Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist How can you explain karma in the genocide of babies and "innocents" (For example: The Holocaust) in Buddhist terms to a non-Buddhist, without seeming cold and uncaring? Yesterday, I tried--by saying, "I cannot say unequivocally, why the millions had to suffer or whether karma came into play or not, but perhaps it is better to focus attention on the present and try to generate good karma here and now." I know Buddha said certain topics will only foster disputation and I felt like this is one of those that can only be speculation so I steered the conversation in another direction. What can you say in a better (or kinder) way to explain it to a non-Buddhist person who asks how the holocaust suffering can be justified and who expresses interest in knowing the Buddhist view about it?

The popular portrayal of kamma isn't what The Buddha believed in (if someone does good deeds then good things would happen to them or if they do evil deeds bad things will happen).

He thought that there were many different variables involved in one's experiences besides good or bad deeds.

There are also certain deeds perceived as good that are actually bad and other deeds perceived as bad that are actually good.

As explained in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) there are certain people who do evil deeds who still go to heavenly worlds after death and other certain people who do good deeds who still go to hell after death:

  "Now there is the person who has killed living beings
  here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But
  (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time
  of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
  But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he
  will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or
  in some subsequent existence

  ..."Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here... has had right view. And on the dissolution of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in
  an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was
  undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was
  why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the
  states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in
  hell. But since he has abstained from killing living beings here...
  has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or
  in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence." (Maha
  Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

Here we see The Buddha explaining the variables involved earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death.

The person will always feel the effect their deeds in some form, but how that happens relies on many different factors.

As explained in the Lonaphala Sutta:

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell."

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

So you see there can be many people perceived as good but undeveloped in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so any trifling evil deed they did in the past many take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).

And there can be many people perceived as evil but developed in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so many trifling evil deeds they did in the past still may not take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).

There have been many genocides in history besides the holocaust, the genocide of the Jews. There have been for instance the persecution and execution of Buddhist monks by many different groups in history.

How this ties in is that there are many different variables involved in one's experiences...it does not necessarily mean that those who took birth into a region or time-period where they were persecuted and executed for no real reason are evil-doers or came from one of the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) although it does mean that they are exhausting their evil kamma that was caused for some reason or another (and also means that the one executing the violence is causing evil kamma).

If mankind as a whole wants violence to end all around the world we have to cause good kammas (bodily, verbal, mental) such that only good beings can exist on Earth...if you look the global homicide rate and violence around the world that time hasn't come yet...but will certainly come sometime in the future if more and more people continue doing good deeds and practicing metta (loving-kindness).

Here is an explanation.  The Christian church has, in addition to the peaceful teachings of Jesus, also preached hatred, jealousy, and rage throughout its existence.  In particular, rather than peacefully co-existing with other ideologies it has sought to suppress and annihilate them.  Perhaps the only ideology to survive the cultural genocide of Europe by the Christian Church was Judaism.  For the crime of surviving, the Church preached hate towards this ideology and its people for centuries.  This hate has exploded into action many times throughout history, including during WWII.

According to Buddhism, neurotic emotions such as hatred and jealousy ultimately bring suffering to those experiencing them.  In particular, if the ideas become negative actions.  And in particular, if the negative actions are not completely regretted later.  Part of our work as Buddhists is to find the seeds of all of these neurotic emotions and try to purify them into their stainless wisdom nature which is completely beneficial to all beings.

I asked one acclaimed Buddhist teacher about trying to understand the specifics of karma.  He answered something along the lines of it is like trying to understand quantum physics as opposed to Newtonian physics.  It is difficult for us to presume to understand the details, but yet we can sometimes see glimpses of it at work.


Finding a dharma teacher I am examining ways of going further on my dharma road. At this point i am entirely self taught, for better and worse. I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.

Does anyone know if there is someone committed to teaching in west sweden?

Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.

Erik,

If the are Sanghas (of the Buddha's monks - a mixed or lay community shouldn't be called a "Sangha") or possible one or another monk alone, it's good to visit them, observe them, and to ask them -- if it's the case that you can trace a good amount of independence between the monk[s] and the "students" (e.g. the monks don't live from students, and instead go for alms independently). If such a person is traced, one might ask questions on any matter of doubt, having found trust, to possibly gain right view. If having gained right view after listening the true Dhamma, there is no more much to worry and the path will develop step by step.

If not finding such, take, if given by a Monk personally (!), the Tipitaka. Usual ways, although common, seldom or never bear any fruits, and it's far better to simply avoid the many teachers who teach for a trade (i.e. for reward). Even if they knew what water was, you would only get an empty bottle: to be sure you would have to return to them!

Maybe this is your personal guide heading toward independence: Into the Stream

And for the case that Erik has already found firm faith, it is because of doing it to an end that the Buddha has found this religion, Sangha, open to make use of it and such might then be not so much a matter of "west Sweden".

[Note: This is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks or what ever ordinary gains within the world.]

Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum?

There's Ven. Bodhi's lecture series on the Majjhima Nikaya and the on-going series on the Anguttara Nikaya (livestream every Saturday morning 10AM Eastern US time). More info. is available from the baus.org web site and their youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi


What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life? Please answer these two questions:

1a. Suppose there is an ignorant person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

2a. Suppose there is an enlightened person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here & now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping.
In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth.

My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in
  the ground?

I sense this 1st question falls outside of the sphere of Buddhism because in the suttas I am not aware of any teachings about "grasping" & "rebirth". The teachings about "rebirth" are about good & bad kamma, which are mundane/worldly (refer to MN 117). Where as "grasping" falls into the supramundane/transcendent teachings. For example, in MN 144, it is said the monk that has "grasping" prior to the termination of life is "blameworthy" rather than is subject to kammic inheritance. The common idea in the suttas intepretated & translated as "rebirth" or "reappearance" is about kammic inheritance. These teachings assume there is grasping because these teachings refer to "a being" ("satta") that inherits kamma. The word "satta" literally means "grasping" because the word "satta" itself means "to cling" (refer to SN 23.2).

In summary, a person or mind that has comprehendeded "grasping", per the instructions on the 1st sermon, should abandoned the cause of that grasping (i.e, craving) to reach Nibbana. Where as the teachings about "kammic inheritance" (aka "rebirth") are for puthujjana who have not comprehended grasping.

Any mind that has truly comprehended the nature of grasping (the 1st noble truth) must truly comprehend the other noble truths. This shows the question here is merely intellectual.

  For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping.

The suttas list many types of liberation of mind (ceto-vimutti) that occurs to a living mind, such as:

  The immeasurable (loving-kindness) mind-release, the (perception of) nothingness mind-release, the emptiness (sunnata) mind-release, the
  theme-less-mind-release... MN 43

The Z mind (not the 'Z person') was liberated before the termination of life. At the termination of life, there is no liberation because there is no mind, as follows:

  '... after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being
  relished, will grow cold right here.' MN 140

The term 'liberation' in Buddhism is liberation of mind (rather than liberation from mind). At the termination of life, there can be no liberation of mind because there is no mind anymore.

  My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried
  in the ground?

The mind free from grasping views the termination of life as merely the ending of the aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85 here, which answers the question conclusively.

  Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
  supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
  have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
  Dhamma.

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: "A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?"

  Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
  Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is
  unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end.

  Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

  SN 22.85


Is it OK to mentally multi-task during vipassana meditation? It appears that I have found it possible to focus both on the breath (as a meditation object) and to be aware of a bit of a train of thought.

Is this acceptable, or unacceptable, or should it be avoided? Or, is it perhaps simply varying "snippets" of mind-moments where I am slipping in and out of bare awareness of the meditation object?

Multi-tasking is an illusion... I have read that the mind and the senses are like a monkey sticking its head out six different windows rapidly in succession.

