Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe?
Buddha said sabbe sankhara anicca (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are anicca (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?

This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the Acintita Sutta:

Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.
It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. This means such type of questioning has no practical value.
From MN 63:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
do not see.’
“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”
“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
man, who are you and what are you abandoning?
“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
…until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die.

It's an excellent question, and I'm reminded that the way in which you have practiced might have brought you here. These are the types of deep curiosities that can arise from an enquiring mind intent on seeking a deeper truth to all of this. I used to ask the same question when I was a child and then again many years later when I began practicing Buddhism. Incidentally, I was recently walking on the beach with my own child who suddenly asked the same question. I thought to myself, "you wise little sod!" Children in general have these types of deep curiosities because they have not yet succumbed to the heaviness of the world's neurosis. That's why I started with the way in which you have practiced might have brought you here because practice dissolves those neurotic tendencies and often leaves us with deeper questions.
There's good and bad news. The bad news is that your question cannot be answered. The good news is that the energy from your curiosity can be used skilfully. Let me explain...
The very fact that you are enquiring in this way is the beginning of the first discoveries of emptiness and follows the premise of MN121, The Shorter Discourse on Emptiness. At the time I wasn't aware of this teaching so, quite of my own accord here's what I did with that energy (my efforts were initially cumbersome to say the least but later became more refined due to studying MN121...)
In perception, I began removing things from my environment, coarse things like people and furniture. This left empty rooms if I was indoors and empty towns and streets if I was outside. Wanting to further enquire, I began removing bigger objects: buildings, roadways, trees, until there was only a vast landscape with its contours. Then I removed the earth, the stars, galaxies until everything appeared empty.
What this leaves you with is a subtle perception called nothingness. It is not actually nothing because there is someone there creating the concept of nothingness which is contingent on what was previously known about the presence of objects. This is consciousness, or more precisely consciousness regarding ideas and concepts: the concept of you perceiving the concept of nothing. The space/time consciousness becomes apparent here or the idea that space and time are just that: another idea. If you wanted to you could then work on removing the idea of nothingness with which things then become neither perception nor non-perception. Nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception are the two most intriguing of the four arupa ayatanas. They are not necessarily connected with the four jhanas meaning you can jump straight into cultivating the arupa ayatanas regardless.
It's around the region of the last two where reality starts to light up. It illuminates itself since it is not so much suppressed by the samsaric consciousness. As far I understand, this luminosity is another perception but a very significant one. That's about as far as I can go. I have no understanding beyond this point.
Just to summarize: your enquiry is founded and relevant, but the direction is not. There are no answers about why there is form and directing your attention there will only lead to frustration as ruben2020 mentioned in his answer.
However, as I've pointed out, one can direct this enquiry in a more skilful manner. MN121 does an exponentially better job than myself at doing this.


What is the Buddhist Perspective on Lucid Dreaming? What is the buddhist perspective on lucid dreaming?
I am very curious about my first lucid dream last night.

Lucid dream is a place where you can do more work, more Buddhist practice. For example, if you are afraid of fights you can pick a fight with anyone, man or monster. It's a safe place to try things you can't try in regular life.

Reference: Tibetan Buddhist teacher Tarab Tulku. For more information read Chapter 19 of The Psychology of Awakening anthology by Gay Watson and Stephen Batchelor.

lucid dreaming is like going to another world.you could be in a happy place. or facing your fears it all depends on you.this is my opinion


Meditation for Psychosis I have psychosis.
I have no ability to understand reality from birth.
Can meditation give me the ability?
Or will I never be able to end my mental suffering?
Do you know how can I end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness?

Welcome to the site.

I can't give a complete answer; but maybe an outline of an answer in note form. Please feel welcome to ask follow-up questions (using comments or separate questions) when you want any further details.

I've looked for, but I haven't been able find, information related to your question -- i.e. I haven't found Buddhist meditation teachers saying that they have experience of teaching people with psychosis (I have found teachers who said they don't have that experience).

I don't know where you live or who you're in contact with: but I hope it might be worth your while to ask some 'professionals', for example asking ...

Your psychiatrists
Local meditation teachers

... whether they know any suitable meditation classes/programs, and/or teachers with that experience.

For example I found this video, Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void.

Buddhism is also known as the threefold training:

Virtue (morality)
Mind (concentration or meditation)
Insight (wisdom)

Virtue (morality)

The first of these is virtue/morality.  In Buddhism, morality might be summarized as "harmlessness" or (in slightly more detail), the "five precepts" which are:

Avoid killing
Avoid stealing (or "taking what is not given")
Avoid sexual misconduct
Avoid lying (or "false speech")
Avoid alcohol

There are many benefits to keeping the five precepts.

Note that "keeping the precepts" was the sum total of Dean's answer, and it's not a bad answer.

There's a sutta, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose?, which begins with,

  ... he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues?
  What is their reward?"

  "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."

  "And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

  "Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

I recommend you read the whole thing.

My point is that that skillful virtues, i.e. "virtues" or being harmless, which is called sila, result in a "lack of remorse".

My experience is that this is very, very important. Even if psychosis means that you can do nothing else, at least knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing no wrong, will mean that you have no reason to feel remorse, no reason to 'feel bad' about yourself. It makes a world of difference to you and to those around you.

So even if nothing else, do no harm: that's the beginning (of 'peace and happiness').

Mind (concentration or meditation)

The second part of the training includes concentration.

There are many, many types of concentration meditation. I'll mention two:

Breathing meditation ("mindfulness of breathing")
Loving-kindness meditation (called "metta bhavana" in Pali, this chant is an example)

The ability to "concentrate" might ultimately be developed into the jhanas,

  Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention. It is the cornerstone in the development of Right Concentration.

Maybe this too is what you're looking for, when you're asking about how to attain "peace and happiness".

Some people warn though that it's possible to get a little lost in "concentration" meditation, and that you ought to practice "insight" meditation. I think that's what's meant in the last paragraph of Suminda's answer ("excessive concentration is not advisable").

Insight (wisdom)

Suminda advocates a form of meditation called Vipassana. I think that the purpose of this form of meditation is to observe everything (including body, mind, feelings, and ideas) and to experience the fact that they're impermanent, that they come and go, arise and disappear.

I think that's connected with the so-called "four noble truths" of Buddhism, including the 3rd truth i.e. "cessation".

You'll find more about "Vipassana" if you search for it (I won't try to explain it in this answer), and/or maybe you can find someone who teaches it in person.

Equanimity

I think that one of the states-of-mind which people try to develop using Vipassana (or to put it more impersonally, a state of mind which is developed as a result of Vipassana) is equanimity.

I think that too is related to the four noble truths.

You say, "how can I end my pain and fear" but part of the point of Buddhism is that wanting something makes it worse; for example:

"I'm feeling pain and fear, and that's so bad, I wish it would stop, but it's not stopping, I don't know how to make it stop"

... compared with ...

"Oh that's an experience of a feeling, which in the past I used to label as 'pain and fear' ... there's the feeling ... oh, there's another feeling now, the previous feeling has gone (was impermanent, has ceased)"

I suppose that (equanimity, and knowledge of impermanence) is a result of insight or wisdom.

Love

Actually equanimity is one of the four Brahmaviharas -- of which, the other three are various kinds of love (called metta, mudita, and karuna in Pali).

Here's an essay about the Brahmaviharas.

Someone like the Dalai Lama recommends these kinds of attitudes towards other people. Not only can it be a skillful way to behave with other people (it may be better to feel compassion than anger, for example), but caring about people means caring less about yourself, and/or caring about yourself in the same way that you care about other people. The Dalai Lama has said that he would feel "imprisoned" within himself if he only cared about himself, and that he prefers to see himself as "like other people".

Maybe that's why meditations like the metta gatha include equally "may I be free from suffering" and "may each and every other person be free from suffering".

Psychosis

The OP doesn't mention what the specific symptoms of psychosis are.

Here are some of them as described in Wikipedia:

Hallucinations
Delusions
Thought disorders

Here is some of what I know about these symptoms and some guesses about how Buddhist meditation might be able to help with them.

