Am I missing the point of Buddhism? I have been on a few forums and Facebook groups and a lot of people on there seem to be missing the point of their practice.  What colour robes should I wear, how many breaths should I take per minute while meditating and (worst of all) what is meant by this word, in this particular translation, of this sutra.  No offence to anyone else here.  In "Hardcore Zen" by Brad Warner he make some comment about the people who go to the temples, sit there meditating all day, but for all the wrong reasons.

The principles are fairly self explanatory and as long as you live a good life as a good person, that is it.  Enlightenment aka "the same old, same old".  I know my life won't realistically be any better if I won a million punds and I am happy with that.  By all means swot up on the methodology but it will just make you a better "buddhist" as opposed to making you any happier.  Am I missing something?  I hope not.

Unless you are up there with the stream entrants, the deepest principles aren't self explanatory. One must want to experience them within Samsara to transcend Samsara.

Personally, I wouldn't follow Buddhism nessasarily, I'd follow the Buddha's core teaching that was repeated again and again from all angles of interpretation.

Yes. You are certainly missing the boat, the same as the dry intellectual geek Brad Warner.

Right understanding & right practise will make the mind much much more happier.

The Pali suttas say "jhana" is "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings" (MN 79). The Pali suttas say: "Nirvana is the supreme happiness" (Dhp 203) that "does not fluctuate" (MN 140).

But, in this video, for example, Brad says about Nirvana: "You cannot have these experiences of bliss everyday". In the video, Brad appears to compare Nirvana to the temporary fleeing pleasure of sex.

Enlightenment is not "the same old, same old". It appears Brad Warner has never left American libraries and suburbia. That appears why Brad Warner appears dry & crusty looking rather than has a radiant beautiful complexion.  The Buddha said about his disciples:

  Sāriputta, your faculties are so very clear, and your complexion is
  pure and bright.


Getting confused by various methods I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana(which I want to enter).

I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving while breathing(I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less.

I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness.

So my questions:

  1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change?

  2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

Few suggestion I can give.

Don’t set the goal to get Jhana, No goal at all.
Don’t change the methods, Every methods was right it just a tool make you focus.
Do consistently. At least once a day and same time of the day.
Do anytime when you regcognize, Not just sit and shut your eyes.
Do when sleep until last moment you slept and do at very first moment you wakeup. This is an indicator that your meditation is progress. If you can continue the meditate from slept this indicate you are likely near Jhana.

Jhana is nothing special.
It's a state you can really control your concentration.

At initial step it's quite hard for people who are high skeptic or thoughtful with everything.

You don't need to take many hours everyday to sit and meditate.

You should try to take every seconds as meditate without distracting your work life.

Do until familiar then you reach Jhana.

Even it take 10 years still worth.

The only thing to do is to change your »tendencies«, going from bad tendencies to good tendencies. First you must know what happens in »your world«, which as usual for the dhamma is what you experience. It turns out that you change your tendencies mostly by stopping  to associate yourself with people who have the bad tendencies, and you begin to associate yourself with people who have the good tendencies.
The concrete advises are at the end.

Once you know what happens in your life, you identify the tendencies which are bad, the ones which are good ; then you refrain from doing again the acts [actions, talks and thinking] which are deemed bad and you pursue the acts which are called good [it turns out that you do not know which tendencies are good since your remain a »normal people«, so you just follow the guidelines of the buddha on what are the good actions ].
It turns out that the principal, if not the only one, source which leads you away from nibanna is mental and not physical. [such as when athletes claim that the limit of their effort is the mind and not the body]

As usual , The beginning is, first, to stop going on the opposite of the path. SO that means to stop caring about what you have always been caring about in all the years you can remember living [since you are not at the stage of nibbanna, you know that whatever you did so far during the few decades of your life has been mediocre at best, if not totally pathetic and stupid. You must be sincere about your skills [you have none since you are miserable] and about the goal you want to reach. So far The only good thing about you, your behavior, your life is that you dislike some of your life and want to reach nibbanna and you have few hours of practice which are not effective according to you].

The usual objects of worry are about comfort, entertainment, the fear of missing out on pleasures and the worry being a good person as thought by people who do not care one bit about reaching a state where they are no longer unhappy once and for all [that is to say that there is nothing else to do after reaching this state of non-unhapinness and there is no dissipation of this new state ever].

The fear about missing out on pleasures is mental and is fed easily by other people who claim that »it would be a pity not to experience this ''happiness''« that is the experience when, let's say, you enjoy a yogurt or be on a cruise with a person you love, or Parachuting and so on.

The worry about comfort and a few other objects of habits is called »biological« by the same persons above, but it is not. It remains mental and you learn later on about managing them [ex: you learn tummo to stop being cold, instead of working to get money, then going shopping, then spending the money on cloths to get you warm, then washing the cloths because they stink, so you need other cloths while the last ones dry and then storing them].

Then the morality from those same toxic people. They claim that you must worry about money, worry about getting a house, worry about attending such event, worry about listening to the people they admire, worry about opinions, worry about who is here and who is not here, worry about the news and so on [it never ends with these people]. This part is also obviously mental.

So far all those worries are fed by living, and worse, listening to those people have bad habits. The first step is then to identify those people, typically by what they claim and what they do [since you do not have access to what they think] and to stay away from them as much as you can.
[ex: your friends bugs you off with going to the cinema to watch a movie? you do not follow them, otherwise you would become absorbed in the movie and experience the emotions that the actors try to make you feel. Perhaps if you were skillful at attending to the senses, you could go, but it turns out that once you are good at it, you would not want to go]

Once you stop  cognizing about all those objects fed by those people, there is not much to do in your daily life. All those intellectual activities that so many people praise are exactly what must not be pursued.
The daily life will be about getting  the money that a few people demand from you, to carry out the tasks that a few people demand from you, and more intimately, it will be about food and cleaning the body and the  house, sometimes talking to a person who wants to know more about the dhamma.

Far fewer speculations will be generated once this life is led. Once most speculations disappear, you stay on the level of the »body« to know »what you experience« which really means »to know what happens through the 5 usual senses«.
The first step is to relax the body, then the mano and the citta. When the speculations appear, you know they appear and when they do not disappear at once, you follow the sutta by recalling that their pursuit is bad and you go back to the body and its relaxation to make them disappear and know that they disappeared by this way. Do this as long as the mind is not relaxed. It turns out that the most natural and the only relevant  way to analyze the body is through the »elements«:

find what is soft and hard
find what is dry and wet
find what is cold and warm
find what is airy

Beforehand, the explicit advices are as usual:

with other people: do not lie, do not create stories and drama, settle disputes even if, from the point of view of you and other normal people, you appear to be losing
do not eat too much, especially too much meat
do not ejaculate semen
to not sleep too much, so as soon you as you are awake you start knowing what happens until the moment you fall asleep
hold on even when the sensual experience is not pleasant and never  succumb to the sensual experience when it is pleasant
change the postures if you want to : go from being sit, to standing up, to walking, to laying in bed [on the back or on the right side] and when you are bored with that, you can clean the house and keep continuing to know what happens.

