Achieving a direct clear vision of this is known as the Sudden Enlightenment. It has an effect of completely liberating one from all suffering. After all, what suffering can there be, if everything is perfect? So when the Sudden Enlightenment schools make fun of gradualists, they understandably contrast the never ending perfectionism of gradualists with their own nice and simple way to be free, if only one can see it directly. Everything is perfect. Enlightenment is a choice we keep on making.

There's an opinion that Anuttara-Samyak-Saṁbodhi of the Buddha entails having both views of Enlightenment, gradual and sudden, coexist in one mind at the same time, with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. I guess this is why Buddha's mind is said to be indescribable?

I have heard, from a Bhikkhu teacher that, Jhana is not a dependency for attaining the first three stages of enlightenment: basically, the first stage (Stream enterer), second stage (Once-returner), and the third stage (Non-returner), can be attained intellectually and as a layperson. If you have Jhana capabilities, it makes everything quicker. However, Jhana is required to remove the top 5 fetters.

Let's talk about the 5 lower fetters. In a sense, these fetters can be seen as "locks" for reincarnation. Each lock is a type of "suffering". If you can open these locks, you will no longer have these 5 types of suffering. Put it this way, these five aspects will no longer cause you any trouble mentally.

So, the term "abandoning" may not convey the best meaning. A better description would be "to disable the effect of those five fetters on our mental states".


How to balance samatha and vipassana practice? Should one practice vipassana every day in a formal sitting? If so, how long should it be compared to samatha meditation, should it be practiced right before/after (not asking which comes first!) samatha or at anytime during the day?

When meditating from person to person and even from session to session the following can happen:

insight develops before calmness
calmness before insight
neither calm nor insight
both calm and insight

Calmness and insight should be balanced through personal effect and also you should seek guidance on balancing both. [(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 1 - 3]

Also it is helpful if the calmness is developed through concentrating on one of the Satipatthana [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta] as the object of meditation is not tainted by a Vipallasa [for more on Vipallasa see: Vipallasa Sutta].

You don't need Samatha to practice Vipassana. Vipassana is the one and only path to enlightment. End the suffering once and for all.

The more you do Vipassana, more you'll be closer to Nirwana. Saying that, don't try too hard. Don't try to grab Nirwana forcefully. Give up Nirwana from your mind too. Vipassana is trying while not trying.


love and caring is suffering In my point of view everything we love finally ends up with sufferings. love is a root to suffering. But in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love. But the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives. So why is this world seems to be unfair ? does it completely depends on our PREVIOUS BIRTH sins and merits ?

It is true that worldly love finally ends up with sufferings; that worldly forms of love is a root to suffering. The only people without suffering are enlightened people. It may appear in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love but this appearance is not true.

If the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives, how can such sinlessness (honesty) be the result of previous sins & merits? Such an idea is illogical.

People with full of honesty get cheated because of acts of evil people.

If I am a good person & an evil person wants to murder me, how can I stop this? I cannot.

@Iresha Rubasinghe, the answer to your question lies in the story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi’s life before monkhood. It is best explained in one or two of the Sinhala sermons that I’ve come across. It is mentioned in the Malunkyaputta Sutta (Reject Sensuality) SAMYUTTA NIKĀYA 35:95. The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship. In a nutshell :

  ” She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male. During that life he had molested young girls. After his death he was born in hell. He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time. Next he was born a monkey. Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded. The wound festered. The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering. His ‘kamma’ was not over. He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates. Thereafter he was born a human being. He was born a female. Her mother was a low caste poor servant. One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother. Her life ended thus. Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’. Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation.”

This story will help you in getting your mind in a state where it’s willing to learn, where it’s able to observe cause and effect, so you will be less judgmental, and less despondent.  Then you will love others, and you will care for others without any expectations in return. Your mind will begin to settle down. You will no longer want things to be this way or that.


Anatta a tool or reality? I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self? It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.
Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self?