Hallucinations might include the classic "hearing voices" which means "hearing" or perceiving a thought as if it were a voice. A simple example might be, you're waiting at a bus stop, and you hear a voice saying "that bus isn't coming" but there's no-one else there. So that "voice" was just a thought.

From a mundane point of view, this might be a symptom to discuss with your psychiatrist. I take it you know that there are anti-psychotic drugs, that they're more-or-less effective, that they have unwanted side-effects, that there are many types of them, and that it's guess-work or trial-and-error to find a prescription that suits a specific patient. For some people, the right drugs can relieve symptoms such as hallucinations: so if you experience hallucinations that might be something to tell your psychiatrist, in case they're able to (more or less harmlessly) adjust your prescription.

From a Buddhist point of view, I'd like to suggest that as long as you're able to do no harm, then it doesn't matter. For example, hearing a voice is harmless, whereas hurting someone would be harmful. If you hear a voice but don't hurt people then you're doing very well (and I respect and admire you).

In other words, that may be connected with the "virtue (morality)" part of the path.
Delusions might be, for example, paranoid (believing that others want to harm you), or grandiose (believing you have special power or skills).

To counteract paranoid beliefs, I guess that metta bhavana ("cultivation of loving-kindness") might be helpful. If you don't want to hurt others then they shouldn't want to hurt you. If you see others as suffering (or being freed from suffering) you're less likely to see yourself as suffering (or being persecuted).

To counteract grandiose beliefs, well, I guess I recommend "virtue" again. For example it's alright to see yourself as virtuous if you are virtuous, and alright to see yourself as helping people if at least you are not harming them.
Thought disorders are difficult to talk about, because it means for example that your ability to understand words (speech and writing) is disorganized.

It may or may not help you to know that Buddhism identifies like 12 links in the chain of existence, and that "words" are only one of these links (i.e. sankharas or "fabrications"), and they're arguably the least important and/or the most easily misunderstood link. People tend to be deceived by their own "fabrications". If you can't follow what they say then maybe you will be seen as disabled (and I think maybe you would be 'disabled', because it's typically better if you can say things that people understand) but it's not the end of the world: there are other aspects to reality (e.g. senses, consciousness, feeling, etc.).

I think it's possible to communicate even when there are thought disorders, for example, by being kind to people.

There's a story I remember of the Dalai Lama's meeting someone in the crowd who was disturbed, and holding his hand until he calmed down and found some peace.

Again, anti-psychotic drugs might be able to alleviate the symptom of "thought disorders", which then makes other forms of communication (and/or healing, helping, employment) possible.

Finally it would be amiss to talk about Buddhism without mentioning friendship and community.

One of the Three Jewels of Buddhism is the Sangha,

  Sangha is a word in Pali and Sanskrit meaning "association", "assembly," "company" or "community" and most commonly refers in Buddhism to the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns. This community is traditionally referred to as the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha. As a separate category, those who have attained any of the four stages of enlightenment, whether or not they are members of the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha, are referred to as the ariya-sangha or "noble Sangha".

Related to that is the "noble friend", for example the Upaddha Sutta. I'll quote it in full:

  Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the
  Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda
  went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the
  Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda
  said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord:
  admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable
  camaraderie."[1]

  "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship,
  admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
  of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
  companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
  noble eightfold path.

  "And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions,
  & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the
  case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion,
  dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in
  relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right
  action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness...
  right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion,
  dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a
  monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues,
  develops & pursues the noble eightfold path.

  "And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable
  friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth,
  that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that
  beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings
  subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained
  release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is
  through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life."

  Notes

  As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good
  qualities.

I hope that suggests another way to "end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness": i.e. have a friend, have several friends, be a friend, seek and be with friendly (harmless) people.

See also Kalyāṇa-mittatā or Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow.

The only way to end your suffering is to accept the challenge that you created before birth. You have to realize this suffering is a test you gave yourself before your life started.Endure to the end with happiness and show the world nothing can break your spirit. If you can show humbleness and love towards all while suffering this life might be your last trial of suffering or you can choose to rebirth again and help change the perspective of life to many.Once you relize this you will no longer know your suffering.


What is Vibhava Tanha? What is Vibhava Tanha?
What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha?
Is the view non-existence considered Vibhava Tanha?
What is the Sutta reference relating to this teaching?
Why the desire for Nibbana is not considered Vibhava Tanha?

Vibhava Tanha is simply the craving for an experience to go away or end. Ex: When you are meditating, if pain arises in the legs or back and if you are unmindful(ignorant), disliking will arise. This results in wanting the pain to go away. This wanting is Vibhava Tanha.

On a broader scale,  craving for annihilation after death is also Vibhava Tanha. But the view that everything ends after death is not the craving itself. That comes under Micca Dhitti. This view can give rise to Vibhava Tanha.

Craving for Nibbana can be either Bhava Tanha or Vibhava Tanha depending on your false view of Nibbana. If you think of it as a status to achieve or a land/heaven to enter or a state of bliss, those false views can cause Bhava Tanha. If you think of it as nothingness or emptiness or end of a being, those false views can cause Vibhava Tanha.

But just like how the suffering of pain does not end by craving for it to end, Nibbana(end of all suffering) cannot be reached by craving for it. When pain arises in the body, if you practice mindfulness instead of wishing for it to go away, the suffering will stop regardless of if the pain is still there or not. This is a mild realization of the Four Noble Truths. When this realization becomes matured and all-encompassing, all suffering will cease.

Destination of Vibhava Tanha is obviously a lower realm of existence or a state of misery.

The destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha is anger, frustration, stress & unhappiness; such as, for example, wanting to not be exposed to reading SarathW's posts but not being able to avoid them. Vibhava Tanha is egoism; as described in Iti 49:

  How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
  non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
  body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
  exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
  reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

Aspiration for Nibbana is not considered Vibhava Tanha because there is no egoism.


Why are all the Buddhas born in Indian subcontinent only? From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names).

Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma.

We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.

What's the reason?

Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.

Yes all buddhas were from india, that's a certain of world..In future also  buddhas'll be born only in india..When a Bodhisathwa(buddha before enlightenment)looking for feasibility to be born, country and place are among major five factors, and always the country selected was india..
With the geographical positioning of india ,it has a special energy that is needed to make a buddha..As you mentioned in the same time greece,egypt...those countries also were developed but they didn't have that geographical factor which india had..And also otherwise buddha needed wise people who could understand the buddha serments, For that they needed to had spiritual and mental development, I think those western countries only had physical development more than mental development in that time..So buddha had to choose india to plant the seed of buddhism


What is the meaning of "dhammā" in the context of the four satipaṭṭhāna? I've been struggling with this one for quite a while now. The fourth foundation of mindfulness is called 'dhammānupassana' - vision in regards to the dhammas. The old translation I was given when I started meditating was "mind objects", which I'm pretty sure is not at all correct in this context, since it doesn't get at the distinction between the fourth set and the first three.

The phrase "mind object" is a translation of "dhammarammana". According to Nina Van Gorkom,

  Dhammarammana comprises all objects which are not included in the first five classes. These can be experienced only through the mind-door.

  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-16.htm

So, "mind object" is a specific subset of reality in a specific context. The first five indriya and the first three elements that comprise rupakkhandha are not a part of this subset, and yet they appear in the section on dhammanupassana.

The commentary says relating the the fourth satipatthana,

  and now in order to speak of even the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations, he said "And, how, o bhikkhus," and so forth."

So the emphasis is supposed to be on these two aggregates (even though the five aggregates themselves are under this heading).

In Thai, the meaning is given as "that which holds (dhareti) the meditator from falling into evil", which is a definition of the truths (dhammas) taught by the Buddha. That seems appropriate, but it is still curious that there are only a limited number of subsets of the Buddha's teaching in the satipaṭṭhāna sutta, certainly not all of the Buddha's teaching.

Does anyone have a proper explanation as to why the fourth set is called "dhammas"?

