Question about Narakas I want to ask the following: Is there a mention in the suttas or anywhere else that tells that there is a corresponding hell (Naraka) according to specific evil deeds? I wonder if it is a random thing or there is some corresponding hell to our evil deeds.

Hells must corresponding to their evil deeds. But there are uncountable various kamma leting their uncountable corresponding resultants arise in the same seconds, too. Kamma just waiting the proper chance to let their resultants arise.

Most of hell appear in suttanta, but it will be easier to explain the hell by abhidhamma's rule.

In abhidhamma, there are trillion mind moments in a piece of second. Each mind moment must managing, kamma, their mind and mind factors, but only javana-duty mind moments have own resultants, vipaka.  So, we done kamma over many thousands millions times each second.

And each kamma will multiply it's resultants, vipaka, such as just 1 killing mind moment of last life can let uncountable resultant mind moments arise through next life, if that killing mind moment can win to process rebirth-duty, 1st mind moment of each rebirth, of next life.

Another, many kamma can work together by switch their resultants' arising between each other, such as killing mind  moment let its resultants through niraya-man's life, then the other kamma let it's resultants arise
 by make niraya man very hurt his tongue.

Their are uncountable co-working in each second for one's life, such as a second of buddha's life on parinibbana's bed:

Wholesome kamma let budhha's bhavanga mind moment arise.
Each different wholesome kamma let buddha's each organ of 32 organs
look the best beautiful.
Unwholesome kamma let buddha's body sick.
The other wholesome kamma let buddha watch many ariya around the
parinibbana's bed.

These all happened only in a second, by a very various kamma. And this is just the example. In the full situation of this second, there are many various kamma giving their resultants.

'Hell' is 'suffering', 'pain', 'unhappiness', 'torment' &/or 'torture'. 'Hell' is described as undesirable unpleasant feelings, as follows:

Bhikkhus, it is a gain for you, it is well gained by you, that you have obtained the opportunity for living the holy life. 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.
SN 35.135

The Pali suttas do not ascribe specific hells for specific unskilfull, heedless &/or evil deeds. For example, the Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta lists many types of unskilful actions & each action has the same potential general result of the 'unhappiness' of 'hell'.
However, if we use our common sense, we can discern in life that, in general (but not always), certain actions bring greater hellish results than another actions. For example, murder brings a longer prison sentence in hell than rape or corporate dishonesty; or the post-traumatic-hell of soldiers who fight in war is a greater hell than the hell of stealing or sexual misconduct. Or the hell of drug addiction is a strong hell.


How to meditate, lower parts of Dependent Origination? How to meditate, lower parts of Dependent Origination with five aggregates ?

The 'meditator' is 'nama-rupa' (4th link). 'Nama' is defined as 'feeling, perception, intention, internal contact & attention' and also includes mental functions such as 'mindfulness', 'effort', etc. 'Rupa' is the physical body.

The breathing is 'kaya sankkara' (2nd link).

When the breathing arises into awareness, this is consciousness (3rd link).

When the breathing is 'felt' & 'perceived' as 'long', 'short', 'smooth', 'rough', 'calming', 'agitated', etc, this feeling & perceiving is 'nama' (4th link).

When the mind drifts away from the object of meditation (breathing) and then makes the decision to return to the breathing, this wholesome intention is 'nama' (4th link).

When the mind sustains attention (4th link) on the breathing (2nd link), this is nama (4th link). Knowing the breathing & nama is consciousness (3rd link).

You must meditate continuously on the method described above until you can clearly distinguish between the 2nd, 3rd & 4th links & their role.

If the breathing (2nd link) feels (4th link) agitated, this agitation is due to ignorance (1st link).

If distracting thoughts (2nd link - vaci sankhara) and perceptions & feelings (2nd link - citta sankhara) arise in the mind, these are produced from ignorance (1st link).

When the drives or moods of the five hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness, remorse, doubt, fear) spontaneously flow out (asava) of the mind, this outflow of hindrances is the 1st link (ignorance).

When the nama (4th link) generates intention (4th link) to calm or remove the distracting thoughts (2nd link) & hindrances (1st link), this intention & application of wisdom is the 4th link (nama).

When the nama perceives (4th link) the ignorant thoughts & perceptions arising at the 2nd link, the right perception (4th link) of the wrong perceptions (2nd link) is mindfulness & clear-comprehension (4th link)

If the nama-rupa (4th) link is overwhelmed & controlled by ignorance (1st link), the nama-rupa will generate intentions (4th link) to seek external sense objects (5th link) and make contact with the external world (6th link). From this, the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th & 12th links will lead to the generation of dukkha (suffering).

The above is meditation upon the first 4 links of dependent origination.

When the sankhara (2nd link) are all calmed & clear, this is samatha.

When ignorance (1st link) is reduced or eradicated due to seeing the four noble truths & the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of the five aggregates, this is vipassana.

All the links in Dependent Origination arise together. I'll give you a way how to isolate them in order to see each link clearly.

7th and 6th link (Feeling and Contact)

Close your eyes.

In your mind think about a static image of any object you desire. See it in your mind. Look at it. Observe it.

You perceiving the object is Contact (Phassa 6th link). You feeling a pleasant sensation, unpleasant sensation or neutral sensation because of Contact with the object is Feeling (Vedana 7th link).

Let's move lower.

5th link (Six Senses)

Close your eyes.

Completely empty your mind, until you reach the point of total cessation, a state where there is neither perception nor non-perception and this same state and any other state cease.

This is the absence of the six senses (Salayatana 5th link).

Then, in your mind think about a static image of any object you desire.

You perceiving anything about the object is due to the arising of the mind sense (Salayatana 5th link).

4th link (Nama-Rupa)

Close your eyes.

Think about anything you wish or direct your perception on anything you wish.

Whatever you'll perceive, that will be Nama (Feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention).

Then, think about your body or direct your perception on the place in space your body is occupying.

The perception of the form of your body, that will be Rupa (four great elements).

3rd link (Rebirth-Consciousness)

Close your eyes.

Completely empty your mind, until you reach the point of total cessation, a state where there is neither perception nor non-perception and this same state and any other state cease.

This is the absence of the Rebirth-Consciousness (Patisandhi Vinnana 3rd link).

Then, with your eyes closed, look at the blackness behind your closed eyes. This state is Rebirth-Consciousness. Whatever happens afterwards, comes out of Rebirth-Consciousness (Patisandhi Vinnana 3rd link). NOTE: rebirth-consciousness is not the blackness behind closed eyes. Here blackness behind the eyes is used to isolate rebirth-consciousness.

For example, observe the blackness behind your eyes and search for a big pleasant spot of solid color. Really strive to search for that pleasant spot. Once you find it, strive to enlarge it so that it engulfes you with pleasure. No matter if you enlarge it or not, the spot will give you a pleasant sensation. This is "coming into existence" (birth). While the spot is present, it will give you a pleasant sensation. This is "beeing existent" (clinging). Sooner or later the spot will vanish. Once it vanishes, craving for the spot will remain. This is "non existence" (death). Due to craving, the spot will sooner or later appear. This is "coming into existence" (birth). The cycle will continue for some time, each time less and less, until also this very same cycle stops.

2nd link (Activities, fabrications)

Activities, fabrications (Samkhara 2nd link) is exactly what you've done above, while exploring the 3rd link and the other links.

To isolate the 2nd link do this:

Close your eyes.

Completely empty your mind, until you reach the point of total cessation, a state where there is neither perception nor non-perception and this same state and any other state cease.

In your mind very very slowlyyyyy think about a static image of any object you desire. The very moment when you start doing this "thinking", this is activity, fabrication (Samkhara).

