In the Anapanasati Sutta, what is the difference between mind and mental processes? The book Breath by Breath by Larry Rosenberg splits the Anapanasati Sutta into 4 tetrads. The wildmind website does a similar thing. In the second tetrad there is a verse that is rendered

  He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to
  breathe out sensitive to mental processes.

and in the third tetrad there is the verse

  He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe
  out sensitive to the mind.

What is the difference between mental processes and the mind? In their English translations they look very similar. What is the original Pali words or phrases? Do they have difference translations or nuances that may make the differences clearer.

From the Anapanasati Sutta

"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination."

The four tetrads correspond to The Four Frames of Reference referred to above. They are (in Pali and English):

Kāyānupassanā satipaṭṭhāna: being mindful of the body as a frame of reference.
Vedanānupassanā satipaṭṭhāna: being mindful of feelings as a frame of reference.
Cittānupassanā satipaṭṭhāna: being mindful of the mind as a frame of reference.
Dhammānupassanā satipaṭṭhāna: being mindful of mental qualities as a frame of reference.

So the second tetrad in your example is mindfulness of feelings (vedanā) and the third is mindfulness of mind (citta).
A basic distinction of these is here:

1: The Body merely as a transient and compounded Form..
2: Feelings just as vanishing Reactions to sense-contact..
3: Mind only as a group of habitual and conditioned Moods..
4: All Phenomena (dhamma) simply as discrete momentary Mental States..

Gil Fronsdal explains the difference between mental fabrications/processes (Tetrad II) and the mind (Tetrad III) by describing Tetrad II a bit differently:

Pay attention to the enjoyment or rapture;
As time passes pay attention to the more refined pleasure that appears;
Experience or be sensitive to our tight thinking;
Relax the strained thinking that interrupts the meditation.

and Tetrad III

As your strained thinking starts subsiding, notice the quality of the mind.
Gladden the mind if the state of mind is down.
Steady the mind if it is too excited.
Release the deep preoccupations of the mind by looking at the drawbacks of the stress. Notice how small our problems are compared to the hugeness of the universe and time. Be creative and use what contemplation works with trial and error. Just like in the sutta, we must put aside greed and distress in reference to the world. The outside world that the preoccupations are aimed at.


What is the opinion of Buddhism on the caste system and untouchability of Hinduism? The Varnashrama dharma (caste system) is the backbone of Brahminism (Hinduism), untouchability is a part of that social order. We all know that Gautama Buddha was against Varnashrama dharma, and rejected the Vedic religion. But unfortunately, we see caste system and untouchability in many 'Buddhist' countries. For example, the Burakumin/Eta in Japan, Baekjeong in Korea, Ragyabpa in Tibet, etc. As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindu, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

Actually, Gautama Buddha was not against the caste system in mainstream non-Buddhist Indian society however he did emphasize social status ('caste'/'jati') was dependent upon here-&-now kamma rather than on physical & social birth (refer to MN 93, MN 98 and other suttas in the Brāhmaṇa Vagga). For example, he often emphasized a Brahman priest or caste member that does not adhere to the five moral precepts is not a Brahmana or Holy Man.

The Pali suttas have the following examples:

It was declared the Buddha "does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins" (MN 95).
The Buddha criticised Brahmans who marry & have sex with non-Brahmans. (AN 5.191)
The Buddha said wives who are immoral are expelled or caste out from families (MN 37.30).

The Pali suttas show no opposition to the non-Buddhist Indian caste distinctions however the Pali suttas do explicitly say when a person joined the Buddhist Community (Sangha) they automatically lost their former caste status or name (AN 8.19).

  (4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the
  great ocean, so too, when members of the four social
  classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas and suddas—go forth from the
  household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline
  proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans
  and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the
  fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this
  Dhamma and discipline….

As for contemporary Asian societies, many of these societies were previously or concurrently Hindu in relation to the arrival of Buddhism. Similar to when the Buddha was alive, Buddhist monks generally do not act to oppose & destroy other religions. Buddhism is not like Judaism or Christianity. Thailand is an excellent example, where most religious people still follow other religions, such as spirit, ancestor or Brahma worship (even though they consider themselves "Buddhist").

In your question, you have performed what is called the logical fallacy of 'False Equivalency'.

The caste system in Hinduism as practised in India and Nepal is a decree of the Hindu scriptures. It is mentioned in Hindoo scriptures like Gita and Manusmiriti. So the professions in India have originated from the Caste of a person. Moreover, the Hindoo caste system tells you that if you are a Dalit then you have to do good karma to first become a Brahmin and then you can attain the moksha (as per Manu Smriti).

In the examples you have given, it is more like a class system taken to an extream. That was originated as a discrimination in the society and not handed down by Buddhism. Buddhism as such has nothing to do with that inequality. All the people if Buddhist in these countries are on an equal footing of Dhamma and not discriminated by the Dhamma.

As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindoo, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

Again, if a hindoo follows their Dharma strictly then they have to adhere to the caste system.

And if a Buddhist will adhere to the Dhamma strictly then He/She will NOT adhere to any discrimination.

So, why is this still practised in some Buddhist countries?

Its because people are not well instructed in Dhamma. People there are Buddhist just for namesake because their parents are Buddhist or the society is Buddhist.
The Dhamma is not practised by them, that way.


Can bad kamma be overcome in one lifetime If there is a puthujjana who has led a life full of the major and minor defilements till about 40 years of age, suddenly turns around, starts leading a totally celibate life and also observes the rest of the major five precepts strictly, maintaining a strict meditation schedule even while still being a householder, does he stand a chance of getting nibbana in this very lifetime? Or, does he have to take rebirth/s and suffer the consequences of his bad kamma before he can aspire to Arahathood?

According to AN 6.87, there is actually a list of characteristics, and such a person will never be able to have the right mental state or moral capacity to learn the Dhamma:

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.
"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on
the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while
listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has
not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the
blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha;
and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted.

According to MN 86, Angulimala killed many human beings, but he could still change and become an arahant. So, probably, he did not commit the transgressions above (killing father, killing mother, killing arahant, injuring Buddha).
So in short, if one did not commit the acts mentioned above or have those characteristics, one could theoretically completely turn around and become an arahant in this very lifetime.
From Dhammapada:

Few among men are those who cross to the farther shore. The rest, the bulk of men, only run up and down the hither bank.

But those who act according to the perfectly taught Dhamma will cross the realm of Death, so difficult to cross.

87-88. Abandoning the dark way, let the wise man cultivate the bright
path. Having gone from home to homelessness, let him yearn for that
delight in detachment, so difficult to enjoy. Giving up sensual
pleasures, with no attachment, let the wise man cleanse himself of
defilements of the mind.

Those whose minds have reached full excellence in the factors of enlightenment, who, having renounced acquisitiveness, rejoice in not
clinging to things — rid of cankers, glowing with wisdom, they have
attained Nibbana in this very life.

It depends on if the puthujjana is brain damaged by their bad kamma. For example, on Buddhist internet forums, the puthujjana that appear brain damaged by porn &/or drugs appear to have the following characteristics:

obsessed with the avoidance of women as temptresses
obsessed with 'asuba' (watching images of corpses, etc)
obsessed with austerities, such as living off rubbish dumps
obsessed with texts that describe no feeling & no consciousness
obsessed with a nihilistic tendency
obsessively exhibit great impatience, intolerance & anger.
obsessively believe they have right view when they have wrong view
obsessively lack a sense of humour

The above is called the eightfold path of brain damaged puthujjana.
But for a puthujjana that is not brain damaged, their brain, body, nervous system & mind can regenerate & purify itself of the results of bad kamma.
In summary, it is not necessary to greatly suffer the results of bad kamma (refer to AN 3.99). This is why the Buddha called "old kamma" merely "something to be felt rather than identified with" (refer to SN 12.37). This said, there will always be some type of withdrawal symptom from bad kamma that requires a purification process (refer to MN 136); even if this withdrawal symptom is merely an unpleasant feeling or mood in the here-&-now. It follows 20 years of bad kamma may only result in only 20 weeks of withdrawal symptoms or negative feelings & moods. SN 13.1 says:

For a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an
individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering &
stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater; that
suffering which remains is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a
thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous
mass of suffering.


Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim? I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy.

The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again

That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth.

So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

We don't usually compare Buddhism with other non-Buddhist teachings here, both because few of our users seem to know other teachings deeply enough to give them justice, but also because we prefer to stay away from qualitative judgements and arguments, so you're unlikely to get many in-depth answers on this. I can make a few general comments though:

A.G. seems to be mostly in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This is not surprising, considering that Advaita Vedanta is thought (by Buddhists) to be a derivation and adaptation of Mahayana Buddhism for Brahmin audience.

Unlike A.G., in Buddhism we do not identify ourselves with the mind / the witness / pure consciousness etc. We say that the mind is just an emergent property of nature, whereas "I" is only a concept. Nor do we identify with the All. So the many statements in A.G. of the kind "I am pure consciousness; I am in everything and everything in me" etc. - would sound odd to a Buddhist who would find it misleading.

Then, A.G. seems to describe the target state in considerable detail, but hardly if at all explains the practical path from a typical Samsaric condition to the freedom of realization. In contrast to that, Buddhism declares, and spends a great deal of effort expounding the practical implementation of a gradual step-by-step method for reaching that state, which can be followed by someone starting from complete scratch, all the way to Liberation.

Finally, A.G. does not seem to concern itself with the social morals, while Buddhism defines a comprehensive set of guidelines for regular society which is in complete sync with the Buddhist path and vice versa.

Still, from a quick read of A.G. it seems like it comes from tradition that could be completely at home within the higher yanas of Tibetan Buddhism, especially what's known as Dzogchen. It almost reads like a Dzogchen Tantra and I suspect back when religious traditions were more pliable than they are today, there was likely some cross-pollination between the two.

This similarity is seen in many cases on the Dzogchen side as well, with texts talking about rigpa (ground awareness), making proclamations like "I am the eternal Buddha" and so on. And certainly the spirit of "nothing requires fixing" that A.G. is permeated with, plays the key role in Dzogchen as well.

Since you appreciate A.G. as the higher teaching, I suppose you may enjoy reading about Dzogchen, for example as presented by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu whom I found clear and to the point.

The heritage of the Buddha, and it's actually not so that the Buddha and his disciples do not compare, but very precisely, has a lot of comparison, and the most comprehensive collection is found as starter of the sutta collection: DN 1: Brahmajāla Sutta.

Would not make much sense to ask others then the Buddha or his Sangha of right following monks in regard of comparisons.

(Note that this has been not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to keep one entertained and bound, but as a tiny way out of the cyrcle)


How to deal with our aversions & judgements? There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations. And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety.
I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it. I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable. Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated. I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
I’m mostly sober now & plan to stay that way, but just because I’m on my own path, I feel that I shouldn’t judge others on theirs.

But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine.
I used to feel that way about alcohol. :-)
Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, ...
Yes unfortunately it can be massively insidious. IMO it's a bit like smoking cigarettes but more so -- addictive, people who try it like it, and IMO their liking its (transient) effect affects their judgement and will-power, self-control -- and physically people can do it a lot, repetitively, and for a very long time, without its killing them immediately.
... it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated.
I think I'd call that "a defence mechanism" according to pop psychology.
Buddhism might judge this kind of thing, according to whether it's "skilful", whether it's "beneficial".
There's plenty of advice in Buddhism for lay people, about not getting involved with bad friends and bad habits, wasting money and time and health, and everything -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), which I think of as the sutta about the "six directions".
Your friends' nonchalance might imply they're comfortable with their actions (and possibly that they're "in denial" about their own anxieties and/or the disadvantages of their own drug habits). Normally your innate human sympathy might suggest that therefore (because they are nonchalant) you ought to be happy/comfortable too, but in this case I reckon it's wise that you shouldn't, and wise not to agree with them, even if (or even, because) that anxiety you feel isn't pleasant ... and isn't neutral.
I mention "neutral" because there's Buddhist doctrine that feelings can be categorised as pleasant (and associated with craving), unpleasant (associated with aversion), and neutral (associated with ignorance). I think it warns that unenlightened people aren't good with neutral feelings, don't recognise them, don't know what to do with them -- and instead only crave what's pleasant and flee from what's unpleasant.
I feel very hypocritical
I'm not sure that's "hypocritical" -- I think that hypocritical would be blaming others while thinking that you can do no wrong -- for example, "It's fine for me to abuse the drug, but it's wrong of you" would be hypocritical IMO.
And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
I guess that being judgemental is a bit contrary to the ethos of the drug culture (which might also want you to share drugs)
Someone who's judgemental isn't popular (and in general doing and saying whatever makes you unpopular might arouse anxiety too).
And I suspect that people who are (still) into drugs suffer from a relatively poor sense of judgement. Conversely I think that Buddhism (especially as described in the early texts) is about not suffering, and as a result of making good judgements (e.g. having "right view" and so on).
I also suspect that taking drugs will impair judgement, in various ways and for several reasons. Some drug users see that as a reason for taking drugs -- to "escape reality" or to have "an altered view" of it.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
Yes, doctrine about the Brahmaviharas might be helpful:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I summarise them to myself as,

I hope you're alright, "may you be well"
I don't want to hurt you
I'm happy when you're doing well (or doing good)
and equanimity

IMO nothing there requires you to be happy about the fact that people are abusing drugs, but the attitudes might be a good alternative to enmity/hatred/aversion (the Dhammapada too, says, "hatred is never appeased by hatred, only by loving-kindness").
Another thing you should consider is whether these people are good friends. I think that Buddhism is keen to recommend that you spend time with, learn from, associate with good friends -- and avoid bad friends (see e.g. DN 31 again, Kalyāṇa-mittatā, the Rhinoceros sutta etc.).
I might say that in my own experience, if you're going to keep bad friends, then it's especially important (at least for your own well-being if not for theirs as well) for you to also find and get good advice from, counsel, from "good friends" -- people who are virtuous, sensible, self-controlled, knowledgeable, perhaps professional.
You might even (among other places) learn something from Nar-Anon -- learning from other people's experience -- or perhaps (from a more explicitly Buddhist context) https://5th-precept.org/ (though unlike -Anon I've haven't experienced that .org).
Another thing that Buddhism recommends is "seeing things as they truly are". I don't know a lot of doctrine about that. I guess that includes the doctrine of Dependent Origination, i.e. seeing how senses (sense-impressions, sense-contact, sense-consciousness) give rise to perceptions and feelings and cravings and so on and so on and so on. I guess it might also include accurately assess the advantages and disadvantages of, you know, different courses of action, different intentions, different reactions and decisions. And I think it means viewing things without craving and aversion, so it's a bit of a circular definition. :-) But I think it doesn't mean trying to see things with altered senses (acid and mushrooms) -- more to do with having a wise and non-grasping attitude towards reality (see also "suchness").
Finally (or firstly) I'd mention the four noble truths of Buddhism -- especially the second and third, i.e. that suffering is associated with craving, and, the cessation of suffering with the cessation of craving. My stereotype says that addicts get attached to drugs. That it was also because of the poisons that they turned to drugs in the first place (so now they have two problems, i.e. their original problem and now the drugs). That craving (for the drug) and therefore suffering ceases when they take the drug (which is why they take it) -- but only temporarily (that effect of taking-a-drug is impermanent, as well as being long-lasting in other ways, hence the temptation to take it again). So I'd recommend (and you probably agree) that what's better (than taking drugs to stop the craving) is to avoid the condition in which that craving arises, i.e. by not taking/becoming/remaining addicted in the first place.
One more thing, which might be a bit subtle but I think ties into to the doctrine of the Brahmaviharas. This answer associates "conceit" with "comparisons". And I think this is an opportunity for making comparisons (e.g. "being addicted is inferior to not being an addict" and "I am not an addict and they are"). Still, that answer says, a characteristic of semi- or relatively-enlightened people is that they make "true" (accurate) comparisons. However see also what Wikipedia says about conceit (Māna):

