What is the state,the during vipassana meditation? Now there is no bodily sensation on sitting posture of meditation. Only thoughts are coming. Always  close  the eyes can see a oil lamp in the Middle. When  the lamp not appeared in the front negative thoughts were coming. When experience breath slowly  body disappears. Sometimes thinking loose and mindfulness  appears. Can anyone tell is it sankaraupeksha ?

Perhaps this is the state called "Passambayan Kayasankharam" or "Sabbakaya Patisamvedhi" state.
[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html


Comparing Chinese Agama the ? Bundles of Reeds Simile with Pali Nalakalapiyo Sutta In commenting a post, I have just been introduced to the "two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted.

From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse:

  ...譬如：三蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。識 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。

  Translation

  ...For example, three reeds standing on the floor, they
  relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the
  other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only]
  by relying on each other they are able to stand up. Consciousness
  correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each
  other then are able to develop. ~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288

    Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind

However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta: Sheaves of Reeds reads:

  "Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” ~ SN 12.67

The Chinese Agama said three reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali  Nalakalapiyo said two reeds can lean against each other. My questions are:

Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1
If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?
They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated.

Footnote:

1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka.

1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

OP: Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?

Yes, I think so. According to SuttaCentral, SA 288 and SN 12.67 are equivalent. I could find "三蘆立於空地" from your quote inside SuttaCentral's SA 288, so I guess it is the same.

  OP: If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?

SuttaCentral links the Chinese agama SA 288 to the Pali sutta SN 12.67 and the Sanskrit sutra SF 155. Only the Pali sutta has English translations from Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi.

The Sanskrit sutra comes from "TRIPĀṬHI, Chandrabhal 1962. Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidānasaṃyukta ( = Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden VIII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag."

Let me quote the other versions below.

From Pali sutta SN 12.67 named "Naḷakalāpīsutta":

  Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.

  Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.

From Sanskrit sutra SF 155 named "Naḍakalāpikasūtra":

  tadyathā dvau naḍakalāpāv ākāśe ucchṛtau syātām anyonyaṃ niśṛta

I don't really know Sanskrit, but I guess that the two bolded terms above in Pali and Sanskrit mean TWO in reference to the bundles of reed.

So, the Pali and Sanskrit versions agree with each other, but not the Chinese version.

Based on the above evidence, I would say that most likely the Chinese agama version was modified from the original version which was probably in Sanskrit, or otherwise, in Pali. So, the Pali version is likely to be more accurate and reliable than the Chinese version, in my personal opinion.

But then again, I'm not a professional scholar of Buddhist Studies. So, I should quote the opinion of one. Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo is not just a monk, but also an academic scholar in the field of "comparative studies of Early Buddhist Texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions" (according to Wikipedia).

Prof. Analayo wrote the following in the book "Three Chinese Dīrgha-āgama Discourses without Parallels". While this is not related to the Bundles of Reed Sutta/ Sutra, it definitely proves that there has been a precedent for the Chinese Agama to add to or modify the original version.

  The  three  discourses  in  the  Chinese  Dīrgha-āgama that  are
  without  parallels in other early discourse collections appear to be
  later additions  to  the  collection.  They  share  in  common  an
  attempt  to  map  doctrinal  terminology.  While  the  Discourse
  Increasing  by  One  (DĀ11)  and  the  Discourse  On  the  Three
  Groups  (DĀ  12)  still  seem  to  belong to an early stage in the
  developing of such maps, the Discourse On a Record of the World (DĀ
  30) appears to reflect a later stage.  The circumstance that all three
  discourses in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama that are without parallels
  appear to be later additions should not  be  taken  to  reflect  a
  general  rule,  however,  assuming  that  any  discourse without
  parallels must be a later addition. It is always possible that a
  discourse is now extant from only one textual lineage due to  the
  vicissitudes  of  transmission.  An  example  would  be  the
  Jīvaka-sūtra  of  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda Dīrgha-āgama.
  Until  the  recent discovery of fragments of the Jīvaka-sūtra, only
  the Majjhima-nikāya version  of  this  discourse  was  known.  This
  was  because  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda  reciters  had
  allocated  this  discourse  to  their  long  discourse  collection,
  whereas  the  Theravāda  reciters  placed  their  version  of  this
  discourse  in  their  middle  length  collection. So lack of a
  parallel may simply be the result of differences in the  distribution
  of  discourses  among  the  four  discourse  collections,  transmitted
  by various Buddhist schools.

Whether name-and-form should be together or separate I think is out of the scope of this question and could be asked in another question.

  OP: They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

Maybe two reeds cannot lean on each other, but surely two bundles of reed can lean on each other just like these two cards below. It just depends on how the bundles of reed are tied together.

Here are two books leaning on each other:

EDIT:

I removed the statement that the Pali Suttas do not separate nama from rupa. There is actually such a separation in DN 15:

  ‘Name and form are conditions for contact’—that’s what I said. And
  this is a way to understand how this is so. Suppose there were none of
  the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of
  mental phenomena is found. Would linguistic contact still be found in
  the category of physical phenomena?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were
  none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the
  category of physical phenomena is found. Would impingement contact
  still be found in the category of mental phenomena?” “No, sir.”
  “Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and
  details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are
  found. Would either linguistic contact or impingement contact still be
  found?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were none of the features,
  attributes, signs, and details by which name and form are found. Would
  contact still be found?” “No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause,
  source, origin, and condition of contact, namely name and form.

Nama and rupa is also separated in AN 10.27:

  “When it was said: ‘A question about two, a concise statement about
  two, an explanation of two,’ with reference to what was this said?
  When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with two things, completely
  dispassionate toward them, completely liberated from them, completely
  sees their delimitations, and completely breaks through their meaning,
  in this very life he makes an end of suffering. What two things? Name
  and form. When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with these two
  things … in this very life he makes an end of suffering.

This post is the rare example to be able to procure solid answer from most answers' contributions, especially @ruben2020.

@ruben2020 referred to the Sanskrit sutra SF 155 "Naḍakalāpikasūtra", an archaeological discovery of Sanskrit texts from Turfan kept in Germany, has a verse with high potential in consistency with the Pali Nikaya but not the Chinese Agama. I side with @ruben2020's speculation.

Though neither one is any Sanskit expert, I've done some checking from online Sanskrit and Pali dictionaries, and list the findings here to compare:

  Turfen SF155:

  1 tadyathā (for example = suppose) | 2 dvau (two) | 3
  naḍa-kalā-pāv (reed-kilo?-stalk = bundles of reed) | 4 ākāśe (in the air = open ground) | 5 ucchṛtau (upright/stand? = stand) | 6
  syātām (take place = leaning?) | 7 anyonyaṃ (mutually = against each other) | 8 niśṛta (?up)

  For example, two bundles of reed in the open ground stand up leaning
  against each other

  Pali SN 12.67:

  1 Seyyathāpi | āvuso | 2 dve | 3 naḷa-kalā-piyo
  (reed/stalk-bundle?-? = bundles of reed) | 7 aññamaññaṃ (mutually = against each other) | ?8 nissāya | ?6 tiṭṭheyyuṃ

  Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.

I speculate the Pali verse only missed the ākāśe (open ground) and ucchṛtau (stand up).

The meaning of the whole verse, especially the word two (SF155 dvau, SN 12.67 dve); and the word before it: for example/suppose (SF155 tadyathā, SN 12.67 Seyyathāpi); the word after it: bundles of reeds (SF155 naḍakalāpāv, SN12.67 naḷakalāpiyo) are agreeing with each other. Therefore it has extreme high potential that the Pali Samyukta Nikaya is much closer to the text of Turfan manuscripts. The Chinese Samyukta Agama is not, especially the corresponding verse rendered as "...three reeds standing on the floor...".