Then, if you observe carefully, you'll also notice the following:

The very moment when you start doing this "thinking", this is Rebirth-Consciousness (Patisandhi Vinnana 3th link). The very moment when you start doing this "thinking", perception of "thinking" will arise - this is Mind and Matter (Nama-Rupa 4th link), the sense mind (Salayatana 5th link) and Contact (Phassa 6th link). The very moment when you start doing this "thinking", a pleasant feeling will arise, or an unpleasant or a neutral feeling - this is Feeling (Vedana). The very moment when you start doing this "thinking", craving (Tanha 8th link) and clinging (Upadana 9th link) can arise.

The very moment that craving (Tanha 8th link) and clinging (Upadana 9th link) arise, the above process becomes fueled by them. This means that after the above process ceases, you will make it arise again. This is Action of Becoming (Bhava 10th link). Etc.

1st link

Ignorance (Avijja 1st link) is not knowing that the end result of all the above links is always suffering. Not knowing the end result is suffering, you don't see a reason why to stop the links from arising. Thus, you don't care, you don't explore them, you don't even know they exist and live your life in ignorance.

Then, ignorance (Avijja 1st link) is not knowing the cause of all the links. Not knowing why they arise and the way to their cessation. The way to their cessation is to explore them and know them in their entirety.


How does Ajita Kesakambali compare to the Buddha? DN 2 states:

  When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
  fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
  other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
  brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
  proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
  realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
  elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
  the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
  the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
  external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
  external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
  men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
  sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
  pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
  idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
  false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
  foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
  death.'

Ajita Kesakambali is similar to another wrong view, found in DN 1, namely:

  Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Now the Buddha taught extensively about the elements, such as in MN 115 & MN 140.

Or in MN 43, Sariputta mentions how the sense faculties are scattered at the termination of life, as follows:

  Yvāyaṃ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhāniruddha paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā
  paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni
  paribhinnāni.

  In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications
  ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is
  exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.

How do the teachings of Ajita Kesakambali & other annihilationists compare to those of the Buddha? What makes them different?

his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided

This refers to the mental activity in this body. It doesn't mean that there's no next life after death, unless we are talking about an Arahanth. This is why having a good teacher is important. If someone with materialistic views try to interpret this sutta by himself, he might conclude that it all ends after death.

In SN 22.85, it is taught the five aggregates of an Arahant cease & are destroyed at the ending of life. This is right view in SN 22.85.
But, SN 22.85 also says it is wrong view to believe an Arahant is annihilated at death. This is as wrong view because 'annihilation' and 'death' ('marana') only happen to a 'self' or to 'a being'.
For example, SN 12.2 does not define 'death' ('marana') as the ending of life. SN 12.2 defines 'death' ('marana') as the ending of the life of "a being" ("satta"). SN 5.10 and SN 23.2 define "a being" is merely "a view" of "attachment".
In summary, the word "marana", which has the same root as Satan or Mara, is a "self-view". It is the belief a "self dies".

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
being.
DN 1

The above view of annihilationism is different to the Buddha because:

It believes as "self" ('atta') or "a being" ('satta') will be annihilated.

It believes in a 'self' that is impermanent where as the Buddha taught there is no real self and the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, the above view, the same as the Buddha, believes in impermanence.

However, it differs from the Buddha because it believes a 'self' is impermanent.

Buddha taught the aggregates are impermanent and there is no self in the aggregates.

When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
death.'
DN 2

The above view (which was reported by King Ajatasattu) is different from the Buddha because:

It does not have a fruit or Nibbana visible here-&-now, as literally stated in DN 2:

...when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here
and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation.

Therefore, the view of Ajita Kesakambalin:

Does not differ from the Buddha because it does not believe in 'eternalism' or 'reincarnation'.

It differs from the Buddha because Ajita Kesakambalin did not realise a spiritual fruit, such as Nibbana, in the here-&-now.

Similarly, the answers on this thread that have not mentioned The Fruits of the Contemplative Life in the here-&-now have a similar view as Ajita Kesakambalin.

Ajita Kesakambalin was an annihilationist. Ajita Kesakambalin believed a 'self' ends at 'death'.

Most of the other answers on this question are eternalist.

Both eternalism & annihilationism are reprehensible & wrong views in Buddhism.

Any negative scores to this answers must be by those without sufficient faith to realise Nibbana in the here-&-now.

...............


How does an arahant know that ignorance won't return/re-arise after death? The earlier aspects that now seem less relevant imo:

  ---How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death?
  ---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications
  and fabrications are the cause of consciousness.
  ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus
  certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there
  isn't even consciousness?

The aspects below that I currently think are more relevant:

Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies?

How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

"Logically-speaking" doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience to verify that one isn't deceiving oneself?

How it can be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise or why it won't return/re-arise if there is no consciousness at the time.

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.

  “What Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which has as its final goal the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion … which has the Deathless as its ground, the Deathless as its destination, the Deathless as its final goal … which slants, slopes, and inclines towards Nibbāna. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
  SN 45.180

So ignorance won’t arise anymore because an arahant has cut off all 10 fetters. Ignorance is one of those fetters. An arahant have direct knowledge of these fetters and he knows their destruction and he also knows if the fetters are abandoned or not.

It seems to me that consciousness is required for knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowledge and thus certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death?

When an arahant dies he is free of the 10 fetters including ignorance and he also know the four noble truths so he will not be reborn. At the moment of his death, there was no ignorance so all things in the dependent origin that comes after ignorance will not arise because ignorance is not present at the moment of death.

Is it through direct knowledge of the entire future that occurs before death?

An arahant usually knows that birth is ended. It is usually mentioned in the suttas.

Is it known through abhijñā i.e "direct knowledge", of the entire future, before the arahant dies?

There was one sutta where a guy asked an arahant if he has psychic powers but the arahant replied no. I can’t find this sutta so can anyone tell me. So the abhijna or the six higher knowledge aren’t required to be an arahant except the last one which is the ending of mental fermentation. An arahant can develop psychic powers after becoming an arahant but they probably don’t have any desire to achieve those powers.

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has 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 fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' This, too, is how striving is fruitful, how exertion is fruitful.
  MN 101

So as you can see, an arahant knows that he is released and that there will be no further birth.

Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?

No, only the Buddha was omniscience. An arahant would know that there will be no further birth because

1) The Buddha told them that attaining arahantship will end rebirth

2) When he is released there is the knowledge “release”

3) He knows there is no next life by looking into the future with psychic powers.

I think 1 and 2 are the most possible way to know that he will not be reborn because not all arahants have psychic powers. It’s not even needed to look into the future because arahant knows that there is no further birth.

How does one know that the abhiññā is true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

If you are literally flying then you would know there you are flying. If you can travel to other realms then you would know it. Omniscience is not required. You don’t need omniscience to know that your memories are real or not. If you try to remember what happened just an hour ago then you know that memory is true. In the same way, when you recollect your past lives you know that it’s true. Abhinna are as real as moving your hands or legs.  So you will know if you have abinna or not.

Abhiññā knows Nibbana because abhiññā knows the defilements, including ignorance, no longer arise, in any situation, whatsoever.

The devas (mystics) with psychic powers who can read the mind of others also know the defilements do not arise in the mind of the arahant; even though those deva may not be arahants.