Knowing what happens is the basis, the beginning. Once you know what happens, you begin to reject whatever leads  you to bad acts and you steer towards the good acts.

Once the mind is relaxed and pliant, you either dive into the jhanas and leave them and or you turn your mano and citta to the discourses, especially the most important sequence to recall at any experience: whatever is experienced about the senses is anicca, what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta [NOT what is anicca is anatta].

Let's recall that Nibbanna is the only experience  that is anatta and not anicca and not dukkha.

Let's recall that anatta has nothing to do with ''self'' and the specualtions that people put bedhing this word.
The atta is not a concept, not an idea, not an opinion, not a belief, not a speculation, not a fantasy, not a dream, not a thought, not a theory, not an observation, not an operation, not a reasoning, not a game, not an information, not an illusion, not a vision, not an hallucination, not a chimera, not a mirage, not a lie, not a ghost, not a fiction, not a simulation,  not a charm; atta is and  always will be first and foremost about the experience of ''I''', of ''mine'', of ''me'' which projects, it turns out, whatever experiences them towards the opposite of the goal.
For instance, the ''me'' in ''I, mine, me'' is not an idea, it is an experience and perhaps you even have a few records of it, typically when you said, without thinking, the word ''me'' when acting with and talking to other normal people. [same situation with '''I'' and ''my''].

The next natural step is to stop worrying about the actions and goods  remaining from the old daily life with normal people, which are, let's recall, »about getting the money   that a few people demand from you, to carry out the tasks that a few people demand from you, and more intimately, it will be about food and cleaning the body and the  house«.
Having a house and taking care of it is a burden, finding food is burden, storing food is a burden; so it is the ideal time to become a bhikkhu and continue to attend what happens in your world.
Once this is done, It is the ideal time also to lose whatever appeal remains towards any of the »five aggregates«, and any form-ation involving them, like the jhanas which  neutralize only temporarily only a few bad tendencies, which mean that they cannot be the end.


What to focus on in the practise of sati? Recently, I started to be aware of my actions as stated in Sathipattana sutta.
Today, I was aware about my movements when I moving a object. And I placed it in a wrong place. This happened multiple times.
Before this practise, I aware about where to put the object but not movements. But today, the opposite.
What am I doing wrong here?

The Satipatthana Sutta does not instruct to be aware of bodily movements.
Instead, the Satipatthana Sutta instructs to know what you are doing according to the Dhamma when there are bodily movements. The Satipatthana Sutta says:

Furthermore, a monks acts with situational wisdom when going out and
coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending
the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating,
drinking, chewing and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when
walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking and keeping
silent.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhikkante paṭikkante sampajānakārī
hoti, ālokite vilokite sampajānakārī hoti, samiñjite pasārite
sampajānakārī hoti, saṅghāṭipattacīvaradhāraṇe sampajānakārī hoti,
asite pīte khāyite sāyite sampajānakārī hoti, uccārapassāvakamme
sampajānakārī hoti, gate ṭhite nisinne sutte jāgarite bhāsite
tuṇhībhāve sampajānakārī hoti.
MN 10

For example, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of keeping silence and preparing a rifle to murder another person, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
Again, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of taking drugs, engaging in sexual misconduct or maintaining the perfect quiet of a burglar robbing a rich man's house at night, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
What the Satipatthana Sutta is instructing is meditating upon the body to ensure the body is engaged in wholesome dhammic bodily actions.

You have to practice four Satipathana. Contemplation on the body, feeling, thought, and Dhamma. The way you practice at the moment is not correct. It took me seven years just to scratch the surface of meditation. Just be patient, speak to a good teacher. Goenka's Ten days Vipassana course is a good way to start. There is a YouTube video series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz7QHNvNFfA


Multiverse in Buddhism? According to this answer:

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are
infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be
similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of
beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally
rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be
reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places
every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live
in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the
lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such
being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The
cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the
same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would
believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the
universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a
few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

I think that at least in one place the early Sutta say that there is one Brahma (primary god) in a world system but they also speak of a world system which is thousand or manyfold but i can't recall if it is said that these do not have a Brahma god in them, they don't as i understand Buddhisms and are rather spoken of as comprised of earths & suns like our immediate environment complete with it's human kings, godly retinues & mount Merus.
I think this entire world system with it's thousandfold systems can be thought of as a single system of conceivable points of reference or observers as in special relativity.
So Brahma is max power which is a constant position and Tathagatha is occasional superpower.
At any given point there is only one ruler of the world because it's all one one conditioned system which changes as it persists.
Texts do say that there is also only one Buddha in a world system simultaneously and that a world system contracts & expands in cycles.
Unfortunately the texts do not always differentiate between a world system as to greater or lesser (they do sometimes) and therefore it is a controversy.
Some people think there can be several Buddhas in what we normally refer to as a universe, others think it cannot happen. Ie some hold that it's 1 Buddha per solar system or galaxy simultaneously.
The idea of 'sharing a world simultaneously' when analyzed in terms of electromagnetic radiation gives a clue as to how this can and how this can not work.
Ie if 'one' is thought of as 'teleporting around the universe in terms of physics' then one is traveling faster than light but one is still in what is spoken of as 'a space' where one travels at a constantly infinite/instant speed.
One such as this can not travel "in time" as one is getting old as one's perception changes as one discerns a before & after.
On other hand this teleport power opens up for being seen in multiple places because one can having emitted radiation here, disappear & teleport, faster than that radiation, to a 'there' so that one can perceive that formerly emitted radiation, as visible light there and thus even seeing or feeling oneself let alone others seeing you as radiation from here and there hits simultaneously:)
I think this is the only way one can become many.
Therefore one can see that all locations are conceived locally and are immediately accessible to a Buddha; therefore another Buddha cannot exist even a trillion lightyears away nor in any other conceivable location for as long as the life-force of a Tathagatha is a factor in the world. That is because, as i explained, all locality is immediately accessible to a Buddha as it is conceived and that obv faster than light as quantum entanglement demonstrates.

Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

Sure. I can simplify it into one word - 'superstition'.
In original Buddhism, the term "loka" ("world") refers to a state of mind, such as:

For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind
that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation and the practice
that leads to its cessation.
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare sasaññimhi samanake
lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca
paṭipadanti.
AN 4.45

For that misunderstand the above, again:

With the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third
absorption.
pītiyā ca virāgā … pe … tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati—
This is the grounded path for realizing a world of perfect happiness.
ayaṃ kho sā, udāyi, ākāravatī paṭipadā ekantasukhassa lokassa
sacchikiriyāyā”ti.
MN 79


What is the fastest way to reach enlightenment? I am asking for reference request and sutras where a person can cut through samsara quickly and obtain liberation.