A great lama once told me that trying to solve a puzzle when you sit down to meditate is in actuality making another samsara.

The idea of any Buddhist meditation is to control the mind to one and only one object of meditation, in this case vipassana.

If the mind wanders, and the meditator discovers that the mind has wandered, the meditator should go back to the meditation object immediately.

Sorry, but there should be no multitasking.


Is pīti physical and sukha emotional? I always read piti: joy is mental happiness and sukha is physical. But lately i have been reading pīti is physical, sukha is emotional. At first i thought this didn't matter but now for Jhana training I'm reading move from the piti physical sensation to sukha emotional sensation, which completely throw me off. Any help?

Can't separate like that. Mental-emotional-somatical is a continuum, not discrete. Or, more precisely, they are layers of the same, like different frequencies that can be isolated within the same signal function - not separate.

Sukha is that mental/emotional state/feeling when everything is just right. Everything is just the way it should be. It feels peaceful, subtle and sweeeeeeet. It also has somatic component. The breath becomes fluid, the body feels light, the movements are spontaneous. It's like that feeling when you just woke up after wonderful sleep and you feel refreshed and blissful, gentle and peaceful.

Piti is a much more coarse condition. It is like that feeling when you listen to a very inspiring lecture or a song and suddenly realize - and feel - profound significance and gratitude, and then you may get goosebumps or the tears may start rolling. Somatically at that moment, you may feel being aflame or tingling or orgasm-like waves going through your body. Unlike sukha, piti is kinda taxing, one can get tired of it.

So yeah, piti is coarser of the two and sukha is subtler - in this sense you could say, piti has a stronger somatic component and sukha is more focused on the mental/emotional end of the spectrum.

My answer below is not definitive but mere consideration.

The 1st four jhanas are called "rupa" jhana however I have never read a compelling explanation for this. However, it is known via experience that rupa jhana arises from the calming of the physical processes (breath & physical body) that are stressed by mental formations (sankhara). Thus, as the physical body is purified of mental stress, the nerves of the physical body start to bliss out. Once the breathing completely calms and the physical body is purified of stress, all the mind can be conscious of is the bliss (which is jhana). It appears the bliss of jhana has its basis in the nervous system of the physical body and possibly is physical in its basis. MN 111 refers to two types of feelings in rupa jhana, bolded below. The 2nd feeling is part of "nama" (refer to SN 12.2) and is definitely mental in it basis (because it remains in the arupa jhana) but the piti and sukha of rupa jhana could be feelings arising from/towards the rupa sense base (kāyāyatanaṃ).

  There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the
  first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure,
  singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention,
  consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity,
  & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him
  they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He
  discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into
  play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled
  with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released,
  dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that
  'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for
  him.

  Furthermore, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance,
  and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite
  space,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the
  infinitude of space. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of
  the infinitude of space — the perception of the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception,
  intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness,
  equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.
  Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they
  subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having
  been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained
  unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
  detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He
  discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there
  really was for him.


What should a 11-17 years old Buddhist do? Can a 11-17 years old meditate and become arahant?
Is Buddhism only for adults?

It all depends on the individual's effort and potential, and how much Dhamma they've been cultivating since countless previous lives. Sorta like child prodigies who can become accomplished medical doctors, mathematicians, or musicians in their teens.

Children, believe it or not, are smarter than adults.  It is easier for a child to learn a second or third language than it is for an adult.  (Which incidentally is a commendable endeavor worthy of a Buddhist practitioner or scholar of any age.)  Children can memorize memorable sutras, either in English or in the original, just as well as adults, or better; they can maintain yogic postures just as well as adults, or better.  The right question isn't necessarily, what Buddhist practices are suitable for children, but rather, what is a SMART, reasonable goal for a human being to hope to attain in his or her lifetime.  What goal would be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound?

Is it reasonable to say, "I hope to become a Bodhisattva/an arahant in this current human lifetime?"  Or, "I hope my child or this gifted student in my middle school class becomes a Bodhisattva/an arahant in his or her lifetime?"  Put another way, if a talented guru or motivational speaker, someone clearly more intelligent and accomplished than yourself, claimed to have attained Buddhahood in his lifetime, would you immediately leave everything behind to follow that guru?

Or would that instead be a dangerous red flag?

Whatever is a realistic goal for yourself, as an adult following the Buddhist path, would likewise be a realistic goal for your child, being your flesh and blood.  Whether that goal is to be a "stream entrant", or simply to pay respects and give ear to a teacher.  Or simply to better apply one aspect of the Eightfold Path: maybe, Right Livelihood, Right Speech, or Right Effort.  Or one of the Six Perfections: charitable giving, conscientiousness, graciousness....

Teach the child whatever your goal is, but the child must choose his or her own goal.  Children should preferably be exposed to a wide range of Buddhist doctrines and "book learning" so that after they mature and become more self-critical, they can apply Buddhist wisdom to grow their greatest strengths, but also to attack their greatest weaknesses.


How does rebirth work for arahant and non-arahants? I read in a sutta a few days ago (I can't remember the exactly where) that the question of rebirth after parinibbana is not a valid one, because there was no one to be reborn.

But if anatta is valid not just for arahants, but for all conditioned phenomena as well, does that mean that rebirth is also not applicable for non-arahants either?

Thanks for your time!

Indeed puthujjanas knows that it makes no sense to ask where a fire go once it is put out, unless those puthujjana managed to create a fantasy where they deify fire..., so the buddha says that It makes zero senses to ask where an arhant goes, or if an arhant exists after parinibbana, by creating a parallel between fire and craving (or fire and existence).
Same thing about the stupidity of trying to figure the non-existence of a buddha.

It is craving that is the path to vedana, the 5 aggregates, birth, dukkha and all that stuff, so once there is no craving, well there is nothing left and there cannot be birth again.

"Re-birth" is the re-arising of self-view after the traumatic "death" of a previous self-identity. For arahants, there is no birth & no death therefore the question about what happens after "death" ("marana") is irrelevant. But for non-arahants, "death" ("marana") still occurs. When self-view is still capable of arising, then a new birth will happen after death. Whenever attachment arises, there will be both birth & death, as follows:

  Seeing danger in clinging,   in the coming-into-play     of birth & death, they are released from lack of clinging,  in the ending   of
  birth & death. They, happy, arriving at safety, fully unbound in the
  here-&-now,

  MN 130

In summary, the word "marana" ("death") does not refer to something "physical", as shown in the quotes below:

  21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already

  Dhammapada

  Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn?

  MN 140

SN 12.66 say unambiguously the cause of "death" is "attachment" or "acquisition".

  As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born and produced from acquisition

  SN 12.66

In Buddhism, "a being" ("satta") is merely an "idea" or "view", as follows:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  SN 5.10

"Death" ("marana") refers to the death of "a being", which is merely an idea or "self-view", as follows:

  And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness
  of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality,
  degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away
  of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their
  perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of
  time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass:
  this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together
  called aging-and-death.

  SN 12.2


What is actually Nirvana -- what are some Tripitaka sources? What do you know about the Nirvana?

Most of this community people are from all around the world, and may have different teachers, and level of knowledge may vary.

A brief explanation, with reference to the Tripitaka, is much appreciated.

And, can someone please translate this:

It's from the Abhidhamma Margaya ("Way of Abidhamma") by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Ud 8.1

Nibbana is not a conceptually constructed, ideological, 'thing'. It is described as the unconditioned element. As all concepts are conditioned by a mind, it cannot be reached by mental fermentation. It can be approximately described by negation - not impermanent, not unsatisfactory, not self (etc). But even that is still conceptualisation. Better meditate, attain jhana, and find out for yourself.