It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Perhaps that's part of what you mean by not wanting to be "hypocritical" -- i.e. it's not wanting to be "disrespecting others" and so on. Conceit is also said to be a basis for (counter-productive and hurtful) sectarian arguments.
There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations.
Perhaps it's normal to have preferences.
I'd personally prefer not to hear stories about people getting injured, or being cruel to each other, or horror movies, though I couldn't honestly say that it never happens. And in theory there are more or less tactful (adult, graceful) ways to listen -- ask if you can help -- or say you'd prefer not to, change the subject...
There's a whole bit of the Buddhist "noble eightfold path" -- i.e. Right Speech.

You have to know why you're averse. If we can meet and talk, I'll explore with you. But since this is mostly one-way, let me make a guess: You are concern about them.
Why is it you react this way only when it's about cocaine, and not acid and mushrooms? For that, perhaps you can see for yourself that you were not involved with these in the same way as you did with coke. I can only guess that your had a harder time when you were doing coke.
As for being judgemental, you said, "I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed." It seems to be you're just guessing that you're being judgemental. In this case, you're judging yourself.


Can Buddhism help me escape the difficulties in my life? I am tired of the rat race, working a job I hate to buy things that I don't need.

I am tired of technology and the grasp it has on everybody in the western world.

Is there a feasible way, within Buddhist practice, for the average westerner to escape it all in exchange for a simple and pure life?

Of course. Realizing that you don't need things or that those things aren't going to make you happy is the beginning of awareness that the worldly world is not as great as you thought it was!

Fortunately, the Buddha laid the grounds for understanding exactly this sort of suffering and how to remedy it with the Four Noble Truths.

No need to be like everyone else in your society/community. Change your lifestyle in any way you see fit to give you time to study, practice, and explore that which leads to true happiness. No need to live in a cave to do this either; unless you want to. But people can live incredibly simple lifestyles anywhere as long as they aren't trying to fit in with those around them. Best wishes in your journey to true happiness. :)

You see dukkha quite clearly and do not want to continue to dwell in Samsara. I would suggest considering ordaining. It seems in line with your insights.


In need of help in meditation I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE.

I'm not sure what the current policy is on these sorts of questions, but considering how powerful the mind is, seeking help in a forum like this might be problematic.

  while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?

I'm guessing the question mark is a way of saying something like "I don't even know if I'm describing it correctly". The Buddha used teachings like the five aggregates to help students understand that feelings are just feelings, shivering is just shivering, heaviness is just heaviness, etc. You finding it weird is just a mental phenomenon and has nothing to do with the nature of the experience itself - i.e. it's not weird, that's your judgement of it.

  Is it normal?

Meditation can trigger all sorts of responses as it affects mental and physical formations that exist prior to meditaiton practice. There is no "normal", as your physical and mental condition are unique. Also, different meditation practices will affect the body and mind differently, so there's really a very wide range of potential feelings, etc. that you might experience.

  how can we control this?

Control has the danger of increasing attachment of self. Regarding your experience specifically, there is no real Buddhist imperative to control feelings; what we are interested in changing is our reactions to experiences, not the experiences themselves.

The Buddha did not teach any breathing techniques or concentration techniques. The Buddha simply taught to keep the mind free from craving & therefore to simply sit still & quiet. When a practitioner sits still & quiet, without any desires or thinking, the mind will automatically become aware of the breathing. As for "concentration" ("samadhi"), this is simply the increase or convergence of this "quiet mind".

As for shiver in eyelids & whole skull area and a weird heaviness in the body, these are probably effects of your wrong meditation technique and possibly combined with your past kamma. If we want to meditate, our life needs to be relatively pure. We must follow the five precepts and not take drugs, alcohol, watch pornography or have casual sex.

The Buddha taught mindfulness & concentration as follows:

  A monk develops mindfulness & concentration as factors for awakening relying on seclusion [from sensual pleasures], relying on dispassion, relying on cessation, maturing
  as letting go.

  MN 118

The word "mindfulness" means "to remember to keep the mind" free from craving.


If we tell lies to save lives, will that be a sin? This page, Lay Buddhist Vows, says,

  Do not distort fact

  This one is usually translated as: don't lie. Again: it wider than that. Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

As per above phrase about 3rd precept of Pancha Sila, as a Buddhist if we tell lies it's definitely a sin. But in this modern world sometimes we have to lie: we will lie to our wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father; in this world you cannot find a person who has not lied.

So my question is, if tell so many lies to save lives, will it be a sin?

I think this question is a duplicate of:

Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?
Should a person never lie?

"Duplicate" means that the answers to those questions should answer your question.

You wrote,

  we have to lie, we will lie to wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father

... but I'm not sure that's true. If you read the definitions of Right Speech on Access to Insight, it includes,

  He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal ...

If you feel the need to lie about something (e.g. your behaviour) then perhaps you should change your behaviour instead of lying about it. Therefore "not lying" becomes a "training rule".

The subject is difficult to talk about, though, because you didn't describe examples of the various lies, which you say we have to lie about to almost everyone.

Lastly, about the phrase you quoted.

The first bit of it, i.e...

  don't lie

... is presumably clear enough.

So if you have a question about the quoted phrase, then maybe the question is about the next bit:

  Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable.
  This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

The second sentence isn't clear to me: it seems to me that a "distortion of fact" maybe is a lie by definition. See also e.g. Sankha's answer here for a more precise Theravada definition of lying.

Because I clearly don't understand the second sentence, I also don't understand the first:

The first might be talking about telling the truth in an acceptable way, e.g. about whether the truth is spoken gently and at the right time (which is acceptable) or harshly and at the wrong time (which is less easily accepted)
But it might also be talking about the opposite situations, "sugar-coating" a lie to make it seem acceptable, e.g. "I'll just tell my boss this little white lie: everyone else lies like this and I have to lie too."

JK_431_HARITA-JATAKA Which precept is the most important? How to avoid Sexual Misconduct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y-rLyzavgw

"...In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given him, commit adultery, drink strong drink, but he may not tell a lie, attended by deception that violates the reality of things. ..."

[If you find out one small / white lie in Buddha teaching, then all Buddha teachings are worthless... become entertainment..... even a small lie to save million lives....  Buddha talked, spoken from what he saw and know .. not from brainstorm thinking, logic for argument like mind driven people such as socialists, globalists, communists, idealist, philosopher, dogmatic professors ….  which look like very reasonable (because of words / senses limitation by the speaker & listeners)  but may not true .....They said what they guess not what they see .... they said by mind driven for the "End justify the mean"...]