Therefore, from this evidence, it infers that the Pali Samyukta Nikaya is a later version, compared to the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama.

From a research article written by Renate Nöller and Oliver Hahn (PhD.), on the Turfan manuscripts, it said:

  These documents, written in different languages and scripts, reflect
  the cultural diversity of the people who travelled along trade roads
  between East and West. Philology has distinguished the manuscripts’
  origin from the 6th to the 13th century...

The Pali text is consistent with the Turfan manuscripts dated to 600CE -1300CE.

From Chinese Wikipedia on Samyukta Agama (雜阿含經), I've translated a paragraph that gives more details than the English Wikipedia on Agamas:

  The Samyukta Agama was, in Southern Dynasty of Lau-song between the
  reign titled "Yuan-jia" (a year between 435-443CE), at the Monastery
  Qí-huán (another saying is at Monastry Wǎ-guān) in County of Yang,
  recited by Guṇabhadra, Bǎo-yún translated into Han scripts, Huì-guān
  recorded, in total 50 scrolls. Its origin is not confirmed. In The
  Chronicles of Triple-gems it recorded, this text was the Samyukta
  Agama version bought back by Fǎ-xiǎn from Ceylon. Also, other scholars
  believe poissble bought by Guṇabhadra, from Ceylon or Hindu to China.
  The modern Sanskrit fragments discovered in Qocho (Gaochang) and
  Khotan, is in consistency with the Samyukta Agama, therefore the text
  of Han translation is probably translated from Sanskrit version, and
  inferred to be transmitted from the Mūlasarvāstivāda school.1

The Chinese translation is dated as 435-443CE. On the corresponding Qocho and Khotan manuscripts, research paper published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press said:

  Indic and Khotanese Manuscripts: Some New Finds and Findings from
  Xinjiang:

  Discovered mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, these finds have opened
  up fresh and often quite unexpected perspectives on the historical
  development of this religious and philosophical tradition. Some
  fragments date from the end of the first millennium BCE, and are
  therefore older than any manuscripts previously known from the Indian
  cultural sphere. At the same time their content throws light on the
  surprising ways in which early strands of Buddhism unfolded. All this
  has led to intensive philological efforts to preserve this legacy,
  while simultaneously bringing long-neglected manuscript finds from the
  last century back into view, and setting off another phase of
  intensive work on them.

The Qocho and Khotan manuscripts are much older texts than the Turfan manuscripts, among them included the Sanskrit text in consistency with the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama.

Therefore from record, the Chinese text was translated in 435-443CE, it is corresponding to the Qocho and Khotan manuscripts, some fragments among them dated as ancient as ~1000BCE dated as ancient as end of the 1st millennium BCE. The Pali text has no record to date it, since they claim the oral tradition, but the written text was dated to ~1000-1600CE. However, perhaps the Turfan manuscripts finding could give it a more reliable speculative date to 600CE-1300CE.

It has never come to my mind that enlightened Buddhist ancient masters would modify original version to fit their doctrinal purpose, if there is any difference, it's probably resulted from negligence. However, inspired by @ruben2020: "I would say that most likely the Chinese agama version was modified from the original version which was probably in Sanskrit, or otherwise, in Pali. So, the Pali version is likely to be more accurate and reliable than the Chinese version, in my personal opinion...", I can't help to speculate, if the Pali text was from a later modified version to fit some sects' doctrinal purpose? From my study, the Tambapaṇṇiya (Sanskrit: Tāmraśāṭīya, old Indic name for Sri Lanka) sect was split from the Vibhajyavāda school group [A]. The Vibhajyavādins (those who preached differently), they gained their name by teaching different doctrines from all the others. It wouldn't be a surprise if they needed to modify the texts to justify their doctrines. And Mahāvihāravā who held the Pali Canon transmitted to modern Theravada, was a sub-sect split from Tambapaṇṇiya.

The other point is, as @ruben2020 quoting from Theravada Bhikkhu-scholar, Prof. Analayo to "proves that there has been a precedent for the Chinese Agama to add to or modify the original version". In this case, it just proves that it is highly possible the Pali Nikaya had added to or modified the original version. Meanwhile, I wonder how many wrong assertions have been made by Bhikkhu-scholars like the mistake made by @ruben2020, taking the Turfan manuscripts which dated later than the Chinese Samyukta Agama, to say the Chinese is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence? Though this is ludicrous, like someone mistaken the daughter as the grandma, and then saying the mother has more winkles therefore impossible to be the daughter-made-grandma's daughter. Perhaps Prof. Analayo should study this case, and go back to refine his perspective and recheck if he could have made similar mistakes like @ruben2020.

As an aside, Taking a later manuscript to condemn the Chinese Buddhist text is not an unprecedented activity in the Buddhist academia. From my knowledge, Prof. Jan Netter has done it to the Heart Sutra, taking a Japanese museum Sanskrit text back-translated from Chinese text to condemn Xuanzang "created" the Heart Sutra. There are 6 versions of Heart Sutras some dated earlier than Xuanzang's translation. Would a forger be so stupid to choose it for forgery? Wouldn't there be much better choices out there? Aside from hiccup like this, there yet another sect of Bhikkhu-scholars while using the Chinese Buddhist texts to write their thesis, at the same time never forget to step on them with shoe marks like "the (Chinese) Mahayana text were later works, not from the Buddha". For example, Sariputra-pariprekshya (Śāriputraparipṛcchā Sūtra), while using it in his article, Bhikkhu Sujato never forgot to remark it a later work. It is like someone after feeding himself the food, then spit on it. Not to mentioned there are many mistakes in his article on the Early Buddhist Schools. If he knows Sariputra-pariprekshya belonged to the Mahasamgika Vinaya section? The Japanese scholar has an article to verify its authenticity, but in Chinese text.

We the laymen, our society, are supporting these scholars with more leisure time and freedom so that they can help us to understand the truth and facts, not supporting them to pursue fame by writing eye-catching but misleading articles.

That said, how Buddhism going forward is not my interest, nor my care to promote the Chinese Buddhist texts. From my opinion, Buddhism has already passed its glorious time, what we got are just the leftovers. I just share what I know for those who are interested in the truth and facts, not schools or sects, that's all.

Now we can answer the 3 questions proper.

1. Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?

Yes. @ruben2020 has detailed answer.

2. If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?

The Chinese Samyukta Agama No. 288 is more reliable and accurate. The Pali SN 12.67 is consistent with the Turfan manuscript SF 155 dated as 600-1300CE. But the Chinese No. 288 translated in 435-443CE is consistent with the Qocho and Khotan manuscripts dated as early as the end of 1st millennium BCE. The Chinese Samyukta Agama is an earlier version than the Pali Saṃyutta Nikāya.

3. They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

Only three reeds leaning against each others can stand up, two reeds is unlikely: a) from physics, three supporting points are the minimum requirement for stability. b) two reeds will need special method to tie the bundle, as @ruben2020 suggested, tie it as a plank. But then the two planks are not really having 2 supporting points, it is 4. Also, it will require extra works to make the plank, than simply roll up as a bundle.