I have heard a story when Buddha was asked this question and he replied "Sound". However I haven't found any reference of this & don't know how much accurate this is.

Thoughts are more than welcome!

You're probably thinking of the Bahiya Sutta (Udana 1.10).

Once there was a bark-clad ascetic Bahiya who thought he was enlightened, but a deva told him that he wasn't and asked him to seek out the Buddha for his guidance.

He found the Buddha who gave him a brief instruction, which resulted in his near-immediate enlightenment. Very shortly after that, he was killed in a freak accident. The Buddha said that Bahiya became totally unbound (i.e. enlightened).

What did the Buddha teach him? (translated by Thanissaro)

  "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Alternative translation from here (Ireland):

  "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be
  merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the
  sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely
  what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

  "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the
  cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be
  'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you
  will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then,
  Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

This is a teaching on anatta.

However, this may not work for everyone as it did on Bahiya, because Bahiya apparently was already advanced in attainment. Please see this answer.

For complete beginners, study of the Dhamma (in order to cultivate Right View) and practice of the five precepts and virtue (sila) is recommended. Please see this answer.

Correct way to enlightenment is arya ashtangika marga i.e. the "Noble Eightfold Path".


How to mitigate the negative karmic effect of killing I'm a graduate student studying plant-insect interactions. My research, necessary for my degree, requires me to collect (kill) a few hundred insects. Are there any suttas, or general Buddhist recommendations, for how a lay person can best approach this? Are there ways to make up for the bad karma incurred by this action?

Wanting to become a degree holder is Bhava-tanha or craving to become. That craving is causing you to break the first precept. See how dependant origination is at play here.

You can either look for insects that are already dead or tell your professor that you cannot kill as a Buddhist.

Killing insects is not a offence for monks that leads to expulsion from the monastic community therefore the kamma of killing insects is not something serious. It is kammically "trifling".

For example, insects can spread deadly disease & destroy crops, which shows they are lifeforms that do not have a moral conscience. For this same reason of not having a moral conscience, insects do not suffer when they are killed because their minds cannot generate egoistic attachment. If an insect, such as a mosquito or gadfly, was a rational creature with a mind capable of suffering, a mosquito would not continually return to bite & even kill a human after many loving & gentle attempts of a human to scare the insect away.

The reason a Buddhist, such as monk, refrains from killing insects is to develop a higher than ordinary level of non-violence, gentleness, safety towards all beings, fearlessness, loving-kindness & non-attachment. In other words, there is no serious bad karma for killing an insect, such as killing a mosquito that might bite a small baby. Often, it is a duty rather than bad karma to clean away insects that are threatening to health, life & property.

There is far more serious bad kamma than killing insects, such as watching pornography or having uncommitted sex. You should be aware many internet Buddhists over-esteem non-killing as a "virtue-signalling" to ameliorate themselves from their unwholesome & enslaving sexual deeds.

In respect to your question, the Buddha taught "kamma is intention". If your study is for a wholesome intention then that is enough to ameliorate the trifling bad kamma of killing some insects. The results of kamma is something we known within our hearts & minds. I recommend to read the Lonaphala Sutta for guidance.


What is meditation and are we dulling the mind through what is considered formal meditation? I ask this with a healthy skepticism.

What is meditation? Is it the style that is put forth in the texts or traditions, like Tibetan or Indian or whatever tradition? For example,  sit down and dedicate time to meditate. And is the definition of meditation objective or is it a subjective experience/practice? For example, Marcus Aurelius' writing, Meditations. Can following a train of thought intentionally, not compulsively, be considered meditation?

I wish to question why we sit down to meditate for sometime. I have been giving answers on this site, giving so-called "practical advice" about sitting and meditating and then it struck me that I may be dulling the mind through this. Meditation seems to lend you to a certain calmness, which is good, but if I may say, a certain suggestibility.

I accept that the mind's activity is fairly ceaseless. Is this an altering of the state of mind in a sort of long term negative way?

What I mean is, it seems to me that sometimes I can't seem to distinguish between "dulling of the mind" and "calmness" through meditation.

It sounds like a result of the process of suppressing the mind. You don't want to do that. Just accept everything as it is.

My approach is more to do with the reversal of the roles of the thinking mind and awareness in ordinary life. Normally the thinking mind is in control and awareness takes a back seat, but through persistence it's become the opposite. This feels more like the thinking mind is just having a rest, rather than it being dulled. I can switch it on whenever I want and it works probably better than it used to.

There really is no need for meditation because you can just use life as the grinding stone for the self. It's something you can do all the time and is no different to your ordinary life plus perhaps the idea of throwing yourself into circumstances that would be beneficial to your refinement. All you have to do is stay in that unborn mind state as much as possible. It just eats through everything of its own accord, just as it should do in meditation.

Meditation is not exclusive to Buddhism. I think that is what is confusing you.

First understand “meditation:”

  What is meditation

Literally, it is just thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration. None of which leads to “dulling of the mind.”

Next, understand “Buddhist meditation:”

Buddhist meditation is just thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration of the lessons of Buddhism.

At its core, Buddhism is about reducing the suffering in the universe. If you decided to engage in some Buddhist meditation, all you would have to do to get started is engage in thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration of how to reduce the suffering in your own life and the lives of those around you. You might realize you have been treating your wife badly lately and recognize how you could stop doing that, and resolve to stop doing that. At that point, you are already well on your way.

So meditation is not nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is. And neither is Buddhist meditation. You don’t have to be in a certain pose or doing a certain kind of breathing, although some people like to do that. You don’t have to be going over certain tenets of scripture, although some people like to do that. You don’t have to attempt to completely empty your mind, although some people like to do that.

The reason that people sit when they meditate is because if you lay down, you might fall asleep! How is that for complicated and mysterious?

Also, you don’t have to be quiet. There is musical meditation. You can engage in chanting, for example.

An important thing to note is that when people try meditation — whether Buddhist or not — most of them report that it improved their lives.

A final thought: we evolved from earlier primates who literally sat around and ate leaves for 9 hours per day. That is a lot of meditation. It shouldn’t really surprise us that our brains and bodies enjoy some quiet time. Especially when we might have even more to think about than our distant ancestors.


Why don't animals(animal realm) commit suicide? We all know that suicide has been totally refused in Buddhism as unwholesome act.
suicide can be observed in human realm but why not in animal realm?

I'm not sure that they don't, not sure that it is never observed -- sometimes an old dog walks in front of a car for example, and is killed, and I wonder if they knew what they were doing.
But your question reminds me of a poem, by a non-Buddhist author, it's short and says:

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

It's a famous poem, striking, maybe worth considering from a Buddhist perspective.
I'm not even sure about that poem, though, not sure that it's true either: its author didn't always write kindly even about people (perhaps he was wrong about animals, too) -- it's hard to be sure of others' motives.
Animals sometimes feel sad, I'm pretty sure of that, and apparently mourn their dead; but perhaps self-pity depends on the ability to tell (or fabricate) a story about oneself: which, maybe, animals don't.