Throughout history, many arahants from many traditions have attempted to describe the true nature of reality. You can see examples of this from diverging explanations of realizations between Buddhist traditions. Some traditions describe enlightenment from the perspective of “no self”. This perspective views the world as full of illusions, all empty, transient, and devoid of identity. This perspective can be said to be one of negation, where you realize there is no identity in what you once believed there to be. Others describe enlightenment through the perspective of “true self”. This perspective views the world as pervaded by an almost godlike entity, a being that can be seen as the source of all that arises. This perspective can be seen as one of addition, where you realize you are not only human, but also the totality of the universe, and become one with everything.
Whenever this conversation arises, I always am reminded of the Buddha’s parable about the blind men an the elephant. Each touching a different limb of the elephant, and endlessly arguing about who’s description is accurate. This situation is extremely similar. Neither the no self, nor true self perspectives are completely accurate. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The perspective of being an arahant is one that can only be experienced and is impossible to explain in its entirety. To the mind, it is logically paradoxical, and therefore can not be conveyed accurately. Experientially though, the paradoxes coexist easily and without effort.

It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

So, based off the above, hopefully you see why the Buddha avoided the questions. Describing the enlightened state is logically impossible. Anything that can be said about it can only be partially accurate. And people tend to get so caught up in the details, I think personally he was just trying to avoid blind men and the elephant situations in the hopes that people would make real progress as opposed to arguing about their belief systems.
I wouldn’t say the answer is irrelevant. The perspective you gain from becoming enlightened is what provides the understandings that ultimately ends suffering. It just can’t be accurately conveyed through language.

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.

Those who describe true self understandings will tell you that what you really are is not a human being or body, but that indescribable thing that creates all that arises. That very same indescribable thing is what the Buddha describes as “empty” and “devoid of self”. Both perspectives are close, but again, not fully accurate.
So yes, one could say that a self exists outside of experience. But, thinking in this way will not help you become enlightened. Honestly I view it as a hinderance. In my experience, the illusory self likes to “jump” from one object to the next. For example if you believe you are the body, and then experience proof of the beliefs inaccuracy, the process of self identification tends to begin somewhere else. “I’m not the body, so I must be the mind! I’m not the mind I must be my thoughts!” Etc. My advice is to not think in this way. If you believe it’s possible that what you are something that exists outside of your experience, you put yourself in a bad situation. You are giving the illusory self a place it can nestle in, that is based on belief alone and can not be verified. If you wish to be free you must focus on investigating what you presently believe yourself to be, and constantly disprove places the self will try to hide.
Of course I’m speaking in metaphors here. The illusory self is not a thing that exists, but a process of identification that needs to come to a stop by observing that there is nothing permanent that can be claimed to be yourself.

Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

Anatta can not be fully intellectually comprehended. Even those who are enlightened can not fully logically process the experience. They just experience life, as no one, someone, and the entire universe, at the same time. They accept the mind is of no help in the situation, and abandon any attempts to logically understand.
I would say it is not wise to investigate “what the enlightened experience is like”. One should work to become enlightened, and then once you get there yourself, you will fail too (as all others have before you) in explaining the experience to others. Even if you found an enlightened being that was willing to describe it for days on end to you, you would be no closer to the experiential understanding that is required to become free.
However, that being said, the Buddha’s no self teachings are filled with wisdom that should be used to guide you along your path. Enlightenment is inevitable if you can experience first hand how your current belief systems are incorrect. The first moment you truly break down the illusion of self and no one sees that the self doesn’t exist, from that moment on you will become free.

No-self, good householder, is a tool, a tool (and as such, one toward real, also fine to call it real, at least where a non-liberated is) to gain "the real", the Unbound, and it's not a tool for intents in the world but used after First things are clear. Anatta is actually, as a path-tool also not used to struggle with questions whether there is a self or not, and actually there are many kinds of self, but to remind and encourage to investigate whether that of one just graspes is real, lasting, under ones controll, suitable to make or hold it as mine, me, myself. In this way it works as a tool for certain release, as one is already used in regard of outwardly things to take on or let go of this and that to be able to move on. In regard of the objects/phenomenas to be investigated it's, if one looks for himself, actually real so far, neither eye, it's object, touch at the eye, feeling, consciousness, will... are real, lasting, under ones controll, not fit to be regarded as me, mine, myself and therefore one is - if seeing clear, or reasons proper, or has faith that it is that way - able of letting go and release from it. Same holds for ears, nose, tongue, body and intellect, it's objects, touch...
As it is a tool to leave sensual world and even most refined spheres of experianses, it can be seen and used like late Mahathera Chan once gave in simple words (here used in regard of anicca, but also fit to use likewise anatta:

The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. >Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

Once clear on the conventional truth of the path-tool, leading to the only real, having applying it already for all in the world of experiances, one, as sublime encouraged in the raft simile - actually dealing with anatta - has to give up the tools as well, having found a footing on the other shore, for who would carry on a raft, once having gained the secure. But to do not through out the baby with the bath-water, as many do, having got things wrong, not done, gained, the basics, "First things first!" as already linked above.
Liberated, done the task, all those questions are then total clear, and a little taste and release of doubt, will arise if good householder simply investigates one sense of the six after another, for this Dhamma is ehipassiko, not to be real gained in other ways aside of look, and see for oneself.
At least a certain promise of the Sublime Buddha as final encouragement to let go of the question as raised, on faith for now, and to get to the essence of the path: SN 25.1: Cakkhu Sutta — The Eye
(Possible extended or improved answer as well as space to get more active into the topic, can be found here)
[Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trades binding one here, but for release]


How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana Meditation? How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana meditation as taught by different schools / interpretations of Buddhism?

More particularly how do you break the links of dependent origination as per the meditations techniques taught by different schools / masters? What is the strategy that the cycle will break at the given link? Many meditation manuals do not relate to the development of understanding dependent origination. So how do the practice and theory of this issue relate? Also how does the practicing according to the tradition lead up to the understanding of dependent origination through self-realisation?

I can probably give this an answer if I take it in the context of the 12 nidanas as a significant application of the principle of dependent origination.

The way that I have been taught this (within the Triratna Buddhist movement) is that the nidanas can and do break at the point between feeling and craving. So to give the chain at that point

  With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

  With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

  With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

And around we go....

So for most of us most of the time when we have a feeling then the reaction is craving - each time, round and round. But with spiritual practice is is possible to break the cycle at this point and not have craving. It is at this point that liberation can start.

I suspect that up to here is will not be that controversial. But in Triratna we talk a lot about the spiral path at this point which spirals up to enlightenment - a kind of positive formation of the 12 nidanas. This is taken from the Upanisā Sutta.

But OPs question is about the Vipassana techniques around this. Although we have a system of meditation, the practice most relevant to this would be a just sitting or a noting practice where we notice the feelings arise and try to see that just as that - feelings. In that way we can see again and again that feelings are just feelings and of themselves do not have craving or desire as a neccessary part of them. Thus one day, with faith and perseverance the cycle breaks.

Another way into this might be with a mindfulness practice relating to the Satipatthana Sutta  particularly with reference to the section on feelings.

When i think about vipassana it is usually the Goenka meditation practices or a variant of anapanasati or kayagatasati kind of meditation.
That which is spoken of as DO, it is something to be seen with intellect and more.
I have no experience with Goenka but meditating on the body & bodily things is entirely good & well.
It opens up the jhana which also depends on one's intellect development.
Intellect & understanding mature as one goes deeper into jhana and one goes deeper into jhana as it matures, essential understanding is eventually made perfect by seeing the cessation of perception & feeling.
Method doesn't really come into play beyond 1st jhana and even 1st jhana can be such that method doesn't apply in this way.
This is just on the bare method of vipassana, the theory associated with it is controversial.


Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate? Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?

An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?

The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated:

  “When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.”

Could it be that this “insisting on consciousness” as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

Theravada Buddhist answer.

  Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?

It is not.

Consciousness (Citta) exists only as a taker of objects. If one has to characterize it as anything, it is rather a "knowing, cognizing or processing" of an object and not a real thing.

Here is a quote (my highlights) on the nature of Consciousness from the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  "Consciousness: The first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha
  is devoted to an examination of citta, consciousness or mind, the first of the four ultimate realities. Consciousness is taken up for study first because the focus of the Buddhist analysis of reality is experience, and consciousness is the principal element in experience, that which constitutes the knowing or awareness of an object.

  The Pali word citta is derived from the verbal root citi, to cognize, to know. The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam).

  The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition".

  -- Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 1: Compendium of Consciousness, Guide to §3, p. 27.