  The Arahant

  "This monk is called one who has removed the crossbar, has filled the moat, has broken the pillar, has unbolted (his mind); a Noble One
  who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.
  "And how, monks, is that monk one who has removed the cross-bar? Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root,
  removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter
  extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus has he removed the
  cross-bar.
  "And how, monks, is that monk one who has filled the moat? Herein the monk has abandoned the round of rebirths, leading to renewed
  existence; he has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil
  like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of
  arising again.
  "And how has he broken the pillar? He has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree,
  brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.
  "And how has he unbolted (his mind)? He has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, removed them from their
  soil like a palmyra tree, brought them to utter extinction, incapable
  of arising again.
  "And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of
  self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a
  palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising
  again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put
  down the burden, become unfettered.
  "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of
  Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find on what the
  consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One
  who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say

  MN 22

As for "death" ("marana"), this does not happen to Arahants, as written in many suttas. The word "death" ("marana") does not generally refer to the termination of life but refers to the "death" of a "self" or "a being" (which are forms of delusion).


A few questions about "becoming" How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising?

If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"?

Is there something like craving without "becoming"?

Thanks for your time and patience!

EDIT: as I made the mistake of asking more than one question in the same post, I have two different answer (1231546 and Dhammadhatu's) which dissipated my doubts.

Thanks!

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising?

it is explained as formation of various existence in the three ranges of existence;

  AN 3.76  Bhava Sutta: Becoming (1)

  Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down
  to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "Lord, this word, 'becoming, becoming' — to what extent
  is there becoming?"[1]

  "Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property,
  would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"

  "No, lord."

  "Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture.[2] The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance
  & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

  "If there were no kamma ripening in the form-property, would
  form-becoming be discerned?"

  "No, lord."

  "Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &
  fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a middling property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

  "If there were no kamma ripening in the formless-property, would
  formless-becoming be discerned?"

  "No, lord."

  "Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &
  fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a refined property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. This
  is how there is becoming."
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.076.than.html

If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"?

Yes craving is always for a state with certain conditions or a state without certain conditions, either way craving for something dependent on conditions becoming like this or otherwise, becoming better or worse, good or bad etc.

If one talks about craving for the cessation of craving, such craving can be explained as being dispersive of becoming to the extent that it is for abandoning of craving and therefore becoming but still it is craving for a conditioned state, a state without certain conditions, without craving. There is nothing further after that and craving is at that point uprooted due to complete disenchantment.

  Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a
  prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This
  body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying
  on food that food is to be abandoned.

  "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying
  on craving that craving is to be abandoned.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html

Is there something like craving without "becoming"?

i am not sure what you mean.

You may also want to listen to Guy Armstrong excellent 6 parts series titled Patterns of Becoming offered during that retreat.


When and how should a layperson declare their achievements? I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated.

If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome from such comments.

So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and place to make declarations of achievements?

...then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'

"I am a stream-winner!", and as for people like Nyom Alexander, at least you can help them with frog-pills. Be aware that a fully awakened person neither lives nor could live in a household, other than the Noble Beggars.

As for a monk, it's not good to do so (toward laypeople) and if doing such as a deliberated lie it is even a reason to fall out of the community.

It may be good to add that a stream-enterer would seldom be able to teach and lead much and as most are still just a householder, give less inspiration for those having real faith.
But it's a great achievement and a great place for mudita with such or sometimes for much karuna, like in Nyom Alexanders situation, not even knowing the Dhamma yet and believing to be awakened. Thats really much place of huge pity and the reality that beings are heirs of their actions, not really to be helped.

See a Noble Ones answer for more details; and keep such people high and protected without the need that they would need to tell.

(not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for your way out) See? ;-)

I think this is a beautiful question and one that gets at something in the Buddhist community that is not frequently talked about and in some cases, is ignored.

Enlightenment is very often put up on a pedestal as some unreachable goal that only the special and most devout are able to achieve. Because of a lack of believing achieving such a thing is possible, these posts are not taken seriously and are downvoted.

It is also very common that people have unrealistic expectations of what enlightenment is. If someone claims some sort of attainment, and their words do not match what the unenlightened individuals belief of what enlightenment should be, it is almost immediately brushed off as not a "valid" or noteworthy attainment.

If you feel you have real life experience of taking the teachings of the Buddha and bringing about real insights that create liberation in your experience, I highly suggest you share, no matter what the reaction is. Even if it is not received well and is massively downvoted, those on the same path of self inquiry and exploration as you are will benefit from reading your words. Helping each other grow and become truly free is the real purpose of the Sangha. If you post with the intention of benefitting all beings, your post is beauty.

I hope this answer sheds some light into what I have observed in the community.

I also wish to stand apart and share with you my experience, in the hopes it will be helpful to you.

My name is Alexander, and I am an Arahant. Enlightenment occurred for me in March of 2018. I devote myself to you, everyone reading this post, and desire nothing other than your liberation from Samsara. If there is anything, anything at all, I can do to help you move forward in your journey, I will do so. Feel free to contact me at any time, in any way. Regardless of how this post is interpreted, I love you with all my heart, and I pray you share your attainments with the world, so we can all share in the tranquility and peace that is your true existence.


Are Amitabha and Sakyamuni the same? Buddha is the name for the Supreme Being, right? So are Amitabha Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha both Supreme Beings but of different galaxies or something? I assume there are more buddhas than just these two. If so, how can there be many Supreme Beings?

I guess I am confused by what it means to say Sakyamuni is the buddha of our saha world while Amitabha presides over Sukhavati.

This is a Mahayana question and I'll answer it as such.

The cosmology of the Amitabha Buddha is described as something akin to an infinite number of parallel universes (or galaxies, the cosmology isn't or wasn't trying to be accurate in the astrophysics), each with a Buddha. The Buddha of each universe arise and disappear to be replaced by a new one, the next one in our universes is Maitreya.

The respect in which Sakyamuni Buddha is Supreme is that he was the most recent Buddha in our world. He was preceded by seven Buddhas.

Via reincarnation you can appear in a universe with a different Buddha, which is the whole point of the Pure Land Sutras. The gist is that progress towards enlightenment in this world is difficult, but easy in the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha.

In the cosmology there is the idea that there can only be one Buddha in the world at time. Personally I haven't come across a convincing explanation for why. My personal opinion is that this is related to the Precept on making false claims of enlightenment. If you are running a sangha and six monks all claim to have become enlightened and all think they are now the rightful leaders of the sangha, that could be a problem.

The Buddhas of other Lands appear to have intercessory powers in our world, for example the Medicine Buddha (Bhaisajyaguru) vows to provide a number of this-worldly benefits to those who say his name.

On the other hand, there is no limit on the number of Bodhisattvas-- Kwan Yin/Avalokitesvara, Kstigarbha, etc. all can exist in the same universe.

Now if this question is really about finding monotheism in Buddhism, you can find that, too. The Adibuddha and Vairocana have been suggested to be the Buddhas from which all other Buddhas emanate, and syncretic Buddhism from time to time has explicitly or accidentally reincorporated a Hindu style Brahma-- a universal, shared soul that is also the monotheistic god or supreme being.

The evidence for all this is from sutras, and presumably the meditative inspirations and visions of the authors. If that doesn't do anything for you, that's fine, too, it reads fine as a myth-- a fictional story to illustrate the Dharma.

As to Theravada there can be only one Buddha,Because Buddha is the name for the one who alone without any help or learning understand all of Buddhism and then go on to teach it to others.The question here is not between two Buddhas
but between two versions of Buddhism.in Theravada there is no mentioning about a buddha called amithbha,as to Theravada there is Sakyamuni Buddha who is the teacher of the current buddhism and there were many before him in this "Kalpa (Era)"


How is the exterior suffering? How is the exterior suffering?
In this Sutta series from SN 35.144 it says the following.
Eye etc. and its objects are impermanence, not-self, and suffering.
I understand all except that eye etc and its objects are suffering. For instance, if my eye arises as a result of a physical object, how is the physical object suffering?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.144/en/sujato

I see that the translation in your link interprets the Pali word dukkha as "suffering". Other translations have it as "painful" or "stressful" or "unsatisfactory". Whatever word we use, the point being made about external phenomena is that they are not going to make us happy. The gorgeous potential romantic or sexual partner, the object my eye rests upon, may inspire in me a pleasurable feeling, but that happiness is not going to last. That happiness is not a support for the freedom from suffering that the Buddha is teaching us about.
Because they are notself, because they are impermanent, they cannot provide lasting happiness, though we tend to think they will. Instead, we'll end up discovering the things we see (hear, touch, smell, taste, think of) will disappoint us. They'll change, or disappear, causing us to suffer.