Physical animals appear to function on programmed instinct rather than on 'self'. For example, animals, generally, have sex for reproduction rather than for self-affirmation (therefore they do not get heartbroken & are detached in child birth) and animals, generally, do not engage in greed or random violence but are only violent when hunting for food or protecting territory.

Where as people commit suicide due to heartbreak, loneliness, financial problems, trauma from war (see 15 Common Causes Of Suicide: Why Do People Kill Themselves?), which is related to ideas of 'self', which in Buddhism is 'delusion'.

In the Pali, suttas, the term 'animal' is used for a lack of Dhamma, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  existence (tiracchānayoni), a ghostly sphere (pettivisayo) or some other bad state would be evident.

  AN 6.39

  Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

  The world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles
  protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the
  wives of other honored persons. AN 2.9

In the Pali suttas, the term 'human' is used for virtue & wisdom, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. AN 6.39

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.

  SN 56.47

While some might possibly consider what I am saying as posting hurtful content on Buddhism SE, it seems quite obvious from the teachings of the Buddha that the word 'animal' in Buddhism does not refer to physical animals but to people having a mind like an animal (i.e., a mind without Dhamma). In other words, physical animals do not commit suicide but people without Dhamma, enslaved to both instinct & self-view, commit suicide.

Therefore, by practising & realising Dhamma, the inclination towards suicide may be overcome. The suttas say:

  Beings (sattā) are few who that leave an animal existence (tiracchānayoniyā) & reappear (paccājāyanti) as humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous that reappear in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths.

  SN 56.102 to 131

In short, in Buddhism, the term 'tiracchānayoniyā' ('animal existence') refers to living without Dhamma. People in the tiracchānayoniyā realm can fall into hell, prompting suicide, or, otherwise, they can rise up into the human realms by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha.


How does killing bear consequences? How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting". If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

Kamma is intention. The intention dictates the mental and physical consequences.

  This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting".

Correct. They hunted for food; to feed their children; following the cycle of life; how nature created them.

  If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

The above appears to be your personal point of view rather than a Buddhist point of view. If the above idea was Buddhist, there would be specific quotes from scriptures to support this idea; where the Buddha instructed people to not kill for food. Obviously, in the Buddha's time, people would have asked him the same questions about how to gather food. Obviously, the later monks decided such questions did not warrant inclusion in the scriptures. We know the Buddha never taught vegetarianism because he allowed monks to eat meat from almsfood. The Buddha appeared concerned about killing with wanton violence (rather than about how people feed themselves).

Why don't you kill? Maybe because you don't like to be killed either? It would be good if Nyom Daniel gives an answer here himself.


Is the belief in no rebirth conditioned by craving? Suppose somebody strongly believes in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly denies the possibility of the existence of rebirth.

Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth?

Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?

Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?

It's a very modern view, actually a very materialistic view at least, coming in camouflages of emptiness (e.g. householder equanimity, that like to deny effect of deeds)

It falls mostly even into one of the three 'evil views':

  From: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Ven. Nyanatiloka

  The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

  (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
  (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
  (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

  (1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosāla, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate.

  (2) was taught by Pūrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected."

  (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.

    Table I - Consciousness-States (viññāna kkhandha)
    karmic unwholesome (akusala), Rooted in attachment (lobha):

    accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted

    29.accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, prompted

See also: How to address wrong view?

Usually they deny mundane right view and excuse their action by transcendent right views means.

How ever, it does not mean that everybody who does not firm believe in rebirth is destinated to low reals!

If one holds on a liberal perspective while being vituose in a mood "what ever may came" or "for now, I do not know but also can not exclude" like suggested to the Kalamas:

  "Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

  "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

  "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

  "'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

  "'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

  "One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

Because not acting unwholesome out of any believe, seeing the benefit of virtue in all cases, one is good protected to be not destinated upwards as well.

So it should not be understood in a way that the Buddha or his disciples force you to take on a believe or that someone not believing on rebirth, maybe even never gave it a thought, althought he/she is a virtuous person, acts in good and harmless way, is destinated, out of missing a conscious believe, to unpleasant states.

It all comes down to the actions by mind, speech and bodily deeds one performes of where he/she would find him/herselves later on.

If starting to keep the five precepts firm, you will see for your self that youR welbeing increases and states "as if in hell" do no more accure that often or even fade eternally. Then, later, you see cause and effects for youself, knowing that your current existence is not just something that happens accidently or by power of others or ends with that done today and that you future is designed by previous and current deeds. Here you are for now and there you could be, or there. Own choices design the path where to go and they can not be made undone.

Once you came till here you can be Comfortable with the truth

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Non-belief in post-mortem rebirth arises from the realisation that "jati" is the birth of creating the idea of "beings" or "self-identities". Therefore, non-belief in post-mortem rebirth arises from realisation, liberation, truthfulness & honesty (rather than from craving).

If the questioner is unsure what the words "truthfulness & honesty" mean, they can ask the question: "Does telling children there is no Santa Claus arise from craving or from honesty?"

Belief in post-mortem rebirth is a significant obstacle to Nibbana, which is why the Buddha did not teach about post-mortem rebirth in those suttas that lead to enlightenment, such as SN 22.59, about the three characteristics. The Buddha's final words were: "All conditioned things are subject to vanish".

Any teachings that infer (via worldly interpretation) post-mortem rebirth were given for the purpose of fostering morality (refer to MN 117) & not for Nibbana. These moral teachings are about "kamma" and include the assumption of "self" ("upadhi" - refer to MN 117).

In DN 31, it is taught the duty of monks is to teach householders the path to heaven (rather than the path to Nibbana). In his 1st sermon, the Buddha taught 'The Middle Way' is for those who have left the household life (rather than for householders).

In Buddhism, there are two levels of teachings, namely: (i) moral teachings, particularly for householders; and (ii) Nibbana teachings, particularly for monks & aspirants (refer to MN 117).

Not discerning the two levels of teachings results in illogical questions, such as "rebirth" & "Nibbana". Nibbana and rebirth have no relationship to each other because Nibbana is the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion, including the end of self-view.

If self-view & self-conceit are not completely eradicated, no type of Nibbana can be realised.

  And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root so that it is no
  longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble
  one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is
  unfettered. MN 22


Justifying the Four Noble Truths without rebirth In the article entitled A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth, Doug Smith, of the Secular Buddhist Association, wrote:

  It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically
  informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its
  associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them.

It appears that many Secular Buddhists do not accept rebirth, while almost all other Buddhists do.