I think the following perspective on all four satipatthanas will help in understanding the  meaning of the fourth one. The four satipatthanas are supposed to counter the four vipallasas (perversions) which are: permanence, happiness, self, and beauty. So, mindfulness of the body counters the beauty perversion; mindfulness of feelings (and the fact that all vedanas are included in dukkha) counters the happiness perversion; mindfulness of mind (which is anicca) counters the permanence perversion; and, finally, mindfulness of the dhammas counters the self (atta) perversion. Thus, one reviews dhammas to realize anatta. To view four perversions would be inappropriate attention (ayoniso-manasikara), but the four satipatthanas, would be training in appropriate attention (yoniso-manasikara).

So, overall, I think the meaning of dhamma in this context is exactly what they are: analytical properties of experience, ultimate phenomena, and everything else that apply to dhammas (mind objects, matikas, dhamma lists, etc).

Contrary to the assumption in question., it seems plainly obvious the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is not the Buddha's teaching. For example, how could the five hindrances be an object of the 4th satipatthana when the five hindrances must be dispensed with prior to the 1st satipatthana? Or how can the realisation or experience of the four noble truths pass away for an Awakened One?

Ajahn Buddhadasa suggested the Satipatthana Sutta is merely a list of disconnected dhammas. Ajahn Sujato has labelled the Satipatthana Sutta the 'Piltdown (Hoax) Sutta'. Surely, a Buddhist of reasonable discernment can see the Satipatthana Sutta is taught contrary to how the Buddha taught Dhamma, namely, it is taught in the wrong sequence pertaining to cause & effect.

If the Anapanasati Sutta is used as a guide, the meaning of dhammānupassana is clear. "Dhamma" refers to the Supramundane Realisation & Fruit declared by the Buddha.


Would Buddhists object if Gautama Buddha were seen as a Prophet by Islam I recently posted on the Islam site that we (Muslim) could consider Gautama Buddha as a prophet in our sense. I have originally put three different questions here; now I put two separately; under this title I leave the question of courtesy whether Buddhists would rather appreciate or oppose to it if I would call Gautama Buddha a prophet in the sense of Islam (not a prophet of Islam), knowing that the relation between both religions is not entirely peaceful (which I, personally, regret)
Thank you for your feedback

You see friend, it's a sad state of affairs. Even the Buddhists of this site reject your respect of our teacher on the grounds that your faith is wrong in their eyes. And if your faith is "wrong", your respect must be misplaced, is that what we are saying? What a shame!
You are not asking for much - not asking to accept your faith, not asking for their respect, just asking to accept yours and even that you are denied! What a sad sad sad world.
You know what? You actually are free to respect whoever is worthy of respect, it's up to you to measure your respect and give him a title of Prophet, or a Wise One, or an Awakened One, or whatever title you see fit.
Did Buddha teach unity or division? Buddha taught unity. Did Buddha teach "only this is right, anything else is wrong"? The Buddha taught the danger of attachment to one-sided views, and the escape from attachment to one-sided views. Whoever speaks on behalf of the Buddha in the voice of division - misrepresents the Buddha.
The message of enlightenment is the message of non-hatred, message of non-division, message of non-attachment. It is the message of peace, the message of love. The flavor is unmistakable and you can see it in any religion, whether it goes in the same depths of psychology as Buddhism or not, any true teaching is a teaching of consolidation, not quarrel of "us" vs "them".
So thank you for making this step and stretching your hand across the divide, brother. I'm confident this step is right and the history will confirm it.

Here's how Islam works think of the BhavaCakra... twelve links of causation. One pictures oneself in the Yama position: In Islams case? Yama becomes Allah/God/Brahma whatever then the twelve nidana get called sons or "Mohammad".
Same thing with Christianity with the twelve "saints". Of course the difference? Allah is in fact the name of god to the Islamic people.
Christians are still playing scape goat with their "gods" name. The god of Abraham... is all they feel comfortable with as a name.
So If Allah wanted to be Christian he would just have to be called: The god of Mohammad.
Who knows who knows is the best answer to whom someone's "god" is... diarrhea for many becomes "god" really quick in search of a bathroom or else boom right there in the robes without a single thought about it. In such a case... How is that not: "Zen mind, beginners mind"?
If someone is disgusted by the very idea? They should try wearing them; or at least remember you once did and someone was kind enough to change old baby for money(hospice) and kind enough to change new baby for "free"(parental figure).


What does the first para of Lonaphala Sutta mean? The first paragraph of the Lonaphala Sutta, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, states:

  "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma,
  that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
  there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone
  who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way,
  that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the
  holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

I feel that this is not the best possible translation for this paragraph of the sutta.

Please explain what it really means.

This is how I understand it.  You don't get back exactly what you put in, but you get back the results of it.
Example,  if you kill someone, it is not necessary that you will get killed back in return but you will get results from your killing which depends on many factors.  This sutta,  Buddha taught us that is possible to work on those many factors that could produce a better results.
Like , if I killed someone, then later worked to become a stream enter, a result that could have sent me to hell next life changed to make me a sickly person.  Etc. A Finger bandit arahat is another example.
It is clear to me that karma is not fate or fixed destinations or replacement of a will from a god.

While I am not fluent in the exact translation, the translation offered is as follows:

  Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
  there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone
  who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way,
  that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the
  holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

  There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

Based on reading the above two paragraphs, it appears the meaning of the sutta is:

When the Holy Life has been lived, an act of evil kamma, performed due a lapse of mindfulness, does not necessarily bring an evil result, i.e. a result of suffering (which can only occur due to egoistic attachment or self-view).
When the Holy Life has been lived, where there is skill in mindfulness &  wisdom, an act of evil kamma, performed due a lapse of mindfulness, only brings the result of vedana (feeling). 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, the following occurs in relation to an act of evil kamma, in the here-&-now:

  On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing.  He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
  cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
  cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
  being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
  the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

  MN 38

As was taught in AN 3.61:

  Now it is for one who feels that I proclaim: ‘This is suffering,’ and ‘This is the origin of suffering,’ and ‘This is the cessation of
  suffering,’ and ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of
  suffering.’


What is the correct meaning of dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta? I am unable to understand different meanings of words dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta...

Does dhamma means as "path" or "truth" or "teaching" as in Ariyapariyesana Sutta or as "phenomenon" or as "things? Is dhamma and dharma same?

Does atta means 'self' or 'soul' or 'ego' or 'eternal-self' or something else?

I have read  anatta meaning as 'not-self', does this means as 'not-I' or  'not-me' or  'not-mine' or something else? It is because I have read it's use as different meanings...confusing.

What could be the correct translation of "Sabbe dhammā anattā."?

from an EBT (early buddhist text) perspective:
http://lucid24.org/tped/d/dhamma/index.html#dhammamsutva

☸Dhamma, dhamma

☸Dhamma = The Buddha's Teaching.
Dhamma = Natural laws of the universe, like impermanence, death, illness, etc.
dhamma = idea/thought cognizable by the mind (6aya):  manasā dhammaṃ viññāya.
dhamma = thing. A broad term that can mean anything.

I would translate it as 'state' similar to the use in the ariyapariseya;

  To what extent did Rama declare that he had entered & dwelled in this Dhamma?' When this was said, Uddaka declared the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

States would be all states;
1. State of aggregates;
1a) unskillful
1b) skillful (rupa and the four arupa jhana)
2. Not included (Cessation of Perception & felling)

Cessation of perception & feeling is Nibbana in definitive sense;

  “First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is visible in this very life in a qualified sense. …

Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is visible in this very life in a definitive sense.” https://suttacentral.net/an9.47/en/sujato

It is also the Dhamma in a definitive sense;

  “First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the Dhamma visible in this very life in a qualified sense. …
  Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the Dhamma visible in this very life in a definitive sense.”
  https://suttacentral.net/an9.46/en/sujato

''All'' is Sankhara because Sankhata element is all that is conditioned, past, present and future.

There is also that which is known to the Buddha and isn't included in the Allness of the All as is talked about in the mn49

He also talks about the Ayatana where there is no coming or going; neither this world nor the next in ud9.1

  There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

Basically there is an Asankhata element, an unmade which is discerned when one attains cessation of perception & felling which is a dhamma in which Ariyans enter & dwell.

Therefore i would choose states for that particular line of verse.