Nirvana is this moment seen directly. There is no where else than
  here. The only gate is now. The only doorway is your own body and
  mind. There’s nowhere to go. There’s nothing else to be. There’s no
  destination. It’s not something to aim for in the afterlife. It’s
  simply the quality of this moment.

Gautama Buddha


In what order should I read the various Buddhist scriptures? Well, first of all, I don't consider myself a strict Buddhist, but I want to study Buddhism -- both Theravada and Mahayana -- for educational and spiritual purposes. I am very excited with scientific studies of Buddhist meditation, and I'm sure that the Buddhist teachings have a lot of interesting and helpful things to offer...

I have one small book on the philosophy of Buddhism, there are 19 sutras with the commentaries on each sutra. But the book is a bit wordy due to its specificity, and heavily influenced by the author... The texts (I suppose) are translated well, with the meticulous description for every specific term (like, "Tathagata", or "dukkha" etc.)...

But when I decided instead to start to read the Pali Canon directly, not this compilation, and found out that Pali Canon is huge, even Sutta Pitaka alone seems to be way bigger than the Bible...
And it seems that the sutras are not composed chronologically or from simple to difficult, so I suppose there is no need to read the book in strict order...

So, how do you suggest reading the sutras? In strict order? Randomly? Or, from the 'popular' sutras to the 'unpopular' ones?

Do I even need to read the whole Sutta Pitaka? Do I need to read Abhidhamma Pitaka and if yes, in which order?

And what of Mahayana's important texts?

I'll appreciate all of your recommendations (and don't be afraid to correct my grammar, because English is not my native language).

I have read MN, then SN, then AN - so that's another way to sequence it. Then you can read Questions of King Milinda.  Then Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman also known as Satyasiddhi Śāstra, Then Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. Then the Rice Seedling sutra. Then try Vimalakirti sutra. Then Diamond sutra. Then Heart sutra. Then Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika.

Here below list in details of scriptures with recommended prayers in sequence for everyday practice as well as where these scriptures could help.


What was the reason why Buddha taught reincarnation? Although Buddha (Siddhartha) taught that humans had no soul, nevertheless he taught that there is a reincarnation. My question is not how these two 'dogmas' are compatible but why he 'needed' reincarnation? His teaching are mostly very simple and  not really metaphysical. Was teaching the noble eightfold path not sufficient?

The Buddha didn't need it so much as he explained that was just how things work. Just as water has the quality that's labeled "wet". Life has a quality (among many) that is labeled Death and Death has the quality labeled rebirth/Life.

Also, reincarnation and rebirth seem to be different in that the former implies a continuous soul and the latter simply the result of conditions.

The Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. The Buddha taught rebirth and physical death is not required to experience rebirth. Every time a mind attaches & clings to something as "I", "me" or "mine" (and also as "you", "him", "her", "us" & "them"), this is "re-birth".

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling,
  perception, fabrication &/or consciousness to be a 'self'. That
  assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the
  origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of
  that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched
  by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.
  That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant,
  fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling...
  That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently
  co-arisen.

  SN 22.81

As for the mundane (rather than enlightenment) re-birth teachings about good & bad kamma, which most Buddhists infer mean 'reincarnation', the Buddha taught these to promote morality  (non-harming), as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents (impurities), siding with merit (morality),
  resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously born (arisen) beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.

  MN 117


What is the "Unconditioned" that the Buddha is talking about? And vinjana in Buddhsm In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self. Consciousness has 2 modes: it can be pure consciousness, and it is described as "being aware of being aware" or the "I that I am knows that I am"; while the other mode of consciousness is consciousness entangled in objects, like feelings and thoughts.

Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"? Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as impermanent and not self?

They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware. I have this problem, my friend had the same, so we wanted to ask you if you could help us out.

OP: In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self.

In Buddhism, it is considered all conditioned and unconditioned is not-self/non-self. "

    sabbe dhammā anattā

Therefore, there nothing that can be identified as a self. Not even Nirvana.

  OP: Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

No. In Buddhism consciousness is just to knows what is felt.

    Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?

    One knows, „It is pleasant.‟

    One knows. „It is painful.‟

    One knows, „It is neutral.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See below for a full quote of the section on consciousness.

What is unconditioned in Nirvana.

    "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

    — Ud 8.3

Source: Nibbana

  OP: They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware.

In Buddhism, consciousness is part of the 6 sense bases. It knows what you have come in contact with.

    On account of a contact that is felt ... conditioned by that contact ...

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See the full section quoted below.

    (iv) The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and in what connection is this
    said?

    Dependent on eye and forms,
    eye-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

    Dependent on ear and sounds,
    ear-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

    ...

    The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and it is said in this connection.

Cha Chakka Sutta

    The consciousness element

    Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?

    One knows, „It is pleasant.‟

    One knows. „It is painful.‟

    One knows, „It is neutral.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.

    When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, „I feel a pleasant feeling.‟
    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.

    When one feels a painful feeling one understands, „I feel a painful feeling.‟

    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

    On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.

    When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, „I feel a neutral feeling.‟

    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Is pure consciousness or being aware of being aware, the same as what
  the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

Consciousness conscious of itself is what the Buddha called 'Nibbana' which is an 'unconditioned' phenomena.

  Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism
  sees consciousness as impermanent and not-self?

The unconditioned is not the cessation of consciousness, it is the cessation of ego-mind or cessation of Consciousness identified with the ego-mind.

  They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would
  know that we are aware.

Again the same phenomena, we know we are aware because we are primarily aware of six sense bases, eyes, smell, touch, sound, taste, and mind. When we become aware of awareness itself then we would have attained Nirvana. Ordinarily, it is not the case.

In Buddhism, there are five skandas. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).

Vijnana in Buddhism is Consciousness and it is empty of self.


What causes addictions and what is the remedy? What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from addictions according to Buddha?

Addiction is simply a recurring craving for a sensory stimulus may it be drugs, alcohol, etc.
This can be eliminated through Vipassana to reduce craving.
There are many studies and resources on this: vipassana+addiction

DON’T LET YOUR DESIRES CONTROL YOU

  Master Lu’s Public Talk in Melbourne, Australia

  11th November 2017

  All people in the human world have to be responsible for legal consequences, while Buddhist practitioners have to be responsible for karma. As a Buddhist practitioner, you reap what you sow; regardless of good or bad consequences, nobody else would face it but you. Only when you have truly understood this inwardly, would you be able to do it. Do not let your physical desires control your soul. On the contrary, let your soul and conscience control your rapacious physical desires.

  Understand that vexation stems from unreasonable desires. If your desire is unreasonable and you still pursue it even though you know it is not attainable, vexation will emerge.

  All worldly phenomena are forms of prisons. When we are fond of a thing, we become entangled by it and become its slave, as if we are imprisoned. Just like smoking and gambling, once you have tried them, you will be easily addicted to them, and then you will not be able to be free of the addiction.

Q&A 50. Helping compulsive gamblers return to the right path
February 19, 2016

  Q: Master Lu, I would like to ask a question. My older brother is addicted to gambling. He gambles all day and does not work at all. When he is broke, he comes home and forces our parents to give him money. What should we do to direct him onto the right path? Master Lu, please show us the way out of this situation, and tell us specifically what we should do. Thank you.

  A:

  For an individual who is addicted to gambling, it is best to start with reciting the Heart Sutra at least 7 times per day and give him some time to think things through. In fact, this is a transformation process. Even if he cannot figure himself out and continues to gamble, the Dharma Protectors would treat him in a gentle manner and hand out less severe punishment.

  It is best if he can recite the sutra for himself. If he does not believe in Buddhism, then his family members should recite for him. They can say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , grant him wisdom and help him completely give up the unwholesome habit of gambling.”