In the essay entitled Dhamma Without Rebirth?, well-known Tripitaka translator and scholar Ven. Bodhi conveyed the mainstream view of the Buddhist world:

  If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go
  directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the
  Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his
  teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us
  that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his
  time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has
  tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice,
  affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the
  motivation with which it is followed through to completion.

If someone considers himself a Buddhist, we can assume that he accepts the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. I guess this should apply to Secular Buddhists as well.

If there is no such thing as rebirth (or continuation of the stream of consciousness or mind after death, in a new life), then there is no need to end suffering by ending craving (third noble truth), through following the Noble Eightfold Path (fourth noble truth). Instead, it's much easier to commit suicide, or simply wait for natural death. After all, if there is no rebirth, then at death, all suffering would end anyway, right?

So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end suffering?

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.

3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

  "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?

6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)

Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

  "Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
  benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html

Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

  SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

  Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).

That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.

"So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance
  of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if
  they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have
  any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow
  the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end
  suffering?"

You should give this question to the author of the article.

From the article it seems like the author has the belief that rebirth does not exist because there is no evidence for it. If he has such a belief, then his belief is no different than the belief that rebirth exists. In fact, both beliefs are mostly based on "lack of evidence":

The author, due to lack of evidence, believes "there is no rebirth". The religious, due to lack of evidence, believes "there is rebirth". Both are believers. Thus, both have their own religions.

Not only that I don't have a belief in rebirth, but I KNOW that rebirth is true. I was and I am a big skeptic and an agnostic (if I have no proof of something, I neither reject it nor accept it ... I leave it open, but need STRONG proof and evidence before I accept something as true). Nonetheless, regarding spirituality, I was more an atheist then an agnostic. I thought that spiritual and religious beliefs are all made up. I've never read any suttas, nor religious texts, nor books about spirituality, nothing. Never been in the church, nor practiced any religion or spiritual belief nor knew much about them. I was a total skeptic, almost atheist, and gave ZERO attention to spirituality, past lives, God, and similar. During the period when I meditated, I refrained from reading any suttas, religious texts, books about spirituality and similar. I didn't want it to somehow influence my findings and most importantly, if I knew or read about the teachings of the Buddha and similar before attaining my own realizations, how would I know that what I've realized was not just my own imagination under the influence of some teaching, belief, idea, that I've read in some sutta or book about spirituality or religion?? That's why I refrained from reading anything at all. It was only when I got answers to all my questions, that I started to read about God and compared my realizations to what was written in the old texts. I read the Bible and it all made perfect sense to me, but I couldn't 100 % accurately connect it with my own realizations because the texts contained symbolic words and/or stories (example is God which I understood as nonself; heaven which I understood as Nibanna; Satan which I understood as self; hell which I understood as lower realms; "Believe in God and he'll forgive you all your sins" which I understood as "realize nonself and you'll be free from suffering"; the story of Adam and Eve which I understood as volitional activities and thus the birth of self; and similar). It was only when I found Buddhist suttas that everything was written exactly as it is ... no symbolic words nor symbolic stories ... just pure truth. You just can't come closer to the truth in writing.

My message to you is don't accept nor reject anything.

Find a way to TOTALLY calm your mind and observe. Then ask yourself questions. Who am I? How my mind works? Why do I hear sounds through my ears? Is it sound or is it just sound waves vibrating my ear membrane giving raise to sensation in my mind/body, giving raise to thoughts that sound like sound? Why does a thought arise? What's its cause? What is pain? Why does it arise? What is memory? What is remembering? What is time? Just ask questions. Do tests. Do experiments. Be curious. All the answers are in meditation.


Were psychedelics used in the past by Buddhists? I know it's discouraged for Buddhists to intoxicate their body, but were there any known cases of monks using psychedelic drugs intentionally in the past?

Buddhism is about having in-body experiences not out-of-body experiences. Psychedelics distort one's experience/perspective of reality and Buddhism is about experiencing reality for what it really is. Thus psychedelic drugs are the opposite of the dharma path and not used by monks or nuns.

Taking drugs is does not provide any clarity only more maya or illusion.


Why is the 16th Karmapa visualized rather than the 17th Karmapa in Karma Kagyu? From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet.

So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

No, it is not true that it is done by the prescription of the Kagyu. I asked one of the senior students at the Dagpo Kagyu Ling center near me, who is very close to the head of that center, so he is in a position to know the answer. He told me that people can choose who they visualize during their practice, either the 17th Karmapa, Thaye Dorje, or the 16th Karmapa, Rangdrung Rigpe Dorje. What is true, is that there exists a special Guru Yoga practice text for the 16th Karmapa and not yet a formal Guru Yoga practice text for the 17th Karmapa.

So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

Maybe because there's yet any conclusive resolution to the Karmapa controversy? But anyway, just to clarify, you probably meant living Tulkus, not living Buddhas, for there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system. After Gotama Buddha's passing, and after a long period, the next Buddha will be Metteyya, who's currently carrying out His bodhisattvic duties up there in the Tusita heaven. All others will be just teachers with various degrees of attainments from now until that time.

  “He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system—there is no such possibility.’1089 And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Wheel-turning Monarchs could arise contemporaneously in one world-system…It is possible that one Wheel-turning Monarch might arise in one worldsystem—there is such a possibility.’ ~~ MN 115 ~~


What are the catalysts in eightfold path which speed up our endeavor? I want to know how one can speed up his spiritual practices (8 fold path). For- Example, How one can improve his samādhi or prajñā quickly? And what are the things or acts which helps one to improve these quickly.

In my opinion, the best catalyst is meeting highly realized people in real life to see how they behave. In a day of that you get more teaching than in a year of reading books.

Since right view is the foundation, all deeds, actions and undertakings, increasing right view are of use to establish the.
Focus on the foundations! It does not make sense to try to gain right Samadhi if the virtue section is not good developed. Practice generosity and service for those worthy. Practice sharing merits... Practice Veneration...
If having trouble with performing those meritorious deeds, no way to think that it is possible to gain right concentration.

For a person facing Stress and suffering and meeting the Tripple Gems, there is no act of will, 'May I gain conviction'. It is the nature of things that in a person, facing Stress and suffering and facing the Tripple Gems, conviction is gained.
For a person with conviction, there is no act of will, 'May I be generous, may I have possibility to give, my I let go of stingyness'. It is in the nature of things that, in a person of conviction, generosity and giving is established.
For a person of generosity and freedom of stinginess, there is no act of will, 'May I become virtuous'. It is the nature of things that, in a person of generosity and freedom of stinginess, virtue increases.
further: Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will

If there is still stinginess, not even Jhana can be reached.
Once there is no more fault in regard of virtue, no stingyness present, it will work naturally on the given causes.
And like always: to develop right view, association with people of right view is most importand. More on entering the stream here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism? Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism?

Are there Buddhists who do not believe in it?