All constructions are impermanent
All constructions are burdensome
All states are not self


Is everything about the world the 6 sense objects I read that the world is only our 6 sense object that we percieve with our 6 sense doors, does this mean that Buddhism says that everything is mindmade and there is nothing really out there or I may be wrong so I would be glad to hear from you.

In my understanding, the suttas tell us that everything that can be cognized, it is cognized through our six sense-doors. The senses work conjoined with sensory stimuli and consciousness of each sense door, which arises only after the impingement between a stimuli with the sense-organ; the interaction between this three conditions is called "contact".

If one were to posit that something can be known outside of what our six senses offer to the mind, that would be inconsistent with our capacity to know the world.

From the above, we cannot conclude that "everything is mind-made", but only that we feel and get "our" information through "our" senses. Now, if you want to know where does this sensory data come from, I would argue that such answer is out of reach, beyond our ability of knowledge. The very question of "how can we feel what lies beyond our feelings" becomes contradictory, as far as I can tell.

We can only be conscious about what we perceive; and we perceive only what we feel through our sense-doors (including the mind as the six sense-door).

In my opinion, this is why the Buddha equates the senses to "the world", because in practice we can only speak and reflect about what our senses are able to tell us. Anything beyond them might fall under the realm of speculation and fantasy.

Kind regards!

The other answers mention sense-objects and sense-organs, and contact (and could also mention sense-consciousness) -- see also Ayatana (e.g. on Wikipedia), and the Sabba sutta ("The All").

Additionally:

The question ("is nothing really out there") could also be understood as implying that you're asking about the doctrine of emptiness or sunyata -- see e.g. the answers to What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine? -- if only because that's translated as describing whether things have "real" existence.
I think that "names" are mind-made -- all words, like "horse" and "tree" and "Buddhism" and "John etc. etc.
There are "formations" or sankharas, I think those might be categorised as mind-made too -- e.g. if you'd ever associate a place with a person, with a smell, with a feeling.
I suppose that tendencies (anusaya and asava) might be called "mind-made" too -- see e.g. the answers to What is effluent?
Perhaps I should mention "wisdom" too, I'm not sure whether that's categorised as part of "everything about the world", nor even whether it's entirely categorised as "mind-made" (I think the Buddha is sometimes described as having "discovered" or "rediscovered" the Dhamma rather than as "inventing" it)

In summary Buddhism does see the mind as important -- and as trainable, and see e.g. the first couple of verses of the dhammapada -- but at least in this realm the mind tends to be conscious of (or to "sense") forms, sense-objects.


How to identify a sotapanna (stream enterer) I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not.

So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?

I have posted this book before, here it is again: Sotapanna Handbook (or available here).

It's a compilation of 50 or so suttas where Buddha mentioned stream-enterer (free from publisher).

Yes, Buddha gave us tools to measure ourselves.  Please notice that there is no tool to measure other people's progress.  Only Buddha had that quality, not even his great disciples ever proclaimed progress in others.

And for reference why one should not judge other's progress (stream-enterer, once returner, etc..) is from Migasala Sutta, Buddha told Ven. Ananda

  "I alone, Ānanda, can measure their measure or one like me."

The reason i feel it should be told because some teachers would proclaim their students to be such and such for some other questionable purpose.

summary of migasala sutta

  Ananda visits Migasālā in her home and is questioned as to why both
  Pūrana and Isidatta, the former of whom was a brahmacārī and the
  latter not, should both have been born in Tusita, as sakadāgāmins.
  Ananda offers no explanation, but consults the Buddha, who declares
  that Migasālā is but a foolish, frail, motherly body with none but
  mother wit; how, then, could she understand the diversity in the
  person of man? (purisa-puggala-paropariyañāna). The Buddha then goes
  on to divide men into six classes according to their capabilities and
  attainments. It is not possible for anyone, save a Tathāgata, to
  measure persons.

I am a sotapanna. When I started my journey in Buddhism 16 years ago I would search the internet looking for confirmation. That yes: this is possible for me. I would go seraching "Enlightened Beings", "Where can I find an Enlightened Being" and such. Sadly, I could find very little. So I was left with reading the suttas. Misinterpreting them. And really left to struggle badly until I came across Mooji on Youtube about 3 years ago. THats where my life took a radical shift. I had always had a serious "spiritual" bent, but I could neveer gain a solid footing in it. It seemed as if any progress I would make would be washed away by the 'world'. So I would spend my evenings building up my 'metta' and it would be washed away by the happenings of the 'worldly people' (I realize now, that it was only my mind that was unstable, but I'm digressing). So I did not really gain a solid footing in spirituality until i met Mooji on Youtube. It was being in the presence of a real live Master that I believe completely shifted my life from an aspirant to 'established'. I felt like I had found a solid ground to rest upon. So when I realized the true nature of reality: That I am Nothing, That everything comes from Nothing Including "Me",That Emptiness the Basis of Everything, I decided that I want to make myself available. I didn't want to hole up in a cave in the Himalayas and meditate till I die. (Although that feels really tempting some days). So here I am


Lust - How Can it be Overcome? I am an above beginner level meditator - I have been practicing Vipassana meditation regularly for past 6-7 months - By regularly, I mean 1hr of sitting meditation at least 5 times a week.

I have not been able to control my lust. I try to remain mindful during acts of sexual gratification...but they are like very few moments of awareness...rest of the time I am just going with the flow...Although I am a lay person, I want to be celibate...Please guide me.

I remember a story wherein Buddha said to someone how one should eat as if they are eating their own child having lost in a desert...are there any such stories from Buddha's life/teachings regarding this subject...Basically I need some inspiration...Please share your experience if possible

By trying to "control it", you are putting the (idea of) lust outside of yourself.  In effect you are seeing "the lust" and yourself as two separate entities.  That (conceived) separation sets up a duality.  On one side is "lust", which it sounds like you are labeling as "bad".  On the other side is self, which it sounds like you want to label as "good".  And you're attached to both these concepts, lust is bad and self is good (or "should" be good).

If you choose to acknowledge the sensations you are describing as "lust", the duality will disappear.

Try sitting whatever form of meditation you prefer, that doesn't involve visualization.  When sensations that you describe as "lust" come up, acknowledge them.  This is the difficult part.  "Acknowledge" means you accept the feeling, don't judge it or yourself, and watch what happens to the thought or feeling.  Then return to your practice.

In effect I'm suggesting you acknowledge the aspect of yourself that you conceive of as lust.  That acknowledgement will integrate you and dissolve the duality.  And lust will resume its normal, healthy role in your psyche.  May your life go well.

Biologically procreation is built into your DNA.  This is only subdued through a withering of ones tactile sensibilities as time passes.  This acceptance is the first step.  Do you understand how you incorporate lustful feelings into your psyche ?This is part of your awareness.  Are you compensating?  Are you substituting ?  Are you allowing carnal thoughts to dominate when they want to  ?  This is a dilemma that is not easily reconciled.  Nature only knows to perpetuate.  Free will only knows to designate.  The answer is deeper.  It involves inducing a  state of consciousness whereby emotions, thoughts, dispositions and delusions are recognized for what they are responding to at any given moment.  It is here is this realm that one can find pathways to the motivations behind free willed carnal diversionary manifestations and the ability to discern those from instinctuality.


Devas as gods in buddhism ,is it a corruption of original teachings..? As far as i know , there is no mention of god ( the word God in local parlance) in buddhist texts ,the term used is Devas (beings in the higher realm). In ancient hindu texts there is mention of devas and asuras .Devas   representing good and asuras evil .The term asura is thought to be a corruption of the word Ahura of the ancient iranian Ahura mazda (possibly be a tribal conflict between hindus and zorastrian followers during ancient times).

Since the versions of buddhism practiced today are not the exact replicas of what was buddhism during buddha's times.

could this element be a corruption of the original meaning through  influence of hinduism...?    I have read somewhere about the  heavy persecution of buddhists (to bring buddhists back to the hindu fold) by brahmins and hindu kings after the death of king Asoka.

Rebirth,reincarnation etc becomes more believable as metaphorical terms. So could the term may have had the meaning like good individuals or similiar in the past.?