  If he does not listen to you, recite the Qi Fo Mie Zui Zhen Yan21 to 49 times per day and say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva forgive .” He is just like a child who has committed a wrongdoing and is now asking for forgiveness.

  If he has completely fallen into addiction, recite the Eighty-Eight Buddhas Great Repentance 5 times per day. As he has already committed these wrongdoings, you need to say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , and help  to repent and eliminate the karmic obstacles caused by gambling.”
  At the same time, you can recite the Mantra to Untie Karmic Knots and say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , help  to untie his karmic knots with gambling.”

  If you feel that foreign spirits have occupied him, you need to recite Little Houses and address them to the “Karmic Creditor of ”. Otherwise, there is no need to recite Little Houses.

  People with a gambling addiction tend to attract foreign spirits easily. The money in gambling areas often has foreign spirits, regardless of whether it is money won or lost.

Radio Program Extract 077
February 16, 2020

  [From the Editor] A caller provided some feedback during “The Art of Applying Comprehensive Metaphysics” radio program on 29th November 2013. The caller’s son was no more addicted to computer games ever since the mother started practising recitation on his behalf. The son also concerned that the addiction to computer games would destroy his future. He is now able to stop himself from stepping into the internet cafe. The caller really appreciated that her son was disciplined with the blessings of the Guan Yin Bodhisattva.

  Caller: Master, I’m so touched that the Guan Yin Bodhisattva is so efficacious! I have been performing recitation on behalf of my son for his addiction to computer games. Sometimes he tried to find excuses going to the internet cafe. Somehow he stopped in front of it and realized that the place would destroy his future. It was the blessings of the Guan Yin Bodhisattva who disciplined him and stopped him from stepping into there again.

  Master Lu: Exactly. It was the blessings of Guan Yin Bodhisattva that stopped him from playing computer games when he was about to.

  Caller: He told me it was dim inside the internet cafe and it was felt like the place would ruin his life. There are so many kids got sucked in and spend most of their time there. What a shame…

  Master Lu: This is a place full of karmic obstacles. It is really an improvement for him to stay away from it.

  Caller: He’s not doing very well at school and doesn’t like to study.

  Master Lu: He doesn’t like to study because of his playing nature. He would settle down as soon as he gains more wisdom.

  Caller: Yes. He’s been much better ever since I started practising recitation for him. He spent hours playing computer games when he was in primary school through to the junior high school. But now he rarely plays again.

  Master Lu: Isn’t that good enough? You are unable to make him a new person all at once right after practising recitation. It is far over your capability.

  Caller: Master, I feel guilty as a mother. I’m not doing well in cultivation myself.

  Master Lu: Don’t be guilty. Take it as your motivation so you will not regret as long as you are diligent in performing recitations.

Above from guanyincitta.com  detailed practice instructions can also be found at guanyincittasf.com and Guan Yin Citta local offices worldwide.


If I start doing Vipassana now, how long will it take me to achieve Nirvana? Call me an over-enthusiast but presently, the highest priority in my life is to achieve the object of Nirvana or moksha. By performing Vipassana, I want to achieve Nirvana and in this lifetime only. I'm prepared to do anything for it, even leave my current profession and staying as a monk if required.

Trouble is, I just don't understand how exactly to go about meditation. I've read a few suttas but I just don't understand what to do while doing Vipassana meditation. In a 10-day Vipassana course I'd undergone, I'd done Anapana (breathfulness meditation) by keeping my mind on the entry and exit of breath at the nostrils. I've done this for several hours and I still do it sometimes.

I also do mindfulness meditation sittings (by observing my thoughts impartially) for at least an hour in one sitting daily.

Now, all these practices are great and take me into a calm and tranquil state of mind. But I don't seem to be getting anywhere towards my ultimate goal of Nirvana. Is there any way to know how long is it going to take me with this speed, or how do I increase the speed? Most importantly, Is joining the sangha and practicing full-time monkhood the only way to achieve Nirvana?

There is a lovely zen saying, a dialogue between new student and master:

"Master, if I put in great effort every day to attain awakening, how long will it take?"

The master replies, "20 years."

"What if I work really really hard?"

The master replies, "40 years."

Wanting enlightenment is paradoxical, because enlightenment is the absence of defilement, not the presence of need.

It would be of great benefit to study the six perfections.  You may find this reference useful: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Six_paramitas

Often people assume enlightenment to be the result of something. If you are happy following causes and their results, then practice the six perfections as much as possible.  You must ultimately pair them with wisdom which transcends conceptuality in order to arrive into a state which is beyond.

It will greatly depend on your attitude and your motivation.  Thus, I encourage you to study the Buddha's words and keep a superior motivation.

No one can guarantee for you how long it will take, and when you "get there" so-to-speak, there will not be any conventional sense of time to speak of, so instead of asking "how long will it take" we should all ask "what can we do to accelerate the process?"

A skillful question is one which illuminates the how.

If you come with great faith in the teachings and practice with a single-pointed mind, freedom shall dawn.  Until the gravity of our imperiled situation in samsara is seen for what it is, benefit yourself and others with study and reflection.

One aspect of enlightenment is freedom from doubt.  Clear away all your doubts with the stainfree mirror of the teachings.  The Buddha proclaimed that "in the future" [in this era] to come face-to-face with the teachings is the same as coming face-to-face with the Buddha.

At any rate, even if someone told you that it will take 3 long aeons to come to awakening practicing diligently every day all day, what is that in comparison to an unending cycle of dying and being born?  What is 3 long aeons in comparison to the nonceasing spin of the wheel of life?

depends upon how much sankaras(defilement), you have accumulated in past


Meditating and including buddhist philosophy in your life without abandoning previous religious beliefs? Is there a way where someone (for the sake of discussion) who is Jewish by belief and is actively practicing, could meditate and take up certain Buddhist practices without actually forfitting monotheism

This is just a question to understand theory, not directed to be anything arguementative or offensive

Thank you and Peace!

I think we can split Buddhism in 3 different levels of commitment:

Meditation, Dana (charity) and basic Sila (precepts). In this level, you can easily keep any peaceful religion, you will benefit from meditation and people will feel you are slowly changing, more inclined to a spiritual life, usually your family/friends/priests/bishops etc. will not see it as a threat.
Lay Buddhist Life. Here you may have some conflicts depending on your religion and how orthodox you are. Lay buddhists may prostrate and take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is where your previous religion may tell you that you are turning your back on them.
The life of a monk/recluse.

So, as long as you commit to the first level, i.e:  meditating; cultivating generosity; refraining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants, you should be fine with your current religion.

Problems will arise if you want to progress in the Buddha's teachings while keeping your current religion, but it is up to you; the path is there, it is your choice.

First of all, for anybody who wants to remain a practicing Abrahamic, I would recommended that they steer clear of any kind of Buddhist sect that features a "living" Buddha.  (And, likewise, anybody who wishes to renounce Abrahamic theology should avoid converting to a "living" Buddha-sect -- the similarities are too strong, and you would end up practicing Abrahamism by another name.)

A living Buddha is one whose spirit is said to still exist, and be accessible to to humans by means of petition, holiness and sacrifice, and who can influence events in ones favor, in the afterlife or possibly in this life.  Aside from being idolotrous (from an Abrahamic perspective), it is a gateway to superstition, and a form of attachment, wholly incompatible with the early Buddhism revealed through the Pali canon.

A non-returner Buddha, however, is much more compatible with monotheism, with atheism, with secularism, with almost any -ism you can throw at it.  This Buddha never promised people a destiny of luxury and bliss; he taught others how to think rationality about the inevitability of suffering, in this life, in previous lives, even in the afterlife, so long as you continue to exist as an individual with its own wants and needs.  That is the first (and second) noble truth.  He taught people that suffering can be greatly reduced, if they control themselves and discipline their minds.  Mindful meditation clears the mind; it eliminates unskillful motives, like boredom, loneliness, empty fantasies, and desire for control over the future.  It can even help with dependencies and additions.  It can be practiced with religious, superstitious, secular, even atheistic intent, depending on what is most effective for you personally.