The buddha says jivhā, rasā, jivhāviññāṇaṃ, jivhāsamphasso, vedayitaṃ and all the other sensual stuff are afflicted with bad things

  The tongue, brethren, is afflicted, savours are afflicted,
  tongue-conseiousness, is afflicted, tongue-contact, is afflicted, that
  weal or woe or neutral state experienced, which arises owing to
  tongue-contact,- that also is afflicted.

  Afflicted with what?

  Afflicted with birth, decay and death, sorrow and grief, woe,
  lamentation and despair.

  So I declare.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.029.wood.pts.htm#p1


what is Sakkayaditti whats it meaning I have read about sakkayaditti

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkayaditti

Sakkayaditti means something in Buddhism, Pali.
please help me to clarify

This is a key concept in the Early Buddhist Texts:

MN 64: Anusetvevassa sakkāyadiṭṭhānusayo.
MN 64: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

Identity View is the view that "I am". For example, we say, "I am Chinese" or "I am educated" or "I am poor", etc.
These personal perspectives contribute to suffering. If "I am poor", then "I want to be rich". If "I am ugly" then "I want to be beautiful". Through study and practice, we step away from personal perspectives and abandon Identity View as not satisfying, not conducive to happiness. To be an Arahant, to be a Realized One, Identity View is abandoned entirely.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the heresy of individuality
To be clear, that does not mean that Buddhists are all alike. The Buddha in fact insisted that each of us find the truth for ourselves. What it means is that Buddhists are alike in dismissing personal cravings as unskillful and unwholesome.

This is misunderstood by many people today. They say sakkaya ditti means: self view. According to dhamma, when a peraon become 1st entrant (sotāpanna) he uproots the sakkaya ditti. So if sakkaya ditti means self view, then that person no need to go beyond that point, since there's noone (no self view) to attain nibbana.
So please think wise and don't get to the trap of self view.

Sakkaya diiti means: giving values to the things (in mind). Eg: Ferrari is a very good car, so its valuable (in mind). The food in ABC restaurant is very tasty so its worth going to that restaurant or eating that food. This view is called sakkaya ditti. When someone become 1st entrant; he understand that its a lie. Its not true. So he uproots the sakkaya dittia and become to samma ditti. Which is knowing that nothing is valuable but the Nirvana.
How to understand / realize that things doesn't have a value is a different topic.


samatha after vipassana Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to Mahasi vipassana?

How? Why?

  Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

How? Why?

  A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are? Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

How? Why?

OP: Simultaneous vipassana & samatha - in this version of the question

(Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta mention there are 4 types of practitioners:

  (1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

  (2) “calm preceded by insight” - vipassana,pubb’angama samatha

  (3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

  (4) “a mind seized by dharma-restlessness” - dhamm’uddhacca,viggahita manasa

Practising Samatha and Vipassana together is:

  (3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

Regardless of which practice you start with, both Samatha and Vipassana is needed to reach the ultimate goal:

(Mūla) Samatha Vipassanā Sutta

Also, it is best one allocate time for both:

Catu Kāla Sutta 1

Also, vipassana practises (body contemplation - breath meditation, posture, movement, body parts, elements, corpse) leads to Samadhi as per Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta:

  As he dwells thus diligent, exertive, resolute, his memories and thoughts of the household life are
  abandoned. With their abandoning, his mind steadies itself internally, settles, becomes one, attains samadhi [becomes concentrated].

  In this way, bhikshus, a monk cultivates mindfulness regarding the body.

Which intern leads to the 6 super knowledges:

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta

Edit:

  OP: samatha after vipassana

This is:

  (1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

.

  OP: Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to vipassana?

Anapanasati is also a form of vipassana which takes you to the highest goal of Nibbana.

Source: Anapanasati

  Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

If you are skilled in Vipassana it is recommended to seek a Samatha teacher and practice Samatha:

Source: (Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 3

(Samādhi) Bala Sutta describes how one should develop skills in Samatha:

  OP: A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are?

No, not necessarily:

  Even this first dhyana is (mentally) constructed [mind-made], intentionally formed.

  What is
  constructed and intentionally formed is impermanent, subject to ending.

  If he is steady therein, he attains the destruction of the mental influxes.

Similarly in other Jhanas as given in Aṭṭhaka,nāgara Sutta

Here one sees the true nature of things while doing Samatha/Samadhi.

Also, Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta discusses the teachings in concise form, mentions the practice of mindfulness with Jhana ultimately resulting in full enlightenment:

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:

  “I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,

  observing [contemplating] [body | feeling | mind | dhamma] the in the [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],

  removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”

  Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,

  THE 1 ST DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;

  THE 2 ND DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi with zest;

  THE 3RD DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;

  THE 4 TH DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

  OP: Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

Each triad corresponds to a Satipattana, which is Vipassana.

The last triad of Anapanasathis is explicitly to see things as they are which is vipassana:

Source: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

Essentially one is doing Vipassana when one is doing Anapanasati.

The need of Samadhi in tandem is evident from the following Suttas.

Also, a meditation how can attain and also have a theoretical understanding of Samadhi is the foremost meditator:

Samādhi Samāpatti Sutta. Similar one who understands Samadhi can remain in Samadhi is the foremost:

Samādhi Mūlaka Ṭhiti Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and skilful in emerging from Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Vuṭṭhāna Sutta

Similarly, one who understands samadhi and is fitfor Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Kallita Sutta

Similarly, one who is understands samadhi and is skilled in the concentration object is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Ārammaṇa Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and resorts to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Go,cara Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and has resolution in samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Abhinīhāra Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and care about samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sakkacca,kārī Sutta

Similarly, one understands and is committed to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sātacca,kārī Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and is skilled in what is suitable regarding samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sappāya,kārī Sutta

Following skills:

Himavanta Sutta. Also Vasa Suttā which includes theoretical knowledge.

And the following masteries are useful:

Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to
  vipassana?

The above has never practiced real vipassana if this question is asked. Brainwashing oneself via Goenka or Mahasai mental gymnastics is not vipassana.

Vipassana is not continuous mental noting. Nor is vipassana enduring pain & trying to see changing pain sensations.

Vipassana starts with directly seeing what is easily, simply, obviously & clearly seen to be impermanent & not-self.

For example, each in breath & each out breath is directly seen (without any thinking) to be impermanent; in that each breath appears, lasts, moves then disappears. Also, it is directly seen (without any thinking) the breathing or body breathes itself (rather than the sense of 'self' breathes). When it is experienced the body breathes rather than the 'self' breathes, this is seeing not-self (anatta) of the breathing & body.

This is vipassana while doing anapanasati.

  Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to
  anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

Anapanasati is not exclusively samatha. Steps 4, 8, 10 &  11 of Anapanasati are related to samatha.

Steps 3 (called experiencing all bodies), 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of Anapanasati are related to vipassana.

  A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of
  seeing things as they are?

Brainwashing oneself is not seeing things as they are. Truly seeing the way things are involves only direct seeing & does not involve any "thinking" or "mental noting". If one truly had the habit of seeing things as they are then one would be an Arahant.

  Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a
  distraction to onepointed consentration?