In buddhism there are 31 realms of existence and each realm is inhabited by beings: animal, petas, asuras, humans, devas, brahmas.

Now these are just inhabitants: beings with different appearances and abilities according to their kamma.

Now if we translate brahma as god then it is different form the Hindu brahma in that the buddhist brahma does not create the universe etc.. buddhist do not unite with brahma in the end. Buddhist brahma dies after a few hundred aeons etc...

These are some of the definitions of the buddhist brahma which is different from the Hindu brahma.
See Buddhism and the Brahma concept

Since many many many suttas has mention of devas, and even the homage to Buddha himself called him as teachers of gods and men, it is unlikely that Buddhism got devas from Brahmanism (pre-Hinduism). What concept that was wrong in Brahmanism like the caste system, the Buddha was not afraid to dismantle that concept. Since the Buddha didn't dismantle this concept of devas (as well as rebirth), it is more likely that this is how the world really works and the sages of Vedic times got somethings right and other things wrong from their meditation experiences (like they believe in soul and ultimate Brahma).

Anyway, Rebirth has empirical evidence (google Ian Stevenson) and should not be a doubt at all, but an accepted fact of life. One just has to abandon the pervasive notion of nihilism from materialistic philosophy that says after death there is nothing. And the notion of eternalism from Abrhamic religions which says after death there is eternal heaven or hell.

Devas are possibly a few things:

Aliens/ future development of humans until they become as powerful as devas (eg. Thor). If we can evolve to become that, there are certainly some aliens who are already as powerful out there already.
Beings from higher dimensional realm (4D beings looking at 3D beings like us) or another universe with rules so awesome, the people there live long and have powers.
Beings made of Dark Matter/ Dark Energy (which are more than 90% of the mass of the Universe) We call them Dark because we hardly know anything about them. Neutrinos (one of the Dark Matter candidate) in Physics are called ghost particles because billions and more of them are going through us every second and we don't feel them at all. They rarely interact with normal matter.
Advanced form of intelligence. Eg. Artificial intelligence that has transcended the need for material base or limitations.
Simulated universes hierarchy, with one nested under the other, and the devas are programmers.


'Sankhara' Dependent Origination: Bhikkhu Analayo vs Bhikkhu Thanissaro. Which is right? About 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination as found in SN 12.2 of the Pali suttas, Bhikkhu Analayo said the following:

Bhikkhu Thanissaro said the following:

Which is right and why? Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Thanissaro?

Ajahn Thanissaro’s description is accurate. The 3 sankharas in MN44 is the same as SN12.2.

Arahant’s sankhara is NOT conditioned by ignorance. Arahant’s sankhara arises and ceases with knowledge. Feeling still arises and ceases in an Arahant, but it’s not conditioned by ignorance, which is why it doesn’t lead to craving. Contact conditions feeling. So long as the Arahant is still alive, there will be contact impinges on the 6 sense bases, and feeling will arise. As stated in SN12.51, the Arahant feels a feeling detached. Please note that the “sankhara” that Arahant does not generate (as stated in SN12.51) is kamma, and not the sankharas in MN44/SN12.2.

There are 2 sets of sankhara used in the Nikayas. First set is used in dependent origination discourses (MN44, SN12.2). Second set is used in kamma-vipaka discourses (SN12.51).

The dependent origination essay below discusses sankhara in more detail (including the above 2 sets of sankhara). It’s very concise and informative.

https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf

Yes so there are several positions. Instead of the 2 exposed above, you can create position3 below:

position 1 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + each sankharas is linked to karma of actions
nibanna = nirodha of any sankhara + nirodha of any karma
parinibanna = same as nibanna + lack of heat element?

but then people say ''obliviously arhants breath, so kayasankhara is still here, but since arhants have destroyed karma, and karma is tied with sankharas, those sankharas remaining in an arhants were never linked to karma in the first place

position2 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + only the sankharas which are not cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara are tied to karma
nibanna = cessation of each sankhara tied to karma
parinibanna = cessation of any remaining sankhara+zero karma

one problem with that is that with the path of ''jhanas only'', meaning going up to ''cessation of perception and feelings'' because the disciple does not do vipassana while the citta is in right samadhi,  it is indeed the cessation of ''perception and feelings'' which destroys any link between karma and the sankhara found in an arhant. SO it is weird to say that cittasankharas are not linked to karma ever.
THe people who invented position 2 do not say how the cittasankhara which are never linked to karma in the first place (compared to position1) manage to kill any future karma of any action.

It is like the famous problem of ''mind-body'' created by the intellectual christians: if cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara never relate to karma, then how does their cessation manage to kill karma and rebirth?

position3 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + each sankharas is linked to karma of actions
nibanna = cessation of each sankhara tied to karma. However,  the cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara are still here, but no longer tied to karma. Perhaps it is even those 3 sankharas which are subject to the ''past karma''
parinibanna = cessation of any sankharas + zero karma

Said like that, Position 2 is the weakest.


How to understand Buddhism original dogma? Buddhism has been evolving dramatically since Buddha created it. Somehow it spawned into many different 'sects' across the world. There are numerous sutra and books on Buddhism. As a beginner, it's really hard to know what to start, but I had a feeling that I need to understand the original dogma/meaning of Buddhism when it was invented. However I heard that most sutra were written by Buddha's disciples, or disciples' disciples, or even laymen; Some of the recordings are contradict each other when interpreting Buddha's true meaning; Some original meaning was lost or probably altered since then.

Anyone has suggestion how I should start and what to read?

I like The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh as a beginning book on the core of the Buddhist teaching. It is well written and modern in style, and covers essentials such as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as well as slightly deeper topics. It will give you a grounding and a place from which to appreciate the sutra's.

There are various web based repositories of sutra's which you can explore, I found http://www.accesstoinsight.org to be pleasant and good. The book includes many references to sutra's which you can look up online.

One thing to be aware of in Buddhism is that the different schools hold differing opinions on the words of the Buddha. There is a doctrine called the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, which sets out the Mahayana view on the Buddha's teaching, while the Theravadan view is that the Pali Cannon which constitutes much of the Mahayana tradition's First Turning is authoritative by itself.

The Tibetan tradition has composed a series of texts called lamrims, of which there have been many following on from Atiśa's 11th-century original text A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. These aspire to order the sutra's in a logical order of progression for actual practice.

Dwight Goddard's a Buddhist bible is a free download on the app store. 3 pillars of Zen is really good. Sutra and "dogmatic" structure will get you a feel for it. A book about knights of the round table isn't the same as dying of smallpox. Sometimes a Roshi makes it work. Sometimes visiting temples. Zanzen meditation was a must for me and took years. It's also what worked for Buddha. That's the point. The schools are trying to teach what Buddha found but it's not recorded in words. It's definitely there because how could there be so much life devoted to obtaining. Once you have it what will you do with it?


Do monks have big ups and downs in their life? Buddhist and non Buddhist people have a lot of ups and downs in their lifes, doubts, fears, anxiety, regrets etc... we understand that as impermanence.

Do monks experience similar things of aftet joining the Sangha their lifes are pretty much "peaceful and flat"?

Take a look at Ajahn Lee's autobiography, page 16 and onward.

His practice slackens, he grows disillusioned with being a monk, and he begins an obsessive debate within himself about whether to disrobe or not:

  But looking at the state of my meditation, I could see that my practice had
  grown slack. I was becoming more and more interested in worldly matters. ...

  One day I went up to a hollow space at the top of the chedi and sat in
  meditation. The theme of my meditation was, 'Should I stay or should I
  disrobe?' Something inside me said, 'I'd rather disrobe.'

  ... 'The people in the Great Metropolis aren't deva-sons or deva-daughters or
  anything. They're people and I'm a person, so why can't I make myself be like
  them?'

  I questioned myself back and forth like this for several days running until I
  finally decided to call a halt. If I was going to disrobe, I'd have to make
  preparations. Other people, before disrobing, got prepared by having clothes
  made and so forth, but I was going to do it differently. I was going to leave
  the monkhood in my mind first to see what it would be like.

  So late in the quiet of a moonlit night, I climbed up to sit inside the chedi
  and asked myself, 'If I disrobe, what will I do?' I came up with the following
  story.