How does this relate to Abrahamism?  It does not directly attack the most valued Abrahamic orthodoxies.  Although the Buddha himself was not a monotheistic worshipper (he knew better), he would not argue with you about mysticism and metaphysical questions.  He would want to advise you, like he did his contemporaries, on how to make the most of your situation, in your day-to-day life; and he would ask you whether you are spending your time and mental energy most effectively.

Another way to think of it--this may be very controversial--would be that the historical Buddha himself would never take up arms in defense of any country or system of government; but there is no reason why you, as an ordinary person, cannot attempt to study and contemplate the Four Noble Truths, and practice mindfulness, even if you were drafted into the military in a country with universal military service.  If your spiritual journey is such that you haven't yet given up the household life; if you, unlike the Buddha, have property and family to protect; there is no reason why you shouldn't defend your possessions, your family, and the regime that makes your profession, property claims, and civil rights possible; and honor your ancestors, who died defenseless, in so doing.


Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever? Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?

I was thinking maybe an early school without the abhidahrma (mahasanghika) or perhaps prasangika-yogaraca in which non duality and convention / absolute emptiness is all there is.

However, do these schools say that there is no essence?

I will explain some views in accordance with Madhyamaka-Prasangika:

"Essence" is something assigned by mental elaboration.

Therefore we can say that apart from mental elaborations there is no essence.

Another view is that

whatever appears (as an individual phenomenon) is its own essence.

That's because the phenomenon is what can be directly perceived; anything else would be mental additions (conceptualizations, associations). Therefore only the phenomenon itself can be its essence.

In that sense we can say that appearance and essence (or "essence and function") are the same thing.

See also discussions on svalakshana.

Note that, in order to understand "what is", we can't rely on flat view of "is" or "isn't". We should see how does appearance relate to mental processes; only there we can see real answers.

So "existence" can be seen as a construction, a way we construct our world - elaborating over directly perceived appearances.

And the deeper we go there, the more we understand that ultimately everything is "Don't Know".

PS: Note that from other points of view other concepts will be true. It would be wrong to think that a Buddhist school claims its concept as the only possible truth. For example, in Zen we can use views both of Yogachara and Madhyamaka, though they seem to contradict. "Everything is Consciousness" and "Consciousness doesn't exist". Logically these two sentences seem to contradict, but in fact they can be seen as both true; only as constructions built from different starting points; describing different levels of analysis. Likewise, we can discuss the duality of essence and function - in order to understand something - and then we can say that essence and function are the same thing, and understand something even deeper.

Buddha taught dependent origination without going to two extremes existence and non existence.


Where is the line drawn with stealing? It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes.

So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift.

On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn.

So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines.

Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not?

It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card?

For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing?

‘If a monk, intending to steal, takes from a village or from the
  wilderness what has not been given to him— the sort of theft for which
  kings, having caught a thief, would beat, imprison, or banish him,
  saying, “You’re a bandit, you’re a fool, you’ve gone astray, you’re a
  thief”— he too is expelled and not in communion.’ Second Parajika rule

This is for monks, but it's pretty clear - or at least it leaves the subjectivity to individual jurisdictions! (so in Italy, if you are starving and steal food, it's ok. If it's less than the value of a good shield (1/4 dinar), then in Sharia countries you are not in trouble)

With regards to possession, who possesses and to what extent, are probably useful measures. Who possesses is usually well defined (if not, then theft becomes a gray area). To what extent - how long should patents and copyright last, whether you can even effectively charge for something like streetlighting - are all likely subject to a social consensus.

Overall, if you perceive the object of your desire to be in the possession of someone else, or that someone else directly tells you so (asking is always a nice way to establish possession), then any intentional act to take such a thing, against the wishes of the owner would be theft, regardless of social consensus.

Piracy and claims as to the injustice of any and all economic systems are ancient claims, modernity only offers a novel spin on them.

If you think/believe/know that within a jurisdiction, a thing is claimed by someone and they don't have any desire to relinquish it, intentional taking of it is theft. Whether that possession is rightfully in their hands or not, is for their kamma, not yours.

Stealing is just a concept ... an idea ... a mere illusion ... not truth ... a fabrication.

Thus, the feeling "something is stolen" arises when you fabricate it with a decision, a volitional activity.

Thus, stealing arises when the decision arises that "something was stolen".

Decision that "something was stolen" arises depending on ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Decision that "something was stolen" arises depending on knowledge.)

Ignorance is kamma. Ignorance arises from kamma. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Knowledge is kamma. Knowledge arises from kamma.)

Thus, the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not is kamma.

Thus, to answer your questions:

  "What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not?"

Kamma/Ignorance is the meter. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Knowledge is the meter.)

  "At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which
  you are not?"

There is no universal answer to this question. Every being will have a definition for stealing depending on their kamma/ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Every being will have a definition for stealing depending on their knowledge.)

  "So where is the subtle line of stealing?"

The subtle line is defined by kamma/ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: The subtle line is defined by knowledge.)

Knowing that the subtle line of stealing (or any other action) is defined by kamma/ignorance/knowledge, how can you know when an action is virtuous and when it is not?

By knowing the kamma/ignorance of beings. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: By knowing the knowledge of beings.)

Thus, The One, who knows the kamma/ignorance/knowledge of beings, proclaims thus the following:

Taking what is not yours is not virtuous. It does not lead to the end of suffering. It creates suffering. It is not the right path towards the end of suffering.
Thus, do not take what is not yours nor aspire others to take what is not theirs.
The aspirant who is following the dhamma, searching for an end to suffering, should refrain from such wrong doings.

EDIT:

  "You give an example that stealing arises when the decision to steal
  occurs."

I didn't say: stealing arises when the decision to steal occurs.

I said: stealing arises when the decision arises that "something was stolen".

Suppose there is a business-man and a business-woman. Suppose the woman lands to the man a large sum of money. Suppose the man keeps track of the money he owns to the woman on a piece of paper in his office. Suppose the woman, having a good memory, decides to keep track of the money the man owns in her mind. Suppose a few years later, the man successfully returns to the woman all the borrowed sum of money. He makes a note on his paper that he returned the sum to the woman. After a week he sees that his notes about the loan are not needed any more, thus he trows the paper in the trash. Now suppose after a month the woman, having an imperfect memory, mistakenly thinks that the man still owes her money. She comes in his office requesting money to be paid. The man refuses and claims that he has repaid the loan in its entirety. The woman, not knowing the man repaid the loan in its entirety, truly thinks that he has not. She starts storming in and out of his office exclaiming: "You are scamming me! You are a thief!". then the woman sues him in court, 100 % sure that she was scammed/robbed by the man, claiming he is a thief and he should perish in prison for his deeds. Here, even though stealing has not occurred, it has occurred and unwholesome kamma is being generated for the woman due to her bad temper because she was scammed/robbed. Even though no stealing has occurred, in her reality she is truly and genuinely being the victim of stealing.

Now suppose the man is a meek person, very naive, weak in character and without firm grounds on where he stands. This naive man, listening to the blaming of the woman, would start to believe the woman that he has not repaid the entire loan. He would be so weak in character, that he would really start to believe that he has stolen her money. Thus, he would feel that he has stolen the money and he would feel guilt, even though he hasn't stole any money. Again, even though stealing has not occurred, it has occurred and unwholesome kamma is being generated for the man due to him scamming/robbing the woman. Even though no stealing has occurred, in his reality he believes he has truly scammed/robbed the woman.