Afterword

While it's pretty sure the 3 questions have been properly answered, what to be concerned is the implication of this study. It is a huge implication. Because it infers that the Pali text with two reeds, instead of three, is a departure of the Buddha's teaching on consciousness. The Pali doctrine on consciousness is the 6 senses corresponding to their 6 consciousnesses, different from the Chinese Mahayana (not all Mahayana(s) are Mahayana of Buddha Shakyamuni's teaching)2 doctrine. From my study, mostly reading information on this forum therefore my understanding is limited and speculative, with this model, it is highly possible that the Pali-nibbana cannot be realized, the arahantship cannot be attained, the 9th Jhana called Nirodha Samapatti cannot be reached, even the 8th and 7th Jhana are in question, from logical inferences. The brief answer is that simply 6 consciousness model cannot arrive at the state of extinction while it lies within The All. Or if it arrives at extinction, it can't lie within The All. The Pali Sabba Sutta has explaint The All, but again, compared it to the Chinese corresponding text, at least from my memory, it missed a phrase on the 12 Āyatanas. But, it's already a lengthy answer, let's skip it for now.

Regarding this issue, some meaningful discussions have been carried out in the chats links in the above question post.

After the afterword

Also a rare case, the OP not only has to answer her own post but choose it as the correct answer. If this answer not appeal to logic, reason and facts, do challenge it. Much appreciated.

Footnotes:

1. 《雜阿含經》為南朝劉宋求那跋陀羅在元嘉年間（435年-443年間的某年），於楊都祇洹寺（一說瓦官寺）口誦，寶雲傳譯漢文，慧觀筆錄，共五十卷[10]。其原本來源，未有定論。《歷代三寶紀》中記載，此本是法顯由錫蘭取回的雜阿含經本。也有学者認為可能是由求那跋陀羅，從天竺或錫蘭帶至中國[11][12]。現代在高昌及于闐發現的梵文片斷，與現存《雜阿含經》一致，因此漢譯本可能是由梵文本譯出，推定為根本说一切有部所傳[13]。

2. Chinese Mahayana does NOT register: a) Tantra practice; b) root-guru; c) precept or vow of Samaye; d) later texts "revealed" or procured in mystic locations called Terma; e) tale of Nagarjuna discovered "Mahayana" (Tantra) Sutras from the iron pagoda of the Southern Sky or from Naga's Palace or the sort; f) reincarnation of alleged "buddha" and re-reincarnates again and again across centuries, to serve as the godhead of the religious and political power; g) a bhiksu can enter marriage and take wife, or a upasaka/upasika-teacher (the white-clothes) engages in extramarital affairs or with multiple partners; h) a upasaka/upasika-teacher not abiding in bodhisattva vow therefore eating meat and drinking alchohol, except with health or special reason... etc.

That said, some self-designated "Mahayanist(s)" are also NOT registered because what they written are inconsistent with the Chinese Mahayana Sutras. They are only skillful with their plays of words, borrowing Mahayana terms which they don't understand, glazing with ambiguous sentences, or idiosyncratic but in fact illogical arguments.

Revision Changelogs/ Remarks:

On 16/03/2019

[A] About Vibhajyavāda, the forefather of modern Theravada:

Vibhajyavāda was NOT one of the Early 18/20 Buddhist Schools according to Sariputra-pariprekshya and all other related texts on schools therefore it should be termed as "group", instead of school. Vibhajyavāda was a band of Vibhajyavādins (partisans) split from few Early 18/20 Buddhist Schools, they preached doctrines different from the original Buddhist schools. The Sarvāstivādins, a branch from Sthaviravāda, called the Vibhajyavādins heretics also citing their teachings were toxic and harmful.

According to Samantapāsādikā, the Pali Vinaya, (translated into Chinese in 489CE and kept as an archive only. The existing Pali version has additional 2nd half not found in the Chinese translation, probably later texts added after 489CE), Moggaliputta-Tissa was the founder of Tambapaṇṇiya Sect himself a Vibhajyavādin. Tambapaṇṇiya (Sanskrit: Tāmraśāṭīya) was ancient name for Sri Lanka. Moggaliputta-Tissa was not the son of Buddha's disciple Maudgalyāyana (Pali: Moggallāna) but a Brahmin turned Buddhist and well versed in Vedas. He made the king answered that the Buddha was a "Vibhajyavādin", playing the double meanings of the Sanskrit word Vibhajyavādin - analyst vs separatist, while separatists or partisans were the Vibhajyavādins being condemned of.

It is my speculation that since the Vibhajyavādins were rejected by the main schools therefore they went to more remote areas to establish and spread their new doctrines. Ancient Ceylon could be ideal location to forge their base since it's an island isolated from the Indian subcontinent, information and news were more difficult to reach there thus they could easily cultivate the people to embrace their new doctrines and interpretations.

The Early 18/20 Buddhist Schools should be regarded as necessary branches as a result of the spreading of Buddhism after the Buddha entered nirvana. Like modern day, a successful brand will open branch offices worldwide.

On 22/02/2019

Have made minor editions to typos and formats only.
On accepting your own answer, the (former) Co-founder Jeff Atwood said, "Hey, look at that, I just accepted my own answer!" because "a picture is worth a thousand words".
The current score (-2) doesn't reflect the quality of this answer, it only reflects the quality of this forum: buddhism.stackexchange.
The major addition is on explaining the term "Mahayana" in this post, in footnote 2.
Taken @ChrisW comment, rephrase the date of Qocho and Khotan manuscripts to end of the 1st millennium BCE instead of ~1000BCE.


Can the Buddha ever be a woman? Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this?

To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am not asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

In the (translated into English) Pali text that I have, there's a section titled "The Admission of Women to the Order" within a chapter titled "Stability of Societies". This section describes Ananda's asking the Buddha whether Maha-Pajapati could join the order.

When Ananda asks for the third time, he asks,

  "Lord, are women capable, after going forth from the home unto the homeless life under the Norm-Discipline set forth by the Tathagata, -- are they capable of realizing the Fruit of Stream-winning, of Once-returning, of Never-returning, of Arahantship?

And the Buddha's reply to that question,

  "Women are capable ... of doing so, Ananda."

(Which is why and how Ananda persuaded the Buddha to allow women to be ordained.)

FYI I did a Google search for Bahudhātuka Sutta -- because that seems to be the one/only basis on which other answers claim that a woman's being a Buddha is impossible.

The first search result is this paper, The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels
On Women’s Inabilities.

The Abstract for this paper says,

  The present article offers a comparative study of the
  Bahudhātuka-sutta, based on a translation of one of its parallels
  found in the Madhyama-āgama preserved in Chinese translation.
  The study focuses in particular on the dictum that a woman cannot
   be a Buddha, which is absent from the Madhyama-āgama version.

Its conclusions is (page 166),

  the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society

and (page 166)

  This tendency can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where -- as far as the texts allow us to judge -- gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.

and (page 185)

  Kajiyama (58) concludes that, regarding the listing of inabilities of
  women, “it is most likely that the dictum did not exist when the Buddhist
  Order maintained one and the same tradition, but that it was created
  after the Order was divided into many schools and was inserted into
  sūtras of various schools.” However, the suggestion by Kajiyama (70) that
  “the dictum that a woman is incapable of becoming a Buddha arose
  probably in the first century B.C.” may be putting things at too late a
  time.