How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

There are two concepts here. We pass away every moment and arise every minutes. Other is rebirth after death. Rebirth is partly a belief but much of the Dhamma should be realised at experiential level. What is much needed is that at the last moment is that you maintain equanimity so you do not take a new birth. The level of stillness can be achived only by a fully accomplished person who has complete mastery over the mind and cognitive process. The aim is to develop this. Generally Buddhist take rebirth at face value but belief in this is not necessary to practice Buddhism as the emphasis is to realise the truth through ones own experience. Your experience re-enforces your belief.

There is no single word for "rebirth" in the Pali suttas. There are around a dozen different terms that are translated as "rebirth". "Rebirth" is merely an interpretation of these terms.

Ultimately, "birth" ("jati") refers to the generation of the view or idea of "beings ("satta") and "self" (refer to SN 12.2; SN 23.2; SN 5.10 & SN 22.81). What is loosely translated as "rebirth" refers to the continuation or re-arising of "self" view.

For example, good kamma is done & the mind celebrates: "I have done good". Bad kamma is done & the mind regrets: "I have done bad".

Both good & bad kamma keep the mind trapped in suffering due to egoism.

What is "core" to Buddhism is what the Pali suttas state are "core", namely:

The six elements (AN 3.61)
The six sense spheres. (AN 3.61)
The eighteen applications of mindfulness in relation to the eighteen feelings. (AN 3.61)
The four noble truths. (AN 3.61; SN 56.31)
Dependent origination (which does not explain life after death; MN 28).
Three-characteristics (AN 3.134)
Emptiness (SN 20.7).

MN 38 states the dependent origination taught by the Buddha is visible in the here-&-now.

The Pali scriptures state what the Buddha taught: "leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Nibbana".

Where as believing in "rebirth/reincarnation" does not lead to Nibbana & especially leads to passion, which is why MN 117 explains ideas about 'rebirth' are polluted teachings that side with morality only; which is confirmed by MN 60, which states believing in rebirth only leads to morality (the three skilful actions).

AN 3.61 states believing 'past lives cause suffering' is easily refuted & is not the Buddha's teaching.

  "Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This
  Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification,
  pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in
  reference to this that it was said.

  MN 38

~~~

  These, bhikkhus, are the three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to
  their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing.

  But, bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what
  is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled,
  irreproachable and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?

  ‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
  ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental
  examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is
  the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable,
  and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.

  AN 3.61

~~~

  'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping
  & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.

  SN 20.7

~~~

  All processes are inconstant. All processes are unsatisfactory. ll phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks
  through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he
  declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it,
  explains it & makes it plain:

  AN 3.134

~~

  Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."
  And these things — the five clung-to-aggregates — are dependently
  co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping & holding-on to these five
  clung-to-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of
  desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five
  clung-to-aggregates is the cessation of stress.'

  MN 28

~~~

  And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
  taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
  with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
  disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
  knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
  them.