I've always had a feeling that there is more to life and death. Is this normal? Good morning,  to everyone,  I'm new to this site and only recently been very interested in Buddhism,  mainly because I have always believed in reincarnation,  but to be honest I didn't know other people had the same views.
So deep inside I have had this feeling but could not express how I feel to anyone as most people think I'm crazy.

But I am very interested in the life of how Buddhist lives and want to learn as much as I can regarding this religion.
Any help would be very much appreciated.  Thankyou

first of all let me congratulate you for having this feeling bcs many are in the drunken state of life issues. the very existing you now is the greatest proof that you existed previously and have gathered causes to enable you in rebirth. learning truth of rebirth is rejoicing bcs we aasure ourselves that i am going to be there in next birth after i will be dead in this birth. The deathfear is slightly smoothened . But according to buddha ,  there is rebirth or it is not there also. whole thing depend on you. if you are content in this life and also hope the same shall be in next life also then go on happily. But a little fraction of the futility of life comes to know you though temporarily through any means for e.g love break,cheating partner,loss in career ,deceived by friend or may be due to unknown reasons then the search begins to get rid of causes causing this. then the knowledge begins , what are the causes for getting this life . when learnt ,one strives to avoid them to avoid next birth. buddha's teachings are for this only. i suggest to read "art of living by william harts ,a very convincing analysis of buddha's teachings as taught by goenka guruji who is in lineage of lady sayadaw,sayagyi u ba khin . as per my personal experience i immediately grasped the analysis and feel blessed for  developing faith in the teachings of buddha. hoping and heartily wishing to develop the same in you also.bcs we are all diseased and once the diagnosis is done treatment can be done by a neighbourhood chemist also.

A quest for a spiritual side to life is normal for human beings, as contrary to animals we have not only a body but also a soul. So, if as you are saying you always have had a feeling that there is more to life and death - this is normal.


SN 35.116 - Is "the world" ("loka") an objective reality perceived via the senses? I read the following on the internet:

One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses
themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world
is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

Also:

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and
conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble
one. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and
conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the
world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body …
mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN
35.116

Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

It depends on the context.
This sutta has a play on both meanings of loka - the objectively real world and the inner world of mental formations in this statement:

Mendicants, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of
the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of
suffering without reaching the end of the world.

This second meaning is explained in this statement (which also has both meanings of the word):

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and
conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble
one.

The "world" in the training of the Noble Ones, refers to the world of mental formations through which we perceive (based on what is sensed of) the objectively real world and conceive the mental model of the world, which is the result of concept proliferation/ reification/ objectification-classification or papanca.
This is also found in the Rohitassa Sutta:

The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.
So a clever person, understanding the world,
has completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world.
A peaceful one, knowing the end of the world,
does not hope for this world or the next.”

So, the end of the world is the end of papanca (reification, objectification-classification, concept proliferation).
Piya Tan's commentary on the Lokantagamana Sutta:

2.1 In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta,the Buddha, in simple words with profound senses, explains what it really means to “save the world.” We
need to first understand what “world” really means. In the Sabba Sutta
(S 35.23), the Buddha declares that all that there is are our 6
sense-faculties and their 6 respective sense-objects: these are the
“all” (sabba). This is the world, the universe, we have created for
ourselves. Nothing is meaningful for us beyond this.
2.2  The Buddha has never exhorted us to “save the world,” as this ultimately refers to all our senses, from which we liberate ourself.
Even when taunted by the wanderer Uttiya, who asks, with all the
Buddha’s attainments and teachings, “Is the whole world liberated by
this, or only half of it, or a third of it?” The Buddha remains
silent, because the question is wrongly put.
2.3 In an important sense, we can say that the Buddha’s teaching is about
“saving ourself” from the world. The world is what we make of
it: we create our own world. Hence, it is within our power to change
our “world,” that is our own self. This is the spirit of “renouncing
the world,” of letting go of the world so that we are free of the
falseness and unwholesomeness we have created for ourself. The save
the world, then, we need to renounce it.
2.4  In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta 1 (S 35.116), the Buddha
declares what kind of “world” that we can really save or liberate. First, the
Buddha shows us what kind of world needs“saving”: Bhikshus, the end of
the world cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say. Yet,
bhikshus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there
is no making an end to suffering.8(S 35.116,2), SD 7.4 The first
mention of “the world” refers to the physical universe, which is with
neither beginning nor ending in terms of time and space
(okāsa,loka). It also refers to the world of beings (satta,loka),
simply put, the cycle of births and deaths (saṁsāra) itself, which
is external to us, so to speak. However, within us are the world of
formations (saṅkhārā,loka), the self-created and self-centred
“world”—this is our real prison of craving and ignorance, what we need
to awaken from and so be liberated.
2.5 The Lok’anta Gamana Sutta further records the Buddha as declaring,
“That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a
conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the noble one’s
discipline.”11(S 35.116,22). This refers to the workings of the 6
sense-bases. Then, the Buddha famously declares in the Rohitassa Sutta
(S 2.26):

In this very fathom-long body, endowed with perception and mind, I
declare the world, the arising of the world, the ending of the world,
and the way leading to the ending of the world.”12(S 2.26,9), SD 7.1

Perception and conception are conjoined, not disjoined, it is not possible having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them because what one conceives that one perceives and vice versa.
In terms of DO the word for conception is sankhara because what one conceives that one fabricates and sankhara refers to the six classes of intention.

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.

As to;

That does not imply the world is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

It's not a state of mind and yes mind is in the world. In the sutta mind is spoken of as a world in a definitive sense. It can be called 'a door to the world in the world'.
Namarupa depends on consciousness and consciousness depends on namarupa, a world depends on it's conception & perception and it's conception & perception depends on a world where it's conception & perception is thought to occur.
Mind is also called intellect or consciousness and is implicated in all contact which is thought of as a requisite of that which is spoken of as six classes of perception.
As contact is delineated at any of the five sense bases it is to be thought of as associated with contact at mind base exactly because that which is called manocittavinnanna is implicated in all contact.
Ie a meeting of the three;
Cakkuvinnanadhatu + Cakkurupadhatu + Cakkudhatu; constitute an instance of cakkupassam

Element of eye-consciousness
Element which is the form visible by the eye
Element which is the Eye

Meeting of the three is thought of as an instance of eye-contact and a requisite condition for 'seeing' which refers to classes of perception conceived based on the eye element.

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." -mn43

The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. [...] Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by consciousness. https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila


Deep emptiness (nothingness) while meditating When meditating mom claims that she enters in to deep emptiness and she would reside in that emptiness for the whole period. She also says she can’t even feel her breath or her self. She’s bit lost ATM. Any suggestions on this? Any reference preferably in Sinhalese if possible?

Provided that your mom is well and healthy, your description fits with the buddhist perception of emptiness (sunyata). It's not dangerous, and the experiences could be the result of a progressed concentration thanks to meditation.

In short, sunyata can be described as a state during meditation - just like you described it - but it also has connections to a way of perceiving the world, in a general sense.

Below is a link that discusses the phenomenon, as well as referring to relevant suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

(Perhaps an online translation service can help to display this content in sinhala)

Lastly, an unsolicited advice would be to consult a buddhist monastery, where you might be able to recieve some more substantial guidance from experienced practicioners.

Sounds like mom is falling asleep & taking a break from family duties & burdens.


Buddha's knowledge of prior births Did Budhdha really got to know his previous births
....or was it just mind hallucinating because of hunger, thirst?

I don't mean any disrespect

If ever you get a chance, @I don’t know,  please try to read the following sutta. It is rather lengthy, so let me give you the bit that is relevant to your question.
DN 2 - Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The three knowledges, as described in DN 2, are:

Recollection of past lives (pubbenivāsānusati-ñāṇa): "He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, (recollecting,) 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details."

Knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings (cutūpapāta-ñāṇa): "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

Knowledge of the ending of mental effluents (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa): "He discerns, as it has actually come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are (mental) effluents... This is the origination of effluents... This is the cessation of effluents... This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. …”

The first two of these knowledges, even though they comprised part of the Buddha's Awakening, are mundane, in that people may develop them without necessarily attaining any of the transcendent paths and fruitions. Thus they belong under the category of mahaggata dhamma, as they are based on the attainment of jhāna either in this or in a previous life. The third knowledge, however — because it describes the arising of the transcendent paths and fruitions — comes under the category of lokuttara dhamma, and is the only one of the eight knowledges to do so.

DN 2 describes the remaining five knowledges as:

Insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa): "He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.'"

Mind-made body (manomayiddhi): "From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties, just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath."

Supranormal powers (iddhividhī): "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahmā worlds."

Clairaudience (dibba-sota): "He hears — by means of the divine ear-property, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far."

Mind-reading (cetopariya-ñāṇa): "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion (etc.)."

The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth'.

Therefore, when the Buddha recollected his previous 'births', this could have been the recollection of each time in his life when he truly believed something to be 'him' or 'belonging to him' (such as when he was 4 years old & had a fight with another child over a toy, which he believes was his toy).

If the word 'birth' is taken to mean 'ego birth' then it is easy to understand how the Buddha, on the night of his enlightenment, recollected the millions of times the mind in the 35 years prior to the Enlightenement believed it was a 'self'.


Does Buddhist's Time Dilation have something to do with Physics's Time Dilation? I've just seen Interstellar. And they say 1 year on the planet is equal to 7 years on earth. because it sounds familiar to the Buddhist text I used to read ,if they both refer to the same thing, how did the ancient people know it?

Time dilation due to special relativity happens because the speed of light is constant and is expressed using equations which include the Lorentz factor.

Time dilation due to gravitation is a related concept.

Assuming that "time dilation" is a concept in Buddhism, have you evidence that the theoretical/conceptual cause of that dilation is the speed of light being constant being all frames of reference, or, the acceleration of frames of reference e.g. due to gravity? Do Buddhist scriptures (mathematical equations) mention the Lorentz factor, somewhere? If the answer is "no" then I suggest that "they both refer to the same thing" is false, i.e. that Buddhism's "time dilation" and Physics' "time dilation" actually refer to different concepts.

I don't want to say that Buddhism in't helpful towards understanding Physics; but it was my experience that my learning Physics wasn't much help towards understanding Buddhism.

Working with, studying or applying Physics might count as a form of "right livelihood" in Buddhism.

I think it would be missing the point of Buddhism to see it as a way to get miraculous leaning/knowledge/insight/invention of the detailed models of (i.e. the hypotheses or theorems about) the universe which are used by physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

If you read from the Pali canon for example then the Buddha is talking about something else entirely.

To be straight, both things are the same. Lord Buddha chanted all the things that are discovered by Science today & things that are even discovered upto now. In Buddhism we are taught about the nature of the world, universe, matter & energy. As well as the time durations taken by faraway palnets for their revolution, Lord Buddha has also chanted about the distances for those planets from the Earth. Search the web on "Buddhism & Time travel" for more details.


What is gained by learning Vipassana meditation in long retreats? My understanding of S.N. Goenka's method for learning Vipassana meditation is that the student is introduced to meditation in a 10 day retreat in which he or she sits in silent meditation for almost all his or her waking hours. This seems  a daunting way to introduce meditation to a newcomer. Also, for many people, it could be difficult to arrange for 10 days without family or work obligations. Thus, I ask: What does the student gain by through an introduction to meditation via a "marathon" retreat?

To put it succinctly you need to rub two pieces of wood long enough to get fire.

Likewise you need to meditate continuously for some stretch of time to see results.

As Goenka says "Continuity of practice is the secret of success".

I was listening to a discussion just two nights ago on this subject and the comment , from a very experienced meditator was that Goenka's medutation does not have samadhi


Personal relationships and properly ending them Upasaka Karl mentioned in an answer:

Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.

Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship...

What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship?

How to end a relationship properly?

Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into?

What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"?

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]

Personal ("sexual") relationship is a fiction, a hallucination. To paraphrase my Zen master, what worldly people call "love" is an obsession, a disease of the mind. Ownership of people is slavery and so is the owning relationships between people.
As said in the prophecy of Maitreya in the Maitreyavyākaraṇa:

[Gods, people, and other sentient beings] will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance.

check out this doctor on relationship handling, your answer is there as i watched before. Check out few of his videos. His hand has a Buddha tattoo so very obvious is a Buddhist. His face looks a bit scary with body tattoo due to his career as this folk handling those psychopathic patient in jail. It's not an easy job and kudoo to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duh5rOGyEnk
May peace be with you.


States of mind or extraterrestrial life As per Buddhist teaching there are six realms in universe. Buddha,gods,demi gods,humans,animals,hell beings.Did Buddha explains extraterrestrial life or these are states of mind? Why did Buddha kept humans and animals separate?

The body we get as we leave one I based on the good deeds we have done & our state of mind. The gods etc. are other (extra terrestrial) life forms with a more developed mind than ours. The animals are considered seperate from humans because of the higher state of mind the humans posses in compared to animals.

They are states of mind.

The word 'human' ('manussa') means 'high minded' & refers to moral
reflective people.
A 'god' is an extraordinary state of love or power (both spiritual & worldly).
A 'demi-god' is one that wants to rule the world with fear (e.g.
Stalin; refer to SN
11.5)
'Animal' is living without morals; based on instinctual desires &
reactions
'Hungry ghost' is a state of addiction to craving.
'Hell' is a state of suffering.

As SN 56.47 states, the 'animal realm' is where: "there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity; there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak".

  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. AN
  6.39

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable.

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never
  undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
  Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with
  the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever
  tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon
  one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely,
  never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.135

  Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu devappatto hoti?

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a god?... A monk enters & dwells is the first...second...third...fourth jhana...

  Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu brahmappatto hoti

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a brahma?... A monk pervades the entire world with loving-kindness... compassion...
  appreciative joy... equinimity...

  AN 4.190

  Living with Brahma are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children. Living with the early
  devas (gods) are those families where, within the home, mother and
  father are respected by their children. For what reason? Because
  mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care
  of them and bring them up and teach them about the world. Mother and
  father are called "Brahma," "early teachers" And "worthy of
  veneration," Being compassionate towards Their family of children. Iti
  109

  Bhikkhus, suppose a man would throw a yoke with a single hole into the great ocean, and there was a blind turtle which would come to the
  surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would
  that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years,
  insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole? If it would ever do
  so, venerable sir, it would be only after a very long time. Sooner, I
  say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred
  years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool
  who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state.
  For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by
  the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no
  meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the
  devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have
  not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of
  suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
  SN 56.47

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

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs & jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… & the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

  Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) appear (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous that reappear in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

  Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four?  A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together
  with a female deva (god); a deva (god) lives together with a wretch; a
  deva (god) lives together with a female deva (god). When both are
  immoral, miserly and abusive, husband and wife live together as
  wretches. The husband is immoral, miserly and abusive, but his wife is
  virtuous, charitable, generous. She is a female deva living with a
  wretched husband. The husband is virtuous, charitable, generous, but
  his wife is immoral, miserly and abusive. She is a wretch living with
  a deva husband. Both husband and wife are endowed with faith,
  charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words. Then many benefits accrue
  to them and they dwell at ease. Their enemies are saddened when both
  are the same in virtue. Having practiced the Dhamma here, the same in
  virtuous behavior and observances, delighting in a deva world, they
  rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures. AN 4.53


measuring spiritual growth We are living in a world where everything and anything is/can be measured. My daily grind goes like this -
have a goal
take action
measure the result
fine tune / control the deviation.
and Do it every day. This got me thinking , how do i measure my spiritual growth?
What do i measure ? How do i know i have reached my goal or deviated from the Path? What are the units of measurement? Can spirituality be measured?