The arguments for why is this is a late addition start in the section titled Comparison of the Parallel Versions of the Bahudhātuka Bahudhātuka-sutta on page 151 and can be summarized as:

Evidence that other parts were added:

"Aggregates" seems to be new
Items were added to the "elements" topic

Therefore it's possible that an item (the item regarding women) was added to the "impossibilities" section.
The difference between versions could be explained as a later addition (into some versions), or as a later loss (from the other versions); but an addition is more likely.
There are various other differences in the "impossibilities" section.
The "impossibilities for women" doesn't exist in all versions
In the versions which do include the "impossibilities for women" section, there are differences between versions.
Buddha's being a woman, or low-caste, would be incompatible with contemporary society (because they wouldn't be respected when alive), which was the reason for the argument that a woman would have to be reborn as a man before she could be the Buddha
Some versions (not the Pali) say that a woman cannot even be a Paccekabuddha, which is proof that more and more degradation of women's abilities were added over time. (page 164)
It's therefore significant that one of the versions doesn't mention it at all (i.e. it implies that it wasn't original)
The addition doesn't fit, wasn't useful in the context of other information which was intended to be practical (page 166)

Maybe could better link the transition of the context? (from arahantship being possible to women, to the question at hand)

I think you're asking why my first quote (the Buddha's reply to Ananda's question, which was about "Arahantship") is relevant to this question, which is about the Buddha.

The paper I linked to above says that, at that time, no-one had the ambition of becoming the future Buddha: perhaps Arahant was synonymous with the highest feasible spiritual attainment, and that women were able no less than men to achieve it (page 163):

  Here it needs also to be taken into account that the presentation
  in the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels still stems from a period in the
  development of Buddhist thought when the idea of aspiring to Buddhahood
   had not yet become a general option. As pointed out by Kajiyama
  (64), “the dictum that a woman cannot become a Buddha ... did not have
  a target to which it could have been directed,” since at that time “no
  one, neither man nor woman, aspired to Buddhahood.”53 In sum, then,
  the inability of a woman to assume the position of a ruler on earth, a ruler
  in various heavenly realms, or a ruler in the field of Dharma reflects
  leadership conceptions in ancient India.

The footnote says,

  53 Romberg (164) notes that once “the aim was no longer to become an
  Arhat, but to become Buddha ... this shift made, in fact, the situation for
  women worse, because a doctrinal foundation was laid for the necessity
  of changing the sex before being able to become enlightened.” In fact the
  Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that a woman will not realize the awakening of
  a Buddha because already an advanced bodhisattva has left behind womanhood
  for good and will not be reborn again as a female, Wogihara
  (94,3): na ca strī anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyate. tat kasya
  hetoḥ? tathā hi bodhisattvaḥ prathamasyaiva kalpāsaṃkhyeyasyātyayāt strībhāvaṃ vijahāti bodhimaṇḍaniṣadanam upādāya na punar jātu strī bhavati; cf.
  also Paul (212 note 7). Harrison (78) concludes that “women ... are generally represented in such an unfavourable light as to vitiate any notion of
  the Mahāyāna as a movement for sexual equality. Compared with the
  situation in the Pāli Canon, in which women are at least as capable as
  men of attaining the highest goal, arhatship, the position of women in
  Mahāyāna has hardly changed for the better.”

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” - The 14th Dalai Lama

The 14th Dalai Lama has said that if somebody proves to him that reincarnation is not real, he will stop believing in it. That is because truth trumps scripture. We learn more and more as time goes on, and in fact we are encouraged to in scripture. We are not stuck in a past century with the limited knowledge of that century.

Today, male-female equality is a scientifically-proven fact.

Therefore you cannot truthfully say “only men can …” or “only women can …” because you are wrong in both cases.

For any man that doubts this, you can pick any field of human endeavor, and there is a woman alive somewhere right now who is better at it than you. Doesn’t matter if it is science or fighting or what. There is a female mathematician somewhere right now who can run circles around you in math. There is a female special forces soldier somewhere who could kill you in 2 seconds before you got a punch in.

Science has also shown that we all start out in the womb as female. So if you believe only men can be buddhas, why would a male buddha who can only be reincarnated as a male buddha start out in the womb as female?

So, yes, if men can be buddhas women can be buddhas because women are scientifically-proven to be equal to men. Any particular buddha you want to refer to can be reincarnated as a woman or a man, and any man or woman can become a buddha in this life or the next. No distinction based on gender can be truthfully made. Again, doesn’t matter what scripture says.


"Human Dignity" in Buddhism Can we find a concept of "Dignity" or "Human Dignity" in Buddhism? My understanding is that in the Western World the concept of Human Dignity is used to justify that each of us deserves to be not only treated with respect but also valued as a part of humanity whatever our origin or our place in society.

I read that each of us has the nature of Buddha. Could this be considered as the foundation of Human Dignity or a similar notion in Buddhism? What would be the closest(s) equivalent(s) in Buddhism?

Dignity in Buddhism is not built-in, it is to be earned. A realized person is respected because they deserve to be respected. If someone can control one's emotions, does not fall victim to one's weaknesses, has deep vision and wise judgement, flexible mind, and clear moral - then one can be respected. The word "arahant" ("arhat") is a Buddhist term for a realized person - it means "worthy" (of respect). The word "arya" is another such term which means "noble" or "civilized" in the highest sense.

Then there is compassion. This is when someone does not deserve to be respected, but nevertheless we don't disrespect them either, out of compassion. Compassion reminds us that at fundamental level we are products of our environment, our experience, and our choices - so no one is fundamentally better than another because they "are actually" better. They could be better off due to luck or circumstances or their own good karma or someone else's compassion etc. So compassion tells us to not disrespect those whom we can't respect.

And then of course on the personal level, for one's own perspective on oneself, the notion of Buddha-Nature reminds us that we have the same right to be here as the stars and the trees, that at the most fundamental level we are the heirs to Buddha-Dharma, and that we are not less worthy of Enlightenment than the closest students of Buddha, if we make the effort to take it.

So these are the three sides of Dignity in Buddhism. Dignity of the unlucky - thanks to compassion, Dignity of the aspirant to Enlightenment - thanks to the Buddha nature, and the fully deserved Dignity of the winner.

Human dignity is built into all religions of Earth. Religion says we are all same on higher plane though grosser and different on lower plane. We are all different shadows of One. Since Buddha remained silient about God and stressed on nothingness, people mistake it for non existence of God.

God is another name for the force which is inherent in living and nonliving beings. In this universe nothing is dead. Ask any physicist and he/she will confirn it. Therefore everything needs to be respected whether living or nonliving. It is just level of animation is different for different beings.


Is the term "Everything happens for a reason" appropriate? In terms of  Buddhist thought Is this accurate? It doesn't seem to jive with cause and effect which is more often referenced.

The issue concerns the way you understand the statement "Everything happens for a reason", since 'reason' has various meanings.

'Reason' could mean motivation or intent. For instance, "Someone has his reasons to behave the way he does." If you have that meaning in mind when you read "Everything happens for a reason", you will think it means "Everything that happens was intended by someone, like a creator God." Of course, this would not be Buddhist.

'Reason' could also refer to a cause, as in "The reason for his absence is sickness." Then, "Everything happens for a reason" means "Everything that happens has causes and conditions." This is a correct statement, from a Buddhist viewpoint.

I would not be surprised if 'reason' could also mean 'purpose, aim, goal' but I can not find an example.

We do not hear "Everything happens for a reason" often in Buddhism. I myself would never even think of saying it, because it is vague. In addition, I feel that most people would misunderstand and think that it means "things were intended this way" or "things will eventually fit in a big meaningful picture."

A more common way of stating things is: "You created the causes of your suffering." This is more personal and it is aimed at taking one's responsibility.

I can't stand when people use that term. It's a new age cliche.  No everything does not happen for a reason at all. Everything is mostly random however we can find something positive in even the most difficult or adverse conditions.


Near death experience and meditation I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously.

In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body.