    If I disrobe, I'll have to apply for a job as a clerk in the Phen Phaag Snuff and
    Stomach Medicine Company. I had a friend who had disrobed and gotten a job
    there, earning 20 baht a month, so it made sense for me to apply for a job there too.
    I'd set my mind on being honest and hard-working so that my employer would be
    satisfied with my work. I was determined that wherever I lived, I'd have to act in
    such a way that the people I lived with would think highly of me.

    As it turned out, the drug company finally hired me at 20 baht a month, the
    same salary as my friend. I made up my mind to budget my salary so as to have
    money left over at the end of each month, so I rented a room in the flats owned by
    Phraya Phakdi in the PratuuNam (Watergate) section of town. The rent was four
    baht a month. Water, electricity, clothing, and food would add up to another eleven
    baht, leaving me with an extra five baht at the end of each month. ...

I won't paste it all, as this goes on and on for several pages in insane detail as he imagined what might happen if he disrobed. I think the amount of detail is indicative of how much he wanted to disrobe right then and return to lay life.

But he concludes:

  Finally I decided to call a halt. My wife wasn't what I had hoped for, my earnings
  weren't what I had hoped for, my children weren't what I had hoped for, so I left my
  wife, was reordained and returned to the contemplative life.

Evryperson can take things to be a part of their life or they can just ignore it. It depends how attached a person is to a certain object,person. More a person meditate,less atached they get and hence there is less waries.


Kamma and right livelihood in a modern business environment It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not:

Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on...

To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business.

I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals.

Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

It depends on what services you are providing to the company. If you are just helping them to balance accounts, it'll be similar to the hunter's wife cooking the meat. But if you are actually involved in poison making or marketing of the product, it won't be a right livelihood. Even as an HR officer, if you are hiring people to make poison or butcher animals, it's not a right livelihood. As a lawyer, if you are helping the company to get away with environmental damage, tax fraud, public health concerns, it's not a right livelihood. Yes, it creates bad Karma.

Modern and ancient worlds are not very different. If you are saying people are more selfish than they were before probably you are right. But fundamentally people have not changed for last few thousand years post civilization. It is wrong to blame current social,political, and economic setup.

If you are working for basic livelihood then working for a corrupt person/organization is justified since one needs to survive first for Nirvana to happen. Its simple intelligence. But if one is working to get to enjoy Honolulu holidays and beach outings on weekends then one is asking for trouble.

Most of the moral dilemma of this sort happens because the person does not know that one can survive with the minimum. But the person does not want to seen as laggard. I have been to Laddhak, a sort of mini-tibet in India. There is acute poverty because of lack of natural resources and industries but everyone is happy. Question is not about corruption outside but inside. I am yet to find a person whose actions are not guided by desires.

If you do not find the environment conducive to your growth leave it. Start something of your own which is 100% clean. Do what you love to do. You will make enough to survive. Of-course you need to cut down on entertainment bills. Probably you do not want to and that is why this question arose.


What are the different Buddhist views on marriage? I know that marriage is a secular event in Buddhism, but what are the different attitudes are there for or against marriage? And what type of Buddhists(Theravada, Mahayana, Sangha, Lay etc)  claim these views?

The Pali scriptures say:

Parents have a duty to arrange or find a suitable marriage partner for their children (DN 31); therefore marriage appears to be viewed favorably (for non-monks) in the Pali scriptures.
A suitable marriage partner in one that shares four qualities (AN 4.55).
In marriage, a husband serves his wife & gives the wife authority in the home. (DN 31)
There are seven kinds of wives (AN 7.6).
Marriages where one or both partners do not follow the five precepts & do not practice unselfishness are doomed for problems &/or failure (AN 4.53).
Difficult is life as a monk; difficult is it to delight therein. Also difficult and sorrowful is the household life. (Dhp 302)

It is the effect of ones past kamma is one of the determinant factors that influences the nature of ones present situation in life. For instance for somebody, only when s/he gets married that for him/her all hell would break loose and the marriage end in divorce. That person can never find contentment in marriage even in subsequent marriages to others. Then there are those who can never find success as a recluse/bhikku. That is their Kamma. Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past the present.


How do I practise Vipassana and Samatha through Anapanasati? After reading the answers to this question I understand that keeping the object of meditation  same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of reality.

If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and Vipassana.

Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.

References to suttas appreciated.

Thanks.

If you are focusing on the breath sensation then it is vipassana and if you are focusing on in and out breath as a concept then it is samatha. There are many methods like mahasi, sunlun, goenka so I suggest you try it. I don't think you can reach jhana if you are just focusing on the in and out breath because it's not easy to stop thoughts from arising. That's why samatha and vipassana should be developed together. You should be aware of what you are doing all the time. Always be aware of sensation of touch.

keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of
  reality.

The above is incorrect. Samatha & vipassana are not "techniques". I encourage you to free your mind from the wrong terminology you have previously learned. I will rephrase what you wrote, below:

  keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha is calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana is insight into nature of reality.

Thus, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, the breathing will calm (because the mind has equanimity and is no longer thinking). This feeling of calmness is called samatha.

Also,  by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, it will be automatically seen, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, the breathing is impermanent and not-self. This clearly seeing of impermanence & not-self is vipassana.

Also, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, it will be clearly discerned wholesome states of mind cause the breathing to calm and unwholesome states of mind cause the breathing to become agitated & stressed. This clearly seeing of cause & effect regarding the relationship between the mind, breath & body is vipassana.

  If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and
  Vipassana.

There is no technique, apart from keeping the mind clear and knowing the breathing. Samatha & vipassana are "fruits" of practise; wbich arise automatically. They are not a practise in themselves. To quote:

  Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight

  MN 149

Again, AN 4.41 describes four fruits from developing concentration. To quote:

  Monks, these are the four developments of concentration. Which four? There is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now (samatha). There is the
  development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to
  the attainment of knowing & seeing (psychic power). There is the development of
  concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness &
  clear comprehension (perfect clarity). There is the development of concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (vipassana).

  AN 4.41

The translator Bhikkhu Thanissaro comments about AN 4.41:

  The Buddha explains how concentration, when fully developed, can bring about any one of four different desirable results.

Imagine growing fruit on a tree. The "technique" is digging soil, plant the tree, watering it, removing insects, adding fertilizer, etc. But the fruit grows by itself. You can do nothing to create the fruit. It is the tree that automatically brings forth fruit, when the tree is ready.

  Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.

Meditation is letting go & being quiet and still. It is not some type of manipulative exercise. I recommend to give up this idea of "technique".

  References to suttas appreciated.

Already done.


What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views? Maybe a challenging questions for the scholars and literary Abhidhamma-fans, with much possibilities for great merits:

What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views?

Deatal explaining of each would be a great gift of the deathlessness.

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

Extracted from Ten Bases of Meritorious Actions (Ten Punnakiriya-vatthus):

  There is a good result in an act of alms-giving, charity giving.
  There is benefit in veneration.
  There is benefit in offering gifts.
  There is the Law of Karma and Its Results which teaches that moral and immoral deeds have respective consequences, in this life and the next.
  There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own mother, while neglecting her means an evil deed.
  There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own father, while neglecting him means an evil deed.
  There are unseen worlds of hell, hungry ghosts, demons, devas, Sakkas and brahmas. Existence of such beings should be accepted as a fact.
  There is this present world.
  There is the next world or lives to come.
  There are holy persons who have subdued their thought, word and deed. There are persons with jhanic insight or concentration who see this world and the next clearly. They teach such sights, views and visions in a correct way. We should have confidence in such samanas and brahmanas.

There are two levels of Samma Ditthi (right view). One is the puthujjana (ordinary life) samma ditthi and the other is the lokuttara samma ditthi (with direct aim to realize Nibbana i.e. understanding the Four Noble Truths). First we have to begin with practising the puthujjana samma ditthi to shed the more coarse defilements of the mind, and then we can more easily make progress with the lokuttara samma ditthi (understanding of the Four Noble Truths).
May you realize Nibbana!
Sadhu!