I think the word measurement really is the wrong term, because the spiritual path lies beyond the world and gain is literally a worldly concern.

There are 8 wordly dhammas

gain and loss
acclaim and slander
status and loss of status
happiness and suffering

The Buddha gave this simile about progress in the practice:

  Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through. - SN 22.101

Also keep in mind that it's not important how "much growth" you have in the practice, because you cannot change your past which conditions this. Your only concern should be to practice now and keep your practice on the path. There is a good explanation by Ajahn Brahmali about how you know that your practice is going in the right direction: in summary, it's going in the right direction if good states (peacefulness, mindfulness, gentleness inside, virtue, morality, kindness, understanding of the dhamma, all these things come together) are increasing and bad qualities (restlessness and desires) are declining, within the span of one meditation session or more powerfully over months and years.

You spiritual growth can be measure by the power you have acquired in your life as your cycles of past and future lives come to bear on yourself and those around you. You will find that when you do as you should you will find wealth and position as befits your new understandings. This is the meaning of the parable of the treasure tower, which is one of the teachings of the Buddha.


Scriptural source for the lost son story I vaguely recall reading this story before, possible from the Suttas. Can anyone tell me the scriptural source? (Not looking for modern re-telling such as those by Ven Thich Nhat Hanh.)

THE LOST SON
"A young widower, who loved his five year old son very much, was away
on business when bandits came who burned down the whole village and
took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and
panicked. The took the burnt corpse of an infant to be his son and
cried uncontrollably. He organised a cremation ceremony, collected the
ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag which he always kept with
him. Soon afterwards, his real son escaped from the bandits and found
his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and
knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked: "Who is it?"
The child answered, it is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated
state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that
some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted: "Go away" and
continued to cry. After some time, the child left. Father and son
never saw each other again."  After this story, the Buddha said:
"Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling
to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your
door, you will not open it."
(http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/buddhist_stories.html)

As mentioned in another answer the story as written is published in at least one book by Thich Nhat Hanh. The following is copied from Being Peace, it's slightly more elaborate than the version you posted (e.g. "velvet bag" instead of "little bag") but with many of the same phrases:

Thay doesn't attribute a source for this story.
The next story on the page of stories which you linked to, i.e. Angry Buddha, is attributed to Being Peace -- so I suppose that probably is where they found the Lost Son story too.
I gather that the Vietnamese tradition is eclectic so in theory Thay might have gathered that story from anywhere, but I think the content or 'moral' of the story suggests it probably is from the Mahayana or Zen tradition.

The way it is told seems like a jakata tale, ie a little story about lay people being morons, then some sentence from the buddha, so probably a story from the jakata (in pali or some equivalent version in other collection) and mixed with the twisted version by the mahayanists of the Discourse to Dīghanakha
https://suttacentral.net/mn74/en/sujato
to feed their infatuation with ''enlightenment as having no views'', the ''two truth'' doctrine, the ''four noble truth and 8 fold path  of the suttas is just a skillful mean given by the buddha to non-mahayanists  and not the real teaching" and so on.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kl8QBwAAQBAJ chapter 32


Is realizing anatta, will it help meditation? If i realise anatta will it help me calm and focus my mind in meditation? If so how?

Eliminating self-view (first realisation of Anatta) is the pre-requisite becoming a Sotapanna.
There is two type of meditation. (Samatha and Vipassana)
Realisation of Anatta is not required for Samatha meditation.
However, in Vipassana we contemplate on the Anatta.

My personal opinion is that realisation of Anatta will help both meditations.

“Anatta” can be interpreted in a different way, that is different to the long-held meaning of ‘No-self’.  Here I will give my take on it. Many will not agree with it, but what matters is that this view will greatly help you calm and focus your mind in meditation. Is it not what you want here? Or do you want to get hooked up in the ‘Anatta’ that almost every book refers to? Let me give you some food for thought. If what you realize is “no-self”, then tell me, who attains Nibbana?, if you are “no-self”, then who does moral or immoral acts?

So instead take this to mean ‘Anatta’, and if you do, it will make an immediate transformation in the way you see things. Take “Anatta” to mean “one is really helpless in this rebirth process” or “one is not in control over the long run”. What got translated to Sanskrit as “anathma” is the Pali word “Anatta”.  For the Sanskrit word “anathma” the English gave the meaning “no-self”. Another question for you – what did the Buddha say about the two words “aathma” and “anaathma” in the Brahmajala sutta?

Whatever you say and do, unless you are an Arahant, you will always have the inner perception (sanna) of a “me”. There is no way that you can force yourself to believe in a no ‘me’.

So, when meditating, try contemplating that “there is nothing fruitful to be had in this world in the long run”, or “one is really helpless in this rebirth process”. In our native language, we say “anaatha” to mean that one is “utterly helpless”. When meditating, take real examples from your life. If you do this for some time, in time your cravings for things in this world will gradually wane.


Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana? Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana?

It appears you still have the sadness in first Jhana.
What sort of sadness it is?
The Vitakka and Vicara in First Jhana are wholesome. That is loving kindness thoughts and renunciation thoughts which cannot be leading to sadness.

======

While a mendicant is meditating—diligent, keen, and resolute—the faculty of sadness arises. They understand: ‘The faculty of sadness has arisen in me. And that has a foundation, a source, a condition, and a reason. It’s not possible for the faculty of sadness to arise without a foundation, a source, a condition, or a reason.’ They understand the faculty of sadness, its origin, its cessation, and where that faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. And where does that faculty of sadness that’s arisen cease without anything left over? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s where the faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of sadness, and who applies their mind to that end.

https://suttacentral.net/sn48.40/en/sujato

This is an interesting question, because the first jhana explicitly involves seclusion from the five hindrances, one of which relates to domanassa (translated in your quotation as "sadness"). According to the abhidhamma, domanassa can only arise in anger-based minds, which one might think would be totally absent in the first jhana. The commentary to SN 48.40 blames vitakka and vicaara explicitly for the potential arising of domanassa:

  nānāvajjaneyeva ca dutiyajjhānupacāre pahīnassa domanassindriyassa yasmā etaṃ vitakkavicārapaccayepi kāyakilamathe cittupaghāte ca sati uppajjati, vitakkavicārābhāve neva uppajjati.

My Pali is rusty, but this passage basically means that the bodily distress and mental harm which would arise based on vitakka and vicaara do not arise with the non-existence of vitakka and vicaara.

This gives some insight into the nature of vitakka and vicaara as per the texts; they allow for some instability by which the mind still engages in perceptions leading to domanassa, even though the mind is otherwise fixed and focused on a single object (ekaggata).

It's not clear why asking, since the answer is contained in the question already. There are two kinds of sadness, of one is that of a housholder and the other of one having gone forth.

There is a "cutting off" which is compiled with wisdom and leads as already stated to path elements.

But since you see no reason to leave home and keep on holding a stand, how could you ever experience the meaning of giving and let go? Only one how let go knows what let go means. There is no possibility to explain. Never turn around to manage it.