Let's accept NDE as true for a while.
What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world.

Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?!

I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!

NDE's are true. Just as true as any other experience. When there is seeing, this is the experience of seeing. It arises and ceases.

  “Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’; when sitting, [57] he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands accordingly however his body is disposed."

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating feelings as feelings? Here, when feeling a pleasant feeling, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling’; when feeling a painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a painful feeling’; when feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’ When feeling a worldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling a worldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly painful feeling’; when feeling an unworldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly painful feeling’; when feeling a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling."

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects? Here a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances? Here, there being sensual desire in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is sensual desire in me’; or there being no sensual desire in him, he understands: ‘There is no sensual desire in me’; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned sensual desire.’
      “There being ill will in him … There being sloth and torpor in him … There being restlessness and remorse in him … There being doubt in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is doubt in me’; or there being no doubt in him, he understands: ‘There is no doubt in me’; and he understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen doubt, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen doubt, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned doubt."

  “Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects [61] in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging? Here a bhikkhu understands: ‘Such is material form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception, such its origin, such its disappearance; such are the formations, such their origin, such their disappearance; such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’
      39. “In this way he abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects internally, externally, and both internally and externally … And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging.

Satipatthana Sutta

In this way, seeing is seeing. Trying to prescribe anything else to it in an ultimate sense is false attribution.

I think the psychics who are able to see the spirit world says that some people goes to hell. Because their minds are so corrupted, they believe that they deserve to be in hell and as a result they go these lower planes.

The near death experiences are so peaceful and blissful because people become free from body. Its perfectly normal to have blissful experiences when you go to the home. I rarely have short astral projection experiences and I enter to the void state that I think every people who dies is able to experience more fully. Anita Moorjiani talked about her near death experience and she said that she was feeling other people's feelings and immediately getting detached from these feelings and she also experienced unconditional love. I think what near death and astral projection experiences proves is that the physical dimension is the most dense and slow plane. So the people who does bad deeds are already having their consequences when they re-born in the physical world. For most people the only way to become free from this cycle is to start their spiritual journey/spiritual practice while they are in the physical world.


Infidelity in marriage If you are in a sexless marriage where your wife absolutely denys you any sex or intimacy no matter what, is it OK to cheat?  What is the Buddhist rules on that?  I understand that my wife's behavior can be considered sexual abuse.  What she does for me is actually not good for my health and well being.

You don't need to have sex to be healthy and well. Otherwise, most Buddhist monks should be sick. Cheating breaks the 3rd precept. That is bad Karma for you.

Whether your wife agrees or not, associating with prostitutes has many bad consequences. You and your family's reputation can be tarnished. Higher risk of catching diseases. Your wealth will decrease. You could be cheated in many ways as you have very little idea about the character of the other person. You could be blackmailed by those who get to know about your habit. Most of all, your lust will increase. After sometime, you will start developing unnatural sexual cravings. There's no end to it, if you crawl down that pit.

Nevertheless, sexual pleasures are not forbidden for lay people. So, as a Buddhist layman, you have several decent options available:

Try different socially acceptable methods like being romantic, changing the environment, buying presents etc. and see if she changes according to your liking.
Talk to her, let her know that you are not happy and take a decision on the future of your relationship, if she doesn't change.
Restrain yourself and try to focus on your spiritual development as having sex doesn't bring you true happiness.

All percepts are interpretations of Buddha. Sexual misconduct was never defined for householders by Buddha. I am yet to come across a man who does not cheat. The moment a beautiful girl crosses by all men invariably stare at her. The momemt you look at a girl its cheating because staring implies looking for possible mating opportunity. Sex drops only after enlightenment. If someone is asking you not to have it has not understood it completely or he is carrying hypocracy commonly found in Asian men. Body heat cannot be controlled only transcended. Ofcourse sexual activity varies from person to person but only impotent men can refrain but potent men just cannot. One cannot and should not fight nature. It is because of this fight very few enlightened beings are produced. It does not matter which religion you belong to sex is something which is not easily handled. The reason of failure of all religions is primarily sex.


Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa? Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa?
According to Dependent Origination, Namarupa is the result of Vinnana. It appears Vinnana is the contributory factor for six sense base which eventually leads to rebirth. Hence Arahant will not be re-born then the question come whether they have Vinnana and Namarupa.

First of all, it is incorrect to say "arhats have vijnana (etc)". The word "have" implies someone who has, but in case of an arhat there's no entity, no one to "have" vijnana. The right way to phrase this question is to say: In case of an arhat, are there vijnana and namarupa?"

Second, an arhat will not be reborn exactly because there is no entity to be reborn, and this realization is part of cessation of ignorance which normally keeps the Twelve Nidanas rolling.

Third, in this context vijnana and namarupa refer to nidanas, not to skandhas. The twelve nidanas describe the process of gradual taking shape and hardening of a certain subjective world and the person living in it. Vijnana and namarupa refer to early stages of this process. First, there develops a tendency to recognize and discriminate, and from that tendency appear various objects and entities. That's what vijnana and namarupa refer to in context of twelve nidanas. They refer to the naive, ignorant discrimination and to the illusory entities that it delineates.

In case of an arhat, the discernment is no longer ignorant and it therefore does not posit illusory entities. Buddha clearly said, with cessation of ignorance, there's cessation of tendencies, with cessation of tendencies there's cessation of vijnana etc. This refers to cessation of naive, ignorant automatic discrimination which contrives objects and then believes they are absolutely ontologically real.

So we are not saying that the skandhas disappear with attainment of arhathood, not at all. Arhathood is cessation of nidanas, the causal chain that leads to emergence and hardening of the illusory world and the illusory self.

And of course arhats are not mindless dummies. In case of an arhat there's a function of right discernment. This function is called prajna. The object of this discernment is yatabhuta, things as they truly are. This refers first and foremost to seeing samskaras as samskaras, instead of the fixed entities. Because samskaras are seen as samskaras, they are seen as Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, and at Mahayana level, as Shunya.

So the short answer is, no, in case of an arhat there's no vijnana and namarupa - there's prajna and samskara/shunyata.

Do you have the wind?

If you have, then you can control it. Then you can stop the wind, give it to others and so on.

If you haven't the wind, then it can't blow on you, because you have no wind.


Mahāsamādhi in Buddhism? Wikipedia defines Mahāsamādhi as follows:

  Mahāsamādhi (the great and final samādhi) is the act of consciously
  and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized yogi (male) or
  yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi,
  will, at an appropriate time, consciously exit from their body. [...] This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. 1

A non-practitioner of Yoga would call this 'dying at will'.

Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?

miccha-samadhi (wrong/defiled concentration). And to think the mind is in the body is also miccha-samadhi if so perceived.

Yes. The concept of relinquishing the will to live can be found in Buddhism.

From DN 16:

  And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed,
  practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could,
  if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it."

  (And later)

  When this was said, the Blessed One spoke to Mara, the Evil One,
  saying: "Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the
  Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the
  Tathagata will utterly pass away."

  And at the Capala shrine the Blessed One thus mindfully and clearly
  comprehending renounced his will to live on. And upon the Lord's
  renouncing his will to live on, there came a tremendous earthquake,
  dreadful and astonishing, and thunder rolled across the heavens.

  Commentary (Sister Vajira & Francis Story):

  Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as
  "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains
  avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess." Comy.: "He may stay
  alive completing the life span pertaining to men at the given time.
  (Sub. Comy.: the maximum life span.) Kappavasesa: 'in excess'
  (atireka), i.e., more or less above the hundred years said to be the
  normally highest life expectation."