It appears the Lord Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism) because it is doctrine based on grasping (upadana). In other words, the Lord Buddha appeared to not criticize natthikavādaṃ because of disbelief in an afterlife.

In Buddhism, the word "grasping" is "upadana", which means to "take something as one's own". Due to views of "self" or "ego", selfishness arises. Selfishness leads to moral nihilism -- the mind is grasping at dirty animal lust as "me" and "mine" and "I". This dirty grasping at dirty things, leading to harm & trauma of everyone involved, is natthikavādaṃ.

For minds out of touch with reality, some suttas about "grasping" and "selfishness" are as follows:

  Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is
  dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on
  ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion,
  possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on
  possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because
  of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful
  phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives;
  conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and
  lies.

  DN 15

But viewing consciousness as "cognition" is not "grasping". This is why the Lord Buddha said the reality of consciousness is that is cognises.

The question asked makes no sense because the question seems to irrationally believe the idea of a "thing" is the arising of "self" or "grasping"; such as to view a computer as a "computer" is "grasping".

The Lord Buddha did not to teach to abandon the idea of "things". What the Buddha taught to abandon is described below:

  16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well
  trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their
  teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality
  in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not
  consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This
  is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed,
  and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also
  he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the
  Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal,
  immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' —
  that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am,
  this is my self.'

  MN 22

In conclusion, insisting on consciousness as an objective real thing does not inherently lead to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned. Only insisting that consciousness is "self" or "me" or "my" inherently leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned.


Did Ledi Sayadaw teach that Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations with equanimity? A very short summary of the Vipassanā technique taught by S.N. Goenka would be: "observe your bodily sensations with equanimity". The role of physical bodily sensations is the key aspect of the technique and other traditions do not attach such a great importance to them. It is said that Goenka's technique of scanning the body to feel increasingly subtle sensations was passed on though several lay teachers and that it goes back to the Burmese monk Ledi Sayadaw.

Ledi Sayadaw left a large quantity of writings; some of them are available here and/or here. I looked through some of them, and in no place did I see any passage that would present observing bodily sensations as the technique to be followed. If he really taught this, it is hard to imagine he would not mention that this is the key aspect of the technique. Can anyone provide a relevant quote from Ledi Sayadaw's texts?

Update: The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations/body scanning. Mindfulness of the body in Ānāpāna Dīpanī is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā, so it doesn't answer my question. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See Ānāpāna Dīpanī, part XIV:

  [...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya).

In this passage Ledi Sayadaw adheres very closely to the Sutta + observes the body etc. etc. = to come to the realization of impermanence. If there is another passage Goenka is referring to, it must be in another text.
The Manual of Insight Vipassanā Dīpanī
By Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera
Translated by U Nana Mahathera:

The Practice of Insight Meditation
I will now indicate the main points necessary to those who practise the exercises of insight. Of
the three knowledges of insight, the knowledge of impermanence must first and foremost be
acquired. How? If we carefully watch the cinematograph show, we will see how quick are the
changes of the numerous series of photographs representing the wonderful scene, all in a
moment of time. We will also see that a hundred or more photographs are required to represent
the scene of a moving body. These are, in fact, the functions of viparinama and annathabhava, or
the representation of impermanence or death, or cessation of movements. If we carefully
examine the movements in a scene, such as the walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, bending,
stretching, and so forth, of the parts of the body during a moment of time, we will see that these
are full of changes, or full of impermanence. Even in a moment of walking, in a single step, there
are numerous changes of pictures which may be called impermanence or death. It is also the
same with the rest of the movements. Now, we must apply this to ourselves. The impermanence
and the death of mental and material phenomena are to be found to the full in our bodies, our
heads, and in every part of the body. If we are able to discern clearly those functions of
impermanence and death which are always operating in our bodies, we shall acquire the insight
of the destruction ( bhanga-nana ), into the breaking-up, falling-off, cessation, and changes of the
various parts of the body in each second, in each fraction of a second. That is, we shall discern
the changes of every part of the body, small and great, of head, of legs, of hands, and so forth. If
this be thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of
impermanence is well accomplished. And if the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence
is well accomplished, then that of the contemplation of non-soul is also accomplished. If this is
thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence is
well accomplished. By the word "accomplished," it is meant that the exercise has been properly
worked out so as to remain a permanent possession, during the whole term of life; but it is not
meant that the knowledge of the path and of fruition has been attained. The attainment of the
knowledge of the path and fruition, however, is quick or slow, according to opportunity or lack
of opportunity in the practice of higher virtues.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for.