(note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchanges and entertainments which will naturally cause you unskilfull sadness but as a tiny door out of this wheel)


Seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka Course but no "good results" I have attended seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka course, but never experienced either the "subtle sensations" or the "free flow."  I have stopped going to Goenka retreats because I get frustrated hearing about how after the first day I should be experiencing such and such, etc.  I still practice anapana for a couple of hours a day and study the Dhamma, and am resigned to being apparently incapable of having these experiences, which they also say are not important, lol. However, Goenka talks about them over and over in the courses and about how various people get "good results." I wonder if others have this experience also, and how they have dealt with it.

I would suggest you try another vipassana lineage. Goenka goes for body sensations only (AFAIK, later they add mind objects, but I only have 2nd-hand knowledge about it). Use a technique where all 4 foundations (body, feelings, mind, mind objects) are used from the very start could be useful; I am personally doing Chomtong-style practice (Ajahn Tong, a variant of Mahasi, dry-vipassana with lower concentration) and being exposed to e.g. difficult feelings and learn to acknowledge them and let go is extremely valuable for me. What I also find very useful is to have regular interviews with teacher on the retreat.

Meditation has good results if you have more clarity, understanding or yourself and others etc; in short, if your life is better. Experiences come and go and have little long-term relevance (despite the mind trying to persuade us this is it in that moment).

Meditation techniques being sold in marketplace are one size fit all which rarely work. It is the right living and right technique which gives the results. In the spiritual marketplace goods are sold without any guarantees !!!. Low stress, boost in self confidence, happy feelings etc etc is not the goal. The goal (I take the liberty to be precise ) is to experience metaphysical and then go beyond.

If you do not find a particular technique or teaching worthwhile there are many techniques or teachers which can give you the results much faster. Do not get stuck with one technique or guru or teaching/teacher. Become a seeker who will not stop till he or she has the taste of the beyond.

What Goenka talks about is the free flow of Prana which makes possible for higher bodies to manifest and therefore generate experiences. But the ultimate goal is to go beyond.

Do not practise hard as it is counter productive.


Is there a real difference between "not-self" and "no self", and if so, which one is correct? Just in case someone is interested, this is a question based on this thread, but it's not necessary to read such discussion to understand and answer this question.
I'd like to know about the differences (if there is any) between the next statements, and to know which one is correct from the perspective of Early Buddhism:

"There is no self to be found"
"All phenomena are not-self"

So, basically, is there any difference between "no self" and "not-self"? And which one corresponds to "anattā"?
I'd appreciate any help.
Kind regards!

I can't easily tell a difference between "no self" and "not self" in English -- and if there is a difference (if you can construct a distinction in meaning) I think it's too fine a difference to be significant -- like if someone tells you something is "a mile away" and you get out your micrometer.
I mean, the "a" prefix in Pali is a negator, which appears on all sorts of words:

kalika ("time"), akalika ... how do you translate akalika? I say "timeless" because I think that happens to be a felicitous word in English, but equally be "without time, "outside time", "not subject to time" or "not controlled by time" or "nothing to do with time"
verena ("hatred"), averena ... how do you translate averena? I say ""non-hatred" (because I hope that's the most literal translation even if it isn't idiomatic English) but some translations say "loving-kindness" -- i.e. not just an absence of hatred, they substitute one of its "polar opposites"

Maybe "selfless" could be a translation, however in English that's an adjective used to describe "altruistic" behaviour (so that's not an appropriate translation).
anatta is grammatically a noun. I don't, I wouldn't, normally equate two nouns -- "a dog is a cat" for example doesn't make sense. So I usually read anatta as if it were an adjective ("a dog is hairy"), i.e. as if "form is anatta" is describing a property or characteristic of form. And lakkhaṇa
 (translated "characteristic") in Anattalakkhaṇasutta suggests that seeing anatta as a characteristic -- an adjective not a noun -- isn't bad.
One time is it appropriate to equate two nouns is when you're talking about categories -- "a dog is an animal". Perhaps anatta can be seen as a category of things, especially in phrases like Sabbe sankhara anatta.
I think of "self" as a verb in that kind of context ...

Calvin and Hobbes - Verbing Weirds Language - by Bill Watterson for January 25, 1993

... i.e. "selfing" is an action, it's something you do to things -- you "take as 'self'" or "perceive as self" or "attach to as if it were self" -- and an anatta thing is something which you shouldn't "self" in that way, something which isn't fit to be selved.
Perhaps you can see that the Anattalakkhaṇasutta is about the five aggregates. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta mentions aggregates too:

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

So I think of "selfing" as "grasping" or "attaching" (especially to aggregates).
I think that colloquially the word atta had two meanings:

atta -- me, myself
Atta -- my Soul, the Soul -- see Ātman (Hinduism)

I think that informs the meaning too -- to say that the aggregates are anatta is to say that they shouldn't be regarded as "soul" or "permanent self", which fits in with such things being anicca (impermanent).
Since you're asking I don't think it goes so far as to say "there is no soul" or "there is no self" -- instead see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- that would belong to the "thicket of wrong views" cited here.

Whichever way you say it 'no-self' or 'non-self' the wisdom from the epoch of Greek philosophy will ask you what is that self you predicate while claiming its non-existance?
Parmenides will rear out his head saying:

  The only roads of inquiry there are to think of: one, that it is and
  that it is not possible for it not to be, this is the path of
  persuasion (for truth is its companion); the other, that it is not and
  that it must not be — this I say to you is a path wholly unknowable.

Me think only those who know the end which "is" can know the meaning of anattā


Lies as self defence vs. Physical self defence Why is a lie for the purposes of self defence necessarily unwholesome? Why is using a lie as defence for another from attack considered  parajeeka for a monk when a monk can use physical self defence and it's not parajeeka? Why can't a monk misrepresent reality(lie) for self defense instead of resorting to physical violence?

As long as you know what the truth is why give it to someone who would exploit it?

I was thinking that our intentions aren't unwholesome because we lie but a lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions. -Metta

The key is intent to deceive and the person understanding the deceptive communication. If the intention to deceive is not there then there is no unwholesome. If you mistakenly believe something and say this it is not breaking the precept of lying because there is no intention to deceive.

Generally, people do not like being deceived, even for their own good. So if you are motivated to deceive for their own good, then this is still lying.

If you make a promise you do not intent to keep this also is lying. If you make a promise which you know will never happen then this is not lying (e.g. I will give you an angle to marry if the sun rises in the North.) The latter type of tact was used on Nanda, in which case the promise was if you meditate.

Also I do not think a monk can resort to violence.

Also need not always tell what you know. You can simply refuse to answer, but if you answer it should be the truth.

Why is a lie for the purposes of self defence necessarily unwholesome?

It is not unwholesome. Kamma is intention.

  'There is the case where a certain person engages in false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a
  gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty [i.e., a
  royal court proceeding], if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell,
  good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he
  does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I
  have seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he
  consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another or
  for the sake of a certain reward. AN 10.176

  Why is using a lie as defence for another from attack considered parajeeka for a monk

It is not a parajika:

  The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of automatic disrobal, are as follows:

  1. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.

  2. Stealing something of value (which includes smuggling, cheating or deliberately avoiding payment of a tax).

  3. Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also
  includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.

  4. Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be
  Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or
  that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of
  these states.

  Why can't a monk misrepresent reality(lie) for self defense instead of resorting to physical violence?

Why would a monk be engaging in "self-defence"? This is very unlikely.

  I was thinking that our intentions aren't unwholesome because we lie but a lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions.

Correct. A lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions.

For example, if a monk hides an innocent person from a would-be-murderer and the murderer asks the monk has the monk seen the innocent person, it is not unwholesome if the monk lies to the murderer. Why should a monk be honest to a murderer if the murderer will murderer as a result of the monk's honesty?