Did the Buddha leave room for the possibility of a self? Did the Buddha teach that a self or soul (whether permanent and fixed or impermanent and changing) cannot be found, did he teach that it cannot exist, or what?

Buddha did not teach that things exist (that's one extreme) or that things do not exist (that's another extreme). Buddha teaches that things exist to some extent, in some context, relative to some frame of reference – and do not exist in other contexts. It's the same with the "self".

"Did the Buddha leave room for the possibility of a self?"
Well, let's let THE MAN himself answer your question:

  DN 2.157 Therefore Ananda, stay as those who have their True Self as
  the illumination, as those who have their True Self as supreme refuge,
  as those who have no other as the refuge; as those who have the true
  law Dharma as the illumination, as those who have the Dharma as
  refuge, as those who have no other refuge.

  KN 3.78 And whoever, Ananda, either now or after my end will stay as
  those who have the True Self as the illumination, as those who have
  True Self as refuge, as those who have no other as the refuge…they
  among my bhikkhus shall reach the peak of immortality, provided they
  are desirous of training their True Self.

  SN 3.174 Like a surge of the great ocean, so also will birth and death
  roll over you like a surge. Therefore, do make your True Self the
  supreme illumination, since there is no other refuge anywhere to be
  found for you. 4. My life is fully ripe, my life is at an end, I shall
  depart leaving you, I have made a supreme refuge for the True Self.

  DN 2.24 Do make your True Self the illumination, strive fast, be wise.
  Having removed all stain, flawless, you will come to the divine Ariyan
  land.

  AN 3.21 The phenomenal world all round is devoid of true essence, the
  four quarters are quaking. Desirous of an abode for the True Self, I
  saw none occupied.

  KN 5.77 Is there by any chance any other dearer to you Mallika than
  the True Self? No Lord, there is not by any chance that which is
  dearer to me than the True Self.

  AN 2.79 Going around all quarters with the mind. Not a thing was found
  dearer to me than the True Self. In this way the True Self of every
  one is dear to others.

  MN 3.119 There is no love comparable to that of the True Self.

  KN 5.38 One should not impair the good of the True Self, for the sake
  of the good of others, however great. Having ascertained the good of
  the True Self, let him be ever intent on it!

  SN 1.109 One watches zealously over that which he holds dearest. This
  should apply to the True Self better than to anything else: If a man
  were to think the True Self dear, he would guard it most well guarded.
  The wise man should be watching in every one of the three watches of
  the night.

  MN 4.83. And what does it mean to guard the True Self? Lord, while I
  was meditating in solitude, there arose in my mind the following
  thoughts. By whom is the True Self guarded, by whom is the True Self
  is not guarded? Then it occurred to me, whoever misbehaves by action,
  by word, or by thought, are those by whom the True Self is not
  guarded. Even if they were guarded by a troop of elephants, or horses,
  or of chariots, or of infantrymen, even so their True Self most dear
  would not be guarded by them.

  <

  AN 2.234. Bhikkhus, I shall keep the True Self safe, this means that
  the stations of antecedent-recollectiveness of Samadhi must be dwelt
  upon intently.

  SN 3.216. The True Self, the dearest thing for man, becomes an
  absolute value, which has to be preserved by all means and in
  preference to everything else: What should a man desirous of his own
  good never give up? What should a mortal man never surrender? Man
  should never give up the True Self most dear, he should never
  surrender the True Self.

  AN 2.119. Him for whom the True Self is not enough, who procures for
  the True Self the taste of all sensual pleasures, even if the whole
  world were his, he would not obtain true bliss.

  DN 3.218. Lord, while I was meditating in solitude, there arose in my
  mind the following thoughts. For whom is the True Self a dear friend,
  for whom is the True Self a hateful enemy? Then it occurred to me,
  whoever misbehaves by action, by letter of the law or by thought, are
  those for whom the True Self is a hateful enemy. Even if they were to
  say, the True Self is our dear friend, even so the True Self would be
  to them a hateful enemy. Why so? Whatever one who hates would do to
  the one he hates, that is what they themselves does unto their True
  Self. That is why the True Self is a hateful enemy to them. Whoever
  behaves properly by action, by letter of the law, or by thought, are
  those for whom their True Self is a dear friend.

  DN 3.29. If he would recognize the True Self as dearest friend, he
  would not associate it with evil. 18. Then what do you think
  youngsters, what is the best thing for you, that you go in search of a
  woman or that your go in search of the True Self most dear? This Lord,
  is the best for us, that we go in search of the True Self!

  SN 4.67. Bhikkhus, wise and developing a boundless penetration of
  antecedent recollection. A fivefold knowledge arises in their True
  Self in the case of those who, wise and immersed in antecedent
  recollection of the source develops a boundless penetration of
  antecedentness. What fivefold knowledge? This antecedent
  recollectiveness is pleasant at present and will yield a pleasant
  karmic result in the future, such knowledge arises in their True Self.
  This antecedent recollectiveness is noble, entirely spiritual and
  otherworldly, such knowledge arises in their True Self; this
  antecedent recollectiveness of the source is not practiced by the
  unworthy man. This antecedent recollectiveness is peaceful, most
  exquisite, obtained by the peaceful man, attained by means of mental
  fixation, not subject to the blame of the Sankaras. I too being in
  antecedent recollection of supreme beforeness in connection with the
  source enter into it and in antecedent recollection I emerge from it.
  Such profound knowledge arises in their True Self.

  KN 5.18. A Buddha has arisen in the world, the doctrine of the Buddhas
  is at present being taught. The True Self can be saved by a man
  desirous of this doctrine.

  KN 1.118 Whoever looks for the happiness of the True Self, should pull
  out the mortal dart of the True Self.

  DN 2.281. Whose faith and wisdom are always properly fitted to the
  yoke, Supreme alert vigilance is the pole, mind is the yoke-straps,
  antecedent recollectiveness of the source is the guard and the
  Charioteer. The chariot having all the accessories of good faring,
  otherworldly knowledge as the axle, vigilant energy as the wheels.
  Equanimity is the fitting peg for the axle, desireless for fain of
  this world is the protective board. Excellent equanimity,
  deathlessness, and seclusion being the weapons, endurance the leather
  armor, it proceeds towards utter security. Such is the unsurpassed
  Brahman chariot produced in the True Self.

  DN 3.28` Even as a deviating cart out of control, unrestrained,
  unmastered, destroys both the cart and the rider, in the same way the
  reckless fool, like a deviating cart destroys his True Self in hell,
  destroys the True Self in animal rebirth, destroys the True Self in
  the realm of wandering ghosts and spirits, destroys the True Self in
  the world of men, destroys the True Self in the world of gods.
  AN 2.28. And how is one a knower of the True Self? Herein bhikkhus, a
  bhikkhu knows the True Self. Just this much am I as regards faith,
  virtue, learning, disembodiment, wisdom, intelligence.

  SN 2.97 Leaving aside the five hindrances for the obtainment of utter
  security. Taking up the mirror of Dharma for the knowledge and vision
  of the True Self, I observed the body both within and without,
  interiorly and exteriorly the body appeared to be empty.

  MN 4.57 No Brahman ever claimed purity from any different source than
  the True Self. Either in things seen, heard, thought, or in
  observances. Unattached both to good and evil deeds, disclaiming
  whatever is obtained, he should be inactive in these observances. The
  ultimate purity which is the ideal of the enlightened man, here called
  a true Brahman, is a purity unaffected both by moral good and by moral
  evil, belonging to the plane superior to both, consisting in a
  condition that is reflected in the total absence of willful moral
  activities, in the absolute desirelessness to do evil and to obtain
  fruitless merit. This is the absolute isolation of the True Self which
  brings about liberation. The improvement caused by morality and moral
  practices is meant first of all to detach the True Self from what is
  evil, and this is mainly done by the counterpractice of goodness. This
  is not enough; any attachment of the True Self to whatever is not the
  True Self is itself wrong from the ultimate point of view. Moral good
  and the subsequent merit is not the True Self, even though it takes
  the True Self towards an ever more perfect detachment from worldly
  things. Finally the True Self has to be detached from morals,
  morality, merit and be freed with a freedom that is its very nature.