Both ideas above of 'vipassana' & 'one-pointed concentration' are wrong.

For example, developing samatha with anapanasati does not necessarily involve being "one-pointed" with a narrow focus (such as Goenka watching the nose-tip). When the mind is equanimous, non-attached, naturally awake, silent, open & clear, the breathing will calm & samatha will be felt. Vipassana will also occur.

Directly seeing the mental conditions or causes that result in samatha is also an insight of vipassana. Seeing directly interactive processes of 'cause & effect' is vipassana.

MN 149 says when the eightfold path is developed, which includes anapanasati/satipatthana as the 7th factor, the result will be samatha & vipassana occurring in tandem.

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

  MN 149


Does Theravada posit the selflessness of phenomena? It is generally taught in Mahayana monastic universities that Theravada does not posit the selflessness of phenomena. There it is taught a dichotomy exists between the tenet systems employed by various Buddhist traditions:

The selflessness of persons
The selflessness of phenomena

In Mahayana texts it is often said that the self of persons and the self of phenomena comprise the "two selves" that are refuted. It is said that Theravada only posits and thus refutes the self of persons.

This is a commentary on a textbook used in Buddhist monastic universities in India/Tibet written by a Geshe Lharampa:

  For the, "Vaibashika school, there are 3 divisions and 18 subschools,
  one of which is the Theravadan school)"

  ...

  Selflessness of phenomena is not asserted because the Vaibashikas
  assert that an established base is pervaded by self of phenomena i.e.
  even though the V assert selflessness of person, they do not assert
  the selflessness of phenomena.

  Within existence, there are two aspects – person and phenomena. When
  one talks about selflessness of person, one is referring to the
  concept of “I”. When one talks about the selflessness of phenomena,
  one is referring to one’s 5 aggregates, all outer objects and
  everything other than concept of “I”. The V school doesn’t assert the
  selflessness of phenomena because they hold the view that phenomena is
  truly existent from its own side.

Emphasis in the original. The point I think is that a dichotomy is made between persons and external objects. The former is said to lack a self, but external objects are considered to be real or truly existent. Some Mahayana tenet systems say the latter also are unreal and not truly existent.

What do self-identified Theravada proponents think of this? Is this how you'd characterize your school or you understanding? Do you identify with the Vaibashika school?

The Vaibashika school doesn’t assert the selflessness of phenomena
  because they hold the view that phenomena is truly existent from its
  own side.

In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply that:

The self (of persons) is not truly existent.
Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables)

Of course, there may be a lot of Theravadins out there who dispute my second statement above, and would assert that all non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side.

EDIT: Just to make it clearer:

All sankharas (conditioned and/or compounded things) are subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana is not subject to change, arising and passing. Both sankharas and nibbana are empty of a self. But this does not mean that sankharas and nibbana are not truly existent. The self is definitely an illusion, but the world, transient as it is, may not be an illusion. Whether the world is an illusion or not, is not important to the path to the end of suffering (according to Theravada, in my opinion).

In Theravada, "self" is fabricated ego-ideas of "I", "me", "mine", "you", "us", "them", "ours", "yours", etc.

In addition to the above, Mahayana seems to believe "self" is fabricated concepts such as "rock", "tree", "cloud", "dog", "book", "earth", "water", "aggregates", etc.

Since "phenomena" ("elements"/"dhatu") do not have a "ego-self", the idea of "the selflessness of phenomena" makes no sense at all. "Self" is an idea produced by human thought. Rocks, trees, clouds, feelings, physical bodies, perception, consciousness elements, etc, do not produce any thoughts of "self". Therefore, the question about their "selflessness" is non-sensical. As long as the element of earth is viewed as "earth"; the element of consciousness is viewed as "consciousness"; or the element of thought is viewed as "thought" (rather than viewed as "self", "me", "I", "mine", "you", "us", "them", "ours", "yours", etc) then this itself is the seeing of emptiness (sunnata).

The Lord Buddha, who revealed Buddhism, only taught about the selflessness of persons (anatta; sunnata). The Mahayana idea that the idea of "rock" or "cloud" is a "self" and therefore, in reality, there are no rocks, no clouds, no elements, etc, is unrelated to Buddhism but is a alien ideology.

To read this web page requires at least the element of eye consciousness. To believe there is no such thing as an eye or consciousness (as written in the Chinese Heart Sutra) is not real or true.

  So, in emptiness, no form, No feeling, thought, or choice, Nor is there consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No colour,
  sound, smell, taste, touch, Or what the mind takes hold of, Nor even
  act of sensing.

  No ignorance or end of it, Nor all that comes of ignorance;No withering, no death, No end of them. Nor is there pain, or cause of
  pain, Or cease in pain, or noble path To lead from pain; Not even
  wisdom to attain! Attainment too is emptiness.

  Heart Sutra


Vaccination, Ethics and Morals During the present times, there is an excessive need to vaccinate people, but what I have noticed is that when one wishes to scrutinize this action, when one wants to ask viable, pertinent and objective questions regarding vaccination those emotionally intelligent, explorative endeavours are often shutdown and the person given the label of 'anti vaxxer' and 'conspiracy theorist'; the freedom to engage in a healthy dialogue is severely compromised. At the same time, I respect that people are afraid and in need to find a solution to the current issue.

In the sutras, we can find analogies that describe the Buddha as the doctor, knowledge of the Dharma as the medicine, monastics as the nursing staff, and all people as the patients. According to this medical analogy, Buddhism is considered a medication with a broad meaning - a medication that can cure the ailments in all aspects of life. In general, but with exceptions, Western medicine functions within a much smaller framework. Western medicine typically approaches illness through physical symptoms. This approach tends to temporarily reduce the suffering and remove the symptoms for a period, but a lack of symptoms does not mean that the root cause has been identified and removed. Therefore, the complete elimination of the disease has not occurred. Buddhism offers patients not only symptomatic relief, but also spiritual guidance to ensure overall and long-lasting health.
While Western researchers have conducted massive studies on pathology,
pharmacology, immunology, and anatomy, enabling them to develop more
sophisticated medical techniques, scientists still doubt that religion
can help explain the cause of a disease. Without validating the role
of religion in disease, scientists remain quite distant from the
definition of disease, its causes, and its treatments as understood
from a religious perspective. According to Buddhism, it is not enough
to approach to medicine in a manner that simply eradicates symptoms;
the spiritual aspect of disease and its mind-based causes and remedies
must be the primary consideration.
Taken from the Buddhist Academy

As a practising Buddhist, it's my view that a person should uphold the ultimate position on what they choose to accept into their body. However, I'm prepared to look at this from other viewpoints.
From a Buddhist perspective, should choosing to have a vaccine under these interesting but challenging times be a discernment that concerns just our own body, or a discernment that should include others too?
From a Buddhist perspective, how does one reconcile with the huge moral and ethical shortcomings that allow pharmaceutical companies to indemnify themselves from any Ill effects caused by vaccination?

The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Theravada Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Of course, they should not accept advice blindly but they should ask questions and clarify their doubts before they accept the advice if they see fit, as taught in the Kalama Sutta (below):

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
& carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
& remain in them.

Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
Getting vaccinated with the intention of preventing others, especially the high risk group, from becoming infected, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy or civil disobedience. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice (after clarifying it), if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood, and should be declined.

the question is unrelated to buddhism because buddhism is about what is verified to work to alleviate harm & suffering
the virus has been around for 12 months now and people are not dying in the streets
30 million Americans have been tested Covid positive, estimates have been made of 105 million Americans positive, yet around 500,000 Americans died with Covid
of those 500,000 deaths, 94% had an average of 2.9 comorbidities contributing to their deaths (thus regardless may have died within the next 5 years)
ignoring the spike in excess deaths for young people (who have probably died of drugs & suicides, as stated by the CDC), the excess American death rate has been calculated at around 14%, which is an increase in the overall death rate from around 0.9% to around 1.04%. Again, due to comorbidities, the excess death number may simply include a concentration of premature deaths of comorbid people therefore may not represent what would have occurred in the future
many western countries have not reported any excess deaths however the USA is a country with terrible comorbid health, especially obesity & diabetes, and terrible medical care for the masses. it is quite evident in the USA, UK & Sweden many of the deaths were due to medical malpractice, such as moving old sick people out of hospitals and into age care homes or refusing to attempt to use certain medicines which have been shown the work in a majority (but not all) cases
the vaccines have not been extensively tested on the high risk groups, such as the elderly, which is why many European countries have restricted some vaccine use on the elderly
Pfizer have clearly said they cannot guarantee their 'vaccine' can stop transmission
therefore, the vaccination program appears largely experimental and not known if it can stop the deaths of the tiny group of people vulnerable to Covid-19 death
it follows a Buddhist cannot be informed enough to make a clear decision about this and it also follows a clear-minded Buddhist would naturally be suspicious of the mainstream narrative.
..............


Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted?

No, satori is not complete enlightenment, it is an a-ha moment when the practitioner finally realizes "how things are":

  Seeing his own original nature, he discovers that the ground of this
  nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is
  originally endowed with the non‐outflow wisdom‐nature which is not a
  hair's breadth different from that of all the Buddhas.

From this moment on, one's practice stops being guesswork or imitation and becomes informed by real understanding. In Zen this is known as "sudden awakening, gradual cultivation":

  Although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no
  different from that of the Buddhas, the beginningless habit‐energies
  are extremely difficult to remove suddenly and so he must continue to
  cultivate while relying on this awakening. Through this gradual
  permeation, his endeavors reach completion. He constantly nurtures the
  sacred embryo, and after a long time he becomes a saint. Hence it is
  called gradual cultivation.  This process can be compared to the
  maturation of a child. From the day of its birth, a baby is endowed
  with all the sense organs just like everyone else, but its strength is
  not yet fully developed. It is only after many months and years that
  it will finally become an adult. (from Secrets on Cultivating the Mind  by Bojo Jinul)

Chogyam Trungpa also speaks about it:

  Having received transmission and having had some kind of realization,
  you have to follow it up; you have to become liberated. Some people
  think realization is liberation, but in our case, it is not. When you
  realize something, you have to practice that realization, and then you
  are liberated. So realization does not mean you are liberated; it
  means that you have just touched on the possibility of liberation. Realization is like seeing the first rays of sunshine on the horizon -- you know that the sun is in the sky.

if its not permanent, it aint enlightnment.


How did Maitreya become so large and rich? The title is not meant to be disrespectful, but only to highlight the incongruity of the representation with what I understand of Buddhism.

Images of Maitreya in English Wikipedia are modest and comtemplative, but the Chinese page shows one familliar image with a large, well-fed body, surrounded by riches, and a big happy grin. Where I live these representations of Maitreya are everywhere.

It is understandable that as buddhism spread to different cultures certain superficial aspects might be altered to convey ideas in different ways. Here I'm just asking about history of the change.

When and where were depictions of the Maitreya buddha first changed so dramatically?

edit: The question Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya? suggests to me that this is not actually a representation of Maitreya at all, which conflicts with what I remember and what a google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia page at least seems to say.

 Source

In Buddhism, the Buddhist statues are essentially the artful and symbolic expressions of the Buddha teachings, with the objective to educate us the meanings and teachings of Buddhism. Therefore, we should see the statues of Buddhism as teaching aids and the cultivation of virtues we aspired to achieve. They are not meant to be statues of gods for worshiping. As we come to realize the inherent meaning of Buddhist symbolism, we will truly appreciate the sophistication and completeness of its educational values.

Maitreya Buddha, or the Laughing Buddha, or the Bu Dai monk (the historical monk figure better known in China), has widely been seen to be portrayed with immense happiness, and its statue is sculpted big in front entrance of a Buddhist temple, and is also sculpted as fat and happy with a big smile and a big belly.

The educational and metaphorical values of the happy and fat imagery of this sculpture is created with profound significance:

The Laughing Buddha is often found at front entrance of a Buddhist temple. This shows that Buddhism greets visitors with a hearty smile, welcoming anyone to come on in.
Buddhism teaches us how to get rid of sorrows and afflictions and attain happiness in our lives. The laughing statue shows visitors coming in to learn Buddhism and follow the Buddha path will attain a happy life. We should also learn to be cheerful and be courteous to all.
Buddhism teaches us to be tolerant and treating everyone fairly and equally. The big belly represents the attitude of inclusiveness, that we take in and be tolerant of anything good and bad we experience and anyone we encounter in our lives.
Some statues portrayed with riches are the artistic representations of our true inner nature of perfect, complete, and infinite treasures (metaphysically) that we all beings by Buddha-nature possess.

We can see that the above profound significance of the sculpture are actually in sync with what Buddha Sakyamuni has been teaching all of us some 2,500 years ago when he reached enlightened in this world and educated us what he is the path to enlightenment.

The sarcasm seems unnecessary, monks are often not allowed to handle money, even if a lot of sutras describe opulent buddhas.

All the statues I've seen first hand of Buddhas are just relics, and of ascetics: so maybe you could look into the history of Buddhology etc., as well as looking into different cultures.


How many levels of enlightenment are there? I have experienced enlightenment multiple times.

I have found many religions have a similar way of describing it, though they can differ about how many experiences occur and if they are sudden or spread apart over long periods of time.

I have also heard it referred to as
 Kundalini Awakening where it is a process that can take years to go through the 7 stages.

According to this article there are Four stages of enlightenment

  My question is this, How many levels or layers of enlightenment are there? Does it happen all at once?

How many levels of enlightenment are there?

I think it depends on the school, which defines and describes enlightenment.

You mentioned that Theravada defines four stages.
Wikipedia says that Mahayana defines Five Paths and Ten Bhumis.
"Kundalini awakening " is (I think) generally seen as Hinduism rather than Buddhism.

4 Stages to reach Arahat is like the major milestones in traditional way using self power.  Even great Zen masters can't reach Arahat.  That's why most enlightened Zen masters in China turn to practice Pureland at the end of their life because they realize they cannot possibly escape Samsara in this life time.
If you're a person of great capacity, any path out of 84000 will liberate you.  Buddha states that in the Age of the Right Dharma, one can obtain liberation through keeping the precepts.   Age of Semblance Dharma: liberation through Zen meditation.   Degenerate Age: liberation through Pureland practice.


Did Buddha ever deny the existence of God? I heard that when Buddha was asked about God, he kept silent.

Although perhaps in Buddhism nothing really exists, did Buddha ever deny the existence of God?

Hasn't he really never spoken about God?

Here: Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

  Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

  "There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.

Also here: A Discourse to Knowers of Veda -- Tevijja Sutta

  “And just even so, VāseMMha, though you say that the Brahmans are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen, and you further say that neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmā. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmā is. Yet
  these Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen! Now, what think you, VāseMMha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?”

  VāseMMha, is there a single one of the Brahmans versed in the three Vedas who
  has ever seen Brahmā face to face?”

The Actual incident is when Buddha was asked whether there is God or not?
He said "there is no GOD".

But next day someone came and asked the same question now Buddha replied
"YES, there is GOD".

Actually the name "Shiva" means that which is NOT.

GOD Exist and he does not exist, as he is omnipresent.