  Among the numerous meanings of the word kappa, there is, in fact, that
  of time in general (kala) and not only the duration of an aeon; but
  the meaning "life span" seems to have been ascribed to it only in this
  passage. Also, the meaning "in excess" for avasesa (usually
  "remainder") is unusual.

  The four constituents of psychic power (iddhipada) are concentration
  due to zeal, energy, purity of mind, and investigation.

The Anandajoti translation states:

  Whoever has developed, Ānanda, made much of, carried on, established,
  maintained, augmented, and properly instigated the Four Paths to
  Power, could, if he wanted, Ānanda, remain for the lifespan or for
  what is left of the lifespan. The Realised One has developed, Ānanda,
  made much of, carried on, established, maintained, augmented, and
  properly instigated the Four Paths to Power. If he wanted, Ānanda, the
  Realised One could remain for the lifespan or for what is left of the
  lifespan.”


Is it true that arahants don't have sati? A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati.

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami.

Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached.

Sati is "non-forgetting" of the Dhamma Truth.

  To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

This does not make sense because effort, determination, patience, etc are parami. Why would a mind that has destroyed/uprooted the defilements need effort, determination, patience, etc? Regardless, the Buddha never taught the 10 parami; particularly for Arahants.

  I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati.

When the defilements are destroyed/uprooted; naturally the sati of a non-arahant (which includes the abandoning of wrong view) is not required. The sati of a non-arahant or learner is described as follows:

  One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

  MN 117

This being said, the mind of an arahant obviously cannot forget the Dhamma Truth. Thus MN 117 also says:

  Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

  MN 117

In short, the sati of an arahant is automatic because an arahant can never forget the Dhamma Truth.

I have no references to texts, only personal experience. I hope I can still shed some light on your question though. Only so much can be learned through teachings. We must look to personal experience to answer these types of questions. You will never know the true answer until you experience enlightenment for yourself.

I am an arahant, if I can say that. There is no perminant, separate self to be an arahant. But enlightenment occurred, and the paradigm shift occurred.

Sati is translated many ways.

If you translate it as "Mindfulness", you are talking about keeping the teachings in mind to guide your mind towards enlightenment. Once you have awoken completely, there is no need for guidance.

I think what you may be hung up on is the concept of effort. I believed I was working hard to do the "right" thing. I thought I was making choices, and pushing myself where I wanted to go.

It was just belief though. When enlightenment occurs, you see there is no such thing as effort. It stems from a belief that the permanent, separate self makes choices and acts. We do not have free will. We do not choose and we do not act.

What is choice? Choice is a thought. Take the question, "Would you like soup or salad?". You might repeat the question as a thought in your mind. Then there is a pause. Then the thought "I would like salad" comes and goes. Then a thought occurs, "I made a choice".

There was nothing between the question and answer. Did you choose the answer to the question, or did it just appear? Perhaps you have a preference? Did you choose to prefer salad over soup? With the thought "I made a choice", the belief in choosing is created. A choice always appears after it has been made in the form of a present thought.

Why do we believe we have free will? It stems from an innate understanding of what we truly are. We are the universe, creating all minds and experiences. The freedom is in the infinite possibilities of what we can experience. We have no control over our experiences. I don't choose the colors of the trees or the sounds of traffic. All experience is uncontrollable and ever changing. How could effort exist without control?

I do not have sati. There is no I to possess sati. Nothing becomes. All things are.


Relationship between karma and science How can science support or challenge the concept of Karma?

They are perfectly compatible. The teaching of Karma is about latent (potential) result of our actions and choices. Science is in complete support with the idea of potential energy, latent results etc. It's just normal causation, albeit its subtle/hidden aspect, nothing magical.

It's like, when you act like a jerk, it leaves aftertaste with people, and then it comes up in the middle of other situations sooner or later. Or, you keep rushing in your daily life and leave simple things not taken care of, like taking out garbage or paying bills - and then these little things accumulate and really interfere with your life. It is stuff like that. Our actions, our intents leave residue, they create some little tensions in our mind, in other people mind, in the fabric of everyday things - and that stuff eventually comes up as some funky result downstream. I repeat, it's not magic, it is totally normal stuff - just hard to see because it's subtle.

The word 'kamma' means 'intentional action' and has no explicit relationship to ideas of reincarnation. The teachings attributed to the Buddha say:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & mind.
AN 6.63

From intentional actions (kamma) there arise 'results', called 'vipaka'.
For example, you have an intention to have & maintain a romantic relationship & enter into & engage in such a relationship. This is kamma. Then later, due to certain causes relating to incompatibility, the relationship ends, which is contrary to your intentions. As a result (vipaka), you suffer from sorrow & unhappiness due to not getting what you want. This is 'kamma-vipaka', which science obviously does not deny.
The following link explains kamma: Kamma in Buddhism


When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" thing that is born and dies what do they mean? When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different?

Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

  “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”

  “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

  “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”

  “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way?

Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies

The words "birth" ("jati") and "death" ("marana') are defined in SN 12.2 as producing or imputing the idea of "a being" ("satta") upon the manifestations or changing appearances of the aggregates.

What is important to understand is not so much the aggregates but how ideas of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings' are imputed upon the aggregates.

For example, when you see "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my friend", "my enemy", "my favourite pop star", etc; and Arahant, in the same situation, sees only aggregates, elements and sense objects.

  Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

Convention is different than ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, only aggregates change & cease. This is why there are so many suttas that says an arahant is not born, does not age, does not die (example, MN 140; SN 22.85; etc).

When there is no idea or view of a "self", "person" or "being", the ideas of birth & death do not arise.

The Pali Suttas don't say that ("Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" person who is born and dies"), actually. So the question is not valid, corrupt.

If asked of what the Buddha said, the Suttas tell:

  "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. ...The Burden


Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it? I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body.

Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months.

So, can one feel it without attachments?!

Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.

In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.

Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late (the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).

Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.

Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one. One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.

If all humans relize the ultimatos truth, "that all Beings be happy" all human race will go to an end passing less than 200 years.
All humans produce dopamine but is a litle different to be addicted to This às a drug. Barry komisaruk can explain what are orgasms, non genital orgasms exist naturaly, just google it. While meditating you can gett orgasm and sleping. even if you have your reproductive organs totally inactive you should be atracted to the other may be.


Nature of dependent origination, and is Buddhism non-duality? Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)?

I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore".

This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so?

I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering

According to the Pali scriptures, yes. Refer to SN 12.2 or AN 3.61.

  or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World
  arises dependent on other conditions for instance how water and sun
  causes a flower to grow.

No. The Buddha taught about suffering & its cessation (MN 22; SN 56.31; AN 3.61; etc).

  I Think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only
  showing how suffering arises but also how phenomena in the World
  arises.

Nagarjuna has his own philosophy. You are free to follow Nagarjuna rather than the Buddha.

  He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this
  World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence then he
  continued when one sees the origination and cessation of the World
  existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore.

The above is a misunderstanding of SN 12.15. Its funny how you think one single sutta that uses words (namely, "atthitañceva" & "natthitañca") that are difficult to translate defines what the Buddha taught. Possibly, the discussion of the word 'atthi' at this link can help you.

  This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said that dependent
  origination is not only describing how suffering originate but how
  phenomena in the World also originate?.

No. When the Pali suttas use the word "world" ("loka"), this does not necessarily refer to the physical world. Refer to SN 12.44 and AN 4.45, which use the word "the world" synonymously with the word "suffering".