From "A Manual of Respiration (Ānāpāna Dīpanī)" by Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, translated by U Sein Nyo Tun, part IV:

  IV Mindfulness of the Body before Tranquillity and Insight

  In this present life, if beings continually fail to practise
  mindfulness of the body, and thus continue to live without control
  over their minds, although they may be Buddhists, they will be
  drifting and submerged in Saṃsāra just as they have been in the past.
  Lacking control over the mind, they are certain to drift in Saṃsāra
  because without mental control, the work of tranquillity and insight
  cannot be undertaken. Gaining control of the mind is, on the other
  hand, the certain path to nibbāna, because it enables the work of
  tranquillity and insight to be undertaken. Meditation on mindfulness
  of the body is the effort to gain control of the mind.

  Even though one is unable to undertake the higher work of tranquillity
  and insight, the Buddha said that if one can firmly control one’s mind
  and succeed in keeping it at will within one’s body, one enjoys the
  taste of nibbāna:

    “Amataṃ tesaṃ viraddhaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati viraddhā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ aviraddhaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati aviraddhā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ aparibhuttaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati aparibhuttā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ paribhuttaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati paribhuttā.”

    “Those who have missed mindfulness of the body, have missed nibbāna.
    Those who have not missed mindfulness of the body, have not missed
    nibbāna. Those who have not made use of mindfulness of the body, have
    not made use of nibbāna. Those who have made use of mindfulness of the
    body, have made use of nibbāna.” (A.i.46)

  The essential meaning is that if one is established in mindfulness of
  the body one can successfully undertake the work of tranquillity and
  insight because one has firm control over one’s mind, thus it is
  certain that in this very life one cannot miss nibbāna. If, however,
  like the mad man, one has no control over one’s mind because one
  continues to neglect the work of mindfulness of the body, one is
  unable to fulfil the work of tranquillity and insight, and hence will
  miss nibbāna.

  There are many degrees of control over one’s mind.

  In this world, ordinary persons who are not insane have sufficient
  control over their minds to perform the various tasks, both individual
  and social, that arise among humans. This is one kind of control.

  Within the Buddhasāsana, the morality of controlling the senses
  (indriya saṃvara sīla) is one kind of control. However, it cannot be
  said to be dependable.

  Establishing oneself in mindfulness of the body, being the proximate
  cause (padaṭṭhāna) of tranquillity and insight meditation, is firm
  control. The attainment of access concentration (upacāra samādhi) just
  before entering any of the absorptions, is firmer control. Firmer
  still is attainment concentration (appanā samādhi) reached during full
  absorption. The eight stages of attainment concentration are controls
  that become progressively firmer as each higher stage is reached. In
  the matter of tranquillity, the attainments of the higher spiritual
  powers (abhiññāṇa) represents the highest level of control.

  This is the path of tranquillity called “Samatha Yānika.”

  The path of insight is called “Vipassanā Yānika.”

  Here ends the section showing that mindfulness of the body must
  precede the work of tranquillity and insight.


Who is experiencing the non self? There is no self that is permanent. All this results from 5 aggregates, then who is experiencing the non self?

There are several questions on this site which are more-or-less about this topic.

One which I found helpful was, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

I also liked this little summary of Right View, which includes, "A thicket of wrong views".

That’s exactly right.  When you find out “who” that is, you will have resolved the matter of birth and death.

Just keep asking “who?  who?  who?”  Don’t put the question down for a second.  Keep it so close that no air can escape.


Infinite loops of Rebirths I have a question.

A man should attain enlightenment to liberate himself from cycle of rebirths and every other aspects.

What if a MAN don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment. Will he be stuck in a cycle and no place to stop his process of rebirth until he attains enlightenment.

Does he be a prisoner of this birth cycle. Is there no way for him to escape until he attains Enlightenment. What is the end of this birth cycle?

I don't have in-depth knowledge in Buddhism or the question I ask. So please correct me if I am wrong.