GAUTAM -Buddha(BUDDHADEV) and The capability of having several lives for an ordinary man or hallucination? A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.In present day context do the experience s feel like walking on an Astro-turf or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

the path to Nirvana is very simple logic. Here's what I learned from my teacher:

You should divide everything you do (including every word and even every thought) in two groups: whether you're doing it to feed your ego or whether it's actually useful. You have to be very precise. Very precise, with every single word and every single thought you should know why you're doing this. If it's for defending the ego or indulging in pleasure, you should not do it like that, should not think like that or say that. If you're doing it because you think it's actually useful, then you should do it.

  Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty. MN 19

Then, when you live like this for several years, your mind will be pure and you will be able to see the path to Nirvana by yourself.

  To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas. The Dhammapada 14.183

My teacher said, this world is a magical place where everything is possible, as long as you're free in your mind - and now I know he was right.

So, divide your thoughts like that, and learn to be very very precise with that - and you will see for yourself. This is better than me telling you "Yes, All of that is real". Hope this helps.

A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.

In original Buddhism, the word 'birth' ('jati') refers to each arising of the view of 'self-belief'. But in later Buddhism, the word 'birth' was misconstrued to refer to 'past lives'. Please refer to SN 22.79, which explains the true meaning of recollecting past births. In other words, when the Buddha said he cycled thru myriad "births" (in Dhp 153), this was the previous myriad arisings of egoism.

  In present day context do the experiences feel like walking on an space travel or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience
  which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.

Since your mind continues to have "self-belief", it is not the same experience as the Buddha. When the Buddha, in the present, recollected his "past births", he recollected how his mind's previous "self-beliefs" were ignorant illusions. Again, refer to SN 22.79.

  I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

In Buddhism, the goal is to eradicate the belief of "I", "me", "mine" and "self". When the Buddha recollected "past births", this is what occurred. The idea of "self" ended. To quote SN 22.79:

  At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

  “When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  “This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.


Are actions in computer games bad for karma? What if I play a bad person in a computer game, cheating people. Or I play an assassin who kills people. Or my character in a game belongs to some evil cult. Or I roleplay a thief and steal. Or my character has an affair with a woman without being married.

How are all these actions in a virtual reality close to actions in a real world from a buddhist point of view? Yes, I do not do them for real, but I still make these choices using my free will. So is it the same if I did all this in real life from? Are they bad for my karma?

There are two parts to karma: 1) external forces/energies you set in motion with your action and 2) latent tendencies and inclinations in your psyche - that later become your action and reaction, that then sets external forces in motion.

If you step away and look at it from a distance, there is really no hard line between "external" and "internal"; karma is a network of subtle potentialities.

Some of the potentialities are pretty subtle, yeah - like the ones involved in playing videogames - but they are still real. Very few of them translate 1:1 to analogous actions in real life though.

For example, mass-shooting in games is not even remotely the same karma as real murder, but you still separate "yourself" from "others", and you still desire good for one's own character at the expense of everyone else's. Amassing golden coins in game is not real, but you still go after "fruits", get frustrated when things you like a taken away and so on and so forth. Guess what kind of latent potentialities, however subtle, all this creates/reinforces?

Actually, when it comes to karma, "subtle" does not mean "weak". Some of our deepest hung-ups come from our subtlest preconceptions.

So I'd say in general the games you play may not create a lot of new karma, but they certainly reinforce your inner tendencies and preconceptions that keep you chained in samsara.

"So is it the same if I did all this in real life from a spiritual perspective?". I did not get that part of the question. There is no way of doing evil deeds from a spiritual perspective if I understood the question.
“Discard all that is  immoral, what should not be done

Take in what is moral by sorting out “san”

Do this by controlling one’s own thoughts (mind)

This is the doctrine of the Buddhas”

Clearing mind is a component of spirituality so "Discarding all that is immoral" is also a part of the teaching of all the Buddhas, no one can reach Nirvana while performing evil deeds.
I will give a detailed answer such that you can apply it in many other contexts too.
Please first go through the list of ten evil deeds.
There are five conditions that must be fulfilled to happen the evil deed of killing. All of these should be fulfilled.
1. Being should be living.(From this point itself you don't do killing karma on the virtual life.)
2. Knowing the being is living
3. Will to kill
4. Planning to kill
5. Living being dying due to the plan
And the being should not be self, therefore suicide does not effect killing karma. But depending on the situation and in most of the times suicide comes with delusion.
For the evil deed stealing all below should be fulfilled.
1. Owned by someone else
2. Knowing someone else's property
3. Desire to take away
4. Planning to take away
5. Taking away
Simply things on games are not owned by someone, owners are not real. So no evil deed happens.
The third part, affair with a woman without being married. Actually in Buddhism unlawful sensual/sexual misconduct is not synonymous with marriage and affiliated although they have some in common. Men are not supposed to have sexual relationships with these women. (However rape is sexual misconduct and the strength of the evil deed is often high)
1. She being nurtured by her parents or other close relations(from this point itself no harm because the virtual women have no real owners)
2. She being nurtured and protected by another man.
There is only one instance of men where women can get sexual misconduct. If the woman has a protector, she cannot seek for another protector.
For a person to fulfill these conditions to have done sexual misconduct evil deed.
1. Man or woman should belong to the groups mentioned above
2. Desire to have sensual pleasures with him/her
3. Trying for pleasure
4. Undergoing and feeling the pleasure.
Different variables affect the strength of the karma described above.


What does MN 18's "delineate a delineation" phrase mean? What is the meaning of the phrase "delineate a delineation" from MN 18?

What is its message?

Is it connecting papanca (objectification-classification or reification) with dependent origination?

  "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is
  eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. (Note1) When there is a delineation of contact, it
  is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of
  perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that
  one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions
  & categories of objectification.

  "When there is the ear...

  "When there is the nose...

  "When there is the tongue...

  "When there is the body...

  "When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is
  intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is
  possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there
  is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception,
  it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When
  there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions &
  categories of objectification.

  "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no
  eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.

  "When there is no ear...

  "When there is no nose...

  "When there is no tongue...

  "When there is no body...

  "When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no
  intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.

  Note1 (Thanissaro commentary):
  The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems
  intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by
  which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete
  things.

Ven. Bodhi's MN 18 version:

  "When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact.233 When there is the manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling, it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception..."

and footnote:

  The Pali idiom phassapaññattiª paññ›pessati, in which the verb takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. Ñm originally rendered “that one will describe a description of contact.” “To point out a manifestation” is less literal, but it should do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence (va˛˛a) by way of the twelve sense bases; §18 shows the cessation of the round (viva˛˛a) by the negation of the twelve sense bases.

Prof. Piya Tan shares similar explanation:

  So vat‟āvuso cakkhusmi sati rpe sati cakkhu,viāe sati phassa,paatti paāpessatîti hāna. Comy says that this passage shows the entire round of existence (vaā) by way of the 12 sense-bases. The next section [§18] shows the cessation of the round (vivaa) by the negation of the 12 sense-bases. (MA 2:78). The structure paatti paāpessati (lit “he describes the description,” “he defines the definition”) is idiomatic, meaning simply “he describes; he defines.” Paraphrased, this sentence may also read “It is possible to define contact as the meeting of sense-organ, sense-object and sense-consciousness.”

It appears the phrase "paññattiṃ paññāpessatīti" (translated by Thanissaro as "delineate a delineation") from MN 18 is not connecting 'papanca' ('objectification') with dependent origination. Instead, it appears the word "paññāpessatīti" is merely saying when what is known as contact is known, feeling can be known (etc, etc). In others words, the word "paññāpessatīti" itself does not appear to be a synonym for 'pananca' ('monkey chatter').

  It’s simply impossible to reject this basic principle of contentment, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who covets sensual pleasures
  with acute lust.