  I have Another question also how would you describe
  Thervada,Mahayana,Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism are they non dual or
  not and please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you
  did also.

The Buddha did not teach "non-duality". Refer to my answer here.

Only the people who invented mahayana say ''is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arises dependent on other conditions for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow.''. They are obsessed with rupa and fail to focus on other aggregates. this is why those people do not understand the dhamma.

For dependent arising, Stick to the condition of the arising of an aggregate and the condition of the cessation of an aggregate.


Is there any proof of Karma theory & rebirth? Non Abrahmic religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism & Sikhism believe in Karma theory & rebirth.

I'm interested in knowing the proofs of Karma theory & rebirth presented by Buddhism.

Buddhism differs from others in that rebirth is not a transmigration of a Soul, nor of any specific entity. It is more of a statement that perceived experience being subject to conditions - finding itself empty of any and all self referential properties - cannot logically be seen to either have a concrete beginning nor a concrete ending, whilst the conditions for the arising of said experience are present.

When the notion of an Essential, Independent and Unchanging Atman/Soul is taken at its word, then at birth and death, that Soul must either appear from somewhere, or disappear somewhere, respectively, as Essentialist religions infer.

The Buddha's aim was to show that what is directly perceived - impermanence and non-self - does not allow for termination of the conditioned (as that would be a process with a permanent conclusion), nor does it allow for some unconditioned and unexperiancable entity flirting off to invade somewhere else, as that is not directly perceivable by entities that depend on conditions for their perception..

The point is that there is no duality of 'cessation of the conditional'+'non-cessation of the non-conditional'. There is simply the continuation of conditionality. Ending the process of rebirth is the act of removing whatever conditions make up the necessary support for some conditionally-defined object: there is no 'rebirth' for my desire to drink, because I have removed the necessary conditions for this conditioned entity called 'me' to lunge for booze - the condition removed is craving for beer. This craving is removed volitionaly - volition being the arbiter of Kamma and its fruit: empty of volition? Empty of Kamma and hence empty of rebirth.

(I will be the first to say that this logic works a lot easier for 'beer' than for the entity labeled 'me'. But there is no concrete dividing line between the two concepts - as for any two concepts - given that true Independence is not possible within conditionality, so the beer example should be a decent starting point!)

I feel as if there are some huge misconceptions regarding "karma" as described in the west. So many consider it like a kind of moral retribution and never recognize its true essence. Karma is momentum.

All things are interrelated ... like a massive wall of gears and pinions. Some turning one way, others another way, some shafts protruding at 45 degree angles, and some vanishing into space or even time. Once one turns one direction then it is affected and affects others (all others to some extent). Some things it will affect in a negative manner, some sideways, some additive, and some barely at all. Positive actions tend to do positive things on down the line and help in many areas while negative things tend to wreak more havoc or be more isolated. That is karma. Not some moralistic determiner.

As for rebirth. ugh. OK. The dualism we find specified between mind and body is also a bit of a misnomer. It's consciousness and body. Only the body is that identity that "rebirths". The consciousness, or chariot driver from the aisha upanishad, is itself limitless despite being housed by the vessel of the body. Limitless in space and time. When unconstrained it may merely reoccupy the same body it came from, or another, or something completely different. The why behind that ascension is debatable. We DO come back like we are now and we DON'T come back like we are now and we ARE back like we are now and this will continue until the damage is fixed to the universe and it goes back to unity.


What does "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" mean in AN 9.12? I quote from AN 9.12 (trans. Sujato) below, with regards to stream entry.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?
What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?
Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?
Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

  With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths.
  They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and
  then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti,
  sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā
  dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?

sattakkhattuparama = not more than seven times.

Why did he include rebirth into his translation?

Because of the context below which come before "sattakkhattuparama" and being on the same topic:

  There are these nine people who, dying with something left over, are exempt from hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm. They’re exempt from places of loss, bad places, the underworld.

  Navayime, sāriputta, puggalā saupādisesā kālaṃ kurumānā parimuttā nirayā parimuttā tiracchānayoniyā parimuttā pettivisayā parimuttā apāyaduggativinipātā.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re a once-returner. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Next question:

  What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?

saṃsaritvā is the synonym of sandhāvitvā. sandhāvitvā means transmigrate, transport, move next.

Translation: Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

  Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?

Comepare with "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in MN Sandakasutta. It's context means "move to next life (rebirth)":

  There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.

  Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.

Next question:

  Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

Actually, it is just a sign of many signs. Actually, the whole context of sutta supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparamo" as "person who has seven lifetimes left" or "person who has seven rebirths left". There are many signs to translate like that for the example:

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Above quote's link is liking with many other suttas which force the translator to translate "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time".
When the previous context translated "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time", the next context have to translate follow it, too.

  Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

I have to add 1 more question to complete this answer:

  Why the buddha didn't use "nibbattetvā" with all person? Why the buddha used "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" instead?

"Ekabījī (one-seeder)" will be reborn just one time (ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā), but the next others will reborn multiple times. "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" often use in multiple time rebirths.

Saupādisesasutta:

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among devas and humans and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

MN Sandakasutta:

  There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.

  Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?

This question is illogical unless a teaching can be found where the Buddha said he taught "non-literally". Generally, the Buddha said his teaching was plain &  open, as follows:

  Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork

  MN 22

Sattakkhattuparama means 'seven times at most'. It is found in suttas about where a stream-enterer has broken three fetters therefore logically refers to breaking seven more fetters at most.

  What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?

Sandhāvitvā & saṃsaritvā appear to be generic words; found in various forms.

  Concise Pali English Dictionary

  sandhāvitvā abs. of sandhāvati having run through; having transmigrated.

  saṃsaritvā abs. of saṃsarati having moved about continuously; having transmigrated.

  abs. = Absolute

SN 22.99 unambiguously explains they mean repeatedly clinging to the same aggregates as "self" (rather than repeatedly being reincarnated into different aggregates), as follows:

  No first point is found of beings roaming and running, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

  Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.

  There comes a time when the great earth is consumed with flame, is destroyed & does not exist. But for beings — as long as they are
  hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, running around & wandering
  on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.

  Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

  He assumes feeling to be the self...

  He assumes perception to be the self...

  He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

  He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.

  He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?

Yes, such as at the beginning of MN 38, where Bhikkhu Sati had the wrong view of reincarnation:

  Now at that time a mendicant called Sāti, the fisherman’s son, had the following harmful misconception:

  Tena kho pana samayena sātissa nāma bhikkhuno kevaṭṭaputtassa evarūpaṃ pāpakaṃ diṭṭhigataṃ uppannaṃ hoti:

  As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.

  tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati anaññan ti.

  Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

No. They are merely generic words. SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 unambiguously say "a being" ("satta") is merely a mental state of clinging to views and SN 22.99 unambiguously says 'samsara' is the repeated cycling in ideas of "beings" and "self" born from ignorance, craving & repeated clinging to the same sets of aggregates.

For Christ's sake. The Lord Buddha taught 'anatta'. There is no 'self' and no 'beings' apart from wrong 'views'.

The Buddha also taught frantically & desperately craving for more becoming is suffering.

  With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and
  then make an end of suffering. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā
  sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca
  sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

The above does not literally say there is reincarnation. It just says the stream-enterer in the future can cling to godly realms (such as jhana) and human realms (such as moral righteousness, per SN 56.47, which defines the human state as moral righteousness and realisation of noble truths).