  SN 56.31

~~~

  What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

  MN 22


How can all dharmas have no intrinsic reality logically speaking? There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):
1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.
2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).
any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.
Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:
a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma
A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.
Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.
If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.
Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.
Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata.
When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities (Dharmas)

The word "realities" appears inappropriate because this word itself appears to imply some sort of esoteric connotation. The proper terms to use are "things", "phenomena" or "elements".

1.Conditioned... depends on something for its existence.

Yes.

2.Unconditioned... self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence.

In Buddhism, the Nibbana Element is the Unconditioned

A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of
conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma,
what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something,
and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist.

The Buddha did not always declare a preceding cause ("hetu") of all conditioned things. In AN 10.61, it is said a preceding cause of ignorance cannot be found. However, AN 10.61 does say ignorance has a "condition" ("paccaya") of "nutriment" ("ahara") that sustains the existence of ignorance. That "nutriment" itself is a product of ignorance but when that nutriment (namely, the five hindrances) is removed, ignorance will diminish and cease. Therefore, ignorance is conditioned, even though a preceding cause of ignorance is unknown.
A thing can be "conditioned" due to having: (i) a preceding cause (hetu); (ii) a condition (paccaya); or (iii) nutriment (ahara). These three words are not necessarily synonymous.

Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist.
Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not
exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality
fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a
conditioned Dharma.

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha said to not always rely on what today is called "logic". For spiritual matters, "logic" does not always work.

Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the
conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite
chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions
fulfilled.

I struggled to comprehend the above clearly however i wish to mention that prior causes generally cease. For example, the last in-breath my life depended on has now ceased. That in-breath of oxygen has transformed into an out-breath of carbon dioxide that has now gone to a different place and transformed into something else. I suppose I am saying there appears no tangible "chain" of causes & conditions that remains tied together.

the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an
unconditioned Dharma.

Yes. If we use the characteristic dhamma of "permanence" to define the 'unconditioned", then the Law of Nature is an "infinite" dhamma that gives the impression of being made up of conditioned things. In other words, the Law of Cause & Effect is permanent, even though it exhibits itself in relation to impermanent conditioned things.
In AN 3.136 & SN 12.20, the Buddha said the Law of Nature (Dhamma Nimaya) is fixed & unchanging; such as the impermanence of conditioned things is a permanent phenomena.

However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot
depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the
case, it would be conditioned.

No. I already explained this. The permanence of impermanence does not make the impermanence impermanent; just as a barn full of chickens does not make the barn into a chicken. The law of impermanence is permanent; just as a barn is not a chicken.

Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a
conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.

No. The conditioning or cause & effect nature of the stream of discrete conditioned things remains a fixed constant. In other words, each discrete conditioned thing or element each has an impermanent nature. So the "sabhava" or "inherent nature" of all impermanent conditioned remains the same & is permanent. The conditioned nature of an impermanent thing is a permanent quality it permanently retains.

Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have
their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by
a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series)
with an unconditioned Dharma.

I would say the series of dhammas is held together by an unconditioned dhamma, namely, the permanence of the impermanence; the permanence of the cause & effect.

Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist? So how can
Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta are true because they have intrinsic existence (AN 3.136). Nibbana also has intrinsic existence (Udāna 8.3).
Unlike Nagarjuna, Theravadins do not dispute "sabhava" or "intrinsic existent".


A Creation Story in Buddhism? Some major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have a Creation Story, which describes how God created the universe. These stories describe how a deity created the earth and then the first man and woman, who are regarded as the father and mother of all mankind.

Does Buddhism also have a similar Creation Story?

The creation or non-creation of the universe is among of the unanswered questions of the Buddha i.e.

Is the world eternal?
...or not?
...or both?
...or neither?

The answer is not to concern yourself with such matters. The Buddha teaches one thing and that thing is liberation.

BUT

Interestingly there is a creation myth in the Aggañña Sutta. But it don't think it should be taken too seriously as I believe it is a satire on the caste system.

When looking for the creation of things, we are wanting the answer. If you are looking for the answer, you are seeking again something. When you are seeking something you are a materialist. Let's say we need not be looking for anything, lets say we do not need beliefs, beliefs imprison us. Body like the mountain, breath like the wind, mind like the sky.


Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism? According to the book The Tao of Zen, Zen/Chan is esentially a form of Taoism. This makes sense to me, as it's hard to understand what is the common ground between the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the other Mahayana traditions.

However, this is not a predominant opinion about the origins of Zen. I understand that it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the
  other Mahayana traditions

Are we talking about style? Yes, the records of the Zen masters resemble the style of the Zhuangzi more than they resemble the style of the Avatamsaka Sutra. But we should be more interested in content when evaluating where a tradition belongs. - The Sutras are written in a highly intricate, metaphorical language. Like the Zen master Bassui said: "Before we can read the Sutras, we have to open the mind that can read them." The Sutras are addressing a reality that is sometimes not available to an unenlightened mind.

  it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

Every scholarly book written on the origin of Zen is a counter-argument.

Let's look at a few salient points - off the top of my head:

1) The Zen school was not called that at first. It was known as the "Buddha-Mind School" and the Zen masters were referred to as "the Lankavatara Masters":

  In its beginnings in China, Zen primarily referred to the Mahāyāna
  sūtras and especially to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. As a result, early
  masters of the Zen tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra
  masters". In other early texts, the school that would later become known as Zen is sometimes even referred to as simply the "Laṅkāvatāra school" (Ch. 楞伽宗, Léngqié Zōng). Accounts recording the history of this early period are to
  be found in Records of the Laṅkāvatāra Masters (Ch. 楞伽師資記, Léngqié
  Shīzī Jì).

(cf. Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005-A), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China, World Wisdom Books, ISBN 978-0-941532-89-1 )

The whole school was called after a specific sutra, named the  Laṅkāvatāra.

The First Patriarch of Zen is said to have handed this sutra to the Second Patriarch as containing the essentials of the school teachings.

If you study that Sutra closely, you will realize that it has all the essential teachings of Zen, and since it predates Zen, it is only reasonable to conclude it is the source. The main idea there is that "mind is buddha", that it all comes down to the mind of the sentient being; that everything is a projection of the One Mind (which is also what Huangbo says verbatim).

2) The Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Scripture says quite explicitly that to practice Zen, one has to study and recite the Diamond Sutra. Why does he single out that sutra and not the Zhuangzi or the Daodejing?

3) All the Zen masters used Mahayana Buddhist language and terminology: samsara, nirvana, bodhisattva, tathagata, etc. compare with how often they use terms such as qi, yin/yang, Heaven (in the Taoist sense), etc. It's not even up for debate. They overwhelmingly use Buddhist language.

4) They were all Buddhist monks, with Buddhist robes, shaved heads, etc. I mean, this is an obvious fact. Why stay in a Buddhist monastery if you're a Taoist?

5) All they say is traceable back to Mahayana Philosophy. Everything. The One Mind, transcending samsara, non-duality between samsara and nirvana, mind being buddha, truth being beyond language, silence as a teaching etc. Even the dismissal of Sutras is ultimately traceable back to the Sutras!

There's nothing original in the ideas of the Chan school:

  There is nothing unique about Ch'an doctrine; it is an eclectic form
  of Mahayana philosophy. So there is no contradiction involved in a
  tradition of meditation practice co-existing with the sectarian
  doctrines of the various sects of Chinese Buddhism. Masters whose
  names appear in the succession-lists of both Ch'an and another
  sectarian tradition would simply be both dharma- and dhyana-masters in
  their respective monasteries.

Charles W. Swain, The Emergence Of Ch'an Buddhism, Chung- Hwa Buddhist Journal vol.2/Oct, 1988 P.391-399

In fact, if there's anything original, it's the style. If there's anything that cannot be traced back to Indian Mahayana - is exactly the style, the form their upaya takes, and not their doctrines, not their insights.

But why call that style "Taoist" and not instead call it "Chinese"? Perhaps there's some common source both Chan and Taoism are drawing from, and that has more to do with the Chinese character, that manifests there as abrupt and direct? What makes more sense instead is that Buddhism is adaptable, and so it takes many forms depending on the country and the spirit of the country where it takes root.

Taoism is innately Chinese and predates Buddhism by at least one thousand years. The Tao Te Ching is attributed to Lao Tze (500 BC) and Zen Buddhism to Tamo (5th century). Early Taoism resembles ancient nature worship and the religious practices of many other early societies. Taoism and Buddhism merged in peoples' minds much later. Tao Tze and Tamo (and even Lao Tze's student, Confucius) were considered one old, wise teacher.


Do geshe degrees change over time? I have read several different conflicting pieces of information about geshe degrees.  I assumed geshe is a rank given at the end of study.  But, according to Wikipedia:

  At the conclusion [of their studies] the abbot assigns each candidate to a category of geshe according to his ability. There are four such categories, Dorampa, Lingtse, Tsorampa and Lharampa, Lharampa being the highest. After this, in order to qualify, the geshe candidates are not allowed to miss even one of the three daily debate sessions during the subsequent eight months.