Thus, no stealing occurs, until a decision is made that "something was stolen".

Same story, same man, same woman. But none of them keep track of the loan. Suppose the man returns to the woman half the loan, genuinely thinking that he has returned the entire loan. Suppose the woman, not keeping track of the loan, genuinely thinks the loan was repaid in its entirety. Here, even though stealing has occurred, stealing has not occurred and neutral or wholesome kamma is being generated for both the man and the woman (a potential exists for unwholesome kamma in the future due to the fact the woman can find out and make her mind that she was scammed/robbed).

Thus, stealing occurs, when a decision is made that "something was stolen".

Let me put it this way:

Suppose there was a very modest and compassionate person. Suppose this modest and compassionate person was hungry. He goes to the store and buys himself a sandwich. Suppose a beggar comes by who is very hungry and steals the sandwich of this very modest and compassionate person. That modest and compassionate person then exclaims: "That beggar did not steal my sandwich. He is not a thief. He should not be punished for his deed.".

Now, suppose the same story, but instead of the beggar stealing, a rich thief comes, full of greed and selfishness ... with golden necklaces around his neck ... with diamond rings on his fingers ... with abundant richness ... extremely infatuated with sensual desires ... this thief being hungry steals the sandwich of that very modest and compassionate person. That modest and compassionate person then exclaims: "That thief stole my sandwich! He is a thief! He should be punished for his deed!".

Now suppose there was a hungry person, very outgoing and rational, who has a hungry family and is in need to feed his family. Suppose this hungry, outgoing and rational person goes by a large container containing food that will be thrown away. He thinks to himself: this food is not mine, but it will be thrown away, thus it has no owner, thus if I take it I am not stealing it. Why don't I take some and feed my family with it? Thus he takes some.

Now suppose there was a hungry person, very modest and compassionate ... very sensitive to blame ... who has a hungry family and is in need to feed his family. This hungry, modest, compassionate and sensitive person goes by that same large container containing food that will be thrown away. He thinks to himself: this food is not mine, but it will be thrown away, but it is not mine. I will not steal it. I will not take some. Thus he does no take some.

Thus, stealing occurs, when a decision is made that "something was stolen".

  "But we have the precepts for ignorant people and discerning people."

Yes. Whoever is born comes with such and such past kamma of unwholesome actions which determine where is the line drawn with stealing.

The One, who knows the kamma of human beings, knows when a decision that something was stolen arises in a human being. He knows that humans steal because of ignorance and where does the motivation for stealing come from. Because he knows that, he knows the right path for the liberation of human beings: not stealing.

The precepts are written in such a way to resolve any past unwholesome kamma beings have. That's why the precepts say that stealing is an unwholesome action.

  "Some people know they are stealing and some don't."

People who know they are stealing are accumulating unwholesome kamma which bears bad fruits in the present and a high potential to bear bad fruits in the future.

People who don't know they are stealing and truly think that they are not stealing, are accumulating neutral or wholesome kamma, but have potential to accumulate unwholesome kamma in the future. The more in the future, the less potential it has for unwholesome kamma.

That's why an unwholesome act, truly thinking that is wholesome, creates no unwholesome kamma in the present, but a potential for the creation of unwholesome kamma in the future.

The laws of kamma are very subtle and hard to explain.

Even if somebody is truly not stealing, it doesn't mean he is accumulating wholesome or neutral kamma by abstaining from stealing.

For example, somebody would decide not to steal out of fear for repercussion. Here the intention to steal exists, but does not come to realization out of fear for one's self. This is unwholesome kamma, even though no stealing has occurred.

On the other hand, somebody would decide to steal out of compassion for hungry beings. Here the intention to steal exists, but it is not done for one's self. This is unwholesome kamma, but even though stealing is occuring, it creates less unwholesome kamma than in the example above, where no stealing is taking place.

Again, the laws of kamma are very subtle and hard to explain.

Suppose somebody would decide to steal out of compassion for hungry beings, but instead of stealing from beings who have accumulated large quantities of food, he steals from beings who have accumulated very low quantities of food. This creates more unwholesome kamma than in the first example above.

Suppose somebody would decide not to steal out of belief in the Buddha's words that stealing is an unwholesome action. This would create neutral kamma or very little unwholesome kamma, depending on the subtle intentions of the being.

Suppose somebody would decide not to steal because he doesn't want the beings to suffer because of him stealing from them. This would create wholesome kamma.

Suppose somebody would decide not to steal because he wants to show beings the right path towards the end of suffering. This would create large quantities of wholesome kamma.

Suppose somebody lives in a cave and hadn't even thought about stealing. This would create neutral kamma.

As you can see, whenever stealing is occurring there is unwholesome kamma being generated. Thus, beings must not steal.

  "Are you saying that I can steal as long as I personally change my
  understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing?"

No, not in this realm.

You have such and such kamma which does not allow you to change your understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing.

Knowing you're a human, and based on the questions you're asking and the discussion I'm having with you, I know that you, including all other humans, due to their kamma, cannot change their understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing.

Any human being who claims "I changed my understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing" is lying. If this same human being then really starts to steal from others, it just enforces his lie.

Thus I understand, thus I know ...

Such a human being, who is lying in the way described, is deluded and ignorant. His ignorance is stemming out of greed and/or selfishness.

And where does this selfishness and greed come from in such a person?

They come from the idea "I am" or the idea "I exist".

Both are not truths, illusions, not the real nature of things, coming from ignorance.

Knowing this and knowing that this human being is lying, I know that this being clings on the idea "I am" or the idea "I exist". Knowing then, that this human being is stealing, I know that this being clings on the idea "I am" or "I exist" very much.

The clinging on this very same idea and the actions of stealing, feeding the clinging on that very same idea, is what will propel this human into the lower realms of existence.

Thus, out of compassion for all beings, I tell them not to steal as it does not lead to the cessation of suffering. There is a way to the cessation of suffering and that is not to steal.

To summarize:

Every being draws his own line with stealing. Where will a being draw his line will be defined by his kamma at the time he draws the line. This is the truth.

2nd EDIT:

  "when a person steals they are not under the power of illusion but,
  instead, really believe the object they are stealing is solid &
  something they need"

When a person steals he is under the power of illusion. The illusion I'm talking about comes from ignorance.

Really believing the object is solid is ignorance. Really believing the object is something they need is ignorance. It's because of this ignorance that the fabrication/decision of "stealing" arises. This ignorance comes from absolutist thinking: "I am", "I exist", "This universe exists" and thus creates kamma with more potential for stealing.

On the other hand, really believing the object is not solid is ignorance. Really believing the object is something they don't need is ignorance. It's because of this ignorance that the fabrication/decision of "avoiding stealing" arises. This ignorance comes from nihilistic thinking: "I am not", "I do not exist", "This universe does not exist" and thus creates kamma with less potential for stealing.

On the other hand, seeing the solidity of the object as it really is and seeing the need for the object as it really is, comes from knowing what ignorance is. It's because of knowing what ignorance is that the fabrication/decision of "stealing" does not arise. This knowledge of what ignorance is comes from seeing reality as it really is. Only then, one can really speak from compassion: "Beings are ignorant about the solidity of the object and beings are ignorant about the need for the object. Beings suffer because of this ignorance. How can I show them the truth?" and thus creates kamma with no potential for stealing.

  "If stealing was illusion, stealing would not occur because it would
  be viewed as an illusion."

I'm not saying that stealing is not real. I'm saying that stealing is not reality. I'm saying that stealing is not what the majority of beings think it is. I'm challenging your reality.

The act of seeing stealing as reality is ignorance.

It's because of ignorance that beings don't see stealing as illusion, but think it is real. It's because of ignorance that beings don't see stealing as real, but think it is illusion.