Please keep in mind the higher fetters include lust for jhana (which is rebirth as a god, per AN 4.123) and conceit (which is thinking I am better than another). Thus, when the non-arahant views himself as better than the 'animals' (people engaged in immoral conduct), this is 'conceit', which is rebirth of self-view as a 'human'. Or when the non-arahant experiences the fetter of restlessness, like a Mahayana, the non-arahant has views of "self" & "beings", thinking: "What will I do with my life; now that I am enlightened? Should I try to save all sentient beings?"

"Gods" and "humans" are just "self-views" of "beings" in "groups of beings" produced by ignorance as defined as "birth" ("jati") in SN 12.2.


Is there any benefit in abstaining from listening songs? All the songs which I have been listening since childhood are constantly popping up in my mind even the songs which I listened in the childhood.

Shall I now stop listening any song altogether providing I want to uncondition my mind completely? Are there benefits to stop listening them?
Also what shall I do when these old songs pope up again in the mind?

Note: If it's helpful to answer let me inform you that I have been practicing mindfulness along with anapansatti.

If you stop listening to songs, eventualy the odds of fragments of song poping in the mind would shrink, but is that realy what you are looking for ?

A better way to approach this would be to let go of the aversion you feel toward having songs beeing replayed in your mind.

When it occurs, do as you do with any other distraction or thought. Watch is appear and disappear by itself, watch for any sensation or thought that may arise because of it.

Even if you decide not to listen to music anymore, you will be exposed to it against your will from time to time, so you can't really count on "dropping the listening habit" strategy alone.

Please also consider that one can listen to music in order to feel sensual pleasure, which is unskillful, but also to engage with a particular art form which won't prevent your spiritual growth at all. See this question Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist.

Music can increase one's motivation in his spiritual developement, by giving access to particular emotions one would have never felt otherwise.

Just a few examples on the top of my head :
If you are on a bad day, listening to a particular song could uplift your mind and give you the motivation to sit and meditate.
If you have trouble feeling goodwill towards other human beeings, try listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Also 5th symfony can easely be interpreted by the story of a person who gradually overcomes his bad kamma. 6th symphony is about joy associated with nature. And so on.

As with any other actions, you should contemplate the effects of listening to music. With time you will build up discernement, and avoid situations when listening to music is unskillful.
Be good to yourself and don't beat yourself over it unnecessarily. When you see clearly the drawbacks of music, things will resolve quite naturally.

Correcting earlier... “Could you figuratively use a feather of awareness to the music compared, e.g., a hammer, that is, a lighter note.”

If everything passes - in time - then if one were to let it it pass, (feather) compared to paying it so much attention (hammer) maybe the mental activity could be noted of the object (thoughts, music, etc.) but not necessarily sustained, maintained, retained.


Will actors really go to hell? In the Talaputta Sutra the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell

  When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
  in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,
  there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
  either hell or the animal womb.

Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in Indian 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?

The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Many Thanks for any/all responses.

The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.

So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.

However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

  The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.

The sutta appears to refer to an actor intoxicated & heedless with passion, aversion & delusion. It does not refer to all acting per se.

The breakup of the body, after death, means after the ending of a intoxicated & heedless acting performance. In other words, an actor that is addicted to deluded laughter and does not have any wholesomeness as a refuge for their life.

For example, today, in Hollywood, many (but not all) actors are so intoxicated with their superficial & sensual life that they have psychological, relationship &/or drug/alcohol problems; which is 'rebirth' in the lower realms.

For example, Robin Williams was a comedian with a history of substance abuse and later developed depression. It could be hypothesized an addiction to laughter lead to an avoidance of unpleasant feelings & an addiction to getting high on drugs which ultimately lead to depression.

For example, Jewish Israel-born actress Natalie Portman. She embraces those Jewish values that are wholesome, has always been concerned about avoiding roles leading to sexual objectification &, in particular, is critical of Israeli actions toward Palestinians; particularly boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It follows such an actress would not be reborn in hell, at least related to these matters, because each is devoid of chauvinism and delusion.


Circular thoughts and their antidote Did the Buddha give specific advice around circular thought patterns and perhaps an antidote.
I'm aware that there is a lot around mental proliferation but this seems more general.
Many Thanks

This is called Vitakka and Vicara in Buddhism in general.
Antidote for Vitakka and Vicara is discussed in Vitakkasantanasutta.
"When a monk is intent on the heightened mind, there are five themes he should attend to at the appropriate times. Which five?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

Good householder,
Simply increasing right view and observing Silas, Silas, Silas, incl. right livelihood. But hardly one would go after the path, of course... only one without debts (transgressions) would be able to walk on, others are just busy in "fighting" off there debters to gain a little space to turn around. "Both hands steady not free to work because warding off from all sides." ...or try to learn techniques to develope firm household-equanimity... "Buddhists".
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel, will, for those after such]


Will most people go the three lower dimensions (hell, animal womb, ghost realm)? "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)

According to this quote most humans go to the lower realms. This doesn’t make sense to me because majority of humans though imperfect are ethical and moral. How true is this? How strict should we live our lives so that we can be reborn to a higher dimension?

In Buddhism, the 'human' realm does not always refer to something biological. The word 'human' ('manussa') in the Pali language means 'high minded'. For example, AN 6.39 says:

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident
  from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.

It appears the Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 are about what happens when the Four Noble Truths are realised and when the Four Noble Truths are not realised. The sutta quoted in the question is only an excerpt. The complete sutta is:

  Few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are
  reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the
  domain of the hungry ghosts

  Why is that?

  It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.

  https://suttacentral.net/sn56.131/en/sujato

The message of the Pansu Suttas appears the same as the message of the Lonaphala Sutta. The message of the Pansu Suttas appears to be when a non-Arahant enlightened person who has realised the Four Noble Truths falls away (cutā) from being human, such as if they are unmindful and perform an unmindful skillful action, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, they won't fall into the lower realms because they realise there is no self that did the unmindful unskilful action. Instead, they know the doer of the unskilful action was the element of ignorance. Therefore, their human status/coming-to-be (paccājāyanti) is not lost.

The Pansu Suttas can be contrasted with ordinary suttas about kamma, which are about the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

It is important to note, in the ordinary suttas about kamma, proceeding to (upapajjati) 'heaven' ('a happy state') due to a skilful action is not permanent. 'Heaven' is not permanent in Buddhism.

In summary:

The Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 appear to be about, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, how the human or godly state (paccājāyanti) does not change significantly despite unmindfully falling away temporarily from that state.
The ordinary suttas about ordinary kamma are about  the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

Note: The word two Pali words 'paccājāyanti' & 'upapajjati' commonly translated as 'reborn' are different. The word 'upapajjati' means 'to proceed closely to the former' (for example, from performing an action causing pain, one proceeds to a painful state). The 'paccājāyanti' appears to refer to the attainment of a realm status.

This doesn’t make sense to me because majority of humans though imperfect are ethical and moral. How true is this? How strict should we live our lives so that we can be reborn to a higher dimension?

Just do some quick math and you'll see it all makes sense, although it'd be a bit depressing to face this truth. So, assuming every sentient being gets a fair and equal chance for rebirths in any realm, just counting the total number of mammals in this world, there're ~ 130 billions. The number of humans in this world ~ 7.8 billions. So every mammal sentient being would have a 7.8 / ( 130 - 7.8 ) odds of rebirth into the human realm. Now that's just mammals, start factoring in every animal species, the hungry ghosts, the hell-dwellers, etc. and you'll see that that blind turtle simile the Buddha taught in SN 56.48 was not far-fetched at all. So, it's no longer a question about whether it's true, it's a question of whether you're strong, brave, and wise enough to face it in order to solve it.