  So vata, paribbājakā, anabhijjhaṃ dhammapadaṃ paccakkhāya abhijjhāluṃ kāmesu tibbasārāgaṃ samaṇaṃ vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā paññāpessatīti netaṃ
  ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

  AN 4.30

  When there is the eye (cakkhusmiṃ), sights (rūpe) and eye consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇe), it exist (vijjati) possible
  (ṭhānametaṃ) to point out  (paññāpessatīti) what’s known (paññattiṃ)
  as  ‘contact’ (phassa).

  MN 18

  paññatti feminine making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea notion, concept

Its probably best to stick with Bodhi's or Sujato's translations and avoid Thanissaro's Mahayana tendencies (as found in his erroneous translation of MN 1).

  When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact. When there is the
  manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the
  manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling,
  it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception...
  (Bodhi)

  When there is the eye, sights, and eye consciousness, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. (Sujato)


Do you have to become a Monk to attain enlightment? It seems that the answer is no, but in this case, why would you want to become a monk instead of staying "normal" ?

A lay person can realize Nibbana in a very short period of time(In few years or even in a shorter period of time) If s/he practise mindfulness all day long with effort. Even a very young lay person can realize Nibbana. Realizing Nibbana isn't about being in a particular place but it is the result of the right living. Not all of the people who realize Nibbana becomes a monk because some of the once-returners becomes spiritual teachers or they are in an old age and they are retired from their jobs etc.

In most cases being a monk is absolutely better than being a lay person because human world is crazy and is opposite of spirituality. The human civilization is the manifestation of the narcissistic human world's madness. But a person's decision to become a monk depends on many factors. If a spiritual person has a sangha and in an old age and retired maybe s/he would not want to leave the lay life and become a monk. A person who realized Nibbana and especially an once-returner is in continous bliss and contentment so s/he would not leave his home If the conditions are suitable for him/her.(Solitude or having a sangha etc.)

So a lay person's giving up the spiritual practise is a wrong idea because realizing Nibbana in the lay life is certainly possible.

Simply because of the conditioning .The conditioning in our daily lives is so hard wiring for some people that they need a long time to change that wiring and the best way to do it is to become a monk as monks practice a complete lifestyle that promotes the rising of their awareness and good qualities.I honestly respect more a person who is actively engaged in life and is still able to tackle it consciously but this you can consider as a training ground .


Is it allowed to quote a Buddhist teaching in a fiction book? I am writing a romance book. In it one of my character's recites a portion of the Dhammapada. If I publish my book, will I be violating any copyright laws? How would I go about getting permission to put the quote in my book?

Buddhist scriptures are so old they are not under copyright. Translations maybe. Some are made freely available. Best is just ask the author or do your own translation. Also quoting a small portion may be acceptable as fair use.

When one uses Dhamma for commercial purposes, on does nothing good for one self and for others. If one uses Dhamma to even increase unskilfull ideas, not only to make benefit from others greed (after love here) and spreads wrong view, using it, its even more worse.

And there is nobody who could ever give you the permission to make commercial use of the Buddhas Dhamma. Everybody doing so, is involved in a thief (in measures of Dhamma). So knowing such one might maybe seek for a dealer and fence or, after wise considerations change either this or that.

Here a such a live-story of same case in fencing: On Human Right, Kamma and trade with Dhamma. They are not of much shame and if not public the trades in Dhamma, do it discrete and most would do on even if telling, even deliberatly knowing it.

One is the way in the world and on Nibbana, its not possible to take the other with it and that is what is the place of gaining path: by letting go of what gives just short pleasure.

One can ask at the worlds biggest and most succesfull public fencing place of Dhamma but there are also other around, sometimes more near.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains)


Is it helpful to stay single if I am not going to become a monk? In most Buddhist traditions, monks are expected to follow an austere life without being married or involved with another person, but what about lay people who are not going to become monks?

Personally, I've reached what most people consider mid-life and I'm getting too old for any monastery to accept me, but I'm sure this question applies to lay people both older and younger.

I am under the impression, monks are required to be single because of the attachment and desire that arises when being involved. However, a good number of monks do not live among lay people which I imagine would make it easier. It seems like lay people would benefit though, and when their time on Earth has expired also make it easier to let go.

However, I don't have a teacher nor do I have access to one so I wanted to reach out to the community to see what their impressions were. My guess is that it is helpful but a personal choice that differs from individual to individual. I mean 'helpful' in the sense of being closer to Nirvana or Enlightenment.

What matters is what you do when you are single. If being single means using prostitutes to satisfy one's sensual desires, it could lead one further away from the path as compared to a person who restrains himself to one woman and practices loyalty, kindness, doing good deeds together etc.

But if being single means being celibate and using one's free time for meditation etc., one would generally have a higher chance of progressing in the path as compared to the average family man.

In the time of the Buddha, there were monks who went to forest for seclusion and ended up having sex with monkeys. So what really matters is what you do when you are single.

Your Noble Path will lead you to whichever relationships are expedient.


What makes someone enlightened? Some years ago I somehow managed to stay almost the whole day without any thought, and for several months I used to be in that state of consciousness. I had the breathtaking feeling of emptiness and freedom, there were no ups and downs anymore, I was completely balanced and a profound happiness had taken me. I thought I had become a Buddha, but the thoughts started to come in and this state of consciousness faded. What makes someone enlightened?
I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened. Well, I think that is very challenging.

States of calm attained thorough meditation is only temporary.Enlightenment is permanent.You can't stay in that state forever.The key is not to get rid of thoughts or be in a state of no thought but to see the nature of these thoughts to the point that it doesn't bother you.

I read that if you stay 45 minutes without even the subtlest thought crossing your mind you'll be enlightened

what.

i don't know maybe.But i think it takes more than 45 minutes to be enlightened.Unless your an Anagami.Also enlightenment is not a not thinking contest.If that was the case i can think of a few people who'd be enlightened by now.

It seems like you are on the right path. You just need to keep practising . Well I heard that enlightment/ nibanna is not in the body. You pracically loose all the 6 senses..I cannot claim it to be truth  but that's a common experience. So it 's even beyound conciousness and it's a collapse of witness. What you were describing sound like Awareness. You were present and aware at  peace, but I guess that is not the final state.


Defilements or misperceptions that arise because of correct insight attainment Like subtle "conceit"? I can't  think of any others. I think there is a
Sutta that is something like, "10 misperceptions of a somewhat  achieved insight meditator". Bhante Yuttadhammo explained  it somewhere. I thought I already asked this but I couldn't find it, maybe it was another forum.

Defilements or misperceptions do not arise because of correct insight attainment. There might be some left. Maybe defiled insights, or "Gecko - Samadhi [vipassanupakkilesa]"

  ...To practice concentration without correct understanding may lead to wrong concentration, from which the person develops abnormal perceptions, the so-called vipassanupakkilesa... You may have heard that samádhi can cause mental abnormality. When it happens, all perceptions arising from the wrong samádhi are abnormal. This is the case when the practice is without wisdom, bringing about misunderstanding in the mind. ...[have you heard?]

was meant.

And! Be clear that the question and previous perception is act-ually exactly a case-sample for such.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

Perhaps you may find the answer in Path of Purification.
Sorry, I can't recall the Sutta.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

The following sutta may some help.

"It may be, Cunda, that some monk, detached from sense-objects, detached from unsalutary ideas, enters into the first absorption that is born of detachment, accompanied by thought-conception and discursive thinking, and filled with rapture and joy, and he then might think: 'I am abiding in effacement.' But in the Noble One's discipline it is not these [attainments] that are called 'effacement'; in the Noble One's discipline they are called 'abidings in ease here and now.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html