What is Navayana Buddhism? Recently, I found out there is a new branch of Buddhism called the Navayana.  I read the article on Wikipedia but it did not say too much.  What is Navayana Buddhism and what type of practices does it follow like meditations, sutras, or tantras?  How does a Navayana Buddhist relate to Buddhist of different schools?

Navayana is a proposed fourth major branch of Buddhism after Hinayana (sorry not a great term), Mahayana and Vajrayana. I believe it is a term claimed by the Dalit Buddhist movement which I am most familiar with in the context of Dr Ambedkar - in fact I recently have heard the movement is called Ambedkerism.

The Buddhist Centre that I practice with is a Triratna Buddhist Centre. Like Ambedkerism it sees itself as a reforming movement tailored to the concerns of modern society. The definition of the movements aims is very similar to our own (quoting from here)

  [Ambedkerism] espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism, primarily based
  on Theravada, but with additional influences from Mahayana and
  Vajrayana. On many subjects, they give Buddhism a distinctive
  interpretation

Moreover the Indian branches of the Triratna movement see themselves as continuing the work of  Dr Ambedkar. One of the major Triratna charities, the Karuna Trust, was set up to support this work.

The point is this - I practice in a context explicitly linked to Ambedkerism and therefore according to Wikipedia in a Navayana context. However I haven't heard of this term used but I do believe the concept has meaning and merit so I'm basing my answer on that.

The key point to Triratna/Ambedkerism and therefore Navayana is a return to the roots of Buddhism and a distillation of the previous yanas to potentially create a new form of Buddhism. Though radical, I don't think this should come as surprising or shocking because ...

When Buddhism comes into contact with a new culture it changes.

a. Buddhism + Tao = Ch'an.

b. Buddhism + Bon = Tibetan.

c. Buddhist + (Western?) liberal humanism = ????
This is the first time in history when all the scriptures, commentaries etc.. are easily available. The work isn't finished but new stuff is coming into the Western domain all the time. That's new - so is something new going to happen?

I think it's work in progress so what it looks like in the end is still up in the air. There are a lot of people doing new things and revisiting Buddhism generally - some of them hang around on this site. Secular Buddhism, Daniel Ingram's taboo busting, Engaged Buddhism's social activism, Triratna synthesis of Theravada with Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Insight Meditation Society - lots of things are happening.

I don't know if this answers the questions but I feel it's changing, will continue to change and let's see what happens next.

Bhimayana: Incidents in the Life of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a graphic biography of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar published in 2011 by Navayana and was hailed by CNN as being among the top five political comic books. It was created by artists Durgabai Vyam, Subhash Vyam and writers Srividya Natarajan and S. Anand. It depicts the experiences of caste discrimination and resistance that Bhimrao Ambedkar recorded in his autobiographical illustrations, later compiled and edited in Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches by Vasant Moon under the title “Waiting for a Visa”. It is one of India’s top selling graphic books.

Bhimayana has been lauded for its use of Pardhan Gond art to signify the experiences of social discrimination faced by Ambedkar. It uses digna (images originally painted on the walls and floors of Pardhan Gonds’ houses) patterns and nature imagery. According to Jeremy Stoll, affiliate faculty at Metropolitan State University of Denver, ‘It is most remarkable for demonstrating the strength of Indian comics culture and providing a strong example of where folk and popular culture overlap’.[1]

It has been published under the title Ambedkar: The Fight for Justice in the UK and the United States by Tate Publishing in 2013.[2] The book has been translated into several languages including Malayalam, Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Telugu, Kannada, Korean and French.


How do the concepts of anatta, rebirth and karma coexist together? Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view.
I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is).
But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta?
I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how?
I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.

Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,

"Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?"

to which you replied,

"If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically."

Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.
To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.

"How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?"

What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.
Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of anatta which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.
I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)

There were no Buddhist books when the Buddha was alive. Buddhism was taught orally by monks.
The scriptures (MN 117) say there are two types of teachings:
(i) teachings about kamma & 'rebirth' related to self acquisition that side with merit
(ii) transcendent teachings, connected with Emptiness, which are part of the Noble Path
The sutta MN 143 makes it clear the transcendent teachings were generally only taught to monks (although we have rare accounts in scripture of them taught to laypeople)
The sutta DN 31 say the duty of a monk is to teach goodness, non-evil and the path to heaven (not Nibbana) to laypeople.
In MN 26, AN 10.95, Dhp 58 and Dhp 174 it is made very clear most people cannot realise anatta. This is why one of the most important words in Buddhism is "puthujjana", as follows"

a worldling (puthujjana), someone with a thick blindfold covering the
eye of insight

In summary, the Buddha always taught "a being", "person" or "self" is "reborn" (example SN 42.3). If a self was not "reborn", an individual would have no incentive to do good.
In conclusion, imputing not-self upon the kamma & 'rebirth' teachings renders them ineffective; just as imputing 'rebirth' upon the anatta teachings renders them ineffective.


Impermanence causing depression and anxiety I’ve learned that all things are impermanence. This is causing depression and anxiety in my life. I’m sad and scared that my relationships will one day come to an end. The fact that all things are impermanence just make me sad. How do I feel better?

That which impermanence appears to ,or that which speaks about impermanence. Is that changing ?

Any kind of material form whatever, whether past, future, or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or
near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper
wisdom thus: “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."
Gautama Buddha (MN 22)

Just meditate on these phenomenon and seeing them for what they are you aren't identified.

Seeing the truth of impermanence, one finds it sadly unsatisfying. Letting go of the unsatisfying, embrace the limitless.
Meditate spreading a limitless heart full of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

MN50:14.4: Come, all of you mendicants, meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
Meditate spreading a heart full of compassion …
Meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …
Meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’

And even with just spreading a limitless heart of love, there is beauty:

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Meditating on the heart's release by compassion, rejoicing and equanimity leads on further.
May your sadness be dispelled by limitless love and your efforts lead to freedom.


Is there a Buddhist school / tradition wich recognizes the endless cycle of rebirth but doesn't teach that we should get liberated from it? And even more, that we should embrace it and accept it (while at the same time avoiding the sufferings) ?

Many Mahayana Buddhist traditions believe that liberation is specifically freedom from suffering rather than freedom from being present in the universe.

But suffering is not to be avoided. It is to be prevented. The avoidance of suffering is what binds us to it.  Recognising it's root causes and eliminating them is the journey to enlightenment.

This is why 'Right View' is so important within Buddhism. When we are able to see that the root cause of our misery is the mistaken view that sees permanence where there is none, sees joy where there is none, and sees self-existence where there is none, then our new view engages in a transvaluation of our experiences.  Because of this transvaluation, our attitude towards some things will invariably change.  For instance, we may look at a new car in a showroom - and just see it as a source of new trouble rather than as a source of joy.

So accepting and embracing the continuum of rebirth is to be encouraged; But to accept and embrace the unmodified, ignorant view of the transitory, empty, miserable shit-hole of the unenlightened state, and holding onto the idea that there is joy to be found in it - that's not a buddhist thing.

The entirety of Buddhist teaching is about how one can achieve long-lasting happiness. No Buddhist school teaches that we MUST get liberated from suffering. But IF you want to get liberated, THEN Buddhism offers a path. If one has already achieved long lasting happiness, then there is no need of Buddhism. Similarly, if one does not want to end one's suffering, then there is no need of BUddhism. To talk of samsaric cycle, is to talk about the endless cycle of suffering. To come out of the ednless cycle is synonymous to ending suffering. Buddhism, taught out of compassion, will always teach about how one CAN come out of the endless samsaric cycle.