Vimalakirti Sutra:

  Śāriputra: Goddess, where will you be born when you transmigrate after death?

  Goddess: I will be born where all the magical incarnations of the Tathāgata are born.

  Śāriputra: But the emanated incarnations of the Tathāgata do not transmigrate nor are they born.

  Goddess: All things and living beings are just the same; they do not transmigrate nor are they born!

  Śāriputra: Goddess, how soon will you attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood?

  Goddess: At such time as you, elder, become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual, then will I attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: Goddess, it is impossible that I should become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual.

  Goddess: Just so, reverend Śāriputra, it is impossible that I should attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood! Why? Because perfect enlightenment stands upon the impossible. Because it is impossible, no one attains the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: But the Tathāgata has declared: “The tathāgatas, who are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, have attained perfect buddhahood, are attaining perfect buddhahood, and will go on attaining perfect buddhahood.”

  Goddess: Reverend Śāriputra, the expression “the buddhas of the past, present, and future” is a conventional expression made up of a certain number of syllables. The buddhas are neither past, nor present, nor future. Their enlightenment transcends the three times! But tell me, elder, have you attained the state of arhat?

  Śāriputra: It is attained, because there is no attainment.

  Goddess: Just so, there is perfect enlightenment because there is no attainment of perfect enlightenment.

Although I am no monk or Buddhist expert, I consider myself a Buddhist. As it is understood by me, Enlightenment CAN include the cessation of the rebirth cycle if an enlightened being so chooses it. Some do not, such as the Dahli Lama. His Inner Buddha Nature/Perfect Light, whatever you choose to call an enlightened soul, seems to have the choice of whether to continue or stop the rebirth cycle. Enlightenment seems to me to have the most to do with no longer possessing the self or I and no longer considering things from the position of a "personal singularity" or self. An enlightened being no longer need consider anything from the position of self or I, but of an all empathetic and compassionate entity no longer bound by the restrictions or "chains," if you will, of a single being. this is purely my opinion/understanding and not taken from any writings or teachings that I know of to exist.
Namaste,
Brian Burke Jr.


How often do monks get nocturnal emissions? I am practicing celibacy from last 6 months. I cannot control my nocturnal emissions. I have some control but not complete control. In the beginning I used to get wet dreams every 10-12 days and now I get them every 45-50 days. I have extremely pure thoughts all day long. I don't think that I'll ever get sexual thought again. I believe that I have trained my mind very well. One the nights when the emission happens I don't have any erotic dreams, it happens without any sexual thought or an erotic dream.

I practise Halassana & Balasana every day without fail. I also do physical activity running mainly. Why am I still not able to control wet dreams? I want to get rid of them completely.

I researched a lot on the web but couldn't find any satisfactory answer for the following questions:

Do all monks get nocturnal emissions? How often does it happen to them especially young monks age around 24-25? If it happens to them, what do they do about it? If it doesn't then, how does they train themselves to reach that level?

Note: I am new to this site so don't know what would be the appropriate tags for the question so kindly edit if they are not suitable.
If the question is not appropriate for the site, instead of downvoting it, let me know via comment, I will take it down myself.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having nocturnal emissions. It's a completely natural physiological function.

I even dare to say that nocturnal emissions should happen in young and healthy males. If you'd have no emissions, it would mean that you have too low testosterone, testicular disease or other problems.

You say you have no "impure" thoughts, therefore there is no reason for you to feel regret or remorse. Quite the opposite, be grateful that your body is healthy and working well.

Please, don't worry about it. Many ascetics are too harsh on themselves and are trying to stop their desires or bodily functions by practising extreme fasting or some even emasculate themselves. These things are extreme and quite opposite to the Middle Path which Buddha taught. Don't damage yourself, be compassionate to yourself.

On the other hand, there is another extremity, which is the commitment to sensual pleasures, but I think it's not your case.

Peace

The Vinaya monastic code has:

  ‘Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, is an offense entailing suspension.’”

In particular, the reason given is important:

  “Monks, there’s intention involved, but it’s negligible.

Be mindful and wary of intentions. As intention and the tendency towards intention is relinquished, the problem disappears.

Further discussion should probably happen in private consultation with your teacher, but perhaps the Vinaya reference may provide some useful context in your study.