That's why I claim: stealing is just a concept ... an idea ... a mere illusion ... not truth ... a fabrication ...

But beings, because of their ignorance, see stealing as a fact ... a substance ... a reality ... a truth. Because of their ignorance, they see just one side of the coin, not even bothering to examine the other side.

Because of their ignorance, they are drawing a line with stealing. Their actions in the present define where they will draw a line with stealing in the future. This "drawing of a line with stealing" is ignorance. This "taking of a view" is ignorance. This taking of views "this is real" or "this is not real" is ignorance. This ignorance is the cause of their suffering. Seeing how this ignorance arises, how it works, what it really is, what it really does, leads to the end of this ignorance and consequently to the extinction of suffering.

  "If stealing was illusion, stealing would not occur because it would
  be viewed as an illusion."

Even if a being would view stealing as an illusion, stealing could still occur because of left ignorance in that being.

What left ignorance?

Ignorance of the fact that his self exists. Ignorant of the fact his self exist, he has the view that his self does not exist, so he thinks his self could not be hurt, so he decides to steal and steps on a path with a greater potential for future suffering.

Ignorance of the fact that self of other beings does not exist. Ignorant of the fact that the self of other beings does not exist, he has the view that self of other beings exists, he sees that these beings see stealing as reality, not an illusion, thus he changes his view according to their view (self exists, thus stealing is real) thinking it is right view, and decides to steal and steps on a path with a greater potential for future suffering.

It's this ignorance of not knowing reality as it really is that is creating potential for stealing to occur and all kinds of suffering:

If a being decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", he is ignorant of the facts that "his self exist" and "self of others does not exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.

Explanation:

Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "his self exists"?

No, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is ignorant of the fact that "his self exists". Why is that so? If he knew that "his self exists", then he would also knew that "stealing is real". Why is that so? Because he would know that a self "owns things". Whenever something is "owned", it can be stolen. Thus, if he knew that "his self exists", then he would also know that "stealing is real". Thus, knowing that "stealing is real", he would never take decisions upon the view "stealing is an illusion".

Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "self of others does not exist"?

No, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is ignorant of the fact that "self of others does not exist". Why is that so? If he knew that "self of others does not exist", then he would also know that nothing can be stolen from others. Why is that so? Because he would know that with the non existence of the self of others, things owned by others don't exist. Why is that so? Because for a "thing" to be "owned", self must exist who owns that thing. Whenever "things owned by others" loose their owner, they can't be stolen. Thus, if he knew that "self of others does not exist", then he would also know that "things" are not owned by others due to them not having an owner, thus, he would know that "stealing is an illusion for others". Thus, if he knew that "stealing is an illusion for others", he would knew that nothing can be stolen from others. Thus, he would never take a decision "not to steal" knowing that "stealing is an illusion for others", because knowing that "stealing is an illusion for others" and knowing that "things don't have an owner", how possibly he could claim "I decided not to steal" if no stealing could ever take place as there is nothing that can be taken from others? Him taking the decision not to steal, even though he has the view "stealing is an illusion", means that he also has the view "stealing is real for others". For stealing to be real for others, they must have an existent self, that's why he is taking the view "self of others exists" but is ignorant of the fact "self of others does not exist".

Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists"?

Yes, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is not ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists". Why is that so? Because he decided not to steal from others, he knows that self of others exists, thus he knows that others own things and he doesn't want to take these things from others. Thus, he is not ignorant of the fact "self of others exists".

Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist"?

Yes, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is not ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist". Why is that so? He has the view "stealing is an illusion", but he is deciding not to steal, even though he knows that "stealing is an illusion". Why is this so? Because he is not ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists" (read above), he knows that stealing is not an illusion for others, thus he has a view "stealing is real for others". Nonetheless having the view "stealing is real for others", he has the view "stealing is an illusion", thus the only conclusion is that his view "stealing is an illusion" comes from the view "his self does not exist", because with the absence of his self, nothing can be stolen from his self, and thus he forms the view "stealing is an illusion".

If a being decides to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.
If a being decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is real", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others does not exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.
If a being decides to steal because of the view "stealing is real", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others exists", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.
If a being decides not to steal because of the view "beings are ignorant", he is speaking the truth, thus he is not creating any kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.
If a being decides to steal because of the view "beings are ignorant", he is either ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists" or "self of others does not exist" or "his self exists" or "his self does not exist" or any combination of the previous, thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.

Whenever a being defines a line with stealing, claiming "this is stealing", believing it is fact, reality, truth, substance, not letting go of it, clinging onto it, not seeing it as it really is, that being is acting out of ignorance. The core of it coming from views: "I exist" or "I don't exist" or "Others exist" or "Others don't exist" or "The universe exist" or "The universe does not exist" or any combination of these.

I'm challenging you to see reality as it really is.


What does Buddhism say about having dreams about the Buddha? Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha? For example is it considered an omen a sign or meaningless ...?

EDIT: Sorry i have to change the edit back to the Buddha instead of Bodhisattva.My question is about someone dreaming of The Buddha.As in Buddha,the fully enlightened being.Not a Bodhisattva.Not a dream about Sidhattha.But a dream of the Buddha.

My question is,Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha in Buddhism.For example if you dreamt of The Buddha would it be considered an omen,a sign or meaningless.

Thank you

The dreams Bodhisatta had about his future Buddhahoood are given in the Supina Sutta.

  "When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just
  an unawakened bodhisatta, five great dreams appeared to him. Which
  five?

  "When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just
  an unawakened bodhisatta, this great earth was his great bed. The
  Himalayas, king of mountains, was his pillow. His left hand rested in
  the eastern sea, his right hand in the western sea, and both feet in
  the southern sea. When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened
  — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, this was the first great
  dream that appeared to him....

You might also be interested in knowing the meanings of the dreams, queen Maya(mother of the Bodhisatta) saw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions

If this works for the awake state, it'll work for dreams too. Or your interpretations of your dreams, subject to honesty.


Vedana: does it include feeling sleepy, dizzy, alert… I am a (somewhat lackadaisical) follower of S.N. Goenka's meditation teachings.  After a couple of 10-day retreats and reading some articles such as this: http://www.vridhamma.org/Why-Vedana-and-What-is-Vedana I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input, but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion —  feelings like the ones above, or hunger, fatigue  and so on. Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?

I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input

In the Pali suttas, 'vedana' refer to: (i) pleasant; (ii) unpleasant &; (iii) neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings that occur with sense impressions.

When the mind lacks mindfulness-&-wisdom, pleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of greed/lust/love; unpleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of hatred/anger/irritation; and neither feeling can give rise to confusion.

  but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion

Vedana/feelings are not attachment or revulsion. For example, if you break your leg, that is an unpleasant feeling. The revulsion (hatred) or attachment is a separate matter.

  hunger, fatigue and so on.

Hunger begins with an unpleasant/painful feeling but, ordinarily, quickly gives rise craving. You should try to separate the painful feeling from the craving. Feeling/vedana is not an 'urge' & not 'thinking'. Feeling is the mere painful sensation.

Fatigue is not a vedana. It is a lack of energy, either related to exhaustion of the physical body or defilements of the mind weighing down the mind. Fatigue is classed as a 'hindrance' ('nivarana') rather than a 'vedana' ('feeling').

Thus hunger is a proper object of mindfulness, where the meditator is vigilant towards & subdues craving & excitement towards food; thus attentive only to the painful stomach sensation.

Fatigue is a difficult & subtle object of mindfulness; unless one is a very skilled meditator. Generally, if fatigue arises, the meditator should focus on their physical posture; or change posture to standing or walking; or otherwise have some rest and sleep in bed. Refer to this link about 'sloth & torpor'.

  Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to
  it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is
  touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments,
  weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying
  tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it
  actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
  danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
  tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here
  and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying
  tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without
  extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and
  arousing true knowledge—this is impossible. MN 148

Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?>

Yes. Feeling and sensations are conjoined hence not easy to separate. In that case been aware of all feelings and sensation is Vipassana meditation.


a good definition of consciousness I was having a conversation with a non buddhist about consciousness I was struggling to define some key aspects and it kind of led into not self,  but I was looking for a concise simple definition.

Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy.
Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied by awareness. Just as water has colour, temperature, etc., so too, consciousness has sensation and other mental concomitants.
Doctrinally, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy, which takes an experiential paradigm as the basis of reality (as opposed to the temporospatial paradigm of modern science). Each conscious qualia constitutes an atomic entity in the complex matrix of multi-perceptional reality.

cittena nīyati loko, cittena parikassati.
cittassa ekadhammassa, sabbeva vasamanvagūti.
By the mind the world is led, by the mind is it carried away.
Of the mind, the one thing, all indeed go according to its power.
-- SN 1.62

There is no single definition of consciousness, but what seems to be common to all, at least implicitly, is the existence of an internal model of the "external" world, and sensory input to inform the model. Humans have several kinds of sensory input, and their internal models usually consist of a field of different densities (objects with different "hardnesses, e.g. steel, wood, water) and with varied luminance, along with sound, flavor, scent, and so on. Bacteria have very different consciousnesses, built almost solely on chemical concentration gradients (which way to the sugar?).


Are there Bodhisatta practices within Theravada? In the Majjhima Nikaya, there are mentions of Bodhisattvas.

For instance, Bhayabherava Sutta (4. Fear and Dread) says:

  "Before my enlightenment, while I was still ony an unenlightened Bodhisatta..."

It is a sentence that is repeated throughout the MN.

The Acchariya-abbhuta Sutta (123. Wonderful and Marvellous) also says:

  "Mindfull and fully aware, Ananda, the Bodhisatta appeared in the Tusita heaven."

I have two questions:

Are there Bodhisattva practices in Theravada? (such as the cultivation of Bodhicitta and the six perfections presented in Mahayana traditions)
Since we find occurrences in the Pali Canon, why do we often hear that the notion of bodhisattva is a late notion?

Bodhisatta practices in Theravada are mentioned in Buddhavamsa, Jataka and Apadana atthakatha, especially in Visuddhajanavilāsiniyā, Apadana Atthakatha, the commentary of Apadana, which is believed to be a late addition to the Pali Canon, added after the Second and Third Buddhist Councils. This is probably why we hear that the notion of bodhisatta is a late addition. However, in Theravada countries like Sri Lanka where I come from, the bodhisattas are widely accepted. (See also the wikipedia section on Theravada bodhisattas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva)

According to Buddhavagga section in Apadana Atthakathaa, Theravada Buddhism has ten perfections dasapāramitā (Giving, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving kindness and equanimity)
and there are three types of bodhisattas, the ones aspiring to be Sammāsambuddha, Pacceka Buddha (a private Buddha) and Savaka Buddha (arahant).

According to the section Buddhavagga in Apadana Atthakathaa, to become a Sammāsambuddha, one requires either 4x10^140 (cattāri asaṅkhyeyyāni), 8x10^140 (aṭṭha asaṅkhyeyyāni) or 16x10^140 (soḷasa asaṅkhyeyyāni) eons of pāramitā perfection

  ‘‘buddhānaṃ, bhante, patthanā kīva ciraṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Buddhānaṃ,
  ānanda, heṭṭhimaparicchedena cattāri asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca, majjhimaparicchedena aṭṭha asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca, uparimaparicchedena soḷasa asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca
  Apadana Atthakathaa

depending on whether he has high wisdom (Paññādhika), faith (Saddhādhika) or effort (Vīriyādhika).

  Ete ca bhedā paññādhikasaddhādhikavīriyādhikānaṃ vasena ñātabbā.
  Paññādhikānañhi saddhā mandā hoti, paññā tikkhā. Saddhādhikānaṃ paññā
  majjhimā hoti, saddhā tikkhā. Vīriyādhikānaṃ saddhā paññā mandā hoti,
  vīriyaṃ tikkhanti.
  Apadana Atthakathaa

A bodhisatta aspiring to be a pacceka buddha requires 2x10^140 (dve asaṅkhyeyyāni) eons of practice.

  paccekabuddho paccekabodhisattabhūmiṃ ogāhanto dve asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca pāramiyo pūretvā
  Apadana Atthakathaa

For an arahant a time limit is not given for the bodhisatta period.

According to mahayana a bodhisattva with proper motivation is equivalent to a theravedan arahant.

So bodhisattva practices that are also theravedan are solely the practices of an arahant!


Is there anything like discriminating intellect in Buddhism? I was watching this Youtube video about 'witnessing self':

3 Stages in Witnessing Meditation - On the Journey towards Spiritual Enlightenment
This video describes the three stages in witnessing meditation. It is a technique known as Shakshi Bhav in Vedanta.

In it he talks about developing intellect that discriminates between 'subject and object'. He says discrimination between the 'contents of consciousness' and 'consciousness or awareness' has to be cultivated for spiritual growth.
I haven't come across any Buddhist term which relates to this. Is this Vipassana? If not whats this in Buddhist terms?

In the Theravada traditions, I understand this be a reference to the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya-bhojjanga).
In the field of dhamma, discrimination comes about by the very act of investigation, and what is discriminated is then known as arising in dependence on other factors and that, globally, those factors harbour three definitive characteristics: transience, unsatisfaction and not-self. This is understood through what he calls the contents of consciousness but what I would call the six-sense consciousnesses - sometimes enumerated as 8 or 9 consciousnesses to include mānas-vijñāna and mano-vijñāna. I think the ninth consciousness is seen as nirvana.
With regard to the consciousness or awareness aspect (possibly nirvana) I suggest reading the fascinating answers to this very interesting question: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?.
It is only by investigating (and discriminating) the six-senses in this way that they are broken down by wisdom-understanding leaving behind a deeper understanding of reality; what you might call consciousness or awareness. I cannot see this as a cultivation. Nothing is cultivated. It is just that complications and their disturbances were removed to reveal the simplicity that had always been present.

Buddhism teaches.
1)Internal - I suppose this is the subject
2)External - I suppose this is the object
3)Internal External


Certainty and Skeptical Investigation I know Buddhism promotes skeptical investigation, and finding things out with a personal conviction about them, i.e. not believing the Buddha on hearsay but rigorous examination.

I wonder: how is such a certainty achieved? I would think the combination of shamatha and vipassana is the answer, but I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical reasoning).

Personally, I feel like I often achieve a feeling of certainty, but it usually fades into doubts and alternate hypothesis. I can't seem to generate a sturdy sense of truth.

I appreciate any answer to this question.
Thank you.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you infer the mechanisms at play. At the same time, you study theory - explaining the mechanisms - which sheds light on your practice.

Certainty comes as a result of having acquired the skill. This may or may not come from theory, and may or may not be something you can explain in words. Conceptual model is the optional part that aids one's practice and helps transmit the teaching forward, but cannot give the sense of certainty by itself.

In Vajrayana schools, certainty also comes from the lineage blessings through a ritual known as empowerment (abhisheka).

Doubt(Vicikiccha) is a defilement. Do Vipassana meditation. Samatha is not necessary. Once you attain the first stage of enlightenment(Sotapanna), doubt will be completely cut off. Do not stop the meditation to think up theories regardless of what you saw or felt. That will either take you in wrong paths or slow you down at best. If a thought of doubt enters the mind, note it as doubting... doubting... doubting... until it goes away and then get back to your default place of focus. Keep meditating until you reach Nibbana.