Does this mean that one can first get a dorampa and then a lingtse later, similar to how lay people earn a bachelors and then a masters?

The difference between the geshe degrees is comparable to the grade you get on an exam.

From TibetCulture.net:

  Geshe Lharampa is the highest degree of the Geshe system, equivalent to the doctorate degree in Buddhist studies. The other three lower-level degrees, namely Dorampa, Lingtse and Tsorampa, will also be conferred according to candidates' performance in the dialectical debate.

And:

  Such a challenge as it is, it usually takes decades for a few distinguished lamas to succeed.

No. Once awarded, that is it.It is a one off.


Is the word 'real' synonymous with 'exists' in Buddhist doctrine? Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine?
Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist?
What do we really mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

In the conventional truth, mirages exist and are real as a mirage but not real as water. Dreams exist and are real as dream but not as a play in a theater.
So there is nothing which can be said conventionally existing but unreal because it is real in that way it is called to exist.
Conventionally existent Buddhas alleviate the conventionally existing suffering of conventionally existent sentient beings.
The suffering sentient beings are conventionally existent and are also conventionally real.
Conventionally existent Buddhas however don't alleviate the conventionally unreal and nonexistent suffering of the son of a barren woman.
I think this answer by @Tenzin Dorje to a related question may be relevant too.

I think the question is concerning 'Conventional truth' because in the ultimate truth existence and reality have no meaning. However, in the Conventional truth, all conventionally existing things are also real and there are no unreal conventionally existing things.

Conventional truth that which is conventionally real and existing
Conventional falsehood that which is conventionally unreal and non-existing

A mirage is conventionally 'real and existing' as light rays bend via refraction, but the water perceived in the mirage is not conventionally 'real and existing'.
A dream is also conventionally 'real and existing' as a work of the mind, but the death of your partner in a car accident in your dream is not conventionally 'real and existing.
So if someone says 'I had a dream like MLK, and someone else says 'Dreams are not real' what he/she is saying is that the story in the dream is not conventionally real, they are not claiming that MLK didn't dream. Because dreams as a phenomenon of the mind are conventionally 'real and existing'.


How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception? How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception ?

Can anyone point me to on-line resources where in I can read more about this topic ?

It is a topic expounded in:

philosophical texts
classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. grub mtha')

In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how Sankha Kulathantille understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth.

I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (grub mtha') define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's Presentation of Tenets and Geshe Sopa's Cutting Through Appearances. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.

Vaïbashika definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending  that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.

Sautrantika definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.

(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)

Cittamatrin definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.

Madhyamika-Svatantrika definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.

Madhyamika-Prasangika definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.

The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).

Plato's Cave

There are 3 groups of peoples are there.

1). Prisoners  (  world of faculty's)-Believe perception.

  Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived
  chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.
  The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in
  front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these
  shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing
  reality.

2). Philosophers (world of sankara) - Believe Reality.

  He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed
  from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do
  not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of
  reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

3). Those who escape from the cave.(Buddhists who liberated from the samsara)
Nirvana - Beyond the world - who can see through the reality.

  Socrates remarks that this allegory can be taken with what was said
  before, namely the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided
  line. In particular, he likens our perception of the world around us
  "to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight
  here, the ascent and the view of the upper world [to] the rising of
  the soul into the world of the mind" (517b).


How to have a relationship Every intimate relationship I have ever had has ended in a lot of pain and grief. The last one lasted for 17 years but eventually broke down. That was a year ago and the pain is still very raw at times.
My question is this. If attachment causes suffering then I was obviously very attached but how do you have an intimate relationship without becoming attached? It seems just like the normal human thing to do. You like someone, you fall in love and it hurts when they're gone.
You kind of don't even realise it's happening until it ends and then you feel like you want to die. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a close relationship on the Buddhist path anymore but I also don't want to live life alone. I know Buddha left his family but in these modern times there seem to be plenty of teachers who have partners/spouses.

Impossible. When there's relationship, there's bonding. When there's bonding, there's pain when it ends.

The only thing you can do to minimize pain is to stay as independent as possible, and be your own source of joy and acceptance. Which means playing an active role in your life, instead of relying on your partner for initiative and values.

The key to emotional relationship mastery is to have extremely high standards and have a practice partner.

I am currently in an intimate relationship with a girl and she is below those standards in terms of appearance, intelligence, and spirituality so I have no attachment and cannot form attachment but purpose the relationship to help each other out in life and also be loving companions.

I have explained to her that this is a temporary situation and I will be extremely happy if she ends up finding someone before we have to break up.

I believe it is good practice to be in this kind of less attached relationship because when you will find someone you really like--it will be harder to not attach. She is also good practice for me in terms of holding to my other tenets in spirituality and life.

The meditation parallel to this situation is doing sitting meditation until you are good at it and then working on doing active meditation when you have mastered sitting to some degree.

Coming back to the subject of relationships, when I find the "ideal partner": Buddhist, intelligent, fair, good career, healthy, etc.
I will be better practiced at managing the dynamics in the relationship (there is management involved in everything whether you like it or not) and also within myself. I would not easily give away as much of my power and purpose as one normally would when committed to their ideal person.

So I know it sounds trashy but I would suggest finding a compliant and good person as close to your ideal person and to have a as a practice partner and to keep improving yourself (and helping them to improve themselves). At the same time you are searching for your ideal partner so you can have a mature form of COMMITMENT not attachment. Search for someone that is worth it to commit to--not attach to.

I suggest reading some dating manuals which will add tremendous value to your social and dating understandings and dispel certain illusions: The Tao of Dating, Sperm Wars, Sex at Dawn and other non-fiction by PHDs.

Sexuality is coupled with many of life's laws which are present in spiritual practice--I won't go into it too much here and need to write a book one day because it is something that can very easily be taken the wrong way and throw apart one's spiritual practice.


Buddhism - Is it a religion? I disagreed from the very beginning, after understanding some Buddhist philosophy, that it is not a religion.

In my opinion, it is not a religion but a lifestyle or administration under which Buddhist teaching is practised.

Please clarify why it is classified as a religion.

PS: I have met many people specially from Nepal, who claim as a Buddhist monk but yet they don't seem to practice any Buddhist norms. And they even call me 'nastik' (one who don't believe in religion)

It depend on what you mean by the word religion.

  the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

If you take above definition, Buddhism is not a religion.

Because supernatural or transcendental is natural in buddhism. We can found supernatural in many sutta, vinaya, even though abhidhamma of tipitaka (pali), because there are many possible cases of supernatural by logic, causes and effects.

However, all supernatural is natural in buddhism by 3 characterizes: "when arising exit, then vanishing exit, too", paṭiccasamuppāda. So, supernatural is not important in buddhism.

Therefore, in buddhism, we don't try to debate about next life, heaven, or supernatural. We do not deny any possible theories, in causes and effects logic.  Then we develop consciousness to cope every possible situations, not cope just some situations that we have seen. We try to avoid every possible suffering, by logic or theory, to make sure suffering will never return anymore, although we never meet that possible suffering and possible situation.

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


The "awakened" outside of a monastic/retreat setting? Most people cannot live in the secluded setting of a monastery or retreat. Some Buddhist traditions nonetheless affirm that laypeople can become enlightened. Are there (inspiring) examples of such laypeople?

How (well) do so-called awakened spiritual/meditation masters function outside the seclusion of the monastic/retreat environments? Please give examples. (Only one comes to mind: Patrul Rinpoche).

Milarepa

...His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life...

Then later in life he came to meet his teacher Marpa the translator

...he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence...

Tilopa

He practiced this teaching at Somapuri, but when the monastery saw him take a female consort for the practice of union yoga, he was forced to quit the community.

Tilopa profited from his expulsion by travelling throughout India, searching out many teachers and learning their methods.

Naropa

Several years later, at twenty-eight, his interests drew him to Nalanda University, near Pullahari, famous for its Buddhist philosophers...But then a dakini appeared to him, telling him that meditation practice was more important than philosophizing, and that he should search out a certain Tilopa for instructions.Leaving the monastery...

This is an entire lineage Tilopa->Naropa->Marpa->Milarepa

As they say :The truly enlightened are not necessarily very religious. Religon is a convienent description to take care of our fears, to passify us.

I think to develop deep meditation, deep vipassana (insight), jhana, etc, a monastic setting is required so meditation can be practised full-time.

However, a person with keen insight, especially into impermanence, can easily attain stream-entry outside of a monastic setting.

Note: This does not apply to believers in reincarnation since they avoid the natural reality of the impermanence of life.