  AN 2.281 Hence, let the wise man, discerning the welfare of the True
  Self, thoroughly investigate the Dharma, thus thereby he will be
  purified.

  SN 2.27 I shall apprehend and perfect the True Self, having in mind
  the spiritual welfare of the True Self.

  AN 4.76. Force the True Self by means of the True Self, control the
  True Self by means of the True Self. Being well guarded of the True
  Self, in antecedent recollectiveness, you shall bhikkhus dwell in
  supreme bliss.

  DN 1.195 Leaving aside the way of darkness, the wise man should
  practice the way of light. Going from home to the homeless state, in
  solitude, where worldliness joys are difficult, there should he desire
  for the unexcelled bliss, setting aside sensory pleasures, possessing
  nothing. Let the wise man cleanse the True Self from the impurities of
  the mental goings on.

  KN 3.28 Just as the goldsmith melts and removes the gross impurities
  of gold, then melts and removes average impurities, and melts and
  removes even the finest of impurities. Just so does the bhikkhu melts,
  removes, leaves aside, dispels, destroys, the impurities of his True
  Self.

  AN 5.73 Not by heaping up firewood does the Brahman dream of
  purification. That is something external. Because, so the wise say,
  purity is not obtained by him who wishes to reach gain by means of
  external rituals. I, leaving aside the burning of wood, Brahman, make
  only destruction come unto those flames that are attached to by my
  True Self. With fire constantly burning, always with my True Self well
  composed, I that very Arahant, live my Brahman life. A shoulder yoke,
  Brahman is your conceit, anger is your smoke, your false words are the
  ashes. The tongue of the man is his sacrificial spoon, the heart his
  fire alter. The self well tamed is the fire. Dharma O' Brahman, is a
  lake with holy virtue as the bathing place, pure undefiled, praised by
  the good. Where the wise bathing, with their True Self disembodied, do
  so cross sweetly to that other shore.

  AN 4.78 Where water, earth, fire, and air find no footing, there where
  the stars no longer shine, nor the sun, nor does the moon gleam; no
  darkness is found there. And when the mighty sage, that holy Brahman,
  has come to supreme knowledge by the True Self.

  KN 2.118. One who has made a path by the True Self, he does so go unto
  complete retraction from aggregated being, having crossed all doubts.
  Leaving aside becoming and passing away. One who has lived the life,
  who has suppressed all rebirth, such a one is called a true bhikkhu.

  KN 4.283. Sweetly within antecedent recollective penetration as
  regards the body, restrained within the six sensory spheres. The
  bhikkhu who is well composed would know the complete retraction from
  aggregated being of his True Self.

  AN 1.81 There is monks, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an
  unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade
  and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated,
  the made and the formed.

  SN 4.57 And I O' monks, who speak thus, and teach thus am accused
  wrongly, vainly, falsely, and inappropriately by some ascetics and
  Brahmins who say "A denier is the ascetic Gotama, he teaches the
  destruction, annihilation, and the perishing of the being that now
  exists". These ascetics wrongly, vainly, falsely, and inappropriately


Loss of "faith" in buddhism I've never had any religion throughout my childhood and adolescence, and at the age of 18 I had my first contacts with buddhism; It seemed fascinating, and I kept reading about all the things I could find about it. Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it. It seemed to be the "no trust-my-words religion".

Recently I bought a buddhism book. It was an interesting reading, but somethings were discussed that I haddn't seen with this emphasis: karma and rebirth in other worlds.

The thing is that, after that, I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the gods... And it's just seems as though the current culture at the time and location buddhism took place influenced buddhism itself, poisoning it with the same kind of dogmas other religions have - man-made dogmas, made up truths.

In short, my problem is that following buddhism started to seem like following christianity, or islam - just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is buddhism any different? It seemed right, now it feels overwhelming and almost crazy. I want to follow buddhism, but those hindu concepts make it become yet another trust-my-word religion. I'm seriously disappointed.

One of the beauty about Buddhism is "Don't just believe, but find the truth by yourself" (as I paste below).

  The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
  nor upon tradition (paramparā),
  nor upon rumor (itikirā),
  nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
  nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
  nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
  nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
  nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

It's all generally misunderstood.

Birth and death relates to action/withdrawal and stuff like that (yin/yang). Karma is the energy that gets stuck after an action without the proper withdrawal. It's why you see old people with so many issues because it builds up throughout their whole life.

Anyone who thinks karma has something to do with reincarnating into a rodent has absolutely no idea.


Meditating to feel calm I have often read that you shouldn't meditate to try and have a pleasant experience because meditation is about "letting go" and cultivating equanimity etc and not about trying to feel something else.  But then what is samatha?  It's tranquility ie a calm pleasant experience so therefore if you do that kind of meditation then aren't you trying to have an experience?

Undertaking the practice of Samatha meditation, should be done for the sake of the practice itself - not for seeking out pleasant experiences. The minute one is thinking about achieving and gaining pleasant experiences, one has fallen into the hindrances. As a result of that, one has moved away from the primary object of meditation and thus are not cultivating concentration any longer.

It comes down to ones intentions for doing the practice.

Its a good idea to regularly clarify and affirm ones intentions for practicing - especially with Samatha meditation, that is very important. Its easy to become attached to the pleasant sensations this type of meditation practice can result in.

One should ask oneself why one takes on this practice. A wholesome intention is essential. Wholesome intentions for engaging in Samatha meditation could be:

Collecting the scattered mind (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)
Deepening serenity
Purification of the mind stream
Cultivating a high level of concentration (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)

The pleasant experience is there to let you know that what you are doing is efficient. In contrast to an unpleasant experience, like mental suffering, which indicates that what you are doing is inefficient. In what respect is it efficient or inefficient? With respect to creating or sustaining life that builds on , and works with, reality, rather than destroying constructs and working against it. Much like a fractal algorithm (youtube video). With the right formula, the pattern becomes more and more detailed and never runs into a dead end. When you don't apply the same working formula over and over, it runs into a dead end and it no longer becomes more and more detailed. The same with life, apply the correct formula and it keeps growing. That is what your senses reflect. That what you define as pleasant while meditating is a sense that indicates that your mental activity is adding to life, instead of the opposite.

That said, just as the other answers already mentioned. If you are seeking out the pleasant experience, you 'forget' the function of experience. Then it is just like taking drugs to feel happy. What would it add to life if you would only feel pleasant and it wouldn't reflect that what you are doing is good or bad with respect to life? That experience wouldn't have more purpose than only make you feel pleasant. With respect to the greater good, it is useless. Real happiness comes from adding to the greater good. I've created a 5 min video that explains what spiritual enlightenment is. It might help to understand the purpose of experience.

You certainly should pay attention and enjoy pleasant experiences, and investigate at the same time, if you don't already know, what it is that you are doing, so you can cultivate that doing.

So in that respect it is perfectly valid to seek out this pleasant experience. As long it is not your end goal. Your end goal should include adding to the greater good and not being isolated to your mind only, in my opinion.

This is all based on my own experience, though I might stated somethings as fact, of course this is all just my perspective.


Is there any buddhist explanation for deja vu? I'm not sure we will find that in the pali canon (per haps in Abidhamma?), but is there any thera/senior bikkhu that wrote about it? Is it related to past lifes or any special power of the mind?

The psychology of C. G. Jung who wrote a preface to Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Buddhist Book of the Dead) may explain the deja vu experience as restimulation of experiences of the collective unconscious in the bardo interval between death and the next rebirth, that he called "archetypes" or universal prototypes for ideas. However before drawing such a conclusion, know that the Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2) warns against questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. They include: Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?

The funny part about Buddhism is that teachers in it don't exist. So as soon as I answer this question, I take in the role of the teacher and I guess thus makes anybody my student. However, because I do not know and the great masters have nothing to teach, I suppose cuddly is right. I don't think Buddhist masters would stress much about this question. Instead they would point you out to where the answer isn't, and that's HERE. The Guru is trying to get you to come off it, and if he sees that you don't come off it, he puts you through a series of tests to simply get you to suffer, and frustrate you. This way you simply get yourself right off it and realize that you had it all along from the beginning. So deja vu is a simple experience, just like nothing else.